A survey of antimicrobial use practices of Tennessee beef producers

Abstract

Background Inappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) is a key modifiable factor that leads to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objectives of this study were to determine the following among Tennessee beef cattle producers: (1) the opinions on factors driving AMU (2) opinions on alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) the knowledge and perceptions regarding AMU and AMR, and (4) the preferred avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU. A survey questionnaire was made available to participants both in print and online from January 26, 2018 through May 11, 2018. The questions targeted the producers’ demographics and their AMU practices; factors driving producer’s choice of antimicrobials; perceptions, opinions and concerns about AMU and AMR in cattle production. Ordinal logistic regression was used to test for associations between the captured demographic information and producers’ degree of concern about AMR. Results Overall, 231 beef producers responded to all or some of the survey questions. More than 60% of the participants mentioned that they kept up-to-date written records on antimicrobial purchases and AMU. Regarding extra-label use, 169 (84.1%) of the 201 respondents did not practice extra-label AMU. Profitability of the beef operation was a key factor influencing the decisions of many producers to use antimicrobials for disease management and prevention on their farms. Of the 228 producers who completed the question on the rating of their degree of concern about AMR, 50 (21.9%) reported that they were very concerned about AMR, 133 (58.3%) were moderately concerned, and 36 (15.8%) reported that they were not concerned about AMR. Nine producers (4%) did not rate their degree of concern about AMR because they were not familiar with what antimicrobial resistance meant. The inferential analyses suggested that younger beef producers were significantly less concerned about AMR when compared to the older ones ( P = 0.019). Regarding avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU, no single medium was most preferred by all the respondents. Conclusions There is a need to promote the use of written antimicrobial treatment protocols among beef producers in Tennessee. Continued training for beef producers on infection prevention and control and prudent AMU is needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1978-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Antimicrobial use in agriculture: critical review of the factors influencing behaviour

“…Globally, elevating farmer knowledge through education was found to influence AMU and encourage appropriate practices on farms across all sectors, countries and regions. 20 , 26 , 32 , 39 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 54–58 Moreover, it is important to note that farmers were receptive to interventions that improved knowledge and awareness. For example, in the UK, Italy and Germany, farmers were interested in strengthening their knowledge.…”

“…Furthermore, farmers described an emotive bond to livestock and therefore felt a responsibility to maintain herd health. 15 , 17 , 38 , 54 , 55 , 81–83 Similarly, numerous UK studies indicated that vets felt a sense of responsibility in ensuring animal welfare and alleviating animal suffering. 17 , 43 , 64 , 74 Norwegian farmers indicated that maintaining herd health without depending on antimicrobials gave farmers a sense of personal satisfaction and control.…”

“…Farmers in Asia, Africa, the USA and Spain believed it was beneficial and justifiable to routinely use antimicrobials for financial benefits, including improving production, maintaining herd health, disease prevention and reduced mortality rates. 22 , 23 , 28 , 39 , 44 , 51 , 54 , 58 , 60 , 102–104 This belief was echoed by vets in Cambodia believing that livestock would not thrive without the routine application of antimicrobials. 104 Farmers in Europe and the USA worried that reduced AMU would compromise animal health and welfare, 16 , 17 , 34 , 35 , 67 , 98 , 105 with farmers and vets in the UK and Switzerland expressing concern that further legislative restrictions prohibiting AMU would threaten their future ability to treat sick animals effectively, and thus compromise animal welfare and threaten livelihoods.…”

“… 44 , 113–115 In European countries, farmers’ previous experience and sharing experiences with peers remains a trusted and relatable knowledge network frequently favoured over scientific evidence-based advice. 16 , 30 , 32 , 37 , 39 , 54 , 55 , 81 , 82 …”

“… 35 Farmers in South Carolina, Cambodia and Tennessee suggested that administration instructions should be simplified, and AMU information should be authentic. 54 , 65 , 103 Furthermore, farmers in Cambodia and the UK suggested a traffic light system would be beneficial. 18 , 40 , 104 In Ohio, vets considered meetings between producers and vets as the most informative platform.…”