Herd-level prevalence of bovine leukemia virus, Salmonella Dublin and Neospora caninum in Alberta, Canada, dairy herds using ELISA on bulk tank milk samples.

Endemic infectious diseases remain a major challenge for dairy producers worldwide. For effective disease control programs, up-to-date prevalence estimates are of utmost importance. The objective of this study was to estimate the herd-level prevalence of bovine leukemia virus (BLV), Salmonella Dublin, and Neospora caninum in dairy herds in Alberta, Canada using a serial cross-sectional study design. Bulk tank milk samples from all Alberta dairy farms were collected 4 times, in December 2021 (n = 489), April 2022 (n = 487), July 2022 (n = 487), and October 2022 (n = 480), and tested for antibodies against BLV, S. Dublin, and N. caninum using ELISAs. Herd-level apparent prevalence was calculated as positive samples divided by total tested samples at each time point. A mixed effect modified Poisson regression model was employed to assess the association of prevalence with region, herd size, herd type, and type of milking system. Apparent prevalence of BLV was 89.4, 88.7, 86.9 and 86.9% in December, April, July, and October, respectively, whereas for S. Dublin apparent prevalence was 11.2, 6.6, 8.6, and 8.5%, and for N. caninum apparent prevalence was 18.2, 7.4, 7.8, and 15.0%. For BLV, S. Dublin and N. caninum, a total of 91.7, 15.6, and 28.1% of herds, respectively, were positive at least once, whereas 82.5, 3.6, and 3.0% of herds were ELISA-positive at all 4 times. Compared with the north region, central Alberta had a high prevalence (prevalence ratio (PR) = 1.13) of BLV-antibody positive herds, whereas south Alberta had a high prevalence (PR = 2.56) of herds positive for S. Dublin antibodies. Furthermore, central (PR = 0.52) and south regions (PR = 0.46) had low prevalence of N. caninum-positive herds compared with the north. Hutterite colony herds were more frequently BLV-positive (PR = 1.13) but less frequently N. caninum-positive (PR = 0.47). Large herds (>7,200 L/day milk delivered ∼ > 250 cows) were 1.1 times more often BLV-positive, whereas small herds (≤3,600 L/day milk delivered ∼ ≤ 125 cows) were 3.2 times more often N. caninum-positive. For S. Dublin, Hutterite-colony herds were less frequently (PR = 0.07) positive than non-colony herds only in medium and large stratum but not in small stratum. Moreover, larger herds were more frequently (PR = 2.20) S. Dublin-positive than smaller herds only in non-colony stratum but not in colony stratum. Moreover, N. caninum prevalence was 1.6 times higher on farms with conventional milking systems compared with farms with an automated milking system. These results provide up-to-date information of the prevalence of these infections that will inform investigations of within-herd prevalence of these infections and help in devising evidence-based disease control strategies.

Adoption and decision factors regarding selective treatment of clinical mastitis on Canadian dairy farms.

As clinical mastitis (CM) treatments are responsible for a large portion of antimicrobial use on dairy farms, many selective CM treatment protocols have been developed and evaluated against a blanket treatment approach of CM cases. Selective treatment protocols use outcomes of diagnostic tests to exclude CM cases from antimicrobial treatment when they are unlikely to benefit. To tailor interventions to increase uptake of selective treatment strategies, a comprehension of current on-farm treatment practices and factors affecting treatment decisions is vital. Two questionnaires were conducted among 142 farms across 5 provinces participating in the Canadian Dairy Network for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Resistance in this cross-sectional study. Self-reported adoption of selective CM treatments by dairy farmers was 64%, with median of 82% of cows treated in those herds using selective treatment. Using logistic regression models, the odds to implement a selective CM treatment protocol increased with a decreasing average cow somatic cell count. No other associations were identified between use of a selective CM treatment protocol and farm characteristics (herd size, CM incidence, province, milking system, and housing system). Three subsets of farmers making cow-level CM treatment decisions were identified using a cluster analysis approach: those who based decisions almost exclusively on severity of clinical signs, those who used various udder health indicators, and farmers who also incorporated more general cow information such as production, age, and genetics. When somatic cell count was considered, the median threshold used for treating was >300,000 cells/mL at the last Dairy Herd Improvement test. Various thresholds were present among those considering CM case history. Veterinary laboratories were most frequently used for bacteriological testing. Test results were used to start, change, and stop treatments. Regardless of protocol, reasons for antimicrobial treatment withheld included cow being on a cull list, having a chronic intramammary infection, or being at end of lactation (i.e., close to dry off). If clinical signs persisted after treatment, farmers indicated that they would ask veterinarians for advice, stop treatment, or continue with the same or different antibiotics. Results of this study can be used to design interventions targeting judicious mastitis-related antimicrobial use, and aid discussions between veterinarians and dairy producers regarding CM-related antimicrobial use.

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.

Quantifying antimicrobial use on Canadian dairy farms using garbage can audits.

Antimicrobial resistance in pathogenic bacteria is one of the preeminent concerns for the future of global health. There is a dose-dependent relationship between antimicrobial use (AMU) and the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. As most AMU in Canada is related to animal agriculture, there is a need to reduce overall AMU, which could be accomplished through surveillance of AMU in animal agriculture, including the dairy industry. The objective of this study was to quantify AMU on dairy farms across Canada. This study had two parts: a description of data collected in 2019-2020, and a meta-analysis comparing this data to previous estimates of AMU in the Canadian dairy industry. The first included a garbage can audit (GCA) on 107 farms in four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia) in 2020; AMU data were converted to the dose-based metrics of defined course doses (DCD) and defined daily doses (DDD). Mixed-effect linear models were fit to determine the relationship between province and use of different classes of antimicrobials. On average, for every 100 animals on the farm, 117 DCD of antimicrobials were administered per year (IQR: 55, 158). These treatments amounted to 623 DDD / 100 animal-yr (IQR: 302, 677 DDD/100 animal-years). Penicillins were the most used class of antimicrobials, followed by first-and third-generation cephalosporins. Farms in Ontario used more third-generation cephalosporins than other provinces. The second part of this study compared AMU in 2020 to previously reported Canadian studies through a meta-analysis. A GCA was conducted in 2007-2008 in Alberta, Ontario, Québec, and the Maritime provinces (Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia); another GCA was conducted in Québec in 2018. Overall, AMU was lower in 2018-2020 than in 2007-2008, with the exception of third-generation cephalosporin use, which increased.

Antimicrobial and teat sealant use and selection criteria at dry-off on Canadian dairy farms.

Infections with antimicrobial resistant pathogens are a major threat to human and animal health worldwide. Further, reduction of livestock-associated antimicrobial use (AMU) is often identified as an area of focus. Selective dry cow therapy (DCT) warrants consideration as an important way to decrease AMU on Canadian dairy farms. In addition, teat sealants (TS) are a nonantimicrobial alternative for prevention of intramammary infection during the dry period. Therefore, objectives of this study were to determine how antimicrobials and TS are used at dry-off on Canadian dairy farms to determine selective DCT uptake and enacted selection protocols. It was expected that these data will provide a baseline understanding of DCT practices and highlight areas for future intervention to further reduce AMU. An observational study was conducted utilizing 2 in-person questionnaires conducted between July 2019 and September 2021 on 144 participating dairy farms in 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia = 30, Alberta = 30, Ontario = 31, Québec = 29, and Nova Scotia = 24). Overall, 45 farms (31%) reported adopting selective DCT, 95 (66%) enacted blanket DCT, and 4 (3%) did not provide antimicrobial DCT. Farms enacting selective DCT had approximately 50% less intramammary antimicrobials used at dry-off compared with blanket DCT farms. Cow somatic cell count history was the most common criterion for selective DCT decision-making, followed by previous clinical mastitis history, bacteriological culture, and milk production. A slight majority of farms (56%) applied TS to all cows at dry-off, whereas 17 farms (12%) used TS selectively, and 46 farms (32%) did not use TS. Larger herds more often used TS, and farms with an automatic milking system more often used TS selectively than applied to all cows. Results highlighted the variability in antimicrobial treatment and TS use protocols at dry-off on Canadian dairy farms, and the potential for further antimicrobial reduction with increased adoption of selective DCT.

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.

Contextualized understandings of dairy farmers' perspectives on antimicrobial use and regulation in Alberta, Canada.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been largely attributed to antimicrobial use (AMU). To achieve judicious AMU, much research and many policies focus on knowledge translation and behavioral change mechanisms. To address knowledge gaps in contextual drivers of decisions made by dairy farmers concerning AMU, we conducted ethnographic fieldwork to investigate one community's understanding of AMU, AMR, and associated regulations in the dairy industry in Alberta, Canada. This included participation in on-farm activities and observations of relevant interactions on dairy farms in central Alberta for 4 mo. Interviews were conducted with 25 dairy farmers. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and yielded several key findings. Many dairy farmers in this sample: (1) value their autonomy and hope to maintain agency regarding AMU; (2) have shared cultural and immigrant identities which may inform their perspectives of future AMU regulation as it relates to their farming autonomy; (3) feel that certain AMU policies implemented in other contexts would be impractical in Alberta and would constrain their freedom to make what they perceive to be the best animal welfare decisions; (4) believe that their knowledge and experience are undervalued by consumers and policy makers; (5) are concerned that the public does not have a complex understanding of dairy farming and, consequently, worry that AMU policy will be based on misguided consumer concerns; and (6) are variably skeptical of a link between AMU in dairy cattle and AMR in humans due to their strict adherence to milk safety protocols that is driven by their genuine care for the integrity of the product. A better understanding of the sociocultural and political-economic infrastructure that supports such perceptions is warranted and should inform efforts to improve AMU stewardship and future policies regarding AMU.

Selective treatment of nonsevere clinical mastitis does not adversely affect cure, somatic cell count, milk yield, recurrence, or culling: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Treatment of clinical mastitis (CM) contributes to antimicrobial use on dairy farms. Selective treatment of CM based on bacterial diagnosis can reduce antimicrobial use, as not all cases of CM will benefit from antimicrobial treatment, e.g., mild and moderate gram-negative infections. However, impacts of selective CM treatment on udder health and culling are not fully understood. A systematic search identified 13 studies that compared selective versus blanket CM treatment protocols. Reported outcomes were synthesized with random-effects models and presented as risk ratios or mean differences. Selective CM treatment protocol was not inferior to blanket CM treatment protocol for the outcome bacteriological cure. Noninferiority margins could not be established for the outcomes clinical cure, new intramammary infection, somatic cell count, milk yield, recurrence, or culling. However, no differences were detected between selective and blanket CM treatment protocols using traditional analyses, apart from a not clinically relevant increase in interval from treatment to clinical cure (0.4 d) in the selective group and higher proportion of clinical cure at 14 d in the selective group. The latter occurred in studies co-administering nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories only in the selective group. Bias could not be ruled out in most studies due to suboptimal randomization, although this would likely only affect subjective outcomes such as clinical cure. Hence, findings were supported by a high or moderate certainty of evidence for all outcome measures except clinical cure. In conclusion, this review supported the assertion that a selective CM treatment protocol can be adopted without adversely influencing bacteriological and clinical cure, somatic cell count, milk yield, and incidence of recurrence or culling.

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

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.

Crossover-Use of Human Antibiotics in Livestock in Agricultural Communities: A Qualitative Cross-Country Comparison between Uganda, Tanzania and India.

Antibiotic use in animal agriculture contributes significantly to antibiotic use globally and is a key driver of the rising threat of antibiotic resistance. It is becoming increasingly important to better understand antibiotic use in livestock in low-and-middle income countries where antibiotic use is predicted to increase considerably as a consequence of the growing demand for animal-derived products. Antibiotic crossover-use refers to the practice of using antibiotic formulations licensed for humans in animals and vice versa. This practice has the potential to cause adverse drug reactions and contribute to the development and spread of antibiotic resistance between humans and animals. We performed secondary data analysis of in-depth interview and focus-group discussion transcripts from independent studies investigating antibiotic use in agricultural communities in Uganda, Tanzania and India to understand the practice of antibiotic crossover-use by medicine-providers and livestock-keepers in these settings. Thematic analysis was conducted to explore driving factors of reported antibiotic crossover-use in the three countries. Similarities were found between countries regarding both the accounts of antibiotic crossover-use and its drivers. In all three countries, chickens and goats were treated with human antibiotics, and among the total range of human antibiotics reported, amoxicillin, tetracycline and penicillin were stated as used in animals in all three countries. The key themes identified to be driving crossover-use were: (1) medicine-providers' and livestock-keepers' perceptions of the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics, (2) livestock-keepers' sources of information, (3) differences in availability of human and veterinary services and antibiotics, (4) economic incentives and pressures. Antibiotic crossover-use occurs in low-intensity production agricultural settings in geographically distinct low-and-middle income countries, influenced by a similar set of interconnected contextual drivers. Improving accessibility and affordability of veterinary medicines to both livestock-keepers and medicine-providers is required alongside interventions to address understanding of the differences between human and animal antibiotics, and potential dangers of antibiotic crossover-use in order to reduce the practice. A One Health approach to studying antibiotic use is necessary to understand the implications of antibiotic accessibility and use in one sector upon antibiotic use in other sectors.

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.

Knowledge Gaps in the Understanding of Antimicrobial Resistance in Canada.

Current limitations in the understanding and control of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Canada are described through a comprehensive review focusing on: (1) treatment optimization; (2) surveillance of antimicrobial use and AMR; and (3) prevention of transmission of AMR. Without addressing gaps in identified areas, sustained progress in AMR mitigation is unlikely. Expert opinions and perspectives contributed to prioritizing identified gaps. Using Canada as an example, this review emphasizes the importance and necessity of a One Health approach for understanding and mitigating AMR. Specifically, antimicrobial use in human, animal, crop, and environmental sectors cannot be regarded as independent; therefore, a One Health approach is needed in AMR research and understanding, current surveillance efforts, and policy. Discussions regarding addressing described knowledge gaps are separated into four categories: (1) further research; (2) increased capacity/resources; (3) increased prescriber/end-user knowledge; and (4) policy development/enforcement. This review highlights the research and increased capacity and resources to generate new knowledge and implement recommendations needed to address all identified gaps, including economic, social, and environmental considerations. More prescriber/end-user knowledge and policy development/enforcement are needed, but must be informed by realistic recommendations, with input from all relevant stakeholders. For most knowledge gaps, important next steps are uncertain. In conclusion, identified knowledge gaps underlined the need for AMR policy decisions to be considered in a One Health framework, while highlighting critical needs to achieve realistic and meaningful progress.

Unsafe "crossover-use" of chloramphenicol in Uganda: importance of a One Health approach in antimicrobial resistance policy and regulatory action.

Since the introduction of antibiotics into mainstream health care, resistance to these drugs has become a widespread issue that continues to increase worldwide. Policy decisions to mitigate the development of antimicrobial resistance are hampered by the current lack of surveillance data on antibiotic product availability and use in low-income countries. This study collected data on the antibiotics stocked in human (42) and veterinary (21) drug shops in five sub-counties in Luwero district of Uganda. Focus group discussions with drug shop vendors were also employed to explore antibiotic use practices in the community. Focus group participants reported that farmers used human-intended antibiotics for their livestock, and community members obtain animal-intended antibiotics for their own personal human use. Specifically, chloramphenicol products licensed for human use were being administered to Ugandan poultry. Human consumption of chloramphenicol residues through local animal products represents a serious public health concern. By limiting the health sector scope of antimicrobial resistance research to either human or animal antibiotic use, results can falsely inform policy and intervention strategies. Therefore, a One Health approach is required to understand the wider impact of community antibiotic use and improve overall effectiveness of intervention policy and regulatory action.