Aims
Our objective was to determine how injectable antimicrobials affected populations of Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. in feedlot cattle.
Conclusions
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in feedlot cattle is not caused solely by using a metaphylactic antimicrobial on arrival, but more likely a multitude of environmental and management factors.
Results
Two arrival date blocks of high-risk crossbred beef cattle (n = 249; mean BW = 244 kg) were randomly assigned one of four antimicrobial treatments administered on day 0: sterile saline control (CON), tulathromycin (TUL), ceftiofur (CEF) or florfenicol (FLR). Faecal samples were collected on days 0, 28, 56, 112, 182 and study end (day 252 for block 1 and day 242 for block 2). Hide swabs and subiliac lymph nodes were collected the day before and the day of harvest. Samples were cultured for antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. The effect of treatment varied by day across all targeted bacterial populations (p ≤ 0.01) except total E. coli. Total E. coli counts were greatest on days 112, 182 and study end (p ≤ 0.01). Tulathromycin resulted in greater counts and prevalence of Salmonella from faeces than CON at study end (p ≤ 0.01). Tulathromycin and CEF yielded greater Salmonella hide prevalence and greater counts of 128ERYR E. coli at study end than CON (p ≤ 0.01). No faecal Salmonella resistant to tetracyclines or third-generation cephalosporins were detected. Ceftiofur was associated with greater counts of 8ERYR Enterococcus spp. at study end (p ≤ 0.03). By the day before harvest, antimicrobial use did not increase prevalence or counts for all other bacterial populations compared with CON (p ≥ 0.13). Conclusions: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in feedlot cattle is not caused solely by using a metaphylactic antimicrobial on arrival, but more likely a multitude of environmental and management factors.