Antimicrobial Resistance and Use on Chinese Dairy Farms: Awareness and Opinions Regarding Selective Treatments of Farm Managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In China's expanding dairy industry, a lack of oversight regarding antimicrobial use and increasing antimicrobial resistance are evident. Selective treatments of dairy cows for clinical mastitis or dry cow therapy are proposed to promote judicious antimicrobial use without adversely impacting cattle health. These approaches have been successfully implemented on farms in other countries. METHODS: On 28 October 2023, a 2-day in-person seminar was held in Beijing, China, on selective antimicrobial treatments of dairy cows for clinical mastitis or dry cow therapy on large Chinese dairy farms. Concurrently, a qualitative study involving 15 technical managers from the 13 largest Chinese dairy groups used focus group discussions and questionnaires to explore perspectives on selective treatments of dairy cows for clinical mastitis or dry cow therapy. The main outcomes assessed were opinions and concerns regarding implementing selective antimicrobial treatments. RESULTS: Although there was diversity of cognition on AMR and selective treatments, the technical managers were generally positive regarding adoption of selective treatments. However, they expressed a need for more evidence and tools, including anticipated economic impacts, effects of delaying treatment until diagnosis, accurate interpretation of milk recording data, safe use of internal teat sealants, and spread of pathogens. Participants stressed the need for awareness, staff training, farm management, and China-specific standards, suggesting large-scale trials to assess efficacy of selective treatments. CONCLUSION: The findings revealed key challenges and barriers currently impeding selective AMU practices. These insights could inform efforts to promote judicious AMU on farms through targeted treatment regimens, reducing mounting selective pressure driving resistance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".