Sign up now!
Don't show this again
Sweepstakes Rules
Download the report!Continue to Site >
or wait 7 secs

Thank you for confirming your subscription!

(And remember, if ever you want to change your email preferences or unsubscribe, just click on the links at the bottom of any email.)

We’re glad you’re enjoying Pig Health Today.
Access is free but you’ll need to register to view more content.
Already registered? Sign In
Tap to download the app


Collect articles and features into your own report to read later, print or share with others

Create a New Report


Read Later

Create a new report

Report title (required) Brief description (optional)
follow us

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Favorites Read Later My Reports PHT Special Reports
Pig Health Today is equipped with some amazing (and free) tools for organizing and sharing content, as well as creating your own magazines and special reports. To access them, please register today.
Sponsored by Zoetis

Pig Health Today | Sponsored by Zoetis

Featured Video Play Icon

Davies: Focus on optimizing antibiotic use, not volume

The US pork industry has a good track record for using antibiotics responsibly, but how should it be graded for its efforts?  By volume?  Types of antibiotics used?  Resistance trends?

“We don’t really have a perfect report card for antibiotic resistance,” Peter Davies, BVSc, PhD, professor in the department of veterinary population medicine, University of Minnesota, told Pig Health Today.

Having spent his career researching and evaluating antibiotic use and potential resistance, he believes all of the prescribing professions — human and animal — have a responsibility to review how they use antibiotics and to use them more effectively to maximum medical benefit.

For pork production, Davies prefers to focus on optimizing use, which he defines as using antibiotics for a targeted purpose. More precisely, that means using antibiotics strategically to manage identifiable health risks within an animal’s lifecycle, as well as animal well-being and food-safety considerations, he noted.

Making progress

Davies said pork producers and swine veterinarians have embraced FDA’s expanded veterinary feed directive (VFD), which took effect Jan. 1, 2017, and required a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) before using any medications the agency considers medically important to humans.

Since then, FDA reported a 33% decline in the volume of medically important antibiotics used in food-animal production in 2017, which is on top of a 43% reduction in 2016. The pork sector recorded a 35% drop in volume for 2017.

Reductions in volume of medically important antibiotics reflects the impact of the expanded VFD, Davies said, but he cautioned that while volume might be the easiest number to obtain, it should not be the sole metric for grading the pork industry’s approach to responsible antibiotic use.  He’s nevertheless encouraged by changes in the ways antibiotics are obtained and used.

“We have more veterinary oversight,” Davies said, adding that this has led to more effective antibiotic use and, perhaps more importantly, helped eliminate unnecessary use.

“It’s the responsibility on the veterinary side to make the judgement to use as little [medication] as possible to keep the balance between animal-health outcomes and risks,” he said.

Other factors also affect antibiotic usage.  For example, Davies cited a long history of advancements in swine housing and environments, pig flows, biosecurity, vaccines and numerous other management factors that have helped reduce disease pressure and the need for antibiotics to control primary or secondary bacterial infections.

Davies also emphasized that reduced antibiotic use is not a simple end-point. “Even in the best possible circumstances, animals will get sick,” he said, which is why it goes back to the VCPR to ensure responsible use and animal well-being.

Antibiotic-free pork limitations

Still, there is a rush by some to remove all antibiotics from food-animal production as a response to antibiotic-resistance concerns, to which Davies offers caution.

“On the pig side, the goal that we would produce pigs without [using] antibiotics is a fairly unrealistic one,” he said.

For example, the antibiotic-free pathway for the broiler industry is different because the hatch/birth environment and exposure are substantially different — an egg versus through a birth canal and the back of a sow. Also, broilers are typically raised for 6 to 9 weeks, whereas pigs are marketed at about 6 months.

“The biological risks are very different,” he noted. “We will see some expansion of the niche raised-without-antibiotics production. But in terms of the ability to continue to feed the world, it’s hard for me to see that antibiotic-free production will be a substantial component of the pork market internationally.”

Overall, Davies said the pork industry has done a commendable job over the last 30 years of using antibiotics responsibly and pointed to the fact that antibiotic residues have essentially disappeared.

“I still think we have a lot to learn about optimizing our antibiotic use,” Davies added. But he is confident the pork sector will continue to move in that direction.

Posted on June 17, 2019

tags: , ,

You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Share It
Looking at individual “pieces of the puzzle” means farm owners can evaluate the pros and cons of Mycoplasma elimination programs and come to a practical solution, says veterinarian David A. Baumert.

Click an icon to share this information with your industry contacts.
Google Translate is provided on this website as a reference tool. However, Poultry Health Today and its sponsor and affiliates do not guarantee in any way the accuracy of the translated content and are not responsible for any event resulting from the use of the translation provided by Google. By choosing a language other than English from the Google Translate menu, the user agrees to withhold all liability and/or damage that may occur to the user by depending on or using the translation by Google.