Femke Vandael

The vast majority of medicines in pig rearing are administered via oral group medication through medicated feed and drinking water. However, relevant on-farm factors affecting the concentration of these drugs in feed and drinking water, such as the homogeneity, stability, and cross-contamination, are largely unknown. To characterize these factors, samples of medicated feed and drinking water were taken on 24 Belgian pig farms during treatment and 2 days thereafter, as well as at different on-farm sampling sites from production to feeding troughs or drinking nipples. The samples contained amoxicillin, doxycycline, florfenicol, or flubendazole. Additionally, a questionnaire was completed. In contrast to the results of medicated feed, results of medicated water showed a large between-farm variation in antimicrobial drug concentration. The therapeutic concentration range was only met in 2 out of 11 farms using medicated feed, and in 3 out of 13 farms using medicated water. Medicated feed concentrations were often below the therapeutic concentration range mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics, while drinking water concentrations were just as often above as they were below the advised target concentration range. Drug residues measured 2 days after the end of therapy with both feed and water medication rarely exceeded 1% of the lowest therapeutic concentration. This study demonstrates that recommendations on good clinical practices for oral group medication in the pig industry are highly needed.

Despite common use of oral group medication in pig rearing, the homogeneity, stability and carry‐over of frequently used medicinal products in feed and drinking water are largely unknown. Therefore, a field study was performed on 52 Belgian pig farms, characterising preparation and administration of medicinal products via these systems, and farmers’ user experiences with medicated feed and medicated drinking water. The study showed that medicated drinking water is more commonly used than medicated feed, since 90.4 per cent of the farms sometimes use medicated drinking water and 69.2 per cent of the farms sometimes use medicated feed. The drinking water quality is evaluated at least once a year on only 30.7 per cent of the farms. Separate pipelines for medicated and non‐medicated circuits were not present in any of the farms using medicated feed and in 27.7 per cent of the farms using medicated drinking water. With drinking water medication, 63.5 per cent of the farmers reported encountering practical problems, often related to solubility issues and precipitation of the active compounds. In contrast, medicated feed is bought ready‐to‐use from the feed manufacturer in 68.2 per cent of the cases, thus reducing the number of practical problems experienced by the farmer. This study shows room for improvement of oral group treatment, developing appropriate pharmaceutical formulations for drinking water medication, quality control of drinking water, using separate pipeline circuits, and cleaning and disinfecting protocols.