• 1.

    Gorbach SL. Antimicrobial use in animal feed—time to stop. N Engl J Med 2001;345:12021203.

  • 2.

    McKellar QA. Antimicrobial resistance: a veterinary perspective. Antimicrobials are important for animal welfare but need to be used prudently. BMJ 1998;317:610611.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Holmberg SD, Osterholm MT, Senger KA, et al. Drug-resistant S enterica from animals fed antimicrobials. N Engl J Med 1984;311:617622.

  • 4.

    Lipsitch M, Samore MH. Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance: a population perspective. Emerg Infect Dis 2002;8:347354.

  • 5.

    Dunne EF, Fey PD, Kludt P, et al. Emergence of domestically acquired ceftriaxone-resistant S enterica infections associated with AmpC beta-lactamase. JAMA 2000;284:31513156.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Sawant AA, Sordillo LM, Jayarao BM. A survey on antibiotic usage in dairy herds in Pennsylvania. J Dairy Sci 2005;88:29912999.

  • 7.

    Pol M, Ruegg PL. Treatment practices and quantification of antimicrobial drug usage in conventional and organic dairy farms in Wisconsin. J Dairy Sci 2007;90:249261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    US FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for industry: evaluating the safety of antimicrobial new animal drugs with regard to their microbiological effects on bacteria of human health concern. Published guidance document No. 152. Rockville, Md: US FDA, 2003. Available at: www.fda.gov/cvm/Documents/fguide152.doc. Accessed Nov 5, 2005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Angulo FJ, Johnson KR, Tauxe RV, et al. Origins and consequences of antimicrobial-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella: implications for the use of fluoroquinolones in food animals. Microb Drug Resist 2000;6:7783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    USDA Agricultural Research Service. Bacterial epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System: enteric bacteria. 2005 veterinary isolates final report. Washington, DC: USDA Agricultural Research Service, 2008. Available at: ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=16598. Accessed Feb 12, 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    CDC. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System: enteric bacteria. 2004 human isolates final report. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2007.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Carattoli A, Tosini F, Giles WP, et al. Characterization of plasmids carrying CMY-2 from expanded-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant S enterica strains isolated in the United States between 1996 and 1998. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:12691272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Winokur PL, Brueggemann A, DeSalvo DL, et al. Animal and human multidrug-resistant, cephalosporin-resistant S enterica isolates expressing a plasmid-mediated CMY-2 AmpC beta-lactamase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:27772783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Lowrance TC, Loneragan GH, Kunze DJ, et al. Changes in antimicrobial susceptibility in a population of Escherichia coli isolated from feedlot cattle administered ceftiofur crystalline-free acid. Am J Vet Res 2007;68:501507.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Tragesser LA, Wittum TE, Funk JA, et al. Association between ceftiofur use and isolation of Escherichia coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone from fecal samples of dairy cows. Am J Vet Res 2006;67:16961700.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Fecteau ME, House JK, Kotarski SF, et al. Efficacy of ceftiofur for treatment of experimental salmonellosis in neonatal calves. Am J Vet Res 2003;64:918925.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Donaldson SC, Straley BA, Hegde NV, et al. Molecular epidemiology of ceftiofur-resistant Escherichia coli isolates from dairy calves. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006;72:39403948.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Giles WP, Benson AK, Olson ME, et al. DNA sequence analysis of regions surrounding blaCMY-2 from multiple S enterica plasmid backbones. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004;48:28452852.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Winokur PL, Vonstein DL, Hoffman LJ, et al. Evidence for transfer of CMY-2 AmpC beta-lactamase plasmids between Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolates from food animals and humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45:27162722.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Huston CL, Wittum TE, Love BC, et al. Prevalence of fecal shedding of Salmonella spp in dairy herds. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:645649.

  • 21.

    Jiang X, Yang H, Dettman B, et al. Analysis of fecal microbial flora for antibiotic resistance in ceftiofur-treated calves. Food-borne Pathog Dis 2006;3:355365.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Identification of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica organisms with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone from fecal samples of cows in dairy herds

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
  • | 2 Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
  • | 3 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Division of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
  • | 4 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
  • | 5 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
  • | 6 Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Abstract

Objective—To estimate the relationship between therapeutic use of ceftiofur and recovery of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone from feces of dairy cattle.

Animals—3,840 mature dairy cows on 50 dairy herds in Ohio.

Procedures—Fecal samples were obtained from up to 100 mature dairy cows on each farm. Samples were screened for E coli and Salmonella spp with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone by use of selective media.

ResultsE coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone was recovered from 92% (46/50) of the herds and 60.9% (2,338/3,840) of cows. Salmonella spp were recovered from 44% (22/50) of the herds and 9.9% (382/3,840) of cows. No association was found between ceftiofur use and recovery of E coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone at the herd level. However, recovery of E coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone was more likely from cows in herds in which Salmonella spp were also recovered on the day of collection (odds ratio, 24.96; 95% confidence interval, 3.17 to 196.68) than from herds in which Salmonella spp were not recovered. Odds of recovery of E coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone from an individual cow increased 62% (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 2.25) for every 454-kg increase in herd milk production.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—No evidence was found that the use of ceftiofur on dairy farms increases the prevalence or dissemination of Salmonella spp or E coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone.

Abstract

Objective—To estimate the relationship between therapeutic use of ceftiofur and recovery of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone from feces of dairy cattle.

Animals—3,840 mature dairy cows on 50 dairy herds in Ohio.

Procedures—Fecal samples were obtained from up to 100 mature dairy cows on each farm. Samples were screened for E coli and Salmonella spp with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone by use of selective media.

ResultsE coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone was recovered from 92% (46/50) of the herds and 60.9% (2,338/3,840) of cows. Salmonella spp were recovered from 44% (22/50) of the herds and 9.9% (382/3,840) of cows. No association was found between ceftiofur use and recovery of E coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone at the herd level. However, recovery of E coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone was more likely from cows in herds in which Salmonella spp were also recovered on the day of collection (odds ratio, 24.96; 95% confidence interval, 3.17 to 196.68) than from herds in which Salmonella spp were not recovered. Odds of recovery of E coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone from an individual cow increased 62% (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 2.25) for every 454-kg increase in herd milk production.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—No evidence was found that the use of ceftiofur on dairy farms increases the prevalence or dissemination of Salmonella spp or E coli with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone.

Contributor Notes

Supported by USDA/CSREES/IREE project No. 2004-51110-02155.

Address correspondence to Dr. Heider.