Effect of Welfare Standards and Biosecurity Practices on Antimicrobial Use in Beef Cattle

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2020 Dec 2

PMID 33262402

Citations 15

Authors

Alessia Diana

Valentina Lorenzi

Mauro Penasa

Edoardo Magni

Giovanni L Alborali

Luigi Bertocchi

Massimo De Marchi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

A Survey on Biosecurity and Animal Welfare in Twenty-Five Beef Cattle Farms in the Marche Region, Central Italy: Application of the ClassyFarm Checklists.

Alquati F, Quagliardi M, Gavazza A, Roncarati A, Galosi L, Corradini C Animals (Basel). 2025; 15(3).

PMID: 39943082 PMC: 11815976. DOI: 10.3390/ani15030312.

A review of the predictors of antimicrobial use and resistance in European food animal production.

Redman-White C, Moran D, Peters A, Muwonge A Front Antibiot. 2025; 2():1209552.

PMID: 39816655 PMC: 11731963. DOI: 10.3389/frabi.2023.1209552.

Assessing the impact of biosecurity practices and animal welfare in small-scale mountain dairy farming.

Zanon T, Alrhmoun M, Gauly M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):13294.

PMID: 38858560 PMC: 11164905. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63841-y.

Practices and drivers for antibiotic use in cattle production systems in Kenya.

Kisoo L, Muloi D, Oguta W, Ronoh D, Kirwa L, Akoko J One Health. 2023; 17:100646.

PMID: 38024269 PMC: 10665206. DOI: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100646.

Paratuberculosis, Animal Welfare and Biosecurity: A Survey in 33 Northern Italy Dairy Goat Farms.

Gaffuri A, Barsi F, Magni E, Bergagna S, Dellamaria D, Ricchi M Animals (Basel). 2023; 13(14).

PMID: 37508122 PMC: 10376716. DOI: 10.3390/ani13142346.

References

Ribbens S, Dewulf J, Koenen F, Mintiens K, De Sadeleer L, De Kruif A . A survey on biosecurity and management practices in Belgian pig herds. Prev Vet Med. 2007; 83(3-4):228-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.07.009. View

Sayers R, Good M, Sayers G . A survey of biosecurity-related practices, opinions and communications across dairy farm veterinarians and advisors. Vet J. 2014; 200(2):261-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.010. View

Magrin L, Gottardo F, Brscic M, Contiero B, Cozzi G . Health, behaviour and growth performance of Charolais and Limousin bulls fattened on different types of flooring. Animal. 2019; 13(11):2603-2611. PMC: 6801636. DOI: 10.1017/S175173111900106X. View

Diana A, Santinello M, Penasa M, Scali F, Magni E, Alborali G . Use of antimicrobials in beef cattle: an observational study in the north of Italy. Prev Vet Med. 2020; 181:105032. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105032. View

Gunn G, Heffernan C, Hall M, McLeod A, Hovi M . Measuring and comparing constraints to improved biosecurity amongst GB farmers, veterinarians and the auxiliary industries. Prev Vet Med. 2008; 84(3-4):310-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.12.003. View

Grave K, Greko C, Nilsson L, Odensvik K, Mork T, Ronning M . The usage of veterinary antibacterial drugs for mastitis in cattle in Norway and Sweden during 1990-1997. Prev Vet Med. 1999; 42(1):45-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-5877(99)00057-4. View

Aarestrup F . Association between the consumption of antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry and the occurrence of resistant bacteria among food animals. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999; 12(4):279-85. DOI: 10.1016/s0924-8579(99)90059-6. View

Oliver S, Murinda S, Jayarao B . Impact of antibiotic use in adult dairy cows on antimicrobial resistance of veterinary and human pathogens: a comprehensive review. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010; 8(3):337-55. DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2010.0730. View

Timmerman T, Dewulf J, Catry B, Feyen B, Opsomer G, de Kruif A . Quantification and evaluation of antimicrobial drug use in group treatments for fattening pigs in Belgium. Prev Vet Med. 2006; 74(4):251-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.10.003. View

10.

Brennan M, Christley R . Cattle producers' perceptions of biosecurity. BMC Vet Res. 2013; 9:71. PMC: 3626881. DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-71. View

11.

Diana A, Boyle L, Manzanilla E, Leonard F, Calderon Diaz J . Ear, tail and skin lesions vary according to different production flows in a farrow-to-finish pig farm. Porcine Health Manag. 2019; 5:19. PMC: 6631755. DOI: 10.1186/s40813-019-0126-9. View

12.

Bertocchi L, Fusi F, Angelucci A, Bolzoni L, Pongolini S, Strano R . Characterization of hazards, welfare promoters and animal-based measures for the welfare assessment of dairy cows: Elicitation of expert opinion. Prev Vet Med. 2018; 150:8-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.11.023. View

13.

Smith D, Grotelueschen D . Biosecurity and biocontainment of bovine viral diarrhea virus. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2004; 20(1):131-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2003.11.008. View

14.

Carmo L, Nielsen L, Alban L, Muntener C, Schupbach-Regula G, Magouras I . Comparison of Antimicrobial Consumption Patterns in the Swiss and Danish Cattle and Swine Production (2007-2013). Front Vet Sci. 2017; 4:26. PMC: 5332391. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00026. View

15.

Chantziaras I, Boyen F, Callens B, Dewulf J . Correlation between veterinary antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animals: a report on seven countries. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013; 69(3):827-34. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkt443. View

16.

Damiaans B, Renault V, Sarrazin S, Berge A, Pardon B, Saegerman C . A risk-based scoring system to quantify biosecurity in cattle production. Prev Vet Med. 2020; 179:104992. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.104992. View

17.

Ekakoro J, Caldwell M, Strand E, Okafor C . Drivers, alternatives, knowledge, and perceptions towards antimicrobial use among Tennessee beef cattle producers: a qualitative study. BMC Vet Res. 2019; 15(1):16. PMC: 6323766. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1731-6. View

18.

Ferreira J . Why Antibiotic Use Data in Animals Needs to Be Collected and How This Can Be Facilitated. Front Vet Sci. 2018; 4:213. PMC: 5732972. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00213. View

19.

Calderon Diaz J, Diana A, Boyle L, Leonard F, McElroy M, McGettrick S . Delaying pigs from the normal production flow is associated with health problems and poorer performance. Porcine Health Manag. 2017; 3:13. PMC: 5497354. DOI: 10.1186/s40813-017-0061-6. View

20.

Vermunt J . The multifactorial nature of cattle lameness: a few more pieces of the jigsaw. Vet J. 2005; 169(3):317-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.05.005. View