Abstract

There is a paucity of data on the reason for and the quantity of antimicrobials used in broiler chickens in Canada. To address this, the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) implemented surveillance of antimicrobial use (AMU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in broiler chicken flocks in 2013. Shortly after this (2014), the poultry industry banned the preventive use of ceftiofur in broiler chickens. The objectives of this analysis were to describe antimicrobial use (AMU) in Canadian broiler chickens between 2013 and 2015 (n = 378 flocks), compare these results to other animal species in Canada, to highlight the utility of farm surveillance data to evaluate the impact of a policy change, and to explore how different antimicrobial use metrics might affect data interpretation and communication. The surveillance data indicated that the poultry industry policy resulted in lower antimicrobial use and resistance, and they successfully captured information on when, where, why, and how much antimicrobials were being used. The majority of antimicrobials were administered via the feed (95%). The relative frequency of antimicrobial classes used in broiler chickens differed from those used in swine or in food animal production in general. Coccidiostats were the most frequently used antimicrobial classes (53% of total kg). Excluding coccidiostats, the top three most frequently used antimicrobial classes were bacitracin (53% of flocks), virginiamycin (25%) and avilamycin (21%), mainly used for the prevention of necrotic enteritis. Depending on the AMU metric utilized, the relative rankings of the top antimicrobials changed; hence the choice of the AMU metric is an important consideration for any AMU reporting. When using milligrams/Population Correction Unit (mg/PCU) the top three antimicrobial classes used were bacitracins (76 mg/PCU), trimethoprim-sulfonamides (24 mg/PCU), and penicillins (15 mg/PCU), whereas when using a number of Defined Daily Doses in animals using Canadian standards /1,000 chicken-days at risk (nDDDvetCA/1,000 CD) the ranking was bacitracins (223 nDDDvetCA/1,000 CD), streptogramins (118 nDDDvetCA/1,000 CD), and trimethoprim-sulfonamides (87 nDDDvetCA/1,000 CD). The median animal treatment days in feed for one cycle (ATD/cycle) during the three-year study were 34 ATD/cycle; this was equal to the mean age of the flocks at pre-harvest sampling day (days at risk), indicating that the studied flocks except those that were raised without antibiotics and organic, were fed with medicated rations throughout the observation period. Overall, more than half (59%) of antimicrobials used in broiler chickens were in classes not used in human medicine, such as ionophores and chemical coccidiostats aimed to prevent coccidiosis. Compared to grower-finisher pigs and in production animal species (national sales data), the mg/PCU of antimicrobials used in broiler chickens was relatively lower. The findings of this paper highlighted the importance of farm-level AMU surveillance in measuring the impact of interventions to reduce antimicrobials in poultry.

Highlights

  • The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) included recommendations for the monitoring of antimicrobial use (AMU) through surveillance and research to help mitigate the dissemination and emergence of AMR organisms in both animals and humans [1]

  • In Europe, several member countries of the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area routinely report the total amount of antimicrobial sold in food animals as milligrams of active ingredient, adjusted by animal populations and weights [Population Correction Unit (PCU)]

  • European Medicines Agency’s Defined Daily Doses in animals (DDDvet) and Defined Course Doses in animals (DCDvet) standards were developed by European Surveillance for Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC) to provide guidance to European member countries for tracking AMU over time by animal species, while accounting for average drug dose [7,8]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) included recommendations for the monitoring of antimicrobial use (AMU) through surveillance and research to help mitigate the dissemination and emergence of AMR organisms in both animals and humans [1]. The activities of the Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC) Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) align with both the federal action plan and with the strategic objectives described in the WHO’s Global Action Plan and the OIE Terrestrial Animal Code [3]. European Medicines Agency’s Defined Daily Doses in animals (DDDvet) and Defined Course Doses in animals (DCDvet) standards were developed by ESVAC to provide guidance to European member countries for tracking AMU over time by animal species, while accounting for average drug dose [7,8]. The AMU indicators DDDvet, DCDvet and mg/PCU were described in the draft guidance [6]

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.