1

Antimicrobial Use in Swine

Is the Danish Model Our Future?

John Waddell, DVM

Sutton Veterinary Clinic

Sutton, Nebraska

“Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.” -Yogi

Numbers of pigs in Denmark from 1945-2000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Num

ber o

f pig

s (m

illio

ns)

Danish pig production

11.3

14.416.3

22.6 22.5 22.4 23 24

0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1980 1990 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Mill

. Pig

s

2

Number of pig producers in Denmark - 1960 to 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Farm

s w

ith p

igs

(100

0's)

WORLD PORK PRODUCTIONIN SELECTED COUNTRIES 2001

0123456789

Denm

ark

Canada

USA

Germ

any

Sweden

Netherlands

France

Spain

Ireland

UK

Source: Danske Slagterier, infosvin

Mil.tons

Hyography and demographyCanadaCanada DenmarkDenmark

Population: approx. 30 mio. people

Pig production: approx. 25.2 mio

Area: approx. 9.97 mio km²

approx. 5 mio. people

approx. 23.5 mio

approx. 44.000 km²

U.S.• 100.3 M pigs/year

• 71,000 producers

Iowa• 144,700 km2

• 28.8 M pigs/year

Denmark• 43,000 km2

• 23 M pigs/year

• 13,200 producers

3

Quality of Danish

1. Meat percentage

2. Meat quality (pH, waterbinding capacity, colour)

3. Uniformity

4. Supplier service

5. Residues

6. Production conditions, animal welfare etc.

The Danish breeding program

100 years of continuous, coordinated genetic improvement

Operated by the National Committee for Pigs

8750 sows in nucleus herds

On-farm and central station testing

BLUP And Multi-Trait analysis carried out centrally

Genetic improvement worth $2.00/market hog/year approx.

Genetic progress in litter size

10.010.511.011.512.012.513.013.514.0

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

No

. o

f p

igle

ts b

orn

/lit

ter

Large White Landrace

• no salmonella • no antibiotic growth promotors• no hormones• no meat and bonemeal• specified chemicals on crops• GMO ?

Food safety

4

Residues of antibiotics

% P

osi ti

v

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

Japan USA Canada UK Sweden Denmark

Swine density in different countries

050

100150200250300350400450500

Denm

ark

Canada

USA

Germ

any

Sweden

Netherlands

France

Spain

Ireland

UK

904Pigs/km²

COST OF PRODUCTIONIN SELECTED COUNTRIES

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Canad

aUSA

Irelan

dSp

ain

Denmar

k

Franc

e

Nether

lands

German

yUK

Swed

en

Feed Labour OtherSource: Danske Slagterier, infosvin

DKR/kg

Why the Danes are so successful

Integrated, cooperative structure

Good communication between all sectors

Major investment in R & D

Producers own processing and get the margin from it

A total focus on quality and customer needs

The industry is pro-active and anticipates change

5

What will limit Danish expansion?

Environmental constraints

Increased production costs

• EU & DK legislation, especially on welfare

• Restrictions on production enhancement tools

The Danish Welfare System

• No gestation stalls after 4 weeks post mating.

• Tail docking by prescription only! (and then only half the tail)

• Bedding and limited amount of slatted floor• No shoulder sores.• Strictly enforced space requirements

Denmark – medicines controlProducers must have 12 vet visits / year

Health report with action plan

Veterinarian can only supply treatments for short period

Medicines must be purchased from a pharmacy

2000 – VETSTAT scheme to monitor amount / type of medicines used

No preventative use of antimicrobials!

6

Removal of Growth Promoters in Denmark

1995 National ban on avoparcinVoluntary agreement between NCPP and the feedstuff industry to minimize the use of AGP’s

1998 National ban on virginiamycin (Jan)Voluntary agreement re. finishers (Mar)National tax on AGP’s (Sep) about $2 per pigAction plan to phase out AGP’s for weaners as of 1-1- 2000

1999 EU ban: tylosin, bacitracin, spiramycin and virginiamycinEU ban: olaquindox and carbadox

2000 Voluntary agreement to ban AGP’s for weaners (DK) 2001 Danmap antimicrobial use data collected by Vetstat2003 Increased use in some antibiotics brings on tighter controls2005 Further restrictions will include ionophores

Danish Total Animal Antibiotic Use

4856 57

62

81

94 95102106 107

49

12

0 0 0 00

20

40

60

80

100

120

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Medicatio n Growth Promotion

Decrease Antibiotic Use?

Total Antimicrobials for Treatment in Denmark

0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

100000

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2001

Kg

activ

e in

gred

ient

TotalTetracyclinePenicillinMacrolide

Decreased Antibiotic Use?

Change in Antimicrobial Use for Treatment v. 1997 Baseline

0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

100000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Kg

activ

e in

gred

ient

TotalTetracyclinePenicillinMacrolide

7

Results of the ban for finishers

• Over all, few problems• Ileitis caused some problems for some

farms• Increased in laboratory submissions and

diagnosis of ileitis.• A “flattening” of ADG curves occurred• No public outcry from producers• Minor effect on productivity

Percent Change Nursery Mortality v. 1998 Baseline

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1998 1999 2000 2001

Percent Change Finisher Mortalityv. 1997 Baseline

0%2%4%6%

8%10%12%14%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Niels Kjeldsen, Head of Dept. (Nutrition, Reproduction), The National Committee of Pig ProductionDenmark

At What Cost?

Ileitis as a diagnosis in DenmarkIleitis as a diagnosis in Denmark

1.80.8

1.7 1.32.5 2.2 2.1

3.2

10.39.5

12.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1stQtr 98

2ndQtr 98

3rdQtr 98

4thQtr 98

1stQtr 99

2ndQtr 99

Jul-99 Aug-99

Sep-99

Oct-99

Nov-99

% o

f dia

gnos

es

ADEs removedfrom starter/grower

DS Laboratory - Kjellerup

Industry experience of removing Industry experience of removing ADEsADEs

8

AGP ban for finishers (30-100 kg)- conclusions

1) Overall only few problems.

2) Existing know-how sufficient to solve problems.

3) ”What’s the big deal?”

Kjeldsen 2002

Results of the ban for weaners

• Outbreaks of diarrhoea in nurseries– Ileitis was allowed to express itself– Post weaning treatments went up about

250%Larger spread in weight at transferLower weight at transferIncreased mortalityDecreased average daily gains

Nursery ADG and Days to 30 kg

395400405410415420425430

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Gra

ms

81

82

83

84

85

86

ADG Days to 30 kg

Percent Change Nursery Mortality v. 1998 Baseline

-5%

0%

5%

10%15%

20%

25%

30%

1998 1999 2000 2001

9

What producers have done:

Increased weaning age by about 3 days

Reduced ration density (protein/energy)

Utilized more therapeutic antimicrobials

Practice limit feeding where possible

Added Zn oxide and organic acids to diets

What Danish producers and vets say:

Resist the calls for bans

They must try to recoup losses via marketing perception of higher quality

They have learned to adapt

Their perception of U.S. production is one of extremely high level of antibiotic use

They hope our government bans ours too!

Estimated Costs of a Ban in the US

• $1 to $2 per head in the finishing phase• $2 to $3 per head in the weaner stage• Hayes and Jensen estimated $4.50 to

$5.00 per head in the U.S.

The results of the experiment• Public Health Benefit?

– No positive effect on Salmonella resistance

– Reduction in resistance in pig isolates

– Negative effect on pig health and welfare

– Slight reduction in food borne illnesses

• Decrease antibiotic use?– Danish antibiotic use is on the rise

– U.S. does not have flexible feed medication labeling

– Unintended consequence - increase in antibiotic use

• Improved marketing?– That is the Danish producers only benefit of the ban!

10

Bottom line• The “Precautionary Principle”

– “When in doubt….don’t!”

– Replaces good science

• Minimizing exposure makes more sense

– Improved hygiene

– Consumer education

• Follow the Danish “experiment”???– That is exactly what it turned out to be….an

experiment!

Production Changes Summary

• More labor• Increased cost of production• More antibiotic use in weaned pigs• Increased need for better management

Is this our future?• Our marketing system is different• Our industry is 4 times the size• Vets in DK have more flexible rules for Rx• Has the FDA been wrong until now?• Will we learn from the Danes?• Will we stand and fight or appease the

activists?• Will junk science and activism win the day?

What can producers do?• Follow Prudent and Judicious Use

Guidelines and AMDUCA• Treat Antibiotic Use as a privilege, not a

right• Be able to discuss the uses of antibiotics

with interested parties– Take any chance to educate the public by

becoming a risk communicator – for production agriculture, public health and food safety

• Be involved in producer and community activities• Think globally…act locally!

11

What can producers do?• Always take the high road….put welfare

first!• Be cognizant of the economic effects of

antibiotics but be aware that this is not an issue with activists

• Remember that herd or flock treatment, while medically necessary at times, is perceived negatively

What can producers do?• Utilize the “Take Care – Use antibiotics

responsibly” program from NPB • Don’t roll over and start down the

“slippery slope” (creeping incrementalism)

• Remember, antibiotic use in livestock is not the real issue with the activists…so don’t appease them.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Winston Churchill

Producing without AGPs

”It is possible –

but it is not an easy task”

Kjeldsen 2002

12