Risk factors for occurrence of cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli in Norwegian broiler flocks

16Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A longitudinal study of 27 broiler farms including 182 broiler flocks was performed to determine risk factors for occurrence of cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli in Norwegian broiler flocks. Information regarding possible risk factors was collected by an online questionnaire and by samples obtained from broiler and parent flocks during the study period. Additional information was provided by the broiler production company. The prevalence of cephalosporin-resistant E. coli in parent flocks and broiler flocks sampled in the study was estimated. Cephalosporin-resistant E. coli was detected in 13.8% of the parent flocks and 22.5% of the broiler flocks included in the study. A multivariable generalized linear model was used to estimate risk factors. The risk for occurrence of cephalosporin-resistant E. coli was associated with the status of the previous flock in the broiler house (odds ratio = 12.7), number of parent flocks supplying the broiler flock with day-old chickens (odds ratio = 6.3), routines for disinfection of floor between production cycles (odds ratio = 0.1), and transport personnel entering the room where the broilers are raised (odds ratio = 9.3). Our findings highlights that implementation of a high level of biosecurity with a minimal number of people entering the broiler house during production cycles, as well as rigorous cleaning and disinfection routines between production cycles will contribute to a decrease in the occurrence of cephalosporin-resistant E. coli in broiler flocks provided that there is no selection pressure from antimicrobial use in the broiler production.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mo, S. S., Kristoffersen, A. B., Sunde, M., Nødtvedt, A., & Norström, M. (2016). Risk factors for occurrence of cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli in Norwegian broiler flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 130, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.06.011

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free