Current anthelmintic and antibiotic use in UK organic farming systems.

INTRODUCTION: The use of anthelmintic and antibiotic medicines is imperative to prevent the suffering of diseased stock in organic farming. However, their use must be minimised to comply with low input ideals and prevent the spread of resistance. Reducing such inputs first requires determining their current use, but information is lacking. The objective of this study was to benchmark the current use of anthelmintics and antibiotics in UK organic livestock farming. METHODS: Data were gathered by conducting a national survey of organic livestock farmers in the UK and by analysing records of requests for allopathic medicines. RESULTS: Key findings include (i) anthelmintics used in sheep constitute the greatest input of veterinary medicines in organic systems, (ii) farmers are incorporating alternative/support tools in helminth control to reduce anthelmintic requirements, (iii) the use of antibiotics is targeting individual animals, whereas the use of anthelmintics is targeting groups of animals. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first benchmark on the use of anthelmintics and antibiotics in UK organic livestock.

The Investigators' Meeting: Obtaining Maximum Results.

This survey was undertaken to ascertain what clinical investigators liked and disliked about the meetings that precede the initiation of clinical trials and to determine if there are any differences in opinion between those investigators engaged in private practice and those affiliated with academic institutions. A 16-item multiple choice survey was mailed to 565 clinical investigators. Sixty-three percent of those polled returned the survey. A majority of respondents (67%) believes that attendance at investigators' meetings is beneficial to themselves and to their coordinators. Seventy percent prefer to attend a multicenter meeting in lieu of having an on-site initiation. Private practitioners prefer weekend meetings (59%) held at resorts (54%) where as academicians favored meetings to be held mid-week (42%) and were less unified as to the type of facility. The last choice for a meeting's location was the Northeast. More investigators prefer to make their own travel arrangement than to use a central travel planner. Both groups of investigators believe that the most beneficial parts of the meeting for themselves and for their coordinators are a formal presentation of the protocol and a discussion/answer session about the study. There was generalized agreement that the study's coordinator is the principal beneficiary of a discussion about the central laboratory. It is less clear who actually benefits from discussions of the drug brochure, FDA guidelines, case report form, etc.