Antimicrobial use practices and opinions of beef farmers in England and Wales

A qualitative survey approach to investigating beef and dairy veterinarians' needs in relation to technologies on farms

Globally, farmers are being increasingly encouraged to use technologies. Consequently, veterinarians often use farm data and technologies to provide farmers with advice. Yet very few studies have sought to understand veterinarians' perceptions of data and technologies on farms. The aim of this study was to understand veterinarians' experiences and opinions on data and technology on beef and dairy farms. An online qualitative survey was conducted with a convenience sample of 36 and 24 veterinarians from the United Kingdom and Ireland, respectively. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to generate four themes: (1) Improving veterinary advice through data; (2) Ensuring stock person skills are retained; (3) Longevity of technology; and (4) Solving social problems on farms. We show that technologies and data can make veterinarians feel more confident in the advice they give to farmers. However, the quality and quantity of data collected on cattle farms were highly variable. Furthermore, veterinarians were concerned that farmers can become over-reliant on technologies by not using their stockperson skills. As herd sizes increase, technologies can help to improve working conditions on farms with multiple employees of various skillsets. Veterinarians would like innovations that can help them to demonstrate their competence, influence farmers' behaviour, and ensure sustainability of the beef and dairy industries.

Antimicrobial usage and resistance in scottish dairy herds: a survey of farmers' knowledge, behaviours and attitudes

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major threat to global health. Understanding how antimicrobials are used on dairy farms and stakeholder beliefs relating to their use is essential to ensure responsible antimicrobial usage (AMU) to tackle the emergence of AMR. This study explored Scottish dairy farmers' knowledge about the meaning of AMR and antimicrobial activity, behaviour and practices related to farm AMU and attitudes towards AMR mitigation. An online survey was designed based on the findings of two focus groups and was completed by 61 respondents (7.3% of the total population of Scottish dairy farmers). Knowledge of antimicrobials and AMR was variable, and almost half of the participants believed that antimicrobials could have anti-inflammatory or analgesic activity. Veterinarians' opinions and advice about AMU were ranked significantly more important than other social referents or advisors. The majority of farmers (90%) reported having implemented practices to reduce reliance on antimicrobials (e.g., selective dry cow therapy, AMU treatment protocols) and having reduced farm AMU over recent years. Feeding waste milk to calves is still widespread, being reported by up to 30% of respondents. The main factors described to hinder responsible farm AMU were limited facilities (e.g., lack of isolation pens for sick animals) and knowledge of appropriate AMU recommendations, followed by time and financial constraints. Most farmers (89%) agreed that it is important to reduce AMU on dairy farms, but fewer (52%) acknowledged that AMU on UK dairy farms is currently too high, suggesting a mismatch between their intention to reduce antimicrobials and AMU behaviour. These results indicate that dairy farmers are aware of AMR, and their self-reported farm AMU has been reduced. However, some do not clearly comprehend the activity of antimicrobials and their correct usage. More work is needed to improve dairy farmers' knowledge of appropriate AMU and intentions to combat AMR. Farmers would benefit from more regular AMU discussions and advice from herd veterinarians, as they were described as highly trusted information resources. Training on how to reduce AMU should involve all farm staff administering antimicrobials and should be tailored to farm-specific barriers, such as limited facilities and workforce shortages.

Evaluation of the use of antibiotic waste bins and medicine records to quantify antibiotic use on sheep, beef, and mixed species farms: A mixed methods study

There is a lack of robust data on antibiotic use on sheep and beef farms in the UK, particularly for farms with mixed species. On mixed farms, quantification of antibiotic use is reliant on accurate farmers' records as veterinary prescription data does not provide information at the species level. Previous studies that have investigated multiple antibiotic use collection methods were conducted on single species farms and failed to collect data on the reasons why differences in methods may exist. This study aimed to evaluate sheep and beef farmers' antibiotic recording practices by comparing quantities of antibiotics measured from medicine records and empty antibiotic packaging collection bins, and identify barriers and facilitators of the antibiotic use collection methods. Thirty-five farms were followed for a year period. Farmers were asked to record their antibiotic treatments and deposit empty antibiotic packaging used in sheep or beef cattle into a bin. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the experiences of farmers taking part in the study and explore the possible differences in methods. Bins and medicine records were collected and the mass of active ingredient (mg) was calculated. The level of agreement between the two antibiotic use collection methods was measured using rank parameters of Kendall's T_a. The bins were 67 % (CI = 29-87 %) more likely to measure more antibiotic use than the medicine records. The scale of variability of the measurements between two random farms was 33 % (CI = 6-56 %) larger for the antibiotic waste bins than the scale of variability between the medicine records. Sheep farmers often missed neonatal lamb treatments off their medicine records, with a median of 32.5 missing treatments per farm (IQR = 18-130). Of the mixed species farms, 28 % of treatment entries were missing the species the antibiotic was used in. Farmers reported that the bin was easy to use but they also reported that there was a tendency to under-report actual use where there were multiple workers on the farm or where treatments were administered by the veterinarian. The qualitative analysis identified contextual barriers to accurate medicine recording, such as difficulties with animal identification, with recording in the field, and with recording during lambing time. This study demonstrated that there were significant differences in antibiotic use measured by the bins and the medicine records. The mixed-methods approach provided an understanding of the contextual barriers that impacted farmers' medicine recording and use of the bin. This information on the contextual barriers can be used to inform the design of data collection methods to improve antibiotic consumption data in the sheep and beef sectors.

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Escherichia coli Isolated from Sheep and Beef Farms in England and Wales: A Comparison of Disk Diffusion Interpretation Methods

Little data exist on the levels of antimicrobial resistance from bacteria isolated from British sheep and beef cattle. The aim of this study was to investigate antimicrobial resistance patterns on sheep and beef farms in England and Wales using multiple interpretation methods. Fecal samples (n = 350) from sheep and beef cattle were collected from 35 farms. Disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing against ten antimicrobials was carried out for 1115 (699 sheep, 416 beef) β-glucuronidase-positive Escherichia coli isolates. Susceptibility was interpreted using clinical breakpoints, which determine clinically resistant bacteria, and epidemiological and livestock-specific cut-off values, which determine microbiological-resistant bacteria (non-wild type). Using livestock-specific cut-off values, a high frequency of wild type for all ten antimicrobials was observed in isolates from sheep (90%) and beef cattle (85%). Cluster analysis was performed to identify patterns in antimicrobial resistance. Interpretation of susceptibility using livestock-specific cut-off values showed a cluster of isolates that were non-wild type to cefotaxime and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, whereas clinical breakpoints did not. A multilevel logistic regression model determined that tetracycline use on the farm and soil copper concentration were significantly associated with tetracycline non-wild type isolates. The results suggest that using human clinical breakpoints could lead to both the under-reporting and over-reporting of antimicrobial resistance in sheep and beef cattle.