Is Asia ready to go antibiotic-free?

There has been a lot of talk and discussions on the benefits of reducing or completely removing the use of antibiotics in livestock, particularly in poultry and swine, here in Asia and yet, so far, only a few countries have implemented regulations. As many antimicrobials are used in the livestock sector, studies have suggested that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) may be widely prevalent. Regulation on antimicrobial use is either weak or non-existent, complicated by sub-optimal enforcement and compliance with existing guidelines, low levels of AMR awareness and poor commitment to responsible antibiotic use.

Before we start talking about antibiotic-free (ABF) production, let us first define what we mean by antibiotic-free. There are differing opinions on what it should be. Each country may have its own definition, or otherwise, dictated by how antibiotics are used in animal production. Currently, there seems to be 4 different levels of ABF application. (1) Some producers choose not to use antibiotics in feeds as in antibiotic growth promoters (AGP); (2) In countries where prescription related usage is monitored, antibiotic-free means that no antibiotics were used that are relevant to human use. On another hand, (3) there are some producers who totally refrain from using antibiotics important medicinally to humans making the available antimicrobial classes less (Pagel and Gaultier, 2012). The last definition (albeit extreme) is that (4) absolutely no antibiotics were used ever in production. In some cases, anticoccidials, specifically ionophores, are also prohibited although some countries allow the use of "chemical" anticoccidials. The difference in terms or application of antibiotic-free has confused not only animal producers, but consumers as well.

And from an operational standpoint, who gets to decide what to use to replace antibiotics, in the application or implementation of ABF? The nutritionist, because of its effect on feed formulation, feed cost and efficiency? Or the veterinarian, because animal health and performance efficiency maybe affected by ABF? And from a cost perspective, will consumers be willing to pay more for meat products that are free from antibiotics?

East Asia seems to be more advanced in regulating antibiotic use in animals. South Korea is the first country in Asia to ban the use of in-feed antibiotics, 5 years after EU has issued its own restriction. In July 2011, the South Korean government imposed a total ban on the addition of antibiotics in animal feed, to enhance the safety of local meat and dairy products. China, who has been consuming high volumes of antibiotics, started by banning the use of colistin in 2017 and issued a regulation in July 2020 to withdraw all growth-promoting feed medications except for traditional Chinese medicine.

Japan does not have any restrictions on using antimicrobials for growth promotion, but its Food Safety Commission is reportedly considering restricting some uses of antibiotics. A veterinary prescription is required for antimicrobial use in food animals. Japan does not have any regulations pertaining specifically to antimicrobial use for the purposes of disease control and prevention. In 2005, Taiwan amended its Veterinary Drugs Control Act to ban AGPs and require veterinary prescriptions to use antimicrobials in food animals and may be used in food animals to treat and prevent disease. Other information suggests that Taiwan has been trying to phase out antimicrobials for growth promotion, but some antimicrobials are still permitted for feed use.

As they have a significant export market to the EU and Japan, Thailand has led the way in applying stricter regulations on antimicrobial use in livestock implementing a ban for growth promotion since 2015. In comparison, Vietnam and Indonesia have fewer restrictions on antibiotic use in livestock but both have prohibited the use for growth promotion beginning of 2018. The Indonesian government initially banned the use of colistin in animals, then eventually progressed in banning the use of antibiotics, especially AGPs in feed. This, also, led to the ban on importation of any antibiotic, and the regulation that antibiotics can be used only with a prescription from a licensed veterinarian. Meanwhile, Vietnam introduced a national strategy for AMR and initially committed to ban the preventive use of antibiotics in feed by end of 2020. The Vietnam government also provided timelines on the discontinuation of use of specified antibiotics that have varying degrees of importance to human health that can be used until 31 December 2022.

In Malaysia, colistin was banned for use as an AGP and prophylactic since 1 January 2019, and the veterinary department has banned from animal use, another six antibiotics, namely erythromycin, enrofloxacin, tetracycline, ceftiofur, tylosin, and fosfomycin in August 2020. Although there are no regulations in place as of today in the Philippines, veterinarians are supporting the prudent and proper use of antibiotics, wherein veterinarians and farmers work together under guidelines on production practices to ensure that antibiotics are used in animals in a manner that minimizes the development of resistance in human health. This approach is adapted, and supports, the concept of One Health.

Despite these regulations, limited as they may be, implementation and monitoring of antibiotic usage may prove to be more difficult than expected. One factor is that farmers can easily buy antibiotics over the counter, or through a livestock supply store. Therefore, there is also a need for the industry to promote policing the use of antibiotics in the feed, and at the farm. Should we adopt the same style as in EU, where all antibiotics need to be prescribed by licensed veterinarians only? Or, as suggested earlier, should both nutritionists and veterinarians share the burden of implementing such a regulation?

Ever since the industry started to talk about reducing or removing antibiotics in feed and animal use, a lot of alternatives have been produced or positioned for use. This could be good as there will be more choices. However, to a small to medium scale chicken or pig producer, this just makes it more confusing. What our farmers need are proper guidelines (checklist if you must) to start reducing usage in feed and animals. From current observations in the field, the following “best practices” may be explored in the reduction or complete removal of antibiotics in poultry or swine production.

It is best to evaluate your facilities and capabilities first to determine if your farm and people are ready to implement a reduced antibiotic strategy. This is an important step to consider as it affects preparation and prioritization. As an example, although your farm is not climate controlled, preparing a plan to improve managing ventilation for the meantime, can improve the situation of your animals, while you save up to build your climate controlled building. This assessment and prioritization will save you time and money as well.

Better management of your farm, like improving biosecurity alone, can work wonders when you try to reduce antibiotics. This is because you are already reducing the bacterial load present on the farm. Also, improving young animal management can prepare your animals better. Certainly, as feed is 80% of your production, just sourcing better quality raw materials and improving your feed production process can also help in improving chances of success when antibiotics are removed.

A better understanding of what will be most affected when you remove antibiotics will help you anticipate what to focus on. This will also help in determining what kind of alternative you should be using to mitigate your concern. As an example, if you foresee that diarrhea will be the main issue, then you should prepare alternatives to counter not only the onset of diarrhea, but also its after effects. Knowing what may have the biggest impact on your operations will better prepare you and your animals once antibiotics are removed, and will reduce the effect on your performance.

As mentioned, there are a lot of alternatives out there and more often than not, usage can get confusing. It is best to understand how these alternatives work, what they are targeting and what effect you should expect from them. Sometimes these alternatives do not work because they are used incorrectly, which in turn can cost a lot of money.

Have an in-depth discussion with your nutritionist and veterinarian so that they are aware and prepared to support you in the transition. The nutritionist can improve formulation, so that the effect on efficiency will be minimized, and the veterinarian can easily anticipate what problems may arise at the farm once your plan is implemented. According to a report from European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), cooperation is a must if you want to succeed in removing antibiotics and win against AMR.

We have observed that most producers give up after the first try, as they were not successful. Producers need to have a mindset that they will need a lot of trials (and errors) before being, at least, comfortable with reducing or removing antibiotic use. Of course, too many mistakes can really hurt the producers’ profitability, that is why it is recommended to take a step-by-step approach, focusing on issues that will have the biggest impact on production efficiency.

As mentioned in the previous point, cost will increase, as you will be taking a multi-pronged approach. Although, there are reports that show that profitability is, in fact, improved when producers reduce or remove antibiotics. It does make sense to prepare a good communication plan to be sent out to customers and consumers, highlighting what producers are trying to achieve, and the benefits of ABF. This will help consumers accept the additional cost more easily, for better food quality, and a more sustainable food source.

Whether or not there are regulations in place we believe that most integrators are ready to reduce or remove antibiotics, as they have the infrastructure and resources to do so. Now is the right time to initiate programs to reduce and, eventually, remove antibiotic use. Small to medium scale producers should take it a step at a time, focus on the most important issue that will affect their efficiency, and not be discouraged to continue trying, despite the costs. The big integrators, along with feed additives and animal health companies, should in turn help these smaller scale producers by providing better information on solutions, and share their knowledge and experiences, so that these producers can make better decisions on their own, for their own success, and for the sustainability of the industry.