↓ Skip to main content

A Cross-Sectional Study of Antimicrobial Usage on Commercial Broiler and Layer Chicken Farms in Bangladesh

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, December 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Cross-Sectional Study of Antimicrobial Usage on Commercial Broiler and Layer Chicken Farms in Bangladesh
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, December 2020
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2020.576113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tasneem Imam, Justine S. Gibson, Mohammad Foysal, Shetu Bhusan Das, Suman Das Gupta, Guillaume Fournié, Ahasanul Hoque, Joerg Henning

Abstract

Commercial poultry production is growing rapidly in Bangladesh to address the increasing demand for poultry meat and eggs. Challenges faced by producers include the occurrence of poultry diseases, which are usually treated or controlled by antimicrobials. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 57 commercial layer and 83 broiler farms in eight subdistricts of the Chattogram district, Bangladesh, to assess antimicrobial usage in relation to clinical signs observed in chicken flocks on these farms. Of the 140 commercial chicken farms, 137 (97.9%) used antimicrobials and 24 different antimicrobial agents were administered. On layer farms, the most commonly used antimicrobials were ciprofloxacin (37.0% of farms, 20/54), amoxicillin (33.3%, 18/54), and tiamulin (31.5%, 17/54), while on broiler farms, colistin (56.6%, 47/83), doxycycline (50.6%, 42/83), and neomycin (38.6%, 32/83) were most commonly administered. Only 15.3% (21/137) of farmers used antimicrobials exclusively for therapeutic purposes, while 84.7% (116/137) of farmers used them prophylactically, administering them either for prophylactic purposes only (22.6% of farmers, 31/137) or in combination with therapeutic purposes (62.1% of farmers, 85/137). About 83.3% (45/54) of layer farmers were selling eggs while antimicrobials were being administered compared to 36.1% (30/83) of the broiler farmers selling broiler chickens while administering antimicrobials. Overall, 75.2% (103/137) of farmers reported clinical signs for which they administered antimicrobials, while 24.8% (34/137) of farmers reported no clinical signs but still administered antimicrobials. Respiratory signs (71.8% of farms with clinical signs, 74/103) were most commonly reported, followed by enteric signs (32.0%, 33/103) and increased mortality (16.5%, 17/103). About 37.2% (51/137) of farmers bought antimicrobials exclusively from feed and chick traders, followed by veterinary medical stores (35.0%, 48/137). Purchasing antimicrobials from feed and chick traders was more common among broiler than layer farmers. It is recommended that commercial poultry farmers should keep records of antimicrobials used with dosage and duration of administration along with indication of use. This would allow farmers and veterinarians to review if antimicrobial usage had the desired effects and to evaluate the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents under an antimicrobial stewardship approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 58 62%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 14 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 57 61%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2021.
All research outputs
#7,540,668
of 23,271,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,398
of 6,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,080
of 506,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#89
of 400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,271,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 506,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 400 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.