Next Article in Journal
Proteomic Analysis of Intracellular and Membrane-Associated Fractions of Canine (Canis lupus familiaris) Epididymal Spermatozoa and Sperm Structure Separation
Previous Article in Journal
Biometric Indices, Physio-Metabolic Responses and Carcass Quality in Rohu (Labeo rohita) during Feed Deprivation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Improvement of Albendazole Bioavailability with Menbutone Administration in Sheep
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/ani12060771
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Invited Review: Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in Pathogens Associated with Diarrhea and Pneumonia in Dairy Calves

by
Xin Zhang
†,
Xia Yi
†,
Haohua Zhuang
,
Zhaoju Deng
* and
Chong Ma
*
College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2022, 12(6), 771; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060771
Submission received: 1 January 2022 / Revised: 16 March 2022 / Accepted: 16 March 2022 / Published: 18 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Knowledge of Efficacy and Prudent Use of Antimicrobials and Anthelmintics)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Antimicrobial use (AMU) is the most important driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and AMU in dairy calves accounts for a substantial amount of total AMU on dairy farms. However, an overview of AMU and AMR in dairy calves is lacking for the design of an AMU stewardship program. In this review, we summarize AMU and AMR data for dairy calves. We found large variation in AMU among herds in different regions, which indicates possibilities for reducing AMU. Antimicrobial resistance seemed to be associated with the types of antimicrobials used in specific regions. Farm type (conventional vs. organic) was associated with AMU but not with AMR. Management factors, such as feeding of calves and prophylactic use of antimicrobials, also related to AMR. This review provides an overview of AMU and AMR data for dairy calves and outlines opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship in dairy calves.

Abstract

Antimicrobial use (AMU) is the major driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among bacteria in dairy herds. There have been numerous studies on AMU and AMR in dairy cows; however, studies on AMU and AMR in dairy calves are limited. A comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge of AMU and AMR among pathogens in dairy calves is important for the development of scientifically supported and applicable measures to curb antimicrobial use and the increasing risk of AMR. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of research on AMU and AMR in dairy calves. A total of 75 publications were included, of which 19 studies reported AMU data for dairy calves and 68 described AMR profiles of the four most prevalent bacteria that are associated with calf diarrhea and calf pneumonia. Large variation in AMU was found among herds across different regions. There seems to be a positive association between exposure to antimicrobials and occurrence of resistance. Most AMU was accounted for by treatment of diseases, while a small proportion of AMU was prophylactic. AMU was more common in treating calf diarrhea than in treating pneumonia, and the resistance rates in bacteria associated with diarrhea were higher than those in pathogens related to pneumonia. Organic farms used significantly fewer antimicrobials to treat calf disease; however, the antimicrobial resistance rates of bacteria associated with calf diarrhea and pneumonia on both types of farms were comparable. Feeding waste or pasteurized milk was associated with a higher risk of AMR in pathogens. Altogether, this review summarizes AMU and AMR data for dairy calves and suggests areas for future research, providing evidence for the design of antimicrobial use stewardship programs in dairy calf farming.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial use is one of the main drivers of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria [1]. A number of studies have quantified antimicrobial usage (AMU) in dairy herds [2,3,4,5]. The largest amount of AMU in dairy herds was accounted for by mastitis and dry cow therapy, followed by treatment of calf diseases [2,5]. However, AMU in calves has scarcely been reported [5,6]. Redding et al. [5] found that AMU for treatment of calf diseases accounted for approximately 11.73% of the total AMU on dairy farms. It is therefore important to quantify AMU in dairy calves.
Calf diarrhea and pneumonia are the two primary diseases in dairy calves [7]. Sawant et al. [8] found that most of the AMU in dairy calves could be attributed to treatment of calf diarrhea (36% of the AMU for calves) and pneumonia (25% of the AMU for calves). There are several pathogens involved in calf diarrhea, of which Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. are the two most prevalent pathogens associated with antimicrobial use [9,10,11]. Meanwhile, the most common bacterial pathogens for calf pneumonia are Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida [12,13]. These pathogens contributed to the majority of AMU in calves.
Antimicrobial resistance patterns among these pathogens in the context of calf diseases have been described in different regions [14,15,16]. In addition, proportionally higher levels of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica from dairy calves have been reported [17,18,19]. Antimicrobial resistance genes harbored in these pathogens could be a potential reservoir of AMR genes on dairy farms [14].
In order to reduce antimicrobial (ab)use and the antimicrobial resistance of pathogens related to dairy calves, it is vital to investigate current antimicrobial use and the antimicrobial resistance of pathogens in dairy calves. In this review, we summarize the data available for aspects of antimicrobial usage and the antimicrobial resistance profiles of bacteria associated with calf diarrhea and pneumonia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search

A systematic literature search was performed in three public databases (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) according to “PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews” [20]. Search terms reflecting antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance among pathogens in dairy calves were combined with the AND operator in a search constrained on title and abstract: (dairy calf OR dairy calves) AND ((antimicrobial use OR antibiotic use OR drug use) OR (antimicrobial resistance OR antibiotic resistance OR drug resistance)). The search was limited to publications written in English and published from 1 January 1990 to 26 August 2021.

2.2. Study Selection

Studies retrieved from the three public databases were imported into Rayyan [21] for screening of eligible studies by two researchers independently. Duplicates were removed prior to the screening of eligible publications. Discrepancies were discussed during group meetings and a consensus was reached among all the co-authors. The selection of studies was made according to the following criteria:
  • Studies should primarily focus on antimicrobial usage in dairy calves or antimicrobial resistance of pathogens associated with calf diarrhea and calf pneumonia;
  • Quantitative data on AMU or AMR for at least one class of antimicrobials should be provided;
  • Studies should be written in English;
  • Studies should consist of original research;
  • Full texts should be available;
  • Statistical analysis was appropriate for the study design.
The first two authors performed the data extraction and an extra check for accuracy and completeness was made by the corresponding authors. Due to the high heterogeneity in terms of study design, definitions and data calculations in the publications included, we performed a review instead of a meta-analysis and summarized the quantitative data wherever possible. Discrepancies regarding the process of study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were resolved in group discussions with all the co-authors until consensus was reached. Meanwhile, the references of the publications that remained when it came to screening full texts were also scanned in the same procedure (Figure 1) in search of eligible studies.

2.3. Data Extraction

Data were extracted from texts, tables, and figures using WebPlotDigitizer (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/, accessed on 15 October 2021) wherever needed. For this review, we specifically focused on calf diarrhea and calf pneumonia since those are the two most prevalent diseases in dairy calves. We summarized the antimicrobial usage information in all the studies with AMU data.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search

A total of 2137 studies were retrieved from PubMed (360), Scopus (1120) and Web of Science (665). After screening for the title and abstract, there were 115 full text papers included for the screening of full texts. The references in these 115 publications were also screened for eligible studies and an additional 25 studies from the references were included in the data availability assessment. A total of 75 publications were finally included in the data extraction. A flow diagram for the study selection process is presented in Figure 1. There were 19 papers primarily reporting AMU in dairy calves, 68 papers on the antimicrobial resistance of pathogens isolated from dairy calves and 12 papers touched on both topics. A total of 39 papers were cross-sectional studies, 26 were cohort studies, 2 studies were case–control studies and 1 study was a randomized controlled trial. The majority of the papers on antimicrobial resistance were concerned with calf diarrhea (65 studies) and three papers were concerned with pneumonia. The pathogens involved in calf diarrhea were E. coli (48 studies), Samonella (12 studies), Campylobacter (4 studies) and Clostridium perfringens (1 study) as well as Enterobacter spp. (1 study), while Pasteurella spp. (3 studies) and Mannheimia spp. (1 study) were the most frequently reported pathogens in calf pneumonia based on these 4 studies. Antimicrobial resistance was tested using the broth microdilution method (31 studies) or the disk diffusion method (28 studies). Resistance against seven classes of antimicrobials (β-lactam, sulfonamides, aminoglycosides, phenicols, tetracyclines, quinolone and macrolides) was found in these pathogens. There were six studies that detected antimicrobial resistance genes in bacterial pathogens; these resistance genes included blaCMY, blaCTX-M, blaTEM, tetA, tetB, tetM, tetO, strA, strB, aadA, sul1, sul2, cat, floR, cfr and ermB.

3.2. Antimicrobial Use

3.2.1. Antimicrobial Use at Herd Level

There were six studies that quantified AMU at herd level [8,22,23,24,25,26]; on average, antimicrobials would be used to treat calves with diseases in 40.65% (n = 2609; 2.5–97.5% quantile: 21.73–71.15%) herds. About 50% (n = 1328; 2.5–97.5%: 45.48–50.75%) of the farms would use antimicrobials to treat calves with respiratory symptoms, while only 36.77% (n = 1009; 2.5–97.5%: 21.70–74.51%) farms would use them to treat calves with digestive disorders. Organic farms (2 studies, 405 farms) were statistically less likely to adopt antimicrobial therapy as compared with conventional farms (2 studies, 2330 farms; 25.00% vs. 35.62%), especially in cases of calf diarrhea (1 study, 32 farms vs. 99 farms; 21.88% vs. 78.79%) [22]. An estimated 17.75% (1 study, 408 farms; 2.5–97.5%: 16.08–19.00%) of calves on conventional farms (n = 2298) received antimicrobial treatment [27], while 13.00% (1 study, 40 farms; 2.5–97.5%: 16.08–19.00%) of calves on organic farms (n = 306) received treatment [22].
Overall, the most frequently used antimicrobials for dairy calves were sulfachlorpyridazine, ampicillin and enrofloxacin [28], while the most commonly used antimicrobials for treatment of diarrhea were sulfamethazine and oxytetracycline and for the treatment of pneumonia the most commonly used were florfenicol and tilmicosin [26]. The antimicrobials used to treat calf diarrhea and calf pneumonia are listed in Table 1.

3.2.2. Antimicrobial Use at Calf Level

There were 8 publications describing AMU at the calf level. About 35.50% (n = 5233) calves received prophylactic antimicrobials, while 35.66% of the calves with diseases were treated with antimicrobials. Most AMU was attributed to treatment of diseases, while prophylactic AMU was relatively low.
About 29.41% (n = 702) of calves with calf diarrhea were treated with antimicrobials (number of studies: 4) and 60.77% (n = 361) of calves with pneumonia were also treated (number of studies: 3) (Table 2). Jarrige et al. [25] found antimicrobials in 35.50% (n = 370) of milk samples from milk fed to calves. About 35.81% (n = 433) of the calves received antimicrobial treatment at least once. Treatment of calf diarrhea (317/669, 47.38%) and pneumonia (221/669, 33.03%) were the major reasons for antimicrobial use [27]. Most calves received antimicrobials, and the majority of calves received two to four treatments; young calves received antimicrobial treatment more frequently than older calves [28]. Detailed data are summarized in Table 2.

3.2.3. Antimicrobial Use

A total of 19 studies described antimicrobial usage data for dairy calves; however, only 5 studies provided detailed data suitable for statistical analysis. The AMU data were recorded for each antimicrobial or class of antimicrobials in the five studies included in this review, therefore we summarized AMU for classes of antimicrobials (or for each antimicrobial wherever possible). The AMU data in this review were based on veterinary treatment records and questionnaire data collected by researchers. Meanwhile, methods for calculating AMU across regions were different; we took used daily doses (UDD) as the unit of AMU for this review wherever applicable; other units of AMU were transformed to UDD accordingly. Total AMU for calf use was 0.19 animal-defined daily doses (mean ADDD) in the Netherlands [2], 0.30 (mean ADDD; median ADDD: 0.17) in Denmark [27] and approximately 9.74 (mean ADDD) in Pennsylvania [5].
The most commonly used classes of antimicrobials were sulfonamides (UDD: 32.71), amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (UDD: 16.00), sulfadimidine (UDD: 15.77) and florfenicol (UDD: 14.13). There were no records of lincomycin or lincosamides used to treat calves. The mean percentage of each antimicrobial used in dairy calves was calculated as the arithmetic mean of the percentages of each antimicrobial used for different purposes in all studies. Treating diseased calves was the major driver of AMU (90.5% of the farms, 1 study, 169 farms), while antimicrobials were also used for prevention of diseases on a small proportion of farms (11% of the farms) [34]. Detailed AMU data are summarized in Table 3 and Supplementary Table S1.

3.2.4. Antimicrobial Resistance of Calf Diarrhea-Associated Pathogens

The antimicrobial resistance data for pathogens associated with calf diarrhea and pneumonia are summarized in the following section. There were various resistance patterns found in these studies. Given different definitions of multi-drug resistance patterns across studies, we only present the results for antimicrobial resistance to individual antimicrobials in this review.
According to the recommendations of first-line and second-line medication for treatment of calf diarrhea and pneumonia, antimicrobials belonging to seven different classes of antimicrobials, including β-lactam, sulfonamides, aminoglycosides, phenicols, tetracyclines, quinolones and macrolides, were selected for the summary of antimicrobial resistance. Most of the farms used antimicrobials belonging to β-lactam, sulfonamide and aminoglycoside, while reports on the remaining four classes of antimicrobials were scarce. The median proportion of antimicrobial-resistant isolates for all the four different species of bacteria was 0.26 (2.5–97.5% quantile: 0.10–0.99).

Calf Diarrhea

  • E. coli
Resistance to seven classes of antimicrobials was found. In general, high rates of resistance to cefalexin (100%; 2.5–97.5% quantile: 100–100%; 20 isolates), erythromycin (99%; 2.5–97.5% quantile: 99–99%; 176 isolates), amoxicillin (79%; 2.5–97.5% quantile: 30–100%; 687 isolates) and tetracycline (55%; 2.5–97.5% quantile: 16–96%; 10,335 isolates) were found, while resistance rates to the class of quinolone antimicrobials were relatively low (ranging from 9 to 15%). The numbers of isolates included in the studies resistant to cephalexin and erythromycin were limited.
  • Salmonella spp.
The number of studies on antimicrobial resistance to Salmonella spp. was lower than the number of studies on E. coli. High rates of resistance to oxytetracycline (89%; 2.5–97.5% quantile: 88–95%; 127 isolates), sulfamethoxazole (83%; 2.5–97.5% quantile: 1–96%; 653 isolates) and florfenicol (0.81; 2.5–97.5% quantile: 61–86%; 109 isolates) were found. No isolates were found that were resistant to amoxycillin or cefalexin among Salmonella spp. The resistance rates for most of the antimicrobials in Salmonella spp. were higher than those in E. coli.
Antimicrobial resistance data for each pathogen isolated from calf diarrhea and calf pneumonia are summarized in Table 4.

Antimicrobial Resistance of Bacteria Associated with Calf Pneumonia

There were only two studies that reported the antimicrobial resistance profiles of pathogens associated with calf pneumonia, with a limited number of bacterial isolates. Pasteurella spp. isolates were resistant only to colistin (24.7%, 74/301), erythromycin (5.5%, 16/301) and streptomycin (77.7%, 233/301) [16]. Catry et al. [15] investigated the distribution of Pasteurella spp. and Mannheimia spp. in the upper respiratory tracts of calves that were not treated with antimicrobials. This study only performed tests of antimicrobial resistance to tetracycline for these two pathogens. The detailed descriptive statistics of antimicrobial resistance data for Pasteurella spp. and Mannheimia spp. are summarized in Supplementary Table S2.

4. Discussion

Antimicrobial use in dairy calves is an important source of AMU in dairy cows. To illustrate the current status of AMU in dairy calves and AMR in pathogens associated with calf diarrhea and pneumonia, we summarized published data on AMU and AMR in pathogens related to these two diseases in calves.
We searched studies published in the years 1990–2021, which constitutes a long time span given that the dairy industry has evolved largely during these three decades. Therefore, results generated by comparisons of data collected in different regions over large time intervals should be interpreted with caution. Results obtained using different methods (AMR results from different methods), on the basis of a limited number of studies and from a limited number of farms should also be interpreted with care.
Various methods for calculating AMU were used in the studies included in this review, which makes comparisons difficult. Each AMU calculation method has its merits; however, the diversity of methods made the comparison of antimicrobial use across regions difficult; therefore, standardized methods of calculation for AMU are needed. Schrag et al. [88] described approaches to standardize the calculation of AMU in dairy herds. Merle et al. [89] compared two different approaches for calculation of AMU and found inconsistent results for different antimicrobials using these two methods (UDDs were higher than ADDDs in most cases). Hyde et al. [90] found that AMU rates calculated as defined daily dose were generally higher than those calculated as defined course dose. Meanwhile, different definitions of multi-drug-resistance patterns were also found. Awosile et al. [84] and Pereira et al. [53] defined multi-drug resistance as being resistant to ≥3 different antimicrobials, while Sjöström et al. [36] defined multi-drug resistance as resistance to >3 different antimicrobials. These subtle differences in definitions made comparisons difficult. Unified standardized definitions of these terms should be made in order to communicate findings from different regions.
We found large variation in AMU among herds across regions, which indicates the possibility to further reduce AMU [6]. Total AMU for calves differs substantially across regions, being 0.19 animal-defined daily doses (mean ADDD) in the Netherlands [2], 0.17 (median ADDD) in Denmark [27] and approximately 9.74 (mean ADDD) in Pennsylvania [5]. Despite regulations in antimicrobial use in different regions, attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards animal health and antimicrobial use also influence AMU [91,92]. According to the European regulation for organic dairy herds (Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007), AMU is restricted to a maximum number of three treatments per cow per year. Currently, the number of treatments per calf was slightly higher than this standard [36]. AMU for calves in the US was higher by orders of magnitude than in Denmark and the Netherlands. One of the explanations for this could be that the EU imposes much stricter regulations on antimicrobial use than the US. Measurements to further reduce AMU in calves are needed. The first month is the period with the highest risk for AMU in calves [6]. As the treatment of diseases is the major driver of AMU in calves, successful prevention programs for calf diarrhea and pneumonia in the first month would largely reduce AMU in calves. In addition, the threshold of severity of the diseases upon the initialization of adopting antimicrobial therapy also contributes to AMU [88]. Meanwhile, herd size is a risk factor for treatment incidence in conventional herds [27]. With increasing herd sizes worldwide, it seems inevitable to take this into consideration in attempting to strike a balance between calf health and AMU stewardship.
Exposure to antimicrobials increases the risk of AMR. Resistance rates for the most commonly found antimicrobials were generally higher than those for rarely used antimicrobials. Antimicrobial residues in calf feedings could be a source of AMR genes from dams. There was large variation in the use of antimicrobials as additives in milk used to feed calves [8,93]; 165 out of 655 farms (25.17%) would add antimicrobials to milk replacer [26]. Feeding milk with antimicrobial residues (waste milk, pasteurized milk) to calves increases the rate of AMR [94,95,96,97]. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (92.9% of which were E. coli) were found in newborn dairy calves [33], which indicates the transmission of AMR genes from dams to calves. However, the transmission routes of AMR genes are not fully clear yet. Future research to quantify the contributions of dams, environmental sources and calves within the same pen would be useful in controlling the transmission of AMR genes in calves. Alternatives to antimicrobials, such as herbs, minerals and vitamins, might reduce AMR in the treatment of calf diseases [34].
Organic farms used fewer antimicrobials as compared with conventional farms, while AMR patterns of bacteria on both types of farms were similar [36]. One plausible explanation for this could be the transmission of AMR genes from milk delivered by dams harboring those AMR genes. Meanwhile, previous studies have shown that AMR is positively associated with AMU; therefore, control of AMR requires efforts in multifactorial aspects in addition to prudent use of antimicrobials.
The data on pathogens associated with calf pneumonia were rather limited; higher AMU was found in the treatment of calf pneumonia than in that of calf diarrhea, largely due to the prevalence of these diseases [27,89]. Therefore, future studies including data on calf pneumonia in large numbers of herds are needed in order to develop better tailor-made AMU stewardship programs.
AMU stewardship programs consist not only of animal health and AMR components; the costs of such programs for farms, customers and society, both short- and long- term, are also relevant. However, there is only limited research on this aspect. With respect to the prohibition of AMU, Lhermie et al. [98] found slightly increased costs for both farms and costumers.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this systematic review was to provide evidence that can be used to develop antimicrobial use stewardship programs. The heterogeneity in measurements and calculations of antimicrobial usage data made it challenging to perform a meta-analysis. There is large variation in antimicrobial use for calves among farms and antimicrobial resistance seems to be associated with the use of antimicrobials in calves. Future studies focusing on factors associated with antimicrobial use in calves and elucidation of the modes of transmission of antimicrobial resistance genes are needed in order to curb antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani12060771/s1, Supplementary Table S1: Quantity of each antimicrobial that was used for dairy calves. Antimicrobial usage were expressed in used daily doses (UDD). The mean of the AMU for each antimicrobial was the simple arithmetic mean of the AMU for each antimicrobial (2.5–97.5% quantile in brackets). There were 1 study in Canada, 2 studies in Ireland and 2 studies in Sweden. Supplementary Table S2: Antimicrobial resistance of bacteria associated with calf pneumonia. The number of resistant isolates divided by the total number of isolates and the corresponding 2.5–97.5% quantile were provided in brackets. Study on Pasteruella spp. was in Spain and Mannheimia spp. in Belgium, respectively. Critically important antimicrobials (according to WHO) with the highest priority were in bold and italic [6,15,16,30,36,99].

Author Contributions

X.Z. and X.Y. collected data and performed the analysis; Z.D. and C.M. conceptualized the study; X.Z., X.Y. and H.Z. wrote the original manuscript, and all the co-authors reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article or in the Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Holmes, A.H.; Moore, L.S.P.; Sundsfjord, A.; Steinbakk, M.; Regmi, S.; Karkey, A.; Guerin, P.J.; Piddock, L.J.V. Understanding the mechanisms and drivers of antimicrobial resistance. Lancet 2016, 387, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kuipers, A.; Koops, W.J.; Wemmenhove, H. Antibiotic use in dairy herds in the Netherlands from 2005 to 2012. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1632–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Saini, V.; McClure, J.; Léger, D.; Dufour, S.; Sheldon, A.; Scholl, D.; Barkema, H. Antimicrobial use on Canadian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 1209–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sanders, P.; Vanderhaeghen, W.; Fertner, M.; Fuchs, K.; Obritzhauser, W.; Agunos, A.; Carson, C.; Borck Høg, B.; Dalhoff Andersen, V.; Chauvin, C.; et al. Monitoring of farm-level antimicrobial use to guide stewardship: Overview of existing systems and analysis of key components and processes. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Redding, L.E.; Bender, J.; Baker, L. Quantification of antibiotic use on dairy farms in Pennsylvania. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 1494–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Earley, B.; Arguello, A.; O’Riordan, E.; Crosson, P.; Cappelleri, A.; McGee, M. Antimicrobial drug usage from birth to 180 days of age in Irish dairy calves and in suckler beef calves. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2019, 47, 474–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Medrano-Galarza, C.; LeBlanc, S.J.; Jones-Bitton, A.; DeVries, T.J.; Rushen, J.; Marie de Passillé, A.; Endres, M.I.; Haley, D.B. Associations between management practices and within-pen prevalence of calf diarrhea and respiratory disease on dairy farms using automated milk feeders. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 2293–2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Sawant, A.A.; Sordillo, L.M.; Jayarao, B.M. A survey on antibiotic usage in dairy herds in Pennsylvania. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2991–2999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lanz Uhde, F.; Kaufmann, T.; Sager, H.; Albini, S.; Zanoni, R.; Schelung, E.; Meylan, M. Prevalence of four enteropathogens in the faeces of young diarrhoeic dairy calves in Switzerland. Vet. Rec. 2008, 163, 362–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Izzo, M.M.; Kirkland, P.D.; Mohler, V.L.; Perkins, N.R.; Gunn, A.A.; House, J.K. Prevalence of major enteric pathogens in Australian dairy calves with diarrhoea. Aust. Vet. J. 2011, 89, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Al Mawly, J.; Grinberg, A.; Prattley, D.; Moffat, J.; French, N. Prevalence of endemic enteropathogens of calves in New Zealand dairy farms. N. Z. Vet. J. 2015, 63, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Welsh, R.D.; Dye, L.B.; Payton, M.E.; Confer, A.W. Isolation and antimicrobial susceptibilities of bacterial pathogens from bovine pneumonia: 1994-2002. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2004, 16, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Griffin, D.; Chengappa, M.M.; Kuszak, J.; McVey, D.S. Bacterial pathogens of the bovine respiratory disease complex. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2010, 26, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Springer, H.R.; Denagamage, T.N.; Fenton, G.D.; Haley, B.J.; Van Kessel, J.A.S.; Hovingh, E.P. Antimicrobial resistance in fecal Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica from dairy calves: A systematic review. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Catry, B.; Decostere, A.; Schwarz, S.; Kehrenberg, C.; de Kruif, A.; Haesebrouck, F. Detection of tetracycline-resistant and susceptible Pasteurellaceae in the nasopharynx of loose group-housed calves. Vet. Res. Commun. 2006, 30, 707–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maynou, G.; Bach, A.; Terré, M. Feeding of waste milk to Holstein calves affects antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli and Pasteurella multocida isolated from fecal and nasal swabs. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 2682–2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Edrington, T.S.; Callaway, T.R.; Anderson, R.C.; Nisbet, D.J. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant Salmonella on commercial dairies utilizing a single heifer raising facility. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Berge, A.C.; Hancock, D.D.; Sischo, W.M.; Besser, T.E. Geographic, farm, and animal factors associated with multiple antimicrobial resistance in fecal Escherichia coli isolates from cattle in the western United States. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2010, 236, 1338–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cao, H.; Pradhan, A.K.; Karns, J.S.; Hovingh, E.; Wolfgang, D.R.; Vinyard, B.T.; Kim, S.W.; Salaheen, S.; Haley, B.J.; Van Kessel, J.A.S. Age-associated distribution of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella enterica and Escherichia coli isolated from dairy herds in Pennsylvania, 2013–2015. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Zwald, A.G.; Ruegg, P.L.; Kaneene, J.B.; Warnick, L.D.; Wells, S.J.; Fossler, C.; Halbert, L.W. Management practices and reported antimicrobial usage on conventional and organic dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Pereira, R.V.; Siler, J.D.; Ng, J.C.; Davis, M.A.; Grohn, Y.T.; Warnick, L.D. Effect of on-farm use of antimicrobial drugs on resistance in fecal Escherichia coli of preweaned dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 7644–7654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Olson, A.; Sischo, W.M.; Berge, A.C.B.; Adams-Progar, A.; Moore, D.A. A retrospective cohort study comparing dairy calf treatment decisions by farm personnel with veterinary observations of clinical signs. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 6391–6403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jarrige, N.; Cazeau, G.; Bosquet, G.; Bastien, J.; Benoit, F.; Gay, E. Effects of antimicrobial exposure on the antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli in the digestive flora of dairy calves. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020, 185, 105177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Raymond, M.J.; Wohrle, R.D.; Call, D.R. Assessment and promotion of judicious antibiotic use on dairy farms in Washington State. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 3228–3240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Krogh, M.A.; Nielsen, C.L.; Sørensen, J.T. Antimicrobial use in organic and conventional dairy herds. Animal 2020, 14, 2187–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Afema, J.A.; Davis, M.A.; Sischo, W.M. Antimicrobial use policy change in pre-weaned dairy calves and its impact on antimicrobial resistance in commensal Escherichia coli: A cross sectional and ecological study. BMC Microbiol. 2019, 19, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pereira, R.V.; Siler, J.D.; Ng, J.C.; Davis, M.A.; Warnick, L.D. Effect of preweaned dairy calf housing system on antimicrobial resistance in commensal Escherichia coli. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 7633–7643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Gomez, D.E.; Arroyo, L.G.; Renaud, D.L.; Viel, L.; Weese, J.S. A multidisciplinary approach to reduce and refine antimicrobial drugs use for diarrhoea in dairy calves. Vet. J. 2021, 274, 105713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Walker, W.L.; Epperson, W.B.; Wittum, T.E.; Lord, L.K.; Rajala-Schultz, P.J.; Lakritz, J. Characteristics of dairy calf ranches: Morbidity, mortality, antibiotic use practices, and biosecurity and biocontainment practices. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 2204–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Foutz, C.A.; Godden, S.M.; Bender, J.B.; Diez-Gonzalez, F.; Akhtar, M.; Vatulin, A. Exposure to antimicrobials through the milk diet or systemic therapy is associated with a transient increase in antimicrobial resistance in fecal Escherichia coli of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10126–10141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Waade, J.; Seibt, U.; Honscha, W.; Rachidi, F.; Starke, A.; Speck, S.; Truyen, U. Multidrug-resistant enterobacteria in newborn dairy calves in Germany. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Okello, E.; Williams, D.R.; ElAshmawy, W.R.; Adams, J.; Pereira, R.V.; Lehenbauer, T.W.; Aly, S.S. Survey on antimicrobial drug use practices in California preweaned dairy calves. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 636670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Formenti, N.; Martinelli, C.; Vitale, N.; Giovannini, S.; Salogni, C.; Tonni, M.; Scali, F.; Birbes, L.; D’incau, M.; Guarneri, F.; et al. Antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli in dairy calves: A 15-year retrospective analysis and comparison of treated and untreated animals. Animals 2021, 11, 2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sjöström, K.; Hickman, R.A.; Tepper, V.; Olmos Antillón, G.; Järhult, J.D.; Emanuelson, U.; Fall, N.; Sternberg Lewerin, S. Antimicrobial resistance patterns in organic and conventional dairy herds in Sweden. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Souto, M.S.M.; Coura, F.M.; Dorneles, E.M.S.; Stynen, A.P.R.; Alves, T.M.; Santana, J.A.; Pauletti, R.B.; Guedes, R.M.C.; Viott, A.M.; Heinemann, M.B.; et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility and phylotyping profile of pathogenic Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica isolates from calves and pigs in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017, 49, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kaneene, J.B.; Warnick, L.D.; Bolin, C.A.; Erskine, R.J.; May, K.; Miller, R.A. Changes in tetracycline susceptibility of enteric bacteria following switching to nonmedicated milk replacer for dairy calves. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 1968–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wilson, J.B.; Mcewen, S.A.; Leslie, K.E.; Waltner-Toews, D.; Clarke, R.C.; Wilson, R.A.; Gyles, C.L. Distribution and characteristics of verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli isolated from Ontario dairy cattle. Epidemiol. Infect. 1992, 108, 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Maynou, G.; Migura-Garcia, L.; Chester-Jones, H.; Ziegler, D.; Bach, A.; Terré, M. Effects of feeding pasteurized waste milk to dairy calves on phenotypes and genotypes of antimicrobial resistance in fecal Escherichia coli isolates before and after weaning. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 7967–7979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Astorga, F.; Navarrete-Talloni, M.J.; Miró, M.P.; Bravo, V.; Toro, M.; Blondel, C.J.; Hervé-Claude, L.P. Antimicrobial resistance in E. coli isolated from dairy calves and bedding material. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Fuenmayor, Y.; Rodas-González, A.; Carruyo, G.; Hoet, A.E.; Wittum, T.; Narváez-Bravo, C. Salmonella Prevalence and Antimicrobial Drug Resistance in Dual-Purpose Cattle Operations in the Eastern Region of Zulia State, Venezuela. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kaneene, J.B.; Warnick, L.D.; Bolin, C.A.; Erskine, R.J.; May, K.; Miller, R. Changes in multidrug resistance of enteric bacteria following an intervention to reduce antimicrobial resistance in dairy calves. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 4109–4112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Bischoff, K.M.; Edrington, T.S.; Callaway, T.R.; Genovese, K.J.; Nisbet, D.J. Characterization of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella Kinshasa from dairy calves in Texas. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 38, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Vannakovida, C.; Lampang, K.N.; Chuammitri, P.; Punyapornwithaya, V.; Kreausukon, K.; Mektrirat, R. Comparative occurrence and antibiogram of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli among post-weaned calves and lactating cows from smallholder dairy farms in a parallel animal husbandry area. Vet. World 2021, 14, 1311–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Furlan, J.P.R.; dos Santos, L.D.R.; Ramos, M.S.; Gallo, I.F.L.; Stehling, E.G. Fecal cultivable aerobic microbiota of dairy cows and calves acting as reservoir of clinically relevant antimicrobial resistance genes. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2020, 51, 1377–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liebana, E.; Batchelor, M.; Hopkins, K.L.; Clifton-Hadley, F.A.; Teale, C.J.; Foster, A.; Barker, L.; Threlfall, E.J.; Davies, R.H. Longitudinal farm study of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-mediated resistance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 1630–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Oh, S.I.; Ha, S.; Roh, J.H.; Hur, T.Y.; Yoo, J.G. Dynamic changes in antimicrobial resistance in fecal Escherichia coli from neonatal dairy calves: An individual follow-up study. Animals 2020, 10, 1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kaneene, J.B.; Miller, R.; May, K.; Hattey, J.A. An outbreak of multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype oranienburg in Michigan dairy calves. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010, 7, 1193–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gharieb, R.; Fawzi, E.; Elsohaby, I. Antibiogram, virulotyping and genetic diversity of Escherichia coli and Salmonella serovars isolated from diarrheic calves and calf handlers. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 67, 101367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Berge, A.C.B.; Atwill, E.R.; Sischo, W.M. Animal and farm influences on the dynamics of antibiotic resistance in faecal Escherichia coli in young dairy calves. Prev. Vet. Med. 2005, 69, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Casaux, M.L.; Caffarena, R.D.; Schild, C.O.; Giannitti, F.; Riet-Correa, F.; Fraga, M. Antibiotic resistance in Salmonella enterica isolated from dairy calves in Uruguay. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 1139–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Pereira, R.V.; Santos, T.M.; Bicalho, M.L.; Caixeta, L.S.; Machado, V.S.; Bicalho, R.C. Antimicrobial resistance and prevalence of virulence factor genes in fecal Escherichia coli of Holstein calves fed milk with and without antimicrobials. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 4556–4565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. de Verdier, K.; Nyman, A.; Greko, C.; Bengtsson, B. Antimicrobial resistance and virulence factors in Escherichia coli from swedish dairy calves. Acta Vet. Scand. 2012, 54, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Berge, A.C.; Thornburg, E.; Adaska, J.M.; Moeller, R.B.; Blanchard, P.C. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica serovar Dublin from dairy source calves in the central San Joaquin Valley, California (1998–2002). J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2008, 20, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Dolejská, M.; Šenk, D.; Čížek, A.; Rybaříková, J.; Sychra, O.; Literák, I. Antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli isolates in cattle and house sparrows on two Czech dairy farms. Res. Vet. Sci. 2008, 85, 491–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Izzo, M.; Mohler, V.; House, J. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella isolates recovered from calves with diarrhoea in Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 2011, 89, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cho, S.; Fossler, C.P.; Diez-Gonzalez, F.; Wells, S.J.; Hedberg, C.W.; Kaneene, J.B.; Ruegg, P.L.; Warnick, L.D.; Bender, J.B. Antimicrobial susceptibility of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from organic dairy farms, conventional dairy farms, and county fairs in Minnesota. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2007, 4, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Duse, A.; Ohlson, A.; Stengärde, L.; Tråvén, M.; Alenius, S.; Bengtsson, B. Associations between Bovine coronavirus and Bovine respiratory syncytial virus infections and productivity, health status and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in swedish dairy herds. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Halimi, H.A.; Seifi, H.A.; Rad, M. Bovine salmonellosis in Northeast of Iran: Frequency, genetic fingerprinting and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Salmonella spp. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2014, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Blasi, F.; Lovito, C.; Albini, E.; Bano, L.; Dalmonte, G.; Drigo, I.; Maresca, C.; Massacci, F.R.; Orsini, S.; Primavilla, S.; et al. Clostridioides difficile in calves in central Italy: Prevalence, molecular typing, antimicrobial susceptibility and association with antibiotic administration. Animals. 2021, 11, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Manga, I.; Hasman, H.; Smidkova, J.; Medvecky, M.; Dolejska, M.; Cizek, A. Fecal carriage and whole-genome sequencing-assisted characterization of CMY-2 beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in calves at Czech dairy cow farm. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Çabalar, M.; Boynukara, B.; Gülhan, T.; Ekin, I.H. Prevalence of Rotavirus, Escherichia coli K99 and 0157:H7 in healthy dairy cattle herds in Van, Turkey. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2001, 25, 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mousa, W.S.; Abo Shama, U.H. Prevalence, antimicrobial resistance and substantial virulence-associated genes of Escherichia coli isolated from colibacillosis in neonatal calves in Egypt. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2020, 9, 1145–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. DeFrancesco, K.A.; Cobbold, R.N.; Rice, D.H.; Besser, T.E.; Hancock, D.D. Antimicrobial resistance of commensal Escherichia coli from dairy cattle associated with recent multi-resistant salmonellosis outbreaks. Vet. Microbiol. 2004, 98, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Berge, A.C.; Moore, D.A.; Sischo, W.M. Field trial evaluating the influence of prophylactic and therapeutic antimicrobial administration on antimicrobial resistance of fecal Escherichia coli in dairy calves. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 3872–3878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Pereira, R.V.; Altier, C.; Siler, J.D.; Mann, S.; Jordan, D.; Warnick, L.D. Longitudinal effects of enrofloxacin or tulathromycin use in preweaned calves at high risk of bovine respiratory disease on the shedding of antimicrobial-resistant fecal Escherichia coli. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 10547–10559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Roopnarine, R.; Ammons, D.; Adesiyun, A.A. Frequency of antimicrobial resistance of E. coli isolates from dairy farms in Trinidad by source and presence of virulence markers. Vet. Arh. 2009, 79, 229–243. [Google Scholar]
  69. Massé, J.; Lardé, H.; Fairbrother, J.M.; Roy, J.P.; Francoz, D.; Dufour, S.; Archambault, M. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and characteristics of Escherichia coli isolates from fecal and manure Pit samples on dairy farms in the province of Québec, Canada. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 654125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hervé-Claude, L.; Bárbara Valenzuela, H.; Enrique Paredes, H.; Manuel Moroni, R.; Navarrete-Talloni, M. Antimicrobial resistance in E. coli and Salmonella spp. isolates from calves in Southern Chile. Rev. MVZ Cordoba 2017, 22, 6191–6203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Duse, A.; Waller, K.P.; Emanuelson, U.; Unnerstad, H.E.; Persson, Y.; Bengtsson, B. Risk factors for antimicrobial resistance in fecal Escherichia coli from preweaned dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 500–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Orden, J.A.; Ruiz-Santa-Quiteria, J.A.; García, S.; Cid, D.; De La Fuente, R. In vitro susceptibility of Escherichia coli strains isolated from diarrhoeic dairy calves to 15 antimicrobial agents. J. Vet. Med. B. Infect. Dis. Vet. Public Health 2000, 47, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Hang, B.P.; Wredle, E.; Börjesson, S.; Sjaunja, K.S.; Dicksved, J.; Duse, A. High level of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli in young dairy calves in southern Vietnam. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 1405–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Khachatryan, A.R.; Hancock, D.D.; Besser, T.E.; Call, D.R. Role of Calf-adapted Escherichia coli in maintenance of antimicrobial drug resistance in dairy calves. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 752–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Meshref, A.M.; Eldesoukey, I.E.; Alouffi, A.S.; Alrashedi, S.A.; Osman, S.A.; Ahmed, A.M. Molecular analysis of antimicrobial resistance among Enterobacteriaceae isolated from diarrhoeic calves in Egypt. Animals 2021, 11, 1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Adesiyun, A.A.; Kaminjolo, J.S. Susceptibility to antibiotics of Escherichia coli strains isolated from diarrhoeic and non-diarrhoeic livestock in Trinidad. Rev. Elev. Med. Vet. Pays Trop. 1992, 45, 260–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Khachatryan, A.R.; Besser, T.E.; Hancock, D.D.; Call, D.R. Use of a nonmedicated dietary supplement correlates with increased prevalence of streptomycin-sulfa-tetracycline-resistant Escherichia coli on a dairy farm. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 4583–4588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Algammal, A.M.; El-Kholy, A.W.; Riad, E.M.; Mohamed, H.E.; Elhaig, M.M.; Al Yousef, S.A.; Hozzein, W.N.; Ghobashy, M.O.I. Genes encoding the virulence and the antimicrobial resistance in enterotoxigenic and shiga-toxigenic E. coli isolated from diarrheic calves. Toxins 2020, 12, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Klein-Jostl, D.; Sofka, D.; Iwersen, M.; Drillich, M.; Hilbert, F. Multilocus sequence typing and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from dairy calves in Austria. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Gilberto, L.V.; Octavio, Z.R.; Lilia, N.G.; Víctor, N.B.; Heriberto, L.L.; María, L.S.; Alberto, B.; Víctor, G.; Alfredo, E.A.; Richard, Z.; et al. Effective use of probiotic-glyconutrient combination as an adjuvant to antibiotic therapy for diarrhea in rearing dairy calves. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2017, 41, 578–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Orden, J.A.; Ruiz-Santa-Quiteria, J.A.; García, S.; Cid, D.; De La Fuente, R. In vitro activities of cephalosporins and quinolones against Escherichia coli strains isolated from diarrheic dairy calves. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1999, 43, 510–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Ahmed, A.M.; Younis, E.E.; Osman, S.A.; Ishida, Y.; El-Khodery, S.A.; Shimamoto, T. Genetic analysis of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli isolated from diarrheic neonatal calves. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 136, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Walk, S.T.; Mladonicky, J.M.; Middleton, J.A.; Heidt, A.J.; Cunningham, J.R.; Bartlett, P.; Sato, K.; Whittam, T.S. Influence of antibiotic selection on genetic composition of Escherichia coli populations from conventional and organic dairy farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 5982–5989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Awosile, B.; McClure, J.; Sanchez, J.; Rodriguez-Lecompte, J.C.; Keefe, G.; Heider, L.C. Salmonella enterica and extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli recovered from Holstein dairy calves from 8 farms in New Brunswick, Canada. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3271–3284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Edrington, T.S.; Carter, B.H.; Farrow, R.L.; Islas, A.; Hagevoort, G.R.; Friend, T.H.; Callaway, T.R.; Anderson, R.C.; Nisbet, D.J. Influence of weaning on fecal shedding of pathogenic bacteria in dairy calves. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2011, 8, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Chatre, P.; Haenni, M.; Meunier, D.; Botrel, M.A.; Calavas, D.; Madec, J.Y. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from cattle between 2002 and 2006 in France. J. Food Prot. 2010, 73, 825–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ray, K.A.; Warnick, L.D.; Mitchell, R.M.; Kaneene, J.B.; Ruegg, P.L.; Wells, S.J.; Fossler, C.P.; Halbert, L.W.; May, K. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among Salmonella on midwest and northeast USA dairy farms. Prev. Vet. Med. 2007, 79, 204–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Schrag, N.F.D.; Apley, M.D.; Godden, S.M.; Lubbers, B.V.; Singer, R.S. Antimicrobial use quantification in adult dairy cows–Part 1—Standardized regimens as a method for describing antimicrobial use. Zoonoses Public Health 2020, 67, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Merle, R.; Robanus, M.; Hegger-Gravenhorst, C.; Mollenhauer, Y.; Hajek, P.; Käsbohrer, A.; Honscha, W.; Kreienbrock, L. Feasibility study of veterinary antibiotic consumption in Germany--comparison of ADDs and UDDs by animal production type, antimicrobial class and indication. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Hyde, R.; Green, M.; Remnant, J.; Down, P.; Huxley, J.; Davies, P.; Hudson, C.; Breen, J. Tool to measure antimicrobial use on farms. Vet. Rec. 2017, 180, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Speksnijder, D.C.; Jaarsma, D.A.C.; Verheij, T.J.M.; Wagenaar, J.A. Attitudes and perceptions of Dutch veterinarians on their role in the reduction of antimicrobial use in farm animals. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 121, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Kramer, T.; Jansen, L.E.; Lipman, L.J.A.; Smit, L.A.M.; Heederik, D.J.J.; Dorado-García, A. Farmers’ knowledge and expectations of antimicrobial use and resistance are strongly related to usage in Dutch livestock sectors. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 147, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Berge, A.C.B.; Lindeque, P.; Moore, D.A.; Sischo, W.M. Erratum: A clinical trial evaluating prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotic use on health and performance of preweaned calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2166–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wray, C.; Furniss, S.; Benham, C.L. Feeding antibiotic-contaminated waste milk to calves--effects on physical performance and antibiotic sensitivity of gut flora. Br. Vet. J. 1990, 146, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Aust, V.; Knappstein, K.; Kunz, H.-J.; Kaspar, H.; Wallmann, J.; Kaske, M. Feeding untreated and pasteurized waste milk and bulk milk to calves: Effects on calf performance, health status and antibiotic resistance of faecal bacteria. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2013, 97, 1091–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Maynou, G.; Chester-Jones, H.; Bach, A.; Terré, M. Feeding pasteurized waste milk to preweaned dairy calves changes fecal and upper respiratory tract microbiota. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Penati, M.; Sala, G.; Biscarini, F.; Boccardo, A.; Bronzo, V.; Castiglioni, B.; Cremonesi, P.; Moroni, P.; Pravettoni, D.; Addis, M.F. Feeding pre-weaned calves with waste milk containing antibiotic residues is related to a higher incidence of diarrhea and alterations in the fecal microbiota. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 650150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lhermie, G.; Tauer, L.W.; Gröhn, Y.T. An assessment of the economic costs to the U.S. dairy market of antimicrobial use restrictions. Prev. Vet. Med. 2018, 160, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gibbons, J.F.; Boland, F.; Buckley, J.F.; Butler, F.; Egan, J.; Fanning, S.; Markey, B.K.; Leonard, F.C. Patterns of antimicrobial resistance in pathogenic Escherichia coli isolates from cases of calf enteritis during the spring-calving season. Vet. Microbiol. 2014, 170, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 00771 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the selection process for studies (n = number of studies).
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the selection process for studies (n = number of studies).
Animals 12 00771 g001
Table
Table 1. Antimicrobial use for different purposes among different farm types. Number of farms with treatment divided by the total number of farms in brackets.
Table 1. Antimicrobial use for different purposes among different farm types. Number of farms with treatment divided by the total number of farms in brackets.
Purpose of UseFarm TypePercentage of Farms
with Treatment		Country (Ref.)
DiarrheaConventional herd78.79% (78/99)US [22]
DiarrheaOrganic herd21.88% (7/32)US [22]
Gastro-intestinalConventional herd35.99% (827/2298)US [29]
Gastro-intestinalOrganic herd31.05% (95/306)US [29]
PneumoniaConventional herd45.45% (15/33)US [8]
RespiratoryConventional herd51.00% (1172/2298)US [29]
RespiratoryOrganic herd46.08% (141/306)US [29]
TreatmentConventional herd25.00% (1/3)US [24]
TreatmentConventional herd40.00% (2/5)France [25]
Milk replacerConventional herd25.19% (165/655)US [26]
FeedConventional herd27.30% (104/381)US [26]
Total 64.21% (6882/10,718)
Table
Table 2. Antimicrobial use for different purposes at calf level. Number of calves with treatment divided by the total number of calves on farms in brackets. These data are all from conventional herds.
Table 2. Antimicrobial use for different purposes at calf level. Number of calves with treatment divided by the total number of calves on farms in brackets. These data are all from conventional herds.
Purpose of UseType of CalvesPercentage of Calves with TreatmentCountry (Ref.)
DiarrheaCalves (<90 days)18.26% (310/1698)Canada [30]
DiarrheaCalves36.15% (141/390)US [8]
DiarrheaCalves84.20% (190/226)US [26]
DiarrheaPre-weaned heifer calves83.00% (61/73)US [31]
PneumoniaCalves25.38% (99/390)US [8]
PneumoniaCalves97.00% (198/204)US [26]
PneumoniaPre-weaned heifer calves, 0–90 days100.00% (64/64)US [31]
PreventionCalves54.02% (47/87)US [31]
First treatmentCalves in individual pens, feeding calves with milk or milk replacer38.41% (63/164)US [23]
First treatmentCalves in group pens, feeding calves with acidified milk ad libitum17.46% (55/315)US [23]
Second treatmentCalves in individual pens, feeding calves with milk or milk replacer18.90% (31/164)US [23]
Second treatmentCalves in group pens, feeding calves with acidified milk ad libitum6.03% (19/315)US [23]
Third treatmentCalves in individual pens, feeding calves with milk or milk replacer8.54% (14/164)US [23]
Third treatmentCalves in group pens, feeding calves with acidified milk ad libitum0.95% (3/315)US [23]
TreatmentCalves (from birth to weaning)99.40% (4275/4301)US [28]
TreatmentCalves87.34% (69/79)US [31]
Treatment4.6 (2.0; 1 to 8) *14.86% (11/74)US [32]
Treatment18.6 (2.0; 15 to 22) *27.03% (20/74)US [32]
Treatment32.6 (2.0; 29 to 36) *29.73% (22/74)US [32]
TreatmentCalves (0–14 days) *11.67% (21/180)Germany [33]
Treatment with
one type		Calves (from birth to weaning)12.41% (534/4301)US [28]
Treatment with
two or more types		Calves (from birth to weaning)88.15% (3793/4301)US [28]
Milk replacerCalves56.32% (49/87)US [31]
Total (diarrhea) 29.41% (702/2387)
Total (pneumonia) 60.77% (361/594)
Total (disease) 35.66% (1063/2981)
Total 35.50% (5233/14,742)
* Age/d (SD, min to max).
Table
Table 3. Percentages of antimicrobials used for different purposes in dairy calves. Means were calculated as the arithmetic means of these percentages. There were three studies from the US and one study from France.
Table 3. Percentages of antimicrobials used for different purposes in dairy calves. Means were calculated as the arithmetic means of these percentages. There were three studies from the US and one study from France.
Use CategoryTreatment (US) [28]Diarrhea (US) [26]Pneumonia (US) [26]Prevention (US) [26]Treatment (US) [26]Treatment(US) [23]Treatment (US) [23]Treatment (US) [23]Treatment (US) [23]Treatment (US) [23]Treatment (US) [23]Treatment (France) [25]Mean
β-Lactamβ-Lactam 79.37%12.73%35.48% 7.14% 33.68%
Amoxicillin 2.20%28.60% 15.40%
Amoxicillin/
Clavulanic acid		 4.00%4.00%
Ampicillin75.00% 0.50%26.50% 12.73% 28.68%
Penicillin 6.30%89.90%17.46% 6.45% 8.00%25.62%
Ceftiofur3.30%14%18%8.60%87.80%61.90% 29.03% 7.14% 28.72%
MacrolidesMacrolides 11.11%23.64%58.06%52.63%42.86% 1.00%31.55%
Erythromycin 1.10%12.40% 6.75%
Tilmicosin 20%2.20%38.50% 20.23%
Tulathromycin11.80% 11.11%23.64%54.84%52.63%35.71% 31.62%
Tylosin 2.20%27.30% 3.23% 7.14% 9.97%
AminoglycosidesAminoglycosides 11.00%11.00%
Gentamycin 80.00%16.60% 48.30%
TetracyclinesTetracyclines 9.52% 33.33%1.00%14.62%
Chlortetracycline/Sulfamethazine 25.80%23.90% 24.85%
Neomycin/
Oxytetracycline		 7.60%18.90% 13.25%
Oxytetracycline 18% 8.00%69.80%9.52% 33.33% 27.73%
PhenicolsPhenicols 9.52% 33.33% 21.43%
Florfenicol15.60% 27%2.50%41.20%9.52% 33.33%1.00%18.59%
QuinolonesFluoroquinolone 3.17%49.09%6.45%47.37%21.43%66.67% 32.36%
Enrofloxacin55.00% 3.17%49.09%6.45%47.37%21.43%66.67% 35.60%
SulfonamidesSulfonamides 2.20%55.00% 1.82% 19.67%
Sulfonamides/
Trimethoprim		 3.00%3.00%
Sulfachlorpyridazine97.80% 0.30%10.20% 36.10%
Sulfamethazine 28% 1.82% 14.91%
ColistinColistin 6.00%6.00%
Table
Table 4. Antimicrobial resistance patterns for E. coli and Salmonella spp. isolated from dairy calves with diarrhea. The total number of studies and the corresponding references were listed for each pathogen. Number of resistant isolates divided by the total number of isolates for each antimicrobial are displayed. Critically important antimicrobials (according to WHO) with the highest priority are marked in bold and italic.
Table 4. Antimicrobial resistance patterns for E. coli and Salmonella spp. isolated from dairy calves with diarrhea. The total number of studies and the corresponding references were listed for each pathogen. Number of resistant isolates divided by the total number of isolates for each antimicrobial are displayed. Critically important antimicrobials (according to WHO) with the highest priority are marked in bold and italic.
Class of
Antimicrobial		AntimicrobialE. coliSalmonella spp.
Ref.Proportion of Resistant IsolatesRef.Proportion of Resistant Isolates
β-lactamAmoxycillin[32,35,36,37,38,39,40]0.79 (687/869; 0.30–1.00)[28,41]0.00 (0/37; 0.00–0.00)
Amoxicillin/Clavulanic acid[19,36,38,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]0.24 (538/2228; 0.00–0.91)[19,42,49,50]0.26 (731/2769; 0.02–0.93)
Ampicillin[16,19,28,35,36,37,38,41,42,43,44,45,46,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]0.21 (4281/19,993; 0.00–0.98)[17,19,41,42,48,49,50,51,52] 0.75 (786/1046; 0.14–0.92)
Cefalexin[43]1.00 (20/20; 1.00–1.00)[41]0.00 (0/19; 0.00–0.00)
Ceftiofur[19,35,36,37,41,42,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]0.32 (2379/7457; 0.00–1.00)[19,42,47,49,50,51]0.75 (726/974; 0.03–0.98)
Ceftriaxone[19,42,49,50,51,52]0.13 (467/3555; 0.05–0.81)[19,42,49,50,60]0.36 (1125/3121; 0.00–0.47)
Cefalothin[25,43,45,56,57,63,64]0.11 (178/1596; 0.00–0.90)
Cefoxitin[19,42,50,51,52,53]0.29 (872/3027; 0.00–0.75)[19,42,49,50,60]0.40 (1194/3022; 0.09–0.49)
SulfonamidesSulfamethoxazole[17,28,32,45,63,65,66,67]0.12 (978/8123; 0.02–0.69)[50,61,68]0.83 (653/788; 0.01–0.96)
Sulfisoxazole[19,42,49,50,51,52]0.39 (3999/10,133; 0.04–0.93)[19,42]0.50 (1131/2252; 0.51–0.77)
Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole[19,28,35,36,37,38,41,42,43,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]0.29 (2590/8832; 0.03–0.82)[17,41,48,49,50,51,59]0.23 (691/2992; 0.00–0.79)
AminoglycosidesAmikacin[19,42,49,50,51,52]0.22 (793/3601; 0.01–0.87)[69,70,71]0.12 (92/783; 0.01–0.31)
Gentamicin[16,19,28,35,36,37,38,41,42,43,44,45,46,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]0.16 (1814/11,473; 0.00–0.87)[17,41,48,49,50,51,53,59]0.29 (871/2959; 0.11–0.83)
Kanamycin[42,50,51,52,53,54,72,73,74]0.37 (813/2183; 0.06–0.91)[17,41,48,49,50,51,75]0.76 (665/880; 0.05–0.92)
Streptomycin[17,28,34,35,38,40,43,44,45,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,57,58,59,60,61,62] 0.36 (7438/20,875; 0.04–0.91)[19,42,49,50,51]0.79 (681/861; 0.22–0.97)
Neomycin[29,42,50,51,73,76,77]0.38 (816/2158; 0.09–0.94)[19,42,49]0.56 (99/178; 0.09–0.83)
PhenicolsChloramphenicol[19,28,35,36,37,41,42,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]0.16 (2012/12,803; 0.03–0.85)[19,42,47,49,50,51]0.24 (650/2737; 0.01–0.94)
Florfenicol[19,35,36,41,42,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,74]0.20 (874/4430; 0.00–0.98)[78,79,80]0.81 (109/135; 0.61–0.86)
TetracyclinesTetracycline[19,28,35,36,37,38,41,42,43,44,45,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]0.55 (10,335/18,669; 0.16–0.96)[19,42,48,49,50,51,52,53]0.55 (2766/5046; 0.21–0.99)
Oxytetracycline[16,35,40,43,72,77,81]0.27 (386/1430; 0.04–0.89)[82,83]0.89 (127/143; 0.88–0.95)
QuinoloneCiprofloxacin[19,35,36,41,42,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]0.09 (486/5212; 0.00–0.36)[19,42,49,50,84]0.17 (467/2805; 0.00–0.63)
Enrofloxacin[19,35,36,41,42,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]0.15 (295/2013; 0.00–0.84)[19,42]0.08 (12/143; 0.00–0.09)
Nalidixic acid[19,35,36,37,41,42,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]0.11 (694/6135; 0.00–0.76)[15,23,33,73,85,86,87]0.03 (78/2806; 0.00–0.05)
MacrolidesErythromycin[19]0.99 (176/178; 0.99–0.99)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, X.; Yi, X.; Zhuang, H.; Deng, Z.; Ma, C. Invited Review: Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in Pathogens Associated with Diarrhea and Pneumonia in Dairy Calves. Animals 2022, 12, 771. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060771

AMA Style

Zhang X, Yi X, Zhuang H, Deng Z, Ma C. Invited Review: Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in Pathogens Associated with Diarrhea and Pneumonia in Dairy Calves. Animals. 2022; 12(6):771. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060771

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Xin, Xia Yi, Haohua Zhuang, Zhaoju Deng, and Chong Ma. 2022. "Invited Review: Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in Pathogens Associated with Diarrhea and Pneumonia in Dairy Calves" Animals 12, no. 6: 771. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060771

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop