Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]