ANTIBIOTICS REDUCTION ▶▶▶


How UK broiler farms cut antibiotic use


BY JAKE DAVIES R


eplacing where possible, reducing overall use and refining best practice have been the cornerstones of the antibiotic reduction programme that has deliv- ered dramatic results for the British poultry industry.


It has cut total use by almost three quarters, removed many of the most critically important drugs from poultry produc- tion and, perhaps most impressively, changed the percep- tions of an industry often stereotyped as the worst for irre- sponsible medicine use. All without government intervention or a change in the law. But it might have been a different story. In 2011 British legisla- tors were looking at tough new laws that the neighbouring government of the Netherlands had introduced, severely limit- ing the amount of antibiotics that could be used in agriculture.


Responsible use The poultry industry in the UK proactively decided to take


Broiler farmers in the UK reduced their antibiotic use by 82% between 2012 and 2017, and the sector now produces half the meat eaten in the UK using less than 9.7% of the total antibiotics licensed for food- producing animals. Here, Poultry World looks at how it was done.


matters into its own hands, setting up an Antibiotic Stewardship group in 2011 tasked with pre-empting the need for new laws. “Once you put legislation in place, you can create a lot of barriers and problems,” according to Slate Hall veterinarian Daniel Parker, who is an adviser to the group. “Our approach was to work with the government and demonstrate that these products were being used responsi- bly.”


A key part of the stewardship programme – which was co- ordinated by the British Poultry Council (BPC) – was that the


Contrast between UK human and animal antibiotics use revealed


New figures outline antibiotic use in both animals and humans in the UK, with the aim of supporting a ‘one health’ approach to tackling resistance. It is the second such re- port published by the UK government, cov- ering the period between 2013 and 2017. Based on use per bodyweight, there was a 40% reduction in antibiotics given to food-producing animals over that time, and a 9% reduction in humans. Use in humans accounted for 55% of the total in 2013, com- pared with 64% four years later. In 2017 the highest priority critically impor- tant antibiotics 89% (17t) were used in peo- ple. There has been an 8% increase in human use and a 51% decrease in animal use. These drugs are defined as colistin, fluoro- quinolones and third- and fourth-generation


cephalosporins. In response to the discovery of resistant genes to colistin, its use in food-producing animals decreased by 99% between 2015 and 2017. The poultry meat sector has contributed to the broader reduc- tion, reducing overall antibiotic use 71% in the past four years, despite production in- creasing 11% to over a billion birds a year. It also voluntarily stopped using colistin in 2016. In addition, the sector has imposed a voluntary ban on the use of third and fourth generation Cephalosporins. When compared with the rest of Europe, the UK ranks 10th


for antibiotic use in food-pro-


ducing animals, above the Netherlands, France, Germany and Poland, but below Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The Respon- sible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance


(RUMA), a non-profit group promoting re- sponsible medicine use in agriculture, wel- comed the report. It said: “In farming, cutting the risk of resistance developing within vet- erinary medicine is a primary goal as we need to preserve the antibiotics we have to ensure we can continue to treat disease and – in doing so – safeguard animal health and welfare and food safety. “ However, we also need to ensure that risk to human health arising from the use of antibi- otics in farm animals is kept to a minimum. “We are pleased by the progress in both these areas from measures introduced to im- prove stewardship, pioneered by the poultry meat sector in 2012 and implemented pro- gressively by other sectors from 2015 onwards.”


▶ POULTRY WORLD | No. 2, 2019 21


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36