Come to Terms
It’s time for producers to get a grip on their role in antibiotic stewardship.
Cattle producers might as well accept it. Increasingly, livestock are being managed in a glass house. Because consumers are interested and sometimes worried about food animal production practices, they want transparency. To a Kansas State University (K-State) veterinarian’s way of thinking, that means the use of antibiotics in food production must change. It is changing, according to Mike Apley, a practitioner-turned-professor at K-State’s College of Veterinary Medicine.
In a presentation to the 2016 International Symposium on Beef Cattle Welfare hosted June 8-10 in Manhattan, Kan., Apley said public concern about bacterial resistance to antibiotics is growing. People worry that animal agriculture’s use of antibiotics is part of the problem. Apley told producers to accept two facts:
- First, the antibiotic resistance issue is not just a product of public paranoia. It is real.
- Second, use of antibiotics in food animals does play a part in human medicine-related resistance issues. It is a pretty small role, but it matters.
Antibiotic resistance is real, and use of antibiotics in food animals does play a part in human medicine-related resistance issues, says Kansas State University’s Mike Apley. However, they also play a role in animal health and welfare.
Antibiotics matter to cattle production, too. Apley said antibiotic treatment for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) keeps one in seven animals from dying. Used prophylactically (mass medication), antibiotics prevent one in five from getting sick. Antibiotics do make a difference, and there is ample science to show it.
“We can bury consumers in data about how much good antibiotics do for animals, and the consumer is still going to ask, ‘But will it harm me?’ ” said Apley.
There is need, in Apley’s opinion, for more data to explain some things that are not well-understood. He thinks veterinary medicine needs a better understanding of how magnitude and duration of exposure to antibiotics relates to the development of resistance by bacteria. There is need for better understanding of the balance between duration of therapy and treatment success, failure or relapse rates.
Referencing new federal veterinary feed directive (VFD) regulations, Apley said antibiotic use is becoming more restricted. He believes regulations will become even more restrictive, and antibiotic use will be within that glass house. If, in the future, any antibiotics are to be allowed for use in livestock production, Apley believes the following must occur:
- Veterinarian control over all use of antimicrobials in animals.
- Research focused on “Duration of therapy.”
- Continued emphasis on prevention of infectious disease.
- Adherence to protocols and recordkeeping.
- True stewardship practices by veterinarians and producers.
“To me,” stated Apley, “the answer is responsible use and demonstrating the stewardship cycle.”
Apley said that means first asking whether there is a nonantibiotic alternative that will appropriately prevent, control or treat a disease challenge. If not, then an antibiotic that has been demonstrated safe and effective for the purpose can be chosen. It should be used appropriately, to assure safety and efficacy. To complete the stewardship cycle, though, we must keep asking whether there is some nonantibiotic alternative action that could be applied next time.
Watch for additional coverage of the 2016 ISBCW on www.angus.media and in the Angus Journal and Angus Beef Bulletin. Comprehensive meeting coverage will be archived at www.api-virtuallibrary.com/meetings_other_news.html.
Editor’s Note: Troy Smith is a cattleman and freelance writer from Sargent, Neb.