Ir Vet J. 2022 Nov 19;75(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s13620-022-00227-4.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Ireland between 2008 and 2022, intramammary antimicrobial (AM) products could be prescribed by a veterinary practitioner under what was known as Schedule 8 (or remote) prescribing. Under this prescribing route, an annual herd visit was not required when criteria were met as outlined in Animal Remedies Regulation 2007 to 2017 (statutory instruments No. 786/2007 and 558/2017). Under this prescribing route, the responsibilities of the milk purchaser, the farmer and the veterinary practitioner were each outlined, and a written mastitis control programme (MCP) was required. Milk purchasers implemented MCPs on participating farms (so-called MCP herds) with support from veterinary practitioner(s) who undertook Schedule 8 prescribing of intramammary AM tubes. This study seeks a clearer understanding of the role of milk purchasers in the prescribing and sale of intramammary AM products in Ireland during 2019 and 2020, whilst this Regulation was in force. Specifically, the study sought insights into the role of milk purchasers in the prescribing and sale of intramammary AM products in the Irish dairy industry during 2019 and 2020, using anonymised and highly aggregated milk purchaser data. The study also provided insights into milk quality among supplying herds during this period.
METHODS: For this study, we had access to anonymised, highly aggregated data from all milk purchasers that operated a MCP on at least some of their supplying herds during 2019 or 2020. Data collection was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine. Data analysis was primarily descriptive.
RESULTS: Data were available on 11 milk purchasers (64.7% of all) and 13,251 supplying herds. Of these, 52% were MCP herds. The quality of milk from supplying herds varied significantly by month, year and milk purchaser. During 2019 and 2020, there was a single Schedule 8 prescriber (a private veterinary practitioner prescribing intramammary AMs as part of a MCP), on average, for 549.3 herds. The sale of intramammary AM products through milk purchasers represented 15.2% and 26.9% of national sales in in-lactation and dry cow tubes, respectively. There was an overall 2% increase in sales through milk purchasers between 2019 and 2020. Few European Medicines Agency (EMA) category B (‘Restrict’) intramammary AM products were sold by milk purchasers. For both in-lactation and dry cow tubes, there was a statistically significant association between EMA classification and route of sale (through milk purchasers or otherwise).
CONCLUSIONS: The study findings provide important insights into mastitis control and intramammary AM stewardship in the Irish dairy industry. Significant differences between milk purchasers were observed in the quality of milk, as measured through somatic cell count (SCC) values, from supplying herds. This warrants further research. In the context of intramammary AM prescribing, veterinary oversight under the Animal Remedies Regulation 2007 to 2017 was very limited during 2019 and 2020. There were also significant associations between EMA classification and route of sale during 2019 and 2020, reinforcing the need for Irish veterinary practitioners to move away from EMA category B intramammary AMs. Higher quality data are needed to address important industry questions. Specifically it is recommended that national bulk tank SCC data are made available for public good research. Past experiences with Schedule 8 prescribing (no longer permitted from 28 January 2022) may influence current efforts towards improved intramammary AM stewardship.
PMID:36403021 | DOI:10.1186/s13620-022-00227-4
