In veterinary circles, it’s widely understood that, like in human medicine, using antimicrobial treatments to improve animal welfare will eventually contribute to antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
Slowly, but surely, bacteria that cause diseases in people are acquiring more resistance to medications used to treat those infections.
“Antibiotic-resistant disease is still very much the exception in dairy cattle, not the rule,” said Dr. Stephen LeBlanc, a veterinarian and professor working in dairy cattle health management at the University of Guelph, and a Food from Thought researcher.
“But all sectors of animal agriculture and veterinary medicine still have to do their part to practice prudent use,” said LeBlanc, who is also director of Dairy at Guelph — The Centre for Dairy Research and Innovation.
“That selection pressure, or creation of resistance, is a very broad-based problem. The adage is that, ‘Antimicrobial use anywhere will, in the long run, contribute to antimicrobial resistance everywhere.’ ”
A series of research projects funded by Food from Thought are informing the refinement and development of antimicrobial stewardship programs and practices that are relevant to dairy operations across Canada.
One of these projects enrolled 30 Ontario dairy farms to track their antimicrobial use for treating illness over one year.
Farmers then compared their own antimicrobial use against the benchmark of their peers in the study to determine if they were using these treatments more often than other dairy operations.
Additionally, a pilot study involving 15 dairy farms assessed the effects of educational materials about AMR and stewardship on antimicrobial use. This pilot study also shared benchmarking data with farmers to see if it would impact their decision-making.
Educational materials in the study included videos to reinforce how decisions at the farm level can contribute to the emerging global problem of AMR, and its health implications for humans and animals. Almost all participants reported that, because of the study, they discussed their antimicrobial use with their veterinarian, and 60% said they changed their practices. Overall, there was a 27% reduction in antimicrobial use following the package of interventions.
“I’m encouraged,” said Dr. LeBlanc. “I think there will be a growing amount of activity around promotion of antimicrobial stewardship—meaning, rational use.
“The other adage about antimicrobial use is, ‘as much as necessary (for health and welfare), but as little as possible.’ ”
Dr. LeBlanc and his team also conducted interviews and focus groups with dairy farmers and dairy veterinarians to understand their mindsets, thought processes, and decision-making around antimicrobial use.
In general, the key motivator for both farmers and veterinarians was maintaining quality of life for animals; antimicrobials were seen as an acute response to disease, and part of the duty of care to animals.
The results of this research point to the need for a more nuanced approach to stewardship. Rather than pushing famers and veterinarians to simply ‘use less’ antimicrobials, nuanced messages rooted in greater understanding of AMR and its implications will lead to strategies that generate “win-win-win” situations.
Dr. LeBlanc defines the three components of a win-win-win situation: 1) Maintaining animal health and welfare; 2) Reduced antimicrobial use; and 3) Ultimately, less AMR.
He pointed to a clinical field trial from his research team in commercial dairy herds that treated cows with uterine disease with an approved anti-inflammatory medication as opposed to the standard antibiotic therapy.
This study, funded by the Government of Ontario through the Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance, suggests the potential to reduce antibiotic use by up to 90% for one specific condition without affecting animal health or performance. The study needs to be replicated in more herds before this approach can be implemented widely.
“We got equally good outcomes with either approach,” he said. “So, we’re still looking after the animal, and treating illness appropriately in terms of animal health and welfare, but substituting and thereby cutting antibiotic use. That’s the sort of win-win-win that we’re after.”
Dr. LeBlanc’s Food from Thought study was intended as a preliminary step toward addressing AMR, potentially leading to system-level changes that might improve outcomes.
It remains to be seen if more regulation is the best option; he noted that other countries have seen mixed results from legislation that required cutting antimicrobial use by rigid figures. Changing local behaviour through education might be the better path.
“I think that really needs to be tailored, and at this point we should pursue multiple paths informed by these results to achieve good antimicrobial stewardship,” he said.
Building on his Food from Thought project, Dr. LeBlanc is partnering with Dairy Farmers of Canada and Agriculture Canada for additional pilot testing. These tests will be similar to the Food from Thought interventions, but on a larger scale, expanding the education and awareness-raising initiative to more dairy herds and veterinary practices.
“Food from Thought has been tremendously positive,” he said. “[This research] got done sooner, faster, and more effectively with Food from Thought support than it otherwise would have.”
“We’ve got farmers and veterinarians who have very good motivations in terms of animal health and welfare,” he added.
“The key is that stewardship message—‘as much as is necessary, but as little as possible.’
“I think finding that sweet spot, and finding those win-win-wins is going to be the path to success.”
More from Food from Thought:
A Look Inside: Visualizing Agri-food Research with Food from Thought
Truth and Reconciliation in Research
From Farm to Dead Zone: Saving the Biodiversity of the Great Lakes
