Associations among antimicrobial use, calf management practices, and antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli from a pooled fecal sample in calves on Canadian dairy farms: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine associations between calf management practices, the number of antimicrobial treatments, and antimicrobial resistance in preweaning heifers on Canadian dairy farms. A composite of 5 fecal samples from preweaning calves was collected from 142 dairy farms in 5 provinces and analyzed for phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility with the microbroth dilution method. Questionnaires were used to capture herd characteristics and calf management practices used on the farm. Calf treatment records were collected during the farm visits. Escherichia coli was isolated from all 142 fecal samples with the highest resistance to tetracycline (41%), followed by sulfisoxazole (36%), streptomycin (32%), chloramphenicol (28%), ampicillin (16%), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (15%), ceftriaxone (4.2%), cefoxitin (2.8%), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (2.1%), ciprofloxacin (2.1%), nalidixic acid (2.1%), azithromycin (1.4%), and gentamicin (1.4%). Multidrug resistance was observed in 37% of E. coli isolates. Three-quarters of farms used fresh colostrum as the most common type of colostrum fed to calves. Colostrum quality was checked on 49% of farms, but the transfer of passive immunity was only checked on 32% of farms in the last 12 mo. Almost 70% of farms used straw or hay or a combination as the bedding material for calves. Among the 142 farms, a complete set of calf records were collected from 71 farms. In a multivariable logistic regression model, farms with ≥1.99 to 32.57 antimicrobial treatments/calf-year were 3.2 times more likely to have multidrug resistant E. coli in calf feces compared farms with <1.99 antimicrobial treatments/calf-year. Farms using hay or straw beddings were 5.1 times less likely to have multidrug resistant E. coli compared with those with other bedding materials including shavings or sawdust. Bedding management practices on farms may need to be investigated to reduce the potential effect on disseminating multidrug resistant bacteria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".