Antibiotic Resistance

National Mastitis Council Plans Regional Meeting, Registration Now Open

Thu, 15 May 2025 14:19:10 GMT

The Global Milk Quality Organization invites you to attend the 2025 National Mastitis Council (NMC) Regional Meeting, set for July 22-24, in Rochester, N.Y., at the Hyatt Regency Rochester.

With a theme of “Clearing Hurdles to Improve Milk Quality,” this event will bring together dairy producers, veterinarians, researchers and industry professionals for a collaborative exchange of knowledge and innovative practices to tackle key challenges in milk quality and udder health.

Find details about the NMC Regional Meeting at: https://www.nmconline.org/2025-regional-meeting-agenda . To register for this event, go to: https://bit.ly/NMC2025Regional .

As the dairy industry continues to evolve, so do the obstacles that hinder optimal milk quality and production, and animal welfare. The NMC Regional Meeting will feature expert-led sessions on emerging mastitis pathogens, on-farm milk quality strategies, antimicrobial stewardship and technologies for monitoring herd health.

“Our goal is to help dairy professionals identify and overcome the barriers that hinder milk quality,” said Rick Watters, an NMC board member and regional meeting co-chair. “By bringing together some of the brightest minds and most practical tools in the field, we aim to drive significant progress for enhancing udder health.”

The 2025 NMC Regional Meeting includes short courses, general sessions, panel discussions, dairy farm tours and networking opportunities designed to foster practical learning and actionable solutions.

Short Course topics and presenters* to include:
Troubleshooting Bacteria Counts in Conventional Milking Systems: Paul Virkler, Quality Milk Production Services, and Rick Watters, AgroChem

Milking System Design & Analysis: Roger Thomson, MQ-IQ Consulting and Michigan State University

Mastitis Microbes I: Let’s Figure Out the Bugs Behind the Battle: Quinn Kolar and Michael Zurakowski, Cornell University

The Milking Routine: Lisa Ford, Cayuga Marketing, Kaitlyn Lutz, Cornell University, and Francisco Mendoza Gomez, Newmont Farms (taught in Spanish)

Troubleshooting Bacteria Counts in Automated Milking Systems: Kira Andersen, Lely, and Guy Séguin, Dairy Farmers of Ontario

Milking System Vacuum and Airflow Testing: Roger Thomson, MQ-IQ Consulting and Michigan State University (hands-on training using the “Teaching Parlor”)

Judicious Use of Antimicrobials: Matt Chuff and Tracy Potter, Perry Veterinary Clinic

The ABCs of Milking Machines: Operation, Cleaning and Inspection: Carolina Pinzon, University of Wisconsin, and Dario Roma, DCR Consulting (taught in Spanish)

Identification of Mastitis-causing Organisms Using On-farm Methods: Quinn Kolar and Michael Zurakowski, Cornell University

Wash System Analysis: Roger Thomson, MQ-IQ Consulting and Michigan State University, and Rick Watters, AgroChem

General Session topics and presenters* to include:
Bedding Management: How to Interpret Bedding Bacterial Counts – Felipe Peña Mosca, Cornell University

Beyond Cell Count: Non-traditional Measures of Milk Quality – Nicole Martin, Cornell University

Milk Quality Standards: Beyond SCC and SPC – Kaitlyn Briggs, fairlife

Capitalizing on Sensor Technology – Julio Giordano, Cornell University

Using Artificial Intelligence to Interpret Data Silos – Elsa Vasseur, McGill University

How to Use Camera Technology Without Infringing on Employees’ Privacy Rights

Panel Discussion: How Dairy Farms are Using Artificial Intelligence and Camera Technology

*Topics and presenters subject to change.

Plus, tour some of New York’s finest dairy farms on July 24. The tour features Reyncrest Farms, Corfu, N.Y.; Bonna Terra Farms, Bloomfield, N.Y.; and Rudgers Registered Jerseys, Attica, N.Y.

Additionally, you won’t want to miss NMC’s Taste of New York – set for the evening of July 22. Taste some of the Empire State’s finest cheeses, wines and beers. And, participate in NMC’s first-ever chocolate milk tasting contest.

To make your hotel reservation at the Hyatt Regency Rochester, go to: https://bit.ly/NMCregionalmeetingHotel . Book your hotel room by June 30 in the NMC room block to take advantage of the discounted rate of $129 per night (not including taxes and fees).

Your next read: Can Oxytocin Boost Colostrum?

5 Reasons Consumer Distrust In Our Food Supply Is Rising

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:04:41 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.

When Abnormal Becomes Routine: How to Spot and Stop Bovine Respiratory Disease

Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:31:46 GMT

When you do the same task day after day, month after month, it can be easy to overlook the small signs of a bigger problem, especially when it comes to bovine respiratory disease (BRD).

“There’s so much subclinical respiratory disease, and we often don’t dig into what’s going on until the disease accelerates,” said Curt Vlietstra, DVM, Boehringer Ingelheim. “We learn to tolerate or become numb to a certain level of mild cough, a little nasal discharge, maybe some red, runny eyes. We accept that as normal when, by definition, those signs are definitely not normal.”

When we get busy doing other things, BRD can ramp up, affecting short-term and long-term animal performance. Productivity impacts of BRD include decreased rate of weight gain, higher culling risk, delayed age at first service, delayed age at first calving and, in some cases, lower future milk production.¹

Don’t let respiratory disease sneak up on the herd. These three tips can help:

1. Focus on prevention

It’s the little things that can make a big difference in BRD management. But, when we get busy, attention to detail can slip and important tasks can be overlooked, leading to an uptick in disease.

“Prevention is always preferable to treatment,” asserted Dr. Vlietstra. “But we know we can’t prevent all sickness. When we do have a disease outbreak, we’re often so focused on putting out fires that we aren’t able to put as much effort into prevention, leading to a cycle that’s difficult to get out of.”

Focus on nutrition, beginning with and including colostrum, air quality, providing a clean, dry environment, and reducing stress. Specific to vaccines, make sure you’re handling and administering modified-live virus vaccines appropriately to give them the best opportunity to do their job. Conduct regular employee training and review procedures at least once a year to reduce protocol drift and improve compliance.

He added, “When calves do get sick, treat early and aggressively with a fast-acting, broad-spectrum treatment, but also look at what you can do to shift your attention back to improving preventive measures.”

2. Set and track goals

Good recordkeeping, setting goals and tracking benchmarks are important to prevent the abnormal from becoming normal. Without this data, you may not realize a small problem is becoming a bigger issue until it’s too late. Data allows you to be proactive, identify trends and make management adjustments early.

“Keep track of and look for trends in how many calves treatedeach month, especially during the spring and fall when there can be drastic temperature and humidity fluctuations leading to more respiratory disease,” said Dr. Vlietstra. “If there’s an uptick in either the incidence or the severity of disease, that’s an indication you might need to make a change.”

Perform diagnostics to get a better idea of the specific pathogens involved in the disease outbreak. Swab calves with runny eyes or nasal discharge and perform a lung ultrasound for calves with mild coughs.

“It’s not feasible to test every calf, but it’s a good idea to run diagnostics when there’s a significant change in the pattern of disease, or when you’re looking to make a protocol change,” he explained.

3. Give vaccines the best opportunity to succeed

There are only so many hours in the day, and when we’re busy or our focus is pulled elsewhere, we must accomplish important tasks, like vaccinating, when we can. However, it’s essential to consider the best timing for the calf, and not just our schedules.

“We should do what we can to vaccinate calves at a time when we think the vaccine is going to get a good response,” emphasized Dr. Vlietstra. “Avoid giving vaccines when you know calves are going to have some stress, like during bad weather or when you’re moving pens.”

It’s also important to vaccinate calves early to maximize immunity. However, maternal antibodies can impact the effectiveness of some vaccines, meaning many producers wait to vaccinate until calves are older and may already be susceptible.

Dr. Vlietstra suggests looking for a vaccine that’s proven to overcome maternal antibodies, allowing you to vaccinate calves early. “Vaccinating early allows calves to start building immunity before the stressful time of weaning,” he concluded.

References:
¹ Overton MW, Economics of respiratory disease in dairy replacement heifers. Animal Health Research Reviews. 2020;21(143-148). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252320000250

FDA Issues Veterinary Feed Directive Clarification

Tue, 16 Jul 2024 18:40:05 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new guidance on navigating the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD).

The FDA’s “Guidance for Industry (GFI) #120: Veterinary Feed Directive Regulation Questions and Answers” was developed to assist stakeholders in complying with the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) Final Rule , which was initially issued in 2015.

Those stakeholders include veterinarians, VFD feed distributors (medicated feed mills, feed retailers), and clients (owners or other caretakers of animals).

FDA officials said that, compared to draft guidance issued in 2019, the “GFI #120” document better aligns with existing industry practices and clarifies flexibilities to reduce the burden on veterinarians, producers, and distributors.

The updates were made based on public-comment feedback regarding the 2019 document, along with input from stakeholders during VFD inspections. GFI #120 includes a detailed question-and-answer section, along with hypothetical scenarios to illustrate stakeholder responsibilities under the VFD in a more tangible way.

Additionally, the new document includes language from a 2020 technical amendment to the VFD, as well as updated contact information and links to online resources.

According to FDA VFD inspection data , 95% of inspected stakeholders are operating in compliance with the VFD. The FDA issued GFI #120 with the hope that the information will “further enhance stakeholder understanding of VFD requirements, in turn improving antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary settings.”

FSIS and ARS Implement Exploratory Sampling Program for Antibiotic Residues

Thu, 05 Oct 2023 17:46:21 GMT

FSIS, in partnership with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), is starting a new exploratory sampling program to assess whether antibiotics residues are detected in cattle intended for the “raised without antibiotics (RWA)” market.

As USDA announced in June, this sampling program is part of the agency’s multi-step effort aimed at strengthening the substantiation of animal-raising claims. The agency says this effort builds on the significant work USDA has already undertaken to protect consumers from false and misleading labels and to implement President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American economy.

Sampling instructions for the program were issued in FSIS Notice 48-23. Establishment eligibility for sampling was determined based on information collected by an establishment profile questionnaire through FSIS Notice 36-23, Questionnaire for Raised without Antibiotics Special Labeling Claims on Beef. Eligible establishments are those that slaughter cattle and are producing products that bear RWA claims such as “No Antibiotics,” “No Antibiotics Ever,” “Raised Without Antibiotics,” “Antibiotic Free,” “No Antibiotics Administered,” or related claims.

FSIS will collect liver and kidney samples from eligible cattle, and ARS will analyze the samples using a method that targets more than 180 veterinary drugs from various major classes of antibiotics. If antibiotic residues are detected, FSIS will issue a letter to the establishment concerning the sample results and will advise the establishment to conduct a root cause analysis and take actions to prevent misbranded product in commerce. If an establishment does not receive a letter, their test results are negative and consistent with the labeling claim.

The results of this sampling will help inform whether FSIS should require that laboratory testing results be submitted for the “raised without antibiotics” claim or whether the agency should start a new verification sampling program.

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.

DVM Reaches out to Livestock Owners about OTC Antimicrobials move to Rx

Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:45:53 GMT

This article was written originally for Farm Journal, which owns Bovine Veterinarian. It was written to inform livestock owners of the change that will take effect in June.

A move by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will change the status of most antimicrobial drugs from over-the-counter (OTC) to prescription (Rx) use only.

The guidance for industry #263 goes into effect on June 12, 2023.

If you have a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR), you will be able to get a prescription from your veterinarian to purchase antimicrobials from them or a distributor and use them, according to the FDA. Antibiotics are one category of antimicrobials.

If you don’t have a relationship with a licensed veterinarian, you won’t be able to purchase such products, many of which have long been available over-the-counter at your local co-op and farm supply store.

What Animals, Which Products?

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.

Products affected by the guidance include injectables such as penicillin, sulfa-based drugs, boluses, intramammary mastitis tubes and some topical products. Common brand names for some of the products include LA-200, Bio-Mycin and Terramycin, among others.

All such products will be available for your use on the farm through purchase from your veterinarian or with a veterinary prescription.

Why The Guidance Is Going Into Effect

Veterinarians are working to get the word out to farmers now to help them prepare and make a smooth transition next summer, says Sandra Stuttgen, a veterinarian and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin Division of Extension.

She says FDA’s ultimate goal is to keep antimicrobials effective for both human and animal health -- termed the One Health Initiative by the World Health Organization -- and prevent resistant bacteria from making such products ineffective.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the United States alone, at least 2 million people become infected annually with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. At least 23,000 people die each year as a result of these infections. The non-therapeutic use of antimicrobial drugs in animals that enter the food supply contributes to this problem, the CDC says.

The FDA supports judicious use of medically important antimicrobials in all settings. “Labeling changes as a result of GFI #263 are one example of how we can assist farmers and ranchers to strengthen their stewardship efforts when using these drugs,” FDA notes. (Learn more here: GFI #263: Frequently Asked Questions for Farmers and ... - FDA )

Some products will remain available for purchase over-the-counter, according to University of Nebraska’s Becky Funk, DVM, and Jesse Fulton.

They say some antiparasiticides, injectable and oral nutritional supplements, oral pro/prebiotics and topical non-antibiotic treatments will not be affected and will remain available through OTC marketing channels just as before.

Next Steps To Take

If you have an existing relationship with a veterinarian, you’re unlikely to notice much of an impact on your livestock management practices.

If you don’t have a veterinarian start talking with local practitioners and establish a relationship with one now, Stuttgen encourages.

“The veterinarian gets to know you and your (animals), and you can sit down with them to write standard operating procedures and routine drug orders so you can have an inventory on your farm,” she says. “So when Sunday afternoon happens and the (animal) gets sick, you don’t have to call the vet to come out, because you already have the relationship in place.”

USDA Seeks to Fund Antimicrobial Resistance Dashboard Development

Mon, 21 Nov 2022 19:17:03 GMT

Addressing antimicrobial resistance is important to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), along with the agricultural and public health sectors. Antimicrobials are some of our most critical tools for treating serious infections and saving the lives of people and animals. That’s why APHIS is making up to $3 million in cooperative agreement funding available to create antimicrobial resistance dashboards.

These tools, developed through public-private partnerships, will be used to improve access to information on antimicrobial resistance in domesticated animals, USDA said in a release.

“Public-private partnerships are an essential part of achieving our goals at APHIS,” Administrator Kevin Shea said. “The dashboard tools developed through these cooperative agreements will help us better understand antimicrobial resistance in livestock, poultry, and companion animals, which ultimately helps protect public health.”

The antimicrobial resistance dashboards are being created to monitor trends in antimicrobial resistance patterns, detect emerging resistance profiles, and better understand relationships between antimicrobial use and animal health management practices and antimicrobial resistance.

The projects will support APHIS’ goals of:
• Developing antimicrobial resistance dashboard tools that can securely track the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistant microbes in domesticated animals.
• Identifying and/or developing methods for protecting data confidentiality of these dashboards.
• Identifying data user needs and preferences for antimicrobial resistance dashboard tools.
• Exploring aspects of data management for antimicrobial resistance dashboard tools.

Who is Eligible?
Eligible applicants include state departments of agriculture; Tribal entities; offices of state animal health officials; nonprofits; institutions of higher education; state or national livestock, poultry, or aquaculture producer organizations with direct and significant economic interest in livestock, poultry, or aquaculture production; state, national, allied, or regional veterinary organizations or specialty boards recognized by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

All dashboard tools will be required to provide data protections similar to the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, USDA noted.

The funding announcement will be open through February 20, 2023, for a total of 90 days. APHIS will post opportunities to Grants.gov and the agency will accept applications using the ezFedGrants system.

Read More:

Boehringer Ingelheim Launches Free PRRS Handbook

FDA Approves Lab-Grown Chicken for the First Time

The Elephant In The Barn: Why We Can’t Ignore This Risk on the Pig Farm

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

FDA Releases Summary of 2019 NARMS Report

Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:21:54 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released the summary of the 2019 National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) report on Monday.

NARMS is a national public health surveillance system that monitors enteric bacteria and select animal pathogens to determine if they are resistant to antimicrobial agents used in human and veterinary medicine.

Specifically, NARMS monitors antibiotic resistance among the following four major foodborne bacteria: Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus.

The resulting information and data are then used by FDA in the regulatory review of new animal antimicrobial drugs, and to develop policies on judicious antimicrobial use in animals.

One of the things that’s new in this particular report is how multidrug resistance (MDR) is being calculated.

NARMS is a collaboration of agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Research Service.

More information is available here: NARMS Integrated Summary 2019

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.

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.

Antibiotic Rules Continue to Evolve

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:54:33 GMT

Beef and dairy producers have adapted to significant changes in antibiotic regulations over the past three years, and that trend will continue. Continued public pressure and regulatory actions will drive ongoing change, with more emphasis on preventive care and veterinarian oversight of antibiotic use.

In September 2019, FDA released draft guidance for industry (GFI) 263, outlining a process for bringing remaining animal drugs containing antimicrobials of medical importance under the oversight of licensed veterinarians. This includes injectable antibiotic products now available over the counter.

The action builds on the GFI 213 and the veterinary feed directive (VFD) rule, which, in January 2017, eliminated performance claims from labels for medically important antibiotics and brought purchase of most medicated feeds under veterinarian oversight.

Also, by September 2020, FDA plans to issue a draft strategy to ensure all medically important antimicrobial drugs used in the feed or drinking water of food-producing animals have a targeted duration of use.

While the industry has made progress in antibiotic stewardship, research shows opportunity for further improvement. The CDC’s 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report for example, shows an 18% reduction in annual antibiotic-resistance (AR) associated deaths since 2013. Even so, the report notes AR bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year.

In December, the FDA’s 2018 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals showed domestic sales and distribution increased 9% between 2017 and 2018. Without proper context, the year-over-year increase could generate disproportionate reactions. A year earlier, FDA’s summary report showed sales and distribution of those same products declined 33% between 2016 and 2017, and 41% since 2015, which was the peak year for sales and distribution of those products.

While the report does not evaluate reasons behind the year-to-year increase, it seems plausible that 2018 brought a readjustment following a major disruption. Implementation of the VFD rule could have reduced sales below the natural demand level, because of unfamiliarity with the rule and VFD process. Also, sales during 2016 likely reflected effects of some stockpiling ahead of the new rules, making the 2017 decline more dramatic.

FDA notes that although sales data do not necessarily reflect actual antimicrobial use, sales volume observed over time is a valuable indicator of market changes. However, when evaluating progress, we need to consider actual use data, animal demographics, animal health data, and data on resistance.

Several recent reports have shown the livestock industry has made progress toward continuous improvement in antimicrobial stewardship. Nevertheless, activists and consumers will continue to apply pressure for more regulations, and for retail-driven standards beyond those imposed by government. Looking ahead, we’ll need to practice and publicize efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship while protecting animal health, welfare, food safety and producer profitability.

Farm Journal editors have covered this issue extensively, and compiled a comprehensive list of articles to keep you up to date on the latest trends, successes and challenges in antimicrobial stewardship. For links to those articles, visit https://www.bovinevetonline.com/article/antibiotic-resistance-2020-fight-fiction-facts .

Sidebar

Regulatory Timeline

Key FDA Steps toward Greater Antibiotic Stewardship

1996: Together with the USDA and CDC, FDA/CVM established the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) program.

1997: Prohibited extralabel use of fluoroquinolones and glycopeptides.

2003: Published GFI #152, “Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs with Regard to Their Microbiological Effects on Bacteria of Human Health Concern.”

2005: Withdrew the approval of fluoroquinolones for use in poultry.

2010: Published first annual summary report on antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals.

2012: Published GFI #209, “The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in FoodProducing Animals,” establishing a framework for ending production uses of medically important antimicrobials.

2013: Published GFI #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals.”

2015: Updated the veterinary feed directive (VFD) regulation, governing how veterinarians authorize the use of VFD designated animal drugs in feed and establishing a framework for VFD inspections.

2016: Sought public input on establishing appropriately targeted durations of therapeutic use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals.

2017: Completed implementation of GFI #213, transitioning medically important antimicrobial drugs used in the feed or drinking water from over-thecounter status to VFD or prescription status and eliminating production uses .

2019 FDA releases draft guidance for industry (GFI) #263, outlining a process for voluntarily bringing remaining approved animal drugs containing antimicrobials of human medical importance under the oversight of licensed veterinarians by changing the approved marketing status from over-the-counter (OTC) to prescription (Rx).

2020 (By September) FDA will 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.

Prepare for More Antibiotic Rules

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:53:54 GMT

New Year, Same Issue

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:53:42 GMT

As we enter a new year and a new decade, antibiotic stewardship remains on the top of issues affecting food-animal veterinarians. Continued public pressure, along with regulatory actions, will drive ongoing change, with more emphasis on preventive care and more veterinarian oversight of antibiotic use.

In September 2019, FDA released draft guidance for industry (GFI) 263, outlining a process for bringing remaining approved animal drugs containing antimicrobials of human medical importance under the oversight of licensed veterinarians, changing the approved marketing status from over-the-counter (OTC) to prescription (Rx). This would include dosage forms such as injectable or intra-mammary antibiotic products now available OTC.

The action builds on the earlier GFI 213, which eliminated performance claims from labels for medically important antibiotics and brought purchase of most medicated feeds under the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD).

Also, by September 2020, FDA 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.

While the industry has made progress in antibiotic stewardship, research shows ample opportunity for further improvement, especially in the eyes of skeptical consumers.

The CDC’s 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report for example, shows an 18% reduction in annual antibiotic-resistance (AR) associated deaths since 2013. Even so, the report notes AR bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year.

In December, the FDA released its 2018 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, which showed domestic sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobials increased 9% between 2017 and 2018. Activists and consumer media focused their attention on the increase, even though 2018 is the second-lowest year on record, while 2017 was the lowest. Sales in 2018 were down 21 percent since 2009, the first year of reporting, and down 38 percent since 2015, the peak year of sales and distribution.

While the report does not evaluate reasons behind the year-to-year increase, it seems plausible that 2018 brought a correction or readjustment following a major disruption. Implementation of the VFD rule in 2017 undoubtedly reduced sales, possibly below the “natural” demand level, because of unfamiliarity with the rule and VFD process among producers and veterinarians. Also, sales during 2016 likely reflect effects of some producers stockpiling products ahead of the new rules, making the 2017 decline more dramatic. Sales of tetracyclines accounted for much of the increase from 2017 to 2018, further indicating that comfort with the VFD rules returned some lost demand to the market.

Nevertheless, activists and consumers see the increase and perceive the industry is moving in the wrong direction. Looking ahead, we’ll need to practice and publicize efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship while protecting animal health, welfare, food safety and producer profitability. Veterinarians are best qualified and positioned to address these challenges, and I believe you can make it happen.

For more on this issue, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Antimicrobial Sales Post Moderate Increase in 2018

NARMS Releases Latest Report on Antimicrobial Resistance Trends

Good and Bad News in CDC’s 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report

Princeton Study: Antibiotic Resistance Increasing Globally

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

Antimicrobial Sales Post Moderate Increase in 2018

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:53:42 GMT

FDA’s annual summary report on antimicrobial sales for use in food animals shows a small year-over-year increase in 2018, but the total remains well below pre-VFD levels. According to the report’s authors, U.S. sales during 2018 increased by 9% over those in 2017. It is important to note though, that sales of antimicrobial products for use in food animals dropped dramatically during 2017, the first full year of implementation for FDA’s Guidance for Industry 213 and veterinary feed directive (VFD) rules. Those actions removed performance claims from labels of medically important antibiotics and required veterinary oversight for sales and use of most medicated feeds in livestock production.

A year ago, FDA’s summary report showed sales and distribution of all medically important antimicrobials used in food animals declined 33% between 2016 and 2017, ad 41% since 2015, which was the peak year for sales and distribution of those products. The 2017 total also was 28% lower than the first year FDA reported sales in 2009.

While sales data do not necessarily reflect actual antimicrobial use, sales volume observed over time is a valuable indicator of market changes related to antimicrobial drug products intended for food-producing animals. However, when evaluating the progress of ongoing efforts to support judicious use of antimicrobials, it is important to take into account additional information sources including actual use data, animal demographics, animal health data, and data on resistance.

Of the 2018 domestic sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobials approved for use in food-producing animals:

Tetracyclines accounted for 66%
Penicillins for 12%
Macrolides for 8%
Sulfas for 5%
Aminoglycosides for 5%
Lincosamides for 2%
Cephalosporins for 1%
Fluoroquinolones for less than 1%

According to the report, sales of tetracyclines increased by 12% from 2017 through 2018, with about 42% of those sales intended for use in cattle, 39% intended for use in swine, 11% intended for use in turkeys and 4% intended for use in chickens. For other antibiotic classes, FDA estimates 81% of cephalosporins, 67% of sulfas and 47% of aminoglycocides were intended for use in cattle.

An estimated 83% of lincosamides and 41% of macrolides were intended for use in swine while about 63% of penicillins were intended for use in turkeys.

FDA notes that sales data do not necessarily reflect actual antimicrobial use, but sales volume observed over time is a valuable indicator of market changes. Evaluation of progress toward more judicious use of antimicrobials needs to include actual use data, animal demographics, animal health data and data on resistance.

When analyzing the report, readers should consider:

Sales and distribution information does not represent actual use of the products. For example, veterinarians and animal producers may purchase drugs, but never actually administer them to animals, or they may administer the drugs in later years.
Before making a direct comparison between the quantity of antimicrobial drugs sold for use in animals versus humans, consider that there are many more food animals than humans in the United States, and large animals such as cattle require larger dosages than humans.
Direct comparisons of species-specific sales estimates can be misleading because of differences in population size, weight, lifespan, and drug metabolism of each species.
Direct comparisons between the sales volume of different drug classes also can be misleading because not all drug classes are approved for use in all species, not all drug potencies are the same and not all of the drug classes can be used interchangeably to treat the same conditions.

Access the full 2018 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals .

For more on antimicrobial stewardship, regulations and usage trends, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Headed in the Right Direction

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

FDA Plans Next Moves on Antimicrobials

2019 NIAA Antibiotics Symposium Proceedings Now Available

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:53:10 GMT

This year’s 9th Annual Antibiotic Symposium from the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), in collaboration with the National Institute of Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Education (NIAMRRE) in Ames, Iowa, expanded its focus to include scientific updates on antimicrobial resistance, research, technology and innovation which continue to impact what we know, and how communication of science facts to consumers can be more effective.

Developed in partnership with the Iowa State University Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, this collaborative conversation provided space to discuss and learn new communication strategies to shift consumer attitudes in the future.

NIAA thanks the outstanding speakers, moderators and panelists at the 2019 Antibiotic Symposium and has posted links to their informative presentations with synchronized audio and video of each on the NIAA website. Videos, with audio, of question and answer sessions are also posted.

See the full list and click on the Video designation to watch the presentations on the NIAA YouTube Channel. Downloadable PDFs of the presenters materials are also posted.

For more on antibiotic stewardship, see these articles from BovineVetOnline:

Good and Bad News in CDC’s 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report

Make Antibiotic Stewardship work

Antibiotic Stewardship: FDA Cites Progress

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

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:51:47 GMT

On Monday, September 23, the FDA released draft guidance for industry (GFI) #263 , outlining a process for voluntarily bringing remaining approved animal drugs containing antimicrobials of human medical importance under the oversight of licensed veterinarians by changing the approved marketing status from over-the-counter (OTC) to prescription (Rx).

Earlier this year, the FDA indicated they would release this draft guidance as part of the agency’s five-year plan for Supporting Antimicrobial Stewardship in Veterinary Settings . The action is intended to build on the earlier GFI 213, which eliminated “production” or “performance” claims from labels for medically important antibiotics and brought purchase of most medicated feeds under the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD).

One implemented, the new GFI would place administration of all dosage forms of approved medically important antimicrobials for all animal species under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian and only when necessary for the treatment, control or prevention of specific diseases. This would include dosage forms such as injectable or intra-mammary antibiotic products now available over the counter for use in beef and dairy cattle.

FDA will accept public comments on the draft guidance for 90 days, and subsequently will issue the final guidance, after which the agency plans a two-year implementation period.

During the recent Academy of Veterinary Consultants conference, FDA veterinarian Mike Murphy discussed the five-year-plan and its timeline for actions intended to improve antimicrobial stewardship.

In August, FDA published a summary report on VFD inspections and compliance. The draft GFI issued this week, on veterinary oversight for other dosage forms, was next on the schedule.

By the end of this year, FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) plans to update its list of “medically important” antimicrobials used in livestock, currently listed in GFI 152.

By September 2020, 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. Currently, the labels for some medications delivered in feed or water do not specify duration of use

For more on this topic, see these recent articles from BovineVetOnline:

FDA Extends Comment Period on Withdrawal Times

FDA Reports on VFD Compliance

FDA Plans Next Moves on Antimicrobials

FDA Reports on VFD Compliance

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:51:10 GMT

Before and after the current Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) rules took full effect in January, 2017, the FDA focused primarily on education and outreach to help feed mills, veterinarians and producers understand and comply with the requirements. Since then, FDA has gradually increased the number of VFD inspections and initiated enforcement actions when necessary.

On August 29, FDA released its first report on inspection and compliance activities. The report, titled “ Summary Assessment of Veterinary Feed Directive Compliance Activities Conducted in Fiscal Years 2016 – 2018 ,” is available online.

Overall, the FDA reports a high level of compliance across the affected livestock-industry sectors.

In fiscal year 2016, FDA began a small, three-part pilot inspection program that began with inspectors visiting feed distributors to review randomly selected VFD documents. The inspectors then selected one VFD at the distributor and conducted further inspections of the veterinarian and producer (client) named on that VFD.

In fiscal years 2017 and 2018, FDA continued those three-part inspections and expanded the program to include state feed regulatory partners. In fiscal year 2017, state personnel inspected VFD distributors and reviewed selected VFDs for compliance with the requirements. In 2018, those state inspectors began conducting three-part inspections, similar to those conducted by the FDA investigators. With state inspectors contributing, the number of VFD inspections increased from 57 in 2016 to 130 in 2017 and 269 during 2018.

Of the 269 inspections during 2018, 230 required no action, 38 indicated voluntary action and just one indicated official enforcement action.

Key findings in the report include:

Distributors (2018)

Distributor had notified FDA of their intent to distribute VFD feeds -- 94.8%
Distributors who distributed a VFD feed that complied with the terms of the VFD -- 91.5%
Distributors who manufacture VFD feed: Drug inventory or production records showed the correct amount of drug was added to the feed for the VFD reviewed -- 96.7%
Distributors who manufacture VFD feed: Labels and formulas matched the VFD reviewed -- 91.0%
Distributor’s VFD feed labels contained the VFD caution statement -- 77.2%

Veterinarians

Veterinarians had an active license in the state where the VFD feed authorized on the VFD order(s) is being fed -- 100%
VFDs included veterinarians’ electronic or written signature -- 98.6%
VFDs included the withdrawal time, special instructions, and/or cautionary statements -- 95.3%

Producers

Client did not feed VFD feed beyond the expiration date on the VFD -- 100%
Client fed VFD feed to the animals authorized on the VFD (number, species, and/or production class) -- 100%
Client fed VFD feed for the duration identified on the VFD -- 100%
Client complied with the special instructions on the VFD -- 100%

FDA issued just one warning letter following inspections during fiscal year 2018, for a feed mill that “adulterated and misbranded VFD feed by distributing VFD feed to other distributors without first receiving an acknowledgment letter, in addition to adulterating and misbranding medicated and non-medicated feed for other reasons.”

In its report, FDA reminds stakeholders that VFD medicated feeds must be used in according to the approved conditions of use and must be under the oversight of a licensed veterinarian and consistent with a lawful VFD order. The agency intends to continue monitoring compliance, and to provide education, but FDA will also use enforcement strategies when voluntary compliance with the VFD final rule requirements is not achieved.

See the full summary report from FDA.

For more on the VFD rules and compliance, see these articles from BovineVetOnline.com.

VFD Audits: What to Expect

VFD Audits: Start with the Feed Distributor

FDA Draft Guidance Updates VFD Q&A

NIAA Hosts Antibiotic Symposium with NIAMRRE

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:46 GMT

The 9th Annual NIAA Antibiotic Symposium will be in Ames, Iowa at Iowa State University, October 15–17, 2019. The theme of the Symposium will be “Communicating the Science of Responsible Antibiotic Use in Animal Agriculture.”

This year’s Symposium will be hosted by NIAA in collaboration with the prestigious National Institute of Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Education (NIAMRRE), which was competitively selected lead the collective efforts related to Antibiotics in animal, human and environmental health of the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges and the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities.

As misreported or inaccurate statistics continue to be repeated in negative media coverage of animal agriculture, and the public makes purchasing and family nutrition decisions based on distorted information, the Symposium will study how the industry can better communicate to the public in an effective and positive manner.

“We are especially excited to provide the participants with an opportunity to start to explore the “science of science communication” related to antibiotic use, stewardship and resistance, a field that NIAMRRE focuses on as a priority initiative,” says NIAMRRE’s Executive Director Dr. Paul Plummer.

Presentations and a hands–on workshop developed in partnership with the Iowa State University Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication will help attendees understand how to take science updates and new advances in research, technology and innovation and convey useful information to meet the needs of consumers, which may help shift the attitudes of the public and media in the future.

In addition to the communication segment, the Symposium will unpack science updates from across the industry and interact with industry representatives of new and evolving technologies to help meet the demands of responsible use of antibiotics.

The Symposium’s attendees and presenters will include beef, dairy, pork and poultry producers, processors, and retailers, private practice and state agency veterinarians, researchers and scientists from the FDA, USDA and CDC as well as University animal agriculture and veterinary program academia.

For more information or to register for the 9th Annual NIAA Antibiotics Symposium go to www.animalagriculture.org

SEE AGENDA HERE

Zoetis Establishes Veterinary Research Lab at CSU

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:18 GMT

Zoetis has signed an agreement with Colorado State University (CSU) to establish a research lab at CSU that will explore the livestock immune system and target new immunotherapies – paving the way for new alternatives to antibiotics in food-producing animals. The new 3,000-square-foot Zoetis Incubator Research Lab will operate at the Research Innovation Center on CSU’s Foothills Campus starting in early 2020.

In this R&D collaboration, Zoetis scientists will be co-located with CSU’s highly skilled scientists, core laboratories, research programs and services to seed innovations for livestock animal health. While the Zoetis Incubator Research Lab will reside within CSU’s Research Innovation Center, it will be part of the company’s global R&D organization. As a result, Zoetis may access a greater understanding of the livestock immune system, generating new candidates for further research and development. The initial focus of the Incubator Research Lab will be biotherapeutics for cattle, which could yield broader implications for pigs and poultry.

“Our agreement with Zoetis represents the beginning of an era of collaboration, cooperation and innovation between public and private research leaders, all in the interest of improving animal health,” said Ray Goodrich, executive director of the Infectious Disease Research Center and a professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology at CSU.

With few alternatives today for treating life-threatening bacterial infections in animals, Zoetis supports the responsible use of antibiotic medicines in animals and in people, while ensuring that veterinarians and livestock producers have new and enhanced solutions to better predict, prevent, detect and treat disease in the animals under their care. These include new classes of antibiotics for veterinary use only and novel, non-antibiotic anti-infective treatments like those being pursued through the Zoetis Incubator Research Lab.

Going where the science is

As part of the new lab, Zoetis expects to hire up to 20 livestock research scientists, immunologists and cell biologists in Fort Collins beginning this fall.

“Zoetis is committed to continuous innovation and going where the science is. CSU is at the forefront of infectious disease innovation and animal health research in a vibrant biotech community, making it the ideal environment for our Incubator Research Lab,” said Chad Ray, senior director of Global Therapeutics Research for Zoetis.

For CSU, Goodrich added that the strategic new lab will provide multiple benefits for the campus community and the city of Fort Collins. It also bolsters CSU’s land-grant mission, which includes setting the standard for public research universities in teaching, research, service and extension for the benefit of the citizens of Colorado, the United States and the world.

“The success of our efforts will have the potential to translate into products and services that may greatly improve the health and well-being of farm animals and our agricultural communities,” he said.

About the CSU Research Innovation Center

The Research Innovation Center at CSU is a life-science company accelerator and is home to several startup companies with roots at the university, including SiVEC Biotechnologies LLC, which is developing antiviral applications for the rapid treatment and prevention of avian influenza. The center was originally designed to foster collaborations between private industry and CSU’s academic community. Learn more about the Research Innovation Center at https://www.research.colostate.edu/idrc/research-innovation-center/

New FDA Guidance Clarifies Labeling for Drugs Used in Feed

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:50:11 GMT

The FDA has issued a new Guidance for Industry (GFI #181), which provides content and format regulations for the representative “Blue Bird” labeling to be used for Type B and Type C medicated feeds.

Drug manufacturers typically produce “Type A medicated articles,” which are intended solely for use in the manufacture of another Type A medicated article or in the manufacture of Type B or Type C medicated feed. Type B medicated feed is intended solely for the manufacture of other medicated feeds (Type B or Type C) and therefore it cannot be fed as is without being further diluted to Type C medicated feed.

According to FDA, Type C medicated feed is intended as the complete feed for the animal or may be fed ‘top dressed’ (added on top of usual ration) or offered ‘free choice’ in conjunction with other animal feed. It is manufactured by diluting a Type A medicated article, a Type B medicated feed, or another Type C medicated feed.

In their new animal drug applications, drug sponsors submit two labeling components. The first includes directions for the manufacture and use of finished feeds for all conditions for which the new animal drug is intended. The second labeling component provides representative labeling proposed to be used for the Type B and Type C medicated feeds containing the new animal drug. GFI #181 provides recommendations on the content and format of the representative Blue Bird labeling proposed to be used for Type B and Type C medicated feeds only. It does not address the labeling of Type A medicated articles.

The guidance provides sample templates for Blue Bird labels, and lists what types of information should be included within the label contents under headings such as the product name, indications for use, active drug ingredients, guaranteed analysis, other ingredients, feeding directions, cautions, warnings and other information.

View the full text of GFI #181 here .

For more information on drug labeling for medicated feeds, see these articles on BovineVetOnline:

Understanding Free-Choice and Hand-Fed Feeds Which Include Chlortetracycline

FDA Clarifies Medicated-Feed Rules for Anaplasmosis

FDA issues final rule categorizing animal drugs used in medicated feeds

PEW Supports FDA’s Biomass Method for Monitoring Antibiotic Use

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:25:59 GMT

The PEW Charitable Trusts, long involved in public health and antibiotics policy, encourages the FDA to follow through with its plans to adopt a “biomass method” for measuring and analyzing antibiotic use in food animals.

The FDA proposed adoption of the biomass method in 2017. The animal biomass adjustment uses animal population estimates to provide context for antibiotic sales data, helping explain trends and fluctuations in antibiotic use by accounting for differences or changes in animal populations, such as animal life span, species and production class differences or management practices. The current process reports antibiotic sales, with estimates of use in major food-animal species, but lacks details needed to fully evaluate trends.

According to PEW, FDA has not taken any concrete action to finalize the proposal, even though its five-year plan identifies initiating a biomass method by 2021 as an immediate priority. In an issue statement this week, PEW addresses four concerns over the plan that emerged in public comments following the FDA’s 2017 proposal. The report includes PEW resolutions for addressing each issue, along with specific points on how the biomass method could provide more useful data in the battle against antibiotic resistance.

Issue 1: Antibiotic sales data provide imperfect insights on actual antibiotic use.

Resolution: Antibiotic sales data provide valuable insights into use trends, however, Pew acknowledges the data’s limitations and recognizes the importance of ensuring appropriate analysis and interpretation.

While PEW acknowledges data can be imperfect, the report argues biomass-adjusted sales data are important for three key reasons:

Sales data are well established, useful, and the only publicly available and nationally representative source to estimate total antibiotic use in U.S. food animal production.

Biomass-adjusted sales data provide meaningful insight into antibiotic consumption in animals—and are less likely to be misinterpreted—than sales data alone.

Sales data collection complements, rather than precludes, the collection of actual antibiotic use data.

Issue 2: FDA’s proposed approach for calculating biomass is not sufficiently described, lacks transparency, and may slightly overestimate the size of the animal population.

Resolution: Pew agrees that FDA should provide additional details about the proposed biomass calculation and align the method with existing ones to the extent feasible, although ultimately, any one of the proposed methods may be acceptable as long as it is implemented appropriately and consistently used to track changes.

PEW believes the technical issues that stakeholders raised should not detract FDA from swiftly finalizing the biomass method for three key reasons:

Several countries and organizations have successfully established biomass adjustments specific to their unique needs (e.g., comparisons across countries or over time) and country situation, and there is value in developing a U.S.-specific method.

The FDA method can be transparently described and largely aligned with existing methods.

A comparison of trends is possible with any of the proposed or established methodological choices.

Issue 3: Inappropriate comparisons with biomass-adjusted sales estimates from other countries may lead to inappropriate conclusions about U.S. antibiotic use.

Resolution: Pew acknowledges the potential risk of inappropriate comparisons, including across different countries and geographic regions.

PEW believes these challenges should not deter FDA from finalizing the biomass adjustment method for three key reasons:

Initiatives are underway to find appropriate approaches for comparing data from different countries or regions.

FDA has a long history of taking steps to limit data misinterpretation risks.

Biomass adjustments actually reduce the risk of inappropriate country-to-country comparisons.

Issue 4: Finalizing and using the biomass adjustment method will place undue scrutiny on antibiotic use in livestock

Resolution: Considerably more data is already available on antibiotic use in human medicine than in animal agriculture.

PEW points out that hospitals are required to report hospital-acquired infections to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), and approximately 800 hospitals nationwide also voluntarily report antibiotic use, based on pharmacy data, to NHSN.

PEW concludes that while biomass-adjusted sales data have limitations, stakeholders will benefit from an improved understanding of antibiotic use.

Read the full report from the PEW Charitable Trusts.

For more on monitoring antibiotic use and resistance trends, see these articles on BovineVetOnline: