RESUMO
Overuse of veterinary antibiotics is a risk factor for antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a global public health emergency. More than 70% of the antibiotics consumed worldwide are used in farm animals, mainly in poultry and pig herds. Brazil is the fourth largest pork producer globally and the second-largest user of antibiotics in animals. Qualitative research can help understand the complexities around antibiotic use (AMU) in Brazilian pig herds and identify stakeholders' attitudes concerning the rational AMU and AMR in the production chain. This study aimed to explore the knowledge and attitudes of high-level professionals in the animal production chain about AMU and AMR in pig farming, the relationship with pig welfare and AMU in Brazil. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews with individuals active in the pig industry. The majority of the participants considered AMU excessive and inappropriate in pig farms in Brazil. However, attitudes toward a restrictive AMU scenario in Brazilian pig farms were predominantly negative, justified by economic, sanitary and social barriers. These included unsatisfactory management and biosecurity conditions in pig farms that, in their opinion, justify AMU to prevent diseases; issues surrounding prescription and acquisition of veterinary drugs; and employment and income relationships arising from the sale of antibiotics. The views of high-level professionals in the Brazilian livestock chain reveal antibiotics as a structural element that enables pig production. Antibiotics were viewed as essential resources for producing cheap food. Foreign markets were considered the most relevant driver of change in AMU practices rather than pressure from Brazilian consumers. A common belief expressed was that AMR is more associated with the inappropriate AMU in human medicine than in the livestock sector. Resistance to change in these stakeholders may hinder the implementation of future public policies to restrict the use of antibiotics in Brazil. Our findings suggest that successful measures to deal with the AMU/AMR challenges in the pig chain shall not be rooted in personal behavior change. Instead, honest interdisciplinary dialogues and structural changes are needed to define common grounds and a way forward to break the cycle perpetuating antibiotics as structural commodities.
RESUMO
Preventative measures, such as biosecurity and vaccinations, are essential but not sufficient to ensure high standards of health in pig production systems. Restrictive, barren housing and many widely used management practices that cause pain and stress predispose high-performance pigs reared in intensive systems to disease. In this context, antibiotics are used as part of the infrastructure that sustains health and high levels of production in pig farms. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global emergency affecting human and animal health, and the use of antibiotics (AMU) in intensive livestock farming is considered an important risk factor for the emergence and spread of resistant bacteria from animals to humans. Tackling the issue of AMR demands profound changes in AMU, e.g., reducing their use for prophylaxis and ending it for growth promotion. In support of such recommendations, we revise the link between animal welfare and AMU and argue that it is crucial to sustainably reduce AMU while ensuring that pigs can live happy lives. In support of such recommendations, we aimed to revise the link between animal welfare and AMU in pigs by analysing stress factors related to housing and management and their impact on pig welfare. In particular, we reviewed critical management practices that increase stress and, therefore, pigs' susceptibility to disease and reduce the quality of life of pigs. We also reviewed some alternatives that can be adopted in pig farms to improve animal welfare and that go beyond the reduction in stress. By minimising environmental and management stressors, pigs can become more immunocompetent and prepared to overcome pathogenic challenges. This outcome can contribute to reducing AMU and the risk of AMR while simultaneously improving the quality of life of pigs and, ultimately, maintaining the pig industry's social license.