@article{fdi:010076153,
  title = {{H}igh-resolution monitoring of antimicrobial consumption in {V}ietnamese small-scale chicken farms highlights discrepancies between study metrics},
  author = {{N}guyen {V}an {C}uong and {D}oan {H}oang {P}hu and {N}guyen {T}hi {B}ich {V}an and {B}ao {D}inh {T}ruong and {B}ach {T}uan {K}iet and {B}o {V}e {H}ien and {H}o {T}hi {V}iet {T}hu and {C}hoisy, {M}arc and {P}adungtod, {P}. and {T}hwaites, {G}. and {C}arrique-{M}as, {J}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{C}hicken is, among farmed species, the target of the highest levels of antimicrobial use ({AMU}). {T}here are considerable knowledge gaps on how and when antimicrobials are used in commercial small-scale chicken farms. {T}hese shortcomings arise from cross-sectional study designs and poor record keeping practiced by many such farmers. {F}urthermore, there is a large diversity of {AMU} metrics, and it is not clear how these metrics relate to each other. {W}e performed a longitudinal study on a cohort of small-scale chicken farms (n = 102) in the {M}ekong {D}elta ({V}ietnam), an area regarded as a hotspot of {AMU}, from {O}ctober 2016 to {M}ay 2018. {W}e collected data on all medicine products administered to 203 flocks with the following aims: (1) to describe types and quantities of antimicrobial active ingredients ({AA}ls) used; (2) to describe critical time points of {AMU}; and (3) to compare {AMU} using three quantitative metrics: (a) weight of {AA}ls related to bird weight at the time of treatment (mg/kg at treatment); (b) weight of {AAI}s related to weight of birds sold (mg/kg sold); and (c) "treatment incidence" ({TI}), or the number of daily doses per kilogram of live chicken [{V}ietnamese animal daily dose ({ADD}vet{VN})] per 1,000 days. {A}ntimicrobials contained in commercial feed, administered by injection (n = {N} = 6), or antimicrobials for human medicine (n = {N} = 16) were excluded. {A} total of 236 products were identified, containing 42 different {AAI}s. {A} total of 76.2% products contained {AAI}s of "critical importance" according to the {W}orld {H}ealth {O}rganization ({WHO}). {O}n average, chickens consumed 791.8 ({SEM} +/- 16.7) mg/kg at treatment, 323.4 ({SEM} +/- 11.3) mg/kg sold, and the {TI} was 382.6 ({SEM} +/- 5.5) per 1,000 days. {AMU} was more common early in the production cycle and was highly skewed, with the upper 25% quantile of flocks accounting for 60.7% of total {AMU}. {T}he observed discrepancies between weight- and dose-based metrics were explained by differences in the strength of {AA}ls, mortality levels, and the timing of administration. {R}esults suggest that in small-scale chicken production, {AMU} reduction efforts should preferentially target the early (brooding) period, which is when birds are most likely to be exposed to antimicrobials, whilst restricting access to antimicrobials of critical importance for human medicine.},
  keywords = {antimicrobial use ; chicken ; small-scale farms ; metrics ; quantification ; {V}ietnam ; {VIET} {NAM}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{F}rontiers in {V}eterinary {S}cience},
  volume = {6},
  numero = {},
  pages = {art. 174 [13p.]},
  ISSN = {2297-1769},
  year = {2019},
  DOI = {10.3389/fvets.2019.00174},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010076153},
}