 Hello to everybody and welcome to once more this webinar organized by FAO within the Cities of Knowledge Dissemination Dialogue on AMR. Thank you all of you for joining. I see from the list there that many of you, many of you, it's very early in the morning or late in the afternoon. Many participants from other from the Americans are from Asia. So thanks again for joining despite not being a very good time. So this, as I was saying, has become almost a traditional appointment and a monthly appointment for the time being and I'm happy to inform you that already for this month's department is doubling. And from now on, we are going to have a webinar twice per month, the first Thursday and the last the fourth Tuesday of the month, just to give the possibility to many of you who have contacted us to be able to share your valuable experience and get being in contact with many other colleagues all over the world. So this webinar is organized by the FAO working group on antimicrobial assistance together with FAO Sustainable Livestock Technical Network. I don't want to take any more time because we have a very interesting presentation ahead of us on the research results and strategies to reduce the use of antimicrobials in the Canadian poultry sector and we're going to hear also about the impact. We have with us, we're going to share with us our incredibly valuable experience, Professor Martin Boullien, who is the chair of poultry research of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the University of Montreal, Canada. So now, Marina, the next slide, please. Just, I think all of you are very used already to participating webinars, but just a few reminders, keep your microphone mute. If you can rename yourself for just acting for instance the country you're coming from or your organization so you have an idea or where you are participating from. Just note that Professor Boullien views are around and not the one of FAO. Please, in the chat, you will have, we will hear for half an hour to a presentation, and then you will have half an hour to pose your questions so please write on the chat box and we will address them after, you know, the second part of the webinar. But please refrain from advertising any service or your company, any commercial product and so on, that's very important for us. And this presentation, this webinar will be recorded. So after we will receive the recording of the webinar and also the presentation, together with also some other advice on further reading. So don't worry about taking notes so you can concentrate on eating Professor Boullien. And I think it's all for now. So I will give the floor to Professor Boullien. Thank you again for joining us, despite being early in the morning for her with Space in Canada. So, Martin, floor to you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll thank you very much Daniela for the invitation I very much appreciate the opportunity to share with the audience, our research results and the strategies on antimicrobial use reduction in Canadian poultry and their impact as well. So briefly, I'll draw a quick community portrait. Then describe what the chair is what we do in terms of research and will describe in terms of historically what has happened on AMR and AMU surveillance programs both at this governmental and the producer levels. So we have a we're located, as you know, Canada is located is located in North America, and we are a federation that is divided in 10 provinces and three territories so you can already see that in terms of it. It has in terms of legislation some issues, for example, when it comes to drug licensing or antimicrobial use. Basically, it is a federal government will do the drug licensing and the provinces will do the drug use regulation so you'll see differences between provinces in terms of it in their prescription, as well as access to medication. You might see now it's more uniform but it used to be more different. The structure of the poultry industry is based on the producer more than 90% of our Canadian chicken farmers are family owned and operated there's no or very little vertical integration. And also what makes this poultry system unique in Canada that is, it is managed by a supply management system which was created in the 70s. So that means that the producers must pay to have the right to produce that must acquire quota, and the price paid to the producer on the other end is based on production costs so there's no losses, and the production is usually predicted according to consumption. So, in terms of, of course this has to be managed and usually at the heart of the national management supply system you'll find that chicken farmers of Canada with also the various provincial organization or producer association that are responsible for either the inter-provincial trade at the level of chicken farmers of Canada, or inter-provincial trades at the level of the provincial poultry farmers. So it seems to be a bit complex but it makes for a simplification of the structure. When there's a problem, we have a single body where to refer to, ie the chicken farmers of Canada, nationally speaking I mean. In terms of statistics, to Canadians are big chicken, and big chicken eaters. In 2021, we were eating 35.8 kilos, we've produced 1.3 billion kilos every serrated weight in the same year, and contributed to the Canadian gross domestic product, the GPD, by an amount of $8 billion. In Canada, when you grow chickens, basically you're, you plan to reach a weight of 2.3 kilos in 35 days. So your chickens are going to be fed through different diets that all will have antimicrobials to prevent certain diseases, mostly necrotic enteritis and anti-coxidios to prevent coxidiosis. And this is what we call the conventional prevention programs. And it used to be also that we were using antimicrobials at the hatchery. But you'll see that there's been some changes regarding the type of antimicrobials that we're using in the coming minutes. The chair that I'm holding has been established in 1999 and was founded by the various five feather federations or associations in the province of Quebec. And basically I like to say that the chair has addressed in the past years societal changes in consumers' requests such as a decrease of antimicrobial use in animal production. And then more recently, alternative housing to conventional cages and layers and the effect that is as had on basically the laying hands. In terms of antimicrobial stewardship, we are working on trying to reduce the use of antimicrobials, even to eliminate it by searching also various alternatives to antimicrobials. Back to the core of our story, history of AMR and AMU surveillance programs in Canada. Well, as you all probably remember in 2001, the World Health Organization had a strategy to curb antimicrobial resistance. And in Canada, the Health Canada, which is the agency for human health, basically ask an adversary committee to report regarding the uses of antimicrobials in food animals in Canada and their resistance and their impact on resistance in human health. So that report came out that group came up with a series of recommendation in the lengthy report that recommended, for example, integrated approach through Health Canada to develop a coordinated and going national surveillance systems for antimicrobial resistance and major pathogens affecting food animals. And also they had different recommendations regarding antimicrobial regulation, the fact that we needed to have a compulsory prescription implementation of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association prudent use principles, etc, etc. So in parallel, C-PARS, which is the Canadian Integrating Program on surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, was making its first steps. And although we had surveillance infrastructure for disease animals and humans, there was no existing sample collecting system for abattoirs, retail and farms to build upon. So this is why we knew that there was it was essential to have active surveillance to successfully collect data in Canada. So, this is why we C-PARS, basically, that's its main objective was to provide an integrated approach to monitor the trends and antimicrobial resistance in both humans and animals. And that was to build on a database that would help us better understand the emergence and the spread of resistant bacteria and to facilitate also the assessment of the effect the impact on public health, as well as to support the creation of what we wanted to do with evidence based policies to control AMUs. So, this is basically how C-PARS was created, we had samples from the human population going to a national laboratory. We also had, of course, already established a system where we were looking at the pathogens from toxic animals, but what C-PARS did was to establish a retail system, a collection at the retail level. And then they were doing the data and kid integration. So the first annual report was published in 2002. That was the first step. And parallel again in 2003, Health Canada did publish a classification system for antimicrobial. And basically the categorization that is used in Canada is different than in other countries. It's quite unique. It goes from category very high importance in human medicine from one to four, which is low importance that our drugs basically not used in human medicine. And, of course, one, two, and three are considered to be important in human medicines from very high to medium importance. These are some examples of the drugs that are meeting those criteria. And you'll find in the very high importance, the C-PARS foreign, and I'll come back to C-PARS. And in the category two, you'll find other antimicrobial that are frequently used in prevention programs in poultry, such as virgin amycin, for example, used to be, I should say, or basic tracin, that is a class three. And of course you have your ionophores. They are anti-coxidules. What is not categorized are the chemical coxidustates as well as avillomycin, which is an orthomycin that hasn't been categorized yet by Health Canada. And these are basically drugs that have been labeled in Canada for use in poultry. What happened very shortly after the first year of existence of C-PARS was that in 2003 and 2004, well mostly in 2004, C-PARS reported the emergence of acetylpheria resistant salmonella, Hallerberg, and both retail chickens and humans. This was observed, as you see here on the graph, mostly in the province of Quebec. And we had various discussions with the industry and the government. I was part of these discussions. And we were, the Quebec hatcheries decided to voluntary withdraw the use of C-PARS at the hatchery, which was usually done in a subcutaneous injection at the day of age. And at that time also, gentamicin was another drug used, but it had been not available for a long period. So this is why the hatcheries were relying mostly on C-PARS. And they decided in February 2005 to stop using this. And unfortunately, because of some problems in the field early mortality and so on, there was a partial re-institution of C-PARS in 2007, but in rotation with another drug, which was Nicomycin spectanomycin. So here, and this is a publication that was key in showing basically a direct relationship between the use of Nanda microbials in food animals and its direct impact on public health and resistance in humans. So you see here in 2005, deal with voluntary withdrawal of C-PARS at the hatchery and the impact it had on the insinus of Salmona-Alderberg resistant, C-PARS resistant strain. So we see a decrease and it's followed by a short increase once there was a partial re-institution of C-PARS use. And in parallel, you see also the same effect on E. coli in the retail chickens. So following this, at that time, well, at that time also at the Chair in Cultural Research, we did a one-year observational study and we looked at if there was a correlation between AMR and MEU in chickens and turkeys. So we found that there was a lot of, well, some strains of enterococcus were resistant to as many as 11 antimicrobials in chickens, a bit less in turkeys, but also significance associations between AMU and AMR for both enterococcus acorn and E. coli. In E. coli, we saw that the use of Satiophere was indeed associated with the resistance in E. coli. So at that time, the chicken farmers of Canada in 2011 did an internal study in the antimicrobial use, their own audit, while C-PARS started also their on-farm antimicrobial use surveillance system, which consisted basically in sampling across the various provinces with the support of various veterinarians, a number of broader and tricky flocks, and nowadays layer flocks as well. And then they can basically look at the amount of antimicrobials that are used. We also did at that time a one-field trial at the Chair in Cultural Research on antibiotic-free chickens. Basically, we followed over a year period eight farms with two similar barns to match the management, the feed, the chicks. And what we found is that even with alternative, preventive means, we had 25% of the flocks that were affected with necrotic enteritis caused by clostridium perfringence. And we showed that clostridium perfringence can persist in consecutive flocks and the same strain will persist and that was based on PFGE. We also looked at the importance of coxidia, having a good coxidia prevention to prevent necrotic enteritis. And we worked on the importance of optimal brooding and developed with the industry a basically a fact sheet to help the producers to optimize their brooding period. However, in 2011, the chickens became a problem to the public. In fact, we have a program in English Canada that is called Marketplace that likes to dig some facts that can raise the interest of people if I can say that. So what they had, what they had was basically they went to the supermarket, collected chickens and then went to a laboratory and they came up with the results showing that 90 bacteria, that they out of their samples, they tested 100 samples with 90 bacteria spined, found in 60 resistance to at least one antibiotic. There was probably some problems in terms of the scientific procedures, but nonetheless, for to the general public. This created a sense of insecurity when it came to broiler chickens and the chicken farmers of Canada reacted in launching a voluntary strategies regarding antimicrobial use in 2012. So the first step consisted in 2014 to stop using, well, to stop the preventive use of category one and antimicrobials, i.e. fluorokinolones and cephalospherin, and in the end of 2018 to stop the use of category two. They were also planning on stopping the use of the preventive use of category three antibiotics, such as basic tracin. At the end, well, this is now to be determined with a pandemic, we had some delay, let's say that. So we helped the industry in doing another field trial and looking also at the effect of the cephalospherin withdrawal. So a year after the withdrawal, we had, we came up with some interesting results at the Chair in Poultry Research. We sampled in 2014 and 2015 breeders hatchery and broiler flocks, receiving cephalospherin 2014 and linkospecting or no antimicrobials in 2015. And we show indeed that the withdrawal of in-view, in-able cephalospherin administration led to the reduction of the prevalence of resistance gene in the meconium, genes resistant to cephalospherin. And as well as, but however, we found that replacing cephalospherin with linkospecting was not the answer since we observed a development of multi-resistance strain of E. coli resistant to as many as eight to nine different antimicrobials. So when it came to the field trial, we had to help the producer realize that they could produce chickens with no antibiotics category one, two, and in three. So basically we did a year study again on different farms in pair barns, and we wanted to look at the impact on performances and intestinal health, as well as seco-microbial composition. And the treatment consisted in basically administering the birds strictly ionophores with or without organic acids in the feed, the butyrate, and the eventually raised chickens were compared to these flocks. We showed that there was no, basically, if you look at the various utility parameters here, there was no impact of using ionophores, or ionophores, butyrate over a period and no difference with the conventionally raised chickens. And surprisingly, when we looked at the microbiota of the chickens, the seco-microbial at age of slaughter at around 35 days of age, we observed that the main driver for that microbiota composition was the flock in the farm. It wasn't at the time of slaughter the antimicrobial program, which was very surprising to us. So in this, knowing this, our producer's feral reassured and well equipped to face the second withdrawal of preventive use of category two antimicrobials. And we, however, since then what we've seen, when we are talking about consequences is an increased early mortality, which happened basically mostly, I would say in the first year after with the withdrawal. And then slowly people, the producers, not the producers, sorry, the hatcheries and the breeders worked on improving the egg sanitation, the egg quality, the chick quality, and that mortality, even if it's slightly higher to what it used to be with antimicrobial just at the hatchery, is now, I would say, fairly good producers. It used to be that 0.8% was what was considered to be normal in a first 10 days. Now we see more 1.2% and we consider it to be a problem when it's 1.5%. Now, what will we see in the emergence of an enterococcal spondylitis and nostril myelitis. This first came in Canada in 2008. And we've seen the number is increasing the point that enterocococcus ecoreum infection is almost as frequent as colibacillosis and certain provinces, not all of them, it seems that it's a problem, mostly affecting eastern provinces. And we also see that enterococcus ecoreum is a multi resistant bacteria. And that has led this emergence of enterococcal spondylitis and somalitis to make use of category two antibiotics in some provinces. And that is definitely something we have to work on and we're investigating at a general research, more closely enterococcus ecoreum. So, in essence, since CPARS since its establishment has been able to capture the human and animal data before and after the volunteer withdrawal by the industry and to see also the impact is as had on the public health. So, this is basically here in a graph showing basically the correlation between the retail chicken and blue, and then at slaughter that you see that those are too closely related. But mostly the human case isn't great. So what we see is the industry wide band on the preventive use of category one and time accruable safety of fear and the impact it has had in 2014. So a decrease in basically in the number of cases. So, also the surveillance system from CPARS both AMU and AMR has shown that AMU has decreased since 2016. This is what we expected as well as interestingly, the resistance to three or more antimicrobial classes for Salmonella, E. coli, and Kimpilobacter. They also have observed a diversity, a decrease in the diversity of antimicrobial classes reported to be used. And this is this has been consistent of course with the timing of the elimination of the preventive preventative uses of category two antimicrobials as you can see here in this table. So overhaul we have here, and this was a very brief and rapid picture that they drew of the Canadian situation but we have here changes to the antimicrobial use that was that were brought by the by an industry by the chicken industry, and not only chicken the poultry industry because turkeys and this also I basically focus my talk on chickens but the turkey industry that is actually exactly the same. So we then have an example as I was mentioning of a kind of poultry producers that have decided to looking at the numbers and the data that CPARS show them that they had to change their way of growing their chickens. And this is something that is very nice also with the CPARS and I have to congratulate my, my colleagues at that agency but CPARS is always being very open and transparent for their results in sharing and discussing and bringing a further understanding to the various stakeholders. And I can only speak for the poultry industry but I'm sure they've done the same also with this one and the dairy industry. So in closing I would like to acknowledge the work of our first Canadian veterinary epidemiologist who developed CPARS to Dr. Rebecca Erwin and you see detail for their leadership. And also I'd like to thank Dr. Annex, who knows, who's been helpful in helping me with a presentation with her contagious smile and generous support. And I'd like also to acknowledge the work of all the Canadian poultry producers that have taken up that such a challenge because this is not an easy task. And they knew they had to do it and the chicken farmers of Canada was exemplary in consulting with the various stakeholders in providing educational material to their producers and supporting research as well. And finally I'd like to thank the staff and the students from the Chair in poultry research. We will have been quite numerous in the past and well since they established establishment with chair and on this, I guess that my time is up. Thank you. Thank you very much. It has been a fascinating overview through the history and now Canada and the poultry sectors managed not only to reduce the use of antimicrobials but what is very interesting and promising because that's happened also in other countries, especially to reduce antimicrobial resistance. So I think it gives a lot of hope and a lot of push to all of us to keep on working in reducing the use of antimicrobials. And let's see if there are already questions coming up. So I will invite you to address the first one by Yusuf Ibrahim with asking why was a safety fewer reintroduced in 2007. It was because of the increased early mortality. And because this is not a vertical integrated system production system, the producers are buying their chicks from the hatcheries. And there were many complaints that the hatcheries had to deal with. So they stopped using safety of her for a while. Then they started using lancospectin and thinking that it would be better to start rotating products and knowing the long withdrawal of the genitomycin, they opted to use safety of her but on a rotation basis. And that was basically to counteract the early mortality that were on felitis that we were seeing. We have another question by Eugenie by I was asking why Canada is using a different kind of categorization of antimicrobials mean different from the rest of the world. That's an excellent question. And we would have to ask someone from the public health agency, but from from a user point of view, when I looked at the various categorization that they have done. It is a good representation of what is important and what is less important since in terms of discrimination. And for the veterinarians that gives us more chance in our more tools in our toolbox. If you want to decrease the use of what is really important human medicine, then we have to be left with some tools. And that probably gives us this possibility. Thank you. And now I will take the liberty of chairing it was a question myself. You're showing a very good as a collaboration between the governmental authorities and the private sector. What do you think is the secret for that good collaboration for that good exchange of information and you know what would you advise to other countries or to other people. I, I guess communication and everything was science base evidence base. And this is what was very, and it becomes then very easy to show the evidence and to discuss what needs to be changed. And this is what that was a strength of C parts to be evidence based from the very beginning and deciding that we need to collect data before imposing anything, and then open the discussion so and bringing everyone around the table. Because of course I was talking C parts is a federal organization but you also had to gather around the table the various provinces as well. So, they have to deal with different organization, the governmental agencies, as well as producer associations. Thank you. And by the way, I would like to ask our former colleague and now my team colleague colleague Agnes Agundo with sharing a very interesting document in the, in the chat. So thanks a lot, Agnes, and that we will collect also if you want you can share other interesting resources and documents we will collect those, and then also share at the end of the webinar with the registration of the recording of the webinar and the Martin Boolean presentation. So thanks for contributing also in the chat and if anybody else would like to further contribute and share interesting resources or links to publication, please do so they're always very useful. And we have an additional question by Eugene Leibai was asking if the higher immortality before the antimicrobial band could be because of poor biosecurity and the quality of the chicken son, is it a possibility. Well, we've had various scares with avian influenza in the past decades, and that has markedly improved the biosecurity measures in in Canada in Canadian poultry farms. So, we knew that the biosecurity measures were somehow good but compliance is not always. So that is one point, but most of the problem related to early mortality is as Eugene mentioned, the quality of X. So this is why it's very important to work on I genes and egg sanitation, both at the breeder flock level and at the hatchery level. Of course, hatching eggs is an art, and it requires the most important, well, attention to details, but it goes back to a quality X sanitation in order to obtain a quality of check. And also, this is why also we put, we wanted to equip the producers with a tool to help them in optimizing the brooding, because I do think that the breeding period is extremely important as well. And we want to make sure that we have a chicks that will be in a comfort zone have access to feed and water as quickly and early as possible to be able to develop its immune system. So this is why we've developed a fact sheet and videos also that are available online to help our producers in asset in evaluating and assessing their own brooding with a few tricks and recommendations. We have a question by a brain law with asking who owns the exclusive rights on the possession distribution of antimicrobials, especially antibiotics for veterinary use in Canada, of course. So that is an interesting question the way that it, and I'm, I'm, I hope that I understand a while the question but the, it is now by law a, an obligation to have a veterinary prescription to administer antimicrobials to the feed, the water or various means of distribution to food animals. There's no over the counter type of medication. And the only people legally you can or the only professions you can sell drugs, or pharmacist pharmacies or veterinarians. So you have basically the, the, the, the companies will be selling their products to pharmacist or to veterinarians to be used in food animals. I think we have partially already replied to this question, also by Eugene by who assumed that the antimicrobial band is for metafilaxis and prophylaxis. If you consider also those added in feed so the medicated feed. The band indeed is for the preventive preventative use. If you have sick birds, you can use a category two antimicrobial in the feed or in the water if you have a sick bird. The problem is with enterococcus decorum, often time when we see sick birds, it's already too late to treat. So a practice that we've seen and we're trying to, and this is something that we're trying to curb at the current moment is the use of metafilactic penicillin, for example, or amoxicillin in the feed in chicks for the first 10 days, for example, in order to decrease the load of enterococcus infection or pressure, if I can say that this is a practice that. Well, we don't know what are the risk factors that are associated with enterococcus from the lightest and the soma lightest and this is something that will be working on. And I often tell my students that in order to fight against your enemy, you know, you need to know it well. And you need to understand how the disease develop, how it's been transmitted. So at the Chirinpultree research, we've developed PCR and QPCRs to identify commensal and pathogenic isochron strains based on some scientific data. And we see a lot of enterococcus acorum commensal strains out there, but also many pathogenic ones, it seems to be a very, there's a lot of plasticity in the genome of that bacteria as well. And I'm not too sure how we'll be able to find develop a vaccine anytime soon, but we definitely need to better understand how it happens. We know that there's an early infection, but we don't know what are the risk factors. But once we better understand the risk factors, we'll be able to really put in place the measures to curb that problem. But in the meantime, we're working a lot on hygiene, cleaning, disinfection, disinfecting, not only the barns, but also the water lines. And we also, that's something I forgot to mention, we start on fresh litter every time, don't use build-up litter like in the States. So that's a good start for our chicks as well. But again, we need more research with that bacteria to better understand and decrease the use of the current use of anti-microbles we've seen. We've seen an increase differently in the last few years because of that disease. Thank you. Another question by Yusuf Ibrahim. Are there alternatives that the Canada poultry farmers use to reduce antibiotics, to reduce the use of antibiotics? Yes, there are numerous alternatives that are available to the poultry producers. A number of companies have developed products that are mainly consisting of herbs, for example, or organic acids or essential oils. So what you see in other countries we also have in Canada, they are, it used to be, and that is a, I didn't mention that it is the federal who does the licensing of the drugs. And there is, there was a problem regarding the licensing of these products because they are not licensed antibiotics, they are not as effective. And you have to use them very early on if you see something and you need to be very, working without antibiotics but without, and without alternative is like working without a safety net basically. And so, yes, these products are available. Some of them are more efficient than others and we have tested many of them in our lab in vitro. And we do see it, but the difference in, like it's going from in vitro to in vivo that is interesting. And there's so many challenges on the farm as well. In the delivery mode also is important. So yes, we do have these products. And what is interesting also is that we might have also some phages. There's a company in Quebec that has been working on trying, they brought their first phage product to the regulatory body. So it will be interesting to see how it goes. Yes, we do have various products that are available. We've tested, and as I mentioned, we have tested a few, and of course organic acids like what you see in other countries that is, it's the same here. Thanks, Martin, and with respect to this particular topic, I would like to take this opportunity to inform everybody that Martina, together with other experts participated in the meeting of a organizer beginning of July, exactly to address what are the alternatives that could be used in the nutrition field, the different alternatives, different strategies to help to reduce the use of antimicrobus. So the report of that meeting is in preparation. It will come up as an FAO publication in the coming month. So keep tuned because you will all be informed and I think you will find out, you will find interesting information there, elaborating even more on what Professor Julián was saying. And now let's go to next person, I think very interesting also by Namit Peter from Ilri in Kenya, who is asking if the farmers were receptive to reducing the use of antibiotics. What they were doing, I think it brings the component of behavioral changes. And I think it's another interesting topic to address to you, Martin. Yes. Well, of course, there's always resistance to the change. And the, as I mentioned, the chicken farmers of Canada were excellent in developing a good communication program. And they first started by obtaining data from C bars, realizing that there was a problem and it's probably because part of it is probably due to the fact that the chicken is short lived. And, but we were the commodity with the more important prevalence of resistance to various antimicrobals for the various food pathogens at C bars was looking at. So that was easy to to see they had their own internal study to look at the, what was the use and also the perception of their producers regarding who does the prescription does decide for the drugs and so that that was also interesting. And then the consulted the various stakeholders, the hatcheries association, the processor association, the various veterinary groups in the country and we had numerous of these round tables and sessions we were discussing the pros and cons and the risks. And eventually, they came up with a very structured plan, step by step as you've seen, but also they came up with a numerous tools to support their producers in the transition. They developed videos, they developed booklets regarding the explaining their strategy explaining antimicrobial resistance, the risk to public health into. And also, not only the risk to public health but also in terms of how the producers, what were the tools for them to improve their, their life basically or their chicken quality of the chickens house with different tools. So that was, and they even had podcasts I remember during the coven, we were taping podcast and so on so forth so they were very very proactive and I do think that, yes, there was a resistance but that the, it came also with a. The, that for them to see the compliance, they are two different ways. There's a health sheet flock health sheet that is being sent to the abattoir by the producer when they're shipping their birds to slaughter. And in that fact sheet or that flock health sheets, they have to report the various vaccines that birds have been administered but also the drugs, dosage, reason mortality. So then once the abattoir receives the information they know if they have had a sick or a healthy flock, but the CFI you can see if there was a carcuse of antimicrobials. And by law they have to write the right the proper information. Also, the, the, there's a surveillance and what is being used, and this is, and then the, there are fines also if the producer is not basically, complying to these new regulations. So that's all within their producers associations. Thank you. And the use free brain is asking you in about your experience on the fact that effectiveness of bacteria vaccines against diseases such as the Colibacy losses for instance. They. We have just finished writing a chapter in vaccineology for the upcoming Indian disease journal, and we have written my grad student and myself a paper entitled bacterial vaccines from faster to genomics. So, what I can say is that we now have the tools the genomic tools to develop vaccines which will be more effective. We can crack the sequence a genomic sequence of our bacteria, we can compare by reverse vaccinology we can compare commensal and pathogen extremes with the proper tools also we need to make sure that we can differentiate both commensal and pathogen extremes properly, but then we can see what are the genes of virulence that are most common and this is, and from there will be able to basically design better bacterial vaccines and I think these will be very important in key to raising birds without antibiotics, or with less antibiotics, regarding colibacylosis. There is a what we call airway deleted E coli vaccine. And we see it working very well see it working with different efficacy I guess it's probably depends on the coli streams you have on your farm again. Bacteria such as E coli in Torococcus, C quorum have a high level of plasticity if I can say that multiple genes of virulence for E coli, but not a single one that is present and all of the back to all of the E coli. So this is why it becomes it still is a tricky one, but it does reduce when used in for example laying hands and brother breeders it has shown to reduce the use of antimicrobial for example the mortality and the severity of the clinical science related to colibacylosis. So I have great hope with our genomic tools to come up with new bacterial vaccines. That will be very effective. There's, for example, and some of them will be recombinant like there's a new salmonella vaccine that is a triple sugar deleted salmonella vaccine means that that bacteria when given into the host cannot survive because it needs tree sugar that are available easily in vitro. And provided those sugar but it won't survive very well in the host. And what they've done is that they have added to the bacteria that triple sugar deleted salmonella they have added a plasma that does carry genes of virulence. They added a gene of virulence net be for necrotic enthritis but since we also have net be negative strains then that are present in the field, it doesn't have necessarily the best. It's not 100% protective but it does protect against the net be positive costume prevention strains that are out there. So, as I was mentioning it is important to know our enemy to better fight it. And this is why we know to, we need to understand the various genes of virulence that are important as well as the risk factors. Thank you very much Martin and I think with this we can really conclude on how important this to have a combination of scientific information, technological tools and advances, but also the right policy legislation in place, and the good collaboration with private sectors, communication with the farmers and so having all these elements in place, but then the good news is by having all of those together, we can reduce the use of antimicrobials and eventually we can reduce antimicrobial resistance so I think it's very awful. The message that is coming from your experience and your sharing of information that I think it would be a good take on message for everybody. There is a lot we can do and we can have good results. So with this I would like to thank you again it has been a wonderful share of information and the availability and addressing all these questions and being with you in this hour. I would like to thank all of the participants coming from attending from such a diverse number of countries from Philippines and Australia and Russia to Colombia and Canada and passing by, you know, going through Senegal and South Africa and Spain, the Netherlands, and South America, Greece, really a very wealth of different geographical things in Madagascar I mean really, really many of you. So thanks again for being with us. Thanks to Matina tabullaro working behind the scenes, just to make sure that everything has going smoothly. And now I would like to leave you with some information on what is for coming in the future. So thanks, Martina, if Martina you can put up the last slides. Yeah, so just keep on being informed about what was coming up, but next presentation will be on the 26th of September. As I was saying, now we're doubling the number. We are going to hear quite different perspectives. So by Jonathan Rushton, Professor of the University of Liverpool in UK, we are going to look at how to address the economic burden of antimicrobial user assistance in livestock using a very specific tool, which is a global burden of animal disease program. So again, a different angle, very interesting. This time we're going to have earlier in the morning for the European, essentially European time 930, 1030 to make it easier for the Americans and for the Asian colleagues to follow. And then from January onward, we are going to have webinars earlier in the morning for us European and later in the afternoon. So we will better address the need of the participant attending in America and the nation, not to being too cumbersome for that. So with that, thank you very much. Please remember, we will share with you the presentation and the recording and the interesting information which has been shared. Please don't forget to give us your feedback through the question that I think it's online and in the chat box. It's very important for us and if you're interested in sharing with us the results of your research, information and so on. We're always very happy to hear from you, contact us to the address which is on the slide. And again, thanks to everybody and looking forward to be with you again in a couple of weeks. Thank you and goodbye and have a nice day.