Prevalence and patterns of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter spp isolated from pigs reared under antimicrobial-free and conventional production methods in eight states in the Midwestern United States.
OBJECTIVE
To compare apparent prevalence and patterns of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter spp in feces collected from pigs reared with antimicrobial-free versus conventional production methods in 8 states in the Midwestern United States.


METHODS
Cross-sectional study.


METHODS
95 swine farms that used antimicrobial-free (n = 35) or conventional (60) production methods.


METHODS
Fecal samples from 15 pigs/farm were collected. Biochemical and multiplex-PCR analyses were used to identify Campylobacter spp. The minimal inhibitory concentrations of erythromycin, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, gentamicin, and tetracycline for these organisms were determined by use of a commercially available antimicrobial gradient strip. The data were analyzed by use of population-averaged statistical models.


RESULTS
Campylobacter spp were isolated from 512 of 1,422 pigs. A subset (n = 464) of the 512 isolates was available for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The apparent prevalence of Campylobacter spp isolates from pigs on conventional farms (35.8%) and antimicrobial-free farms (36.4%) did not differ significantly. Resistances to azithromycin, erythromycin, and tetracycline were significantly higher on conventional farms (70.0%, 68.3%, and 74.5%, respectively) than antimicrobial-free farms (20.1%, 21.3%, and 48.8%, respectively). Resistances to azithromycin, erythromycin, and tetracycline declined as the number of years that a farm was antimicrobial-free increased.


CONCLUSIONS
Production method did not affect the apparent prevalence of Campylobacter spp on swine farms. However, antimicrobial-free farms had a significantly lower prevalence of antimicrobial resistance. Although cessation of antimicrobial drug use will lower resistance over time, investigation of other interventions designed to reduce resistance levels is warranted.
Rollo
Susan N
SN
Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Norby
Bo
B
Bartlett
Paul C
PC
Scott
H Morgan
HM
Wilson
David L
DL
Fajt
Virginia R
VR
Linz
John E
JE
Bunner
Christine E
CE
Kaneene
John B
JB
Huber
John C
JC
D000818:Animals; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000494:pharmacology; D002167:Campylobacter / Q000187:drug effects*; D002169:Campylobacter Infections / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000382:microbiology / Q000662:veterinary*; D024881:Drug Resistance, Bacterial; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests; D015146:Midwestern United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D015995:Prevalence; D013552:Swine; D013553:Swine Diseases / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000382:microbiology*
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents