Antibiotic Resistance

5 Reasons Consumer Distrust In Our Food Supply Is Rising

Mon, 03 Feb 2025 22:35:01 GMT

Bread, check. Blueberries, check. As I wheel my grocery cart alongside the deli case, I’m taken aback at what I see. Rather, it is what I don’t see that has me wondering, “What in the world?” This section of my favorite grocery store is now almost completely empty, except for a couple of ham loaves and a renegade block of cheese.

In a slightly distraught tone I ask the worker behind the counter, “What’s going on?” He hesitates for a moment, then replies, “The store is in the process of changing suppliers for our deli products. We should have more of a selection next week.” Then it dawns on me: my favorite brand of deli meat and cheese, Boar’s Head, has officially been blacklisted by my go-to grocery store.

I should not have been surprised. Boar’s Head began its fall from public grace on July 26, 2024, when the company issued a recall for more than 207,528 lb. of product due to potential listeria contamination. The CDC linked the contamination to 61 illnesses and, tragically, 10 deaths. It was the worst listeria outbreak in the U.S. in over a decade.

The outbreak was ultimately traced to a production line at the company’s Jarratt, Va., plant. According to USDA inspection reports, which USA Today had to obtain through a Freedom of Information Act request, 69 reports of non-compliance were recorded at the Jarratt plant between 2023 and 2024. What was in those reports was unsettling. Documentation of insects live and dead, black and green mold, mildew, dripping and standing water, as well as other unsanitary conditions within the plant in the weeks leading up to the July recall. In a move that was too little too late, Boar’s Head announced on Sept. 13, 2024 that the Jarratt plant would be closed permanently.

In 1906, Upton Sinclair published his famous novel “The Jungle,” which exposed the horrific conditions in the meatpacking industry at the time. The writer’s work proved to be an instant bestseller to the masses. The irony is that nearly 120 years later, one might find it hard to discern whether they’re reading a current USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) report or a chapter straight out of “The Jungle.”

Just One Of Many
The Boar’s Head case was only one the high profile food recalls last year. Remember the E. coli contaminated onions on McDonald’s quarter pounders? Then, Costco issued a massive recall on their Kirkland Signature brand of organic eggs because of a threat of Salmonella. And to cap off the year with the scariest illness yet, on Dec. 18, 2024, the CDC confirmed a patient in Louisiana had been hospitalized with the nation’s first severe case of avian influenza A (H5N1) virus, aka the “bird flu.”

If it seems that the number of food recalls are coming at us at a more fast and furious pace than ever, then your gut instinct is spot on. The Food and Drug Administration, which reports food and cosmetics together, says 1,908 such products were recalled in the fiscal year that ended in September. That’s the highest number since 2019. Such a constant barrage of warnings is having a serious affect on consumers’ overall psyche — and not in a positive way. According to a September 2024 Gallup report, only 57% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the government to keep food safe. This number is a 27 point decrease since 2019, and is a record low for the Gallup Consumption Habits Poll since its inception in 1999.

This explosion of 20th century foodborne illnesses has me asking the same question I asked the worker behind the deli counter: “What’s going on?”

5 Reasons To Be Skeptical
There are multiple reasons consumers have good reason to be less confident in the safety of their food.

First, there’s the government. Second, more and more of our food is imported, which makes it harder to inspect. Third, you have a growing quest for more natural food, which sometimes circumvents traditional inspection channels. Fourth, industry consolidation means only a handful of players control both the production and processing. That’s not inherently a bad thing, but if something goes wrong, it’s probably going to be big. Finally, we now have the ability, through more technology and data, to find, detect and isolate the specific source of contamination and document it.

Time For An Overhaul
Food safety policy and implementation at the government level is in need of a serious overhaul. There is a chance it could actually happen. In 2018, the previous Trump administration proposed consolidating federal food oversight into a single agency with USDA.

There are so many common sense things that a fully functioning food agency could do. For one, start with better and more noticeable country of origin labeling (COOL) on imported foods. It should be prominent, displaying the country’s flag as the primary indicator of origin. If nothing else, we’ll all get better at geography. Next, companies that embrace new technologies that prevent contamination should be rewarded with tax credits. We do it for electric cars. Why not for safer food?

Finally, the most important change needs to come in the form of accountability and transparency both from the food industry itself and the government that regulates it. That didn’t happen in the case of Boar’s Head, and 10 people lost their lives because of it. In the age of AI and social media, those FSIS plant inspection reports should be posted on platforms such as X and Facebook for the public to see in real time. Without such transparency, we’re no better off than we were back in 1906.

USDA Awards $3.2 Million to Fund Antimicrobial Resistance Dashboards

Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:16:24 GMT

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is awarding more than $3.2 million in cooperative agreement funding to create antimicrobial resistance dashboards. These public-private partnerships will improve access to information on antimicrobial resistance in domesticated animals, including livestock, poultry and companion animals.

The 12 awards will help advance scientific knowledge around antimicrobial resistance through partnerships with the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Cornell University, Iowa State University, University of Florida, North Carolina State University, Texas Tech University, University of Illinois, University of Missouri and University of Washington.

“Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat that makes antibiotics and other antimicrobials less effective. Addressing AMR is important to APHIS, along with the agricultural and public health sectors, because antimicrobials are some of our most critical tools for treating serious infections and saving the lives of people and animals. Taking a One Health approach to tackling complex human and animal health challenges such as this is imperative,” APHIS said in a release.

Data protection is also important to APHIS. Because of this, all antimicrobial resistance dashboards developed with this funding are required to include data protections similar to the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act. APHIS will then use the dashboards to monitor trends in antimicrobial resistance patterns, detect emerging resistance profiles, and better understand relationships between antimicrobial use, animal health management practices and antimicrobial resistance.

The projects will focus on:
• Developing antimicrobial resistance dashboards to securely track the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistant microbes in domesticated animals.
• Identifying and/or developing methods for protecting data confidentiality with these dashboards.
• Identifying data user needs and preferences for antimicrobial resistance dashboards.
• Exploring aspects of data management for antimicrobial resistance dashboards.

APHIS’ National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) collects and evaluates information voluntarily provided by U.S. farmers and ranchers to better understand antimicrobial use in the context of overall animal health. Partner labs in the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) will be on the lookout for antimicrobial resistance, supporting APHIS’ work to monitor for trends and identify new or emerging resistance profiles, assess the continued usefulness of antibiotics over time, and provide actionable guidance to veterinarians, producers and other stakeholders, APHIS said in the release.

Congress directed and provided funding to APHIS to carry out this project as part of USDA’s fiscal year 2021 and 2023 appropriations.

Preparing for Prescription-Only Antibiotics in Livestock Industry: Important Changes Ahead

Wed, 31 May 2023 18:24:03 GMT

While another month has come and gone for the 2023 production year, if you haven’t already heard, June will hold some significant changes for the livestock industry.

When it comes to livestock antibiotics, many products that have typically been used over-the-counter will now need a veterinary prescription.

“ Just as physicians have started to try and educate people to not utilize antibiotics in those cases, we’re really trying to have the same conversation with the livestock industry ,” says Mike Lormore, DVM, head of technical services over pork and cattle for Zoetis.

On June 11, the FDA’s Guidance for Industry (GFI) #263 will take effect, bringing 91 over-the-counter antimicrobial products under prescription oversight.

While the sales of antimicrobial injectables in 2021 declined by 11% from 2016 , Lormore says the FDA’s guidance is a result of a long conversation around improving the quality of and control systems around antimicrobial use in food production.

The guidance applies to all food animals , including cattle, hogs, ruminants (goats/sheep) and poultry. In addition, it also applies to animals not intended for food, such as horses, pet rabbits and backyard chickens.

“ W hile this change does not require the purchase of products from a veterinarian, going forward, producers will be legally required to obtain a prescription from a licensed veterinarian with whom the producer has a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship ,” says Becky Funk, DVM, and Jesse Fulton in a University of Nebraska-Lincoln article.

Specifically, the veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) is a mutual agreement between the animal owner and the veterinarian where the veterinarian has an understanding of the animals on an operation, the type of care they’re given on a regular basis, their purpose, and the risk factors associated with management of those animals, Lormore explains.

Preparing for OTC Antibiotics to Go Prescription-Only

If you do not have a relationship with a veterinarian, start visiting with a local practitioner so they can become familiar with you and your animals on your operation.

Additionally, Linda Tikofsky, DVM and senior associate director of dairy professional services at Boehringer Ingelheim says, “I think the number one thing to do is just take inventory of what you’re using and what you won’t be able to purchase after June 2023. Go through your drug cabinet, take note of what you’re using and how often you’re using it.”

This will help you prepare for conversations with the veterinarian, discussing standard operating procedures and routine drug orders.

A full list of products to soon require a prescription can be found here .

For more information regarding these changes:

Over-The-Counter Access to Antibiotics is Going Away

Over-the-Counter Antibiotics: What You Need to Know Before June 11

If You ‘Doctor’ Livestock, a New Rule will Determine How or If You can Buy Antibiotics

Beef Implant Changes

For beef producers using growth-promoting implants, additional changes will be taking place in June.

While implants are labeled for sex, age or stage of production, until recently, implant labels did not include directions for reimplantation within the production stage for which they are intended, Sandy Stuttgen, DVM, senior outreach specialist and Taylor County Extension agriculture educator with the University of Wisconsin Extension.

To bring clarity, the FDA has defined specific production stages, which will be used to determine if and when a growth-promoting implant can be administered.

Beef cattle will still be allowed to receive multiple implants across different stages of production, including each of the following phases defined by FDA GFI 191:
• Beef Calves:
1) Pre-ruminant or ruminant beef calves nursing their dams from birth until 2 months of age
2) Ruminating and nursing their dams from 2 months of age to weaning
• Growing beef steers or heifers on pasture (stocker, feeder or slaughter): weaned and maintained on pasture and receiving most of their diet from grazing
• Growing beef steers or heifers in a drylot: weaned and maintained in a dry lot and fed harvested forage (possibly with supplement)
• Growing beef steers or heifers fed in confinement for slaughter: weaned growing and finishing animals confined in group pens or grow yards and fed progressively high-energy diet ad libitum as their sole ration until slaughter

For more on beef implant changes: Beef Cattle Implant Changes: What You Need to Know

Overall, as a good practice in administering any vaccine or implant, Stuttgen encourages producers read the product label and lean on your veterinarian to determine how the products should be best used in the operation.

Over-the-Counter Antibiotics: What You Need to Know Before June 11

Thu, 23 Mar 2023 20:30:52 GMT

When kids are sick, parents want to do the best they can to help them feel better fast. It’s no different when animals are sick. Livestock producers want to do everything they can to help them feel better fast. It’s understandable why most people want to turn to antibiotics so quickly – it’s what they know to be an effective treatment for illness and disease.

But antibiotics aren’t effective on viruses, whether in kids or livestock.

“Just as physicians have started to try and educate people to not utilize antibiotics in those cases, we’re really trying to have the same conversation with the livestock industry,” says Mike Lormore, DVM, head of technical services over pork and cattle for Zoetis.

On June 11, FDA’s Guidance for Industry (GFI) #263 brings 91 over-the-counter (OTC) antimicrobial products from OTC to prescription oversight. This is part of a broader effort by FDA to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a serious threat to animal and public health. Using antimicrobials judiciously, in all settings, can help slow the rate at which AMR develops.

“It’s a confidence thing,” says Jim Lowe, DVM, director of the College of Veterinary Medicine I-Learning Center at the University of Illinois. “The regulators have said, ‘Listen, we want some more oversight here, so we have more confidence in the supply chain.’ My perception is we’re not changing what we’re doing. We’re just going to document and tell people what we’re doing better. It’s about transparency.”

FDA’s guidance is a result of a long conversation around improving the quality of and control systems around antimicrobial use in food production, Lormore explains. Making this transition will ensure the remaining 4% of medically important antimicrobials currently available OTC are used under a licensed veterinarian’s supervision.

Although this guidance doesn’t go into effect until June 11, now is the time for producers to begin preparing if they haven’t done so already.

Why VCPRs Matter

Now is an important time to seek out a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR). The VCPR is a mutual agreement between the animal owner and the veterinarian where the veterinarian has an understanding of the animals on an operation, the type of care they’re given on a regular basis, their purpose, and the risk factors associated with management of those animals, Lormore explains.

“Pig farmers are working every day to protect the food supply and provide safe, nutritious food to customers. This protection includes having a VCPR to provide the most updated treatment and recommended technology to keep animals, and ultimately the public, healthy,” explains Heather Fowler, VMD, National Pork Board’s director of producer and public health.

She says a producer doesn’t need to know everything, but they should know to call their veterinarian when needed, not only to protect their herd, but to also reduce an economic strain or loss of production proactively.

“Our sense collectively is major producers in the U.S. pork industry have veterinarians on their staff, they have good relationships with all kinds of veterinarians, and this guidance is probably not going to impact them very much. It’s really directed towards very small operators, or backyard/hobby animal raisers that don’t have that same level of expertise,” Lormore says.

However, he notes there are some areas of the country that don’t have as many veterinarians in place. If that’s you, he recommends reaching out to state veterinary medical associations, state livestock producer organizations, friends or other colleagues to find out what veterinary resources they utilize.

Once a VCPR is in place, animal owners would simply contact the veterinarian to discuss the situation at hand and the veterinarian would then provide them a prescription if needed. Every state has a different set of pharmacy laws, so how those prescriptions will be filled will look different throughout the country, Lormore notes.

In general, Lowe doesn’t believe veterinarians are thrilled about the obligation to have to write more scripts and maintain more records. No one likes paperwork, Lowe points out.

“I think some producers have grumbled it’s just a way for the veterinarians to make more money, but I certainly don’t think veterinarians view it that way. We are all going to have to do more work, but how do we make it a positive? Let’s lower costs, create better production, get the right diagnosis, work a little harder and create value out of it. That’s our opportunity,” Lowe says.

Why is antibiotic stewardship so important?

Thanks to advances in hygiene, biosecurity and new technology, America’s pig farmers are making significant strides in protecting their herds from disease, Fowler says.

“This is done in part through relationships farmers maintain with their licensed herd veterinarians, who prescribe and oversee the use of antibiotics and other medications on farm,” she says. “Responsible antibiotic use means using only what’s necessary for pig health. This sensible approach means doing what’s best for animal wellbeing, food safety, and the environment.”

It’s no secret that healthy animals are more productive and more efficient. The goal is always to prevent disease, rather than wait for it to become clinical and have to treat it, Lormore says.

“That being said, the bugs are generally smarter than we are, and they can move faster than we can. So, sooner or later, you will see clinical disease in one shape or form,” he adds.

Lormore believes FDA’s guidance #263 is good for the health of animals because it allows veterinarians who have the appropriate training, experience and expertise to handle these drugs and help talk people through protocol development and treatment protocols when needed.

“We all have to do our part to improve and ensure the viability of antimicrobials going forward. And this is just one way that we will do this in the livestock industry, to show our support for those initiatives,” Lormore says.

Do What’s Best for Your Animals

The goal of all of this is to have better health and welfare for the animals under our care, Lowe explains.

“Nobody likes being told what to do – but the intent is to have a chat about this and make sure it’s right. We are bringing ourselves under the same standard as human medicine in the U.S.,” he says.

Although it’s hard to stand around and wait for your animal to get better, Lormore reminds producers, “Biology takes its own sweet time, and we don’t necessarily get a chance to change that timeline. The more producers intervene when it’s not necessary, the more likely they are to get an outcome that’s not in the best interest of the animals.”

Vaccines are one way livestock producers work to prevent disease rather than treat clinical disease, Lormore adds.

“Mitigating risks of diseases that we can control through vaccinations is both in the best interests of the animals, the best interest of the farms that own those animals and is the least stressful to the animals themselves overall,” Lormore says. “Prevention is always preferred over treatment.”

As foreign animal disease threats rise, Lowe says it’s a great time to foster more conversation between animal owners and veterinarians.

“This is one more excuse to have a conversation about what we are doing for FAD preparedness,” Lowe says. “There’s some other good that can come out of this to build relationships, so we don’t find ourselves at the point of, ‘What do we do now?’”

Read More:

Health Advocates and Online Activists Sue FDA Over Antibiotics in Livestock

DVM Reaches out to Livestock Owners About OTC Antimicrobials Move to Rx

FDA Publishes 2021 Report on Antimicrobial Use in Livestock

The Pig That Does More with Less (Antibiotics)

Nine Research Grants Focus on Improving Beef and Swine Antibiotic Use

Tue, 17 Jan 2023 14:24:06 GMT

With the goal of optimizing the use of antibiotics in livestock, the International Consortium for Antimicrobial Stewardship in Agriculture (ICASA) has awarded nine grants to develop management strategies that improve judicious antibiotic use in beef cattle and swine, says a recent release.

Investigating novel and potentially high-impact solutions to promote targeted antibiotic use and advance animal health and welfare, the grant-funded projects speak to the need to accelerate antibiotic stewardship research, says Dr. Saharah Moon Chapotin, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) executive director.

The following grants have been awarded, according to the release:

— Dr. Raghavendra Amachawadi of Kansas State University (KSU) received $125,000 to identify specific bacterial species in cattle liver abscesses beyond the primary species, Fusobacterium necrophorum, and determine their prevalence and involvement in abscess formation, especially in the under-studied hindgut segment of the gastrointestinal tract. This research could help identify new interventions to minimize the occurrence of liver abscesses in cattle. Micronutrients Corporation, Cargill Incorporated and Phibro Animal Health Corporation are contributing additional funding for a total $280,000 investment.

— Dr. Rand Broadway of the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) received $85,700 to develop a minimally invasive model that induces liver abscesses and improves researchers’ ability to study the development and mitigation of the abscesses, while reducing the time necessary to generate enough animals to study. West Texas A&M University (WTAMU), ARS and KSU are contributing additional funding for a total $180,922 investment.

— Dr. Vinicius Machado of Texas Tech University (TTU) received $97,400 to investigate how beef cattle immune systems react throughout the lifecycle of F. necrophorum. Machado’s research is identifying potential pathways in which the bacteria subvert the hosts’ defenses during the development of liver abscess to lay the foundation for the formation of novel approaches, such as alternative drugs, that can potentially replace antimicrobials in liver abscess control and prevention strategies. TTU is contributing additional funding for a total $195,140 investment.

— Dr. Kristen Hales of TTU received $125,000 to investigate the gastrointestinal location, concentration and movement of F. necrophorum and Salmonella enterica, as well as the other organisms that live in the intestines of cattle with liver abscesses. This first phase of Hales’ research will inform a methodology to reduce F. necrophorum through a direct-fed microbial. TTU is contributing additional funding for a total $250,000 investment.

— Dr. Kendall Samuelson of WTAMU received $266,748 to develop a unique, repeatable method that induces liver abscesses in feedlot cattle to further investigate the relationship between acids in the rumen, the first chamber of a cow’s four-chamber stomach, and liver abscesses. Samuelson is also developing a scoring system to evaluate rumen health, updating the current liver scoring system to characterize liver abscess prevalence and developing a benchmark between these factors for future study. WTAMU and Cactus Feeders are contributing additional funding for a total $542,475 investment.

ICASA also funded a project that improves the collection, analysis and reporting of feedlot antibiotic usage data, which can potentially impact how corporations and regulatory agencies formulate policies on antimicrobial use in beef cattle.

— Dr. Michael Apley of KSU received $200,000 to develop a sustainable, practical system for individual beef producers to evaluate and report their antimicrobial usage in context of others across the beef feedlot industry. KSU is contributing additional funding for a total $400,022 investment.

Additionally, ICASA awarded three grants to develop management strategies in the prevention and treatment of Mycoplasma hyosynoviae (M. hyosynoviae) in swine. This ubiquitous bacterium causes respiratory disease and lameness in pigs, contributing to economic loss and decreased animal welfare, and is a major driver of antibiotic use in swine production.

— Dr. Tim Johnson from Purdue University College of Agriculture received $140,001 to investigate using fecal microbiota, or stool, transplants to reduce post-weaning diarrhea and antibiotic use in swine. Post-weaning diarrhea is caused when bacteria invade the gut, which becomes weakened from the diet change, transportation and change in environment that occurs during weaning. Johnson is administering the fecal transplants though a feed amendment with freeze-dried fecal microbiota, a less labor-intensive method than traditional oral gavage and better suited for commercial settings. If effective, the results could be optimized for other animal species like poultry and cattle and be developed into proprietary feed additive-type technologies by the animal health industry. Purdue University and the National Pork Board are contributing additional funding for a total $311,354 investment.

— Dr. Meghann Pierdon from the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) School of Veterinary Medicine received $127,703 to identify factors that cause swine lameness to determine whether management factors like floor type, pen size and nutrition underlie common lameness problems. Little is known about the incidence and causes of lameness in swine. If lameness is caused by non-bacterial factors, alternative methods of prevention can be identified, reducing antibiotic usage. Penn and PIC, are contributing additional funding for a total $268,493 investment.

— Dr. Maria Pieters from University of Minnesota (UMN) College of Veterinary Medicine received $149,748 to identify the optimal time for vaccine application against M. hyosynoviae, which will result in significant prevention of lameness development in grow-finish swine and translate into reduced use of antibiotics for disease control. Newport Laboratories, Tyson Foods, Pipestone Veterinary Services, UMN and Boehringer Ingelheim are contributing additional funding for a total $359,618 investment.

The Gray Area of Antibiotics: What Should I Use and When?

Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:09:47 GMT

Which drugs can I use? When can I use them? In this case, it’s always best to refer to the label for drug information and administration protocols. However, there might be more questions raised that are not as black and white.

Veterinarians from Kansas State University share their recommendations when it comes to antibiotic decision-making.

Generic Products

While a number of brand-name drugs have been popular on the market for years, Brad White, DVM, explains there are several new generic or equivalent brands coming out as these original drugs come off patent.

Generic drugs need to meet a certain level of bio-equivalence — oftentimes everything in the bottle is the same, says Brian Lubbers, DVM. In addition, generic drugs usually decrease the price point at which people can purchase the products. That said, many generic products offer equal efficacy at a lower cost.

Antibiotic Use

Even though there is less money invested in these generic drugs and there are more products on the market, specifically for antibiotics, White recommends producers should not change their use patterns.

Making good antimicrobial and antibiotic decisions, such as using the right drug in the right animal at the right time, should influence producers’ decisions, says Bob Larson, DVM. This is not driven by price, necessarily, but by what provides an advantage to the health of the animal.

Is it Necessary?

A lower cost drug might seem more disposable, so Larson encourages producers take price out of the equation and truly consider the necessity of the drug.

At times, it is obvious whether an animal needs an antibiotic or not. However, Lubbers says, “We work in a pretty wide gray zone a lot of the time. When [producers] are in that gray zone, it’s easier to say, ‘well, it might help, and it’s not cost prohibitive, so I will go ahead,’” specifically when working with less expensive drugs.

Lubbers suggests having a conversation with a veterinarian to discuss the animal’s symptoms and develop a good case definition for when the drug is necessary.

White also encourages producers to make the decisions and protocols for their operation ahead of time, not when a sick animal is found. Be proactive and prepare to make the most conscious, efficient decisions for your operation and the animals raised.

NIFA Invests $5M in Mitigating Antimicrobial Resistance Across the Food Chain

Thu, 26 May 2022 21:22:37 GMT

USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) announced an investment of more than $5 million to mitigate antimicrobial resistance across the food chain.

“Pathogen resistance to antimicrobials is a complex problem, encompassing human medicine, poultry and livestock health, and even plant crop production,” Acting NIFA Director Dionne Toombs said in a release. “The projects supported through this investment will work to ensure a safe, nutritious and abundant food supply while conserving antimicrobial effectiveness.”

Part of NIFA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative’s Mitigating Antimicrobial Resistance across the Food Chain grant program, it supports integrated research, education and Extension projects.

From risk assessment and antibiotic management and stewardship to advancing understanding of emerging resistant pathogens and their mechanisms for resistance and disease control using antimicrobial alternatives, NIFA’s work feeds into the federal strategy to combat antimicrobial resistance as described in the Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria National Action Plan 2020-2025.

Nine projects are being funded, totaling $5,117,165. Examples include:

• Scientists at the Iowa State University of Science and Technology will model the movement of bacteria through different environments, such as surface and subsurface water, as a route for bacterial movement from animal and human waste to plant crops. ($1,000,000)

• Scientists in Veterinary Preventive Medicine at The Ohio State University will study the movement of auctioned male calves through the market to better understand the use of antimicrobial drugs to prevent and treat disease. ($999,938)

Learn more.

Read More:

USDA Announces More Money for Meat Processing Capacity, New Efforts to Strengthen Food Supply Chain

African Swine Fever Found on Pig Farms in South Korea, Germany

Probiotics May Pose Risks to Animal and Human Health

Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:01:45 GMT

Probiotics may not be as beneficial for animal and human health as people think, says new research at Kansas State University. In most uses, probiotics are considered to be beneficial organisms for gut health in animals and humans.

Raghavendra Amachawadi, assistant professor of food animal therapeutics in the K-State College of Veterinary Medicine, and his team have discovered that a species of bacteria, Enterococcus faecium, which is contained in several commercial products for swine and cattle, can be a source of antibiotic resistance, according to a release .

“Although probiotics are beneficial bacteria, some bacterial species can have unintended negative consequences,” Amachawadi says in the release. “Our research has shown that Enterococcus faecium carries genes that confer resistance to antibiotics widely used in human medicine. Feeding such products to animals raises the possibility that the genes can be transferred to pathogenic bacteria and make them resistant to antibiotics, which can be passed on to humans.”

At this point, he says this is only a theoretical possibility. There is no evidence of such transfer actually taking place in the gut and subsequent human exposure.

The study utilized whole genome sequence-based analysis to assess virulence potential, detect antimicrobial resistance genes and analyze phylogenetic relationships of E. faecium strains from commercial swine and cattle probiotics.

“Because use of antibiotics creates resistance in bacteria, which is a huge public health concern, producers are seeking replacements for antibiotics,” Amachawadi says in the release. “Most commercial probiotic products contain live bacteria that benefit the animal by improving the gut bacterial balance.”

In the future, probiotic products may need to undergo a test for antimicrobial resistance genes before they are marketed for use in food animals, the study suggests.

Funded in part by a grant from the National Pork Board, the study included researchers from the animal sciences and industry and diagnostic medicine and pathobiology departments at K-State, as well as the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition division of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at Laurel, Md.

“ Whole genome sequence analyses-based assessment of virulence potential and antimicrobial susceptibilities and resistance of Enterococcus faecium strains isolated from commercial swine and cattle probiotic products ,” was published recently in the Journal of Animal Science.

Read More:

Japanese Encephalitis Virus Detected in Australia’s Feral Pig Herd

Dollar Power Continues to Decrease: What Does That Mean for Pig Farmers?

Animal Health Companies Target Ways to Lower Antimicrobial Resistance

Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:00:00 GMT

Antimicrobial resistance is a “One Health” challenge that requires effort across both human and animal health sectors, said Patricia Turner, president of World Veterinary Association.

Developing 100 new vaccines by 2025 was one of 25 commitments made by the world’s largest animal health companies in the Roadmap to Reducing the Need for Antibiotics report that was first published in 2019 by HealthforAnimals.

In the past two years, animal health companies have invested billions in veterinary research and the development of 49 new vaccines as part of an industry-wide strategy to reduce the need for antibiotics, according to a recent progress report released in Belgium.

The recently developed vaccines offer increased protection against disease across many animal species including cattle, poultry, swine, fish as well as pets, the release said. It is a sign the industry is halfway towards its vaccine target with four more years to go.

“New vaccines are essential to reducing the risk of drug resistance developing by preventing diseases in animals that could otherwise lead to antibiotic treatment, such as salmonella, bovine respiratory disease and infectious bronchitis, and preserving vital medicines for both urgent human and animal use,” HealthforAnimals said in a release.

The newest update shows the sector is on track or ahead of schedule across all of its commitments, including investing $10 billion in research and development, and training more than 100,000 veterinarians in responsible antibiotic use.

“The new tools and training provided by the animal health sector will support veterinarians and producers to reduce the need for antimicrobials in animals, which better safeguards people and the environment. We congratulate the animal health sector for the progress achieved to date towards reaching their Roadmap targets,” Turner said in a release.

What’s Next?

Animal health companies are considering ways to expand and add to these targets in the years ahead to accelerate progress in reducing the burden on antibiotics, the report noted.

“The Roadmap is unique across the health industries for setting measurable targets and regular status updates on our efforts to address antibiotic resistance,” said Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, executive director of HealthforAnimals. “Few, if any, have set these types of traceable goals and the progress to date shows how seriously animal health companies are taking our responsibility to tackle this collective challenge, which poses a threat to lives and livelihoods around the world.”

The industry has also launched a series of other preventative products that contribute to lower levels of livestock disease, minimizing the need for antibiotics in animal agriculture, the release said.

Animal health companies created 17 new diagnostic tools out of a target of 20 to help veterinarians prevent, identify and treat animal diseases earlier, as well as seven nutritional supplements that boost immune systems.

Comparatively, the sector brought three new antibiotics to market in the same period, reflecting the increased investment in developing products that prevent illness and the need for antibiotics in the first place, Healthfor Animals said.

In the past two years, the industry has trained more than 650,000 veterinary professionals and provided more than $6.5 million in scholarships to veterinary students.

The Roadmap for Reducing the Need for Antibiotics not only set targets to increase research and development, but it also is focused on One Health approaches, communications, veterinary training and knowledge sharing. The next progress report is expected in 2023.

HealthforAnimals members include Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceva, Elanco, Merck Animal Health, Phibro, Vetoquinol, Virbac, Zenoaq and Zoetis.

Read More:

Tools for Managing Pigs Without Antibiotics

Universities Partner to Study Antimicrobial Use in Food Animal Production

FDA Releases Five-Year Plan for Veterinary Antimicrobial Stewardship

7 Alternatives To Antibiotic Use Identified By Researchers

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:57:18 GMT

The overuse of antibiotics in livestock production is fueling consumer concerns on a global basis. Today, 100 countries have national action plans committed to fighting antimicrobial resistance, according to Lux Research. A new report from the organization, “ Beyond Antibiotics: The Future of Animal Health Alternatives ,” identifies seven alternatives to antibiotics that could help support the animal health industry and producers, while reducing antibiotic use.

(Farm Journal)

The report highlights three main categories of antibiotic alternatives: eubiotics, targeted antimicrobial agents and vaccines. The categories in the report are further broken down into seven technologies aimed at improving animal health: probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids, phytogenics, bacteriophages, antimicrobial peptides and vaccines.

Researchers believe eubiotic solutions could be one of the more successful antibiotic alternatives in the near term “given the advanced states of technology readiness, scalability, ease of approval, and product cost,” explains Laura Krishfield, research associate at Lux and co-author of the report, in a news release.

“Alternatively, we believe that targeted antimicrobials like bacteriophage and antimicrobial peptides should be considered a long-term opportunity, as the current state of technological readiness can be unclear, and regulatory hurdles abound,” she adds.

Not all products are equally scalable, the researchers note in the release. But by linking key characteristics – for instance, the scalability of probiotic fermentation – with the production and secretion of antimicrobial peptides, solutions can achieve increased scalability and cost reductions.

(Farm Journal)

What to Expect from the 2020s

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:54:37 GMT

During the past decade, we saw numerous changes in beef and dairy production, and in the ways veterinarians serve those industries. These include the emergence of remote monitoring, advanced data systems, new diagnostic tools, genomic technologies, acceleration of antibiotic-resistance in cattle pathogens and drug resistance in cattle parasites.

Most of these trends will continue through the 2020s, and we’ll see the emergence of new trends, new insights and applications for science and technology in animal agriculture, along with changes in regulations, production practices, consumer perceptions and preferences.

While no one can predict every trend, veterinarians serve as forward-looking change agents in animal agriculture, as they continuously evaluate new systems, products, practices and philosophies for potential adoption on their clients’ operations.

With that in mind, we asked veterinarians for their thoughts on the key challenges and opportunities for success in eight categories during the decade of the 2020s. Following are their responses related to Antibiotic Stewardship.

John Maas: Drug use is set to change via FDA regulations. The final rule will be set sometime in 2020 with a two-year phase-in and changes by 2023 wherein all antibiotic use will be by veterinary prescription. Responsibility for judicious use will fall on the veterinarian and the producer, and while some are already implementing the changes, others will wait until the last minutes. Mistakes will impact all segments negatively.

Dee Griffin: RWOA (raised without antibiotics) may become common labeling on beef in the near future and I suspect will start with a large feeder group joining forces with a packer and a major retailer. This could involve 3 million finished cattle in the beginning and growing to 25% of all finished cattle. It seems to me a much easier label to achieve than giving up growth-promoting implants. The RWOA may only apply to the finish feeding phase. Other than liver abscesses, which will remain a tough issue, we know how to implement management systems to minimally rely on antibiotics, which will put pressure on prices paid for high-risk cattle.

Jacob Geis: The FDA will continue to place veterinarians in an unpaid regulatory role through oversight of antibiotic use, with more responsibilities over time. However, with new information being gained every day about the gut microbiome and its influence on health, we may be looking at new solutions that preclude the use of antibiotics.

Fred Gingrich: We do not want arbitrary reduction goals for antibiotic use. Rather, we would like to see implementation of judicious use principals and stewardship on every farm. The veterinarian and producer should evaluate treatment records and inventory purchases to implement management changes to decrease use.

Renee Dewell, DVM, PhD, Iowa State University: Antibiotic usage- There will be increased opportunities to strengthen relationships with producers as over-the-counter antibiotics require prescriptions. I also expect to move away from mass medication. We will continue to advance and embrace a systems-management approach to problem solving, such as, rather than mass medication high-risk calves, we can apply techniques to decrease handling stress, or insist calves are properly vaccinated and weaned prior to arriving at the feedyard.

Tom Furman: VFDs continue to take time, energy, and devotion from the veterinary community and the animal ag community alike. On top of that issue, dart guns are more prevalent now because of the lack of qualified cowboys to go out and “catch” animals for treatment. Inconsistent doses could result in resistance to the low-volume antibiotics favored for remote delivery.

Calvin Booker: Veterinarians will be given the opportunity for more responsibility and accountability for overseeing antimicrobial and pharmaceutical use in bovine production. It will be up to the veterinary profession and individual veterinarians to demonstrate we are worthy of serving in this role.

For responses relating to other subject categories, see these articles on BovineVetOnline:

Part 1: Client Services and Communications

Part 2: Medical Technology

Part 3: Animal genetics

NARMS Releases Latest Report on Antimicrobial Resistance Trends

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:53:18 GMT

This week, the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) released its 2016-2017 NARMS Integrated Summary , with a new streamlined format intended to enable NARMS partners to issue more timely public updates in the future. Those partners include the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS).

For the first time in the new report, NARMS includes data on animal pathogens from a pilot study with FDA’s Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network (Vet-LIRN).

In its effort to track trends in antimicrobial resistance, NARMS partners collect data on bacteria from humans (CDC), raw retail meats (FDA), and animals at slaughter (USDA).

Key findings in the new report include:

Salmonella resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, or azithromycin has increased. This is concerning as these drugs are considered first-line therapies to treat complicated infectious diarrhea in humans. The rise in Salmonella resistance to these drugs means that treatment with them may not always work.
No resistance to carbapenems was observed among Salmonella isolates from humans, retail meats, and animals. This is important as carbapenems are typically reserved to treat suspected multi-drug resistant infectious diarrhea. In the U.S., carbapenems are not used in food animal production, however due to their importance in human health, they are monitored by NARMS.
Rates of macrolide and fluoroquinolone resistance remain relatively unchanged in Campylobacter jejuni isolated from humans and chickens, and in Campylobacter coli isolated from cattle and swine. While it is positive that these rates of resistance did not increase, the rates of macrolide resistance in Campylobacter isolated from swine and fluoroquinolone resistance in Campylobacter isolated from cattle warrant further monitoring.

For more information from NARMS, see these online resources:

2016-2017 NARMS Integrated Summary

The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System

NARMS Now: Integrated Data

NARMS Methodology

Resistome Tracker

Antimicrobial Resistance

For more about antimicrobial resistance trends, see these articles from BovineVetOnline.com:

Antibiotic Stewardship: FDA Cites Progress

Good and Bad News in Latest NARMS Report

FDA Tool Uses Genomics to Track Resistance Genes

Commentary: Are We Willing to Change?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:52:42 GMT

“An EU ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed enters into effect on January 1, 2006. The last four antibiotics to help fatten livestock will no longer be allowed to be marketed or be used from this date. The ban is the final step in phasing out of antibiotics used for non-medicinal purposes. It is part of the Commission’s overall strategy to tackle the emergence of bacteria and other microbes resistant to antibiotics, due to their overexploitation or misuse.” Markos Kyptianou – Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection European Union

This ban of antibiotic use in animal production for anything other than treating a disease has been in effect for almost 14 years. I bring it up now because of the pending trade agreement between the US and the EU which would give the US 50% of the EU’s imported beef. That’s an amount roughly equivalent to our current “Natural Beef” production. This has the potential to be a huge economic boost to every sector of the US beef production chain, but raises some interesting questions.

The first and possibly most important issue is the source of feeder cattle that have not received a medicated mineral or been implanted as implants were banned prior to the above final ban on feed grade antibiotics. This sounds simple enough but without a well-designed, implemented and managed cow-calf health and nutrition program we will not be able to provide the quota granted to us. The crux of the matter is every cow-calf operator needs a veterinarian that is willing to take a “holistic” approach with their clientele and a nutritionist who will do likewise.

What do I mean by “holistic”? In this context, I intend to promote a concept of involvement beyond product sales. Scheduled visits focused on the whole operation, planning and training meetings are good starts but this could and should include such things as pairing feeders with cow-calf operations, managing records, providing performance and health feedback, being a liaison between the entities.

We can make this scenario worthwhile, enjoyable and profitable for all concerned if we communicate.

Whether we agree with this ban or not is irrelevant at this point as the EU and an ever increasing number of U.S. consumers continue to tell us that this is what they want.

Buggy whips were once a thriving business but ignoring a changing world ended that. It would also appear that our Land Grant universities are getting the message as evidenced by the most recent graduate student poster competitions at the Plains Nutrition Conference. The last two years have had only three studies out of more than 70 that revolved around a drug.

Thanks to Dr. Kenneth Eng for birthing and financially supporting this endeavor for the past several years. A great idea given life.

Both the health and nutrition communities need to take long hard looks at things like yeast, DFM’s, yucca, chelated trace minerals, vitamin sources and levels and things like pH modifiers to keep acidosis and bloat in check. Innovative ideas like designer mineral programs to ward off pinkeye and foot rot have merit. Using a foot rot vaccine properly by following the label and administering it twice remains critical. It’s also quite effective as a treatment.

Become more involved with your clients in areas like facility design, equipment purchases and environmental stress management. The last year and a half have taught those of us who practice north of I-70 the value of adequate pen space and maintenance, bedding, shade, windbreaks, drainage, etc. Are we focusing on preparation and planning?

I don’t know a diplomatic way to say this but brand loyalties based on rebates, trips or other perks which can and often do shortchange our clients have to go away. Look, listen and learn about new ways of doing things without a brown bottle and a syringe or a “one supplement or mineral will work for everyone” attitude, or you may find yourself on the outside looking in. Observe, listen, think, innovate, and learn new ways to develop your craft beyond ordinary accepted practices.

We’re all part of a contracting industry from ranches to feedlots to manufacturers and we need to learn and innovate to survive and be relevant. Do a serious self-assessment of not only what you do but the how and why.

An example of listening and trying different things would be fly control. The past two summers we’ve fed a garlic extract that is very effective against biting flies, ticks and lice, and is mixed in the supplement or mineral at a cost of about $.01 a day. We calculate it’s cheaper, more efficient and effective than tags, spraying, back oilers or what have you.

Those of us feeding “natural” cattle have learned how to get all but about 5 to 6% of the performance back. Implants we can’t fully replace at this point, but we continue to look, listen and innovate.

Even though the EU program will allow us to treat morbid cattle with therapeutic scripted antibiotics without them losing eligibility for export, we should always be minimizing morbid cattle by every means possible.

The bottom line is we don’t know what we don’t know, so keep learning.

For more from Dave McClellan, see these articles on BovineVetOnline:

McClellan: Alternatives for Fall Health Management

Nutritionist Corner: What Now?

Princeton Study: Antibiotic Resistance Increasing Globally

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:52:23 GMT

According to an analysis published in the journal Science, antibiotic resistance among bacteria affecting food animals has nearly tripled over the past 20 years.

The team of researchers from ETH Zurich, the Princeton Environmental Institute (PEI), and the Free University of Brussels collected information from nearly 1,000 publications and unpublished veterinary reports for their analysis, including a map of antimicrobial resistance in low- to middle-income countries.

For this analysis, the researchers focused on animal pathogens that can also cause disease in humans, such as Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Staphylococcus aureus.

According to the researchers, transition to high-protein diets in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has helped drive expansion of intensive animal production systems incorporating antibiotic use. Globally, 73% of all antimicrobials sold on Earth are used in animals raised for food, according to the report, and in many LMICs, farmers have easy over-the-counter access to medically important antibiotics.

The researchers note that between 2000 and 2018, the proportion of antibiotics showing rates of resistance above 50% in developing countries increased in chickens from 0.15 to 0.41 and in pigs from 0.13 to 0.34. This means that antibiotics that could be used for treatment failed more than half the time in 40 percent of chickens and one-third of pigs raised for human consumption.

They conclude that, in regions where resistance is emerging, there is a window of opportunity to limit the rise of resistance by encouraging a transition to sustainable animal farming practices. High-income countries, where antimicrobials have been used on farms since the 1950s, should support this transition—for example, through a global fund to subsidize improvement in farm-level biosafety and biosecurity.

For more on global antibiotic resistance, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

US Issues AMR Challenge at United Nations

AMR Issue Exemplifies “One-Health” Approach

Global Report Finds Progress, Gaps in Antimicrobial Resistance Fight

FDA Funds Duration of Use Studies

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:51:59 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has awarded two $250,000 grants to fund research projects in fiscal year (FY) 2019 aimed to help target and define durations of use for certain medically important antimicrobial drugs approved for use in the feed of food-producing animals. Defining targeted durations of use is one component of the FDA’s five-year plan, “ Supporting Antimicrobial Stewardship in Veterinary Settings ,” published last September that outlines key goals and objectives for FY 2019 - FY 2023. This plan applies a risk-based approach to antimicrobial resistance and supports the FDA’s ongoing efforts to slow the development of antimicrobial resistance by fostering the judicious use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in animals.

These research projects will generate publicly available data, which can be used by sponsors of affected approved animal drug applications to update product dosage regimens and better target when and for how long a drug may be used.

The first project is from a researcher from Kansas State University and sets out to define targeted durations of use for tylosin phosphate to prevent liver abscess formation in feedlot cattle.

The second project, from another researcher from Kansas State University, plans to evaluate the timing and duration of use for chlortetracycline treatment of bovine anaplasmosis in adult cattle.

Depending on available funding and satisfactory progress by the awardees, FDA may grant an additional year of support of up to $250,000 each for the researchers to continue their studies in FY 2020.

In addition, FDA continues to explore options for expanding the availability of relevant data to address this issue, including the possibility of providing another funding opportunity for research proposals.

For more on FDA’s antibiotic stewardship programs, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

FDA Releases Draft GFI to End OTC Sales of Most Animal Antibiotics

FDA Extends Comment Period on Withdrawal Times

FDA Reports on VFD Compliance

FDA Plans Next Moves on Antimicrobials

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:42 GMT

Editor’s note: We’ll have a series of articles summarizing highlights from the recent Bovine Respiratory Disease Symposium and Academy of Veterinary Consultants Conference on this site over the rest of this month. Check back often.

Veterinarians and livestock producers have adapted to significant changes in antimicrobial regulations over the last two years, and change will continue as the FDA works through its five-year plan for antimicrobial stewardship .

During the recent Bovine Respiratory Disease Symposium in Denver, Mike Murphy, DVM, a veterinary officer with the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) outlined progress and future plans for advancing antimicrobial stewardship in food-animal production.

In 2017, FDA completed implementation of Guidance for Industry (GFI) 213, which effectively removed label claims for performance or production enhancement from medically important antibiotics used in feed, and increased veterinary oversight for use of most medicated feeds under the veterinary feed directive (VFD).

Those changes have helped reduce sales of medically important antibiotics used in feed by 28%, Murphy says. FDA acknowledges though, that antibiotic sales alone do not provide a reliable measure of progress toward the ultimate goal of reducing the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. “A reduction in use indicates awareness of the regulations,” Murphy says, “but is not a full mesure of success.”

In its five-year plan (2019 through 2023) CVM’s lists three primary goals:

1. Align antimicrobial drug product use with the principles of antimicrobial stewardship.

2. Foster stewardship of antimicrobials in veterinary settings.

3. Enhance monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial drug use in animals.

Timeline for FDA Actions

In terms of compliance with VFD rules, FDA has, so far, focused more on education than enforcement. By the end of this month, (August 2019) FDA plans to publish a summary report on VFD inspections and compliance. Murphy suggested that overall compliance has been good, and violations generally have involved honest mistakes or misinterpretations of the regulations rather than intentional.

Also in the short term, CVM plans to bring remaining dosage forms for medically important antibiotics used in livestock, such as injections or intra-mammary applications, under the oversight of veterinarians. Many of those products remain available for over-the-counter (OTC) purchase. FDA/CVM plans to release a draft GFI next month, September 2019, outlining plans for these new rules.

Also, by the end of this year, FDA/CVM plans to update its list of “medically important” antimicrobials used in livestock, currently listed in GFI 152.

Currently, the labels for some medications delivered in feed or water do not specify duration of use. Murphy says FDA/CVM plans to issue a draft strategy to ensure that all medically important antimicrobial drugs used in the feed or drinking water of food-producing animals have an appropriately targeted duration of use by September 2020.

Access the full five-year plan for antimicrobial stewardship online from the FDA.

For more about FDA efforts toward antimicrobial stewardship, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

VFD Audits: What to Expect

FDA Draft Guidance Updates VFD Q&A

Antibiotic Stewardship: FDA Cites Progress

FDA Clarifies: Monensin Safe for Cattle, Goats

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:14 GMT

In a release earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced approval of Monovet 90, the first generic monensin product for use in cattle and goats. In the release, the FDA included a reminder that monensin is toxic and potentially lethal to horses.

This week, the FDA reissued the release, with added text to emphasize that monensin is safe for use in cattle and goats, and that “meat from cows and goats and milk from cows treated with Monovet 90 are safe for people to consume; the product does not pose any significant impacts to the environment.”

FDA recommends mitigating user risk by taking appropriate safety precautions, such as wearing protective clothing, impervious gloves and a dust mask. Also, producers must take care to avoid any chance of horses being exposed to monensin through contaminated feeding equipment or access to medicated feed intended for cattle or goats.

Monensin is an ionophore, which is an antimicrobial not used in humans; therefore, use of this drug does not raise antimicrobial resistance concerns.

Monovet 90 is a Type A medicated article and will be available over-the-counter in 25 kg bags. It is approved for use in the manufacture of Type B and Type C medicated feeds. Monovet 90 is manufactured by Huvepharma EOOD.

Read more from the FDA .

FDA Approves Generic Monensin Product

Be Aware When Feeding Cattle Ionophores: An Overdose May Prove Deadly

Coccidiosis Affecting Young Calves

Don’t Fall Behind with Coccidiosis

Composting Manure Could Reduce Antibiotic Residues

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:25:11 GMT

Composting can reduce the concentration of antibiotics in cattle manure, but the degree of that reduction can vary depending on how it is tested.

Excretions of antibiotics in cattle urine and feces, and subsequent accumulation in feedlot and dairy manure, has led to concerns over potential contributions to emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Previous studies have shown that composting can break down antibiotic molecules and significantly reduce their concentrations in manure before the manure is spread on crop fields. However, a group of Canadian researchers note that most past studies have used manure that was “fortified” with antibiotics. In other words, researchers mixed a pre-determined concentration of antibiotics into the manure prior to composting, then measured the rates of dissipation.

The Canadian researchers, from the University of Manitoba, Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada in Lethridge, Alberta, set out to compare the dissipation rates in fortified manure with those from manure exreted by cattle treated with those same antibiotics. This method was intended to more-closely mimic real-world conditions.

The group found that composting dramatically reduced antibiotic concentrations in manure, regardless of whether the antibiotics were added diretly to the mamanure or fed through the cattle. They did find differences between the two tereatments though, depending on the type of antibiotic.

In this study, the researchers composted the two types of manure – fortified manure from untreated animalas and manure from antibiotic-treated animals – and analyzed samples from each every three to four days for 30 days. On average, they found an 85 to 99% reduction in antibiotic concentrations by the end of the 30-day composting period.

For chlorotetracycline (CTC), the dissipation rate in excreted manure was significantly greater than that in fortified manure. However, for sulfamethazine and tylosin, the researchers found greater dissipation rates in the fortified manure than in the excreted manure. For tylosin, the dissipation rate in fortified manure was 99%, compared with just 85% for excreted manure.

The researchers concluded that composting can be used to reduce environmental loading of antimicrobials before field application of beef cattle manure. However, they note that “dissipation rates of fortified antimicrobials during manure composting may not accurately reflect those of antimicrobials that are consumed and excreted by cattle.”

The study’s results were published in the Journal of Environmental Quality and the abstract and full report are available online .

For related information, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Producers Need Disposal Plan for Dead Livestock

Manage manure to contain Johne’s Disease

Reducing the Environmental Impact of Cows’ Waste

AMR Issue Exemplifies “One-Health” Approach

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:23:33 GMT

The complex challenges of addressing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) make it a prototypical “One-Health” issue, according to five new papers published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences .

The One-Health concept is a worldwide strategy for expanding interdisciplinary collaborations and communications in all aspects of health care for humans, animals and the environment. The researchers note that the AMR problem and its solutions involve complex interrelationships between antimicrobial use in humans and animals, pathogens affecting multiple species, persistence of antimicrobials in soil and water and environmental influences on the prevalence and transmission of pathogens.

Addressing the AMR issue from a One-Health perspective involves decisions at all levels of society.

Physicians decide when and why to prescribe antibiotics to their patients, while also considering recommendations for non-drug interventions or preventive strategies including vaccines, nutrition and lifestyle changes.

Patients decide whether to follow prescription instructions and their physician’s advice on lifestyle, vaccines or other preventive measures.

Farmers and veterinarians decide when and how to use antimicrobials, along with designing waste-management systems to minimize environmental contamination and management systems impacting animal immunity and levels of exposure to pathogens.

Food processors, wholesalers and retailers all make decisions that affect customer exposure to potentially drug-resistant pathogens.

Consumer education is entwined throughout the AMR issue, involving personal hygiene, food-safety practices and following advice from medical professionals, along with better understanding of the AMR issue overall.

The authors note complexities associated with addressing AMR, including:

Considerations of the criticality of different classes of antimicrobials used for human and animal health; and of the divergences between international, national and other agencies in the classes of antimicrobials across specific industries.
The recognized importance of the environment as a reservoir of resistant bacteria and resistance genes, as well as a pathway for the dissemination of AMR between human and animal host populations.
Established and novel solutions for measuring and containing the AMR problem that range from animal husbandry and herd management changes, to technological innovations such as vaccines and bacteriophage therapy.
Effective strategies for communicating to consumers the risks of AMR spreading from food production.

Animal agriculture can and should embrace the One-Health approach for addressing the AMR problem. The agricultural community, often with good reason, feels singled out as the primary scapegoat in perpetrating the problem. The One-Health approach acknowledges the complexity of the AMR issue and addresses the interrelationships between all the factors involved. Farmers and veterinarians certainly play a role, and should strive for continuous improvements in antibiotic stewardship, disease prevention and environmental management. But those efforts can only succeed in cooperation with human-health professionals, all food-system sectors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, policy makers, research scientists and consumers.

See the full report in the special issue of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences titled Antimicrobial Resistance from Food Animal Production.

Find related information on One Health and antimicrobial resistance in these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Global Report Finds Progress, Gaps in Antimicrobial Resistance Fight

World Animal Health Leaders Take a “One Health” Approach

OIE Report Shows Global Progress on Use of Antibiotics in Animals

Residues Becoming More Elusive

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:23:13 GMT

While antibiotic or other drug residues in meat or milk remain a concern for some consumers, surveillance and survey studies from the FDA and USDA show the industry has made considerable progress.

The latest report, from USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), regards pork in Midwestern retail cases. In this survey, the ARS researchers purchased over 1,000 pork kidneys from four different retailers. Residues, if present, tend to concentrate in the kidneys, making them a logical tissue to sample.

In the initial testing, six of 1,040 samples, or 0.58 % tested positive when screened for antibiotics. The researchers then screened a 278-sample subset of the pork kidney samples with a more specific ELISA test for residues of four veterinary drugs:

Flunixin, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent.
Ractopamine, an agent that enhances leanness in meat
Sulfamethazine, a class of antibiotics.
Tetracycline, a class of antibiotics.

The researchers note that the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISAs) can measure residues at far lower concentrations than those called for by regulatory tolerances. In this testing, regardless of method, residue levels of all veterinary compounds were always well below U.S. regulatory tolerances. For example, of the samples assessed by the highly sensitive ELISA and other methods, only 4 % were positive for minute amounts of sulfamethazine, 10 % for trace quantities of tetracycline, and 22 % positive for detectable quantities of the commonly used feed additive ractopamine. The study results are published in the journal Food Additives & Contaminants .

Other studies in recent years have found very low incidence of violative residues in beef and in milk .

The record is not perfect of course, and the industry must continue to focus on judicious use of antibiotics and other drugs, comply with all label requirements for use and always observe withdraw times.

Also, as advancements in analytic technology continue, the threshold for measurable residues becomes increasingly lower. As long as the industry uses antibiotics or other animal-health products, residues will be detectable at some level. We can work to educate consumers about the sensitivity of testing and the difference between detectable and unsafe residue concentrations, but we also can expect their preferences to continuously move the bar toward lower and lower acceptable thresholds.

Access the report in Food Additives and Contaminants .

For more on recent research into antibiotic use and residues, see these articles on BovineVetOnline:

Tetracycline Pilot Project Finds Six Positives in 2018 Fiscal Year

OIE Report Shows Global Progress on Use of Antibiotics in Animals

Antibiotic Stewardship: FDA Cites Progress

Antibiotic Stewardship: FDA Cites Progress

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:20:59 GMT

While the issue of antibiotic use in food animals won’t disappear anytime soon, the industry can claim significant progress toward addressing public concerns.

U.S. sales of medically important antimicrobials for use in food animals dropped considerably during 2017 according to the latest summary report from the FDA. The decline accelerated a trend that began in 2016 and is likely to continue, although probably not at the same annual pace as in 2017.

According to the 2017 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, sales and distribution of all medically important antimicrobials decreased 33 percent decline between 2016 and 2017, 41 percent since 2015 (peak year of sales/distribution) and decreased 28 percent since the first year of reported sales in 2009.

The downward trend comes as no accident, as 2017 was the first full year for implementation of the FDA’s Guidance for Industry 213, which eliminated performance or production claims from medically important antimicrobials used in food animals, and the new VFD rules, which placed access to medically important antimicrobials used in feed under the oversight of veterinarians.

The report also shows a slight decline in sales of non-medically important antimicrobials for food-animal use during 2017. Cattle account for the largest portion of non-medically important antimicrobial use – primarily ionophores used for production and/or therapeutic purposes. Sales of non-medically important antimicrobials for use in cattle dropped 1% during 2017, while those for use in hogs declined 7% and chickens by 13%.

Of the 2017 domestic sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobials for use in food-producing animals, tetracyclines accounted for the largest share at 64%, followed by penicillins at 12%, macrolides at 8%, sulfas at 5%, aminoglycosides at 5%, lincosamides at 3%, and cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones each for less than 1%. The authors estimate that 42% of the total was intended for use in cattle, 36% for use in swine, 12% for turkeys, 5% intended for chickens and an estimated 5% intended for use in other or unknown species.

Veterinarians see positive trends, ongoing challenges

Veterinarian Dee Griffin, at West Texas A&M University, notes that much of the decline in use since VFD came into effect most came from the “medically important” antibiotic (MIAB) category, but non-medically important antibiotic (NMIAB) use is down 10%. More than 80% of the NMIAB are ionophores, Griffin says, adding that the FDA, CDC and WHO are adamant ionophores have no relationship or influence on humans.

Two thirds of sales of MIAB for food animals are tetracyclines, Griffin says, and less than 10% of all MIAB used fit into the FDA’s definition as “critically important to humans.” He also points out that more than 60% of MIAB reported were used in feed and about two-thirds of those were tetracyclines, with chlortetracycline (CTC) representing the bulk of the tetracycline use in feed. Feed tetracyclines only have disease “control” or “treatment” approvals, therefore not only was there no use for “production purposes,” and 2017 sales of tetracyclines would have been for humane care of animals.

Griffin also points out that water use accounts for about 30% of MIAB sales, and water medication is rarely used in cattle. Only about 6% of MIAB sales are injectable products, which he says drives home the FDA’s concern for no extra-label use of feed antibiotics for fear of massive impact of mistakes.

Kansas State University veterinarian Dan Thomson says the report further demonstrates that veterinarians, nutritionist, farmers and ranchers are working hard to judiciously use antibiotics while protecting animal health and welfare. “The beef industry has an unbelievable track record and story to tell about decreasing antibiotic residues and resistance which all started from the Beef Quality Assurance program in the 1980s. I am not surprised that we once again see another step forward by our industry.”

Thomson would like to see more detail in the FDA reporting, such as designations for beef or dairy use, rather than a combined “cattle” category, and information on herd size. “Antibiotics used, diseases and production practices are different in dairy operations compared to beef operations. If we only monitor sales of antibiotics, an increase in cattle on feed or in the milking string could increase antibiotic sales without any increase in antibiotic usage per head or per product produced.” Simply monitoring sales, he adds, could be misleading due to end-of-year specials to purchase products or other promotional activities including rebates to distributors and veterinarians.

Thomson also notes the report documents a large increase in macrolide usage. This was, he says, due to the double labeling of tylosin that is fed to control liver abscesses in feedlot cattle. The label of tylosin says to include it in the ration at eight to 10 grams per ton (g/t) feed it to provide 60 to 90 milligrams per head per day (mg/hd/d). But when tylosin was first approved, cattle had lower consumption levels. The VFD regulation informed us to feed tylosin at the label dose of eight to 10 g/t. Prior to the VFD, producers were feeding tylosin at six to eight g/ton to deliver 60 to 90 mg/hd/d. Increasing to that label dose resulted in modern cattle with large intakes receiving more 90 mg/hd/d. Since this report,

Thomson says, FDA has recommended cattle feeders focus on the 60 to 90 mg/hd/d when feeding tylosin. “In the end,” he says, “the label needs modified but that is the reason we saw the marked increase in tylosin in fed cattle.”

Jessica Laurin, DVM, with Animal Health Center of Marion County in Kansas, agrees that while the report shows progress, she would like to see FDA pass on information to veterinarians and producers about the methodology of sales estimates, including a breakdown of use by livestock species. This could help establish a more functional baseline from which to measure future success.

Laurin says bovine sales numbers for penicillin and for aminoglycosides seem high in this report, but the report format leaves it unclear of which products are assigned to cattle use. She’s encouraged though, by the reductions in CTC sales.

Laurin also notes that year-to-year fluctuations in anaplasmosis incidence could significantly influence tetracycline use, as there are no other approved or effective treatments. Better data on use by species and purpose could help the industry correlate changes in usage patterns with natural fluctuations in disease incidence.

The VFD rules, Laurin says, have encouraged veterinarians, nutritionists and producers to focus more on nutrition, including minerals and vitamins, for preventing diseases such as foot rot. Feedstuffs used in rations often fall short in terms of vitamin quality and quantity, making supplementation critical for preventive management. At the same time though, recent shortages of vitamins A and E could be contributing to more antibiotic treatments.

Ohio veterinarian K. Fred Gingrich II, who serves as Executive Vice President of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP), says AABP’s guidelines for antimicrobial stewardship in bovine practice state that prevention to decrease the use of antibiotics and veterinary oversight of antimicrobial are important components of stewardship. AABP believes preventive practices can decrease overall antibiotic use in some situations, “however we exercise caution in having blanket targets for decreased antimicrobial use and prefer to focus on improving stewardship to decrease the unnecessary and injudicious use of antimicrobials on cattle farms and veterinary practices,” he says.

Gingrich also notes that AABP has long advocated for veterinary oversight of antimicrobial use. The AABP guideline for the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) states that the veterinarian of record should have oversight of all antimicrobial use on the farm. The bovine veterinarian is the best resource for cattle farmers and ranchers to obtain guidance on the proper use of antimicrobials for their animals.

In the report, the FDA notes that sales and distribution information does not represent actual use of the products. Veterinarians and animal producers could, for example, purchase drugs but not actually administer them to animals or administer them in later years.

Critics often point to the quantity of antimicrobials used in food animals relative to use in human medicine, but FDA cautions that such comparisons can be misleading. There are for example, approximately 320 million people in the U.S., compared with about 9 billion chickens are slaughtered annually. Also, the average adult human weighs 182 pounds, compared with a finished beef steer weighing about 1,363 pounds. Finally, different animal species metabolize drugs differently, meaning that some may require more of the drug to be effective, or may need to be treated for a longer period of time.

It also is important to note that non-medically important antimicrobials account for virtually half of total antimicrobial sales for food animals. According to the report, sales of medically important antimicrobials for food animals during 2017 totaled 5,559,212 kilograms, compared with 5,374,156 kilograms for non-medically important products – 50.8% and 49.2% respectively.

“These reductions are an indication that our ongoing efforts to support antimicrobial stewardship are having a significant impact,” says FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. “It’s important to note that this year’s report is the first to include sales/distribution data submitted after all medically important antimicrobial drugs administered to food-producing animals in their feed or water were no longer allowed to be used for growth promotion and could only be obtained through a veterinarian’s order.

Stewardship will evolve

While the 2017 report documents positive progress, the 2018 report likely will show further reductions in sales of antimicrobials for use in food animals. Implementation of GFI 213 and the VFD rules (since January 2017) have encouraged producers and veterinarians to shift toward more non-drug, management-oriented disease prevention.

The sales report, while helpful, serves only as an indicator, rather than direct evidence of progress. Actually it’s an indicator of an indicator. The goal of these efforts is to slow development of drug-resistant pathogens and protect the efficacy of antibiotics in human and veterinary medicine. Using antibiotic sales as a metric assumes:

Antibiotic sales correlate with the volume of antibiotic use.
The volume of antibiotic use in livestock, on its own, correlates with the incidence of resistance.

We know that all antibiotic use contributes, to some degree, to the development of resistant pathogens. We also know that “judicious use” entails more than simply reducing the volume of antibiotics administered. Diagnostics, dosage, duration of use along with complex interaction between the drug, animal and pathogen and other factors play key roles in resistance risk.

Ultimately, we need more information on actual resistance trends, ideally along with cause-and-effect data to direct best practices in judicious antibiotic use. The National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) is a collaborative program of state and local public health departments and universities, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the USDA. That program tracks changes in the antimicrobial susceptibility of intestinal bacteria found in ill people (CDC), retail meats (FDA), and food animals (USDA). As the NARMS database grows, it becomes increasingly effective for identifying resistance trends.

The FDA sales data, along with trends reported from NARMS, certainly provide value in guiding industry decisions. Along with the reality of antibiotic resistance, public perception will drive future policy, whether regulatory or industry-driven. Consumers and activist groups clearly associate the volume of antibiotic use with the risk of resistance. In many cases, they also believe antibiotic residue in meat and dairy products is the culprit when resistance emerges among human pathogens. The new FDA report, showing substantial reductions in sales of medically important antibiotics for use in food animals over the past two years, helps demonstrate positive progress.

Veterinary Groups Issue Statement on Antimicrobial Use

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:19:13 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Noting the importance of keeping the use of antimicrobials in all sectors as low as possible without compromising animal, human, environmental and public health, three international veterinary organizations have issued an updated statement regarding judicious use in food animals.

The new statement comes from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE), which together represent over 330,000 veterinarians in all disciplines of the veterinary profession.

In their statement, the groups note that any increase in antimicrobial resistance and spread of resistant bacteria poses a global threat to human and animal health. They stress that an international “One-Health” approach to the problem will promote and ensure the availability of effective antimicrobial treatments while minimizing resistance.

The groups also point out that data from the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in 2015 indicate that more than 110 countries do not have relevant legislation regarding the authorization, manufacture, distribution, sales and use of veterinary antimicrobials, meaning sale of antimicrobials without authorization from a licensed health professional is widespread in many countries. Potential for overuse is high, and few countries reported a system for monitoring use of antimicrobials.

Key recommendations include:

All countries should strictly regulate manufacture, distribution and sales of antimicrobials and prosecute illegal manufacture, distribution or sales.
Medically or critically important antimicrobials should only be administered to animals with the oversight, in accordance with national legislation, of a licensed veterinarian.
Establish a global network of surveillance and monitoring systems for antimicrobial use and resistance development in people, animals, food products and the environment.
Develop and employ effective, rapid and standardized diagnostic tests to carry out susceptibility testing. Use test results to facilitate evidence-based decisions and to develop national or regional databases to collect and share susceptibility data.
Veterinarians must retain access to effective antimicrobials for therapeutic purposes for animals suffering from a bacterial disease in order to safeguard animal health and welfare and public health; therefore, antimicrobials must not be unilaterally limited for use in humans only.
Veterinarians must keep appropriate medical records of all antimicrobial use and participate in official jurisdictional surveillance programs of antimicrobial resistance development and use as required.
The AVMA, CVMA and FVE shall collaborate in promoting responsible use of antimicrobials in animal production and animal care in all countries, and in particular, in the developing world.

Reasonable, realistic standards for judicious use of antimicrobials, applied globally, represent our best opportunity for slowing the emergence of resistant pathogens and also protecting animal health. Pathogens know no borders, and neither do the resistance genes they potentially carry. The efforts of these groups to standardize practices internationally will be critical for long-term success.

Read the full statement from the AVMA .

Read more on this topic from BovineVetOnline:

Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Need for International Standards

Researchers Bust Antimicrobial-Resistance Myth

FDA Plan Previews the Future of Antimicrobial Stewardship

Researchers Bust Antimicrobial-Resistance Myth

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:18:52 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

We know that when a population of bacteria are exposed to an antibiotic, some level of resistance develops over time. So it would seem logical to assume that beef from cattle treated with antibiotics would carry more resistant bacteria than beef from “antibiotic-free” production systems.

Recent research from scientists with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), however, shows similar levels of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in ground beef raised with and without antibiotics. The report, titled “ Similar Levels of Antimicrobial Resistance in U.S. Food Service Ground Beef Products with and without a Raised without Antibiotics Claim ,” appeared in the Journal of Food Protection.

Over three months, the researchers collected 370 samples of ground beef from three food-service suppliers. The samples included 191 from conventional production systems and 179 with “raised-without-antibiotics” claims. From those samples, they cultured several strains of bacteria:

Escherichia coli
Tetracycline-resistant (TET) E. coli
Third-generation cephalosporin-resistant (3GC) E. coli
Salmonella enterica
TET S. enterica
3GC S. enterica
Nalidixic acid–resistant S. enterica
Enterococcus spp.
Erythromycin-resistant Enterococcus spp.
TET Enterococcus spp.
Staphylococcus aureus
Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)

The team also isolated metagenomic DNA from each sample to measure the abundance of antibiotic resistance genes using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.

They found that overall, antibiotic-resistant bacteria in all the ground beef samples made up a small portion of the total bacterial flora. The most common drug-resistant organisms were tetracycline-resistant E coli, which was detected in 54% of conventional samples compared with 35% of RWA samples, and tetracycline-resistant enterococcus, which was found in 94.8% of conventional samples and 91.1% of RWA samples.

The researchers note though, that detection of the resistant bacteria differed significantly by supplier.

As for the other pathogens tested, detection of tetracycline-resistant Salmonella, third-generation cephalosporin-resistant E coli, erythromycin-resistant enterococcus, and MRSA was lower, and similar, in both sample groups, and there was more variation between suppliers than between the production systems.

When the researchers assessed AMR gene abundance, they found that two of the most common tetracycline-resistance genes—tetA and tetB—were significantly more abundant in the RWA ground beef.

Overall, the researchers found about levels of resistance in meat from both production systems. They concluded that their results were “consistent with prior research suggesting antimicrobial use in U.S. beef cattle has minimal impact on the AMR of bacteria found in these products. These results should spur a reevaluation of assumptions regarding the impact of antimicrobial use during U.S. beef production on the AMR of bacteria in ground beef.”

While these results raise questions about the value of label claims for RWA beef, they do not absolve antibiotic use in cattle as a potential contributor to resistance. The pathways through which AMR bacteria find their way into beef from “antibiotic-free” production systems are not fully understood. Cross-contamination in processing plants could contribute, as could live-animal exposure to AMR pathogens through manure, water, dust or other environmental sources associated with antibiotic-treated cattle.

Judicious use of antibiotics remains critical for minimizing risk of resistance in pathogen populations. However, as this study shows, the pathogen population (antibiotic-resistant and susceptible) in ground beef varies more between processors than between production systems. This suggests that overall pathogen control, including pre-harvest management and sanitation practices in processing plants could have the greatest overall effect on reducing risk of food-borne illness associated with ground beef.

FDA Plan Previews the Future of Antimicrobial Stewardship

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:15:35 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Veterinarians will, over the next five years, become more involved in overseeing the use of all forms of medically important antimicrobials used in livestock.

A new five-year plan from FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), title “ Supporting Antimicrobial Stewardship in Veterinary Settings: Goals for Fiscal Years 2019-2023 ,” also specifies that labels for medically important antimicrobials will eventually need to specify duration of use for all food-animal applications.

The plan sets goals, but does not unveil any new regulations, and FDA will seek public comments on several proposals included in the plan. Many of the proposed actions build on the existing FDA Guidance for Industry 213, which removed production or performance uses from product labels, and the updated VFD rule, which places the use of medically important antimicrobials in in feed and water under the oversight of veterinarians.

Significantly, the plan states that CVM supports the judicious use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals and “is driven by the concept that medically important antimicrobial drugs should only be used in animals when necessary for the treatment, control or prevention of specific diseases.”

For the fiscal years 2019 through 2023, CVM plans activities organized under three goals:

Align antimicrobial drug product use with the principles of antimicrobial stewardship.

Foster stewardship of antimicrobials in veterinary settings.

Enhance monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial drug use in animals.

In the plan, CVM notes that about 40% of approved medically important antimicrobial drug applications include at least one indication of use that does not have a defined duration of use. The authors also note that, according to sales data, about 95% of antimicrobials used in food animals are administered through feed or water, and thus fall under the VFD rule. That leaves though, another 5% administered through other routes, such as injectable products. Many of those products remain available for over-the-counter (OTC) sales.

Under their first goal, CVM plans several actions to address those issues by 2021:

Publish a list of medically important antimicrobial drugs administered in the feed or drinking water of food-producing animals that are approved for indications that lack a defined duration of use.
Issue a draft strategy to ensure that all medically important antimicrobial drugs used in the feed or drinking water of food-producing animals have an appropriately targeted duration of use. Issue a draft strategy, followed by a final strategy, to bring all dosage forms (including, injectable, intramammary, etc.) of medically important antimicrobial drugs approved for use in food-producing animals under the oversight of a licensed veterinarian.
Engage with stakeholders on how antimicrobial product label information could better support antimicrobial stewardship.

During Phase 2 of the plan, in 2022 through 2023, CVM intends to issue a final strategy for specifying duration of use.

In the plan, also under Goal 1, CVM acknowledges that potential development of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in companion animals, which could lead to transfer of antimicrobial resistant bacteria from companion animals to humans through direct or indirect contact.

CVM intends to seek public input regarding antimicrobial use in companion animals and their impact on the development of resistance and ultimately implement a strategy for promoting antimicrobial stewardship in companion animals. This will include steps to ensure that all dosage forms of medically important antimicrobials for use in companion animals are under the oversight of a licensed veterinarian.

Since the new VFD rules took effect in 2016, FDA has focused on education, but the plan indicates a shift toward more compliance enforcement. Planned actions include:

In conjunction with ongoing inspection activities, publish a summary assessment of the VFD pilot inspections conducted in fiscal years 2016 through 2018.
Expand the comprehensive VFD compliance strategy to integrate a VFD component into inspections associated with the Drug Residue Inspection Program.
Initiate steps to identify and address the inappropriate marketing of antimicrobial drugs.

Read the full plan from FDA/CVM .

GVL, FDA plan VFD Audit Webinar, Solicit Questions

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:10:59 GMT

When new veterinary feed directive (VFD) rules launched last year, FDA indicated they would initially focus on education, rather than penalties, to facilitate adoption and compliance. Audits will take place though, at feedmills, veterinary clinics and farms, and the enforcement process has been the subject of numerous stakeholder questions.

To help address those questions and improve understanding of VFD rules, GlobalVetLink (GVL) has partnered with FDA in planning a webinar sometime in May. In preparation, GVL asks producers, veterinarians and feed suppliers to submit questions about VFD audits for discussion during the webinar. The GVL team plans to work directly with the FDA to answer questions during the webinar, while also providing general information about the audit process.

You can submit your questions online by Thursday, April 12, then watch for an upcoming announcement on the date and time for the webinar.

Cattle Antimicrobial Resistance Research

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:31:13 GMT

Texas Tech University researcher Kristin Hales has received funding from both the USDA and from NCBA for a research project to evaluate the distribution of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes and the occurrence of potential horizontal gene transfer in high-risk cattle.

In June, Hales, the Thornton Distinguished Chair and associate professor in the Department of Animal & Food Sciences at Texas Tech received a nearly $1 million grant from the United States Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA).

Now, NCBA has awarded Hales a grant for $225,000 for her project. This grant will expand and enhance the USDA-NIFA grant, and the research will be conducted on the same set of cattle.

“Our research is designed to determine how decisions on metaphylaxis affect the impact on shedding of Salmonella and antibiotic-resistant E. coli, and the potential for multi-drug resistant Salmonella to develop and persist,” Hales said.

The project funded by the NCBA is in collaboration with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Nebraska. It involves conducting two studies with high-risk beef cattle to evaluate AMR reservoirs in feedlot cattle to enhance the understanding of ecology, emergence and transmission of AMR, specifically multi-drug resistant (MDR) Salmonella and E. coli.

Microorganism cultures, or isolates, identified as MDR will then undergo whole geonomic sequencing to determine AMR genetic relationships between E. coli and Salmonella and whether use of antimicrobials or a type of antimicrobial potentially contributed to that transfer.

Horizontal gene transfer is the movement of genetic material between organisms in ways other than the transmission of DNA from parent to offspring. It allows bacterial species to exchange genetic material, which can include AMR genes. This can result in those genes being resistant to multiple drugs and allow zoonotic pathogens, such as Salmonella, to form AMR to multiple antimicrobials.

Hales expects results to show which isolates test positive for MDR and, utilizing genome sequencing, to determine any potential gene transfer by evaluating gene sequence variants between E. coli and Salmonella.

Antimicrobials are widely used in the beef cattle industry for disease prevention and treatment, and its use can contribute directly to the emergence of drug-resistant bacterial pathogens. Salmonella transfer to humans through ground beef remains a concern. Another concern with beef cattle is liver abscesses, which can negatively affect growth performance and reduce beef values. These abscesses also are treated through use of the antimicrobial tylosin phosphate.

Being able to reduce the use of antimicrobials while still keeping cattle healthy is crucial to the beef industry. Results from this study will provide a better understanding of the development and persistence of AMR in feedlot cattle and will aid in evaluating novel direct-fed microbials as an alternative to tylosin phosphate.

Drovers TV: McDonald's Updates Beef Antibiotic Policy for 2020 Goals

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:23:12 GMT

McDonald’s has announced plans to partner with its global beef suppliers to reduce the use of medically important antibiotics by the end of 2020.

In a statement this week, McDonald’s said it is partnering with supplying beef producers in its top 10 beef sourcing markets to measure and understand current usage of antibiotics across a diverse, global supply chain. By the end of 2020 it will establish reduction targets for medically important antibiotics for these markets, and starting in 2022, McDonald’s will report progress against antibiotic reduction targets across its top 10 beef sourcing markets.

Under the McDonald’s policy, medically important antibiotics cannot be used to routinely prevent disease in food animals in the supply chain.

McDonald’s becomes the biggest beef buyer to tackle the issue in cattle, potentially creating a new standard for livestock producers.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year said sales and distribution of medically important antibiotics for food production fell 14 percent from 2015 to 2016.