No abstract

Many animal species are susceptible to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and could act as reservoirs; however, transmission in free-living animals has not been documented. White-tailed deer, the predominant cervid in North America, are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and experimentally infected fawns can transmit the virus. To test the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 is circulating in deer, 283 retropharyngeal lymph node (RPLN) samples collected from 151 free-living and 132 captive deer in Iowa from April 2020 through January of 2021 were assayed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Ninety-four of the 283 (33.2%) deer samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA as assessed by RT-PCR. Notably, following the November 2020 peak of human cases in Iowa, and coinciding with the onset of winter and the peak deer hunting season, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 80 of 97 (82.5%) RPLN samples collected over a 7-wk period. Whole genome sequencing of all 94 positive RPLN samples identified 12 SARS-CoV-2 lineages, with B.1.2 (n = 51; 54.5%) and B.1.311 (n = 19; 20%) accounting for ∼75% of all samples. The geographic distribution and nesting of clusters of deer and human lineages strongly suggest multiple human-to-deer transmission events followed by subsequent deer-to-deer spread. These discoveries have important implications for the long-term persistence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Our findings highlight an urgent need for a robust and proactive “One Health” approach to obtain enhanced understanding of the ecology, molecular evolution, and dissemination of SARS-CoV-2.

Antibiotics have saved millions of human lives, and their use has contributed significantly to improving human and animal health and well-being. Use of antibiotics in food-producing animals has resulted in healthier, more productive animals; lower disease incidence and reduced morbidity and mortality in humans and animals; and production of abundant quantities of nutritious, high-quality, and low-cost food for human consumption. In spite of these benefits, there is considerable concern from public health, food safety, and regulatory perspectives about the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals. Over the last two decades, development of antimicrobial resistance resulting from agricultural use of antibiotics that could impact treatment of diseases affecting the human population that require antibiotic intervention has become a significant global public health concern. In the present review, we focus on antibiotic use in lactating and nonlactating cows in U.S. dairy herds, and address four key questions: (1) Are science-based data available to demonstrate antimicrobial resistance in veterinary pathogens that cause disease in dairy cows associated with use of antibiotics in adult dairy cows? (2) Are science-based data available to demonstrate that antimicrobial resistance in veterinary pathogens that cause disease in adult dairy cows impacts pathogens that cause disease in humans? (3) Does antimicrobial resistance impact the outcome of therapy? (4) Are antibiotics used prudently in the dairy industry? On the basis of this review, we conclude that scientific evidence does not support widespread, emerging resistance among pathogens isolated from dairy cows to antibacterial drugs even though many of these antibiotics have been used in the dairy industry for treatment and prevention of disease for several decades. However, it is clear that use of antibiotics in adult dairy cows and other food-producing animals does contribute to increased antimicrobial resistance. Although antimicrobial resistance does occur, we are of the opinion that the advantages of using antibiotics in adult dairy cows far outweigh the disadvantages. Last, as this debate continues, we need to consider the consequences of "what would happen if antibiotics are banned for use in the dairy industry and in other food-producing animals?" The implications of this question are far reaching and include such aspects as animal welfare, health, and well-being, and impacts on food quantity, quality, and food costs, among others. This question should be an important aspect in this ongoing and controversial debate.

A survey was conducted (July 2001 to June 2002) on antibiotic usage of 113 dairy herds from 13 counties in Pennsylvania. Fifty percent of dairy farms surveyed maintained antibiotic treatment records. Only 21% of dairy producers had written plans for treating sick animals. Thirty-two percent of dairy producers sought veterinarian advice before administering antibiotics and on most farms (93%), antibiotics were administered by the owner/manager or designated herdsman. Twenty-four percent of the dairy producers said they always completed the course of antibiotic treatment. Any extra-label use of antibiotics was administered only on the guidelines of a veterinarian on majority of the farms. Comprehensive records from 33 dairy farms indicated that antibiotic usage was largest for calves with enteritis (36%) followed by pneumonia in calves (25%) and foot rot in cattle (16%). Twenty-four antibiotics including beta-lactams, spectinomycin, florfenicol, and tetracyclines were used on these farms. Beta-lactam antibiotics were used mostly for dry cow therapy, clinical mastitis, and on some farms for pneumonia and metritis. On 18% of the dairy herds surveyed, ceftiofur was used in an extra-label manner to treat mastitis in lactating cattle. On 70% of farms, calves were fed medicated milk replacers containing oxytetracycline and neomycin. The results of this study suggest that antibiotics are used extensively on dairy herds for both therapeutic and prophylactic purposes. Beta-lactams and tetracyclines were the most widely used antibiotics. There is considerable variation in the management practices associated with antibiotic use on dairy farms. It is anticipated that the findings of this survey will permit developing new strategies for prudent use of antibiotics on dairy herds.

Bulk tank milk from 131 dairy herds in eastern South Dakota and western Minnesota was examined for the presence of for foodborne pathogens. Campylobacter jejuni, shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Yersinia enterocolitica were detected in 9.2, 3.8, 4.6, 6.1, and 6.1% of bulk tank milk samples, respectively. Thirty-five of 131 (26.7%) bulk tank milk samples contained one or more species of pathogenic bacteria. Isolates of Salmonella belonged to group D (n = 4), B (n = 2), C (n = 1), and E (n = 1) "O" serogroups. All six isolates of Listeria monocytogenes were identified as O antigen type 1. Four of five isolates of E. coli encoded for the shiga-toxin 2 gene, while one strain encoded for the shiga-toxin 1 gene. Escherichia coli O157:H7 was not isolated from bulk tank milk samples. Based on autoagglutination testing, it was inferred that all eight isolates of Yersinia enterocolitica were likely to be virulent. Non A-grade (manufacturing grade) raw milk producers were at a higher risk (odd's ratio, 4.98; confidence interval, 1.96 to 12.22) of having one or more pathogens in their bulk tank milk than were Grade A producers. It was observed that 21 of 79 (26.6%) dairy producers who consumed raw milk had one or more pathogenic bacteria in their bulk tank milk. The findings of the study warrant the need for educational programs for dairy producers about the risks associated with consumption of raw milk.