Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Sep 20;9(10):707.
doi: 10.3390/ani9100707.

Comparison of Defined Course Doses (DCDvet) for Blanket and Selective Antimicrobial Dry Cow Therapy on Conventional and Organic Farms

Clair L Firth  1 , Annemarie Käsbohrer  2 , Christa Egger-Danner  3 , Klemens Fuchs  4 , Beate Pinior  5 , Franz-Ferdinand Roch  6 , Walter Obritzhauser  7
Affiliations

Comparison of Defined Course Doses (DCDvet) for Blanket and Selective Antimicrobial Dry Cow Therapy on Conventional and Organic Farms

Clair L Firth et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Antimicrobial use in livestock production is a controversial subject. While antimicrobials should be used as little as possible, it is still necessary, from both an animal health and welfare point of view, to treat infected animals. The study presented here aimed to analyse antimicrobial use on Austrian dairy farms by calculating the number of Defined Course Doses (DCDvet) administered per cow and year for dry cow therapy. Antimicrobial use was analysed by production system and whether farmers stated that they used blanket dry cow therapy (i.e., all cows in the herd were treated) or selective dry cow therapy (i.e., only cows with a positive bacteriological culture or current/recent history of udder disease were treated). A statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was determined between antimicrobial use for blanket (median DCDvet/cow/year: 0.88) and selective dry cow therapy (median DCDvet/cow/year: 0.41). The difference between antimicrobial use on conventional and organic farms for dry cow therapy as a whole, however, was not statistically significant (p = 0.22) (median DCDvet/cow/year: 0.68 for conventional; 0.53 for organic farms). This analysis demonstrates that selective dry cow therapy leads to a lower overall use of antimicrobials and can assist in a more prudent use of antimicrobials on dairy farms.

Keywords: antibiotics; cattle; dairy; dry cow therapy; prudent use; veterinary.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of study participants. *These farms did not necessarily overlap; some farms provided questionnaire responses but no treatment data was available, and vice versa.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Herd size distribution (%) of conventional (n = 150) and organic (n = 38) farms.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) Responses to questionnaire—conventional farmers (n = 150). (b). Responses to questionnaire—organic farmers (n = 38). *NB. Two farmers stated in their response to the questionnaire that they did not use aDCT at all, however, the veterinary antimicrobial treatment data showed that aDCT had been dispensed to these farmers during the study period and these farms were subsequently included in the “selective DCT” group for the statistical analysis. (aDCT = antimicrobial dry cow therapy).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Defined Course Doses for aDCT on conventional and organic dairy farms (aDCT = antimicrobial dry cow therapy, DCDvet = Defined Course Dose) Box = range between Q1 and Q3; horizontal line = median; lower whisker = Q1−1.5 (IQR) (interquartile range); upper whisker = Q3 + 1.5(IQR); circles = outliers.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Defined Course Doses for individual herds for blanket and selective aDCT. Box = range between Q1 and Q3; horizontal line = median; lower whisker = Q1−1.5 (IQR) (interquartile range); upper whisker = Q3 + 1.5(IQR); circles = outliers.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. O’Neill J. Antimicrobials in Agriculture and the Environment: Reducing Unnecessary Use and Waste. [(accessed on 15 June 2019)];Rev. Antimicrob. Resist. 2015 :1–44. Available online: http://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/Antimicrobials in agriculture ....
    1. OIE . The OIE Strategy on Antimicrobial Resistance and the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials. World Organization for Animal Health; Paris, France: 2016. [(accessed on 12 June 2019)]. pp. 1–12. Available online: https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/MediaCenter/docs/pdf/PortailAMR/E....
    1. Thomson P. General Assembly of the United Nations: Opening remarks at High-Level Meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance. [(accessed on 23 June 2018)];2016 Available online: http://www.un.org/pga/71/2016/09/21/opening-remarks-at-high-level-meetin...
    1. Carmo L.P., Nielsen L.R., Alban L., Müntener C.R., Schüpbach-Regula G., Magouras I. Comparison of Antimicrobial Consumption Patterns in the Swiss and Danish Cattle and Swine Production (2007–2013) Front. Vet. Sci. 2017;4:26. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00026. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fuchs K., Fuchs R. Bericht über den Vetrieb von Antibiotika in der Veterinärmedizin in Österreich 2012–2016. AGES—Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety; Graz, Austria: 2017. [(accessed on 1 February 2019)]. pp. 1–21. Available online: https://www.ages.at/download/0/0/7440f7d446bf88a0e93d4fef38acb5b1ad12782....

LinkOut - more resources