Cargando…

Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada

The objective of the study was to compare three quantification methods to a “garbage can audit” (reference method, REF) for monitoring antimicrobial usage (AMU) from products other than medicated feed over one year in 101 Québec dairy farms. Data were collected from veterinary invoices (VET method),...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lardé, Hélène, Francoz, David, Roy, Jean-Philippe, Massé, Jonathan, Archambault, Marie, Paradis, Marie-Ève, Dufour, Simon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160742/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34065528
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9051106
_version_ 1783700350351441920
author Lardé, Hélène
Francoz, David
Roy, Jean-Philippe
Massé, Jonathan
Archambault, Marie
Paradis, Marie-Ève
Dufour, Simon
author_facet Lardé, Hélène
Francoz, David
Roy, Jean-Philippe
Massé, Jonathan
Archambault, Marie
Paradis, Marie-Ève
Dufour, Simon
author_sort Lardé, Hélène
collection PubMed
description The objective of the study was to compare three quantification methods to a “garbage can audit” (reference method, REF) for monitoring antimicrobial usage (AMU) from products other than medicated feed over one year in 101 Québec dairy farms. Data were collected from veterinary invoices (VET method), from the “Amélioration de la Santé Animale au Québec” provincial program (GOV method), and from farm treatment records (FARM method). The AMU rate was reported in a number of Canadian Defined Course Doses for cattle (DCDbovCA) per 100 cow-years. Electronic veterinary sales data were obtained for all farms for VET and GOV methods. For the FARM method, a herd management software was used by 68% of producers whereas farm treatment records were handwritten for the others; records could not be retrieved in 4% of farms. Overall, agreement was almost perfect between REF and VET methods (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.83), but moderate between REF and GOV (CCC = 0.44), and between REF and FARM (CCC = 0.51). Only a fair or slight agreement was obtained between any alternative method of quantification and REF for oral and intrauterine routes. The billing software used by most of Québec’s dairy veterinary practitioners seems promising in terms of surveillance and benchmarking of AMU in the province.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8160742
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81607422021-05-29 Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada Lardé, Hélène Francoz, David Roy, Jean-Philippe Massé, Jonathan Archambault, Marie Paradis, Marie-Ève Dufour, Simon Microorganisms Article The objective of the study was to compare three quantification methods to a “garbage can audit” (reference method, REF) for monitoring antimicrobial usage (AMU) from products other than medicated feed over one year in 101 Québec dairy farms. Data were collected from veterinary invoices (VET method), from the “Amélioration de la Santé Animale au Québec” provincial program (GOV method), and from farm treatment records (FARM method). The AMU rate was reported in a number of Canadian Defined Course Doses for cattle (DCDbovCA) per 100 cow-years. Electronic veterinary sales data were obtained for all farms for VET and GOV methods. For the FARM method, a herd management software was used by 68% of producers whereas farm treatment records were handwritten for the others; records could not be retrieved in 4% of farms. Overall, agreement was almost perfect between REF and VET methods (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.83), but moderate between REF and GOV (CCC = 0.44), and between REF and FARM (CCC = 0.51). Only a fair or slight agreement was obtained between any alternative method of quantification and REF for oral and intrauterine routes. The billing software used by most of Québec’s dairy veterinary practitioners seems promising in terms of surveillance and benchmarking of AMU in the province. MDPI 2021-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8160742/ /pubmed/34065528 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9051106 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Lardé, Hélène
Francoz, David
Roy, Jean-Philippe
Massé, Jonathan
Archambault, Marie
Paradis, Marie-Ève
Dufour, Simon
Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada
title Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada
title_full Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada
title_fullStr Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada
title_short Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada
title_sort comparison of quantification methods to estimate farm-level usage of antimicrobials other than in medicated feed in dairy farms from québec, canada
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160742/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34065528
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9051106
work_keys_str_mv AT lardehelene comparisonofquantificationmethodstoestimatefarmlevelusageofantimicrobialsotherthaninmedicatedfeedindairyfarmsfromquebeccanada
AT francozdavid comparisonofquantificationmethodstoestimatefarmlevelusageofantimicrobialsotherthaninmedicatedfeedindairyfarmsfromquebeccanada
AT royjeanphilippe comparisonofquantificationmethodstoestimatefarmlevelusageofantimicrobialsotherthaninmedicatedfeedindairyfarmsfromquebeccanada
AT massejonathan comparisonofquantificationmethodstoestimatefarmlevelusageofantimicrobialsotherthaninmedicatedfeedindairyfarmsfromquebeccanada
AT archambaultmarie comparisonofquantificationmethodstoestimatefarmlevelusageofantimicrobialsotherthaninmedicatedfeedindairyfarmsfromquebeccanada
AT paradismarieeve comparisonofquantificationmethodstoestimatefarmlevelusageofantimicrobialsotherthaninmedicatedfeedindairyfarmsfromquebeccanada
AT dufoursimon comparisonofquantificationmethodstoestimatefarmlevelusageofantimicrobialsotherthaninmedicatedfeedindairyfarmsfromquebeccanada