Abstract

Chicken and pork are the most frequently consumed meat products in the Philippines. Swine and poultry are reared in either commercial farms (CMf) or backyard farms (BYf); the latter production system is relatively common and essential to food security in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as the Philippines. Similar to resource-limited LMICs, antimicrobial use (AMU) surveillance has not yet been established; thus, AMU in food animals is a knowledge gap in understanding the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in zoonotic foodborne bacteria in the country. This qualitative AMU pilot study aims to describe the antimicrobial active ingredients (AAIs) used and associated AMU practices (e.g., source of AAIs and informed AMU decisions) by poultry and swine CMf and BYf in the Philippines. Ninety-three farms across four regions in the Philippines voluntarily provided AMU information as part of a larger biosecurity and good practices study. The percentage of farms using AAI over the total number of farms was the metric used to describe AMU. In total, there were 30 AAIs used (CMf: n =27 and BYf: n = 13); per farm, the number of AAIs used ranged from 1 to 7. The spectrum of AAIs was more diverse in swine (n = 24) compared to poultry (n = 18). Enrofloxacin was the most frequently reported AAI in poultry (33%) and swine (36%) farms. Respiratory diseases were the most frequently reported reason for AMU in both species. Between production systems, significant differences were observed in the percentage of farms using amoxicillin (27% CMf vs. 3% BYf), colistin (17% CMf vs. 3% BYf), and oxytetracycline (12% CMf vs. 39% BYf). In terms of AMU practices, of important concern was the over-the-counter access of AAIs at retail outlets and the limited veterinary oversight in BYf. Our data indicated that antimicrobials critically important for human medicine are frequently used in poultry and swine farms in the Philippines. This study can inform the development of guidelines for curbing AMR through prudent AMU and serves as a reference point for AMU surveillance capacity development in the Philippines.

Highlights

  • Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in certain regions of the world, such as Southeast Asia, are disproportionately burdened with enteric foodborne illnesses [1]

  • In the event that the flocks or herds were unresponsive to antimicrobial therapy, a significantly higher proportion of commercial farms (CMf) conducted necropsy (63% CMf vs. 21% backyard farms (BYf)) or euthanasia followed by disposal of dead animals in designated sites within the farm (30% CMf vs. 13% BYf), whereas BYf took no action (40% BYf vs. 7% CMf). This qualitative pilot study provides an overview of the antimicrobial active ingredients (AAIs) used in poultry and swine CMf and BYf in the Philippines, the reasons why AAIs are used, and common antimicrobial use (AMU) practices, including how producers access AAIs and whom they consult for AMU advice

  • Count-based measurements of AMU at the farm level such as the number of days and the number of medicated rations or water treatments and injections are commonly used as numerators in less sophisticated AMU surveillance programs [23]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in certain regions of the world, such as Southeast Asia, are disproportionately burdened with enteric foodborne illnesses [1]. Resistance to antimicrobials among zoonotic foodborne bacteria poses an additional concern [2]. LMICs have received special attention toward the mitigation of the impacts of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Recent evidence suggests that antimicrobial use (AMU) in food and agriculture sectors is linked to the development of AMR in bacteria [3, 4]. Temporal correlations between AMR in zoonotic foodborne organisms in both animals and in people have been reported [5, 6]. Understanding AMU and associated practices in major food production sectors is an essential step to developing interventions to reduce the emergence and dissemination of AMR from animals to human populations

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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