Reducing antimicrobial usage in pig production through management and biosecurity measures Prof. Dr. Jeroen Dewulf Jeroen.Dewulf@UGent.be 1 What is biosecurity BIOSECURITY = The combination of all measures taken to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of diseases on herd, region, country, level assessing risk and implementing measures to decrease that risk and to safeguard and improve health status on a farm 2 1
What is biosecurity EXTERNAL BIOSECURITY = Reduce introduction - endemic diseases - exotic diseases INTERNAL BIOSECURITY = reduce spread 3 Why biosecurity BIOSECURITY is (should be) the basis of any disease control program curative preventive BIOSECURITY 4 2
Beter biosecurity Why biosecurity Beter production results reproduction growth feed conversion uniformity Less antimicrobial use less disease Higher prices when selling the animals 5 Why biosecurity Beter biosecurity less disease Eradication programs Free / Oblighed (Salmonella Action Plan) Risk of exotic diseases Public health, animal welfare, public opinion ( sustainable meat production ) Legislation 6 3
Biosecurity = complex No protocol suitable for every herd Balance biosecurity management Tool? Scoring System 7 Scoring system and website Pigs and Poultry 4
Biosecurity Scoring System Quantification of biosecurity status Comparing of scores between different herds Comparing of scores in time Taking different risks into account Scoring System External and internal biosecurity 6 subcategories per part 2-13 questions per subcategory Questionnaire in Dutch, English, French, German, Swedish, Spanish,. 5
Weighted scores Scoring System Based on scientific research Risk for transmission: direct vs. indirect contact Weight factor for each subcategory and each question 6
Results Positive correlation between scores for external and internal biosecurity 7
Mean Score Results Evolution herds with multiple use 80 70 60 50 40 30 Scores over time (for multiple reportings) 1st 2nd 3rd Time of reporting total external internal Herds that repeatedly submit data give clear proof of improvement 8
Biosecurity and herd and farmer charactheristics Laanen et al., 2013 Biosecurity and herd and farmer charactheristics Laanen et al., 2013 9
Biosecurity and production Pearson r = 0,37, p < 0,01 Pearson r = 0,27, p = 0,01 Laanen et al., 2013 Biosecurity and antimicrobial consumption Pearson r = -0,15, p = 0,17 Pearson r = -0,12, p = 0,25 Laanen et al., 2013 10
Biosecurity and antimicrobial resistance Callens et al., 2014 Associations between biosecurity, herd characteristics, production parameters and antimicrobial usage in pig production in four EU countries 11
Study design Multi country: Belgium = 47 France = 60 Germany = 60 Sweden = 60 All herds 100 sows, 500 finishers Intention for representativeness / depending on willingness to cooperate Study performed between Dec. 2012 Dec. 2013 23 Study design Biosecurity Assessed by means of validated risk-based biosecurity scoring system: Biocheck.ugent 109 questions Provides a score for internal and external biosecurity 24 12
Study design Antimicrobial use TI calculated per age category and for entire production period (200 days) TI 200 = 150: meaning that over the full production length a pig is treated for 15 % (=150/1000) of its lifetime 25 Results: Biosecurity status Green = Internal biosecurity Blue = External biosecurity 27/10/2015 26 13
Results: Biosecurity status 27/10/2015 27 Results: AMU 27/10/2015 28 14
Results: AMU b a a a 27/10/2015 29 Results: AMU Country Antimicrobial class Belgium France Germany Sweden Aminoglycosides 0.0% 7.9% 1.2% 0.2% Aminopenicillins 37.7% 1 15.7% 3 35.7% 1 6.2% 4 Amphenicols 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0* Benzylpenicillin 0.4% 0* 1.0% 61.2% 1 Benzylpenicillin in combination 3 rd & 4 th generation Cefalosporins 0.0% 2.1% 4.6% 0.9% 10.8% 4 1.2% 1.8% 0* Fluoroquinolones 5.3% 0.4% 1.3% 1.3% Macrolides 14.7% 3 12.6% 4 18.1% 2 9.0% 3 Macrolides in combination 1.6% 2.9% 0.5% 0* Polymixins 17.5% 2 30.1% 1 13.6% 4 4.3% Sulfonamides and trimethoprim 5.1% 8.0% 3.4% 13.1% 2 Tetracyclines 6.8% 18.2% 2 17.3% 3 2.9% Tiamulin 27/10/2015 0.1% 0.5% 1.3% 1.0% 30 Valnemulin 0* 0* 0.1% 0* 15
Results: AMU 27/10/2015 31 Results: Associations 32 16
Results: Top farmers 33 Results: Top farmers On average higher internal biosecurity status. Located in a more favorable environment (lower pig density and limited contact with wildlife). Treated less frequently against respiratory clinical symptoms in weaners and finishers. 34 17
RED AB: Advices towards a reduced AMU Focus on: Biosecurity and management Diagnostics and vaccination Quantification of AMU Herd specific advices Results 45 herds +/- 12 months post intervention: 35 RED AB project visit 1 vs visit 3 Total biosecurity: + 11,9% Internal biosecurity: + 18,8% P = 0,017 External biosecurity: + 6,6% P = 0,068 36 18
RED AB project bezoek 1 vs 3 Weaned/sow/year: + 0,8 ADG: - 0,4% Feed conversion: - 2,8% Piglet mortality: - 3,4% Mortality in fatteners: - 6,7% 37 RED AB project BI 450 400-25% average BI Gemiddelde BI_DDDA curatief BB3 Gemiddelde BI_DDDA curatief BB1 Gemiddelde BI_UDDA standaard BB3 350 99 Gemiddelde BI_UDDA standaard BB1 300-48% 250 91.1-75% 200 150 302.8 117.7-19% 100 50 0 209.9 44 130 115.1 21.6 77.5 34 25.8 46.4 22.7 12.3 20.8 Biggen Piglets Vleesvarkens Fatteners Productie 205 dagen Zeugen sows Full live (205 days) 38 19
RED AB project Net return 39,21 per sow/year 2,45 per fattener/year Rojo Gimeno & Postma et al, submitted 39 Prospective intervention study to explore measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in pig production 20
Intervention study Multi country: Belgium; France; Germany; Sweden Interventions Improved internal / external biosecuirty Vaccination Changes water / feed schemes Herd manangement Intervention study Before intervention: TI 200 : 250 After intervention: TI 200 : 150 Herds with high usage can reduce more No single intervention can be recommended for all herds 21
The MINAPIG consortium Supervising: Prof. Dr. Katharina Stärk Prof. Dr. Elisabeth grosse Beilage Dr. Catherine Belloc Prof. Dr. Jeroen Dewulf Prof. Dr. Ulf Emanuelson Prof. Dr. Christian A. Körk Executing: Annette Backhans, DVM, PhD Supporting: Lucie Collineau, DVM, MSc Prof. Dr. Ann Lindberg Svenja Lösken, DVM Hugo Seemer, DVM, PhD Elisabeth O. Nielsen, DVM, Petra Maas, DVM, PhD PhD Merel Postma, DVM Marie Sjölund, DVM, PhD Vivianne Visschers, MSc, PhD MINAPIG consortium www.minapig.eu 43 Thank you for your attention Prof. Dr. Jeroen Dewulf Jeroen.Dewulf@UGent.be Unit for Veterinary Epidemiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Ghent University Centre of expertise on Antimicrobial consumption and Resistance in Animals 22