WATT PoultryUSA - January 2012

data from various sources both domestic and international, which indicated that data comparisons were not comparing apples to apples. When reading the summaries that have been published by both domestic and foreign organizations on antibiotic use in food animals, the reader should be aware of whether the reports include one or a combination of the three antibiotic categories. For example, some reports may only include therapeutic and preventative growth promotants, whereas others will include therapeutics, preventative growth promotants and ionophore coccidiostats.

ing chicken will increase because of the decreased use of antibiotics. It might be from a variety of causes such as increased incidence of disease, decreased feed ef;ciency due to the omission of growth promotants, or increased costs related to disinfection and sanitation procedures to reduce disease-causing organisms.

In the end, there are still situations that will require the use of therapeutic antibiotics in poultry ;ocks that have infections. Many companies are voluntarily removing preventative growth promotants from diets, but the debate will continue on how these actions will impact antibiotic use and resistance in the future. ■

Veterinary Feed Directive

One regulatory step that is currently being taken by the FDA (Draft Guidance Document No. 209) to restrict antimicrobial drugs in food producing animals is to limit their use to situations that do not include the label for growth promotion or performance enhancement. The new FDA guidance will also require greater veterinary oversight. This means that anytime antibiotics are utilized in feed, a veterinarian will have to sign authorization forms called a Veterinary Feed Directive.

For many companies the oversight task alone could dominate a veterinarian’s time, reducing their time and effectiveness in monitoring ;ock health. The FDA is aware of this situation and is working with the American Feed Industry Association and the AVMA to make the VFD process more workable while still protecting animal health. It is believed it will also protect humans by reducing the potential of antibiotic use in food animals, causing increased resistance in human bacteria.

Elector � PSP

Powerful protection

against profit-robbing poultry parasites.

• Effectively controls darkling beetles, house flies (adults and larvae), stable flies and now approved for the most common external poultry parasite in the U.S.—the northern fowl mite1

• For use on all poultry premises: broilers, breeders, layers and turkeys
• No protective equipment needed; poultry
and/or eggs may be present during treatment
• No cross-resistance (pyrethroids, carbamates
or organophosphates)

The label contains complete use information,
including cautions and warnings. Always
read, understand and follow the label and use
directions. It is a violation of federal law to use
this product in any manner inconsistent with its
labeling. Labeling must be in possession of the
user at the time of pesticide application.

Increased poultry production
costs

Antibiotic use in the poultry industry has decreased over the last decade. Companies are striving to utilize fewer antibiotics in feeds, and they are using genetic selection, bird management and house sanitation to reduce the load present of disease-causing organisms. However, even with these steps, there are concerns that the cost of produc-

Now approved to control
northern fowl mites
(Ornithonyssus sylviarum)

1 “Northern Fowl Mite.” Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Entomology website. Accessed 3/4/2011. <http:// www.entomology. cornell.edu/cals/entomology/extension/vet/aid/chicken/nfmite.cfm>.