Farmers´ sense of the biological impact of extreme heat and seasonality on Swedish high-yielding dairy cows - A mixed methods approach.

Supporting dairy farmers in becoming resilient towards extreme weather requires a broad understanding of the experiences and perceived risks associated with these events from those who undergo them. We used a mixed methods approach to explore national trends of biological consequences on dairy cow udder health and fertility, combined with in-depth farmer conversations around extreme weather events, focusing on heat. The aim is to provide a comprehensive picture of how dairy farmer perceptions, priorities and decision-making are related to the season and extreme weather to identify preventive pathways that can reduce biological costs of heat stress on Swedish dairy cattle during summer. Data collected monthly at cow and farm level between 2016-2019 as part of the Swedish milk and disease recording system confirm seasonal trends and show increased somatic cell counts (SCC) and negatively impacted fertility during summers. In addition, transcriptions of 18 interviews with dairy farmers across the country and seasonal variations of SCC and fertility were thematically analysed. The results suggest that farmers have a broad definition of extreme weather and are aware of the negative impacts. Yet handling of extreme weather events can mainly be classified as reactive. Nevertheless, there are long-term effects on the farm economy, health and herd dynamics. Swedish dairy farmers are currently showing resilience, albeit a fragile one. The capability to ensure sufficient feed production in extreme weather is critical for farm self-perceived resilience. However, acknowledging the long-term biological costs related to fertility, currently not perceived by farmers, has the potential to support proactive planning and improve farm resilience and profitability.

Waiting for markets to change me-High-stakeholders' views of antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance in pig production in Brazil.

Overuse of veterinary antibiotics is a risk factor for antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a global public health emergency. More than 70% of the antibiotics consumed worldwide are used in farm animals, mainly in poultry and pig herds. Brazil is the fourth largest pork producer globally and the second-largest user of antibiotics in animals. Qualitative research can help understand the complexities around antibiotic use (AMU) in Brazilian pig herds and identify stakeholders' attitudes concerning the rational AMU and AMR in the production chain. This study aimed to explore the knowledge and attitudes of high-level professionals in the animal production chain about AMU and AMR in pig farming, the relationship with pig welfare and AMU in Brazil. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews with individuals active in the pig industry. The majority of the participants considered AMU excessive and inappropriate in pig farms in Brazil. However, attitudes toward a restrictive AMU scenario in Brazilian pig farms were predominantly negative, justified by economic, sanitary and social barriers. These included unsatisfactory management and biosecurity conditions in pig farms that, in their opinion, justify AMU to prevent diseases; issues surrounding prescription and acquisition of veterinary drugs; and employment and income relationships arising from the sale of antibiotics. The views of high-level professionals in the Brazilian livestock chain reveal antibiotics as a structural element that enables pig production. Antibiotics were viewed as essential resources for producing cheap food. Foreign markets were considered the most relevant driver of change in AMU practices rather than pressure from Brazilian consumers. A common belief expressed was that AMR is more associated with the inappropriate AMU in human medicine than in the livestock sector. Resistance to change in these stakeholders may hinder the implementation of future public policies to restrict the use of antibiotics in Brazil. Our findings suggest that successful measures to deal with the AMU/AMR challenges in the pig chain shall not be rooted in personal behavior change. Instead, honest interdisciplinary dialogues and structural changes are needed to define common grounds and a way forward to break the cycle perpetuating antibiotics as structural commodities.

Linking Animal Welfare and Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming-A Review.

Preventative measures, such as biosecurity and vaccinations, are essential but not sufficient to ensure high standards of health in pig production systems. Restrictive, barren housing and many widely used management practices that cause pain and stress predispose high-performance pigs reared in intensive systems to disease. In this context, antibiotics are used as part of the infrastructure that sustains health and high levels of production in pig farms. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global emergency affecting human and animal health, and the use of antibiotics (AMU) in intensive livestock farming is considered an important risk factor for the emergence and spread of resistant bacteria from animals to humans. Tackling the issue of AMR demands profound changes in AMU, e.g., reducing their use for prophylaxis and ending it for growth promotion. In support of such recommendations, we revise the link between animal welfare and AMU and argue that it is crucial to sustainably reduce AMU while ensuring that pigs can live happy lives. In support of such recommendations, we aimed to revise the link between animal welfare and AMU in pigs by analysing stress factors related to housing and management and their impact on pig welfare. In particular, we reviewed critical management practices that increase stress and, therefore, pigs' susceptibility to disease and reduce the quality of life of pigs. We also reviewed some alternatives that can be adopted in pig farms to improve animal welfare and that go beyond the reduction in stress. By minimising environmental and management stressors, pigs can become more immunocompetent and prepared to overcome pathogenic challenges. This outcome can contribute to reducing AMU and the risk of AMR while simultaneously improving the quality of life of pigs and, ultimately, maintaining the pig industry's social license.

Antibiotic Use in Organic and Non-organic Swedish Dairy Farms: A Comparison of Three Recording Methods.

Biases of antimicrobial use (AMU) reporting systems pose a challenge to monitoring of AMU. Our study aimed to cross-compare three data sources of AMU in Swedish dairy herds to provide an account of the validity of AMU reports. We studied AMU differences between two production systems, to investigate how the reporting system affected this comparison. On-farm quantification of AMU via a manual collection of empty drug containers (BIN) took place in organic (n = 30) and conventional (n = 30) dairy herds during two periods between February 2016 and March 2017. A data extract mirroring these periods was obtained from two linked datasets that contain AMU data as reported by the prescribing veterinarians. These included data from the Swedish Board of Agriculture system (SBA) and Växa milk recording system (VXA). Using the European Medicines Agency technical units, the total number of defined daily doses (DDDvet), and defined course doses (DCDvet) per animal/year were calculated for each herd/period/dataset. Descriptive statistics and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement and systematic bias between the datasets. Mixed models for repeated measures were used to assess AMU differences between production systems. We found consistent numerical differences for the calculated AMU metrics, with BIN presenting higher usage compared to the SBA and VXA. This was driven by a disparity in intramammary tubes (IMt) which appear to be underreported in the national datasets. A statistically significant interaction (BIN dataset) between the production system and drug administration form was found, where AMU for injectable and lactating cow IMt drug forms differed by the production system, but no difference was found for dry-cow IMt. We conclude that calculating AMU using DDDvet and DCDvet metrics at a herd level based on Swedish national datasets is useful, with the caveat of IMt potentially being misrepresented. The BIN method offers an alternative to monitoring AMU, but scaling up requires considerations. The lower disease caseload in organic herds partly explains the lower AMU in particular drug forms. The fact that organic and conventional herds' had equally low AMU for dry-cow IMt, coupled with mismatches in IMt report across herds indicated an area of further research.

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns in Organic and Conventional Dairy Herds in Sweden.

Monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and use (AMU) is important for control. We used Escherichia coli from healthy young calves as an indicator to evaluate whether AMR patterns differ between Swedish organic and conventional dairy herds and whether the patterns could be related to AMU data. Samples were taken twice, in 30 organic and 30 conventional dairy herds. Selective culturing for Escherichia coli, without antibiotics and with nalidixic acid or tetracycline, was used to estimate the proportions of resistant isolates. Microdilution was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for thirteen antimicrobial substances. AMU data were based on collection of empty drug packages. Less than 8% of the bacterial growth on non-selective plates was also found on selective plates with tetracycline, and 1% on plates with nalidixic acid. Despite some MIC variations, resistance patterns were largely similar in both periods, and between organic and conventional herds. For most substances, only a few isolates were classified as resistant. The most common resistances were against ampicillin, streptomycin, sulfamethoxazole, and tetracycline. No clear association with AMU could be found. The lack of difference between organic and conventional herds is likely due to a generally good animal health status and consequent low AMU in both categories.

Animal Welfare and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

This paper systematically evaluates the extent to which achieving the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) is compatible with improving animal welfare. The analyses were based on discussion and independent scoring in a group of 12 participants with academic backgrounds within agricultural or veterinary sciences. We considered all categories of animals; those kept for food production, working and companion animals, but also laboratory and wild animals. The strengths of the links between improving animal welfare and achieving an SDG were scored on a 7-point scale, from being completely indivisible, at one end of the scale, to where it is impossible to reach both the SDG and improved animal welfare at the same time. There was good consensus between participants, with the overall scores being positive, indicating that although animal welfare is not explicitly mentioned in the SDGs, working to achieving the SDGs is compatible with working to improve animal welfare. When analyzing the direction of the links, the impact of achieving an SDG was considered, on average, to be slightly better at leading to improved animal welfare, than the impact of improving animal welfare was on achieving the SDG. The exception to this was for SDG 2, dealing with zero hunger. The two SDGs for which there was strongest mutual reinforcing were SDG 12, which deals with responsible production and consumption, and SDG 14, which deals with life below water. Most of the targets under these two SDGs were considered relevant to animal welfare, whereas when all SDGs were considered, 66 targets of the total of 169 were considered relevant. Although the results of this study suggest a mutually beneficial relationship between improving animal welfare and achieving SDGs, this should be confirmed on a wider group of people, for example people from less developed countries and other stakeholders. Showing the relationships between animal welfare and the sustainable development goals helps highlight the importance of animal welfare when implementing these goals in practice. The methodology described in this study could also be useful to researchers working with other societal and environmental issues not yet considered within the overall SDG framework.