17th International Conference on Production Diseases

(1)

ICPD 2019

17th International Conference on Production Diseases

in Farm Animals Bern

Switzerland

June 27 - 29

3URFHHGLQJV

(2)

2

Impressum

ISBN: 978-3-906813-93-6 DOI: 10.7892/boris.131406

Editors: Rupert M. Bruckmaier, Josef J. Gross Veterinary Physiology, Vetsuisse Faculty University of Bern

Bremgartenstrasse 109a CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence

https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/

Text © The Authors

Cover Image by Bern Tourism

(3)

Welcome to the 17th International Conference on Production Diseases in Farm Animals (ICPD)

Breeding and husbandry of livestock is often accompanied by a conflict of interest between biological requirements of the animal and economic needs of the producer. This conflict is increasingly gaining attention not only by producers, animal scientists, and veterinarians, but also by the public. An inadequate breeding strategy or animal housing and feeding may lead to production diseases, coming along impaired animal welfare, but also reduced income for the producer, and reduced product quality for the consumer.

The ICPD is a traditional conference, held for the first time in 1968 in Urbana, Illinois, and from then on mostly in 3-year intervals either in Europe or in the US. In contrast to most conferences related to farm animals, the ICPD focusses mainly on production diseases and their prevention in ruminants, swine, and poultry.

From the very beginning the ICPD has been commonly organized by farm animal and veterinary scientists. It is the goal to gather the different fields of science to exchange and discuss results and developments, and to create novel ideas to prevent production diseases and to increase animal welfare and product quality in farm animal production.

The ICPD always attracted international scientists from various disciplines. In this unique interdisciplinary environment, latest and groundbreaking research from scientists meets the questions, experiences and approaches of practitioners, industry, and consumers.

Although a traditional conference, each ICPD addressed the most current issues of farm animal production. The main topics of the 17th ICPD are the use of antimicrobials with emphasis on security and safety for producers and consumers, the impact of locomotion disorders on performance and welfare of farm animals, the interactions of gut microbiome, climate change, microclimate, genetics, metabolic status and mineral homeostasis with reproduction, performance, animal health and welfare. Behavioral signs indicating an impaired animal welfare are the basis for precision livestock farming technology and development of new management strategies. Aspects of infectious diseases, raising of neonates and their their development are completing the program. Progress in analytical procedures, new regulations, the problem of antimicrobial resistance, and the implementation of sensor and precision livestock farming technology do not only trigger new management strategies on the farms. We are facing significant challenges: Big data and data security, consumer perceptions, and a growing demand for animal-derived food products in the developing countries.

It is our pleasure to welcome all people engaged in farm animal production in Bern to contribute in the 17th ICPD! Enjoy the conference!

Rupert M. Bruckmaier & Josef J. Gross

(4)

Committees

Local organizing committee:

Rupert Bruckmaier Josef Gross Olga Wellnitz Hélène Meier Jürg Danuser Cord Drögemüller Samuel Kohler Heiko Nathues Adrian Steiner Mike Toscano Heiner Bollwein Xaver Sidler Roger Stephan

International scientific committee:

Sigrid Agenäs (Sweden) Alex Bach (Spain) Adam Geiger (USA) Harald Hammon (Germany) Laura Hernandez (USA) Akio Miyamoto (Japan) Geert Opsomer (Belgium) Helga Sauerwein (Germany) Erminio Trevisi (Italy)

Ariette van Knegsel (the Netherlands) Marina von Keyserlingk (Canada) Peter Zieger (Germany)

(5)

I. Urbana, Illinois, USA, 1968 II. Reading University, England, 1972 III. Wageningen, the Netherlands, 1976 IV. Munich, Germany, 1980

V. Uppsala, Sweden, 1983

VI. Belfast, Northern Ireland, 1986 VII. Ithaca, New York, 1989 VIII. Bern, Switzerland, 1992 IX. Berlin, Germany, 1995

X. Utrecht, the Netherlands, 1998 XI. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2001 XII. East Lansing, Michigan, USA, 2004 XIII. Leipzig, Germany, 2007

XIV. Ghent, Belgium, 2010 XV. Uppsala, Sweden, 2013

XVI. Wageningen, the Netherlands, 2016

(6)

Main sponsors

(7)

(8)

Session 01: Use of Antimicrobials: Security and safety aspects for producers and consumers

Prudent and effective antimicrobial use in a diverse livestock and consumer’s world

U. Magnusson

Department of Clinical Sciences, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden; Livestock Antimicrobial Partnership (LAMP) at the Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock hosted by FAO, Rome, Italy

Email: Ulf.Magnusson@slu.se

Anti-microbial resistance and livestock and human health The emergence of antimicrobial resistance is regarded as one of the major threats to modern medicine and human health. Similarly, in the livestock sector substantial economic losses are foreseen because of therapeutic failures of infections. The interrelatedness between resistance in microbes in humans and in those in livestock, is, with a few exceptions, not that well established. However, given that the use of antimicrobials drives the development of resistance and that the livestock sector is estimated to be the largest user of antimicrobials world-wide, it is reasonable, both for the sake of animal health and productivity as well for the risk of increasing the resistance in human pathogens, to take a precautionary position and work for a reduced use in the sector. Notably, the risk for transfer of resistance from the livestock sector to the human health sector relates mainly to resistance in bacteria, as similar antibiotics are used for humans and livestock, and the same resistance mechanisms may thus be at hand.

Access to antibiotics in the livestock sector The access to antibiotics varies a lot for farmers around the world and sometimes within a country. In several settings, it is the access to antibiotics, especially of good quality, that is the challenge. Rough estimates suggest that more than 50% of the antibiotics in low-income countries are substandard or falsified. The distribution channels of antibiotics do also vary around the world; in many low and middle-income countries one may buy antibiotics over the counter without prescription.

Also, in several countries a large, sometimes the major, proportion of the income for physicians and veterinarians comes from sales of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals. Thus, there is an incentive for these professionals to use antibiotics in their practice. In addition, the increasing trade over internet is a new challenging and unregulated source of antibiotics. Remarkably, within the relatively culturally and economically homogenous Europe, there are immense differences between countries in the use of antibiotics in the livestock sector.

Use of antibiotics in the livestock sector One of the large differences between use of antibiotics in the livestock sector and human health sector is that in the former there is a large prophylactic use and use antibiotics as “growth promoters”. These kinds of uses are most prevalent in pig and poultry rearing but may be avoided by instead applying adequate preventive measures. For a medically rational use of antibiotics in livestock the following deliberations are generally recommended: use only quality-controlled drugs and avoid antibiotics critical for humans, treat only for therapeutic purposes and strive for treating animals individually (except for poultry), treat only after a proper clinical diagnosis (if needed after microbiological diagnosis), use only antibiotics adequate for the diagnosis and in correct dosage and duration, and finally, respect withdrawal periods.

Reduction of antibiotic use and productivity Northern European countries have the lowest use of antibiotics per livestock biomass among the OECD-countries. However, to reduce the use of antibiotics to those levels in other settings without other measures would be detrimental for animal health and productivity. Actually, in Sweden, that banned antibiotics as feed additives in 1985, the use of antibiotics initially increased due to more diseases before appropriate preventive measures were in place. However, nowadays the productivity per dairy cow and sow is among the highest in the world. Of course, these measures can be difficult to be put in place everywhere in the world due to resource and cultural constraints. Even so, by applying the following basic principles – or parts of them – would reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics and often increase animal health and productivity: the basis is the rearing of robust animals by providing sufficient and good quality feed and water in adequate facilities, second to apply good external and internal biosecurity measures to prevent infections from entering the farm and spread within the farm and finally applying relevant vaccination schemes for specific diseases.

Conclusions The role of the resistance in bacteria in livestock herds for the over-all resistance emergence in the human population is not fully elucidated. Still it is wise to try to mitigate the resistance in the livestock sector. This is best done by applying a prudent and medically rational use of antibiotics in the sector. This approach requires a matching by good disease preventive measures, based on good animal management that generates robust and disease resistant animals, high biosecurity and effective vaccination programs.

Hereby, a high productivity may be maintained or achieved. However, the approach does require, in several settings, new skills and mindsets among producers, animal health professionals and other extension personnel. Then, the livestock sector has done a major contribution to the antimicrobial resistance issue.

References

SLU/Future Learn, 2019: “Effective Livestock production with low use of antibiotics” Massive Open On-line course https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/effective- livestock-production

Livestock antimicrobial partnership (LAMP), Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock, https://www.slu.se/lamp

(21)

Actual resistance situation among bacterial pathogens of food-producing animals

H. Kaspar¹ and S. Schwarz²

1Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL), Referat 505, Berlin, Germany; ²Institute of Microbiology, Epizootics, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Email: Stefan.Schwarz@fu-berlin.de

Introduction There are numerous programmes in different countries that aim at monitoring the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria from food-producing animals. In Germany, the national resistance monitoring programme GERM-Vet, conducted by the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL), fulfils this task since 2001 on a yearly basis. The results obtained in this programme are freely available via the BVL website. The bacteria monitored each year are collected by at least 25 laboratories from at least 12 federal states in Germany according to a structured sampling plan. All bacteria originate from acutely diseased animals which have not been treated with antimicrobial agents. The majority of bacteria are from defined disease conditions of cattle, pigs and poultry. However, also bacteria originating from defined disease conditions of sheep and goats, dogs and cats, horses and commercially reared fish are included. The data determined in the GERM-Vet programme allow to see whether certain resistance properties in defined bacteria of animal origin emerge. Moreover, the data from this programme are an excellent source to guide empirical therapy.

Materials and Methods Concerning the methodology of susceptibility testing, the GERM-Vet programme follows the recommendations for broth microdilution of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) as laid down in the VET01 document [1]. All bacteria are tested for their susceptibility to a set of 24 antimicrobial agents/combinations of antimicrobial agents.

For the evalution of the results and the categorization of the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC values) as ‘susceptible’,

‘intermediate’ (if this category is available) or ‘resistant’, clinical veterinary-specific breakpoints as laid down in the CLSI document VET08 [2] are used. Moreover, MIC₅₀ and MIC₉₀ values are calculated [3]. For specific bacteria and resistance properties, e.g. ESBL- producing Escherichia coli, in depth studies with regard to the ESBL gene present, its location on plasmids, co-located resistance properties, or the phylogroup and the MLST type of the respective isolates are conducted.

Results In this overview, the most recent MIC distributions are presented for the following combinations of animal host/disease condition/bacterial pathogen as shown in Table 1:

Table 1 Combinations of animal host/disease condition/bacterial pathogen as monitored in the GERM-Vet programme 2016 [4] and 2017.

Conclusions There is no general trend towards increasing resistance over the years in Germany. Isolates from cases of bovine mastitis are usually less resistant than the corresponding isolates from other animals and/or disease conditions.

References

[1] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (2018): CLSI document VET01-S. 5^th ed.

[2] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (2018): CLSI document VET08-S. 4^th ed.

[3] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) (2011): CLSI document VET05-R. 1^st ed.

[4] BVL-Report 12.5 (2018); Bericht zur Resistenzmonitoringstudie 2016. Online available at:

https://www.bvl.bund.de/DE/09_Untersuchungen/01_Aufgaben/03_Nationales%20Resistenz-Monitoring/Archiv_Berichte/Archiv_Resistenzmonitoring_node.html

Animal host Disease condition Bacterial pathogen

Cattle Mastitis Staphylococcus aureus

Escherichia coli

Streptococcus agalactiae Streptococcus dysgalactiae Streptococcus uberis Infection of the intestinal tract Escherichia coli Infection of the respiratory tract Mannheimia spp.

Pasteurella multocida

Pigs Infection of the intestinal tract Escherichia coli

Infection of the respiratory tract Bordetella bronchiseptica Pasteurella multocida Streptococcus suis

Poultry Various disease conditions Escherichia coli

Staphylococcus aureus

(22)

Session 01: Use of Antimicrobials: Security and safety aspects for producers and consumers

Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in dairy cattle

T. J. G. M. Lam^1,2, A. E. Heuvelink¹, R. G. M. Olde Riekerink³and I. M. G. A. Santman-Berends¹

1GD Animal Health, Deventer, the Netherlands; ²Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; ³Current Address: Bayer Dairy Innovation and Scouting and External Collaborations, Auckland, New Zealand

Email: t.lam@gddiergezondheid.nl

Introduction Since the beginning of this century antimicrobial use (AMU) in farm animals became an important issue on the political agenda of several European countries. Where Scandinavian countries traditionally had a restricted approach on the usage of antimicrobials, the issue got full attention in other countries due to several incidents on the supposed relation between AMU in farm animals and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in humans. In this presentation several aspects will be discussed on AMU and AMR in dairy cattle, based on experiences in the Netherlands during a period in which the political approach towards AMU in animal husbandry changed from indifferent to very demanding. General aspects of this changing approach will be discussed, while two types of pathogens, methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Extended spectrum β-lactamase producing bacteria (ESBL) will be discussed in more detail. Additionally possible approaches to change behavior towards AMU will be discussed as will be the added value of prudent AMU.

A changed approach towards AMU in the Netherlands Based on overusage of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine, the high prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in animal pathogens, the fact that the same types of antimicrobials are used in animals and in humans and that humans can be exposed to possibly antimicrobial resistant pathogens from animals raised the attention on AMU in animal husbandry in the Netherlands. Several incidents, specifically on MRSA and ESBL further increased the political pressure and made the parliament decide to decrease the usage of antimicrobials stepwise to ultimately 70% in 2015 as compared to 2009.

In cattle that was realized through an approach in which transparency of antimicrobial usage at the herd level, a ban on preventive AMU and on the use of critically important antimicrobials were crucial parts¹. Apart from that, much collateral research was executed in the country in order to understand the background of the process and to smoothen the reduction in AMU.

MRSA One of the first pathogens of which the association between AMU in animals and AMR in humans was supposed was MRSA.

Specifically in pigs MRSA prevalences were high, as was the prevalence of MRSA in pig farmers. Over the years MRSA was also cultured from milk samples from dairy cattle. An important risk factor for the prevalence of MRSA in dairy herds was the presence of pigs on the dairy herd and the density of pigs in the area². Ultimately all MRSA isolates in both, pigs and dairy were found to be MLST 398, a livestock associated strain, which is a different type of MRSA as compared to the hospital associated strain that is found in hospitalized people.

ESBL Due to their multi-resistant character, their capacity to inactivate β-lactam antimicrobials including 3^rd and 4^th generation cephalosporins, and the potential horizontal transmission within and between bacterial species, ESBL producing bacteria are a serious threat to human and animal health. Studies were done on the prevalence and risk factors of ESBL in both conventional and organic dairy herds, in which the relation between AMU and AMR in animals was evaluated as well as risk factors for the occurrence of ESBL^3,4. It was found that the prevalence of ESBL was higher in conventional than in organic herds. In both type of herds, no relation was found between the total usage of antimicrobials and the prevalence of ESBL, whereas a significant association was found with the usage of critically important antimicrobials in these herds. Studies on the dynamics of ESBL in dairy herds learned that the ESBL prevalence in calves up to 21 days of age is much higher than in older animals, which was found not to be related to possible residues of dry cow antimicrobials in colostrum that was consumed by the calves.

Prudent AMU in farm animals Recent studies in which the relatedness of human, animal, food and environmental ESBL isolates were compared, could not find a linkage between AMU in animals and AMR in humans with respect to ESBL⁵. Nevertheless, from a precautionary perspective as well as from the knowledge that there is a relation between AMU and AMR in animals, prudent AMU in animals is of utmost importance. To realize this, the mindset of people involved is crucial, which can be influenced by using several approaches at the same time, reaching different types of people with the ultimate goal to realize a tipping point in social pressure¹. This ultimately led to a significant decrease in the usage of antimicrobials in dairy cattle in the Netherlands. This was realized without negative consequences for animal health and production and therefore seem attractive to be implemented in other countries.

References

1) Lam TJGM et al. The RESET Mindset Model applied on decreasing antibiotic usage in dairy cattle in the Netherlands. It. Vet. J. (2017) 70:5

2) Olde Riekerink RGM et al. Prevalence of MRSA intramammary infections and riskfactors in Dutch Dairy herds. Proceedings ISVEE XII, Durban South Africa, August 2009.

3) Gongrijp et al. Prevalence and risk factors for extended-spectrum β-lacatamase andr AmpC-producing Escherichia coli in dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. (2016) 99:9001.

4) Santman-Berends IMGA et al. Prevalence and risk factors for extended-spectrum β-lacatamase or AmpC-producing Escherichia coli in organic dairy herds in the Netherlands. J. Dairy Sci. (2017) 100:562.

5) Dorado-Garcia A et al. Molecular relatedness of ESBL/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli from humans, animals, food and the environment: A pooled analysis. J Antimicrob. Chemother. (2017) doi:10.1093/jac/dkx397

17th International Conference on Production Diseases

ICPD 2019