From the other perspective: Behavioural factors associated with UK sheep farmers' attitudes towards antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance

Dairy farmers' intention to use calf management technologies in four European countries: A QCA and PLS-SEM approach

Whilst livestock management technologies may help to improve productivity, economic performance, and animal welfare on farms, there has been low uptake of technologies across farming systems and countries. This study aimed to understand dairy farmers' intention to use calf management technologies by combining partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). We evaluated the hypotheses that dairy farmers will intend to use calf technologies if they have sufficient competencies, sufficient materials, and positive meanings (e.g., attitudes or emotions) towards calf technologies, and they will not intend to use technologies if one of these elements is missing. An online survey was completed by 269 dairy farmers in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK. A PLS-SEM was developed, where the outcome was the number of calf management technologies that the respondent intended to use, and the latent constructs included meanings, materials, and competencies. QCA was then run separately for the datasets from each country. Intention to use technologies was the outcome, whereas positive meanings, sufficient materials, and sufficient competencies for technology use were conditions in the QCA. Evaluation of the PLS-SEM showed that reliability and validity of the latent constructs was appropriate for analysis. Assessment of the structural model indicated that having positive meanings regarding technologies significantly increased the number of calf technologies the farmer intended to use (β = 0.388, CI = 0.291 - 0.486). The QCA solutions show that the conditions for the intention to use, or not use, calf technologies differed between Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK, but the presence (or absence) of positive meanings was consistently important. The solutions for Norway and Belgium aligned with our hypotheses, but the solutions for the Netherlands and UK did not. Some of the solutions exhibited features of causal complexity such as equifinality, conjunctural causation, and asymmetric causation, which would not be able to be easily identified using traditional regression analyses. This study highlights the causal complexity of technology use on farms as a social phenomenon. Furthermore, the study shows the usefulness of QCA for evaluating theoretical hypotheses regarding farmers' behaviour. We suggest that researchers could use this method to investigate other practices on farms that may have causal complexity.

Assessing veterinarians' opinions of antimicrobial stewardship initiative acceptability for farm practice in Wales

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) initiatives are imperative to safeguard antimicrobials and reduce resistance. Across the UK, AMS relies in part on the self-regulation of the veterinary profession, particularly in farm animal practice, alongside voluntary schemes and quality assurance systems. In Europe, AMS initiatives are often statutory and require responsibility from several sectors. Consideration of broader AMS initiatives, potentially unfamiliar to the Welsh veterinary profession, could optimise future policy and align it with the requirements of Welsh veterinarians.

METHODS

AMS initiatives were collated from nations with long-standing low antimicrobial use. A survey was constructed permitting veterinarians' evaluation of initiative feasibility and effectiveness (collectively, 'acceptability') within Welsh farm animal practice.

RESULTS

Veterinarian-directed AMS initiatives, particularly those implemented within individual practices, were considered most acceptable. Initiatives that demanded cooperation from entities outside practices, or those regarded as punitive, were less acceptable.

LIMITATIONS

The findings of this voluntary survey may be biased towards particularly motivated respondents in the veterinary sector. Additionally, the cause or effect of the recorded professional behaviour is not known in this study.

CONCLUSION

Future antimicrobial policy should consider AMS acceptability by veterinarians, alongside farmers and other stakeholders, to promote compliance and attainment. The study data suggest that veterinarians may perceive continuous professional development/knowledge exchange as being most acceptable, alongside activities allied to a strong veterinarian‒client prescribing relationship. Continued support should focus on expanding these areas. Decoupling (ie, abolishing the professional licence for veterinarians to both prescribe and dispense medicines) was viewed as least acceptable by veterinarians in this study.

The tales of contradiction: A thematic analysis of British sheep farmers' perceptions of managing sheep scab in their flocks

Sheep scab is endemic in Great Britain with an estimated national herd-level prevalence of 10.9% from a surveyed population of sheep farms. Previous studies have investigated how sheep farmers manage sheep scab on their farms in Great Britain, but there have not been any qualitative studies investigating sheep farmers perceptions on the roles different stakeholders have in the management of sheep scab. This qualitative study aims to explore how sheep farmers perceive their role and the different stakeholders' roles in the management of sheep scab, and how they would like sheep scab to be managed going forward. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 43 sheep farmers from England, Scotland, and Wales. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, through the theoretical lens of Foucault's notion of 'biopower'. Two themes were generated: 'The feeling of powerlessness leads to a need of rules and regulations', with sub-themes: 'The need for governmental rules and regulations' and 'The need for rules and regulation at livestock markets', and 'An apparent lack of sheep scab surveillance', with sub-themes: 'The farmers perceive that the veterinarians have control over surveillance' and 'The farmers have control over surveillance on their farms'. In the first theme, the respondents suggested that more rules and regulations to control the management of sheep scab was required. This included reinstating of sheep scab as a notifiable disease in England and Wales, as well as more regulations at livestock markets to prevent the trading of infested sheep; both of which would subject the farmers to regulatory power mechanisms. The second theme centred around who has the control of surveillance on the farms. Most of the respondents perceived that the veterinarians had knowledge and expertise of the local area on sheep scab, which they were able to relay to the farmers. Thus, veterinarians exerted disciplinary power by creating 'docile' bodies. However, it also appeared that veterinarians were not regularly called onto farms. Although disciplinary power flows through the interactions between the farmer and veterinarian, the techniques currently used are not always having their desired effect. The study demonstrated that how sheep farmers want sheep scab to be managed is, at times, conflicting and contradictory, which highlights the complexity of sheep scab as a disease to manage.

Improving analgesia provision for sheep: An analysis of farm medicine records and attitudes towards pain relief on sheep farms in Northern Ireland

Background

Management of pain is critical to improve the welfare of farmed livestock and meet consumer expectations. There is limited published information about the use of analgesic drugs in the sheep sector.

Methods

A mixed-method approach was followed. The range of analgesic drugs used on 52 Northern Irish sheep farms was determined through analysis of medicine purchase records. Through interview and discussion groups, with both farmer and veterinarian participants, attitudes towards the use and adoption of such medicines were explored.

Results

The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was widespread and highly variable. One-third of farmers in the sample did not purchase any NSAID. Meloxicam was the most commonly purchased NSAID by mass (72%) and standardised dose (73%). During interviews and discussions, farmers outlined the benefits they saw in using NSAIDs and how veterinarians influenced their uptake of these medicines. Use of corticosteroid was evidenced on 50% of the farms that supplied medicine records for analysis.

Conclusions

Veterinarians can influence farmers to adopt NSAIDs for the provision of analgesia in their sheep and farmers observed the benefits they delivered. However, many farmers are still to be reached with this message, perhaps due to being largely self-sufficient and rarely engaging with veterinarians. Veterinarians have the opportunity to challenge farmers about the provision of analgesia, especially when farmers seek antibiotics for painful conditions such as lameness. Currently, the lack of an authorised product in the UK, with associated treatment guidance and industry promotion, may limit veterinarians' confidence in prescribing drugs for pain control in sheep.

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

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major threat to global health and a key One Health challenge linking humans, animals, and the environment. Livestock are a key target for moderation of antimicrobial use (AMU), which is a major driver of AMR in these species. While some studies have assessed AMU and AMR in individual production systems, the evidence regarding predictors of AMU and AMR in livestock is fragmented, with significant research gaps in identifying the predictors of AMU and AMR common across farming systems. This review summarizes existing knowledge to identify key practices and critical control points determining on-farm AMU/AMR determinants for pigs, layer and broiler hens, beef and dairy cattle, sheep, turkeys, and farmed salmon in Europe. The quality and quantity of evidence differed between livestock types, with sheep, beef cattle, laying hens, turkeys and salmon underrepresented. Interventions to mitigate both AMU and/or AMR highlighted in these studies included biosecurity and herd health plans. Organic production typically showed significantly lower AMU across species, but even in antibiotic-free systems, varying AMR levels were identified in livestock microflora. Although vaccination is frequently implemented as part of herd health plans, its effects on AMU/AMR remain unclear at farm level. Social and behavioral factors were identified as important influences on AMU. The study fills a conspicuous gap in the existing AMR and One Health literatures examining links between farm management practices and AMU and AMR in European livestock production.

Evaluation of the use of antibiotic waste bins and medicine records to quantify antibiotic use on sheep, beef, and mixed species farms: A mixed methods study

There is a lack of robust data on antibiotic use on sheep and beef farms in the UK, particularly for farms with mixed species. On mixed farms, quantification of antibiotic use is reliant on accurate farmers' records as veterinary prescription data does not provide information at the species level. Previous studies that have investigated multiple antibiotic use collection methods were conducted on single species farms and failed to collect data on the reasons why differences in methods may exist. This study aimed to evaluate sheep and beef farmers' antibiotic recording practices by comparing quantities of antibiotics measured from medicine records and empty antibiotic packaging collection bins, and identify barriers and facilitators of the antibiotic use collection methods. Thirty-five farms were followed for a year period. Farmers were asked to record their antibiotic treatments and deposit empty antibiotic packaging used in sheep or beef cattle into a bin. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the experiences of farmers taking part in the study and explore the possible differences in methods. Bins and medicine records were collected and the mass of active ingredient (mg) was calculated. The level of agreement between the two antibiotic use collection methods was measured using rank parameters of Kendall's T_a. The bins were 67 % (CI = 29-87 %) more likely to measure more antibiotic use than the medicine records. The scale of variability of the measurements between two random farms was 33 % (CI = 6-56 %) larger for the antibiotic waste bins than the scale of variability between the medicine records. Sheep farmers often missed neonatal lamb treatments off their medicine records, with a median of 32.5 missing treatments per farm (IQR = 18-130). Of the mixed species farms, 28 % of treatment entries were missing the species the antibiotic was used in. Farmers reported that the bin was easy to use but they also reported that there was a tendency to under-report actual use where there were multiple workers on the farm or where treatments were administered by the veterinarian. The qualitative analysis identified contextual barriers to accurate medicine recording, such as difficulties with animal identification, with recording in the field, and with recording during lambing time. This study demonstrated that there were significant differences in antibiotic use measured by the bins and the medicine records. The mixed-methods approach provided an understanding of the contextual barriers that impacted farmers' medicine recording and use of the bin. This information on the contextual barriers can be used to inform the design of data collection methods to improve antibiotic consumption data in the sheep and beef sectors.