5. 1. Knowledge of the dairy industry’s commitment to
antimicrobial stewardship.
2. Knowledge of the Australian antimicrobial importance
rating system (ASTAG) and where key ingredients sit.
3. Motivation to think about your role in AMS.
PURPOSE
9. 1. The dairy industry uses antibiotics responsibly, as little as possible, as much as
necessary, to protect the health and welfare of our animals.
2. All dairy farmers access antibiotics from a registered veterinarian.
3. All dairy farmers use antibiotics responsibly under veterinary direction.
4. Antibiotics that are of high importance to human Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in
Australia are only used to treat dairy livestock in exceptional circumstances where no
other alternatives exist.
AUSTRALIAN DAIRY INDUSTRY SUSTAINABILITY
FRAMEWORK (2030 TARGETS)
17. DOES THE FEED GIVEN TO YOUR MILKING COWS CONTAIN
ANTIBIOTICS (E.G. ESKALIN, RUMENSIN, TYLOSIN)?
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2022. Animal Husbandry and Genetics Survey 2022, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
18. DOES THE FEED GIVEN TO YOUR MILKING COWS CONTAIN
ANTIBIOTICS (E.G. ESKALIN, RUMENSIN, TYLOSIN)?
Yes
National (n = 400) 14%
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2022. Animal Husbandry and Genetics Survey 2022, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
19. DOES THE FEED GIVEN TO YOUR MILKING COWS CONTAIN
ANTIBIOTICS (E.G. ESKALIN, RUMENSIN, TYLOSIN)?
Yes
National (n = 400) 14%
Victoria (n = 240) 15%
Tasmania (n = 30) 7%
NSW (n = 42) 10%
South Australia (n = 23) 23%
Western Australia (n = 30) 40%
Queensland (n = 27) 7%
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2022. Animal Husbandry and Genetics Survey 2022, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
20. DOES THE FEED GIVEN TO YOUR MILKING COWS CONTAIN
ANTIBIOTICS (E.G. ESKALIN, RUMENSIN, TYLOSIN)?
Yes
National (n = 400) 14%
Victoria (n = 240) 15%
Tasmania (n = 30) 7%
NSW (n = 42) 10%
South Australia (n = 23) 23%
Western Australia (n = 30) 40%
Queensland (n = 27) 7%
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2022. Animal Husbandry and Genetics Survey 2022, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
21. DOES THE FEED GIVEN TO YOUR MILKING COWS CONTAIN
ANTIBIOTICS (E.G. ESKALIN, RUMENSIN, TYLOSIN)?
Yes
National (n = 400) 14%
Victoria (n = 240) 15%
Tasmania (n = 30) 7%
NSW (n = 42) 10%
South Australia (n = 23) 23%
Western Australia (n = 30) 40%
Queensland (n = 27) 7%
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2022. Animal Husbandry and Genetics Survey 2022, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
22. WHAT TYPE OF ANTIBIOTICS DO YOU USE? (n = 62)
70%
25%
15%
11%
7% 2%
Monensin
Virginiamycin
Tylosin
Lasolacid
Other
Unsure
FED FOR 294 DAYS
ON AVERAGE
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2022. Animal Husbandry and Genetics Survey 2022, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
24. IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU USED
VIRGINIAMYCIN IN YOUR STOCK FEED? (N = 801)
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2020. National Dairy Farmer Survey 2020, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
25. IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU USED
VIRGINIAMYCIN IN YOUR STOCK FEED? (N = 801)
Yes No Unsure
Yes 8% 88% 4%
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2020. National Dairy Farmer Survey 2020, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
26. IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU USED
VIRGINIAMYCIN IN YOUR STOCK FEED? (N = 63*)
Low Medium High
<0.5t 0.5 – 1.5t >1.5t
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2020. National Dairy Farmer Survey 2020, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
27. IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU USED
VIRGINIAMYCIN IN YOUR STOCK FEED? (N = 63*)
Low Medium High
<0.5t 0.5 – 1.5t >1.5t
https://websvr.infopest.com.au/
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2020. National Dairy Farmer Survey 2020, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
28. IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU USED
VIRGINIAMYCIN IN YOUR STOCK FEED? (N = 63*)
Low Medium High
<0.5t 0.5 – 1.5t >1.5t
Yes 4% 5% 12%
No 87% 91% 83%
Not sure 8% 3% 5%
*Caution small subsample
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2020. National Dairy Farmer Survey 2020, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
29. IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU USED
VIRGINIAMYCIN IN YOUR STOCK FEED? (N = 63*)
Low Medium High
<0.5t 0.5 – 1.5t >1.5t
Yes 4% 5% 12%
No 87% 91% 83%
Not sure 8% 3% 5%
*Caution small subsample
Watson, P. & Watson, D., 2020. National Dairy Farmer Survey 2020, undertaken for Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
37. 1. Knowledge of the dairy industry’s commitment to
antimicrobial stewardship.
2. Knowledge of the Australian antimicrobial importance
rating system (ASTAG) and where key ingredients sit.
3. Motivation to think about your role in AMS.
PURPOSE
Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis account for 65% of orthopaedic infections. Of particular concern are MRSA, which are present on the skin and in the nose of around 5% of the population and account for 13-74% of Staph infections.
AMR has been declared by the World Health Organisation as a global health emergency. It is responsible for an estimated 700 000 deaths annually, forecast to be 10 million by 2050.
A review done in the UK, published in 2016
Estimates that if current trends continue ~10 million people may die as a consequence of AMR annually, surpassing the rate of cancer deaths currently.
The joint World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) initiative ‘One Health’ is in ardent pursuit of prudent use of antibiotics in both human and animal medicine.
•In food-producing animals almost 75% of AU is in-feed (APVMA, 2014)
•SFMs have a critical role to play
I really have three main goals for my presentation.
RESPONSIBILITY – Shared responsibility between industry, individual farmers, their veterinarians and others who service the industry (stockfeed manufacturers)
REDUCE – AMS involves reduction of AMS where appropriate, to minimise impact on health and welfare, for in feed medications this should involve optimal nutritional management to minimise the impact of ruminal acidosis.
REFINE – It is important to ensure antibiotics are indicated, and if so, preferentially using those of lower importance ratings over those of higher ratings.
REPLACE – Where possible, replace use of antimicrobials with alternatives (such as buffers and alkalinising agents).
REVIEW – Practices should be regularly reviewed to determine appropriateness of AMU and opportunities to refine or reduce.
Importantly, resistant organisms, and their genes can spread between humans and animals.
The Importance Ratings and Summary of Antibacterial Uses in Human and Animal Health in Australia (Antibacterial Importance Ratings) aim to provide information to inform decision making about the registration and use of antibacterial medicines in Australia. The Antibacterial Importance Ratings were developed by the Australian Government with expert advice from the Australian Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on AMR (ASTAG).
Important - There are a reasonable number of alternative antibacterials in different classes available to treat or prevent most human infections even if antibacterial resistance develops.
Medium - There are some alternative antibacterials in different classes available to treat or prevent human infections, but less than for those rated as Low Importance.
High - These are essential antibacterials for the treatment or prevention of infections in humans where there are few or no treatment alternatives for infections. These have also been termed “last resort” or “last line” antibacterials. The use of antibacterials with High ratings in animals will be considered appropriate when national stewardship guidelines are available, or in ‘exceptional circumstances’.
WHO ratings slightly different – streptogramins are the equivalent of an orange (Highly Important) but macrolides critically important (red).
Last reviewed in 2018, and prior to that 2014/2015.
Cephalexin I was given after my surgery, specifically for the infections I mentioned previously – medium importance.
Around 32% of milk produced, particularly in the south eastern dairying regions was exported in FY21 but this ranges from 30-50%. Therefore international markets and events have a major influence on Australian production.
Australia’s major export markets are in Asia which reflects geographic proximity and direct restrictions to other major markets such as the European Union. Increased competition in key importing countries has also played a role in this competition.
The global context outlined here is relevant to the Australian dairy industry for four key reasons:
1. Market and customer requirements – residues and impacts on food safety are a key priority for milk companies. As well, global food companies have announced their desire to reduce antibiotic use in their supply chains.
2. Government requirements – animal industries are increasingly under scrutiny for the type, amount and indication of antimicrobials used.
3. Animal health – maintaining access to effective drugs is critical to cow and calf health & welfare and therefore dairy farming livelihoods.
4. Community health – routine human infections are increasingly at risk of becoming untreatable as microorganisms develop resistance to today’s antimicrobials, i.e. this affects us all.
Came into effect 28 January 2022
Must be a diagnosed disease – clinical examination or proper assessment.
No more than one active
For food producing animals and feeds containing antibiotics
Prescription only valid for 5 days
Treatment cannot exceed two weeks
Cannot be used for prevention (prophylaxis) – this means cannot be used to compensate for poor animal husbandry
Can be used for metaphalaxis (e.g. treatment of animals in close proximity) under certain conditions.
Article 118 of the EU Veterinary Medicines Regulation1 asserts that restrictions applying to antimicrobials
in the EU will also be applicable to animals or food of animal origin imported into the EU.
Pressure from customers, overseas governments and international bodies
It will be applicable in all EU countries from 28 January 2022.
The 2022 Genetics and Animal Welfare Survey data is based on information collected from a total of 400 dairy farmers selected randomly from the Dairy Australia levy payer database stratified by region.
Interviews were conducted during July and August 2022 using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI).
The sampling margin for error for national results based on the entire sample is ±4.3% (at the 95% confidence level).
The randomisation process was computer driven, using specially designed market and social research software.
A
Slightly larger survey of 800 farmers in 2021.
Low <0.5 tonne/year
Medium 0.5-1.5 tonne/year
High >1.5 tonne/year
Low <0.5 tonne/year
Medium 0.5-1.5 tonne/year
High >1.5 tonne/year
Low <0.5 tonne/year
Medium 0.5-1.5 tonne/year
High >1.5 tonne/year
Low <0.5 tonne/year
Medium 0.5-1.5 tonne/year
High >1.5 tonne/year
Vet survey, 9 clinics representing 26% of industry – enables preliminary estimates of AMU
5 SFMs participating, initial estimates suggest there is very low use (by courses) of VM but unfortunately there were some companies who opted out.
RESPONSIBILITY
REDUCE
REFINE
REPLACE
REVIEW
•In food-producing animals almost 75% of AU is in-feed (APVMA, 2014)
•SFMs have a critical role to play
I really have three main goals for my presentation.
