Dataset Information

Quantification, description and international comparison of antimicrobial use on Irish pig farms.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is concern that the use of antimicrobials in livestock production has a role in the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in animals and humans. Consequently, there are increasing efforts to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) in agriculture. As the largest consumer of veterinary antimicrobials in several countries, the pig sector is a particular focus of these efforts. Data on AMU in pig production in Ireland are lacking. This study aimed to quantify AMU on Irish pig farms, to identify the major patterns of use employed and to compare the results obtained to those from other published reports and studies.

Results

Antimicrobial use data for 2016 was collected from 67 Irish pig farms which represented c. 35% of national production. The combined sample population consumed 14.5?t of antimicrobial by weight of active ingredient suggesting that the pig sector accounted for approximately 40% of veterinary AMU in Ireland in 2016. At farm level, median AMU measured in milligram per population correction unit (mg/PCU) was 93.9 (range: 1.0-1196.0). When measured in terms of treatment incidence (TI200), median AMU was 15.4 (range: 0.2-169.2). Oral treatments accounted for 97.5% of all AMU by weight of active ingredient and were primarily administered via medicated feed to pigs in the post weaning stages of production. AMU in Irish pig production in 2016 was higher than results obtained from the national reports of Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and France but lower than the United Kingdom.

Conclusions

Pig production in Ireland is an important consumer of veterinary antimicrobials. The quantities and patterns of AMU on Irish pig farms are comparable to pig production in other European countries but higher than some countries with more advanced AMU reduction strategies. This AMU is characterised by a high proportion of prophylactic use and is primarily administered to pigs post weaning via medicated feed. Further studies to better understand the reasons for AMU on Irish pig farms and strategies to improve health among weaner pigs will be of benefit in the effort to reduce AMU.

SUBMITTER: O'Neill L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7549222 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantification, description and international comparison of antimicrobial use on Irish pig farms.

O'Neill Lorcan L Rodrigues da Costa Maria M Leonard Finola C FC Gibbons James J Calderón Díaz Julia Adriana JA McCutcheon Gerard G Manzanilla Edgar García EG

Porcine health management 20201012

<h4>Background</h4>There is concern that the use of antimicrobials in livestock production has a role in the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in animals and humans. Consequently, there are increasing efforts to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) in agriculture. As the largest consumer of veterinary antimicrobials in several countries, the pig sector is a particular focus of these efforts. Data on AMU in pig production in Ireland are lacking. This study aimed to quantify AMU on ...[more]

PMID: 33062293

Similar Datasets

Project description:Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major threat to humans and animals globally. Antimicrobial stewardship has been acknowledged as a primary strategy to tackle AMR. An important first step for antimicrobial stewardship is to quantify antimicrobial use (AMU). In Fiji, there are currently no data on AMU in livestock farms. This study aimed to quantify AMU in different livestock enterprises (beef, dairy, broiler, and layer) and farming systems (backyard, semi-commercial and commercial) in Central and Western divisions of Viti Levu, Fiji. A survey with 210 livestock farmers and 26 managers representing 276 enterprises was conducted between May and September 2019. The difference in AMU between different livestock enterprises and farming systems was investigated using ANOVA. In Fiji, the estimated annual antibiotic use in livestock was lower than the global average (44 compared with 118 mg/PCU). However, this use was concentrated in 56% of participant farms (the remaining 44% did not use antimicrobials). Total estimated quarterly anthelmintic use (20,797 mg) was not affected by farming systems but was highest (P < 0.001) in dairy enterprises (24,120 mg) and lowest in broiler enterprises (4 mg). Quarterly antibiotic use was different between the enterprises regardless of the metrics used to quantify the use (P < 0.05). Total estimated quarterly mg/PCU of antibiotic use was highest (P < 0.001) in broiler enterprises (12.4 mg/PCU) and lowest in beef enterprises (0.2 mg/PCU). For all other ESVAC metrics, total estimated antibiotic use was higher in poultry and lower in cattle enterprises. Backyard systems used less antibiotics (total mg) than commercial systems, but for other metrics, the trend was reversed. The use of both antibiotics and anthelmintics (rather than antibiotics or anthelmintics alone, or no AMU) was associated with dairy enterprises (Χ2 = 123, P < 0.001). Further studies should be conducted to quantify and evaluate the drivers of AMU in Fijian livestock farms. In addition, differences in AMU between different enterprises and farming systems suggest that strategies to reduce AMU should be tailored to specific settings.

Project description:BackgroundIn addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance, it is critical to understand the barriers to the uptake of strategies for the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU) in the pig industry. In several EU countries, factors such as education level, habits and social pressures are recognised as affecting farmers' decision-making process in relation to AMU. However, there is a lack of information on the Irish scenario. The aim of this study was to investigate pig farmers' perspectives and their behaviour towards AMU to identify potential barriers to effectively reduce AMU in Irish pig production. We conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 30 pig farmers, 5 pig veterinarians and 4 focus groups of pig farm personnel. We employed qualitative analyses to explore the objective of the study.ResultsQualitative analysis revealed six convergent themes as potential barriers: perceptions about the need for AMU on farm, concept of animal welfare and associated management practices, legislation, culture, economics and standards of communication/type of advice-network. Overall, pig farmers believed that there is poor communication between stakeholders (i.e. farmers, vets and advisors) and a lack of reliable people to approach for advice. They considered themselves as operating responsibly in terms of AMU compared to their national and international colleagues and expressed the importance of a so-called 'Irish solution' to the problem of AMU because it was associated with what 'has always been done' and was therefore considered reliable and safe.ConclusionsBarriers and challenges were in line with those identified in other EU countries highlighting similarities in behavioural and attitudinal patterns among pig farmers. Overall, farmers appeared to be more likely to rely on previous experiences or to wait for an imposed change (e.g. legislation) instead of taking personal action. Thus, considerable behavioural and attitudinal changes are needed to adopt a more responsible AMU in Irish pig production and to develop effective intervention strategies.

Project description:Defined Daily Doses (DDD) and Defined Course Doses (DCD) have been established in both human and veterinary medicine in order to standardize the measurement of treatments in a population. In 2016 the European Medicines Agency published average defined daily dose (DDDvet) and defined course dose (DCDvet) values for antimicrobial agents used in livestock production. Similarly, national defined doses (DDDch and DCDch) for the pig sector in Switzerland have recently been determined. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of calculating antimicrobial consumption based on either DDDvet/DCDvet or DDDch/DCDch. Data from 227 Swiss pig farms describing antimicrobial use in 2015 was collected. The numbers of treatment days and treatments were calculated using DDDvet/DCDvet and DDDch/DCDch respectively, for each farm in total and for different antimicrobial classes. Associations between calculated numbers of DDDvet/DCDvet and DDDch/DCDch on farm level were investigated. In addition, differences concerning antimicrobial use were investigated between different production types of farms (piglet-producer, finishing farm or farrow-to-finishing farm). Using DDDch/DCDch values we calculated 1,805,494 treatment days and 433,678 treatments compared to 1,456,771 treatment days (19% ratio) and 303,913 treatments (30% ratio) based on DDDvet/DCDvet. Penicillins (21.4/26.6%), polypeptides (18.6/27.6%) and fluoroquinolones (9.5/8.8%) were the most frequently used classes of antimicrobials based on calculation using both DDDch and DDDvet. Similar findings were observed for complete treatments (DCDch/vet) (penicillins: 52.8/39.6%; polypeptides: 7.8/14.2%; fluoroquinolones: 13.2/12.9%). The number of treatment days or treatments per farm was higher for piglet-producers and farrow-to-finishing farms compared to finisher farms regardless of whether Swiss or European DDD or DCD values were used for the calculation (each P < 0.001). Similar results for antimicrobial use (AMU) obtained at farm level were observed when calculated either by Swiss or European definitions. Nevertheless, marked differences could be observed in the assessment of the use of specific antimicrobial classes in the field based on DDDvet/DCDvet compared to DDDch/DCDch.

Project description:Monitoring the use of antimicrobials and the emergence of resistance in animals and people is important for the control of antimicrobial resistance, and for establishing sustainable and effective disease management practices. In this study, we used Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia coli as indicator species to investigate antimicrobial susceptibility patterns and how these change over time, on ten Swedish pig farms. Indoor environmental sock sampling was performed once a month during the entire production cycle of one batch of pigs on each farm, resulting in 60 samples collected in total. Selective culture for E. coli and Enterococcus spp. resulted in 122 isolates of E. coli, 74 isolates of E. faecium, but no isolates of E. faecalis. Microdilution was used to determine minimum inhibitory concentrations for twelve antimicrobial substances in E. coli and fifteen substances in E. faecium. The overall prevalence of resistance was low. Among the E. coli isolates, the proportions non-wild type (resistant, NWT) isolates were as follows: azithromycin and amikacin 1% (n = 1), trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole 2% (n = 3), ampicillin 6% (n = 7) and tetracycline 9% (n = 11). Among the E. faecium isolates, the NWT proportions were: teicoplanin, linezolid and gentamicin 1% (n = 1), daptomycin 3% (n = 2), erythromycin 26% (n = 19), tetracycline 27% (n = 20), quinupristin/dalfopristin 58% (n = 42). The resistance patterns differed between the farms, likely due to different antimicrobial use, biosecurity measures and source of the animals. The NWT prevalence among E. coli decreased over time, whereas no similar trend could be observed in E. faecium. The results of the current study illustrate the complex factors affecting the antimicrobial resistance patterns observed on each farm, indicating that specific practices and risk factors have an impact on the prevalence and type of antimicrobial resistance. Further studies of the farm environments in combination with antimicrobial use and other risk factor data are needed to elucidate the multifaceted drivers of antimicrobial resistance development on livestock farms.

Dataset Information

Quantification, description and international comparison of antimicrobial use on Irish pig farms.

Background

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quantification, description and international comparison of antimicrobial use on Irish pig farms.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets