The issue is a human health risk and a growing problem for livestock producers. Microbes that adapt to products being used to treat them become a larger issue for both aspects of society.

“Antimicrobial resistance is the ability that microbes must adapt to treatment products that are being used against them, defence mechanisms or ways to avoid being affected by those antimicrobial products,” said Keith Lehman, chief provincial veterinarian.

The provincial ministries of Health, Environment and Protected Spaces, and Agriculture and Irrigation are all involved in the effort. Within those ministries are representatives who sit on the advisory council, including Lehman, chief medical officer Mark Joffe and chief scientist Jonathan Thompson.

These ministries have been working since 2016 to create the recently published framework, Alberta’s One Health Antimicrobial Resistance Framework for Action.

Lehman said antimicrobial resistance has far-reaching implications.

“It’s an important issue for the province, as well as for the country and the world. There’s a lot of work going on at the global level and at the national level. We felt it was important to put a provincial stamp on it and use this, really, as a jumping off point for action.

“It’s an issue because if those antibiotics or antimicrobials are no longer effective, we lose ways to be able to treat those infections, and that has a significant implication for both human health as well as the animal health side of things.”

People with infections resistant to the usual treatments because of antimicrobial resistance may face severe options such as amputation or death.

“On the animal health side of things, we’re unable to treat animals that are dealing with infections, and so they become less productive. And again, in the worst-case scenario, the infection becomes fatal for them,” Lehman said.

There are economic implications for producers and broader food security issues for the world, he added.

“Let’s say we lost 10 or 15 or 20 per cent of the animals to bacterial infections. We would have to just produce that much more to be able to be producing at the same level to meet that same demand by the public.

“There are broader implications too … If you are not producing enough, it obviously becomes more expensive. Cost is a food security element as well.”

The framework is specifically developed for Alberta and complements national and global efforts, primarily the One Health approach.

“At the end of the day, human health, animal health, food safety and environmental health, they’re all intertwined. I think this is the epitome of a One Health issue. This is the perfect example where we all need to come together and work on something,” Lehman said.

Developing the framework has been a long process, with interruptions along the way.

“It started in 2016 with a little bit of a jurisdictional scan, looking to see what was happening around the world and around the country,” said Lehman.

The Agriculture and Irrigation department held a One Health antimicrobial stewardship workshop in Edmonton at the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association. The event brought together people from agriculture, human health and environmental health.

“That was an interesting starting point. It got all those people together and opened the One Health door, and raised a lot of awareness around how each of those different sectors operates and what factors are at play with respect to antimicrobial resistance,” he said.

The pandemic and other priorities hindered the process, but work resumed in 2021.

“I think we were able to start to bring everybody back together virtually at that point, just kind of get back into it, validate what we have been hearing up until that point, make sure that we were still on the right track.”

A $5 million funding announcement comes with the framework, which will be used over the next two years to address 15 areas of action. Three have been highlighted as top priorities.

“Initially, one was related to stewardship and two were related to surveillance, and so we put together an expert advisory group to evaluate and provide some recommendations on that stewardship item. Now we’re kind of at the point where we would be able to take recommendations from that group and start attaching some dollar resources into it to further the actions,” Lehman said.

The next steps are to look at the two surveillance items identified as priorities and see if advisory groups are needed.

Lehman said the agriculture industry has done a lot of work promoting biosecurity, which helps prevent infection.

“On the ag side, infection prevention control is really about biosecurity, to a large degree. There’s been a lot of work in that area over the years to improve biosecurity on farm in terms of monitoring.”

Antimicrobial resistance is a complex issue because of the tie between human health, animal health and the environment.

“You can change one variable within that framework or within that complex environment and it can have broad reaching implications. It’s a very challenging thing to monitor and determine whether you’re having positive impacts or not, but we’re committed to working on this issue because it is important,” said Lehman.

The post Alberta releases new antimicrobial resistance strategy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Antibiotic resistance is a really, really big deal, both for human and animal health,” said Reynold Bergen, science director for the Beef Cattle Research Council.

“If bugs get resistant to antibiotics, the antibiotics won’t work anymore, and then we’ve got big problems.

“Ultimately, for producers, we need these tools to continue to be effective so that we can maintain animal health and welfare.”

But it’s not just farmers who are worried about antibiotic resistance in their animals, said Bergen. Increasingly, retailers are setting targets for antibiotic use in the meat they sell or shifting to antibiotic-free meat altogether.

This trend, driven largely by consumer demand, has already influenced government policies around antibiotic use in livestock. Last December, the federal government increased veterinary oversight on on-farm antibiotic use, requiring a prescription for around 340 antimicrobials that had been previously available over the counter.

The problem with these types of regulatory changes, said Bergen, is that there isn’t much science around the actual rates of on-farm antibiotic use and resistance in beef cattle.

That data exists in other livestock sectors, though.

Since the early 2000s, the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) has been monitoring antibiotic use and resistance in all livestock. But its on-farm component has largely been limited to pigs and broiler chickens, as those were the animals considered at highest risk for antibiotic resistance.

In the last year, its on-farm services have expanded to dairy cattle and turkeys, but because of budget constraints, beef cattle had been put on the back burner, said Bergen.

“But what that means is that, as an industry, we’ve got no data to back up that we’re using antibiotics responsibly on farm,” said Bergen.

“So we need facts — partly to defend our production practices and to reassure consumers we’re doing things right, but also to identify where we can do better.”

On-farm surveillance

And those facts are coming, thanks to additional government, beef industry, and pharmaceutical sector funding. Over the next three years, CIPARS will be partnering with feedlots and feedlot-focused veterinary practices in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario on a three-year pilot project looking at antibiotic use and resistance in these three major cattle-feeding provinces.

“This is not the first project of this type, but it’s one of the most comprehensive because it ties use in with resistance,” said Dr. Craig Dorin of Veterinary Agri-Health Services in Airdrie, one of the practices involved in the project.

The first piece of the project will focus on determining which pathogens exist in the feedlot, said Dorin.

“I think we already have a good handle on that, but part of surveillance is looking at the same thing over and over again to see if there have been changes over time.”

That ongoing surveillance will also compare resistance in geographic areas relative to how antimicrobials are used in those areas, he added. This will allow the beef industry to monitor trends around antimicrobial use and resistance — particularly for antibiotics that might also have an impact on human health.

“What this will help us do is identify trends over time — are we seeing an increase in use or an increase in resistance?” said Bergen.

“Either way, knowing helps us see whether we’re on the right track or if we need to make some adjustments.”

For Dorin, that’s the most important piece of this study.

“We are producing food, and the people who consume the beef that we produce need to have a high level of confidence that the products we use on these animals are used prudently and appropriately,” he said.

“Part of prudent use is selecting the right antimicrobial for the right situation — using not only an antimicrobial that will be effective against the disease you’re trying to prevent, but one that will also have minimal impact on the potential resistance that might be transferred into the human population.”

But this study will also give retailers a baseline to create science-based targets for antibiotic use in the meat they sell.

“Some retailers are going antibiotic free and others are wanting to set targets to reduce antibiotic use,” said Bergen. “And with data like this, they’ll have a sense of where they can make a meaningful difference.”

Rapid diagnostics

That will be particularly important for respiratory pathogens such as bovine respiratory disease, Bergen added.

“That’s why a lot of these antibiotics are being used — to manage respiratory disease,” he said. “So if you can get a sense of why they’re being used for respiratory disease and what degree of resistance is there, you’re tying it much more closely to management decisions than you would with any other retail meat.”

But it will be tricky for a study like this to actually drive on-farm management decisions in the short term, Dorin cautioned.

“That’s going to be a part of it — to make sure that the antibiotics that we’re using are still the correct choices — but it’s not going to drive day-to-day decisions,” he said.

“Day-to-day decisions happen very quickly, and this is a study where we’ll be looking at annual results. We’ll be able to look at year-to-year changes, but we won’t be able to get down to the level of week-to-week change at a particular farm.”

But that technology is coming. Another study, set to start in the next year, will explore rapid genetic testing for respiratory pathogens.

Right now, the turnaround time for samples sent to the lab can be anywhere from a few days to up to a week — and a lot can change in a week, said Bergen.

“Those results tell you what you should have done a week ago if you had known at the time,” he said. “But between a week ago and today, that animal could have got way sicker, and it could be way different bugs that are causing the problem now, and they could have a different antibiotic-resistance profile.”

But as genetic testing technologies improve, rapid diagnostics could change that, Dorin said.

“This new genetic testing would allow results to be back within hours instead of days,” he said.

“Our hope is, over time, those hours will turn into minutes, and then when a sick animal comes in, we can test it and know exactly what antibiotics should be used on that animal on that day.”

That will go a long way toward maintaining the antibiotics available to cattle producers.

“We have a limited number of products available for use in the beef industry,” said Dorin.

“It’s expensive to bring these products to market, and it gets more expensive as time goes on. We’re worried that resistance may be developing faster than our ability to produce new products, so reducing our antimicrobial use in favour of other management practices — like low-stress weaning — is important.”

Bergen agrees.

“Antibiotics have been so effective for so long that they’ve become a valuable tool, but because they’ve been so effective, there’s been a little less need to find alternatives,” he said.

“There’s a chance — and not a remote chance — that 50 years from now, the antibiotics we’ll have available to treat animal diseases might be the same ones we have now.

“So we’d better use the ones we have now responsibly so that they keep working down the line.”

The post Feedlots to be put to the test — and that’s what they want appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This change is in response to antimicrobial resistance and the assurance of a safe food supply. It will also, I feel, be a positive step to further assure accuracy in milled feeds.

I think we have all had it happen — picking up the wrong bag of medicated feed or fiddling with water applications. The prescription gives one more document to double-check against and is a great prevention in misuse, overuse, and underuse of medicated feed.

Once again, the important piece here is that there is a relationship between you and your veterinarian as medical additions to feed and water will require a prescription.

Have you done this?

I can imagine in the fall run — or when the first set of chicks come in, the dog whelps, the gilts go lame, or coughing starts in the calf pen — that being without a veterinarian (and consequently a prescription) could get pretty stressful. If you have not talked to your vet recently or don’t have one, even the Easter bunny will be out on a limb. Take the pressure off yourself and do your stock a favour by getting that file in order.

What do you need to know about this change?

• More with Brenda Schoepp: When it comes to food waste, the system is broken

Veterinarians will have to work more closely with commercial feed mills as the mills cannot stock inventory specifically for you without a valid prescription. The vets are working under several acts here, including the Feeds Act and Regulations and the Food and Drugs Act.

This has been great for the mills as well, as they prepare to step up safety for the food system. Pop by your local feed mill and talk to them about how it’s going to work for them, who is going to handle that paperwork, and who to call when you are not sure of your prescription status.

To help maintain access to what is needed in times of crisis, it is valuable for the vet to know your past history of medical events in your companion or food animals or fowl, and why those events occurred. This helps determine probability for future use.

History can repeat itself in health events. It could be the time of year or the quality of feed, the velocity of the wind, or labour patterns around the farm. There are always contributing factors to health events. Talking about them early with your vet helps alleviate these questions when time is precious.

Your only access to medicated feed or medication for water will be through your veterinarian. It is now illegal for a feed mill or ag supply store to sell medicated feed without a prescription.

So if you are offered a truckload of short-dated medicated feed at rock-bottom prices, do not take it. That risks the relationship with the vet and a few federal acts, as well as making you party to something you really don’t have time or money for. I would however, let the vet know if someone tries to slide it onto your truck deck. Just saying: It’s a no go.

That prescription must include a full description of the animals and the dosage, the type of feed and amount, any cautions when using the MIA, the withdrawal time, name and quantity of drug, date, signature, directions for use, and number of refills.

Check it out as you should be able to get an electronic copy. If it is a pen of heifers that need treating, make sure it says heifers and not steers. Everyone has some responsibility here, and feel free to ask again about withdrawal times for food animals.

Although feed mills may have medicated stock on hand, it cannot be released to you without that signed prescription. Following up to ensure the document is received at the mill might save a lot of hardship.

It might be frustrating to find out the feed is sitting there, but you can’t take it home. The oversight and inspection of the mill has yet another layer of regulation. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for inspection of the feed mills.

So there are many bodies involved to ensure you have a prescription first. It would be an advisable thing to ensure the prescription is on file before asking for delivery or coming into town. One bag of medicated chicken feed or one ton of supplement — it makes no difference as it will be all by prescription only.

Safe food is everyone’s gig and although this will be a bit of a learning curve, it serves our consumers well as we offer another level of food safety assurance.

The post There’s a learning curve with new rules on medication appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

For those of you who crave more detailed information, there are several very good brochures and websites with factual and current information on the subject. These are important when we are trying to explain to the average urbanite what we know and how the entire industry is really following the guidelines about prudent usage of antimicrobials.

We hear the public and industry using terms such as ‘raised without antibiotics.’ This has severe ramifications from an animal welfare perspective and, simply stated, is the reason we have established withdrawal periods by law. These withdrawal periods ensure there are no antibiotic or other drug residues from things like NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) or vaccines in our meat or milk.

The best brochure I’ve seen is Worried about Antibiotic Use and Resistance in Cattle from Alberta Beef Producers (available at www.albertabeef.org by clicking on the Consumers pull-down menu).

It explains the four main categories of antimicrobials from Category 1 (meaning they have very high importance in human medicine) to Category 4 (not used in human medicine). The brochure gives examples of Category 1 antimicrobials we use in cattle, such as Excede or Baytril.

The very high and high category make up no more than one to two per cent of the antimicrobials used in cattle production. But we must still think twice before we use them. They should only be used for severe medical conditions, such as bad pneumonia. Veterinarians are continually advising that the least critical category is still likely to work on the condition at hand.

I have included a chart that compares the different classes of antibiotics used in cattle versus other species versus humans. You will see a big difference, so have a close look.

In dealing with cases in which there has been no response to drugs that previously worked, veterinarians are having more cultures done. This means the lab grows the bacteria causing the illness and then uses little discs impregnated with antibiotics to actually see which ones work. This gives us a much better scientific approach to treatment and should provide a higher success rate. The issue is this takes a couple of days to do, so in the meantime we as veterinarians must prescribe treatments, which are often based on previous protocols and success rates.

The possibility of resistant bacteria passing from cattle to humans is very remote because Category 1 drugs are so rarely used plus the fact that resistant bacteria would need to get through the packing plant and all the precautions they use (such as steam sterilization, UV light, and a very clean environment through the cooking process) and into a person, who would then have the antibiotic prescribed by the doctor and not work. This is a very, very unlikely chain of events.

There is now a research cluster (headed by Dr. Tim McCallister and including researchers from the cattle industry and veterinary colleges) looking at all these potential pathways to make sure all possibilities have been looked at. This alone is very positive evidence that the industry is doing its due diligence to protect livestock production and people.

A great quote from veterinarian Dr. Craig Dorin of Airdrie is, “It is our privilege and not our right to be able to use antibiotics in the animals we take care of.” Because of all the industry surveillance, drug resistance levels are very low in beef. That doesn’t mean they can’t increase and generally if resistance is found, the bacteria are resistant to most antibiotics in the same family of drugs. Veterinarians know this and will prescribe a different family of antibiotics if need be.

This year, your veterinarian will be much more involved with antimicrobials that are used in production animal medicine, especially those that were non-prescription for the most part but administered in the feed or water. More than 75 per cent of the drugs are used in feed, so enhanced oversight at this level is where you as producer will see the most changes. These are all steps that will be positive in reducing antibiotic usage where possible and using the most effective ones for the condition at hand.

The first thing removed from antibiotic labelling is the growth promotant indications. Increased growth from reduced disease incidence is often a secondary benefit but your veterinarian will need a medical reason to prescribe.

A great resource on AMR is the Beef Cattle Research Council website. It has clear information as well as a seven-minute video that everyone in the cattle industry should watch.

We need to get back to management practices we know will minimize sickness and hence antibiotic usage, especially giving calves adequate quality and quantity of colostrum (colostrum is the best ‘drug’ one can use), low-stress weaning, and pre-immunization up to two weeks before weaning. As well, more direct movement of cattle through satellite and internet sales eliminates lots of commingling.

All these practices can definitely reduce the labour to administer, the cost, and the usage of antimicrobials. I know that in some ways, it is easier said than done. But the potential for reduction in antimicrobial usage is great.

Pharmaceutical companies are focusing more and more on vaccinology so you will see broader coverage vaccines for viruses and bacteria. Intranasal vaccines can provide quicker coverage, and technology has and will improve the degree of immunity and length of coverage over time. In the future, we will most likely see more vaccines replacing antimicrobials.

A good rule for raising cattle is that it is far better to prevent by management and vaccination than treat with antibiotics. Watch the parasite treatments as keeping them greatly reduced in your herd will also stimulate the cattle’s own natural immune system and along with proper nutrition minimize sickness.

With increased usage of antibiotics there is increased resistance in that species so the veterinary communities’ oversight will focus on four things: Prevention, Production, Control and Therapy.

Another website worth checking out is www.raisedwithcare.ca (created by the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association). This website is very interactive and there are some quizzes you can take to test your knowledge. The questions you get wrong become an educating experience.

I encourage you all to check out these reference sources and tell the public so we all together in the cattle industry can do the right thing and be leaders and educators in helping with the global battle against AMR. Generally speaking, we are already doing a good job but there is always room for improvement. So question your veterinarian and yourself and ask if there is a better way if antimicrobial usage seems too frequent on your operation.

Responsible antibiotic usage is not about residues; we already do a fantastic job at that. It is about using the right drug for the right bug and for the right length of time.

Take pride in the fact the cattle industry is, in many ways, taking the lead and the medical profession can learn a lot from what you do. Tell your story.

Many times painkillers, supplements, vitamins, or minerals — rather than antimicrobials — may be the therapy of choice. Prevention of the disease through vaccination, low-stress weaning, and not commingling cattle can also greatly reduce the usage of antimicrobials. In specific instances we may be able to actually lower drug costs and have better outcomes while at the same time not contributing to any resistance.

There will be lots more on this topic in the future, so stay tuned. Tell a neighbour about the fact that all antibiotics will require a prescription as of Dec. 1.

This article was originally published on the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post There’s a story to tell about antimicrobial use — and it’s a good one appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

New regulations passed by Health Canada that come into effect Dec. 1 will require that all medically important antimicrobials (MIA) — including those that are injected, dissolved in water, fed in feed, or administered as a bolus — will need a prescription.

Just dropping by the local feed store to pick up those ready-to-access pharma such as implants, all forms of penicillin, and tetracyclines will now require a full prescription. That means for every treatment you will need to have an existing veterinary-client-patient relationship.

Before you panic on cost and drug access, this has been coming down the pipe from a global perspective for a long time. The World Health Organization issued warnings on antibiotic use a few years ago and Health Canada has responded. There are also active research trials going on to further investigate how to reduce the antibiotic and growth promotant load in food animal production.

It is not clear if the new regulation requires that each animal be physically seen and the prescription be for that specific treatment or if the whole bottle goes home. A good relationship where the veterinarian knows your herd or flock can help with preventive planning. It is common sense that the vet does not need to drive 200 kilometres to see an obvious foot rot that you have sent a photo of over your smartphone. But if there is a pen of sick calves, then it is a good idea to have your vet pop by to look and take some samples as there are a variety of viral or bacterial possibilities. Although with the technology today there are ways to view the problem to further address the concern, it does not however, negate the need to have a prescription.

• More with Brenda Schoepp: There’s a new kind of loneliness — but overcoming it isn’t easy

As all antibiotics do not act the same or cover the same issues, a blanket treatment such as feed additives and water-soluble medications will now require a prescription.

Take the time now to have a discussion with the veterinarians in your area if you do not have a veterinary-client-patient relationship, and open an account with the one of your choice. Invite the vet to do an initial visit to ensure he or she understands your operation and your standard operating procedures. This is important as the vet will have to set foot on your farm in order to write a script.

Some veterinary clinics are now offering this as a free one-time consult. Take advantage of this or ask that the initial visit be free. Talk about goals and expectations, and disclose if you are interested in strictly conventional or alternative animal care as several clinics are licensed for both. Ask about preventive programs and ensure that you follow through. For pet owners and small farm owners, ensure that your pets and small herd or flock are known to the clinic. This includes raising bees and fish (aquaculture).

The question of education has been brought to my attention and I know there is great value in education. But that does not make for a diagnosis nor will it reverse this legislation (which also applies to human medicine). Ask your veterinarian what you need to know, and also what he or she needs to know in the future to ensure early diagnosis and a quick response.

Will this hurt local businesses, such as small veterinary clinics?

On the contrary, the way that some established clinics are buying smaller ones indicates that they expect an increase in traffic. So don’t think that your local clinic will be closed. It likely will get busier, and even though you get the prescription from your vet who has a clinic 100 miles away, in Alberta, you can fill that prescription at the local clinic.

Do not, however, count on driving to the local farm supply store to buy food animal treatments any longer. These must be purchased at an establishment licensed to do so. Old standbys that are needed immediately, such as scour boluses, are included in the new regulation so advanced planning is really important. Again, early detection on your part, especially with a small flock or herd, will be critical so you have time for a consult and to fill a prescription if needed.

Think of it as having a relationship with your doctor. You have gone in and found out that treatment is necessary. The prescription he/she writes can be filled anywhere but you cannot go to the drugstore and pull it off the shelf.

It is the same now in veterinary medicine. You need a doctor, a prescription, a place to fill the prescription, and instructions on how to use the prescribed drug.

Veterinarians will now be required to submit an annual antimicrobial sales report and have been required by law to keep a record of the prescriptions on hand. The regulations are in play and are seen as the first step in antimicrobial stewardship.

Stay tuned for more information.

The post It’s a new era when it comes to livestock medication appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

If you haven’t done so already, the first few months of 2018 would be an excellent time to develop a relationship with a beef veterinarian.

Starting late in 2018, Health Canada is introducing a couple of important changes affecting the way animal antibiotic products can be accessed by producers. And having an established Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR) will be an important part of a smooth transition.

The key point is, starting Dec. 1, 2018, all livestock producers will need a prescription from a licensed veterinarian before they can buy a medically important antibiotic for therapeutic use in livestock production.

This applies to all beef cattle sectors using antibiotics — cow-calf operators, feedlots and feed mills (and really all sectors of animal agriculture including beef, dairy, hogs, sheep, horses, fish, and even bees). The new policy doesn’t just apply to injectable products, but also includes some boluses and calf scour treatments, as well as Component and Compudose implants.

At the same time, the new policy does not apply to certain antimicrobials such as the ionophores, which are not considered to be medically important in managing disease in humans.

Prescription needed

Many of the antibiotics used for animals are already only available through prescription. However, some common products traditionally available without a prescription through farm and feed supply outlets will soon require a prescription. (An example is in-feed products such as tylosin and tetracycline.)

For cow-calf producers in Alberta, products will only be available from a veterinary clinic or licensed pharmacist. Commercial feed mills will be able to manufacture and sell a medically important antibiotic in feed pursuant to a veterinary prescription under current provincial regulation in macro premix, micro premix, supplement, or complete feed formulations. But dispensing details still need to be worked out.

Producers who have established a VCPR— that veterinary/client/patient relationship — with a licensed veterinarian, will be able to obtain a prescription for a given amount of product for perhaps a full year (depending on the circumstance) enabling them to buy it as needed and for use according to advice of the veterinarian.

For example, a cow-calf producer in consultation with their veterinarian can determine, based on their records and herd history, they will likely need X number of bottles of tetracycline (like Liquamycin or Bio-mycin) to treat pink eye, or X number of bottles of Nuflor to treat foot rot throughout the year. A prescription can be written to cover that estimated need and then the producer can buy medication as needed up to the estimated amount, or up to the expiry date of the prescription.

Producers who already have a veterinary/client relationship likely won’t see any change in normal practices.

“I believe this is good legislation and the right thing to do for any industry that produces food,” said Craig Dorin, a veterinarian with Veterinary Animal Health Services in Airdrie. “It is important that antibiotics used in food animals have an appropriate level of regulation.”

Addressing the issue

These changes are being made because of increasing concern about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacteria in animals as well as in humans.

Research indicates AMR is developing in beef cattle, and some antimicrobials used on the farm or in the feedlot are not working as well as they once did. Antimicrobial resistance is also developing in human patients, though there is no compelling evidence that antimicrobial use in Canadian livestock production is contributing to AMR in human medicine.

Reports say as many as 23,000 Americans die annually due to issues related to antimicrobial resistance to drugs and computer forecasts say that by 2050, as many as 10 million people globally could die from issues related to antimicrobial resistance.

Health Canada is seeking to better manage antimicrobial use and hopefully even reduce the amount of antibiotics used in animal agriculture with the aim of reducing or slowing the development of AMR in animal pathogens. It also hopes to demonstrate that products are only used when needed, at the appropriate dose and within the recognized withdrawal times. It will help stem a growing public perception that the livestock industry casually uses high rates of antibiotics without regard for animal, environmental, or human health conditions.

“It’s really about bringing the livestock industry in line with the way antibiotics are handled on the human health side,” said Keith Lehman, chief provincial veterinarian. “You need a prescription.”

No one should be surprised these changes are coming, said Murray Jelinski, a professor in large-animal clinical sciences at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon.

“Whether anyone thinks it is a good or bad move is really irrelevant,” said Jelinski. “Europe, for example, is already ahead of Canada in this regard, and other countries around the world are moving in this direction — this is really a global movement hence it is incumbent upon Canada to do its part.”

Some have described the increasing rates of antimicrobial resistance (to currently used medicines) and the rise of “superbugs” as “one of humanity’s greatest concerns,” said Jelinski.

Policy details

Most of the details for cow-calf producers in Alberta have been sorted out, said Dorin.

On-farm feed mixers — with a prescription — can buy micro and macro premixes, supplements, and complete feed from a commercial feed mill or from a licensed veterinarian or pharmacist under current regulation.

Other changes include new restrictions (which came into effect in November) on importing antibiotics manufactured outside of Canada. Producers had been able to import antibiotics and other animal health products under “own use” rules. Now, producers can no longer import medically important antibiotic products and need a prescription to access those products in Canada.

The regulations do allow for producer access to a range of veterinary drugs listed on Health Canada’s List B, which can still be imported by producers themselves for their own use, but not sold. This includes pour-on endectocides and growth implants such as Cydectin, Ivomec, Ralgro and Synovex to name a few. They must be finished products in commercial form, with proper packaging, and registered for use in Canada.

Growing awareness of using products responsibly has resulted in an 11 per cent reduction in the use of antibiotic products in Canada in the past year, said Jean Szkotnicki, president of the Canadian Animal Health Institute.

Be prepared

Producers need to plan ahead for these new rules, said Karin Schmid, beef production specialist with Alberta Beef Producers.

“Producers will need to establish the veterinary-client-patient relationship in order to obtain a prescription and maintain timely access to treatment of their animals,” she said.

They should also talk to their vet about common herd health challenges they may encounter, she added.

“Perhaps pink eye is a common problem at certain times of the year or in certain pastures, for example — so as part of the herd health plan you can anticipate some of those needs and have the prescriptions and medications in place so they are on hand when you need them,” said Schmid.

Having a VCPR and prescription in place are key elements in being prepared.

If a producer discovers on a Saturday afternoon a case of pink eye in an animal that needs to be treated, for example, they won’t have the option to run to a local farm supply outlet and pick up a bottle of penicillin. It also means, a producer can’t just stop in at a veterinary clinic and pick up an antibiotic from staff if there is no veterinarian on duty.

A VCPR doesn’t usually involve a formal written agreement.

But it means the veterinarian knows the operator, visits the farm or ranch to get an understanding of the operation, sees how animals are cared for, and is confident the producer will be responsible in following medical advice and properly use any products as directed. Establishing a VCPR starts with a producer sitting down with a vet to discuss his or her livestock operation and provide some record of animal health treatment protocols. It may or may not involve a farm visit.

The Alberta Veterinary Medical Association has five requirements for VCPR:

• The veterinarian has assumed responsibility for making clinical judgments regarding the health of the herd and the client has agreed to follow the vet’s instructions.
• The veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the herd through examinations and ranch visits.
• The vet is readily available for followup evaluation or has arranged for emergency coverage, and continuing care and treatment.
• The veterinarian provides oversight of treatment, compliance, and outcome.
• Patient records are maintained.

The producer’s part of the VCPR is allowing the veterinarian to take responsibility for making clinical judgments about animal health, asking appropriate questions, and following instructions. The veterinarian’s part of the VCPR involves making judgments; accepting the responsibility for providing medical care; keeping written records; advising clients of the benefits and risks of different treatment options; providing oversight of treatment, compliance, and outcome; and arranging for emergency care.

The post BE PREPARED: How new drug rules will affect your ranch appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Describing a lack of effective antibiotics for humans as “a security threat” on a par with “a sudden and deadly disease outbreak”, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said “strong and sustained action across all sectors” was vital to turn back the tide of resistance and “keep the world safe”.

The WHO “strongly recommends an overall reduction in the use of all classes of medically important antibiotics in food-producing animals, including complete restriction of these antibiotics for growth promotion and disease prevention without diagnosis,” the United Nations agency said in a statement.

Any use of antibiotics promotes the development and spread of so-called superbugs — multi-drug-resistant infections that can evade the medicines designed to kill them.

According to the WHO’s statement, in some countries, around 80 percent of total consumption of medically important antibiotics is in the animal sector. They are largely used in healthy animals to stop them getting sick and to speed up their growth.

The WHO said such use should be halted completely. In sick animals, it added, wherever possible, tests should first be conducted to determine the most effective and prudent antibiotic to treat their specific infection.

Some countries have already taken action to reduce the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals. The European Union has since 2006 banned the use of the drugs for growth promotion.

Consumers are also driving a demand for meat raised without routine use of antibiotics, with some major food chains adopting ‘antibiotic-free’ policies for meat supplies.

The WHO said alternatives to using antibiotics for disease prevention in animals include improving hygiene and farming practices, and making better use of vaccines.

The post Stop using antibiotics in healthy animals, WHO urges farmers appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This article will highlight some of the key points on how well the cattle industry is doing so far and predict what changes veterinarians may make in their recommendations going forward. For those of you who crave more detailed information, there are several very good brochures and websites that give very factual and current information on the subject.

This is important when we are trying to explain to the average urbanite how the entire industry is really following the guidelines about prudent usage of antimicrobials.

We hear the public and industry talking about terms like ‘raised without antibiotics.’ This has severe ramifications from an animal welfare perspective. Simply stated, it is the reason we have established withdrawal periods by law so there are no antibiotic or other drug residues from things such as NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) or vaccines in our meat or milk.

The best brochure I have seen is Worried about Antibiotic Use and Resistance in Cattle? put out by the Alberta Beef Producers. (It can be downloaded at www.albertabeef.org by searching for ‘worried about antibiotic use.’) It explains the four main categories of antimicrobials. Category 1 is for antibiotics with very high importance in human medicine and the brochure gives examples of ones we use for cattle, such as Excede or Baytril.

The ‘very high’ and ‘high’ importance categories make up less than two per cent of the antimicrobials used in cattle production. There is also a big difference in the classes of antibiotics used for humans versus those used in cattle. But we must still think twice before we use them and only use Category 1 drugs for treatment of severe medical conditions such as severe pneumonia. Veterinarians continually advise using the least critical category that is still likely to work on the condition at hand.

They are also doing more culture and sensitivity tests during autopsies, especially when in cases where the animal did not respond to drugs that previously worked. This allows a lab to grow the bacteria causing the illness and uses little discs impregnated with antibiotics to actually see which ones work. This is a much better scientific approach to treatment and should provide a higher success rate. (But since these tests take a couple of days, veterinarians have to prescribe treatments based on previous protocols and success rates in the meantime.)

The possibility of resistant bacteria moving from cattle to humans is very remote because of the very few drugs used in Category 1 plus the fact that resistant bacteria would need to get through the packing plant and all the precautions used (such as steam sterilization, UV light and a very clean environment) through the cooking process and into a person. And then the person would have to have that particular antibiotic prescribed by the doctor. This is a very unlikely chain of events.

There is now a research cluster involving head researcher Dr. Tim McCallister and researchers from the cattle industry and veterinary colleges looking at all these potential pathways to make sure all possibilities have been looked at. This alone is very positive evidence the industry is doing its due diligence to protect livestock production and people.

There’s a great quote from veterinarian Dr. Craig Dorin of Airdrie: “It is our privilege and not our right to be able to use antibiotics in the animals we take care of.”

All the surveillance we are doing in the industry has found drug resistance levels to be very low in beef. That doesn’t mean they can’t increase and generally, if resistance is found, the bacteria are resistant to most antibiotics in the same family of drugs. Veterinarians know this and will prescribe a different family of antibiotics if need be.

This year, your veterinarian will be much more involved with antimicrobials used in production animal medicine, especially those that were non-prescription (for the most part) and administered in feed or water. More than 75 per cent of the drugs are used in feed, so enhanced oversight at this level is where you as a producer will see the most changes. These are all steps that will be positive in reducing antibiotic usage where possible and using the most effective ones for the condition at hand.

The first thing removed from antibiotic labelling is the growth promotant indications, which are coming off this year. It is true that reduced disease incidence typically leads to increased growth as a secondary benefit — but now your veterinarian will have to have a medical reason to prescribe.

The Beef Cattle Research Council has another excellent resource at www.beefresearch.ca/amr. This contains clear information as well as a clearly laid-out, seven-minute video that everyone in the cattle industry should watch. We need to get back to management practices that we know will minimize sickness and hence antibiotic usage. This includes calves receiving adequate quality and quantity of colostrum (colostrum is the best ‘drug’ one can use), low-stress weaning, and pre-immunization of calves up to two weeks before weaning. As well, satellite and Internet sales eliminate lots of commingling.

All these practices can definitely reduce the usage of antimicrobials. I know that’s easier said than done, but the potential for reduction in antimicrobial usage is great.

As well, pharmaceutical companies are now focusing more and more on vaccinology so you will see broader-coverage vaccines for viruses and bacteria. Intranasal vaccines can provide quicker coverage, and technology has (and will continue to) improve the degree of immunity and length of coverage over time.

The future will most likely see more vaccines replacing antimicrobials. It is far better to prevent by management and vaccination than treat with antibiotics. To combat resistance, veterinary communities will focus on four things: Prevention, Production, Control, and Therapy.

Also, use parasite treatments as reducing parasites in your herd will also stimulate cattle’s natural immune system. This, along with proper nutrition, minimizes sickness.

Another good resource is the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association website (www.raisedwithcare.ca). It is interactive and there are some quizzes you can take to test your knowledge. The questions you get wrong become an educating experience.

I encourage you all to check out these resources — and tell the public that we in the cattle industry are doing the right thing and helping in the global battle against antimicrobial resistance.

Generally speaking, we are already doing a good job but there is always room for improvement. So question your veterinarian and ask yourself if there is a better way if antimicrobial usage seems too frequent on your operation.

Responsible antibiotic usage is not about residues — we already do a fantastic job at that. It is about using the right drug for the right bug and for the right length of time.

Take pride in the fact the cattle industry is in many ways taking the lead and the medical profession can learn a lot from what you do. Tell your story.

This article was originally published on the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post The facts about the dangers of antibiotic resistance appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

A research team led by James Tiedje, distinguished professor of microbiology found that in large swine farms where antibiotics are used continuously in feed for growth promotion and disease prevention, multi-drug-resistant bacteria are likely the norm rather than the exception.

In studying large-scale swine farms in China and one population of pigs in the U.S., the researchers confirmed the presence of many partner genes — resistance genes and mobile genetic elements found together.

When one gene increased or decreased in abundance, partner genes increased or decreased in nearly identical fashion.

Some of these partner genes can make bacteria resistant to antibiotics that were not even fed to the animals. So when one antibiotic is used, resistance to many antibiotics can increase, the scientists report in a study published in mBio.

“In the fight against the rise of antibiotic resistance, we need to understand that the use of one antibiotic or, in some cases, antibacterial disinfectants may increase the abundance of multi-drug-resistant bacteria,” he said.

“Tracking the source of antibiotic resistance is quite complicated because antibiotic use, which increases the occurrence of resistance, is widespread, and antibiotic resistance can spread between bacteria.”

The Chinese farms are quite close to large cities. So controlling antibiotic resistance in pigs and farms is important to minimizing human risk, he said.

“This is a global issue rather than one that’s simply isolated in China; multi-drug resistance is just a plane ride away,” Tiedje added. “This is why our work in China is definitely as relevant as in the United States.”

They also found that at the Chinese farms, there were up to 14 partner genes, all occurring together in farms that are thousands of miles apart, said Tim Johnson, lead author with MSU’s Center for Microbial Ecology. “These genes confer resistance to up to six kinds of antibiotics, and some allow bacteria to reshuffle the order of their genes.”

In Chinese soils that received manure-based fertilizer, the same resistance genes were found in manure and in high abundance. However, the kinds of bacteria present in soil were quite different. This indicates that on the Chinese farms, the potential for resistance gene transfer among environmental bacteria is likely, said Yongguan Zhu, co-author from the Chinese Academy of Science.

The post Bacteria share antibiotic resistance with genetic partners appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The two organizations will be awarding $1.5 million in grants for research in the following areas:

• Identify and/or develop practical and economically viable modifications to current beef production practices that reduce the need for non-ionophore in-feed antimicrobials, such as tylosin and oxy/chlortetracycline. (The development of pre/pro/synbiotics, the use of plant-based or other chemical antimicrobial alternatives will not be considered under this research call.)
• Identify and/or quantify differences in animal biological processes or genetics that affect animal health responses to high-grain diets.
• Develop and pilot rapid and/or chute-side diagnostic techniques that can identify antimicrobial-resistant bovine pathogens and help inform antimicrobial treatment decisions in real time.
• Quantify baseline antimicrobial use data at both the cow-calf and feedlot levels.
• Quantify the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in bovine pathogens in cattle arriving at the feedlot prior to any antimicrobial treatment at the lot, and/or in cull cattle arriving for slaughter.

Projects can be between one and three years in duration, but must be completed by Sept. 30, 2019.

The post Research on antimicrobial use and resistance to be funded appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.