Bio-solution · DX01 · Diagnostics
On-farm culture, PCR panels, rapid tests and veterinary laboratory services for livestock and aquaculture — treat what is diagnosed instead of blanket and prophylactic antibiotic treatment
Replaces
Blanket treatment of every clinical mastitis case, group metaphylaxis on suspicion, prophylactic antibiotics in hatcheries and ponds, empirical use of critically important antimicrobials (colistin, fluoroquinolones, 3rd/4th-generation cephalosporins)
Blanket treatment of every clinical mastitis case, group metaphylaxis on suspicion, prophylactic antibiotics in hatcheries and ponds, empirical use of critically important antimicrobials (colistin, fluoroquinolones, 3rd/4th-generation cephalosporins)
→
Scope
Dairy (mastitis), pigs and poultry (enteric and respiratory disease), aquaculture (shrimp and fish pathogen screening); farm, cooperative and laboratory level
Dairy (mastitis), pigs and poultry (enteric and respiratory disease), aquaculture (shrimp and fish pathogen screening); farm, cooperative and laboratory level
Suppliers 5
| Pathovet Labs | Chile | active |
| Fivevet - Central Veterinary Medicine JSC No. 5 | Vietnam | active |
| Blue Aqua International | Singapore | active |
| Feed Concentrate Factory Company (FEEDCO) | Jordan | active |
| FEEDMASTER (PTY) LTD | Namibia | active |
Route into Russia / EAEU DIAG
- Regulator
- Rosselkhoznadzor
- Typical time
- expert examination up to 70 working days plus registration steps
- Legal basis
- EEC Council Decision No. 140 (23.09.2022): EAEU rules for veterinary diagnostic agents
Information, not legal advice — confirm the procedure for your product.
Proof 6 claims
Old process
Blanket antimicrobial treatment (empirical use of antibiotics for all clinical mastitis cases without prior diagnosis).
Blanket antimicrobial treatment (empirical use of antibiotics for all clinical mastitis cases without prior diagnosis).
→
New practice
On-farm culture (OFC) and selective treatment of clinical mastitis based on pathogen identification.
On-farm culture (OFC) and selective treatment of clinical mastitis based on pathogen identification.
- Displaced at scale?
- no
- Caveats
- The practice of using on-farm diagnostics to guide selective mastitis treatment has not been adopted at a massive or industry-wide scale; it remains a strategy implemented by individual farms or in specific research trials. In shrimp aquaculture, there is no evidence of a shift to diagnostic-led treatment, with antibiotic misuse remaining widespread.
- Hand review
- D2 UK intramammary antimicrobial treatments down 25% (2015–2020), attributed to mastitis-control programmes — diagnostics' role not isolated.
- checked
- 2026-10-06
| A targeted mastitis therapy concept using on-farm rapid tests can reduce intramammary antibiotic consumption by 35% to 73% compared to blanket treatment regimens. “In previous trials involving targeted AT based on OFC results, the intramammary antibiotic consumption was halved 14 and reduced by 70 per cent by Vasquez and others. 22 In a trial with a similar tLCT concept to the present study, Kock and others 38 showed the average consumption of local antibiotics could be …” UK/Germany · 2020 · pilot or niche | weak (company, news, market research, other) www.valeveterinarygroup.co.uk |
| Selective therapy for clinical mastitis based on on-farm pathogen identification resulted in a 27.3% reduction in the number of cases treated with antibiotics and an estimated cost saving of approximately US$5,721.47 in a single dairy herd. “However, with the use of onfarm culture and selective treatment of clinical mastitis, 65 fewer cases were treated (27.3%), that is, only 173 cases, totaling a cost of US17,884.34 (considering the cost with the veterinarian and the 265 plates), and savings estimated at US5,721.47.” Brazil · 2017-2019 · pilot or niche | peer-reviewed ✓ exa.ai |
| Farmers are driven to adopt on-farm culture and selective treatment by a desire to do the right thing, future-proof their businesses, and meet the expectations of buyers and consumers, rather than primarily by cost savings. “But it is evident that the potential cost savings are minimal compared with the potential savings of reducing the incidence of mastitis in problem farms. However, cost is not the only motivator, probably a minor one considering the discussions at farmer’s meetings, and “doing the right thing”, “future proofing”, …” UK · 2023 · pilot or niche | weak (company, news, market research, other) innovativefarmers.org |
| A survey of Canadian farmers reported that 64% used selective clinical mastitis treatment protocols. “A survey of Canadian farmers reported 64% used selective clinical mastitis treatment protocols, with a median of 82% of cows being selectively treated on those farms (de Jong et al., 2024) .” Canada · 2024 · minority but measured share or volume | peer-reviewed ✓ exa.ai |
| In a study of 144 Canadian dairy farms, 31% reported adopting selective dry cow therapy, while 66% enacted blanket dry cow treatment. “Overall, 45 farms (31%) reported adopting selective DCT, 95 (66%) enacted blanket DCT, and 4 (3%) did not provide antimicrobial DCT.” Canada · 2019-2021 · minority but measured share or volume | peer-reviewed ✓ exa.ai |
| In the United Kingdom, intramammary antimicrobial clinical mastitis treatments were reduced by 25% between 2015 and 2020. “Similarly, in the United Kingdom, intramammary antimicrobial CM treatments were reduced 25% between 2015 and 2020 (RUMA (Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance), 2020), a change attributed largely to mastitis control programs.” United Kingdom · 2015-2020 · large measured reduction of the old process | peer-reviewed ✓ exa.ai |
Details
Replaces (partial): blanket and prophylactic antibiotic use · Scope: dairy, pigs, poultry, aquaculture · Evidence: high
The chemical problem#
- Most antibiotic use in food animals is given without a diagnosis: every mastitis case is tubed, whole groups are dosed on suspicion, hatcheries dose prophylactically.
- Many clinical mastitis cases are culture-negative or caused by bacteria that cure without antibiotics, yet they receive the same treatment.
- Residue findings in shrimp and milk lead to trade rejections; regulators now demand diagnosis before using critically important antimicrobials (e.g. EU Reg. 2019/6).
Product overview#
- On-farm milk culture — selective plates (e.g. tri-plates) read after 24 h; treat only Gram-positive cases, not Gram-negative or no-growth cases.
- PCR panels and rapid tests — multiplex PCR for mastitis, respiratory and enteric pathogens; lateral-flow tests at farm level.
- Aquaculture PCR screening — post-larvae and broodstock tested for WSSV, AHPND, EHP before stocking (pairs with SG04 and F04).
- Veterinary laboratories — culture and sensitivity testing so the narrowest effective drug is chosen.
- Antimicrobial-use benchmarking — the Dutch model: farm-level use data, targets and vet–farmer contracts.
Active ingredient / Composition#
- Culture media, PCR reagents (primers, probes, enzymes — themselves bioeconomy products), antibody-based rapid-test strips, lab services.
Key facts#
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Culture-guided mastitis treatment | Randomized trial: antibiotic use for clinical mastitis halved without hurting short-term cure or milk loss |
| National case | The Netherlands cut veterinary antibiotic sales by more than half in a few years with benchmarking, diagnosis and restrictions on critical drugs |
| Global context | Antimicrobial use in food animals projected to keep rising in middle-income countries without such measures |
| Turnaround | On-farm culture: ~24 h; PCR: hours; rapid tests: minutes |
Advantages#
- Directly removes unnecessary treatments — often the cheapest antibiotic reduction available.
- Lower drug costs and fewer discarded-milk days.
- Evidence for export buyers that residue and AMR rules are met.
- Builds the “information is an input” model the catalogue’s second trend describes.
Mode of action#
- Diagnosis sorts cases into “treat”, “do not treat” and “treat with a narrow drug”.
- Screening before stocking (aquaculture) stops pathogens entering ponds, avoiding later mass treatment.
- Benchmarking changes prescribing behaviour across a sector.
Application#
| Situation | Target | Method, timing and specifics |
|---|---|---|
| Dairy clinical mastitis (mild/moderate) | Fewer treatments | On-farm culture; treat Gram-positive only; severe cases treated at once |
| Pig and poultry outbreaks | Right drug, right group | Lab culture/PCR and sensitivity before group treatment |
| Shrimp hatcheries and farms | Clean stock | PCR screening of broodstock and post-larvae batches |
| National/sector programmes | Lower total use | Use data per farm, targets, vet contracts |
Limitations#
- Needs training, discipline and a 24-h wait that farmers must accept.
- Lab access is poor in many rural regions; costs per test can deter use.
- Diagnostics without alternatives (vaccines, genetics, hygiene) only reduce, not remove, antibiotic need.
Evidence of displacement — D2: measurable displacement (minority share)#
Assessment (hand-reviewed): UK intramammary antimicrobial treatments down 25% (2015–2020), attributed to mastitis-control programmes — diagnostics’ role not isolated.
Figures found (verified as quoted, but the assessment above explains why they do not count as displacement evidence for this substitution):
- displacement — In a study of 144 Canadian dairy farms, 31% reported adopting selective dry cow therapy, while 66% enacted blanket dry cow treatment. (Canada, 2019-2021; peer-reviewed: exa.ai)
- displacement — In the United Kingdom, intramammary antimicrobial clinical mastitis treatments were reduced by 25% between 2015 and 2020. (United Kingdom, 2015-2020; peer-reviewed: exa.ai)
- driver — A survey of Canadian farmers reported that 64% used selective clinical mastitis treatment protocols. (Canada, 2024; peer-reviewed: exa.ai)
- economics — Selective therapy for clinical mastitis based on on-farm pathogen identification resulted in a 27.3% reduction in the number of cases treated with antibiotics and an estimated cost saving of approximately US$5,721.47 in a single dairy herd. (Brazil, 2017-2019; peer-reviewed: exa.ai)
Suppliers — real products and services (from the vendor index)#
Active vendors whose own card shows veterinary or aquaculture diagnostic services or kits.
| Company | Region · Country | What the index shows | Card |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pathovet Labs | LatAm · Chile | veterinary diagnostic services (Chile and Brazil) | card |
| Fivevet - Central Veterinary Medicine JSC No. 5 | Asia · Vietnam | FIVELAB veterinary diagnostic and testing centre | card |
| Blue Aqua International | Asia · Singapore | aquaculture health diagnostics, real-time and digital PCR | card |
| Feed Concentrate Factory Company (FEEDCO) | Africa/ME · Jordan | real-time PCR kits and rapid detection systems for poultry | card |
| FEEDMASTER (PTY) LTD | Africa/ME · Namibia | Namib Laboratories — veterinary diagnostic and testing services | card |
Government funding signals#
Scanned 2026-10-01 (OpenAIRE + NSF); candidates reviewed by hand.
Signal: Moderate (USDA; added 2026-10-02). The USDA source shows sustained NIFA money for mastitis control and antimicrobial-use reduction: 20225130037880 “Solutions for controlling mastitis and improving milk quality in organic dairy farms” ($3.0 M, 2022), 20245130043145 (organic dairy sustainability, $3.5 M, 2024) and 20216801533501 on antimicrobial use in food animals ($0.93 M, 2021). Earlier note: “On-farm culture mastitis” returned only unrelated awards. AMR stewardship in animals is funded by agricultural and veterinary agencies (national AMR action plans, FAO/WOAH projects) that this pass does not reach.
Scientific evidence#
- Lago A, Godden SM, Bey R, Ruegg PL, Leslie K (2011). The selective treatment of clinical mastitis based on on-farm culture results: I. Effects on antibiotic use, milk withholding time, and short-term clinical and bacteriological outcomes. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 4441–4456.
- Speksnijder DC, Mevius DJ, Bruschke CJM, Wagenaar JA (2015). Reduction of veterinary antimicrobial use in the Netherlands. The Dutch success model. Zoonoses and Public Health 62: 79–87.
- Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, et al. (2015). Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 5649–5654.
Bioeconomy value#
Diagnostics turn “treat everything” into “treat what is there”. It is the cheapest antibiotic reduction available, and it creates demand for the vaccines, probiotics and genetics in the veterinary and fishery collections.