Inventarisatie en registratie van het antibioticagebruik op kernfokbedrijven
MetadataShow full item record
Abstract This feasibility study, commissioned by the Institute for Pig Genetics, and based upon questionnaires and farm visits, presents an inventory of antibiotic use of nucleus herds. Important in this context is the reliability and applicability of the various calculation methods and tracing methods to detect imperfections of the registration of antibiotic use. Antibiotic purchase of 10 farms is collected over a one year period, together with additional information, i.e. standard treatments. For the various calculations we used the ‘Daily Doses kilogram’, an indicator based on the in human medicine used ‘Daily Defined Doses’. This ‘Daily Doses kilogram’ is used to calculate the number of treatable kilograms as well as the number of daily doses per animal year, the DD/animal-year. 4 different calculation methods for the DD/animal-year are discussed, where the weighted mathematical average is chosen to be the most appropriate for mutual comparison of farms. Results of the calculation specified for animal-groups and weights (specified average) are also extended discussed and commented. The results show a various picture concerning the antibiotic use on nucleus herds. The average number of days an animal at these farms is exposed to antibiotics varies between 0,67 and 57 days, based on the weighted mathematical average. Positively notable is the lower use of antibiotics at farms with a higher health status. Also remarkable is the difference between oral and parenteral administration of antibiotics of farms. The percentage of oral administered antibiotics is lower at farms with a higher health status and therefore a lower DD/animal-year. The results per antibiotic group are also reported. Obviously, the use of tetracyclines alights far above all other groups. The most important conclusions of this research is that the use of the DD/animal-year, on the basis of a (weighed) mathematical average, is the most practical way for mutual comparison of farms. Specifying the data produces a possible more realistic picture of a farm, but for general purposes this should be attended by strict rules for the used data. In appendix 2 an additional report has been incorporated with recommendations for follow-up studies.