Will antibiotic reduction lead to higher mortality?


Surprisingly, average mortality usually declines when antibiotics are reduced with care. Implementation of thoughtful strategies, declines in the efficacy of antibiotics and improving production standards may explain why.


BY MELCHIOR DE BRUIN AND BARBARA BRUTSAERT, GLOBAL PROGRAMME MANAGERS POULTRY HEALTH, TROUW NUTRITION


W


100% 110%


10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 (first half) 30 ▶ ANTIBIOTIC REDUCTION | DECEMBER 2021 93.85% 94.22% 96.04% 94.83% 95.28%


hile it is impossible to predict the future, insights gleaned from countless antibiotic reduction projects conducted by Trouw Nutrition and Skretting over the past decade,


show it is possible to reduce antibiotics in livestock production without increasing mortality (Figure 1). This article will look at factors that can make or break success when reducing antibiotics.


Tailor-made approaches The trend of reducing antibiotics in livestock production is gaining momentum around the globe. While some producers


Figure 1 - The antibiotic reduction journey of Spanish poultry integrator Grupo SADA.


95.06% 95.30%


are just beginning the transition, others have well- established models of reducing or even eliminating antibiotics. A survey conducted at a recent Trouw Nutrition poultry industry event revealed most countries have already started to reduce antibiotic usage in livestock production and will continue to do so in the future (Figure 2). The challenge of reducing antibiotics varies significantly between continents, countries, businesses and even production operations within the same company. The diversity of production climates, regulations and market/trade dynamics mean a one-size-fits- all approach is not realistic. A common denominator of successful antibiotic reduction initiatives is a tailor-made approach. As these tailored approaches have been introduced on farms around the world some distinguishing common elements of success have often been observed. These common aspects may hold the answer as to why mortality often decreases when antibiotics are reduced.


Volume of antibiotic used compared to 2015


Flock livability


Piloting, planning and preparation Sufficient time and resources are essential keys to success when reducing antibiotics. Various issues associated with production efficiency (such as higher average mortality) have been observed when producers are surprised with antibiotic reduction demands. For example, retailers’ demands for animals raised without antibiotics, new export requirements and legislation restricting the use of antibiotics can all catch producers off guard and leave them with little time to implement alternative production strategies. Here’s where some experience piloting antibiotic reduction strategies can help. Acquiring some small-scale experience producing livestock with limited or no antibiotics often turns out to be a valuable advantage in rolling out an operation-wide antibiotic reduction programme. A second important factor involves preparation. Before accelerating antibiotic reduction efforts or removing them entirely from an operation, relevant risk factors connected to antibiotic use must be uncovered. Raw material quality, feed formulation, endemic animal diseases and various aspects of farm management are often relevant when looking for risk factors. As some of these potential risks are disguised by antibiotic usage, seeking an external farm audit is very helpful in identifying risks that might otherwise be hidden. Once risk factors have been identified, staff training will prepare everyone for the upcoming changes and equip farm


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  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96