Comments on: Curbing antimicrobial use in agriculture

By: Lucy Lapar

Lucy Lapar — Thu, 14 May 2015 16:30:42 +0000

Hi Tim, this is an issue that is relevant in our value chain, so we would be happy to contribute to any VC-related activities that may emerge as you further develop this work; thanks.

By: Shirley Tarawali

Shirley Tarawali — Thu, 14 May 2015 09:27:35 +0000

Absolutely – a hot topic that ILRI needs to be part of. And to think about the right ‘niche’ for our research so as to address the key issues – for transforming livestock systems in developing countries.

By: Iain Wright

Iain Wright — Thu, 14 May 2015 09:01:30 +0000

Tim, this is a hot topic at the moment (as you know from the publicity generated by you recent paper) and the review DFID commissioned Delia to do so the time is ripe for a good strong proposal in this area.

By: Polly Ericksen

Polly Ericksen — Thu, 14 May 2015 08:32:08 +0000

In reply to Tim. Now I am convinced!!! Excellent.

By: Ndama

Ndama — Thu, 14 May 2015 08:15:44 +0000

Hi Tim, no need to feel unloved here that is a great idea. And once again a huge issue for Asia. I just back from a big stakeholder workshop (GHSA) in Bangkok (ASIAN countries) with AMR as a big topic there. There are tremendous research gaps in particular on the animal side. Its alarming how relaxed we are still here. There were projections shown that AMR attributable deaths will jump to up 10 mill by 2050.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 14 May 2015 07:54:57 +0000

Thanks for comments so far. I think some may feel this not to be a small-holder issue but it is. It is an issue for everyone. Whilst the poor livestock keepers are not likely to be major contributors to the to the problem – except perhaps where they occur in very high densities and are using antimicrobials inappropriately to treat sick animals. That said, the poor, including those that keep livestock, possibly do take on a disproportionately high share of the consequences – because they are more vulnerable and have higher health burdens (for themselves and their animals). Poor livestock keepers are likely to be affected from an animal health perspective though reduced efficacy of treatment, increased costs of anti microbials, and reduced availability of drugs for treating their sick animals. They, and poor people in general, are also likely to be affected via a food safety and public health route. The same arguments regarding the cost and availability of efficacious drugs for treatment of sick people apply as above and there are also issues of residues in cheap animal protein.

By: ericfevre

ericfevre — Thu, 14 May 2015 07:34:36 +0000

Would certainly agree that this is worthwhile; also it crosses several aspects of ongoing work, and would bring together value chains people (what is the supply of antibiotics in to the market and why is it the way it is), human health people, livestock health people (all in line with CRP 4.3), private sector involvment, policy stakeholders etc. We can already do a lot building on existing projects, but applying for large scale funding to do multi-country studies (in depth, NOT rapid assessments) would make a lot a sense.

By: Susan MacMillan

Susan MacMillan — Thu, 14 May 2015 07:21:27 +0000

Tim’s recent paper on this in PNAS received a massive amount of publicity, and many many people wanted to know if the problem was being exacerbated in developing countries and if so, what was being done about it. Insufficient data as yet. So this project should be very attractive to donors!

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 14 May 2015 07:06:38 +0000

In reply to a.duncan@cgiar.org. Thank you Alan. I was beginning to feel very un-loved. ;-)

By: a.duncan@cgiar.org

a.duncan@cgiar.org — Thu, 14 May 2015 06:16:43 +0000

Nice idea Tim and a good example of the kind of thing ILRI should be doing that plays well to our comparative advantage