The burden of antimicrobial resistance in livestock: A framework to estimate its impact within the Global Burden of Animal Diseases programme.

In addition to affecting animal health and production, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in livestock can have far-reaching social and economic consequences, including on human health and the environment. Given the diversity of data needs and the absence of standardised methodologies, the scale of antimicrobial use (AMU) and AMR's social and economic burden on livestock is complex to gauge. Yet, quantifying this impact can be an essential input for farm-level decision-making and, more widely, for policy development, public awareness, resource allocation to interventions and research and development prioritisation, particularly in a One Health context. This work proposes a conceptual framework to guide the assessment of the burden of AMU and AMR in livestock using the Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) approach. Its development identified and mapped critical socio-economic concepts in AMU and AMR in livestock and their relationships. The Animal Health Loss Envelope (AHLE), a monetary metric that sets a boundary for overall losses from health hazards and allows an understanding of the relative importance of health problems in livestock, was used as the metric in which the concepts and data needs for the AMU and AMR assessment were anchored. The proposed framework identifies pathways for losses and data inputs needed to estimate the burden of AMU and AMR within this wider envelope of losses. These include information on health expenditure and mortality and morbidity effects related to AMR in livestock. This work highlights the need for improved health and production data collection in livestock production as an essential stepping stone to accurately producing AMU and AMR burden estimates.

Prioritization, resource allocation and utilization of decision support tools in animal health: Results of qualitative interviews with experts.

A follow up to an online questionnaire survey (in a kind of a sequential study design), qualitative assessment was made on the views of selected animal health experts on disease prioritization methods, resource allocation and use of decision-support tools. This was done through in-depth interviews with experts working for national or international organizations and sectors. A semi-structured question guide was formulated based on the information generated in the online questionnaire and a systematic content analysis of animal and human health manuals for disease prioritization and resource allocation. In-depth, one-on-one, online interviews on the process of disease prioritization, animal health decision-making, types of prioritization tools and aspects of improvements in the tools were conducted during March and April 2022 with 20 expert informants. Prioritization approaches reported by experts were either single criterion-based or multiple criteria-based. Experts appreciated the single-criterion-based approach (quantitative) for its objectivity in contrast to multicriteria prioritization approaches which were criticized for their subjectivity. Interviews with the experts revealed a perceived lack of quality and reliable data to inform disease prioritization, especially in smallholder livestock production systems. It was found that outputs of disease prioritization exercises do not generally directly influence resource allocation in animal health and highlighted the paucity of funding for animal health compared to other agricultural sectors. The experts considered that the available decision-support tools in animal health need improvement in terms of data visualization for interpretation, management decision making and advocacy. Further recommendations include minimizing subjective biases by increasing the availability and quality of data and improving the translation of disease prioritization outputs into actions and the resources to deliver those actions. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: The data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Quantifying cost of disease in livestock: a new metric for the Global Burden of Animal Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Increasing awareness of the environmental and public health impacts of expanding and intensifying animal-based food and farming systems creates discord, with the reliance of much of the world's population on animals for livelihoods and essential nutrition. Increasing the efficiency of food production through improved animal health has been identified as a step towards minimising these negative effects without compromising global food security. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme aims to provide data and analytical methods to support positive change in animal health across all livestock and aquaculture animal populations. METHODS: In this study, we present a metric that begins the process of disease burden estimation by converting the physical consequences of disease on animal performance to farm-level costs of disease, and calculates a metric termed the Animal Health Loss Envelope (AHLE) via comparison between the status quo and a disease-free ideal. An example calculation of the AHLE metric for meat production from broiler chickens is provided. FINDINGS: The AHLE presents the direct financial costs of disease at farm-level for all causes by estimating losses and expenditure in a given farming system. The general specification of the model measures productivity change at farm-level and provides an upper bound on productivity change in the absence of disease. On its own, it gives an indication of the scale of total disease cost at farm-level. INTERPRETATION: The AHLE is an essential stepping stone within the GBADs programme because it connects the physical performance of animals in farming systems under different environmental and management conditions and different health states to farm economics. Moving forward, AHLE results will be an important step in calculating the wider monetary consequences of changes in animal health as part of the GBADs programme. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.

Current and potential use of animal disease data by stakeholders in the global south and north.

What cannot be measured will not be managed. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) will generate information on animal disease burdens by species, production system, type and gender of farmer and consumer, geographical region, and time period. To understand the demand for burden of animal disease (BAD) data and how end-users might benefit from this, we reviewed the literature on animal diseases prioritisation processes (ADPP) and conducted a survey of BAD information users. The survey covered their current use of data and prioritizations as well as their needs for different, more, and better information. We identified representative (geography, sector, species) BAD experts from the authors' networks and publicly available documents and e-mailed 1485 experts. Of 791 experts successfully contacted, 271 responded (34% response rate), and 185 complete and valid responses were obtained. Most respondents came from the public sector followed by academia/research, and most were affiliated to institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Of the six ADPPs commonly featured in literature, only three were recognised by more than 40% of experts. An additional 23 ADPPs were used. Awareness of ADDPs varied significantly by respondents. Respondents ranked animal disease priorities. We used exploded logit to combine first, second and third disease priorities to better understand prioritzation and their determinants. Expert priorities differed significantly from priorities identified by the ADDPs, and also from the priorities stated veterinary services as reported in a survey for a World Organisation of Animal Health (WOAH) technical item. Respondents identified 15 different uses of BAD data. The most common use was presenting evidence (publications, official reports, followed by disease management, policy development and proposal writing). Few used disease data for prioritzation or resource allocation, fewer routinely used economic data for decision making, and less than half were aware of the use of decision support tools (DSTs). Nearly all respondents considered current BAD metrics inadequate, most considered animal health information insufficiently available and not evidence-based, and most expressed concerns that decision-making processes related to animal health lacked transparency and fairness. Cluster analysis suggested three clusters of BAD users and will inform DSTs to help them better meet their specific objectives. We conclude that there is a lack of satisfaction with current BAD information, and with existing ADDPs, contributing to sub-optimal decision making. Improved BAD data would have multiple uses by different stakeholders leading to better evidenced decisions and policies; moreover, clients will need support (including DSTs) to optimally use BAD information.

Rationalising development of classification systems describing livestock production systems for disease burden analysis within the Global Burden of Animal Diseases programme.

The heterogeneity that exists across the global spectrum of livestock production means that livestock productivity, efficiency, health expenditure and health outcomes vary across production systems. To ensure that burden of disease estimates are specific to the represented livestock population and people reliant upon them, livestock populations need to be systematically classified into different types of production system, reflective of the heterogeneity across production systems. This paper explores the data currently available of livestock production system classifications and animal health through a scoping review as a foundation for the development of a framework that facilitates more specific estimates of livestock disease burdens. A top-down framework to classification is outlined based on a systematic review of existing classification methods and provides a basis for simple grouping of livestock at global scale. The proposed top-down classification framework, which is dominated by commodity focus of production along with intensity of resource use, may have less relevance at the sub-national level in some jurisdictions and will need to be informed and adapted with information on how countries themselves categorize livestock and their production systems. The findings in this study provide a foundation for analysing animal health burdens across a broad level of production systems. The developed framework will fill a major gap in how livestock production and health are currently approached and analysed.

Approximating the global economic (market) value of farmed animals.

Understanding the global economic importance of farmed animals to society is essential as a baseline for decision making about future food systems. We estimated the annual global economic (market) value of live animals and primary production outputs, e.g., meat, eggs, milk, from terrestrial and aquatic farmed animal systems. The results suggest that the total global market value of farmed animals ranges between 1.61 and 3.3 trillion USD (2018) and is expected to be similar in absolute terms to the market value of crop outputs (2.57 trillion USD). The cattle sector dominates the market value of farmed animals. The study highlights the need to consider other values of farmed animals to society, e.g., finance/insurance value and cultural value, in decisions about the sector's future.