This document discusses USDA initiatives to study antimicrobial drug use and resistance on livestock facilities. It outlines National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) studies collecting data on antimicrobial use and resistance from various livestock species. Results from studies of cattle feedlots, swine and dairy operations show patterns of antimicrobial use varying by commodity and management practices. Ongoing efforts across USDA agencies aim to provide stakeholders information to address antimicrobial resistance issues.
Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365
USDA Initiates on Animal Antimicrobial Use and Resistance
1. Bridging the Gap Between Animal
Health and Human Health
USDA Initiatives and Data on Antimicrobial
Drug Use and Resistance on Livestock
Facilities
David A. Dargatz DVM, PhD
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Veterinary Services
November 13, 2013
Safeguarding Animal Health
1
2. Outline
• Overview of the National Animal Health
Monitoring System (NAHMS)
• NAHMS studies collecting antimicrobial use
and resistance data
• Example results from recent NAHMS studies
• Ongoing USDA efforts to provide stakeholders
with information on antimicrobial drug use and
resistance in livestock production
Safeguarding Animal Health
2
3. National Animal Health Monitoring
System (NAHMS) Overview
• Program of USDA:APHIS
• Stakeholder driven
• Mission – to provide information to decision
makers
• Voluntary participation of livestock producers
• Focus on issues of animal health, production,
public health and the environment
Safeguarding Animal Health
3
4. National Animal Health Monitoring
System (NAHMS) Overview
• Methods
Various study designs
Cross-sectional national studies
Cross-sectional targeted studies
Prospective monitoring studies
Sample collection
Types as appropriate for stakeholder questions
Analyses
Population estimates
Inferential analyses (risk factors or associations)
Safeguarding Animal Health
4
5. NAHMS National Studies
• Addressing antimicrobial use/resistance issues
Increased amounts of data collected
COFE(1994) = 29
Feedlot’99 = 109
Feedlot 2011 = 144
Increased number of organisms evaluated for
prevalence and antimicrobial resistance
Safeguarding Animal Health
6. Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts
Bacterial Isolation/Testing
Study
Productio
n setting
Year
States
Operations
Sal
Campy
Entero
DHEP
Dairy
1992
28
1811
Y*
Y**
COFE
Beef
feedlot
1994
13
1411
Y
Y**
Swine95
Swine
1995
16
1477
Y
Dairy96
Dairy
20
2542
Y
Beef97
Beef cowcalf
1994
23
2713
Y
Feedlot99
Beef
feedlot
1999
12
520
Y
Y
*Prevalence only
**E. coli O157 prevalence
Safeguarding Animal Health
Y
E.
coli
Y
C.
diff
MRSA
7. Previous NAHMS Data/Sample Collection Efforts
Bacterial Isolation/Testing
Study
Production
setting
Year
States
Operations
Sal
Campy
Entero
E.
coli
Swine2000
Swine
2000
17
2499
Y
Y
Y
Y
Dairy2002
Dairy
2002
21
2461
Y
Y
Y
Y
Swine2006
Swine
2006
17
2230
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Dairy 2007
Dairy
2007
21
2194
Y
Y
Y
Y
Beef 2007-08
Beef
Cow/calf
Sheep
2008
24
2872
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
2011
22
887
Y
Y
Y
Y
2011
12
995
Y
Y
Y
Y
Swine 2012
Beef
Feedlot
Swine
2012
13
Y
Y
Y
Dairy 2014
Dairy
2014
17
Y
Y
Y
Sheep 2011
Feedlot 2011
Y
Safeguarding Animal Health
C.
diff
MRSA
Y
8. Results for Cattle Feedlots (1999)
• Study inference = 96% feedlot cattle inventory
•
•
•
•
•
Feed/water use of antimicrobials
Injectable use of antimicrobials
Selection of antimicrobials
Training
Pathogen prevalence and resistance
Safeguarding Animal Health
8
11. Feedlot Injectable Antimicrobial Use
B.1.b. Percentage of all cattle placed that received the following classes of injectable antimicrobial
administered as a disease treatment or preventative, by feedlot capacity
Percent Cattle
Feedlot Capacity (number head)
1,000–7,999
Antimicrobial class
New long-acting (label specifies
effect of greater than 24 hours,
e.g., Excenel®, Micotil®, Nuflor®,
Baytril®
Conventional long-acting (label
specifies effect of greater than 24
hours,
e.g., LA 200®)
New short-acting (label specifies
effect of less than 24 hours, e.g.,
Naxcel®)
Conventional short-acting (label
specifies effect of less than 24
hours, e.g., Tylan®, penicillin, OxyTet100™)
Any antimicrobial
Pct.
Std. error
8,000 or more
Pct.
Std. error
All feedlots
Pct.
Std. error
9.6
(1.1)
14.3
(1.7)
13.6
(1.4)
2.9
(0.4)
4.8
(1.3)
4.5
(1.1)
1.5
(0.3)
4.4
(1.5)
3.9
(1.3)
4.3
(1.3)
3.4
(0.7)
3.5
(0.6)
16.1
(1.7)
19.5
(1.6)
19.0
(1.4)
Safeguarding Animal Health
11
13. Results for Swine Operations (2006)
• Inference population = 73% operations and
94% pigs
•
•
•
•
Feed/water use of antimicrobials
Injectable use of antimicrobials
Antimicrobial selection/decision making
Pathogen prevalence and resistance
Safeguarding Animal Health
13
17. Results for Dairy Operations (2007)
• Inference population = 80% operations and
83% of dairy cows
•
•
•
•
Injectable use of antimicrobials
Intramammary use of antimicrobials
Feed/water use of antimicrobials
Pathogen prevalence and resistance
Safeguarding Animal Health
17
24. Use of Antimicrobials in Milk
Replacers
• 57.5% of dairy operations used medicated milk
replacers
Less common in larger operations (43.6%)
• Most common medicants
Oxytetracycline with or without neomycin (71.4%)
Decoquinate (18.8%)
Chlortetracycline (12.1%)
Safeguarding Animal Health
25. Use of Antimicrobials in Heifer
Growing Rations
• 18.2% of dairy operations used antimicrobials in
weaned heifer rations
• Most common antimicrobials
Chlortetracycline products (14.4%)
Sulfa (5.7%)
Tetracycline (10.9%)
Safeguarding Animal Health
26. Feedlot 2011 Study
• More detailed injectable
use data
Disease condition
Feedlot demographics
Animal demographics
Drug class
• Feed/water use data
Feedlot demographics
Animal demographics
Drug class
Safeguarding Animal Health
26
27. Feedlot 2011 Study
• Antimicrobial selection
criteria/influences
• Training
• Records
Safeguarding Animal Health
27
32. Other USDA Actions Related to
Antimicrobial Use and Resistance
• Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
NARMS
Microbiology/microbial ecology
• Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
NARMS
Residue programs
• National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
Extra-mural research funding
Extension/outreach
Safeguarding Animal Health
32
33. Other USDA Actions Related to
Antimicrobial Resistance
• Economic Research Service (ERS)
Agricultural resource management surveys
Economic impacts
• National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)
Agricultural chemical use surveys
Safeguarding Animal Health
33
34. Stakeholder Workshop to Identify
Gaps - Representation
• Outside government
Public health, consumers, producers,
veterinarians, pharmaceutical industry
• Federal partners
FDA, CDC, NIH
• USDA partners
Safeguarding Animal Health
34
35. Stakeholder Identified Gaps
• Measures of antimicrobial drug use and
resistance
• Management practices and impacts on
antimicrobial resistance
• Alternative medical interventions
• Education, training and extension/outreach
Safeguarding Animal Health
35
36. A USDA Plan to Address
Antimicrobial Resistance
• Prioritize actions based on stakeholder input
• Leverage resources across USDA agencies
• Collaborate across USDA agencies
• Status – under development within the
department
Actions are already occurring
Safeguarding Animal Health
36
37. Summary
• Antimicrobials are widely used in livestock
and poultry
• Use patterns vary widely by commodity/class
of animal
Products used
Level of use
Purpose of use
Safeguarding Animal Health
37
38. Summary
• Some data are available to characterize use
and resistance
• Limitations in data
Discontinuous estimates
Lacking quantitative data
• Challenging to understand the ecology of
resistance
• On-going efforts (USDA and others) should
help to fill some information gaps
Safeguarding Animal Health
38
39. More NAHMS Information
Available
USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH
NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7
2150 Centre Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117
970.494.7000
E-mail: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov
http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov
Safeguarding Animal Health
39