Othercited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key study A-CHK-05 in-depth review

Global antibiotic use in farm animals

Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals.

Overview

Van Boeckel TP et al.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015 · PMID 25792457 · DOI 10.1073/pnas.1503141112

Models estimated about 63,000 tons used in 2010 with a projected 67% increase by 2030.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: How much antimicrobial is used in livestock globally and how will it change?
How was the study done?: Bayesian modelling of global antimicrobial use in food animals for 2010 and 2030
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: Not applicable; Global livestock (cattle, chicken, pigs)
What was actually found?: Average 45 (cattle), 148 (chicken), 172 (pigs) mg/kg. Increase of 67% from 63,151 +/- 1,560 t to 105,596 +/- 3,605 t (2010-2030). Up to a third of increase from middle-income countries shifting to intensive systems; BRICS +99%.
How large was the observed effect?: Bayesian models
What do the results mean in everyday life?: Antibiotic use in farming is large and growing in middle-income countries.
What are the study's limitations?: Extrapolation from high-income data; Model uncertainty larger than reported SD may suggest
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Supports the context of the claim.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: Moderate.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Cannot show use in a given country.

Authors: Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, Robinson TP, Teillant A, Laxminarayan R
Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Year: 2015
Identifier: PMID 25792457 DOI 10.1073/pnas.1503141112 · PMC4426470
Verification: verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
Retracted: no
Corrections: none
Extent checked: abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding: Authors declare no conflict of interest

How much antimicrobial is used in livestock globally and how will it change?

Study design: Other – Bayesian modelling of global antimicrobial use in food animals for 2010 and 2030
Population: Global livestock (cattle, chicken, pigs)
Country: Global
Period: 2010 baseline; projection to 2030
Sample size: Not applicable
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Livestock density maps, economic projections, high-income country use data

Results: Average 45 (cattle), 148 (chicken), 172 (pigs) mg/kg. Increase of 67% from 63,151 +/- 1,560 t to 105,596 +/- 3,605 t (2010-2030). Up to a third of increase from middle-income countries shifting to intensive systems; BRICS +99%.
Absolute risks: not applicable
Authors' conclusion: Better understanding of consequences needed.

Projections, not measurements.

EU restrictions; downward trends in some countries.

Moderate.

Correct use of a model study.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	moderate
Risk of bias	some concerns
Precision of results	low
Directness	indirect
Reproducibility	partly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	consistent
Regional transferability	moderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	essentially correct but incomplete

Actual use data.

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study: Global antibiotic use in livestock was 63,151 tons in 2010 and projected to rise 67% by 2030, driven largely by intensive poultry and pig farming.
A. What was actually studied?: Model of global livestock antimicrobial use.
B. What did the authors find?: Numbers as quoted.
C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?: Consequences need study.
D. What does the archive derive from it?: Used to show global pressure on resistance.
E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?: Essentially correct; model estimates presented as facts.
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive): essentially correct but incomplete