Assessing the Impacts of Dairy Farm Antimicrobial Use on the Bovine Fecal Microbiome.

IF 2.7 2区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Animals Pub Date : 2025-06-12 DOI:10.3390/ani15121735
Andrew J Steinberger, Juliana Leite de Campos, Ashley E Kates, Tony L Goldberg, Pamela L Ruegg, Nasia Safdar, Ajay K Sethi, John M Shutske, Garret Suen
{"title":"Assessing the Impacts of Dairy Farm Antimicrobial Use on the Bovine Fecal Microbiome.","authors":"Andrew J Steinberger, Juliana Leite de Campos, Ashley E Kates, Tony L Goldberg, Pamela L Ruegg, Nasia Safdar, Ajay K Sethi, John M Shutske, Garret Suen","doi":"10.3390/ani15121735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rising rates of antimicrobial-resistant infections have prompted increased scrutiny on antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock agriculture. Dairy farms primarily use antimicrobials to maintain animal health and welfare by treating and preventing infectious diseases. However, the impact of dairy farm AMU practices on the cattle fecal microbiome remains largely unclear, partly due to difficulties in quantifying AMU. This study leveraged quantitative AMU data from 40 large commercial dairy farms to identify farms with low (n = 4) and high (n = 4) AMU. Using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, we compared the fecal bacterial communities of dairy calves and cows (healthy, cull, sick) by both AMU designation (high/low) and by individual farm AMU, summarized by animal defined daily dose (DDD) and mg/kg. We found significant differences in beta-diversity between cattle from high- and low-AMU groups using either method and found that <i>Corynebacterium</i> and <i>Clostridium</i> abundances increased with farm AMU. Additionally, we found fecal bacterial communities differed across farms within high- and low-AMU groupings, highlighting the need to account for farm-to-farm variation when assessing AMU impacts. These findings suggest that dairy farm AMU influences the fecal microbiome and identifies specific taxa that warrant further investigation as potential reservoirs for antimicrobial resistance genes.</p>","PeriodicalId":7955,"journal":{"name":"Animals","volume":"15 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12189718/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animals","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15121735","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rising rates of antimicrobial-resistant infections have prompted increased scrutiny on antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock agriculture. Dairy farms primarily use antimicrobials to maintain animal health and welfare by treating and preventing infectious diseases. However, the impact of dairy farm AMU practices on the cattle fecal microbiome remains largely unclear, partly due to difficulties in quantifying AMU. This study leveraged quantitative AMU data from 40 large commercial dairy farms to identify farms with low (n = 4) and high (n = 4) AMU. Using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, we compared the fecal bacterial communities of dairy calves and cows (healthy, cull, sick) by both AMU designation (high/low) and by individual farm AMU, summarized by animal defined daily dose (DDD) and mg/kg. We found significant differences in beta-diversity between cattle from high- and low-AMU groups using either method and found that Corynebacterium and Clostridium abundances increased with farm AMU. Additionally, we found fecal bacterial communities differed across farms within high- and low-AMU groupings, highlighting the need to account for farm-to-farm variation when assessing AMU impacts. These findings suggest that dairy farm AMU influences the fecal microbiome and identifies specific taxa that warrant further investigation as potential reservoirs for antimicrobial resistance genes.

评估奶牛场使用抗菌剂对牛粪便微生物组的影响。
抗菌素耐药性感染率的上升促使对畜牧业中抗菌素使用(AMU)的审查日益严格。奶牛场主要使用抗菌剂,通过治疗和预防传染病来维持动物的健康和福利。然而,奶牛场AMU做法对牛粪便微生物群的影响在很大程度上仍不清楚,部分原因是难以量化AMU。本研究利用来自40个大型商业奶牛场的定量AMU数据来确定低(n = 4)和高(n = 4) AMU的农场。利用16S rRNA基因扩增子测序,我们通过AMU指定(高/低)和单个农场的AMU,以动物定义日剂量(DDD)和mg/kg总结,比较了犊牛和奶牛(健康、屠宰和患病)的粪便细菌群落。我们发现,无论使用哪种方法,高和低AMU组的牛之间的β多样性都存在显著差异,并且棒状杆菌和梭状芽孢杆菌的丰度随着农场AMU的增加而增加。此外,我们发现不同农场的粪便细菌群落在高和低AMU分组中存在差异,强调在评估AMU影响时需要考虑农场间的差异。这些发现表明,奶牛场AMU影响粪便微生物组,并确定了作为抗菌素耐药性基因潜在宿主的特定分类群,值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Animals
Animals Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
3015
审稿时长
20.52 days
期刊介绍: Animals (ISSN 2076-2615) is an international and interdisciplinary scholarly open access journal. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications, and short notes that are relevant to any field of study that involves animals, including zoology, ethnozoology, animal science, animal ethics and animal welfare. However, preference will be given to those articles that provide an understanding of animals within a larger context (i.e., the animals'' interactions with the outside world, including humans). There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental details and/or method of study, must be provided for research articles. Articles submitted that involve subjecting animals to unnecessary pain or suffering will not be accepted, and all articles must be submitted with the necessary ethical approval (please refer to the Ethical Guidelines for more information).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信