4.3 Article

Antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: a rapid evidence assessment of stakeholder practices and beliefs

期刊

VETERINARY RECORD
卷 181, 期 19, 页码 510-+

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1136/vr.104304

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) [OD0558]
  2. Pat Impson Memorial Fund
  3. Langford Trust via Pat Impson Residency in Bovine Health Management
  4. ESRC [ES/P008194/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. NERC [NE/N01961X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/P008194/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/N01961X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food-producing animals throughout the world are likely to be exposed to antimicrobial (AM) treatment. The crossover in AM use between human and veterinary medicine raises concerns that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) may spread from food-producing animals to humans, driving the need for further understanding of how AMs are used in livestock practice as well as stakeholder beliefs relating to their use. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) was used to collate research on AM use published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2016. Forty-eight papers were identified and reviewed. The summary of findings highlights a number of issues regarding current knowledge of the use of AMs in food-producing animals and explores the attitudes of interested parties regarding the reduction of AM use in livestock. Variation between and within countries, production types and individual farms demonstrates the complexity of the challenge involved in monitoring and regulating AM use in animal agriculture. Many factors that could influence the prevalence of AMR in livestock are of concern across all sections of the livestock industry. This REA highlights the potential role of farmers and veterinarians and of other advisors, public pressure and legislation to influence change in the use of AMs in livestock.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据