Search

The global risk for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) can be reduced by reducing antimicrobial use (AMU). Veterinarians are one of the key actors in relation to AMU in livestock, and understanding the dynamics of veterinary treatment and prescription is central to achieving AMU reduction. Veterinary AMU decisions are influenced by a complex pattern of both individual and contextual factors. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 Danish cattle veterinarians to investigate their perspectives on AMU and current practices in a national context with low use and extensive legal control. We found that personal experiences and emotions, rather than scientific evidence, guided some veterinarians when making AMU choices. Furthermore, less-experienced veterinarians felt pressure to prescribe according to colleagues' and farmers' preferences for certain antimicrobials. We found that changes in Danish legislation seemed to have introduced hesitancy and a lack of motivation within the veterinary profession, and that AMR was perceived as an abstract threat not applicable to the veterinarians' daily professional decision making. We concluded that the lack of field-generated research of local relevance nourished a culture in which AMU choices are built on personal experience rather than scientific evidence, which also diminished newly educated veterinarians' self-confidence in relation to their AMU choices. Future research should focus on developing locally relevant research on optimal AMU choices and AMR, and the implications of extensive legal control of AMU in livestock farming should be further investigated to find a balance on the path to reducing AMU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limiting antimicrobial use (AMU) in dairy farming is an important step toward reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Therefore, it is relevant to understand dairy farmers' choices and the potential for change in relation to AMU, even in countries with low usage. Furthermore, there is an increasing recognition of the need to focus on both the individual farmer's behavior as well as the context surrounding and influencing the farmer's decisions in relation to AMU if the goal is further reduction. To date, no studies have taken into account both the individual farmer and their context in both conventional and organic dairy farms under Danish conditions. For this study, 15 Danish dairy farmers were interviewed using qualitative semi-structured research interviews, and the notion of landscape was used to describe the context of their AMU. We found that AMR was considered a distant element of the farmers' antimicrobial landscape. Daily challenges such as acutely diseased animals and poor housing conditions seemed more urgent and overruled the threat of AMR. We also found that interviewed farmers had differing opinions on farm management, partly shaped by changes in legislation and ways of farming over time. At one end of the scale, some organic farmers had rethought the current way of farming; keeping robust animals in a natural setting was expected to prevent disease. They were positive about legislation, and the numerous restrictions on AMU over time were thought to contribute to ensuring quality for consumers. At the other end of the scale, some conventional farmers perceived disease as something that should be controlled through treatment, and the currently eased legislation and intensification of farming have legitimatized AMU for this purpose, leading to an expectation among these farmers of certain rights to handle medicines themselves. These contrasting views might lead to inspiration and competition in terms of reducing AMU, as the farmers appeared to value the opinions of other farmers, and they were found to continuously assess each other. Through such ongoing assessment, pioneers of AMU reduction—whether organic or conventional—might motivate their colleagues to change their AMU. Future research should address the potential of experience- and attitude-sharing among farmers as motivation to reduce AMU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]