Effects of two-dose ceftiofur treatment for metritis on the temporal dynamics of antimicrobial resistance among fecal Escherichia coli in Holstein-Friesian dairy cows

A pair-matched longitudinal study conducted on three dairy farms in the U.S. High-Plains explored the temporal effects of two-dose ceftiofur crystalline-free acid (CCFA) treatment for metritis on third-generation cephalosporin (3GC) resistance among enteric E. coli in Holstein-Friesian cows. The current 13-day slaughter withholding period does not account for rising populations of third-generation cephalosporin (3GC) resistant bacteria in feces of animals following CCFA treatment. A total of 124 matched-pairs of cows were enrolled in the study. Cows diagnosed with postpartum metritis received the product twice at the labeled dose of 6.6 mg/kg subcutaneously at the base of alternating ears. Untreated cows–absent clinical metritis–were matched on lactation number and calving date. Feces were collected per rectum on days 0 (baseline), 6, 16, 28, and 56. Environmental samples, from watering troughs as well as surface manure from fresh-cow, hospital, maternity, and milking pens, and from the compost pile were collected prior to the animal sample collection period. Historical data on metritis rates and CCFA use were compiled from herd records. On day 0, cows exhibited an overall mean difference of over 4 log₁₀ colony forming units (CFU) comparing 3GC resistant E. coli to the general E. coli population. At the first eligible slaughter date, the difference declined to 3.31 log₁₀ CFU among cows in the CCFA group (P<0.01 compared to control cows). Such differences were no longer observed between the treated and control groups by day 28. Results suggest a 13-day withholding period following the final treatment is insufficient to allow levels of 3GC resistant E. coli to return to baseline. This effect varied by farm and was dependent upon the starting level of resistance. A farm-specific extended slaughter-withholding period could reduce the microbial risk to food products at slaughter.

EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety (RONAFA)

EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures.