Antimicrobial stewardship: what the low-use countries did differently

The Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden cut veterinary antimicrobial use sharply without losing herd performance. A review of the structural changes — benchmarking, recording and prevention-first herd planning — that made it possible.
Bouvera Dairy Digest covers preventative herd management only. Nothing here is veterinary advice: diagnosis, treatment and medicine decisions belong with your own herd veterinarian.
Between 2009 and 2015 the Netherlands reduced veterinary antimicrobial sales by roughly two thirds (Speksnijder et al., 2015). The reduction was not achieved by telling farmers to use less. It was achieved by making usage visible, comparable and owned — and by investing the saved risk into prevention.
Measurement came first
Stevens et al. (2016) quantified adult-cattle antimicrobial consumption at herd level in Flanders and found variation between comparable herds far larger than any national target implied. That variation is the actionable finding: where two similar herds differ several-fold, the difference is management, not disease pressure. Benchmarking turns that into a conversation rather than an accusation.
The prevention-first structure
- A written herd health plan, reviewed with the veterinarian at a fixed cadence rather than at crisis points.
- Complete, per-cow recording of every treatment — date, cow, reason, who administered, withdrawal end date.
- Defined case definitions so that the same condition is recorded the same way by every person on the farm.
- Annual review of usage against comparable herds, with the herd's own trend as the primary benchmark.
Milk quality and residue control
Residue avoidance is a recording and identification problem before it is a pharmacology problem. Unambiguous cow marking, a single shared treatment record accessible in the parlour, and a physical process that separates treated cows from the bulk tank are the three controls that prevent almost all residue incidents.
The international direction of travel
The WHO (2017) guidelines on medically important antimicrobials, EU Regulation 2019/6 on veterinary medicinal products and the reviews summarised by More (2020) point the same way: less routine group use, more targeted veterinary decision-making, and more weight on prevention. For an internationally active herd, building the recording and prevention structure now is simply cheaper than retrofitting it when a buyer or a regulator requires it.
All product selection, dosing and treatment decisions remain with the herd veterinarian. Stewardship on the farm side is about hygiene, housing, nutrition management, monitoring and records — the conditions that make treatment unnecessary.
- Speksnijder, D. C., Mevius, D. J., Bruschke, C. J. M., & Wagenaar, J. A. (2015). Reduction of veterinary antimicrobial use in the Netherlands. The Dutch success model. Zoonoses and Public Health, 62(s1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12167
- Stevens, M., Piepers, S., Supré, K., Dewulf, J., & De Vliegher, S. (2016). Quantification of antimicrobial consumption in adult cattle on dairy herds in Flanders, Belgium, and associations with udder health, milk quality, and production performance. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(3), 2118–2130. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10199
- More, S. J. (2020). European perspectives on efforts to reduce antimicrobial usage in food animal production. Irish Veterinary Journal, 73, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-019-0154-4
- World Health Organization. (2017). WHO guidelines on use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals. Geneva: World Health Organization.
