Antimicrobial use on 24 beef farms in Ontario.

Understanding risk factors for antimicrobial resistance requires knowledge of antimicrobial selection pressure. The objectives of this research were to develop methodology for collecting quantitative antimicrobial use information from beef producers in Ontario, to document the types and quantities of antimicrobials reported (for a minimum of 12 mo), and to compare 2 metrics for injectable use reporting. Twenty-four volunteer beef producers were asked to complete a questionnaire, document drug use in a treatment diary, and retain empty medication containers. For injectable antimicrobials, producers recorded approximately 60% of the total use in the treatment diaries; oxytetracycline, penicillin, macrolides, florfenicol, and spectinomycin were used in the greatest quantities. Based on estimated weights of active ingredients (calculated according to number of animals exposed, duration, and average dose per day) the antimicrobials most commonly used in feed were monensin, tylosin, lasalocid, and tetracyclines. The antimicrobials most commonly used in water were lincomycin-spectinomycin, chlortetracycline, and oxytetracycline. Based on estimated weights and measured quantities, < 1% of antimicrobials used were in the Canadian category of highest importance to human medicine. A comparison of animal daily dosages to kilograms of active ingredient demonstrated that the relative ranking of use of antimicrobials varied with the chosen metric, and that further investigation into the best measure in relation to antimicrobial resistance is warranted.

Antimicrobial resistance in generic fecal Escherichia coli from 29 beef farms in Ontario.

The occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in generic Escherichia coli can serve as an indicator of the pool of resistance genes potentially available for transfer to pathogenic organisms. This study was conducted on 29 volunteer beef farms in Ontario to describe the prevalence and patterns of antimicrobial resistance in E. coli, and to describe changes in the prevalence of resistance during the feedlot stage of production. From the pooled fecal samples on 28 of the 29 farms, 31% of isolates from feedlots (n = 993) and 12% of isolates from cow-calf farms (n = 807) were resistant to one or more of 16 antimicrobials tested. No isolates were resistant to ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, or nalidixic acid, and < 1% of the pooled isolates were resistant to ceftiofur. Two percent of both feedlot and cow-calf isolates were resistant to > or = 5 antimicrobials. Cow-calf farms were at significantly lower risk than feedlots for having E. coli isolates that were resistant to streptomycin, sulfamethoxazole, and tetracycline. On average, the prevalence of sulfamethoxazole resistant E. coli isolates was significantly higher in calves than in cows. No resistance was observed to ceftriaxone or ciprofloxacin among isolates (n = 1265) obtained from individually sampled feedlot animals on 2 farms. Less than 1% of these isolates were resistant to gentamicin, nalidixic acid, and ceftiofur. From the individually sampled feedlot animals, resistance to streptomycin (on 1 farm), sulfamethoxazole, and tetracycline increased significantly from arrival to mid-point during the feeding period, and these levels persisted until market-readiness.

The status of drinking water in Ontario, Canada (1992-1999).

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to investigate the characteristics of public water works (PWW) in southern Ontario with respect to their water sources and treatment regimes. METHODS: Data from 481 PWW covering the period 1992-1999 were collected and cartographic manipulations as well as descriptive analyses of the PWW attributes were performed. Tests of associations between different PWW attributes were done using Fisher's Exact test and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics. RESULTS: Water sources for the PWW included surface water (SW) (21% lakes; 13% rivers), ground water (GW) (64%) and mixed sources (2%). Most (81%) of the population was supplied with SW. Filtration was performed by 84% and 8% of the PWW using SW and GW, respectively. Similarly, disinfection was performed by 99% and 91% of the PWW using SW and GW respectively. There was no significant difference in treatment regimes between PWW in urban and those in rural areas but treatment regime was a function of water source. Overall, most PWW (87.8%) met the minimum treatment requirements of the then Ontario Drinking Water Objectives (ODWO). DISCUSSION: The study shows that most PWW complied with the minimum treatment requirements of the then ODWO. The minimum treatment required by the ODWO was disinfection for GW and both disinfection and filtration for SW. The non-compliant PWW will need to comply for continued provision of safe drinking water. Suffice it to say that both watershed protection and improved water treatment will be imperative for the continued provision of safe drinking water and control of waterborne diseases.