RESUMO
The rabbit sector faces significant challenges with antimicrobial usage (AMU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). A focus group involving nine rabbit sector stakeholders identified key issues contributing to high AMU and the need for veterinarians' training. Participants emphasized the lack of clear legislation, biosecurity standards, and the importance of training on best practices to reduce AMU. To address these concerns, a blended learning course for rabbit veterinarians was organized, focusing on responsible drug use to lower AMU. The course design promoted participant interaction using group exercises and online discussions. The output was an operational tool, encompassing crucial elements to reduce drug dependence, covering housing, environmental conditions, feed, reproduction, disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatments. Validated in veterinarians' daily practices, the tool proved valuable. The tool, presented as a checklist, assists veterinarians in supporting field activities regarding proper drug use and AMR issues. It also helps farmers address knowledge gaps in breeding management and adopt biosecurity practices for disease prevention. Participants were encouraged to use the tool during farm visits and collaborate with farmers. The project presented in the manuscript is a crucial step towards the development of effective strategies for responsible AMU and AMR mitigation in the rabbit sector and beyond.
RESUMO
The quantification of antimicrobial usage (AMU) in food-producing animals can help identify AMU risk factors, thereby enhancing appropriate stewardship policies and strategies for a more rational use. AMU in a sample of 34 farms in the Province of Trento (north-eastern Italy) from 2018 to 2020 was expressed as defined daily doses for animals per population correction unit according to European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption guidelines (DDDvet) and according to Italian guidelines (DDDAit). A retrospective analysis was carried out to test the effects of several husbandry practices on AMU. Overall, the average AMU ranged between 6.5 DDDAit in 2018 and 5.2 DDDAit in 2020 (corresponding to 9 and 7 DDDvet, respectively), showing a significant trend of decrement (-21.3%). Usage of the highest priority critically important antimicrobials (HPCIA) was reduced by 83% from 2018 to 2020. Quarantine management, available space, water supply, animals' cleanliness and somatic cell count had no significant association with AMU. Rather, farms with straw-bedded cubicles had lower AMU levels than those with mattresses and concrete floors (p < 0.05). In conclusion, this study evidenced a decrement in AMU, particularly regarding HPCIA, but only a few risk factors due to farm management.
RESUMO
This pilot study tested an on-farm protocol based on resource, management, and animal-based measures to evaluate the on-farm health and welfare of rabbits kept in four different housing systems. In detail, the four housing systems were (1) standard breeding cages for reproducing does (3,300 cm2) with their litters associated with bicellular cages for growing rabbits (1,200 cm2); (2) dual-purpose cages for both reproducing does and growing rabbits (3,655 cm2); (3) enriched cages (4,739 cm2) for both reproducing does and growing rabbits equipped with a wire-mesh elevated platform (1,015 cm2); (4) parks (30,977 cm2) made up of four modules (7,744 cm2 each) joined by removing the wire net walls between them with growing rabbits kept in collective parks and reproducing does individually in the single modules. A total of 12 commercial farms (three farms/four housing systems) were visited during three seasons (summer, autumn, and winter) on two occasions each: (1) a pre-weaning visit for recordings on reproducing does and litters and (2) a pre-slaughtering visit for recordings on growing rabbits. At the pre-weaning visit, the prevalence of health concerns did not differ among does and litters kept in the different housing systems. At the pre-slaughtering visit, a higher prevalence of dermatomycosis was found in farms with dual-purpose cages and parks. Overall, taking into account the limitations due to the small sample size per housing system and the field conditions, the on-farm assessment tested in the present pilot study did not highlight major differences in the welfare and health of reproducing does and their kits as well as of growing rabbits in farms using different housing systems, which need to be confirmed on a large number of farms. The study also outlined the role of several management and environmental factors changing from one farm to another, which stresses the troubles of accounting for on-farm rabbit welfare and health exclusively to the housing system.