IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0044831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying Antimicrobial Resistance at Veal Calf Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Angela B Bosman
  • Jaap Wagenaar
  • Arjan Stegeman
  • Hans Vernooij
  • Dik Mevius

Abstract

This study was performed to determine a sampling strategy to quantify the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance on veal calf farms, based on the variation in antimicrobial resistance within and between calves on five farms. Faecal samples from 50 healthy calves (10 calves/farm) were collected. From each individual sample and one pooled faecal sample per farm, 90 selected Escherichia coli isolates were tested for their resistance against 25 mg/L amoxicillin, 25 mg/L tetracycline, 0.5 mg/L cefotaxime, 0.125 mg/L ciprofloxacin and 8/152 mg/L trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (tmp/s) by replica plating. From each faecal sample another 10 selected E. coli isolates were tested for their resistance by broth microdilution as a reference. Logistic regression analysis was performed to compare the odds of testing an isolate resistant between both test methods (replica plating vs. broth microdilution) and to evaluate the effect of pooling faecal samples. Bootstrap analysis was used to investigate the precision of the estimated prevalence of resistance to each antimicrobial obtained by several simulated sampling strategies. Replica plating showed similar odds of E. coli isolates tested resistant compared to broth microdilution, except for ciprofloxacin (OR 0.29, p≤0.05). Pooled samples showed in general lower odds of an isolate being resistant compared to individual samples, although these differences were not significant. Bootstrap analysis showed that within each antimicrobial the various compositions of a pooled sample provided consistent estimates for the mean proportion of resistant isolates. Sampling strategies should be based on the variation in resistance among isolates within faecal samples and between faecal samples, which may vary by antimicrobial. In our study, the optimal sampling strategy from the perspective of precision of the estimated levels of resistance and practicality consists of a pooled faecal sample from 20 individual animals, of which 90 isolates are tested for their susceptibility by replica plating.

Suggested Citation

  • Angela B Bosman & Jaap Wagenaar & Arjan Stegeman & Hans Vernooij & Dik Mevius, 2012. "Quantifying Antimicrobial Resistance at Veal Calf Farms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-7, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0044831
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044831
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044831&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0044831?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0044831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.