Nonjudicious antimicrobial use (AMU) and inadequate antimicrobial stewardship are known modifiable factors driving the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). A mixed methods approach using a combination of focus groups and survey questionnaires was used to explore the AMU practices of Tennessee (TN) dairy cattle producers. Specifically, the objectives of the study were to determine the following: (1) the most common drivers for using antimicrobials, (2) perceived alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) knowledge of and perceptions regarding AMR, (4) and the appropriate avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU. Two focus groups were conducted, one in July 2017 and the other in March 2018. The questionnaire was simultaneously made available to participants both in print form and online from January 26, 2018, through May 11, 2018. Twenty-three dairy producers participated in the focus groups and 45 responded to the survey. Eight (18.6%) producers never used bacterial culture and sensitivity testing (C/S) to select antimicrobials, more than half (25 producers (58.1%)) sometimes used C/S, four (9.3%) used C/S about half the time, five (11.6%) most of the time, and one (2.3%) always used C/S. The most common drivers for using antimicrobials were disease and animal welfare, pathogen surveillance, economic factors, veterinarian recommendation, producer's experience and judgment, drug attributes, and the Veterinary Feed Directive. Good management practices, vaccination, use of immunomodulatory products, and use of appropriate technology for early disease detection were considered alternatives to AMU. Four (9.1%) dairy producers were very concerned about AMR, 27 (61.4%) moderately concerned, and 10 (22.7%) not concerned. The veterinarian was considered to be a trusted source of information on prudent AMU. Use of C/S test results for antimicrobial selection is widespread among TN dairy producers. There is a need to popularize/promote selective dry cow therapy among TN dairy producers.

BackgroundIn recent years, there has been an increased awareness of antimicrobial resistance in both animals and humans, which has triggered concerns over non-judicious antimicrobial use. In the United States, antimicrobial use in food-producing animals for growth promotion or improved feed efficiency is perceived as non-judicious. To facilitate judicious antimicrobial use, the United States Food and Drug Administration implemented the Veterinary Feed Directive, effective from January 1, 2017. Interventions, such as the VFD, designed to ensure the judicious use of antimicrobials among cattle producers may be more effective if the factors that inform and influence producer AMU practices are addressed. The specific objectives of this study were to determine the following among Tennessee beef cattle producers: (1) the most common drivers for using antimicrobials, (2) the perceived alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) the knowledge and perceptions regarding antimicrobial resistance, and (4) the preferred avenues for receiving information on prudent antimicrobial use. A total of 5 focus group meetings with beef producers were conducted in East, Middle, and West Tennessee. Each focus group was video recorded and thematic analysis was performed using NVivo.ResultsThe factors that producers considered to drive antimicrobial use were the type of cattle operation, disease and animal welfare, economic factors, veterinarian consultation, producer’s experience and peer support, Veterinary Feed Directive, and perceived drug efficacy. Vaccination, proper nutrition, and other good management practices were considered alternatives to antimicrobial use. To encourage vaccine use among small producers, participants suggested packaging vaccines into smaller quantities. Antimicrobial resistance was perceived to be a problem affecting animal and public health. Participants suggested additional education for cattle producers on the prudent use of antimicrobials as a measure for improving antimicrobial use. The veterinarian, producer associations and meetings, and county extension agents emerged as trusted avenues for channeling information on prudent antimicrobial use to cattle producers.ConclusionsSeveral factors drive antimicrobial use among cattle producers in Tennessee. Participants generally perceived their antimicrobial use to be discreet and only when necessary. More awareness of drivers for the development of antimicrobial resistance and continuing education on prudent antimicrobial use is needed for Tennessee beef producers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-018-1731-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Indiscriminate antimicrobial use (AMU) is a factor contributing to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objectives of this study were to (1) identify factors influencing AMU practices of veterinary clinicians at The University of Tennessee Veterinary Medical Center (UTVMC), (2) analyze the clinicians’ preferential choices of antimicrobials, and (3) evaluate their perceptions, opinions, and concerns regarding AMU and AMR. A total of 121 clinicians were surveyed. Among the 62 respondents, culture and susceptibility test results and pressure from clients were the most and least important factors in their antimicrobial prescription decision-making, respectively. Compared to clinicians who obtained their veterinary degree from 1970 to 1999, those who graduated from 2000 to 2009 and 2010–2016 were 3.96 ( P = 0.034) and 5.39 ( P = 0.01) times less concerned about AMR, respectively. There is a critical need to increase awareness about judicious AMU practices among clinicians, increase emphasis about AMR in the present veterinary curriculum, and implement antimicrobial stewardship program (AMS) in this institution. Educational activities in combination with awareness campaigns and the stewardship programs could be used to improve AMU practices at this hospital. More client education on AMR is needed.

Since January 1, 2017, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has fully implemented the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) final rule aimed at facilitating the judicious use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals. The objective of this study was to identify the common perceptions of Tennessee (TN) cattle producers regarding the VFD. We used a combination of focus groups and survey questionnaires to explore TN cattle producers’ perceptions regarding the VFD. Preliminary findings from seven focus groups of 62 producers were used in the development of the questionnaire sent both online and in-print to rest of cattle producers in TN. The beef focus group participants perceived the VFD: to be a top-down policy; to have led to unregulated access to in-feed antimicrobials; a regulation that has limited the producers’ ability to prevent disease and leading to economic losses; to negatively affect small producers; and to be affected by challenges related to prescription writing and disposal of un-used medicines. The dairy focus group participants perceived the VFD as unnecessary and burdensome, to have affected small producers, and introduced additional costs. Among the survey questionnaire respondents, 35 (15.4%) beef producers and 6 (13.6%) dairy producers respectively were not familiar at all with the VFD. Forty-eight (21.1%) beef producers and 11 (25%) dairy producers were slightly familiar with VFD. Gender was significantly associated (P = 0.02) with the beef producers’ belief in the usefulness of the VFD. Similarly, for dairy producers, herd size was significantly associated (P = 0.002) with their perceptions regarding the usefulness of the VFD. The findings of this study could inform future VFD policy review processes. More awareness regarding the VFD and its benefits is needed among both beef and dairy producers in TN.