Understanding farmers' and veterinarians' behavior in relation to antimicrobial use and resistance in dairy cattle: A systematic review

Exploring vaginal discharge scoring to assess clinical metritis severity: Comparison between intrauterine dextrose and systemic antibiotics treatments

The objectives of this study were to assess: 1) differences in the metabolic status, systemic inflammation, daily milk yield, and daily rumination time between Holstein dairy cows with different vaginal discharge scores (VDS) in the first 7±3 DIM, and 2) effects of intrauterine dextrose infusion on metabolic status, systemic inflammation, daily milk yield and daily rumination time in dairy cows with VDS4 and VDS5. Cows (n=641) from a farm located in central Pennsylvania were screened at 7±3 DIM (study d 0) to assess vaginal discharge scores. Vaginal discharge was scored using a five-point scale (i.e., 1- clear fluid, 2- <50% white purulent fluid, 3- >50% white purulent fluid, 4- red-brownish fluid without fetid smell, and 5- fetid red-brownish watery fluid). Cows with VDS4 and VDS5 were blocked by parity and randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: 1) CONV (VDS4 n=15; VDS5 n= 23): two injections of ceftiofur (per label; 6.6 mg/Kg) 72 h apart; and 2) DEX (VDS4 n=15; VDS5 n=22): three intrauterine infusions of a 50% dextrose solution (1 L/cow) every 24 h. Cows that presented a VDS 1, 2, and 3 were categorized as normal vaginal discharge animals (NOMVDS; n=35) and were randomly selected and matched by parity to CONV and DEX cows. Daily milk yield and rumination time for the first 150 DIM were collected from on-farm computer records. Blood samples were collected to assess haptoglobin (HP) and β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) concentrations at study d 0, d 7, and d 14 relative to enrollment. Subclinical ketosis was defined as having a BHB concentration >1.2 mmol/dL at any of the sampling points. The data were analyzed using the MIXED and GLIMMIX procedures of SAS as a randomized complete block design. When comparing cows with different VDS (i.e., NOMVDS, VDS4, VDS5) separately, cows with VDS5 had the highest concentration of HP at enrollment compared to cows with VDS4 and NOMVDS; however, cows with VDS4 had higher concentrations of HP compared to cows with NOMVDS. Cows with VDS4 or VDS5 had a higher incidence of subclinical ketosis compared to cows with NOMVDS (p=0.005; VDS4= 62.08±9.16%; VDS5=74.44±6.74%; NOMVDS=34.36±8.53%). Similarly, daily milk yield (p<.0001; VDS4=30.17±1.32 kg/d; VDS5=27.40±1.27 kg/d; NOMVDS=35.14±1.35 kg/d) and daily rumination time (p=0.001; VDS4=490.77±19.44 min; VDS5=465±16.67 min; NOMVDS=558.29±18.80 min) was lower for cows with VDS4 and VDS5 compared to cows with NOMVDS at 7±3 days in milk. When analyzing HP concentration between treatment groups in cows with VDS4 (p=0.70), VDS5 (p=0.25), or VDS4 and VDS5 combined (p=0.31), there was no difference in HP concentration by study d 14 between treatment groups. Interestingly, when only cows with VDS4 were considered for treatment, both treatments, DEX and CONV, increased the daily milk yield to the levels of NOMVDS cows by 14 days in milk. On the other hand, when only cows with VDS5 were considered for treatment, cows treated with DEX produced, on average, 4.48 kg/d less milk in the first 150 days in milk compared to cows treated with CONV or cows that had NOMVDS. Similarly, when cows with either VDS4 or VDS5 were considered for treatment, DEX treatment also impaired milk yield. These results suggest that cows with either VDS 4 or 5 have an altered inflammatory status, and decreased milk yield and rumination compared to cows with NOMVDS. Furthermore, DEX treatment may have similar effects on daily milk yield and metabolic status compared to CONV in cows with VDS4, while DEX is not recommended for cows with VDS5.

Accessing the behavior and awareness of veterinary professionals towards antimicrobials use and antimicrobial resistance in Indian district

Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant public health threat, and understanding the awareness and practices of healthcare professionals is crucial for its mitigation. Since the animal sector plays a key role in India's economy, we decided to explore the understanding of Antimicrobial Use (AMU) and AMR among veterinary professionals.

Methods

The study aimed to evaluate the awareness and behavior of veterinarians and para-veterinarians working in the Jhunjhunu district, Rajasthan, India, concerning AMU and AMR. Questionnaire surveys were administered to them with closed-ended questions. The data was collected and subjected to statistical analysis to derive meaningful insights. The key findings highlight notable differences in certain behavioral aspects of antibiotic prescription among the two groups.

Results and Discussion

It appears that 53.8% of veterinarians as compared to 25.8% para-veterinarians do not surely inform farmers about the importance of adhering to antibiotic withdrawal periods, thereby failing to raise awareness about proper antibiotic use. Moreover, para-veterinarians (46.6%) tend to engage less in evidence-based antibiotic prescription than veterinarians (81%). Furthermore, both groups exhibit a lower frequency of advice on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (ABST), essential for informed prescribing decisions. Most significantly, both groups show a tendency to prefer critically important antibiotics for prescription, raising concerns about the escalating threat of AMR. This study thus emphasizes the areas that need targeted interventions to enhance responsible antimicrobial usage and curb the growth of AMR in the region.

Recording Antimicrobial Use on Irish Dairy Farms: Barriers & Facilitators to Using Technology and Sharing Data

Antimicrobial use (AMU) data are essential to monitor the impact of AMU reduction strategies in animal health. The use of technology and herd recording software to record AMU will be vital to scale the collation of these data in the future. The aim of this study was to determine the barriers and facilitators to Irish dairy farmers recording their AMU using a herd recording software and sharing AMU data. Thirty-three Irish dairy farmers involved in a study on AMU monitoring were asked to record their AMU using a herd recording software over a 12-mo period. At the end of the 12-mo period, 10 of these farmers were selected to take part in semi-structured interviews exploring their opinions on recording AMU, the use of herd recording software, and sharing AMU data. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Several barriers and facilitators to farmers recording their AMU using a herd recording software and sharing AMU data were identified. Barriers included the age and generation of the farmer, farm infrastructure, a lack of training and education, a lack of knowledge around the benefits of digital data, a lack of incentive to digitalise records, and a fear of repercussions. Facilitators identified by the farmers included the benefits of having instantly available data for making herd management decisions, reduced paperwork, increased organization for inspections, and a potential positive impact on the image of the dairy industry. To increase the uptake of new technology to record AMU at farm-level, farmers will need support in terms of education and training around the software available to them and reassurance around the perceived risks of repercussions with sharing data in a digital format.

Factors influencing Scottish dairy farmers' antimicrobial usage, knowledge and attitude towards antimicrobial resistance

Understanding how farmers use antimicrobials and their awareness and beliefs about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is essential to improve antimicrobial usage (AMU) practices and combat AMR on dairy farms. A cross-sectional online survey was carried out to identify the factors affecting attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of Scottish dairy producers regarding prudent AMU and the emergence of AMR in livestock. The survey was designed based on the earlier findings of two focus groups and was disseminated online via multiple methods (e.g., social media; farming press). Participation was voluntary and answers were obtained from 61 respondents (7.3% of the total population of Scottish dairy farmers). Logistic and ordinal regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for farmers' level of knowledge about antimicrobials and AMR, AMU behaviour and attitudes towards AMR mitigation. Associations were described with odds ratios (OR) and the associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Farmers were more likely to have better knowledge of antimicrobials and AMR if they had undertaken a university degree (OR = 28.28, P < 0.001), worked with mixed livestock (dairy plus sheep/beef) (OR = 4.82, P < 0.05), and trusted only veterinarians' information about responsible AMU (OR = 4.42, P < 0.05). In the survey disease scenarios, younger farmers were less likely to be classed as low antimicrobial users (OR = 0.18, P < 0.05) compared to older farmers. Respondents working on larger herds were also less likely to be low antimicrobial users compared to those working on smaller herds (OR = 0.12, P < 0.01). Conversely, farmers who did not consider economic factors (e.g., cost and withdrawal period) in antimicrobial choice were more likely to be classed as low antimicrobial users (OR = 6.17, P < 0.01). Respondents were more likely to show positive attitudes towards AMR mitigation if they worked in larger (OR = 4.67, P < 0.05) or organic dairy farms (OR = 18.35, P < 0.05). These results suggest that several practices, social, demographic, and economic factors influence dairy farmers' perception and awareness of AMR and AMU. Efforts should be made to consider these variables when developing strategies to improve AMU in dairy farming. Veterinarians and advisors should focus AMU training and AMR awareness-raising activities towards younger, less experienced farmers as well as those with a lower educational qualification (high school vs. university degree). This study can inform the development of targeted educational initiatives to encourage responsible AMU on dairy farms.

Validation, visibility, vagueness and variation: A qualitative assessment of existing veterinary guidelines for antimicrobial use in cattle and sheep in the UK

Antimicrobials are essential in veterinary medicine to treat and control bacterial disease in animals. Their prudent use in food-producing animals has been encouraged to reduce the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. National and international guidelines for responsible antimicrobial use have been developed as tools to guide and rationalise antimicrobial prescribing decisions by veterinarians and usage decisions by farmers. Yet, there is little understanding of whether these existing guidelines are fit for purpose. Accordingly, this study rigorously assessed 128 veterinary guidelines for antimicrobial use in ruminants in the UK, following established qualitative methodologies. Findings revealed four pertinent themes: validation of the veterinarian as the prescriber, visibility of responsible use realities, vagueness in interpretation and variation in directing behaviour. These themes encompassed the roles and responsibilities of the veterinarian and the realities of prescribing scenarios, alongside concerns relating to the specificity within and variation between guidelines. Resultant recommendations to inform and support the future development of guidelines include establishing species-specific and disease-specific guidelines, expanding guidelines to include disease prevention measures, including definitions to resolve vagueness and promoting congruence in interpretation, encouraging the development of practice-level guidelines to endorse collaboration and ownership, and fostering active working between stakeholders to align priorities and messaging.

"It's a habit. They've been doing it for decades and they feel good and safe.": A qualitative study of barriers and opportunities to changing antimicrobial use in the Indonesian poultry sector

Interventions to change antimicrobial use (AMU) practices can help mitigate the risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) development. However, changing AMU practices can be challenging due to the complex nature of the factors influencing AMU-related behaviours. This study used a qualitative approach to explore the factors that influenced decision-making on AMU by farmers and other actors in the Indonesian poultry sector. Thirty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with farmers, technical services staff from the private sector, and representatives of associations, universities, and international organisations in Central Java, West Java, and East Java. Thematic analysis identified three patterns of influence on AMU: how farmers used information to make AMU-related decisions, the importance of farmers' social and advisory networks, and the motivations driving changes in AMU behaviours. Key barriers identified included a lack of shared understanding around when to use antibiotics, financial pressures in the poultry sector, and a lack of engagement with government veterinary services. Potential opportunities identified included high farmer awareness of AMU, identification of private sector actors and peer networks as the stakeholders with established relationships of trust with farmers, and the importance of farmers' conceptions of good farming practices, which could be engaged with to improve AMU practices.

Perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship: identifying drivers and barriers across various professions in Canada utilizing a one health approach

Introduction

As antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a substantial threat to the efficacy of available antimicrobial options, it is important to understand how to implement effective and practical mitigation efforts, including antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), across human, animal, and environmental sectors.

Methods

A mixed-methods questionnaire was distributed virtually to attendees of the virtual One Health Antimicrobial Stewardship Conference (March 10-12, 2021) and their professional networks. Respondents (n = 81) were largely from the veterinary (75%) or human (19%) health sectors. Qualitative data were analyzed in NVivo using template analysis whereas quantitative data were analyzed in STATA using Kruskall-Wallis tests. The questionnaire asked respondents about their perceptions of AMS, as well as the perceived barriers and drivers of AMS efforts.

Results

Perceptions of what AMS meant to the respondents personally and their profession as a whole were grouped into 3 main themes: 1) AMS strategies or considerations in antimicrobial prescribing and use; 2) responsibility to maintain health and preserve antimicrobial effectiveness; and 3) reducing antimicrobial use (AMU) as a goal of AMS efforts. Identified AMS barriers had 3 main themes: 1) lack of various prescribing and AMU support mechanisms; 2) shift in prescriber attitudes to drive change; and 3) stronger economic considerations to support shifting prescribing practices. Drivers of AMS had the following themes: 1) leadership to guide change; 2) education to support optimizing AMU; and 3) research to identify best practices and opportunities for action. Across all questions, 2 cross-cutting themes emerged: 1) a One Health understanding of AMS; and 2) blame placed on others for a lack of AMS success.

Conclusion

Overall, sector-specific, but particularly cross-sectoral AMS drivers and barriers were identified, highlighting the importance of a One Health approach in AMR research and mitigation.

Antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary medicine: a review of online resources

Background

An awareness of antimicrobial resistance and stewardship is important for all prescribers from a One-Health perspective. Educational resources have been created to help veterinary practitioners and encourage an optimized approach to their antimicrobial use.

Objectives

To support veterinarians to select the most appropriate educational resource to meet their personal learning goals in relation to veterinary antimicrobial stewardship (AMS).

Methods

Modular online platforms, developed to promote AMS in veterinary practice (farm and companion animal), were reviewed and key features highlighted, including the required time commitment, resource type, focus and source as well as a subjective evaluation of resource accessibility (according to prior knowledge base).

Results

Five different online courses are described in this educational resource review: Antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary practice; Farm Vet Champions; Farmed Animal Antimicrobial Stewardship Initiative (FAAST); the Pathway of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) for a veterinary services professional; and the VetAMS online learning program. Each of these tools introduces users to key themes of veterinary AMS. Upon completion of any of the courses practitioners should feel confident to assume an active role as proponents of rational antimicrobial use. Significant differences between resources, relating to the focus (companion or farm animal), scope and depth of material covered, are recognized reflecting their respective target audiences.

Conclusions

Several informative and accessible resources, centred on the core principles of veterinary AMS, were reviewed. Key features have been highlighted to inform and guide resource-users towards the most appropriate tool for them. Greater engagement with these educational resources will hopefully contribute to improved antimicrobial prescribing among veterinarians and greater awareness of the importance of stewardship for the profession.

Invited review: Selective treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cattle

Treatment of clinical mastitis (CM) and use of antimicrobials for dry cow therapy are responsible for the majority of animal-defined daily doses of antimicrobial use (AMU) on dairy farms. However, advancements made in the last decade have enabled excluding nonsevere CM cases from antimicrobial treatment that have a high probability of cure without antimicrobials (no bacterial causes or gram-negative, excluding Klebsiella spp.) and cases with a low bacteriological cure rate (chronic cases). These advancements include availability of rapid diagnostic tests and improved udder health management practices, which reduced the incidence and infection pressure of contagious CM pathogens. This review informed an evidence-based protocol for selective CM treatment decisions based on a combination of rapid diagnostic test results, review of somatic cell count and CM records, and elucidated consequences in terms of udder health, AMU, and farm economics. Relatively fast identification of the causative agent is the most important factor in selective CM treatment protocols. Many reported studies did not indicate detrimental udder health consequences (e.g., reduced clinical or bacteriological cures, increased somatic cell count, increased culling rate, or increased recurrence of CM later in lactation) after initiating selective CM treatment protocols using on-farm testing. The magnitude of AMU reduction following a selective CM treatment protocol implementation depended on the causal pathogen distribution and protocol characteristics. Uptake of selective treatment of nonsevere CM cases differs across regions and is dependent on management systems and adoption of udder health programs. No economic losses or animal welfare issues are expected when adopting a selective versus blanket CM treatment protocol. Therefore, selective CM treatment of nonsevere cases can be a practical tool to aid AMU reduction on dairy farms.

Factors influencing dairy farmers' antibiotic use: An application of the COM-B model

In dairy farming, mastitis treatment is the most common reason for antimicrobial use. The overuse or misuse of antibiotics in agriculture has been associated with the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Traditionally, blanket dry cow therapy (BDCT), in which all cows receive antibiotic treatment, was used prophylactically to prevent and manage disease spread. In recent years, there has been a move toward selective dry cow therapy (SDCT), in which only clinically infected cows are treated with antibiotics. This study aimed to explore farmer attitudes toward antibiotic use (ABU), using the COM-B (Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior) model as a framework, to identify predictors of changing behavior toward SDCT and suggest interventions to encourage its uptake. Participant farmers (n = 240) were surveyed online between March and July 2021. Five items were found to be significant predictors of farmers having stopped BDCT: (1) having lower knowledge of AMR, (2) greater awareness of AMR and ABU (Capability), (3) feeling social pressure to reduce ABU (Opportunity), and (4) having greater professional identity, and (5) having positive emotions associated with stopping BDCT (Motivation). Direct logistic regression found that these 5 factors explained between 22 and 34.1% of the variance in making changes to BDCT practices. Additionally, objective knowledge was not correlated with current positive antibiotic practices, and farmers often perceived their antibiotic practices as more responsible than they actually were. A multifaceted approach, encompassing each of the predictors highlighted, should be taken to encourage farmer behavior change in relation to stopping BDCT. Additionally, as farmers' perceptions of their own behaviors may not align with their actual practices, awareness raising of what constitutes "responsible" behavior should be targeted at dairy farmers to motivate them to take action and adopt more responsible antibiotic practices.

Exploring veterinarians' behaviour relating to antibiotic use stewardship on Irish dairy farms using the COM-B model of behaviour change

Employing a theoretical model of human behaviour (COMB), the current study explores the factors influencing veterinarians' engagement with antibiotic use stewardship on Irish dairy farms. One-to-one semi structured interviews were carried out by telephone with 12 veterinarians whose daily work focused on dairy cattle. A thematic analysis approach was undertaken. The identified themes and sub-themes were then mapped to the COM-B model. This study identified challenges faced by veterinarians when trying to prescribe responsibly which included lack of training to encourage farmer behaviour change, issues with laboratory testing, pressures from farmers to prescribe antimicrobials, concern for animal welfare and farmers going elsewhere for prescriptions. Having a good knowledge of AMR, peers as an advice source, potential financial benefits for farmers as a result of reduced antimicrobial costs and accepting a shared responsibility for AMR, facilitate veterinarians in their role as antimicrobial stewards. The barriers and facilitators identified as influencing veterinarians' capability, opportunity and motivation to responsibly prescribe antimicrobials formed the basis for a number of practical recommendations which should be considered by advisory and policy making teams. Recommendations include; continuous training for veterinarians on AMR and alternatives to overcome the barriers faced when trying to promote reduced AMU, veterinarian peer support groups to improve confidence in their knowledge and decision making to minimise the effect of client pressures/expectations, setting up collaborative farmer and veterinarian working groups to promote a transparent working relationship and the development of affordable and efficient diagnostic and susceptibility testing.

Methods used by Canadian dairy farmers for on-farm euthanasia and the emotions associated with the decision and the practice of euthanasia

On-farm euthanasia is complicated in that farmers have to make the decision to end the life of an animal they are caring for. Studies have shown that some culling decisions are made too late, which results in animal welfare issues. However, information about on-farm euthanasia methods and the decision process leading to the euthanasia of an animal is limited. Additionally, emotions and feelings are involved in the decision and the act of euthanasia. The objectives of this study were to describe current practices related to on-farm euthanasia performed by Canadian dairy farmers and to assess the emotions and complex feelings surrounding the act. A cross-sectional study design was used to gather this information through an online questionnaire completed exclusively by Canadian dairy farmers. Data were analyzed descriptively using frequencies, and associations between the participants' characteristics and their practices and emotions regarding on-farm euthanasia were assessed using logistic regression models. A total of 479 dairy farmers from 5 provinces answered the survey. The most commonly used primary method of on-farm euthanasia was a firearm (>70%). Unacceptable euthanasia methods, such as standard 0.22-caliber long rifle for adult cows or no adjunct method following the use of captive bolt, were used by 25%, 18%, and 58% of the participants for calves, replacement animals, and dairy cows, respectively. Ninety-four percent of the participants reported that the farm owner was the person who always or often made the euthanasia decisions. In addition, 32% of the participants reported that the veterinarian always examined the animal before performing euthanasia, 51% reported at least one person received training to perform euthanasia, and 16% reported having a decision tree for euthanasia. Some participants (17%) were troubled with the responsibility for ending the life of their animals, and 19% perceived other people on the farm to be uncomfortable with performing euthanasia. Half of the participants reported that people performing euthanasia on the farm felt at least one related painful emotion or complex feeling, and half reported they had at least one reason to feel anxiety or unease concerning euthanasia. The results of this study showed gaps such as the limited use of acceptable euthanasia methods and decision trees by Canadian dairy farmers, low availability of on-farm training for euthanasia, and variable involvement of veterinarians.

Farmers Views on the Implementation of On-Farm Emergency Slaughter for the Management of Acutely Injured Cattle in Ireland

Four management options for acutely injured cattle in Ireland exist: treatment, unless cattle are severely injured; on-farm emergency slaughter (OFES); casualty slaughter (CS) if the animal is certified fit for transport; or euthanasia. OFES is designed to prevent transport of welfare-compromised cattle. An online survey of farmers in Ireland was carried out between April and July 2021 and focused on events during 2020. A theoretical framework of capacity, willingness, and opportunity was used to explore farmers' perceptions. Responses from 94 farmers (49 dairy and 45 beef) were analysed; not all respondents answered all questions. Respondents indicated that the incidence of acutely injured cattle in Ireland is low. A majority reported not having an acutely injured animal for greater than 36 months. Most respondents had a positive attitude towards OFES for animal welfare reasons and were aware of relevant regulations and guidelines. Barriers to OFES included a lack of availability of OFES, and dairy farmers indicated that it had a similar financial impact as euthanasia. A parallel study with veterinarians indicated a higher incidence of acutely injured cattle in Ireland; the current results may be due to the demographic or the sensitivity of the topic. Nationwide electronic data capture on the cause of mortality could support improvements in the management of acutely injured cattle and enable surveillance of the proportion of these cattle undergoing OFES, euthanasia, or CS.

Trust, agreements, and occasional breakdowns: Veterinarians' perspectives on farmer-veterinarian relationships and use of antimicrobials for Swedish dairy cattle

Studies have shown that farmer-veterinarian relationships influence antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock, though how they do so is unclear. On the one hand, research shows that well-established veterinarian-farmer relationships are positive for implementation of antibiotic stewardship and restrictive AMU. On the other hand, studies also show that farmer demands can increase antimicrobial prescribing and that prescribing antimicrobials can strengthen the veterinarian's relationship with farmer clients. In the present study, we focus on veterinarians' perspectives on the relationships between dairy cattle farmers and veterinarians in Sweden and explore what characterizes these relationships when restrictive AMU is described as unproblematic and when AMU becomes a matter of tension or conflict. The study draws on semistructured interviews with 21 veterinarians working with livestock in Sweden. Interviews were analyzed thematically. The study shows that from the perspectives of veterinarians, well-established veterinarian-farmer relationships generally facilitate restrictive AMU in 3 slightly different but related ways: (1) they create trust in the veterinarian and their prescribing decisions; (2) they create shared understanding concerning when antimicrobials are needed and not needed; and (3) they facilitate constructive discussions between veterinarians and farmers on AMU. To make the farmer feel listened to and to come to an agreement on AMU was described as central for the veterinarians. However, the veterinarians described agreements on restrictive AMU as sometimes requiring strategic work, such as discussions to motivate the farmer and leave the door open for antimicrobials later if needed. Such work takes time and energy and is easier within well-established relationships according to the veterinarians. We also identified examples where veterinarians explained that they occasionally make compromises with farmers concerning antimicrobials-compromises that, according to the veterinarians, facilitate the relationship with the farmer, which in turn facilities restrictive AMU in the longer term. The examples in our interviews where antimicrobials became a matter of tension and even conflict between veterinarians and farmers could, with a few exceptions, be traced to absence of well-established relationships. However, some veterinarians also described AMU as a matter of tension within well-established relationships, especially with older farmers who do not trust new treatment strategies. We also found a small number of examples where disagreements on antimicrobials made a relationship with specific farmers impossible. Thus, even though the interviewed veterinarians generally meant that their restrictive antimicrobial prescribing did not threaten the relationship with the farmer, our study also, to some extent, confirms research showing that restrictive AMU can harm the relationship with some clients who simply choose another, less restrictive, veterinarian. In summary, our study supports that decisions on AMU cannot be reduced to the individual prescriber's behavior, nor to a strict medical judgment. Antimicrobial use for dairy cattle needs to be understood as taking form in relationships in which both veterinarians and farmers are active parts.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessing Social Acceptance of Strategies to Reduce Antimicrobial Use in the French Dairy Industry

To respond to the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threat, public health entities implement policies aiming to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock systems, in which policy success and sustainability might be subject to the social acceptability of the novel regulatory environment. Therefore, consistent methods that gather and synthesize preferences of stakeholder groups are needed during the policy design. The objective of this study was to present a methodology for evaluating the acceptability of potential strategies to reduce AMU using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) using French dairy industry as a model. Preference-ranking organization methods for enrichment evaluations were applied to rank stakeholders' acceptance of four different potential AMU reduction strategies: 1. Baseline AMU regulations in France; 2. Total interdiction of AMU; 3. Interdiction of prophylaxis and metaphylaxis AMU; and 4. Subsidies to reduce AMU by 25%. A total of 15 stakeholders (consumers, n = 10; farmers, n = 2; public health representatives, n = 3) representing the French dairy sector and public health administration participated in the acceptance weighting of the strategies in relation with their impact on environmental, economic, social, and political criteria. We established a MCDA methodology and result-interpretation approach that can assist in prioritizing alternatives to cope with AMR in the French dairy industry or in other livestock systems. Our MCDA framework showed that consumers and public health representatives preferred alternatives that consider the restriction of AMU, whereas farmers preferred to maintain baseline policy.

Antibiotic Use in European Pig Production: Less Is More

The goal of this study is to describe the current use of antibiotics in the European pig industry based on an extensive literature review. To achieve this, an overview of results from national (n = 15) and multi-country (n = 2) cross-sectional and longitudinal (n = 2) surveys, which describe antimicrobial use in pigs, is presented. Results are further linked to the outcome of the European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC) project. Overall, it was found that weaned piglets received the most antibiotics, followed by suckling piglets resulting in over 80% of the treatments being administered to animals before 10 weeks of age. Furthermore, it was observed that antibiotic use (ABU) was significantly associated across age categories, indicating that farms with a high use in piglets also used more antibiotics in their finishers. This may, among other things, be explained by farmers' habits and behavior. However, above all, the studies showed surprisingly large differences in ABU between the countries. These differences may be related to the differences in disease prevalence and/or differences in the level of biosecurity. However, they may also reflect variations in rules and regulations between countries and/or a difference in attitude towards ABU of farmers and veterinarians that are not necessarily linked to the true animal health situation. Furthermore, it was observed that already a substantial proportion of the European pig production is able to successfully raise pigs without any group treatments, indicating that it is possible to rear pigs without systematic use of antibiotics. Based on the ESVAC data, a decline of 43.2% was observed in sales of antibiotics for animals in Europe between 2011 and 2020. To enable efficient antimicrobial quantification and stewardship, 15 European countries have already established systems for herd level monitoring ABU in pigs.

Improving farm-level antimicrobial stewardship benchmarks by reporting antimicrobial use within the context of both the magnitude of disease pressure and the outcome of therapy

This manuscript explores a method of benchmarking antimicrobial use within the context of farm level therapeutic incidence (a proxy for disease incidence), and the outcome of that therapy. This is reported both within the same farm over time (2016–2019), as well as evaluated across participating farms. Reporting antimicrobial use in this format addresses multiple primary questions necessary for evaluating on farm antimicrobial stewardship: How much disease is recorded? How much antimicrobial use is recorded? How often are antimicrobials included in therapy for each disease? What is the outcome of therapy? The three primary metrics reported are: therapeutic events per 100 cow years (TE/100CY), antimicrobial regimens per 100 cow years (REG/100CY), and the percent therapeutic success (% Success). Success was defined as: the cow remained in the herd and had no further TE recorded within 30 days of the end of the TE being evaluated. These measures identify opportunities for change on an individual farm, such as improvement in disease prevention, or a change in choices about when to include an antimicrobial in the treatment protocol. Therapeutic outcomes provide additional context, in some instances demonstrating differences in recording practices and case definitions, while in other cases serving to safeguard animal welfare as efforts are made to decrease antimicrobial use in the future. Although developed for farm level reporting, the metrics may also be more broadly summarized to meet future reporting requirements for marketing chain or national level antimicrobial use reports. The process outlined here serves as a prototype to be considered when developing antimicrobial use reporting systems where farm level antimicrobial stewardship is the primary objective.

Emotive Themes from Tennessee Cattle Producers Regarding Responsible Antibiotic Use

To improve judicious antimicrobial use (AMU) in food animals in the United States, all feed additives that were medically important antimicrobials were moved from over the counter to Veterinary Feed Directive in 2017. This action required a change in behavior of producers’ AMU practices. Because emotions are important aspects of behavior, several behavioral interventions have targeted people’s emotions as means of effecting change. Hence, understanding and incorporating the emotional experiences of producers towards current AMU practices can be a starting point to making future behavioral changes that could reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance challenge. Between June 2017 and March 2018, seven focus group meetings of Tennessee (TN) beef and dairy cattle producers were conducted to evaluate producers’ emotional views regarding responsible AMU in TN cattle. Sixty-two TN cattle producers participated and emotively expressed the following: (1) deep connections to animals in ways that improve animal and public health; (2) pride in their quality of products; (3) distress that consumers misconceive their AMU practices as indiscriminate; and (4) recommended that producers be more transparent about their AMU practices and the public improve their awareness for detecting marketers’ deceptive product labels that take advantage of public ignorance. Knowledge of these producers’ emotions would help educators target more successful behavioral change campaigns, improving stewardship in AMU practices among producers.

Invited review: Selective use of antimicrobials in dairy cattle at drying-off

Administering intramammary antimicrobials to all mammary quarters of dairy cows at drying-off [i.e., blanket dry cow therapy (BDCT)] has been a mainstay of mastitis prevention and control. However, as udder health has considerably improved over recent decades with reductions in intramammary infection prevalence at drying-off and the introduction of teat sealants, BDCT may no longer be necessary on all dairy farms, thereby supporting antimicrobial stewardship efforts. This narrative review summarizes available literature regarding current dry cow therapy practices and associated impacts of selective dry cow therapy (SDCT) on udder health, milk production, economics, antimicrobial use, and antimicrobial resistance. Various methods to identify infections at drying-off that could benefit from antimicrobial treatment are described for selecting cows or mammary quarters for treatment, including utilizing somatic cell count thresholds, pathogen identification, previous clinical mastitis history, or a combination of criteria. Selection methods may be enacted at the herd, cow, or quarter levels. Producers' and veterinarians' motivations for antimicrobial use are discussed. Based on review findings, SDCT can be adopted without negative consequences for udder health and milk production, and concurrent teat sealant use is recommended, especially in udder quarters receiving no intramammary antimicrobials. Furthermore, herd selection should be considered for SDCT implementation in addition to cow or quarter selection, as BDCT may still be temporarily necessary in some herds for optimal mastitis control. Costs and benefits of SDCT vary among herds, whereas impacts on antimicrobial resistance remain unclear. In summary, SDCT is a viable management option for maintaining udder health and milk production while improving antimicrobial stewardship in the dairy industry.

Understanding Antibiotic Resistance as a Perceived Threat towards Dairy Cattle through Beliefs and Practices: A Survey-Based Study of Dairy Farmers

Antibiotic use is an important component in dairy herd management both to treat bacterial diseases and to maximize animal welfare. However, there is concern among scientists that antibiotic misuse and/or overuse by farmers might promote the emergence of resistant pathogens. We conducted a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire study with dairy farmers/managers in New York, USA to evaluate their (i) level of concern about antibiotic resistance and (ii) interest in adopting new judicious antibiotic use practices regarding mastitis treatment. A total of 118 responses were subjected to statistical analysis. The findings revealed that nearly half (45%) of study participants were undecided or disagreed that antibiotic resistance due to antibiotic use in dairy farming may negatively impact the health of dairy cattle. In contrast, the majority (78%) of participants self-reported that they do not treat with antibiotics at the first sign of mastitis, and the majority (66%) have either fully or partially implemented culture-based mastitis treatment on their farm. The self-reported adoption of culture-based mastitis treatment practices was statistically significantly associated with higher numbers of injectable and intramammary doses of antibiotics used on the participants' farms. These findings will aid future research investigations on how to promote sustainable antibiotic use practices in dairy cattle.

Evidence of a decrease in sales of antimicrobials of very high importance for humans in dairy herds after a new regulation restricting their use in Quebec, Canada

In the province of Quebec, Canada, a new regulation restricting usage of antimicrobials of very high importance for human health (Health Canada: category 1 antimicrobials) in production animals is effective since February 2019. The objective of this study was to estimate changes in AM sales in dairy herds after the implementation of the regulation. Therefore, invoice data were extracted from veterinary software, Vet-Expert, used by most dairy veterinarians in the province of Quebec, and antimicrobial quantities were transformed in Canadian defined course doses for cattle (DCDbovCA). The sum of antimicrobials sales monthly in each herd was estimated in DCDbovCA from June 2016 to May 2020. To evaluate the herd-level change in AM sales and the impact of different factors, the number of DCDbovCA by herd from June 2017 to May 2018 (pre-regulation period) were compared with those of June 2019 to May 2020 (post-regulation period). Total category 1 AM sales of 3,569 Quebec's herds went from a range of 14,258 to 21,528 DCDbovCA/month to a range of 1,494 to 4,707 DCDbovCA/month after the implementation of the new regulation. Moreover, using data from 3,337 herds, we estimated a mean (95% confidence interval) reduction in 19 DCDbovCA/herd-year (14.8, 24.2), while the pre-regulation herd-level category 1 AM sales was 26 DCDbovCA/herd-year. This reduction was achieved without evidence of an increase in other antimicrobials. Finally, the veterinary facility associated with the herd was an important determinant of the herd-level reduction in category 1 antimicrobials. This study was the first to quantify a significant reduction in category 1 AM sales following the implementation of a restrictive regulation in dairy production in Canada. These results demonstrate that such an approach is effective to reduce the sales of a specific category of antimicrobial in animal production.

Cross-sectional study of antimicrobial use and treatment decision for preweaning Canadian dairy calves

•

More than half of producers used multiple signs when treating calf pneumonia.

•

More than half of producers included systemic signs when treating calf diarrhea.

•

Farmers with a treatment protocol used multiple signs for antimicrobial use (bovine respiratory disease).

•

Farmers with a treatment protocol used systemic signs for antimicrobial use (scours).

Antimicrobials should be used prudently in farm animals to prevent the development of resistant bacteria in both humans and animals. The objective of this study was to investigate Canadian dairy producers' practices for antimicrobial use in the treatment of disease in preweaning dairy calves. In-person questionnaires were administered to 144 dairy producers across 5 provinces in Canada between July 2019 and August 2020. Almost all (96%) producers used antimicrobials to treat calves with respiratory disease, but only 27% indicated they had a written treatment protocol for respiratory disease. Most (95%) of these protocols for respiratory disease were developed with input from the herd veterinarian. Seventy-four percent of producers used antimicrobials to treat calf diarrhea, with 37% of producers having a written treatment protocol for calf diarrhea with input from the herd veterinarian. The combinations of signs adopted by the producers for antimicrobial treatment in calf respiratory disease and diarrhea were evaluated based on findings from other studies. More than half (56%) of producers who used antimicrobials for calf respiratory disease decided to use antimicrobials by evaluating multiple clinical signs. Eighty-two percent of producers who used antimicrobials for calf diarrhea made decisions based on systemic signs of disease, presence of bloody stool, no response to previous treatment, or on the recommendation from the herd veterinarian. Producers with a written treatment protocol had 3 to 7 times greater odds of using antimicrobials based on multiple signs or systemic signs of disease compared with those without a protocol. Further research may investigate other calf management practices related to decision-making by producers in using antimicrobials to improve antimicrobial stewardship on dairy farms.

Antibiotic Use in Relation with Psychological Profiles of Farmers of a French Pig Cooperative

(1) Background: We focus on the psychological factors that influence pig farmers’ antibiotic use, which is not exclusively determined by the technical, health and structural factors of livestock farming. (2) Methods: We visited farming sites and asked 91 pig farmers about various psychosocial dimensions that could be considered relevant in explaining antibiotic use. (3) Results: The results indicate the existence of three livestock-farmer sub-profiles, each of which is associated with distinct psychological characteristics and antibiotic use levels. (4) Conclusions: We discuss the implications of antibiotic use for livestock in terms of communication and support.

The antimicrobial landscape as outlined by Danish dairy farmers

Limiting antimicrobial use (AMU) in dairy farming is an important step toward reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Therefore, it is relevant to understand dairy farmers' choices and the potential for change in relation to AMU, even in countries with low usage. Furthermore, there is an increasing recognition of the need to focus on both the individual farmer's behavior as well as the context surrounding and influencing the farmer's decisions in relation to AMU if the goal is further reduction. To date, no studies have taken into account both the individual farmer and their context in both conventional and organic dairy farms under Danish conditions. For this study, 15 Danish dairy farmers were interviewed using qualitative semi-structured research interviews, and the notion of landscape was used to describe the context of their AMU. We found that AMR was considered a distant element of the farmers' antimicrobial landscape. Daily challenges such as acutely diseased animals and poor housing conditions seemed more urgent and overruled the threat of AMR. We also found that interviewed farmers had differing opinions on farm management, partly shaped by changes in legislation and ways of farming over time. At one end of the scale, some organic farmers had rethought the current way of farming; keeping robust animals in a natural setting was expected to prevent disease. They were positive about legislation, and the numerous restrictions on AMU over time were thought to contribute to ensuring quality for consumers. At the other end of the scale, some conventional farmers perceived disease as something that should be controlled through treatment, and the currently eased legislation and intensification of farming have legitimatized AMU for this purpose, leading to an expectation among these farmers of certain rights to handle medicines themselves. These contrasting views might lead to inspiration and competition in terms of reducing AMU, as the farmers appeared to value the opinions of other farmers, and they were found to continuously assess each other. Through such ongoing assessment, pioneers of AMU reduction-whether organic or conventional-might motivate their colleagues to change their AMU. Future research should address the potential of experience- and attitude-sharing among farmers as motivation to reduce AMU.

A Retrospective, Observational Study on Antimicrobial Drug Use in Beef Fattening Operations in Northwestern Italy and Evaluation of Risk Factors Associated with Increased Antimicrobial Usage

Simple Summary

Antimicrobial usage in veterinary medicine is thought to be a source of antimicrobial resistance, with possible implications for human health. Certain antibiotics are considered critical for human health, and their use is being judiciously reduced in animal productions. The monitoring of antimicrobial consumption in animal production is key to lowering the risk of the development of antimicrobial resistance. With this study, we quantified antimicrobial usage in beef fattening operations in northwestern Italy before the implementation of a program intended to control antimicrobial usage in veterinary medicine. We found that antimicrobials defined as critical for human health (e.g., fluroquinolones) were often used also for metaphylactic treatment.

Abstract

The abuse or misuse of antimicrobials in animal production is thought to be a potential factor in the development of antimicrobial resistance in veterinary and human medicine. With this study, we wanted to quantify antimicrobial usage in beef fattening operations in northwestern Italy and to identify factors potentially influencing antimicrobial usage. The sample was composed of 26 beef fattening operations that import heifers and bulls from France. Data were extracted from the 2014 and 2015 treatment registers kept by the farmers. The mean (±SD) number of animal daily doses per animal (nADDa) per year for each farm was 3 (±2.1) during the study period (2014–2015). Group antimicrobial treatments (57.5% of all treatments) were often administered orally (70.5%) and consisted overwhelmingly of doxycycline (97%). Individual treatments (42.5% of all treatments) were administered parenterally (98.1%) and the most often used active substances were florfenicol (19.9%), marbofloxacin (19.5%), and tylosin (12.4%). There was a negative correlation between the nADDa for total and group treatments and average batch weight at arrival and between the amount of straw added per animal per day and the nADDa (p ≤ 0.05). Our data show that antimicrobials critical for human medicine were often used in beef fattening operations in northwestern Italy before the European guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine were issued. Additionally, the use of antimicrobials as a preventive group treatment was still widespread, mostly in lighter weight animals.

A Focus Group Study of Canadian Dairy Farmers' Attitudes and Social Referents on Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance

As part of broader actions to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR), health authorities have promoted the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU) in food animals. Farmers' attitudes and receptivity to reduction of AMU appear to be variable and context specific. Our research objectives were to gain insight into Canadian dairy farmers' attitudes toward AMU, AMR, and AMU-reduction in the dairy industry, and to explore drivers and barriers to change AMU, including the influence of social referents. We conducted seven focus groups with 42 farmers in two provinces of Canada (New Brunswick and Ontario) and used thematic analysis to identify, analyze, and report patterns in the data. Our results indicate that farmers usually rely on their previous experience and judgement of individual cases of disease when making decisions related to AMU. External referents included other farmers, family members, and veterinarians. However, veterinarians were generally only consulted for unusual cases. Participants in this study expressed that maintaining cattle welfare is their responsibility, and that they were not willing to jeopardize animal welfare in order to reduce AMU. In addition, farmers regarded the cost of investment in improved facilities to prevent disease as an important barrier to reduce AMU. Finally, the majority of participants considered themselves to be low users of antimicrobials and perceived a small role of AMU on dairy farms in AMR. In conclusion, farmers from this study showed self-reliance to decide about AMU on their farms and considered animal-related and economic factors in these decisions. There was a general lack of knowledge of how to reduce AMU without investing in facilities, and there is an opportunity to motivate increased involvement of the veterinarian in AMU-related decisions. These results should be considered to design and refine antimicrobial stewardship programs for dairy farms.

Income compensation options and partial budget analysis following a reduction of antimicrobial sales at the veterinary practice level

Over the years, the excessive consumption of antimicrobials (AM) by animals and humans has become a major concern at the global level, and several studies have highlighted the link between antimicrobial use (AMU) and antimicrobial resistance. Previous studies showed that, in Switzerland, every calf in the fattening process received in average seven days of AM treatment, and mainly oral group treatments. Therefore, policies to reduce the consumption of AM among veal calves should be implemented and promoted to decrease AM pressure on the microbiome. This study aimed to assess how a potential loss of income due to a reduction of AM prescriptions and sales in the Swiss veal calves sector could potentially be compensated. Partial budget models at the veterinary practice level were built to evaluate the effect on the net profit of veterinary practices, following four different national policy interventions that aim to reduce AM prescriptions for veal calves. The best-case scenarios resulted in a positive net profit. The scenarios assuming complete loss of profit from AM sales resulted in very low or negative net profit. Therefore, without financial support (e.g. through the government or other entities), veterinarians are likely to find it difficult to fully compensate the economic losses. At the practice level, income compensation mechanisms require a fundamental change of the business model. New model should be largely independent of pharmaceutical sales and should promote paid counselling on herd health management.