The Contribution of Dairy Bedding and Silage to the Dissemination of Genes Coding for Antimicrobial Resistance: A Narrative Review

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a concern in the dairy industry. Recent studies have indicated that bedding serves as a reservoir for antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and antimicrobial-resistance genes (ARGs), while silage has been proposed as another possible source. The impact of AMR in dairy farming can be significant, resulting in decreased productivity and economic losses for farmers. Several studies have highlighted the safety implications of AMR bacteria and genes in bedding and silage, emphasizing the need for further research on how housing, bedding, and silage management affect AMR in farm environments. Exposure to sub-lethal concentrations of antibiotics, such as those from contaminated bedding and silage, can prompt bacteria to develop resistance mechanisms. Thus, even if antimicrobial usage is diminished, ARGs may be maintained in the dairy farm environment. By implementing proactive measures to tackle AMR in dairy farming, we can take steps to preserve the health and productivity of dairy cattle while also protecting public health. This involves addressing the prudent use of antibiotics during production and promoting animal welfare, hygiene, and management practices in bedding and farm environments to minimize the risk of AMR development and spread. This narrative review compiles the growing research, positioning the contribution of bedding and silage to the prevalence and dissemination of AMR, which can elicit insights for researchers and policymakers.

Efficacy of recycled sand or organic solids as bedding sources for lactating cows housed in freestalls

Our objective was to compare the composition of bedding materials and manure, cow welfare and hygiene assessments, measures of milk production and quality, and incidence of mastitis during a 3-yr trial with lactating Holstein cows housed in a freestall barn containing 4 identical pens with 32 freestalls/pen. Bedding systems evaluated included deep-bedded organic manure solids (DBOS), shallow-bedded manure solids spread over mattresses (MAT), deep-bedded recycled sand (RSA), and deep-bedded new sand (NSA). The experiment was designed as a 4 × 4 Latin square with 4 bedding systems and 4 experimental periods, but was terminated after 3 yr following discussions with the consulting statistician; therefore, data were analyzed as an incomplete Latin square. A total of n = 734 mostly primiparous cows (n = 725 primiparous, n = 9 multiparous; 224 to 267 cows/yr) were enrolled in the trial. Before placement in freestalls, organic solids (OS) exhibited lower concentrations of dry matter (36.5 vs. 94.3%), and greater concentrations of volatile solids, C, N, NH₄-N, P, water-extractable P, K, and S compared with RSA or NSA. Cow comfort index was greater for sand-bedded systems compared with those using OS (88.4 vs. 82.8%). Cows bedded in systems using OS (DBOS and MAT) exhibited greater mean hock scores (1 = no swelling, no hair loss; 2 = no swelling, bald area on hock) than those bedded in sand (1.25 vs. 1.04), but this effect was entirely associated with use of mattresses (MAT), which differed sharply from DBOS (1.42 vs. 1.07). Generally, hygiene scores for legs, flanks, and udders were numerically similar for DBOS, NSA, and RSA bedding systems, and differences between bedding systems were associated entirely with MAT, yielding detectable contrasts between MAT and DBOS for legs (2.94 vs. 2.20), flanks (2.34 vs. 1.68), and udders (1.83 vs. 1.38). No significant contrast comparing bedding systems was detected for measures of milk production or quality. Documented cases of clinical mastitis requiring treatment ranged from a low rate of 7.4 cases/yr for RSA to a high of 23.1 cases/yr for DBOS, based on a mean enrollment of 60.7 to 63.0 cows/treatment per yr. Cows bedded with OS exhibited a greater incidence of mastitis than those bedded with sand (19.0 vs. 8.4 cases/yr), but no differences were observed for comparisons within individual bedding-material types. Collectively, these results generally favored use of sand-bedding materials over systems using OS.

Bacterial counts on teat skin and in new sand, recycled sand, and recycled manure solids used as bedding in freestalls

On modern dairy farms, environmental mastitis pathogens are usually the predominant cause of mastitis, and bedding often serves as a point of exposure to these organisms. The objective of this longitudinal study was to determine bacterial populations of 4 different bedding types [deep-bedded new sand (NES), deep-bedded recycled sand (RS), deep-bedded manure solids (DBMS), and shallow-bedded manure solids over foam core mattresses (SBMS)] and of teat skin swabs of primarily primiparous cows housed in a single facility over all 4 seasons. Samples of bedding were collected weekly (n=49wk) from pens that each contained 32 lactating dairy cows. Throughout the length of the same period, composite swabs of teat skin were collected weekly from all cows before and after premilking teat sanitation. Median numbers of streptococci and streptococci-like organisms (SSLO) were >8.6×10(6) cfu/g and >6.9×10(3) cfu/teat swab for all bedding types and teat swabs, respectively. Numbers of SSLO were greatest in samples of SBMS (2.1×10(8) cfu/g) and least in samples of NES (8.6×10(6) cfu/g), RS (1.3×10(7) cfu/g), and DBMS (1.7×10(7) cfu/g). Numbers of gram-negative bacteria in bedding (5.5×10(4) to 1.2×10(7) cfu/g) were fewer than numbers of SSLO (8.6×10(6) to 2.1×10(8) cfu/g). Numbers of coliform bacteria were greatest in samples of DBMS (2.2×10(6) cfu/g) and least in samples of NES (3.6×10(3) cfu/g). In general, the relative number of bacteria on teat skin corresponded to exposure in bedding. Numbers of gram-negative bacteria recovered from prepreparation teat swabs were greatest for cows bedded with DBMS (1.0×10(4) cfu/swab) and RS (2.5×10(3) cfu/swab) and least for cows bedded with NES (5.8×10(2) cfu/swab). Median numbers of coliform and Klebsiella spp. recovered from prepreparation teat swabs were below the limit of detection for all cows except those bedded with DBMS. Numbers of SSLO recovered from prepreparation teat swabs were least for cows bedded with DBMS (6.9×10(3) cfu/swab) and greatest for cows bedded with RS (5.1×10(4) cfu/swab) or SBMS (1.6×10(5) cfu/swab). The numbers of all types of measured bacteria (total gram-negative, coliforms, Klebsiella spp., SSLO) on postpreparation teat swabs were reduced by up to 2.6 logs from numbers of bacteria on prepreparation swabs, verifying effective preparation procedures. Significant correlations between bacterial counts of bedding samples and teat skin swabs were observed for several types of bacteria. As compared with other bedding types, the least amount of gram-negative bacteria were recovered from NES and may indicate that cows on NES have a reduced risk of exposure to pathogens that are typically a cause of clinical mastitis. In contrast, exposure to large numbers of SSLO was consistent across all bedding types and may indicate that risk of subclinical mastitis typically associated with streptococci is not as influenced by bedding type; however, significantly greater numbers of SSLO were found in SBMS than in other bedding types. These findings indicate that use of different bedding types results in exposure to different distributions of mastitis pathogens that may alter the proportion of etiologies of clinical mastitis, although the incidence rate of clinical mastitis did not differ among bedding types.