{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,10]],"date-time":"2026-02-10T17:04:30Z","timestamp":1770743070540,"version":"3.49.0"},"reference-count":19,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2023,3,27]],"date-time":"2023-03-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1679875200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/100000038","name":"U.S. Food and Drug Administration","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100000038","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Vet. Sci."],"abstract":"<jats:p>The objective of this study was to report antimicrobial use in a convenience sample of U.S. beef feedyards for the years 2018 and 2019. In addition to antimicrobial use metrics, also reported are the indications for antimicrobial use and outcomes related to these indications. Antimicrobial use is characterized at the study and feedyard levels for a total of 1,141,846 head of cattle in 20 U.S. feedyards. Antimicrobial use is reported as milligrams of active antimicrobial ingredient per kilogram of liveweight sold (mg\/kg-LW) and regimens of antimicrobials per animal year (Reg\/AY). Regimens are described by antimicrobial class within use category as characterized by mg of active antimicrobial product per regimen (mg\/Reg) and calendar days of administration per regimen (CDoA\/Reg). A total of 1,128,515 regimens of medically important antimicrobials were captured from records. The number of regimens\/100 head-in (Reg\/100 head-in) are described in a subset of 10 feedyards with adequate data granularity to directly determine indications for antimicrobial administration. For the indications of bovine respiratory disease (BRD), Lameness (Lame), Liver Abscess Control (LAC), and Other (e.g., central nervous system disease, cellulitis) the Reg\/100 head-in study-level values are 37.1, 0.8, 98.4, and 0.7, respectively, for 2018, with similar values for 2019. The regimens for BRD are further categorized in these 10 feedyards by the use categories in-feed, control of BRD, and individual animal therapy, yielding study level values of 4.6, 19.6, and 12.9 Reg\/100 head-in, respectively, for 2018, with similar values for 2019. Outcomes of therapy for individual animal treatment of BRD, Lame, and Other are reported as treatment success, retreatment, or mortality by 30 days after the initial therapy of an animal for a disease. Treatment success rates (no treatment or mortality in the next 30 days) for 2018 in the 10 feedyards with sufficient data granularity are 76.5, 86.5, and 83.0% for BRD, Lame, and Other, respectively. The comparison of these results with other reports of antimicrobial use in North American feedyards highlights how differing approaches in calculating metric values may result in substantially different conclusions regarding antimicrobial use, especially in relation to long-duration uses.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3389\/fvets.2023.1056362","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2023,3,27]],"date-time":"2023-03-27T05:17:16Z","timestamp":1679894236000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":11,"title":["Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018\u20132019"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"10","author":[{"given":"Michael D.","family":"Apley","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Nora F. D.","family":"Schrag","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"David E.","family":"Amrine","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Brian V.","family":"Lubbers","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Randall S.","family":"Singer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023,3,27]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"6","DOI":"10.1111\/zph.12760","article-title":"Antimicrobial use in wean to market pigs in the United States assessed via voluntary sharing of proprietary data","volume":"67","author":"Davies","year":"2020","journal-title":"Zoonoses Public Health"},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"36","DOI":"10.1111\/zph.12763","article-title":"Estimates of on-farm antimicrobial usage in turkey production in the United States, 2013-2017","volume":"67","author":"Singer","year":"2020","journal-title":"Zoonoses Public Health"},{"key":"B3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"22","DOI":"10.1111\/zph.12764","article-title":"Estimates of on-farm antimicrobial usage in broiler chicken production in the United States, 2013-2017","volume":"67","author":"Singer","year":"2020","journal-title":"Zoonoses Public Health"},{"key":"B4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"111","DOI":"10.1111\/zph.12778","article-title":"Comparison of surveys and use records for quantifying medically important antimicrobial use in 18 U.S. beef feedyards","volume":"67","author":"Hope","year":"2020","journal-title":"Zoonoses Public Health"},{"key":"B5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"94","DOI":"10.1111\/zph.12775","article-title":"Antimicrobial use in 22 U.S. beef feedyards: 2016-2017","volume":"67","author":"Hope","year":"2020","journal-title":"Zoonoses Public Health"},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"51","DOI":"10.1111\/zph.12766","article-title":"Antimicrobial use quantification in adult dairy cows - Part 1 - Standardized regimens as a method for describing antimicrobial use","volume":"67","author":"Schrag","year":"2020","journal-title":"Zoonoses Public Health"},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"69","DOI":"10.1111\/zph.12772","article-title":"Antimicrobial use quantification in adult dairy cows - Part 2 - Developing a foundation for pharmacoepidemiology by comparing measurement methods","volume":"67","author":"Schrag","year":"2020","journal-title":"Zoonoses Public Health"},{"key":"B8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"82","DOI":"10.1111\/zph.12773","article-title":"Antimicrobial use quantification in adult dairy cows - Part 3 - Use measured by standardized regimens and grams on 29 dairies in the United States","volume":"67","author":"Schrag","year":"2020","journal-title":"Zoonoses Public Health."},{"key":"B9","unstructured":"2022"},{"key":"B10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1056476","DOI":"10.3389\/fvets.2022.1056476","article-title":"The association of multiple metrics used for evaluating antimicrobial use in US. beef feedyards","volume":"9","author":"Apley","year":"2022","journal-title":"Front Vet Sci"},{"key":"B11","year":"2003","journal-title":"Guidance for Industry #152 Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs with Regard to Their Microbiological Effects on Bacteria of Human Health Concern"},{"key":"B12","unstructured":"2019"},{"key":"B13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1344","DOI":"10.2460\/javma.20.10.0560","article-title":"Population-level analysis of antibiotic use and death rates in beef feedlots over ten years in three cattle-feeding regions of the United States","volume":"259","author":"Rutten-Ramos","year":"2021","journal-title":"J Am Vet Med Assoc"},{"key":"B14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"329","DOI":"10.3389\/fvets.2019.00329","article-title":"Antimicrobial use on 36 beef feedlots in western Canada: 2008-2012","volume":"6","author":"Brault","year":"2019","journal-title":"Front Vet Sci"},{"key":"B15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"330","DOI":"10.3389\/fvets.2019.00330","article-title":"Calculation of antimicrobial use indicators in beef feedlots-effects of choice of metric and standardized values","volume":"6","author":"Brault","year":"2019","journal-title":"Front Vet Sci"},{"key":"B16","unstructured":"2021"},{"key":"B17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"97","DOI":"10.1016\/j.cvfa.2014.11.003","article-title":"A review of the expected effects of antimicrobials in bovine respiratory disease treatment and control using outcomes from published randomized clinical trials with negative controls","volume":"31","author":"DeDonder","year":"2015","journal-title":"Vet Clin N Am Food Anim Pract"},{"key":"B18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.21423\/aabppro20104192","article-title":"Comparison of observational and necropsy derived diagnosis for cause of death for cattle in commercial beef feedlots","author":"Anspaugh","year":"2010","journal-title":"Proceedings, American Association of Bovine Practitioners"},{"key":"B19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"437","DOI":"10.2460\/javma.250.4.437","article-title":"Incidence of lameness and association of cause and severity of lameness on the outcome for cattle on six commercial beef feedlots","volume":"250","author":"Terrell","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Am Vet Med Assoc"}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Veterinary Science"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fvets.2023.1056362\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,3,27]],"date-time":"2023-03-27T05:17:21Z","timestamp":1679894241000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fvets.2023.1056362\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2023,3,27]]},"references-count":19,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fvets.2023.1056362"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fvets.2023.1056362","relation":{},"ISSN":["2297-1769"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2297-1769","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2023,3,27]]},"article-number":"1056362"}}