Antimicrobial use and stewardship practices on Australian beef feedlots

S.M. Badger; K.F. Sullivan; D. Jordan; C.G.B. Caraguel; S.W. Page; P.M.V. Cusack; D. Frith; D.J. Trott

doi:10.1111/avj.12889

Back

Antimicrobial use and stewardship practices on Australian beef feedlots

Journal article

Peer reviewed

Antimicrobial use and stewardship practices on Australian beef feedlots

S.M. Badger, K.F. Sullivan, D. Jordan, C.G.B. Caraguel, S.W. Page, P.M.V. Cusack, D. Frith and D.J. Trott

Australian Veterinary Journal, Vol.98(1-2), pp.37-47

2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/avj.12889

Files and links (1)

url

Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

Objective Improving antimicrobial stewardship in the livestock sector requires an understanding of the motivations for antimicrobial use and the quantities consumed. However,detailed information on antimicrobial use in livestock sectors is lacking. This cross‐sectional study aimed to better understand antimicrobial use in the beef feedlot sector in Australia. Design A self‐administered questionnaire asking about antimicrobial use and reasons for use was designed and mailed to beef feedlot operators in Australia. Respondents were asked to report the percentage of animals treated, purpose of use, and disease conditions targeted for 26antimicrobial agents. Results In total, 83 of 517 (16.1%) beef feedlot operators completed the survey. Monensin (61.0%of respondents) and virginiamycin (19.5%of respondents) were the most commonly reported in‐feed antimicrobials. In‐feed antimicrobial agents were most frequently used by respondents for treatment of gastrointestinal diseases (52.8%). Antimicrobials were used for growth promotion by 42.1% of respondents, with most (85.7%) reporting the use of ionophores(a group of compounds not used in human medicine). Short‐acting penicillin(69.1%), short‐acting oxytetracycline, and tulathromycin (both 57.3%) werethe most common injectable antimicrobial agents used. Injectable antimicrobials were most frequently used to treat respiratory (72.3%) and musculoskeletal (67.5%) conditions. Conclusion Overall,the use of antimicrobials was appropriate for the purpose indicated, and there was a strong preference for drugs of low‐importance in human medicine. The data described here stand to be a strong influence on the implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program in the sector.

Details

Title: Antimicrobial use and stewardship practices on Australian beef feedlots
Authors/Creators: S.M. Badger (Author/Creator) - The University of Adelaide
K.F. Sullivan (Author/Creator) - Bell Veterinary Services Bell Queensland 4408 Australia
D. Jordan (Author/Creator) - New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
C.G.B. Caraguel (Author/Creator) - The University of Adelaide
S.W. Page (Author/Creator) - Advanced Veterinary Therapeutics Newtown New South Wales 2042 Australia
P.M.V. Cusack (Author/Creator) - Meat & Livestock Australia
D. Frith (Author/Creator) - Quirindi Feedlot Services Quirindi New South Wales 2343 Australia
D.J. Trott (Author/Creator) - The University of Adelaide
Publication Details: Australian Veterinary Journal, Vol.98(1-2), pp.37-47
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Identifiers: 991005543096307891
Copyright: © 2019 Australian Veterinary Association
Murdoch Affiliation: School of Veterinary and Life Sciences
Language: English
Resource Type: Journal article

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

Source: InCites

Metrics

97 Record Views

14 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types: Domestic collaboration
Citation topics: 1 Clinical & Life Sciences; 1.248 Sexually Transmitted Infections; 1.248.1656 Pasteurella Multocida
Web Of Science research areas: Veterinary Sciences
ESI research areas: Plant & Animal Science