» Articles » PMID: 35097047

Canadian Dairy Network for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Resistance (CaDNetASR): An On-Farm Surveillance System

Overview
Journal Front Vet Sci
Date 2022 Jan 31
PMID 35097047
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Canada has implemented on-farm antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance systems for food-producing animals under the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance (CIPARS); however, dairy cattle have not been included in that program yet. The objective of this manuscript was to describe the development and implementation of the Canadian Dairy Network for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Resistance (CaDNetASR). An Expert Panel (EP) of researchers was created to lead the development of the dairy surveillance system. The EP initiated a draft document outlining the essential elements of the surveillance framework. This document was then circulated to a Steering Committee (SC), which provided recommendations used by the EP to finalize the framework. CaDNetASR has the following components: (1) a herd-level antimicrobial use quantification system; (2) annually administered risk factor questionnaires; and (3) methods for herd-level detection of AMR in three sentinel enteric pathogens (generic spp., and spp.) recovered from pooled fecal samples collected from calves, heifers, cows, and the manure pit. A total of 144 dairy farms were recruited in five Canadian provinces (British-Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Québec, and Nova-Scotia), with the help of local herd veterinarians and regional field workers, and in September 2019, the surveillance system was launched. 97.1 and 94.4% of samples were positive for , 63.8, and 49.1% of samples were positive for spp., and 5.0 and 7.7% of samples were positive for spp., in 2019 and 2020, respectively. was equally distributed among all sample types. However, it was more likely that spp. were recovered from heifer and cow samples. On the other hand, it was more common to isolate spp. from the manure pit compared to samples from calves, heifers, or cows. CaDNetASR will continue sampling until 2022 after which time this system will be integrated into CIPARS. CaDNetASR will provide online access to farmers and veterinarians interested in visualizing benchmarking metrics regarding AMU practices and their relationship to AMR and animal health in dairy herds. This will provide an opportunity to enhance antimicrobial stewardship practices on dairy farms in Canada.

Citing Articles

Standardization and evaluation of indicators for quantifying antimicrobial use on U.S. dairy farms.

Lu Z, Bulut E, Nydam D, Ivanek R Front Antibiot. 2025; 2():1176817.

PMID: 39816641 PMC: 11731823. DOI: 10.3389/frabi.2023.1176817.


The Contribution of Dairy Bedding and Silage to the Dissemination of Genes Coding for Antimicrobial Resistance: A Narrative Review.

Tarrah A, Zhang D, Darvishzadeh P, LaPointe G Antibiotics (Basel). 2024; 13(9).

PMID: 39335078 PMC: 11428397. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13090905.


Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing and Other Antimicrobial-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens Isolated from Bovine Mastitis: A One Health Perspective.

Nery Garcia B, Dantas S, da Silva Barbosa K, Mitsunaga T, Butters A, Camargo C Antibiotics (Basel). 2024; 13(5).

PMID: 38786120 PMC: 11117280. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13050391.


Quantifying antimicrobial use on Canadian dairy farms using garbage can audits.

Warder L, Heider L, Leger D, Rizzo D, McClure J, de Jong E Front Vet Sci. 2023; 10:1185628.

PMID: 37456957 PMC: 10347401. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1185628.


Integrated surveillance of antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial use: Evaluation of the status in Canada (2014-2019).

Otto S, Haworth-Brockman M, Miazga-Rodriguez M, Wierzbowski A, Saxinger L Can Vet J. 2022; 63(2):161-170.

PMID: 35110774 PMC: 8759327.

References
1.
Wemette M, Greiner Safi A, Wolverton A, Beauvais W, Shapiro M, Moroni P . Public perceptions of antibiotic use on dairy farms in the United States. J Dairy Sci. 2021; 104(3):2807-2821. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2019-17673. View

2.
Carmo L, Schupbach-Regula G, Muntener C, Chevance A, Moulin G, Magouras I . Approaches for quantifying antimicrobial consumption per animal species based on national sales data: a Swiss example, 2006 to 2013. Euro Surveill. 2017; 22(6). PMC: 5316905. DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.6.30458. View

3.
Afema J, Mather A, Sischo W . Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles and Diversity in Salmonella from Humans and Cattle, 2004-2011. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014; 62(7):506-17. DOI: 10.1111/zph.12172. View

4.
Van Gompel L, Luiken R, Sarrazin S, Munk P, Knudsen B, Hansen R . The antimicrobial resistome in relation to antimicrobial use and biosecurity in pig farming, a metagenome-wide association study in nine European countries. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019; 74(4):865-876. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dky518. View

5.
Scott H, Acuff G, Bergeron G, Bourassa M, Gill J, Graham D . Critically important antibiotics: criteria and approaches for measuring and reducing their use in food animal agriculture. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2019; 1441(1):8-16. PMC: 6850619. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14058. View