Comparison of surveys and use records for quantifying medically important antimicrobial use in 18 U.S. beef feedyards

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate agreement between medically important antimicrobial use metrics derived from in‐person surveys of feedyard management as opposed to metrics derived from production unit‐level antimicrobial use records. Survey respondents were asked to estimate values which would allow calculation of the metrics of regimens per animal year (Reg/AY) and milligrams of antimicrobial per kilogram of liveweight sold (mg/kg‐LW). At the study level, values were calculated by antimicrobial class within the use categories of in‐feed use, control of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and individual animal treatment. At the feedyard level, values were calculated by total overall use and total use within use category. Feedyard level correlation coefficients between survey and record values for total use were 0.76 (p = .0004) and 0.73 (p = .0009) for Reg/AY and mg/kg‐LW, respectively. Correlation coefficients for use category within metric ranged from 0.25 (p = .3224) to 0.65 (p = .0061). Comparing feedyard level survey and record values for total Reg/AY and mg/kg‐LW using a Wilcoxon signed‐rank test resulted in p‐values (95% CI) of 0.3247 (−1.06, 0.25) and 0.7019 (−14.49, 10.387), respectively. Evaluation of comparative rankings as total use by metric indicated that for Reg/AY, only two of the five top‐ranked feedyards were consistent between the two data sources. The relationship for mg/kg‐LW demonstrated the lowest two and highest three values were consistent between sources; however, the ranking similarities appear to markedly decline in the middle ranks. This report demonstrates that survey‐based antimicrobial use data may closely reflect summary values determined from records across multiple beef feedyards. However, individual feedyard relationships between their record and survey values vary widely and ranking by survey may lead to different conclusions as to highest and lowest use than ranking by data collected from use records.

Next Generation of AMR Network

“…Although progress is modest, this effort will be important in assessing the risks of antimicrobial usage on farms relative to the dissemination of resistance elements. Associations between the magnitude of antimicrobial usage on farms and the development of antimicrobial resistance are confounded by species of animal, routes of administration, class of antimicrobial, and variation in methods used to quantify usage [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. Despite these challenges, consumer concerns about limiting usage of antimicrobials on farms are increasingly being voiced and policies have been enacted in several regions that have motivated food animal producers and veterinarians to further reduce antimicrobial usage [57,58,60,61].…”

“…One important practical step taken in several countries is to limit the uses of antimicrobials in animal agriculture to those classes that are less critical for human health needs [46]. Antimicrobial usage has been shown to vary considerably among farms, even those of the same species and in the same regions [57][58][59][60] indicating that achieving lower usage is feasible. Farmers who can provide better husbandry and housing for their animals typically experience fewer bacterial diseases, thus continued emphasis on extension programs to enhance animal husbandry and welfare is required.…”

A call to action for veterinarians and partners in animal health to collect antimicrobial use data for the purposes of supporting medical decision-making and antimicrobial stewardship

“…Although different metrics are often correlated, use of one metric may lead to different conclusions than another, and metrics can be selectively used to make a particular point about AMU. 4, [33][34][35][36][37] In the animal arena, because animal species have different products labeled for their use, dosing regimens, and disease challenges, AMU cannot be compared across sectors. 28 In fact, it can be difficult to compare across different types of production systems within a species sector.…”

Assessment of Antibiotic Stewardship Components of Certification Programs in US Animal Agriculture Using the Antibiotic Stewardship Assessment Tool

“…These changes included eliminating the use of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion in food animals and requiring veterinary oversight for the use of medically important antibiotics in animal feed or water. The anticipation of these policies, which were years in development, and their full implementation have contributed to an overall decrease in antibiotic use in at least the US poultry industry (U. S. Poultry and Egg Association, 2019; Singer et al, 2020a,b), while the effects on overall antibiotic use in other industries for major food animal species in the US (i.e., cattle, swine) are currently less certain, in part due to variable antibiotic use measures and data collection within these industries (Davies and Singer, 2020;Hope et al, 2020;Schrag et al, 2020). The FDA has developed additional guidance to ensure veterinary oversight for all medically important antimicrobial drugs approved for use in animals (U. S. Food and Drug Administration, 2021).…”