fbpx
Sign up now!
Don't show this again

Thank you for confirming your subscription!

(And remember, if ever you want to change your email preferences or unsubscribe, just click on the links at the bottom of any email.)

We’re glad you’re enjoying Poultry Health Today.
Access is free but you’ll need to register to view more content.
Already registered? Sign In
Tap to download the app
X
Share
X

REPORTS

Collect articles and features into your own report to read later, print or share with others

Create a New Report

Favorites

Read Later

Create a new report

Report title (required) Brief description (optional)
CREATE
X
NEXT
POULTRY PORK
follow us


You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Favorites Read Later My Reports PHT Special Reports
Poultry Health Today is equipped with some amazing (and free) tools for organizing and sharing content, as well as creating your own magazines and special reports. To access them, please register today.
Sponsored by Zoetis

Sponsored By Zoetis

.
VFD inspections

Sneak peek: Case history of an FDA VFD inspection

Random FDA inspections to ensure compliance with the updated veterinary feed directive (VFD) rule are understandably causing some trepidation throughout the poultry industry.

Fortunately, the experience of a Midwestern swine veterinarian provides insights on what to expect.

For poultry, no in-feed antibiotic medications have required VFDs before January 2017, but VFDs have been required for some in-feed swine medications and the updated rule affected them as of October 1, 2015. Random inspections were anticipated and, apparently, have already begun.

In this case, the inspector started at a feed mill, where he asked to see the VFD files. He randomly pulled a VFD form and checked it against feed manufacturing records. Next he set up an appointment with the veterinarian and explained which VFD and pork producer it involved.

To prepare for the appointment, the veterinarian pulled his VFD file as well as records regarding farm visits with the producer and diagnostics that verified he had a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) as required by the VFD rule. He also pulled documentation supporting use of the feed medication he had prescribed.

One hiccup

There was one hiccup, however. Before the inspector’s visit, the veterinarian called to make sure the producer had a copy of the VFD on file. When the producer couldn’t find it, the veterinarian sent another copy.

During the visit to the veterinarian, the inspector’s main concern was making sure the VFD number matched that of the feed mill’s and producer’s. He didn’t dig deep but appreciated the veterinarian’s efforts to document the VCPR and prescribed treatment. In fact, the veterinarian said he was surprised the inspector didn’t ask more questions or offer criticism.

The inspector also visited the producer and, when all was said and done, everyone passed inspection with flying colors.

Based on this experience, however, the veterinarian plans to remind producers about the need to keep VFDs on file for 2 years and in a place they can be easily accessed. The producer has since initiated a better filing system. The experience also underscores the value of keeping good records about contact with producers and treatment rationale.

 

 

 

 




Posted on November 10, 2016

tags: ,
RELATED NEWS



You must be logged in to edit your profile.

Google Translate is provided on this website as a reference tool. However, Poultry Health Today and its sponsor and affiliates do not guarantee in any way the accuracy of the translated content and are not responsible for any event resulting from the use of the translation provided by Google. By choosing a language other than English from the Google Translate menu, the user agrees to withhold all liability and/or damage that may occur to the user by depending on or using the translation by Google.