Antimicrobial Use Project

Summary of Phase I – Literature Review

On February 28, 2012 an Antimicrobial Use (AMU) Workshop funded by Growing Forward was held. The AMU Workshop for the poultry industry was conceived in the wake of rising public concerns, including media attention, over the influence of AMU in agriculture on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in human medicine. While there are ongoing efforts to address this issue among the national feather groups, it was recognized that additional local actions were needed. The goals of the workshop were to bring awareness of the issues to the attendees, identify challenges facing the industry on AMU, and identify action items that can be undertaken locally.

As a result of the AMU Workshop and continued industry concerns over AMU, the SPFG decided to initiate a project to address the goals of AMU transparency and education. Phase One of the AMU project with funding from Growing Forward was recently completed. Phase One focused on literature review of current antimicrobial use data collecting and reporting systems in North America and Europe.

 

The goals of Phase One were:

  1. Compilation of current AMU data collecting processes in BC, Canada, and the rest of the world
  2. Develop a decision matrix to summarize options and objectives
  3. Provide a set of recommendations for Phase Two of the AMU project

A literature review produced nine systems that were collecting AMU data in some sort of manner. The results are listed below:

  1. French study – preliminary data gathered from flock sheet reports at slaughter plants, plus random flock sampling;  prescriptions and receipts are checked to validate the flock sheet data
  2. Scandinavia - prescription-based mandatory reporting – all antibiotics require a prescription. would need regulatory change; not really a desired option

 

Canadian context

  1. CFC model and approach – Random sample of 100 broiler farms across Canada (15 in BC) Voluntary 30 minute AMU survey; based on flock sheets and feed tags from last flock; too small to develop base-line data
  2. Ministry of Agriculture’s survey of over-the-counter use - Short questionnaire administered as an addendum to the annual Board biosecurity, food safety and animal welfare audits; Data entry by the auditor at the time of the on-farm audit, all species
  3. CFIA / Feed Mill – collecting data on total drugs used; not by speicies or by specific drug
  4. CIPARS - antimicrobial resistance sampling in retail meat
  5. PharmaNet – program for people – used for bench marking

 

In development

  1. C- EntreNet linked in with CPARS – FV Regionals Health - AMU and antimicrobial resistance study involving sentinel farms in FV – plan is for 20-30 flocks from Fraser Valley area; poultry veterinarians administer survey and collect data; Select provinces only (BC, AB, ON, QC;; could be a verifier of our process/method; issue is whether sentinel farm is representative enough (i.e. is it typical of sector?)
  2. Veterinary Drugs Directorate – prescription based target; mandatory prescription based system similar to Scandinavia

While the results showed several different options, one single system could not be directly copied and applied to the BC poultry industry because of various factors.  It was felt by the researchers that BC would need to develop their own AMU data collecting system, but the system could incorporate principles from the nine systems analysed. The proposed overall goal of the AMU project would be to collect AMU data that is interpreted, analyzed and communicated in the appropriate context of the BC Poultry and associated Industries

Both the AMU Workshop and Phase One had similar specific objectives for the AMU data collection system and the analysis of the data. The Technical Committee for Phase One had to determine how the AMU data should be used – should there only be a one-time study or should a more robust system be developed that could be used for benchmarking, trending, research and education?

There were other criteria that had to be considered when developing a AMU data collection system. The data had to have credibility and there had to be a way to verify the data to instil public trust in the process and results. Producers could only be asked to invest a limited amount of time in data collection. The system had to be designed to encourage producer participation by showing clear benefits to producers and the BC poultry industry. Also would it be possible to link with or build on current on-going projects. A final reality check would be the cost of the database management and analysis.

 

Phase One ended with the identification of potential next steps:

  1. Confirm program objectives - are education and research included?
  2. Decide which AMU program options to pursue - for example, explore modified CFC and Rx-based options
  3. Design, implement and/or explore:
    1. Strategies that facilitate benchmarking/feedback to producers
    2. Research/education components
    3. Technological options to reduce audit times
  4. Pilot project for a year
    1. Analyze and provide feedback on pilot program
    2. Determine costs of, and seek funding for, an ongoing program
    3. Evaluate its effectiveness and sustainability

 

SPFG will pursue funding to conduct Phase Two of the AMU Project.