Effect of welfare standards and biosecurity practices on antimicrobial use in beef cattle

Abstract

Antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock species and the associated antimicrobial resistance are a global concern, thus strategies for their reduction and a more judicious use are needed. Previous research has revealed a link between improved animal welfare, biosecurity and AMU reduction in pig and dairy sectors, however, little is known about the beef sector. This study aimed to investigate the impact of welfare standards and biosecurity on AMU in beef cattle. Data on performance traits and AMU were collected over a 3.5 year time from 27 specialised beef farms and a treatment incidence was calculated using the defined daily dose for animals. An on-farm assessment was carried out by assigning a score from 0 (very poor) to 100% (very good) to 3 sections: welfare, biosecurity and emergency management. The highest average score was obtained for the welfare section (76%) followed by emergency management (39%) and biosecurity (24%). This suggests that major focus on strategies for the implementation of biosecurity measures and emergency management is needed, due to the low scores reported. A statistically significant lower AMU was observed with improved level of welfare. These results may be helpful for farm benchmarking and highlight the importance of improved animal welfare for an efficient antimicrobial stewardship.

The Relationship between Animal Welfare and Antimicrobial Use in Italian Dairy Farms

“…Measuring animal welfare is the starting point for improving animal rearing conditions and animal wellbeing, with potential positive impacts also on animal health and antimicrobial use (AMU). It has been reported that improvements in AW and animal health can help the rationalization of AMU [13][14][15].…”

Antibiotic Use in Alpine Dairy Farms and Its Relation to Biosecurity and Animal Welfare

“…Additionally, no correlation between AMU, biosecurity and animal welfare was found in dairy cattle farms from Lombardy [ 27 ], which had similar scores (biosecurity range 21.41–71.56%, animal welfare range 45.32–81.69%). In the beef cattle sector, an improved level of welfare permitted lower usage of antimicrobials, but not a reduction in HPCIA [ 22 ]. On the contrary, in 61 Belgian pig farms, AMU was reduced by 52.0%, without impairing the herd production performances, by adopting a series of herd-level interventions concerning biosecurity, vaccination scheme, health care, welfare and zootechnical measures [ 46 ].…”

“…Within this framework, biosecurity includes all procedures to prevent pathogens from entering a farm and spreading within a farm [ 17 , 18 ]. An improved biosecurity level was proven to positively impact animal health and welfare [ 17 ] and to reduce AMU in pigs [ 19 , 20 , 21 ] and beef cattle [ 22 ]. For dairy cattle, various studies in the literature investigated AMU in cows and calves [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].…”

Animal Welfare, Health and the Fight against Climate Change: One Solution for Global Objectives

“…High standards of biosecurity play a pivotal role in programs for reducing AMU in pig and poultry farms [149]. Other authors have highlighted a statistically significant lower AMU with improved levels of welfare on beef farms in Italy [150]. Altogether, biosecurity and welfare practices are strictly related to each other and have to be improved, as they contribute, just as vaccination protocols do, to lowering the risk of disease and hence the need for AMU [149].…”