Dr. Peter Davies - Perceptions About Raising Food Animals Without Antibiotics
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•78 vues
Perceptions About Raising Food Animals Without Antibiotics - Dr. Peter Davies, from the 2018 Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, September 15-18, 2018, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2018-leman-swine-conference-material
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Dr. Peter Davies - Perceptions About Raising Food Animals Without Antibiotics
Similaire à Dr. Peter Davies - Perceptions About Raising Food Animals Without Antibiotics (20)
Plus de John Blue
Plus de John Blue (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Dr. Peter Davies - Perceptions About Raising Food Animals Without Antibiotics
- 1. Randall Singer Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC University of Minnesota Dan Thomson Thomson Livestock Consulting, LLC Kansas State University Jennifer Wishnie Wishnie Consulting, LLC and California Polytechnic University Mallory Gage Gage Group Consulting, LLC Leah Porter Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC Amanda Beaudoin Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC University of Minnesota Potential Impacts of No Antibiotics Ever / Raised Without Antibiotics Production on Animal Health and Welfare
- 2. • Ensuring the safety, health, and overall well-being of animals raised for food is an ethical obligation • Changes have been made to antibiotic use in animal agriculture – Many producers, especially in poultry, have eliminated much of their antibiotic use – Shift to raising animals without antibiotics (RWA) • Demand for RWA products is growing in the U.S. but there are concerns that RWA claims and associated practices are negatively affecting animal health and welfare Introduction
- 3. • The objective of this project was to survey veterinarians and producers in animal agriculture about their experiences and opinions of raising animals without antibiotics (RWA) • The survey was designed in Qualtrics and was announced and disseminated through professional organizations and commodity groups • The survey was open from February 15 through March 23, 2018 • Data were analyzed in Qualtrics, Stata and Excel Approach
- 4. Total Swine Role 565 148 Practicing Veterinarian 43.9% 37.6% Research/Academic/Government Veterinarian 5.1% 4.7% Research/Academic/Government Non-veterinarian 1.1% 0.7% Manager/Producer/Grower/ Rancher/Owner 37.9% 47.3% Technical Services 7.8% 5.4% Other 4.3% 4.1% Country of Experience United States 95.2% 95.9% International 4.8% 4.1% Experience with RWA Current Experience 42.7% 33.8% Previous Experience 13.5% 20.3% No Experience 43.9% 46.0% Characteristics of Participants RWA Respondents Conventional Respondents
- 5. Swine RWA Respondents 75 To decrease antibiotic resistance 13.3% To improve animal health and welfare 13.3% To increase sale price of animals/product 54.7% To gain market entry into a retail program 40.0% To fulfill a client/customer request 69.3% To eliminate the use of medically important antibiotics 8.0% Conventional Respondents 67 Not profitable 28.4% Concerned about negative impacts to animal health and welfare 76.1% No market pressure 31.3% Not a sustainable consumer trend 25.4% Food safety concerns 28.4% Already eliminated the use of medically important antibiotics 22.4% Already raising animals in a responsible use program 73.1% Factors Contributing to Decision to Raise Animals RWA or Conventionally Market driven reasons
- 6. Swine RWA Respondents 75 Industry sponsored program 5.3% Private/Retail/Restaurant/Food Service program 45.3% Packer/Processor program 52.0% State/Federal government program 1.3% No program 18.7% RWA Program Types Used
- 7. RWA Conventional Programs 74 67 PQA Plus/Common Swine Industry Audit 79.7% 92.5% NOS – National Organic Standard 4.1% GAP 17.6% 1.5% Certified Humane (Humane Farm Animal Care) 5.4% 1.5% American Humane Certified 2.7% 3.0% Animal Welfare Approved 8.1% 4.5% Privately owned/facilitated animal welfare program 23.0% 25.4% No program 12.2% 6.0% Swine Welfare Programs by RWA Experience
- 8. Disease Challenges - Swine 1 6 7 30 27 1 2 14 20 29 1 10 10 11 13 26 2 4 10 19 16 14 2 9 15 21 11 13 3 3 21 15 14 11 3 21 18 13 11 5 2 14 19 14 12 5 14 23 16 12 6 9 35 11 2 3 6 51 7 6 7 49 10 3 2 1 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Erysipelas Salmonella Ileitis Mycoplasma pneumonia A. suis, H. parasuis, and S. suis Post weaning hemolytic E. coli Erysipelas Salmonella Ileitis Mycoplasma pneumonia Post weaning hemolytic E. coli A. suis, H. parasuis, and S. suis Most 2 3 4 5 Least Conventional Production RWA Production 1 10 9 21 23 7 27 26 13 5 7 11 21 13 12 7 6 10 15 18 16 6 1 2 3 14 51 30 13 11 11 6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Most 2 3 4 5 Least Rank 4 3 14 35 10 20 16 14 12 3 1 14 19 15 14 2 2 2 10 21 19 11 3 1 2 3 2 9 49 29 14 11 5 6 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Most 2 3 4 5 Least Rank
- 9. Health & Welfare Challenges - Swine 3 3 4 13 47 4 3 4 3 7 45 5 6 4 8 31 16 3 4 6 10 30 13 4 9 16 23 14 4 16 11 12 14 12 1 14 7 24 17 6 2 9 20 14 10 8 5 23 13 14 13 6 1 11 19 20 11 5 24 32 9 5 23 9 10 18 4 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Reproductive system disorders Damaging behaviors (tail/ear/flank biting) Musculoskeletal system disorders Central nervous system disorders Digestive system disorders Respiratory system disorders Damaging behaviors (tail/ear/flank biting) Central nervous system disorders Musculoskeletal system disorders Reproductive system disorders Digestive system disorders Respiratory system disorders Most 2 3 4 5 Least Conventional Production RWA Production 47 16 4 2 1 5 4 14 23 24 3 4 16 24 14 9 13 31 14 6 6 3 6 9 7 13 32 4 8 23 17 13 5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Most 2 3 4 5 Least Rank 45 13 1 5 2 3 10 14 10 11 18 4 6 12 14 20 10 7 30 12 8 5 4 4 3 16 9 11 23 3 4 11 20 19 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Most 2 3 4 5 Least Rank
- 10. Impacts on Production - Swine 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Age at Slaughter (n=17) Downtime (n=17) Stocking Density (n=17) Grower Pay (n=17) RelativeFrequency Conventional Decreased No Change Increased Not sure 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Feed Efficiency (n=73) Morbidity (n=73) Mortality (n=74) Age at Slaughter (n=73) Weight at Slaughter (n=73) RelativeFrequency Feed Efficiency (n=66) Morbidity (n=66) Mortality (n=67) Age at Slaughter (n=67) Weight at Slaughter (n=67) RWA Conventional
- 11. Change in Management - Swine 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Weaning Age (n=71) Air Filtering (n=72) Personnel (n=71) Biosecurity (n=71) Space Allowance (n=71) Bedding (n=70) RelativeFrequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% RelativeFrequency (n=67) RWA Conventional (n=67) (n=67) (n=67)(n=67) (n=67)
- 12. Food Safety – What Respondent Believes [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency Q: How do you think raised without antibiotics production impacts food safety?
- 13. Food Safety – Perception of Customer Beliefs [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwine Turke yBroiler Reletave Frequency Q: In your opinion, how do retailers/restaurants/food safety think raised without antibiotics production impacts their food safety?
- 14. Health & Welfare – What Respondent Believes [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwine Turke yBroiler Reletave Frequency Q: How do you think raised without antibiotics productions impacts animal health and welfare?
- 15. Health & Welfare – Perception of Customer Beliefs [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwine Turke yBroiler Reletave Frequency Q: In your opinion, how do retailers/restaurants/food safety think raised without antibiotics productions impacts animal health and welfare?
- 16. RWA Impacts on Cost [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency
- 17. RWA Impacts on Demand [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency
- 18. There are times that maintaining an RWA label has priority over flock/herd health and welfare [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency
- 19. There are times that maintaining an RWA label has priority over flock/herd health and welfare Veterinarians and Producers [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] [CELLRANGE ] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Conventional RWA Conventional RWA VetsProducers Reletave Frequency
- 20. Respondent Opinion on the Need for More RWA Auditing [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency
- 21. Antibiotic use in my animals does not cause problems in humans [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency
- 22. Antibiotic use in my animals will make it harder to treat infections in my animals in the future [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency
- 23. Antibiotic use in my animals leads to bacterial infections in humans that are more difficult to treat [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA Conventional DairyBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency
- 24. I would be willing to treat my animals with antibiotic alternatives if they were equally effective [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Conventional RWA Conventional RWA Conventional RWA RWA ConventionalBeefSwineTurkeyBroiler Reletave Frequency
- 25. • Across all surveyed commodities, the main reason for going RWA was market-driven: “to fulfill a client/customer request” – “Market entry” and “Sale price” were also important • Main concern expressed by Conventional respondents for not going RWA was: “Concerned about negative impacts to animal health and welfare” – Most already in a Responsible Antibiotic Use program Conclusions
- 26. • Huge discrepancy between what the Respondent believes and what the perception of what the Customer / Retailer believes – Respondents across all commodities believe that RWA worsens animal health and welfare, whereas they think that the Customer believes that health and welfare are significantly improved – Difference not as pronounced regarding opinion about impacts on food safety Conclusions
- 27. • Across all surveyed commodities, respondents agreed with the statement that their antibiotic use does not cause problems in humans and disagreed with the statement that their use leads to human infections that are more difficult to treat • Across all surveyed commodities, respondents were mixed in their opinion regarding the relationship between their own antibiotic use and the ability to treat animal infections Conclusions
- 28. • Many respondents felt that there are times when the RWA label takes priority over animal health and welfare • Across all surveyed commodities, respondents generally felt that there was a need for increased auditing of animal health and welfare in RWA systems Conclusions
Notes de l'éditeur
- Data intense talk; no spin and no messaging. Much more out of the survey than there is time to talk about today. Will be published in the peer-reviewed literature.
- All of the commodity groups have seen the trend of moving to raising animals without antibiotics production.
- The objective of this project was to survey veterinarians and producers in animal agriculture about their experiences and opinions of raising animals without antibiotics (RWA), and more specifically to investigate the impacts of removing antibiotics from the food animal supply chain on key parameters such as animal health and welfare, food safety, consumer demand, and cost of food production. The survey was developed by study co-authors, who include veterinarians with expertise in antibiotic use and stewardship and the study commodities (beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, turkey, broilers). The tool was reviewed by a small number of industry experts in each commodity for clarity, completeness, and usability. Questions were minimally modified to reflect each of the five commodity types. The survey included no identifying information and was entirely anonymous. The survey was designed in Qualtrics and was announced and disseminated as a hyperlink through professional organizations and commodity groups, including, for swine, the AASV newsletter, AASV Pharmaceutical Issues Committee, National Hog Farmer, Pork Magazine and the NPPC Committee on Animal Health and Food Security Policy, participants of the Swine Veterinarian Public Policy Program and NPPC Board of Directors. The survey was open from February 15 through March 23, 2018 Data were analyzed in Qualtrics, Stata and Excel
- A total of 565 completed responses were received from veterinarians, producers, and other stakeholders involved directly in raising broilers, turkeys, swine, beef cattle or dairy cattle. In swine a total of 148 completed responses were received. Six international respondents were excluded from this analysis due to their small number, and the potential for varying international regulatory and production systems to influence responses. Most U.S. swine respondents self-identified as practicing veterinarians (n=56, 37.6%) and producers (n=70, 47.3%). Results were similar for the other commodities. Just over half of the respondents currently work with (n=50, 33.8%) or have previously worked with (n=30, 20.3%) animals being raised without antibiotics (RWA respondents). The remaining respondents (n=68, 46%) had never worked with animals raised without antibiotics (Conventional respondents). Many of these cited animal health and welfare challenges as a reason they stopped working with this type of production. About a quarter of the RWA respondents no longer working in RWA systems cited insufficient market support (reasons given included limited market opportunity, infeasible cost structures, and going out of business).
- RWA respondents were asked why they decided to work with swine where the use of antibiotics was not allowed. The most commonly identified reasons were market-driven, including the need to fulfill a client/customer request (n=52, 69.3%), to increase sale price of animals/product (n=41, 54.7%) and to gain market entry into a retail program (n=30. 40.0%) (Table 11). Conventional respondents primary reasons for deciding not to work with swine where the use of antibiotics was not allowed were concerns about negative impacts to animal health and welfare (n=51, 76.1%) and that they were already raising animals in a responsible use program (n=49, 73.1%) were commonly identified reasons (Table 11).
- Respondents were asked about their experience with different types of RWA programs. The majority of RWA respondents participated in a packer/processor program (n=39, 52.0%) and/or a private/retail/restaurant/food service program (n=34, 45.3%). Many within turkey and beef sections not in any RWA program.
- Respondents were asked whether they were part of an animal welfare program. The majority of respondents in both RWA and Conventional groups were part of the PQA Plus/Common Swine Industry Audit (n=59, 79.7% of RWA respondents and n=62, 92.5% of Conventional respondents), while a smaller number (n=17, 23% of RWA respondents and n=17, 25.4% of Conventional respondents) were part of a privately owned/facilitated animal welfare program. Diversity of welfare programs within commodity, private/retail in poultry and no program in beef across RWA and Conventional groups.
- Respondents were asked to rank disease challenges from most to least that are problematic when raising swine without and with antibiotics. They were also able to list “other” disease challenges. Post weaning hemolytic E. coli and Actinobacillus suis, Haemophilus parasuis and Streptoococcus suis were ranked as the most problematic disease challenges when raising swine without antibiotic (RWA respondents) and with antibiotic use (Conventional respondents). Similar disease challenges were observed when stratified by Role (veterinarian and producer). These responses are shown on the left using a heat map to display the cumulative ranks for each disease, while the figures on the right show the disease composition within each rank. Fourteen of the RWA respondents selected the “Other” category on this question; 3 of the respondents listed Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) and 3 listed Influenza. Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) accounted for 10/12 “Other” responses from Conventional respondents.
- Similar to the disease challenges, respondents were asked to rank the health and welfare challenges that are problematic when raising swine without and with the use of antibiotics, respectively. Respiratory system disorders were by far the most problematic health and welfare disorder when raising swine without and with the use of antibiotics. Digestive system disorders were ranked second by both RWA and Conventional respondents; although with less frequency. Again, these responses are shown in on the left using a heat map to display the cumulative ranks for each challenge, and on the right displaying the composition within each rank. Interpretation: The same primary disease challenges, and animal health and welfare challenges, were observed in both RWA and Conventional systems.
- Respondents were asked identify potential impacts on production parameters associated with raising swine without antibiotics. Respondent were given four different outcomes and asked asked whether the production parameters were decreased, there was no change, increased or they were not sure about effect of RWA production on the parameters. Conventional respondent were asked what the impact of switching to RWA would be on the production parameters. The majority of both RWA and Conventional respondents believed that feed efficiency (greater than 50% across groups), morbidity and mortality (greater than 70% across groups), and age at slaughter (greater than 60% across groups) was/would be negatively impacted when raising swine without the use of antibiotics The majority of respondents in both RWA and Conventional groups also thought that weight at slaughter would either not change or would be decreased when switching to raising swine without the use of antibiotics. Interpretation: While there was broad agreement across groups that switching to raising swine without antibiotics negatively impacts several production parameters, it is interesting to note that the proportion of Conventional respondents holding this view was greater than the proportion of RWA respondents across all categories. Interestingly, both RWA and Conventional veterinarians were more likely than producers to report that feed efficiency was/would be decreased when switching to raising swine without antibiotics (p=0.0005 and p=0.07, respectively). This was the only response for which there was a statistically significant difference between the veterinarians and producers.
- Respondents were asked identify changes to management or facilities that would be necessary when raising swine without antibiotics. In this case, respondents were asked whether there was (yes), wasn’t (no) or they weren’t sure if there was an impact on the management parameters. Interpretation: There was broad agreement across groups that changes in management strategies are necessary when switching to raising pigs without antibiotics. The majority of both groups of respondents identified weaning age, biosecurity, space and personnel as requiring changes when moving to raising swine without the use of antibiotics (greater than 60% for both groups across all changes). There were no statistically significant differences in the responses between the veterinarians and producers (all P > 0.05).
- The next set of questions looks at all the commodities together and use a Likert scale response to visualize the impacts of RWA production from significantly worsen to significantly improve. If the bars are reddish or pinkish then they are worsening, if they are blueish they they are improving and the grey in the middle indicates no change or no impact. Each of the bars sums to 100% of responses and what you are looking for is a shift to the right or left. If it goes to the left and is redder then the respondents think it is worsening, and if it is to the right then they think it is improving. For example, this question asked respondents, “How do you think raised without antibiotics swine production impacts the following food safety?” Significantly worsens, slightly worsens, no impact, slightly improves or significantly improves? RWA respondents were asked to comment on their experience with RWA production and Conventional respondents were asked to comment on their perception of impacts if they switched to RWA production. The trend is shifted to the left. The majority of the respondents think there is no change or food safety worsens in a RWA system, both for those with experience with RWA production and those asked to comment on their perception of switching to RWA production. Almost half of RWA respondents (n=35, 46.7%) believed that raising swine without antibiotics would slightly worsen or significantly worsen food safety, whereas the majority of Conventional respondents (n=38, 56.7%) believed that switching to raising swine without antibiotics would slightly or significantly worsen food safety (Figure 58).
- The second part of this questions asked, “In your opinion, how do retailers/restaurants/food safety think raised without antibiotics production impacts their food safety?” This is the respondents perception of customers beliefs. All the bars are the to right and are blue. The majority of respondents for both RWA and Conventional groups think that customers believe that food safety is being improved even though they responded that food safety is being worsened. (Switch side back and forth) The majority of RWA (n=66, 82.7%) and Conventional (n=54, 80.6%) respondents believed that retailers/restaurants/food services thought that raising swine without the use of antibiotics would improve food safety.
- In this question, respondents were asked, “How do you think raised without antibiotics productions impacts animal health and welfare?” Now the shift is even further to the left. Most of the respondents think that RWA production is either significantly worsening or slightly worsening animal health and welfare. Most RWA respondents (n=57, 76.0%) and Conventional (n=66, 98.5%) respondents believed that switching to raising swine without antibiotics would slightly or significantly worsen animal health and welfare. However, when stratified by Role, a significantly greater number of Conventional producers (n=25, 56.8%) compared to RWA producers (n=6, 23.1%) believed that raising swine without antibiotics slightly or significantly worsened animal health and welfare (p=0.004).
- In this question, respondents were asked, “In your opinion, how do retailers/restaurants/food safety think raised without antibiotics productions impacts animal health and welfare?” When you look at what respondents think the customer thinks, it is blue, Their perception of what the customer thinks is that animal health and welfare is improved with RWA production, while they believe that health and welfare is worsened. This is the most dramatic difference we observed in the study. The majority of both RWA (n=56, 74.7%) and Conventional (n=44, 65.7%) respondents believed that retailers/restaurants/food services thought that raising swine without the use of antibiotics would improve animal health and welfare. Similar results were observed when stratified by Role; no statistically significant differences were observed between RWA and conventional veterinarians or producers.
- This question looked at the impact of RWA on cost. This is either the respondent experience or opinion on the impact of RWA production on cost, The green hues are for slightly increasing or significantly increasing the cost, while the brown hues are for slightly or significantly decreasing cost. Across commodities both RWA and Conventional respondents the perception was that RWA production increases the costs of production. The majority of RWA (n=65, 86.7%) and Conventional (n=66, 98.5%) respondents believe that raising swine without the use of antibiotics will slightly or significantly increase the cost of production. While not significantly different, when looking at Producers stratified by RWA experience, results suggest more Conventional producers (n=43, 97.7%) than RWA producers (n=20, 76.9%...) believe that there will be an increased cost associated with raising swine without antibiotics (p=0.0988).
- This was followed with a question about the overall demand for their protein. This was not related to their specific animals, but ,rather, the overall demand for their species protein. Across commodities, most of the responses were no impact to slightly increase. This response is interesting and makes it hard to understand how this can be feasible for producers if there is a significant increase in cost by only a no to slight increase in demand. The majority of RWA (n=70, 94.6%) and Conventional (n=61, 91.0%) respondents believe that raising swine without the use of antibiotics will either have no impact or will slightly increase overall demand for pork by consumers (Figure 63). However, when stratified by Role, more Conventional producers believed that raising swine without the use of antibiotics will have no benefit on consumer demand for pork overall (P=0.01).
- This is the one question in the survey where I will exert my opinion and say that the data was concerning. I am going to read the exact statement that was given in the survey, “There are times that maintaining an RWA label has priority over flock/herd health and welfare. The responses from strongly agree to strongly disagree range across the board. However, the fact that there is green at all on this board is concerning. I would hope never to see that animal health and welfare is ever compromised. I will leave it at that. In swine, more RWA veterinarians (n=25, 75.8%) than Conventional veterinarians (n=10, 52.6%) believe that there are times that maintaining a raised without antibiotics label has priority over herd health and welfare, although the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.08). The majority of RWA producers agree (n=19, 52.8%), while Conventional producers disagree (n=25. 56.8%), that there are times when maintaining a raised without antibiotics label has priority of herd health and welfare (P=0.01).
- In swine, more RWA veterinarians (n=25, 75.8%) than Conventional veterinarians (n=10, 52.6%) believe that there are times that maintaining a raised without antibiotics label has priority over herd health and welfare, although the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.08). The majority of RWA producers agree (n=19, 52.8%), while Conventional producers disagree (n=25. 56.8%), that there are times when maintaining a raised without antibiotics label has priority of herd health and welfare (P=0.01). NOTES FROM LEAH Overall (all US respondents): there was a significant difference between RWA and Conventional respondents (p=0.0084) Comparing ALL Vets to ALL Producers: there is no difference (p=0.1624) WITHIN Vets: there is no difference between RWA and Conv (p=0.08) WITHIN Producers there IS a significant difference between RWA and Conv (p=0.0129)
- In the next series of slides, respondents were asked to what degree they agreed or disagreed with several statements regarding antibiotic use and resistance. The first statement related to the impact of antibiotic use in the swine industry on problems in human medicine; the majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that antibiotic use in swine and the other species does not cause problems in human medicine.
- Respondents were asked to what degree they agreed or disagreed with several statements regarding antibiotic use and resistance. The first statement related to the impact of antibiotic use in the swine industry on problems in human medicine; the majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that antibiotic use in swine and the other species does not cause problems in human medicine.
- The second statement related to the impact of antibiotic use in the swine industry on the ability to treat swine infections in the future; respondents were mixed in their opinion of this statement.
- The third statement stated that antibiotic use in the swine industry would make human infections more difficult to treat; the majority of respondents across species disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.
- The fourth statement related to the willingness of respondents to use alternatives to antibiotics if they were equally effective; the majority of respondents across species agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.