
Blanket actions can sometimes cause more harm than good. If you really want a successful and lasting solution to a problem, you need to know the root cause.
Take, for example, antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Simply restricting the use of antibiotics and other antimicrobials in certain settings to slow resistance development may result in significant losses or simply result in their use being unreported. However, in some shape or form action still needs to be taken.
Globally, AMR is associated with approximately 5 million deaths annually. Data published by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation for 2019, reveal that there were 297,000 deaths attributable to AMR and 1.04 million deaths associated with AMR. That’s a large share fo the global total.
Of course, over- and misuse of antibiotics occurs across sectors, but a group or researchers at the U.K.’s Royal Veterinary College (RVC), in collaboration with the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences (WBUAFS), have sought to better understand antibiotic use in the Indian poultry industry, with the ultimate aim of reducing it.
Still viewed as low-cost prevention
The research team looked at poultry farming in the east of country, where, as in the rest of the country, the primary production model is contract farming. They carried out 43 interviews with poultry industry stakeholders, including farmers, poultry veterinarians and specialists, government veterinarians, poultry company employees and poultry dealers.
They used agency theory, a theory that explores the relationship between two cooperative parties – a principal and their agent – to look into how decisions are taken in prescribing.
The research team discovered that most antibiotic use decisions were made by the poultry companies and not by their farms. Decisions were based on factors including farm infrastructure, the weather, and previous experience of production on a particular farm.
The study also found that rearing birds took place in settings that created risks for the companies. For example, birds were often raised in open housing, meaning that they experienced high temperatures, humidity and potential exposure to infectious diseases. Antibiotics were used as a key risk mitigation strategy to protect birds during production, the teams found.
Common among those interviewed was concern that poultry companies were unable to prevent chicks from becoming infected with Mycoplasma, meaning that antibiotics were routinely used at the start of production.
These antibiotics commonly belonged to classes deemed critically important to human health and, therefore, should never be used routinely in livestock production.
Well-positioned to institute change
While representatives from poultry companies said that they were using more antibiotic alternatives, such as probiotics, they were often found to be insufficient to protect birds and were expensive.
The dominance of contract farming in India means that poultry companies are well-positioned to make change, adopting strategies that would see antibiotic use cut. Similarly, they could bring about new farm management strategies that would contribute to this end, and there are certainly plenty of models and approaches from around the world that could be drawn on for inspiration.
Some Indian producers have already started down the path of producing antibiotic-free or reducing use but should the industry as a whole fail to do so, it may find itself forced into changing, as India is tightening its legislation on antibiotic use.
More difficult, perhaps, would be investing in closed housing, but as we know, investment in biosecurity usually pays numerous dividends.