Cross-Section Observational Study to Assess Antimicrobial Resistance Prevalence among Bovine Respiratory Disease Bacterial Isolates from Commercial US Feedlots.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat that jeopardizes efficacy of antibiotics in veterinary and human medicine. Antibiotics are commonly administered to target the bacterial component of bovine respiratory disease (BRD). The objectives of this study were to obtain a better understanding of antibiotic resistance in BRD-associated bacteria (Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Histophilus somni), investigate the clinical significance of AMR by monitoring clinical outcomes, and determine if regional differences exist in AMR trends. Deep pharyngeal swabs were used to sample beef cattle at initial BRD diagnosis (n = 453) from US feedlots representing three geographic regions. Organisms were identified by bacterial culture and subjected to broth microdilution antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Bacterium prevalence include P. multocida (36.0%), M. haemolytica (32.7%), and H. somni (28.5%). Of the Histophilus isolates, 39.5% were resistant to at least one antimicrobial, compared to 11.7% and 8.8% Pasteurella and Mannheimia, respectively. Non-susceptibility across all organisms was 5.7 X more likely in animals that received metaphylaxis, than those that did not (p < 0.0001; OR 5.7; CI 2.6-12.5). During days on feed 21-40, non-susceptibility of Histophilus was 8.7 X more likely than Mannheimia (p = 0.0002; OR 8.7; CI 2.8 to 27.4) and 6 X more likely than Pasteurella (p = 0.0016; OR 6.0; CI 2.0-18.0).

Bovine anaplasmosis herd prevalence and management practices as risk-factors associated with herd disease status.

Bovine anaplasmosis is a hemolytic disease of cattle caused by Anaplasma marginale which can cause anemia, adult mortality, abortion, and performance reduction. The objectives of this study were to estimate herd-level infection prevalence of bovine anaplasmosis in Kansas cow-calf herds and assess management practices associated with herd infection status. Licensed Kansas veterinarians were randomly selected and provided clientele to generate randomly selected participant herds. Blood samples were collected from 10 mature cows during processing of 925 herds between October 1, 2016 and March 1, 2017. A management survey was completed by 780 herd-owners. Sample status was determined by competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA); operations indicating vaccination for anaplasmosis were tested with A.marginale-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Survey data underwent logistic regression analysis for calculation of odds ratios and confidence intervals. The herd-level prevalence was 52.5 % of cow-calf herds. Prevalence ranged from 19.1 % of herds in Western Kansas to 87.3 % of herds in Eastern Kansas. Vaccinated herds were more likely (OR = 2.38; CI = 1.16-4.85; p =  0.02) to be positive compared to non-vaccinated herds, and herds that utilized insecticide ear-tags were more likely to be positive (OR = 1.9; CI = 1.42-2.55; p < 0.01) compared to herds which do not. Operations that prescribe-burned 21-50 % and >50 % of their pastures were more likely to be test positive, OR = 5.74 (CI = 3 .14-10.51; p < 0.01) and OR = 4.78 (CI = 2.33-10.17; p < 0.01), respectively, than operations that prescribe-burned <20 % of their pastures. In summary, anaplasmosis is present across Kansas beef herds at varied prevalence levels and selected management practices were found to be associated with herd infection status.

Bovine anaplasmosis herd prevalence and management practices as risk-factors associated with herd disease status.

Bovine anaplasmosis is a hemolytic disease of cattle caused by Anaplasma marginale which can cause anemia, adult mortality, abortion, and performance reduction. The objectives of this study were to estimate herd-level infection prevalence of bovine anaplasmosis in Kansas cow-calf herds and assess management practices associated with herd infection status. Licensed Kansas veterinarians were randomly selected and provided clientele to generate randomly selected participant herds. Blood samples were collected from 10 mature cows during processing of 925 herds between October 1, 2016 and March 1, 2017. A management survey was completed by 780 herd-owners. Sample status was determined by competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA); operations indicating vaccination for anaplasmosis were tested with A.marginale-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Survey data underwent logistic regression analysis for calculation of odds ratios and confidence intervals. The herd-level prevalence was 52.5 % of cow-calf herds. Prevalence ranged from 19.1 % of herds in Western Kansas to 87.3 % of herds in Eastern Kansas. Vaccinated herds were more likely (OR=2.38; CI=1.16-4.85; p= 0.02) to be positive compared to non-vaccinated herds, and herds that utilized insecticide ear-tags were more likely to be positive (OR = 1.9; CI = 1.42-2.55; p < 0.01) compared to herds which do not. Operations that prescribe-burned 21-50 % and >50 % of their pastures were more likely to be test positive, OR=5.74 (CI=3 .14-10.51; p < 0.01) and OR=4.78 (CI=2.33-10.17; p < 0.01), respectively, than operations that prescribe-burned <20 % of their pastures. In summary, anaplasmosis is present across Kansas beef herds at varied prevalence levels and selected management practices were found to be associated with herd infection status.

Field study of the comparative efficacy of gamithromycin and tulathromycin for the treatment of undifferentiated bovine respiratory disease complex in beef feedlot calves.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of gamithromycin with that of tulathromycin for the treatment of undifferentiated bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC) in feedlot calves. ANIMALS: 1,049 weaned crossbred beef calves. PROCEDURES: At each of 6 feedlots, newly arrived calves with BRDC were administered a single dose of gamithromycin (6.0 mg/kg, SC; n = 523) or tulathromycin (2.5 mg/kg, SC; 526). Case-fatality and BRDC retreatment rates during the first 120 days after treatment, final body weight, and average daily gain (ADG), were compared between treatments. At 2 feedlots, calves were assigned clinical scores for 10 days after treatment to determine recovery rates for each treatment. Bioequivalence limits for gamithromycin and tulathromycin were calculated for outcomes for which there was no significant difference between treatments. RESULTS: Mean BRDC retreatment rate (17.7%) for calves administered gamithromycin was greater than that (9.0%) for calves administered tulathromycin. Mean case-fatality rate, final body weight, ADG, and clinical score 10 days after treatment did not differ significantly between treatments. Limits for mean differences within which gamithromycin was bioequivalent to tulathromycin were ± 2.4% for case-fatality rate, ± 13 kg for final body weight, and ± 0.1 kg/d for ADG. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Calves administered gamithromycin had a higher BRDC retreatment rate than did calves administered tulathromycin; otherwise, the clinical efficacy did not differ between the 2 treatments for the treatment of BRDC in feedlot calves.

Field study of the comparative efficacy of gamithromycin and tulathromycin for the control of undifferentiated bovine respiratory disease complex in beef feedlot calves at high risk of developing respiratory tract disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of gamithromycin with that of tulathromycin for control of undifferentiated bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC) in feedlot calves. ANIMALS: 2,529 weaned crossbred beef calves. PROCEDURES: At each of 2 feedlots, calves at risk of developing BRDC were administered a single dose of gamithromycin (6.0 mg/kg, SC; n = 1,263) or tulathromycin (2.5 mg/kg, SC; 1,266) metaphylactically. Health (BRDC morbidity, mortality, case-fatality, and retreatment rates) and performance (average daily gain, dry matter intake, and feed-to-gain ratio) outcomes were compared between treatments via classical hypothesis testing. Bioequivalence limits for gamithromycin and tulathromycin were established for outcomes for which no significant difference between treatments was detected. RESULTS: Mean BRDC morbidity rate (31.0%) for calves administered gamithromycin was greater than that (22.9%) for calves administered tulathromycin; otherwise, health and performance did not differ between treatments. Limits for mean differences within which gamithromycin was considered bioequivalent to tulathromycin were ± 10% for BRDC retreatment rate, ± 3.5% for BRDC mortality rate, ± 16% for case-fatality rate, ± 37 kg for final body weight, ± 0.1 kg/d for average daily gain, ± 0.3 kg/d for dry matter intake, and ± 0.7 for feed-to-gain ratio. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The efficacy of gamithromycin did not differ from that of tulathromycin for all outcomes except morbidity rate; calves administered gamithromycin had a higher BRDC morbidity rate than did calves administered tulathromycin. On the basis of the bioequivalence limits established for this dataset, gamithromycin was considered equivalent to tulathromycin for the control of BRDC.

Biocontainment, biosecurity, and security practices in beef feedyards.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the biocontainment, biosecurity, and security practices at beef feedyards in the Central Plains of the United States. DESIGN: Survey. SAMPLE POPULATION: Managers of feedyards in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas that feed beef cattle for finish before slaughter; feedyards had to have an active concentrated animal feeding operation permit with a 1-time capacity of >or= 1,000 cattle. PROCEDURES: A voluntary survey of feedyard personnel was conducted. Identified feedyard personnel were interviewed and responses regarding facility design, security, employees, disease preparedness, feedstuffs, hospital or treatment systems, sanitation, cattle sources, handling of sick cattle, and disposal of carcasses were collected in a database questionnaire. RESULTS: The survey was conducted for 106 feedyards with a 1-time capacity that ranged from 1,300 to 125,000 cattle. Feedyards in general did not have high implementation of biocontainment, biosecurity, or security practices. Smaller feedyards were, in general, less likely to use good practices than were larger feedyards. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results of the survey provided standard practices for biocontainment, biosecurity, and security in feedyards located in Central Plains states. Information gained from the survey results can be used by consulting veterinarians and feedyard managers as a basis for discussion and to target training efforts.