European Countries have Reduced Antimicrobial Use (AMU) in Livestock but Have They Also Replaced and Rethought AMU? A Qualitative Approach Les pays européens ont réduit l'utilisation des antimicrobiens (AMU) dans l’élevage, mais ont-ils également remplacé et repensé cet usage ? Une approche qualitative Europäische Länder haben den Einsatz antimikrobieller Mittel (AMU) in der Nutztierhaltung reduziert, aber haben sie AMU auch ersetzt und überdacht? Ein qualitativer Ansatz

IF 2.4 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Fanny Baudoin, Erwin Wauters
{"title":"European Countries have Reduced Antimicrobial Use (AMU) in Livestock but Have They Also Replaced and Rethought AMU? A Qualitative Approach\n Les pays européens ont réduit l'utilisation des antimicrobiens (AMU) dans l’élevage, mais ont-ils également remplacé et repensé cet usage ? Une approche qualitative\n Europäische Länder haben den Einsatz antimikrobieller Mittel (AMU) in der Nutztierhaltung reduziert, aber haben sie AMU auch ersetzt und überdacht? Ein qualitativer Ansatz","authors":"Fanny Baudoin,&nbsp;Erwin Wauters","doi":"10.1111/1746-692X.12437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As part of the transition to more sustainable agriculture, it has been observed that changes leading to low-to-moderate sustainability, including optimisation and substitution of production processes, are often preferred to more radical changes leading to deep sustainability, i.e. redesigning production processes. In this light, we sought to explore whether this was also the case for antimicrobial use in farm animal production, which has changed over the past decade in an effort to decrease the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in humans and animals. To explore this, a qualitative approach was used to 1) identify interventions in 12 animal production sectors across 9 European countries, 2) characterise them, and 3) estimate their potential to contribute to the ‘reduce’, ‘replace’ and ‘rethink’ approaches by stimulating the adoption of behaviours related to these strategies. Our findings revealed that while some interventions were identified to potentially contribute solely to one or two of the approaches, the majority were deemed capable of contributing to all three. However, for these interventions, our data suggest that their actual impact, as implemented, was confined to the ‘reduce’ and ‘replace’ approaches, an observation for which we put forward several hypotheses. In addition, policy implications are drawn.</p>","PeriodicalId":44823,"journal":{"name":"EuroChoices","volume":"23 2","pages":"13-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1746-692X.12437","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EuroChoices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-692X.12437","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As part of the transition to more sustainable agriculture, it has been observed that changes leading to low-to-moderate sustainability, including optimisation and substitution of production processes, are often preferred to more radical changes leading to deep sustainability, i.e. redesigning production processes. In this light, we sought to explore whether this was also the case for antimicrobial use in farm animal production, which has changed over the past decade in an effort to decrease the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in humans and animals. To explore this, a qualitative approach was used to 1) identify interventions in 12 animal production sectors across 9 European countries, 2) characterise them, and 3) estimate their potential to contribute to the ‘reduce’, ‘replace’ and ‘rethink’ approaches by stimulating the adoption of behaviours related to these strategies. Our findings revealed that while some interventions were identified to potentially contribute solely to one or two of the approaches, the majority were deemed capable of contributing to all three. However, for these interventions, our data suggest that their actual impact, as implemented, was confined to the ‘reduce’ and ‘replace’ approaches, an observation for which we put forward several hypotheses. In addition, policy implications are drawn.

Abstract Image

欧洲国家减少了家畜抗菌药的使用 (AMU),但它们是否也对 AMU 进行了替代和反思?定性方法 欧洲国家减少了家畜抗菌药的使用(AMU),但它们是否也更换和重新考虑了AMU?定性方法 欧洲各国在牲畜饲养中减少了抗微生物药物(AMU)的使用,但它们是否也对 AMU 进行了替换和反思?定性解决方案
在向更可持续的农业转型的过程中,人们发现,实现中低度可持续发展的变革(包括生产工艺的优化和替代)往往优于实现深度可持续发展的激进变革(即重新设计生产工艺)。有鉴于此,我们试图探索农场动物生产中的抗菌剂使用是否也是这种情况,在过去十年中,为了降低人类和动物的抗菌剂耐药性,抗菌剂的使用发生了变化。为了探讨这一问题,我们采用了一种定性方法:1)确定 9 个欧洲国家 12 个动物生产部门的干预措施;2)描述这些干预措施的特点;3)估算这些干预措施通过鼓励采取与这些战略相关的行为,为 "减少"、"替代 "和 "反思 "方法做出贡献的潜力。我们的研究结果表明,虽然有些干预措施被认为可能只对其中的一种或两种方法有帮助,但大多数干预措施被认为能够对所有三种方法都有帮助。然而,对于这些干预措施,我们的数据表明,它们在实施过程中的实际影响仅限于 "减少 "和 "替代 "方法,为此我们提出了若干假设。此外,我们还提出了政策影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EuroChoices
EuroChoices AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: EuroChoices is a full colour, peer reviewed, outreach journal of topical European agri-food and rural resource issues, published three times a year in April, August and December. Its main aim is to bring current research and policy deliberations on agri-food and rural resource issues to a wide readership, both technical & non-technical. The need for this is clear - there are great changes afoot in the European and global agri-food industries and rural areas, which are of enormous impact and concern to society. The issues which underlie present deliberations in the policy and private sectors are complex and, until now, normally expressed in impenetrable technical language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信