Associations between biosecurity, herd characteristics, production parameters

and antimicrobial usage in pig production in four EU countries

Jeroen DewulfJeroen.Dewulf@UGent.be

14/06/2017 1MINAPIG consortium – www.minapig.eu

Merel Postma, Annette Backhans, Lucie Collineau, Svenja Lösken, Marie Sjölund, Catherine Belloc, Ulf Emanuelson, Elisabeth Grosse Beilage, Elisabeth Okholm Nielsen and Katharina D.C. Stärk

Linking antimicrobial use to antimicrobial resistance in 7 EU countries based on surveillance data

y = -0,0002x2 + 0,0255x - 0,0707R² = 0,93

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Arc

sin

% A

M r

esis

tan

ce

Antimicrobial use (mg/PCU)

(a) Aminopenicillins (ampicillin)

y = 0,6887x2 - 0,1812x + 0,0135R² = 0,94

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6A

rcsi

n %

AM

res

ista

nce

Antimicrobial use (mg/PCU)

(b) Third generation Cephalosporins (cefotaxime)

y = 1,1278x2 - 0,2875x + 0,0221R² = 0,99

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Arc

sin

% A

M r

esis

tan

ce

Antimicrobial use (mg/PCU)

(c) Fluoroquinolons (ciprofloxacin)

y = 0,1313x2 + 0,1234x - 0,0112R² = 0,99

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Arc

sin

% A

M r

esis

tan

ce

Antimicrobial use (mg/PCU)

(d) Amphenicols (chloramphenicol)

y = -0,0021x2 + 0,0241x - 0,0188R² = 0,80

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0 2 4 6 8

Arc

sin

% A

M r

esis

tan

ce

Antimicrobial use (mg/PCU)

(e) Aminoglycosids (gentamicin)

y = -0,0149x2 + 0,1752x + 0,0057R² = 0,81

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8

Arc

sin

% A

M r

esis

tan

ce

Antimicrobial use (mg/PCU)

(f) Aminoglycosids (streptomycin)

Chantziaras et al., 2014

Linking antimicrobial use to antimicrobial resistance in 7 EU countries based on surveillance data

Chantziaras et al., 2014

Austria

Denmark

Netherlands

Belgium

Switzerland

SwedenNorway

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ave

rage

an

tim

icro

bia

l re

sist

ance

ran

kin

g

Average antimicrobial use ranking

Of the 120 experts that responded, 111 rankings were used for further analysis (Belgium n = 24, Denmark n = 30, France n = 8, Germany n = 17, Sweden n = 23, Switzerland n = 9)

Perceived alternatives (Vets) Average of effectiveness,

feasibility, ROI

Mean Ranking

Internal biosecurity 7.5 1

Increased vaccination 7.2 2

Zinc/metals 7.2 3

Feed quality/optimisation 7.2 4

Diagnostics/action plan 7.0 5

External biosecurity 7.0 6

Climate/environmental 7.0 7

Communication/unified advice 6.6 8

Water quality 6.5 9

Age and transfer management 6.5 10

Postma et al., 2015

Aim

• Study the relationship between

14/06/2017 7

Antimicrobial use

BiosecurityManagement / production

Herd CharactheristicsCountry

Study design

• Multi country:– Belgium = 47– France = 60– Germany = 60– Sweden = 60

• All herds ≥ 100 sows, 500 finishers• Intention for representativeness / depending on

willingness to cooperate• Study performed between Dec. 2012 – Dec. 2013

14/06/2017 8

Study design

• All herds visited by researcher or trained veterinarian

• Dedicated herd visit with datacollection on– General health and production characteristics

(preceding year)

– Herd characteristics

– Biosecurity

– Antimicrobial usage (preceding year)

14/06/2017 9

Study design

• General health and production characteristics– Weaned piglets per sow per year (WSY) – Mortalities– ADG– Feed conversion rate (FCR)

• Herd characteristics– Age / experience farmer – Gender– Farrowing rhythm– Weaning age– ….

14/06/2017 10

Study design

• Biosecurity

– Assessed by means of validated risk-based biosecurity scoring system: Biocheck.ugent

– 109 questions

– Provides a score for internal and external biosecurity

14/06/2017 11

Results: Biosecurity status

14/06/2017 12

Green = Internal biosecurityBlue = External biosecurity

Results: Biosecurity status

14/06/2017 13Postma et al., 2016

Study design

• Antimicrobial use

𝑇𝐼

=Total amount of antimicrobials administered (mg)

DDDA (mg/kg) x number of days at risk x kg animal at risk𝑥 1000 𝑝𝑖𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘

– TI calculated per age category and for entire production period (200 days)

– TI200 = 150: meaning that over the full production length a pig is treated for 15 % (=150/1000) of its lifetime

14/06/2017 14

Results: AMU

14/06/2017 15

a a b c

Results: AMU

14/06/2017 16

a a b a

Results: AMU

14/06/2017 17

Country

Antimicrobial class Belgium France Germany Sweden

Aminoglycosides 0.0% 7.9% 1.2% 0.2%

Aminopenicillins 37.7%1 15.7%3 35.7%1 6.2%4

Amphenicols 0.1% 0.5% ˂0.0% 0*

Benzylpenicillin 0.4% 0* 1.0% 61.2%1

Benzylpenicillin in combination

˂0.0% 2.1% 4.6% 0.9%

3rd & 4th generation Cefalosporins 10.8%4 1.2% 1.8% 0*

Fluoroquinolones 5.3% 0.4% 1.3% 1.3%

Macrolides 14.7%3 12.6%4 18.1%2 9.0%3

Macrolides in combination

1.6% 2.9% 0.5% 0*

Polymixins 17.5%2 30.1%1 13.6%4 4.3%

Sulfonamides and trimethoprim

5.1% 8.0% 3.4% 13.1%2

Tetracyclines 6.8% 18.2%2 17.3%3 2.9%

Tiamulin 0.1% 0.5% 1.3% 1.0%

Valnemulin 0* 0* 0.1% 0*

Results: AMU

14/06/2017 18

Results: Associations

14/06/2017 19

Results: Top farmers

14/06/2017 20

Results: Top farmers

14/06/2017 21

– On average higher internal biosecurity status.

– Located in a more favorable environment (lower pig density and limited contact with wildlife).

– Treated less frequently against respiratory clinical symptoms in weaners and finishers.

Substantial reduction antimicrobial usage without

jeopardizing production by coaching?

22

61 Flemish herds

3 Herd visits

Intervention & follow up

23

24

Coaching

25

% ADVISED % FEASIBLE % IMPLEMENTED

Registration symptoms & moment mortality for analysis 95 98 66

Hand hygiene, change coverall and clean boots 86 88 59

Change needles often 85 82 62

Hygiene lock per animal/age category 76 58 7

Use strict euthanasia policy 71 90 81

Wash sow before farrowing crate 68 45 20

Analysis drink water 1x/year well/pipes 68 98 80

Keep dog/cat out of the stable 49 34 21

AI / AO, do not return to younger age group 41 54 33

Use dirty road for transport of manure 20 100 75

Change wooden boards for plastic boards 10 67 83

Biosecurity & Management

26

% ADVISED % FEASIBLE % IMPLEMENTED

Request slaughter findings for analysis 75 59 57

Additional vaccinations in general 51 94 81

Additional specific vaccinations: PCV2 16 100 62

Check serology titres in general 33 95 90

Adjustment of vaccination scheme: Atrofic rhinitis 8 100 80

Diagnostics & vaccination

27

% ADVISED % FEASIBLE % IMPLEMENTED

Restrictive use of potent AM 92 72 45

Stop (routine) prophylactic treatment birth until slaughter 88 69 59

Stop prophylactic treatment in sows 24 90 83

Ask for resistance profile/sensitivity testing 7 79 0

Prudent antimicrobial usage

28

Herd specific advice

314

38

119

42

135

4

5019

201

65

109

40

144

15

60

37

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Tre

atm

en

t in

cid

en

ce

Piglets Finishers Birth-slaughter 205 days Sows

Average TI DDDA routine visit 1

Average TI DDDA curative visit 1

Average TI DDDA routine visit 3

Average TI DDDA curative visit 3

- 45.8%

- 81.6%

- 52.0%

- 31.7%

29

VISIT MEAN DIFFERENCE P-VALUE

Number of weaned piglets per sow per year

Initial 26.4

+1,1 <0.01Follow

up27.5

Daily weight gain (g/day) finishers

Initial 667.5

+7,7 0.01Follow

up675.2

Mortality in finisher period (%)

Initial 3.2

-0,6 0.04Follow

up2.6

30

Production parameters

Net benefit

€ 42,99 per sow/year

€ 2,67 per finisher/year

(Rojo-Gimeno C. and Postma M. et al., 2016) 31

Coaching of farmers & team work

52% Reduction AMU possible

Important reduction critically important antimicrobials

Improved technical results & economically beneficial

32

Prospective intervention study to explore measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in

pig production

• Multi country: Belgium; France; Germany; Sweden

• Interventions

• Improved internal / external biosecuirty

• Vaccination

• Changes water / feed schemes

• Herd manangement

Intervention study

Intervention study

-35.2%

Across the 4 countries

Median TI200d before: 247.3

Median TI200d after: 160.2

P < 0.001 ***

• Herds with high usage can reduce more

• No single intervention can be recommended forall herds

Intervention study

37

Supervising:

Prof. Dr. Katharina Stärk

Prof. Dr. Elisabeth grosse Beilage

Dr. Catherine Belloc

Prof. Dr. Jeroen Dewulf

Prof. Dr. Ulf Emanuelson

Prof. Dr. Christian A. Körk

Executing:

Annette Backhans, DVM, PhD

Lucie Collineau, DVM, MSc

Svenja Lösken, DVM

Elisabeth O. Nielsen, DVM, PhD

Merel Postma, DVM

Marie Sjölund, DVM, PhD

Vivianne Visschers, MSc, PhD

Supporting:

Prof. Dr. Ann Lindberg

Hugo Seemer, DVM, PhD

Petra Maas, DVM, PhD

14/06/2017 38

The MINAPIG consortium

MINAPIG consortium – www.minapig.eu