Due to small numbers in each category, organic, natural, NHTC and/or ASV status were combined to represent how management specific to a target consumer may influence AMR patterns overall. Pasture-based forage is common in California, with livestock grazing being California’s most extensive land use , but details on dryland versus irrigated pasture for beef cow-calf herds have not been reported. The types of diseases most treated with antimicrobials reported in our survey, namely pinkeye, respiratory disease, foot rot and scours, concur with prior data reported in a large survey on antimicrobial use on California cow-calf operations . Use of antimicrobials in feed is an uncommon practice in cow-calf herds and mastitis is not nearly as common in beef as in dairy production systems, so it is not surprising that these practices were not common amongst the farms surveyed. In addition, in California, veterinary oversight is required for the purchase and use of all medically important antimicrobials, which may explain the high percentage of farms that reported having a veterinarian-client-patient relationship . Of the E. coli isolates, approximately 36% were resistant or non-susceptible to at least one antimicrobial, excluding ampicillin, to which all isolates were resistant. AMR of E. coli in cattle or ruminants to various antimicrobials has been observed by other authors to varying degrees, but it is not always clear how resistant status is established. For example, vertical cannabis one study from Malaysia found 61.9% of E. coli isolated from diseased ruminants to be resistant to trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole compared to 4.9% in our study, 69% resistant totetracycline compared to 13.1% non-susceptible in our study, 54.1% resistant to amoxicillin, compared to 100% resistant to ampicillin in our study .
Discrepancies may be due to the choice of breakpoint to establish resistant status, meaning that a breakpoint can be chosen based on the species or it can be chosen based on the most similar bacteria for which there is an established breakpoint, both of which are routine practices and depend on the context of the study. Variations in results can also stem from the fact that diseased animals are more likely to have been treated with antimicrobials before isolation of the pathogen or because antimicrobial drug use patterns may vary between countries or regions. Ampicillin had the highest proportion of resistant isolates of E. coli , which was surprising, especially since none of the participating ranches reported any ampicillin use. In this study, a breakpoint of ≥0.25 μg/mL indicating resistance was chosen based on the veterinary literature for ampicillin resistance for treatment of metritis in cattle due to E. coli from VET CLSI. By contrast, the human breakpoint is ≥32 μg/mL indicating resistance. The most common MIC for ampicillin in this study was 4 μg/mL . The lowest prevalence of resistance or non-susceptibility for E. coli of all included antimicrobials was for ceftiofur , which was also only used by one of the enrolled farms. Restrictions were placed on extra-label cephalosporin use by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 which aimed to decrease their use in livestock . The ampicillin breakpoint used in this study for Enterococcus was ≥16μg/mL indicating resistance. Although dramatically different from the breakpoint for E. coli, this human breakpoint was selected due to available data and differences between antibacterial spectrum and bacterium type. As no veterinary breakpoint is available for this bacterium/antimicrobial combination, the human breakpoint wasselected as outlined in the methods, resulting in only 1 resistant Enterococcus isolate to ampicillin. Second to ampicillin, the most common drugs for which E. coli was resistant or non-susceptible were sulfadimethoxine and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.
A 2016 study of AMR in beef cattle found no associations between the prevalence of resistance of E. coli isolates to tetracycline, third generation cephalosporin, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and history of antimicrobial treatment with either ceftiofur or other antimicrobials . The authors conclude that mixing of treated and non-treated cattle may mask the effect of treatment or that animal-level effects due to treatment are short-lived. However, both ceftiofur and sulfa treatments were uncommon in our study population so that neither hypothesis would explain the prevalence of AMR to this class of antimicrobial observed. Florfenicol is a relatively new antimicrobial and limited published, peer-reviewed data exist on resistance profiles. It was first approved for use in cattle in 1998 . In this study, 2 animals had a history of being treated with florfenicol and 9 farms indicated that they use it on farm. For E. coli, there were 47 non-susceptible isolates to florfenicol, which was the drug with the third highest AMR prevalence, behind ampicillin and sulfadimethoxine. Reports of increasing AMR to florfenicol in Enterobacteriaceae exist in the literature. In addition to antibiotic use, mobile genetic elements and horizontal gene transfer are speculated to play a role in the replication of AMR genes resulting in the observed trend of AMR to florfenicol . Future research should also investigate genetic elements linked with phenotypic resistance to AMR to florfenicol in enteric bacteria from cow-calf operations to increase understanding of potential factors resulting in higher prevalence of AMR to this drug. Historically, bacterial resistance to tetracycline has had a high prevalence . In the present study, E. coli and Enterococcus isolates had a similar, relatively low proportion of isolates resistant to tetracycline, but Enterococcus isolates showed the highest proportion of non-susceptibility to this drug. No biologically relevant survey variables regarding farm description, animal management, or herd level antimicrobial use were significantly associated with AMR in our models while accounting for correlation between isolates from the same animal. Additionally, controlling for correlation between isolates from the same farm led to unstable models with non-positive G matrices indicating a lack of variation in the additional random effect. However, given the high prevalence of AMR at one of the farms, there may be exposures at farm or animal level associated with AMR that were not captured by this survey.
Calves have been shown to carry more AMR bacteria than cows in previous studies , however calves in two of those studies were less than 4weeks old. In contrast, calves in our study were up to one year old, and the bacterial AMR profile in neonates may differ from that of older calves. In dairy calves, antimicrobials may be used more often to treat and prevent disease, but in beef calves, the link is less clear. One hypothesis to explain AMR bacteria shed from calves is that AMR is acquired through other routes, such as genetic linkage or direct transfer from cows and may not be associated with antimicrobial use on farm. Another study found the frequency of water trough cleaning and size of operation were significantly associated with AMR prevalence . Although water trough cleaning was not significantly associated with AMR in our study, MFA analysis showed both water trough cleaning and whether or not farms used bleach to clean water troughs to be two of the variables contributing most to data variability. Other factors that have been found to be statistically significantly linked to AMR in other studies but were not explored in this study include spring versus fall born calves and proximity to dairy farms . None of the farms in the present study were within one mile of a dairy farm and spring versus fall calves was not examined. Antimicrobial use on farm has been suggested as a contributing factor for the development of AMR, but several studies have indicated that resistance is multifactorial and develops regardless of exposure or use of particular antimicrobials on farm , findings that may be substantiated by the results of this study. In addition, there is evidence that some AMR genes may be co-selected or have genetic linkages , in which resistance to one antimicrobial is genetically linked to resistance to a different antimicrobial and transferred either vertically or horizontally together . Alternatively, antimicrobial use in the cow-calf sector may not exert high enough selective pressures on bacterial populations to drive AMR. Multiple factor analysis showed that herd information and nutrition related factors accounted for approximately 52% of the total variance in the data. Several studies have shown herd health in farming systems, herd management,bio-security, population density, weed curing and external pressures to be linked to antimicrobial use . Previous studies reported an association between farm management factors and the prevalence of AMR in E. coli isolates . Markland et al. found that regular cleaning of water troughs and the addition of ionophores to feed were associated with a reduction in prevalence of cefotaxime resistant bacteria in fecal samples of beef cattle on grazing farms in Florida. Beef cattle require several minerals for optimal growth, health, and reproduction. Mineral deficiency may result in anemia, depressed immunity and increased opportunity for bacterial growth and dissemination of resistant bacteria . On the other hand, elevated heavy metal supplementation may co-select for antimicrobial resistance of fecal E. coli and Enterococcus spp. . A recent scientific report showed that synthetic smectite clay minerals and Fe-sulfide microspheres have antimicrobial properties and kill antibiotic resistant bacteria including E. coli and Enterococcus spp. but we did not inquire about the use of these products.
In addition, MFA in this study showed that farm level antimicrobial use, disease treatment, and antimicrobial dosing and record keeping practices accounted for 46% of the total variability in the study data. Similarly, a survey study of antimicrobial use in adult cows on California dairies found that antimicrobial stewardship practices, antimicrobial usage information, and producer perceptions of AMR on dairies accounted for 32.3% of the total variability in the survey data. On the other hand, the sampled animals’ life stage and antimicrobial treatment history and in particular the antimicrobial resistance data contributed to a lesser degree to data variability. Given that AMR seemed less variable than other factors describing the animals and farms in the data set, it is not surprising that statistical models were unable to find associations between AMR and animal or farm related factors. Overall, the MFA analysis identified important differences between herds that can be considered in studies that investigate the risk and the associations between farm practices and AMR of fecal bacteria. Cluster analysis identified some potential regional differences in management practices and antimicrobial use information among cow-calf operations in northern California since the Coastal Range was only represented by two clusters. The cause of the differences could be due to variable access to information or rancher education or due to the influence of veterinarians in the Coastal Range. One limitation for this study includes the use of a convenience sample of farms that could have introduced bias because the group of farms that are associated with the University of California teaching hospital or extension agents may have similar management tendencies. They could represent farms that have more progressive management, are more attentive to animal health and/or more willing to treat or may be more likely to adhere to legislation regarding antimicrobial use and antimicrobial stewardship. This is a significant factor to consider and, if true, could have biased the study either toward the null because of less antimicrobial use overall or away from the null because these producers may be more likely to watch carefully, identify, and treat any disease conditions that warrant antimicrobials. In addition to selection of farms, selection of animals for sampling was not random, as sampling is logistically challenging in a cow-calf setting. The animals sampled were either being put through the chute for another reason , were physically closest to the chute, or were the easiest animals to collect for sampling . Some other challenges associated with sampling in this system include limited animal identification, treatment records, and animal restraint. Many of the animal health records were based on the farmer’s recollection and therefore are subject to recall bias. In this case, those that were identified as treated were very likely actually treated; however, if a treatment was forgotten, that animal did not have any treatment to associate with AMR isolate status. In addition to logistical challenges, none of the farms put antibiotics in the feed which may have biased this study toward the null; however, it should be noted that this practice is not common in cow-calf operations in California. Finally, the use of human breakpoints for the determination of AMR status when no veterinary breakpoints were available is another limitation, underlining the need for further research into AMR in livestock species. A metagenomic analysis of isolates would have provided further information but was not possible at this time due to financial constraints.Food is essential; its infrastructure, complex.