THE INDUSTRY needs new ways to quickly diagnose illnesses in farm animals to help it tackle the growing threat of antibiotic resistance.

This would allow vets to administer more effective and targeted treatment, according to Kingston University microbiology expert, Professor Mark Fielder. He said scaling back the widespread use of antibiotics was vital if attempts to combat the rise of resistant bacteria were to be successful.

But, he warned, if this was not tackled, the nest step was that human diseases, such as tuberculosis, would become increasingly difficult to manage and even routine operations would be at risk if supportive antibiotic therapy was no longer available.

A medical microbiologist, he explained how new diagnostic tests to help doctors and vets target treatments against infectious agents would reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in both human and animal medicine.

While the use of antibiotics in the farming industry was an important part of the debate, removing them from agriculture completely was not the answer, Professor Fielder said.

“What we need to do is provide clinicians with the tools they need to quickly diagnose which organisms they are dealing with so they can target their treatment accurately. This is done to some extent in the veterinary world, but it is difficult due to time and cost pressures. We need to encourage that practice further,” he said.

Professor Fielder – who is also vice president of the Society for Applied Microbiology – is currently working with a postgraduate student on a three-year project to develop a rapid diagnostic test for salmonella in calves, funded by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board for Beef and Lamb (AHDB).

“Diarrhoea in calves can be caused by a number of things, such as a parasite, a virus, or bacteria,” he said. “Only a bacterial cause would potentially require antibiotic treatment and the test we're developing should give a result within an hour. Crucially, it could be done in the back of a car or van out on the farm, rather than having to go back to a lab.

“What we're trying to get away from is using broad-spectrum antibiotics based on a ‘best guess' diagnosis, which could lead to an increased risk of resistance developing. These tests would allow vets to know exactly what they are dealing with and, when required, pick the antibiotic that is most likely to have a positive effect,” he argued.

Other ways in which antibiotic use could be scaled back included the use of vaccines where possible and encouraging better hygiene practices in scenarios where antibiotics are currently used as preventative measures.

Good husbandry was also the best way of limiting infections in the first place, he added. “There's a difference between successfully treating animals that are unwell as opposed to blanket treating a whole herd just to prevent infection – unless the condition indicates that needs to happen.

“But you can't remove the use of antibiotics from farming completely because it then becomes an animal welfare issue. If a farm animal becomes unwell it has a right to be treated and there are ethical and moral reasons to do so.”

But, he also stated: “The question still remains about whether resistance has emerged in the human population as a result of the use of antibiotics in agriculture, or as a result of misuse in human medicine – we don't have enough evidence at this stage to suggest one way or the other."