Antibiotic use in swine production The AASV Perspective and Direction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Antibiotic use in swine production The AASV Perspective and Direction PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 3b7a0d-NmJmY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Antibiotic use in swine production The AASV Perspective and Direction

Description:

... risks and most current information on antibiotic uses in pork production. Will take an industry leadership role and partner with pork chain stakeholders from ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:111
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: gpvecUnl9
Learn more at: http://gpvec.unl.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Antibiotic use in swine production The AASV Perspective and Direction


1
Antibiotic use in swine production The AASV
Perspective and Direction
John T. Waddell, DVM, MBA
2
The AASV Positions
  • Welfare and Pregnant Sow Housing
  • We have no formal position addressing antibiotics
  • If we had an antibiotic policy or position, it
    might look something like this

3
AASVs Antibiotic Policy
AASV
  • Supports the responsible use of antibiotics in
    pork production to ensure public health, food
    safety, animal health and welfare.
  • Supports and promotes sound science as the basis
    for decision-making and policy development
    regarding antibiotics in pork production.
  • Will proactively educate and communicate to
    stakeholders the role, benefits, risks and most
    current information on antibiotic uses in pork
    production.
  • Will take an industry leadership role and partner
    with pork chain stakeholders from producers to
    consumers to develop sound antibiotic policy.

4
Managing Antibiotic Policy
Packers Food Companies
Swine Clients
Veterinarians Nutritionists
Regulatory
5
Antibiotic use in food animals Perception vs.
reality
  • Are antibacterials necessary in pork production?
  • Does the use of antibacterials in pork production
    threaten food safety?
  • Does the use of antibacterials in pork production
    compromise human health?
  • What are the implications of removing
    antibacterials from pork production?

6
Background The European experiment
  • July 1999
  • The EU disallows low-level growth promotion use
    of certain antibiotics
  • Use of antibiotics, including feed additives, is
    still allowed
  • Disease treatment, control and prevention
  • The EU does not restrict the import or export of
    meat
  • From animals that have received antibiotics when
    strict residue standards are met

7
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
  • All of Europe opposes modern, U.S.-style
    livestock production

Reality
  • Most of Europe has the same focus as U.S.
    producers
  • Efficient production
  • Economics
  • Few European countries advocate other approaches

8
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
  • We dont need antibacterials to produce pork

Reality
Responsible use of antibacterials enable pork
producers to economically provide an abundant
supply of safe, affordable food, while helping
ensure animal comfort and welfare
9
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Using antibacterials in food animals will lead to
a significant increase in resistant bacteria in
humans
Reality
Proper diagnosis allows use of an antibiotic
targeted to a single bacterial category, which
limits resistance concerns For antibiotic
resistance to develop in humans (from animal
use), a resistant bacteria must survive
processing, handling, prep, colonization,
infection Antibiotics overuse in humans poses
greater concern
10
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Antibacterial use in food animals can reduce
effectiveness of human medicines
Reality
  • Many animal medications are not used in humans
  • Disallowing certain uses of antibiotics in the EU
    didnt reduce bacterial resistance to antibiotics
    in humans1
  • In some cases, resistance increased1
  • No scientific evidence linking use in food
    animals to reduced efficacy in human medicine2

1 DANMAP 1999-2002. Danish veterinary and food
administration. 2 Heidelberg Appeal Nederland
Foundation, 1999.
11
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Treatment failure is defined as longer duration
of symptoms (i.e. diarrhea), progression to more
severe disease or mortality.
1 Hurd, S. et al. Antibiotic Resistance
semi-quantitative risk assessment. Sept. 2003
ICAAC.
12
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Eliminating low-dose use of antibacterials
reduces risk of resistance in humans
Reality
  • Disallowing low-dose use may actually increase
    the risk of resistance1
  • Without low-dose use veterinarians must use more
    broad-spectrum antibiotics to treat disease
    outbreaks
  • May include medicines used in humans

1 DANMAP 1999-2002. Danish veterinary and food
administration.
13
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
  • Reducing antibacterial use in animals protects
    human health

Reality
14
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
  • On farm antibacterial use is not sufficiently
    regulated and may be unsafe

Reality
  • Antibacterials are stringently regulated by the
    US-FDA
  • Agency that governs human medicine
  • Antibacterials have been safely used for 45
    years
  • All major industry associations have established
    responsible use of medicines guidelines,
    including
  • American Association of Swine Veterinarians
  • American Association of Bovine Practitioners
  • National Chicken Council
  • And many others

15
Antibiotic use in swine production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Antibacterial-free farming makes food safer
Reality
  • Antibacterial use in animals contributes to food
    safety
  • Safe food starts with healthy animals
  • EU phase-out of certain antibiotic uses resulted
    in no discernable improvement in food safety1
  • Chickens raised without antibiotics are 3 times
    more likely to carry bacteria that make people
    sick2

1 Beyond antibiotic growth promoters in food
production. Intl Invitational Symposium, Foulum,
Denmark, Nov. 2002. 2 Heuer, O., Pedersen, K. et
al. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility
of thermophilic campylobacter in organic and
conventional broiler flocks. Letters in Appl.
Microbiology, 33 (4), Oct. 2001.
16
Antibiotic use in food animals Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Medication use in animals greatly impacts food
safety (negative impact)
Reality
  • Food handling impacts food safety more
  • In the U.S., food-borne pathogens decreased from
    1996 to 2001 following new FSIS/HACCP regulations1
  • Salmonella (-15) Listeria (-35)
  • Campylobacter (-27) E. coli 0157 (-21)
  • Yersinia (-49) Shigella (-35)

1 FoodNet. MMWR 2002 51352-329.
17
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Disallowing low-dose antibacterials wont affect
overall animal health
Reality
  • Withholding low-dose antibiotic use
  • Reveals these agents have important health
    benefits1
  • Results in death, diarrhea and weight loss caused
    by E. coli and L. intracellularis increase1

1 Casewell, M. et al. The European ban on
growth-promoting antibiotics and emerging
consequences for human and animal health. Journ.
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (52) 2003.
18
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Disallowing low-dose use will reduce overall
medication use
Reality
Withholding low-dose antibacterials resulted in
an increase of veterinary oral antibiotic use in
Denmark1
1 DANMAP 1999-2001. Danish veterinary and food
administration.
19
Antibiotic use in swine production Perception vs.
reality
Reality
20
FA Therapeutic Antibiotic Use (Kg of active
product)
Danmap
21
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
  • Disallowing low-dose antibiotic use reduces
    overall antibiotic use

Reality
  • After phase-out and removal of growth promotion
    usage, therapeutic use increased including
    medicines in humans1
  • ? 62 in Denmark, 1999-20002
  • ? 51 in France3
  • ? 20 in Denmark, 2000-20012
  • ? 13 in Germany4
  • ? 7.9 in the U.K. the first year5

1 Casewell, M. et al. The European ban on
growth-promoting antibiotics and emerging
consequences for human and animal health. Journ.
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (52) 2003. 2 DANMAP
1999-2002. 3 Use in broiler chickens. National
Statistics of Animal Health Products, 2001. 4 I
G Report, 2001. 5 Veterinary Medicines
Directorate. January, 2002.
22
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Raising animals without low-dose antibacterials
is more humane
Reality
  • In the EU, use of therapeutic antibiotics
    increased, indicating higher disease rates and
    compromised animal welfare
  • In Sweden, post-weaning mortality increased 201
  • In Denmark, diarrhea in piglets increased
    significantly2 with reported increases in
    nursery mortality3
  • Denmarks w-f mortality is up 25 in 10 years

1 Robertson, J. and Lundeheim, N. Proc. 13th IPVS
Congress, 1994. 2 Andreasen. The National
Veterinary Serum Laboratory, Denmark, 2000. 3
Danish weaner producers struggle with loss of
antibiotics as growth promoters. World Pork Expo
Report 5, June 5, 2003.
23
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Perception
Discontinuing low-dose antibacterials makes
economic sense
Reality
  • Producers and animals pay a price
  • Total production costs increase 5.39/pig1
  • 1.47 higher health costs
  • 1.20 additional labor

1 Larson, B. and Kliebenstein, J. Cost of pork
production with nonsubtherapeutic use of
antibiotics. Iowa State University Swine Research
Report ASL-R1820, 2002.
24
Antibiotic use in pork production Perception vs.
reality
Reality
25
What do we really know?
Reality
  • Without low-dose antibacterials
  • Animal health and welfare decline
  • Food safety and public health will not improve
  • Production, medication and labor costs increase
  • Danish sources estimate 76.5 million economic
    impact1
  • Large amounts of additional natural resources
    will be required
  • Example estimated 0.05 worse feed conversion in
    U.S. poultry industry
  • To produce the additional grain needed
  • Would require plowing down a farm field 1 mile
    wide from New York City to Chicago

1 Frandsen, S. et al. Consequences of terminating
the use of antimicrobial growth promoters in
Denmark for prices of food in Denmark. Danish
Vet. Inst. International Invitational Symposium.
Foulum, Denmark, 2002.
26
What next?
Reality
  • Sound scienceas opposed to political decisions
    not based on sciencemakes sense for US policy on
    antibacterial use in food animals
  • Veterinarians should continue working to protect
    their clients
  • Removing antibacterials results in negative
    consequences
  • Greater animal disease
  • Food safety risk
  • Increased use of therapeutics
  • Added cost of food production
  • Producers should work to protect their industry
  • US production and trade depend on healthy,
    disease-free animals
  • In all cases, responsible antibiotic use
    principles should be followed

27
Sound Antibiotic Policy
  • Supports the responsible use of antibiotics in
    food animal production to ensure public health,
    food safety, animal health and welfare.
  • Supports and promotes sound science as the basis
    for decision-making and policy development
    regarding antibiotics in food animal production.
  • Will proactively educate and communicate to
    stakeholders the role, benefits, risks and most
    current information on antibiotic uses in food
    animal production.
  • Will take an industry leadership role and partner
    with food chain stakeholders from customers to
    consumers to develop sound antibiotic policy.
About PowerShow.com