BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9234432)

  • 1. Associations between off-label feed additives and farm size, veterinary consultant use, and animal age.
    Dewey CE; Cox BD; Straw BE; Bush EJ; Hurd HS
    Prev Vet Med; 1997 Jul; 31(1-2):133-46. PubMed ID: 9234432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Factors influencing the occurrence of drug residues in animal tissues after the use of antimicrobial agents in animal feeds.
    Bevill RF
    J Am Vet Med Assoc; 1984 Nov; 185(10):1124-6. PubMed ID: 6392240
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Use estimates of in-feed antimicrobials in swine production in the United States.
    Apley MD; Bush EJ; Morrison RB; Singer RS; Snelson H
    Foodborne Pathog Dis; 2012 Mar; 9(3):272-9. PubMed ID: 22324295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Swine feed].
    Boissevain I
    Tijdschr Diergeneeskd; 2011 Sep; 136(9):662-3. PubMed ID: 21939022
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reported antibiotic use in 90 swine farms in Alberta.
    Rajić A; Reid-Smith R; Deckert AE; Dewey CE; McEwen SA
    Can Vet J; 2006 May; 47(5):446-52. PubMed ID: 16734370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Antimicrobial drug use and related management practices among Ontario swine producers.
    Dunlop RH; McEwen SA; Meek AH; Friendship RA; Clarke RC; Black WD
    Can Vet J; 1998 Feb; 39(2):87-96. PubMed ID: 10051955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Toxicity by relay. II. A method for the asessment of safety to human consumers of carbadox, a growth-promoting additive to the feed of slaughter pigs].
    Ferrando R; Truhaut R; Raynaud JP; Spanoghe JP
    Toxicology; 1975; 3(3):369-98. PubMed ID: 1124542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Characteristics of commercial pig farms in Great Britain and their use of antimicrobials.
    Stevens KB; Gilbert J; Strachan WD; Robertson J; Johnston AM; Pfeiffer DU
    Vet Rec; 2007 Jul; 161(2):45-52. PubMed ID: 17630417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Survey of quantitative antimicrobial consumption in two different pig finishing systems.
    Moreno MA
    Vet Rec; 2012 Sep; 171(13):325. PubMed ID: 22915683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Susceptibility of Escherichia coli from growing piglets receiving antimicrobial feed additives.
    Kim LM; Gray JT; Harmon BG; Jones RD; Fedorka-Cray PJ
    Foodborne Pathog Dis; 2005; 2(4):304-16. PubMed ID: 16366853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Contribution of additives Cu to its accumulation in pig feces: study in Beijing and Fuxin of China.
    Li YX; Li W; Wu J; Xu LC; Su QH; Xiong X
    J Environ Sci (China); 2007; 19(5):610-5. PubMed ID: 17915692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. on Canadian pig farms using liquid or dry-feeding.
    Farzan A; Friendship RM; Dewey CE; Warriner K; Poppe C; Klotins K
    Prev Vet Med; 2006 Mar; 73(4):241-54. PubMed ID: 16202460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Antimicrobial use through feed, water, and injection in 20 swine farms in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
    Rosengren LB; Waldner CL; Reid-Smith RJ; Harding JC; Gow SP; Wilkins WL
    Can J Vet Res; 2008; 72(2):143-50. PubMed ID: 18505203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The "Real Welfare" scheme: Identification of risk and protective factors for welfare outcomes in commercial pig farms in the UK.
    Pandolfi F; Kyriazakis I; Stoddart K; Wainwright N; Edwards SA
    Prev Vet Med; 2017 Oct; 146():34-43. PubMed ID: 28992926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Removing prophylactic antibiotics from pig feed: how does it affect their performance and health?
    Diana A; Boyle LA; Leonard FC; Carroll C; Sheehan E; Murphy D; Manzanilla EG
    BMC Vet Res; 2019 Feb; 15(1):67. PubMed ID: 30808361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Selenium as a feed additive.
    Nutr Rev; 1974 May; 32(5):158-9. PubMed ID: 4597512
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Nutritional strategies to combat Salmonella in mono-gastric food animal production.
    Berge AC; Wierup M
    Animal; 2012 Apr; 6(4):557-64. PubMed ID: 22436270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effects of dietary additives on faecal levels of Lactobacillus spp., coliforms, and Escherichia coli, and faecal prevalence of Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. in US production nursery swine.
    Wells JE; Oliver WT; Yen JT
    J Appl Microbiol; 2010 Jan; 108(1):306-14. PubMed ID: 19614855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Factors Associated with Salmonella Prevalence in U.S. Swine Grower-Finisher Operations, 2012.
    Bjork KE; Fields V; Garber LP; Kopral CA
    Foodborne Pathog Dis; 2018 Aug; 15(8):489-497. PubMed ID: 29762053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Herd-specific interventions to reduce antimicrobial usage in pig production without jeopardising technical and economic performance.
    Collineau L; Rojo-Gimeno C; Léger A; Backhans A; Loesken S; Nielsen EO; Postma M; Emanuelson U; Beilage EG; Sjölund M; Wauters E; Stärk KDC; Dewulf J; Belloc C; Krebs S
    Prev Vet Med; 2017 Sep; 144():167-178. PubMed ID: 28716198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.