Assessment of the Exposure of Turkey Farmers to Antimicrobial Resistance Associated with Working Practices
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Hazard Identification
2.2. Exposure Assessment
2.2.1. Literature Review of Risk Factors for Farm Workers
2.2.2. Literature Review for AMR Prevalence in Turkey Farms
2.2.3. Information on Phases and Working Practices in Turkey Farming for Animal Consumption
2.2.4. Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA)
- (1)
- Aggregations of evaluations expressed on each criterion for a given alternative ai.
- is the Risk Priority Code for the potential risk mode (or working practice) ai.
- is the importance associated with each of the evaluation criteria gj.
- is the negation of the importance assigned to each of the criteria.
- (2)
- Determination of the work practice with the maximum risk priority code (a*)
3. Results and Discussion
Calculation of the Probability of Exposure
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Burch, D.G.S.; Duran, C.O.; Aarestrup, F.M. Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Swine, Guide to Antimicrobial Use in Animals; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. Scientific Opinion on Risk Assessment Terminology. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Cleef, B.A.G.L.; van Benthem, B.H.; Verkade, E.J.; van Rijen, M.; Kluytmans-van den Bergh, M.F.; Schouls, L.M.; Duim, B.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Graveland, H.; Bos, M.E.; et al. Dynamics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus carriage in pig farmers: A prospective cohort study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20, O764–O771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dohmen, W.; Schmitt, H.; Bonten, M.; Heederik, D. Air exposure as a possible route for ESBL in pig farmers. Environ. Res. 2017, 155, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Duijkeren, E.; Hengeveld, P.; Zomer, T.P.; Landman, F.; Bosch, T.; Haenen, A.; van de Giessen, A. Transmission of MRSA between humans and animals on duck and turkey farms. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garcia-Graells, C.; van Cleef, B.A.; Larsen, J.; Denis, O.; Skov, R.; Voss, A. Dynamic of Livestock-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC398 in Pig Farm Households: A Pilot Study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dahms, C.; Hübner, N.O.; Cuny, C.; Kramer, A. Occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in farm workers and the livestock environment in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany. Acta Vet. Scand. 2014, 56, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Phillips, I.; Casewell, M.; Cox, T.; De Groot, B.; Friis, C.; Jones, R.; Nightingale, C.; Preston, R.; Waddell, J. Does the use of antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? A critical review of published data. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2004, 53, 28–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Richter, A.; Sting, R.; Popp, C.; Rau, J.; Tenhagen, B.A.; Guerra, B.; Hafez, H.M.; Fetsch, A. Prevalence of types of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in turkey flocks and personnel attending the animals. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 2223–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. The European Union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2016. EFSA J. 2018, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Godderz, A.; Schmitz, T.; Mack, A.; Petersen, B. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) as a decision support tool within a quality information system in pork production chains. In Quality Management in Food Chains; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Özilgen, S.; Özilgen, M. General Template for the FMEA Applications in Primary Food Processing. In Measurement, Modeling and Automation in Advanced Food Processing; Hitzmann, B., Ed.; Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 161. [Google Scholar]
- Cuny, C.; Kock, R.; Witte, W. Livestock associated MRSA (LA-MRSA) and its relevance for humans in Germany. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 303, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graveland, H.; Duim, B.; van Duijkeren, E.; Heederik, D.; Wagenaar, J.A. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals and humans. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2011, 301, 630–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krismer, B.; Weidenmaier, C.; Zipperer, A.; Peschel, A. The commensal lifestyle of Staphylococcus aureus and its interactions with the nasal microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Argudín, M.A.; Deplano, A.; Meghraoui, A.; Dodémont, M.; Heinrichs, A.; Denis, O.; Nonhoff, C.; Roisin, S. Bacteria from Animals as a Pool of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes. Antibiotics 2017, 6, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feld, L.; Bay, H.; Angen, Ø.; Larsen, A.R.; Madsen, A.M. Survival of LA-MRSA in Dust from Swine Farms. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2018, 62, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Miao, Z.; Li, S.; Wang, L.; Song, W.; Zhou, Y. Antimicrobial resistance and molecular epidemiology of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli isolated from outpatients in town hospitals of Shandong Province, China. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nóbrega, D.B.; Brocchi, M. An overview of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in veterinary medicine and their public health consequences. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2014, 8, 954–960. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25116659 (accessed on 29 March 2018). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saliu, E.-M.; Vahjen, W.; Zentek, J. Types and prevalence of extended–spectrum beta–lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae in poultry. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2017, 18, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carmo, L.P.; Nielsen, L.R.; da Costa, P.M.; Alban, L. Exposure assessment of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases/AmpC beta-lactamases-producing Escherichia coli in meat in Denmark. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2014, 4, 22924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonagh, M.; Peterson, K.; Raina, P.; Chang, S.; Shekelle, P. Avoiding Bias in Selecting Studies. In Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): Rockville, MD, USA, 2013. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126701/ (accessed on 5 November 2018).
- Snary, E.L.; Kelly, L.A.; Davison, H.C.; Teale, C.J.; Wooldridge, M. Antimicrobial resistance: A microbial risk assessment perspective. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2004, 53, 906–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Profili di Rischio di Comparto. Available online: https://appsricercascientifica.inail.it/profili_di_rischio/allevamento_avicolo/index.asp (accessed on 10 November 2018).
- Edwards, R.; Holland, J. What Is Qualitative Interviewing? ‘What is?’ Research Methods Series; A&C Black: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stamatis, D. Introduction to Risk and Failures Book, 1st ed.; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franceschini, F.; Galetto, M. A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2001, 39, 2991–3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bradley, J.R.; Guerrero, H.H. An alternative FMEA method for simple and accurate ranking of failure modes. Decis. Sci. 2011, 42, 743–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yager, R.R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi criteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1988, 18, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yager, R.R. Non-Numeric Multi-Criteria Multi-Person Decision Making. Group Decis. Negot. 1993, 2, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bos, M.E.H.; Verstappen, K.M.; van Cleef, B.A.; Dohmen, W.; Dorado-García, A.; Graveland, H.; Duim, B.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Kluytmans, J.A.; Heederik, D.J. Transmission through air as a possible route of exposure for MRSA. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2016, 26, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Friese, A.; Schulz, J.; Zimmermann, K.; Tenhagen, B.A.; Fetsch, A.; Hartung, J.; Rösler, U. Occurrence of Livestock-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Turkey and Broiler Barns and Contamination of Air and Soil Surfaces in Their Vicinity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 2759–2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reynaga, E.; Navarro, M.; Vilamala, A.; Roure, P.; Quintana, M.; Garcia-Nuñez, M.; Figueras, R.; Torres, C.; Lucchetti, G.; Sabrià, M. Prevalence of colonization by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in pigs and pig farm workers in an area of Catalonia, Spain. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Cleef, B.A.G.L.; Graveland, H.; Haenen, A.P.; van de Giessen, A.W.; Heederik, D.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Kluytmans, J.A. Persistence of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in field workers after short-term occupational exposure to pigs and veal calves. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 1030–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Cleef, B.A.G.L.; van Benthem, B.H.; Verkade, E.J.; van Rijen, M.M.; Kluytmans-van den Bergh, M.F.; Graveland, H.; Bosch, T.; Verstappen, K.M.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Bos, M.E.; et al. Livestock-associated MRSA in household members of pig farmers: Transmission and dynamics of carriage, a prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0127190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Adawy, H.; Ahmed, M.; Hotzel, H.; Monecke, S.; Schulz, J.; Hartung, J.; Ehricht, R.; Neubauer, H.; Hafez, H.M. Characterization of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolated from Healthy Turkeys and Broilers Using DNA Microarrays. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dohmen, W.; Bonten, M.J.; Bos, M.E.; van Marm, S.; Scharringa, J.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Heederik, D.J. Carriage of extended-spectrum β-lactamases in pig farmers is associated with occurrence in pigs. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2015, 21, 917–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hammerum, A.M.; Larsen, J.; Andersen, V.D.; Lester, C.H.; Skovgaard Skytte, T.S.; Hansen, F.; Olsen, S.S.; Mordhorst, H.; Skov, R.L.; Aarestrup, F.M.; et al. Characterization of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli obtained from Danish pigs, pig farmers and their families from farms with high or no consumption of third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69, 2650–2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huijbers, P.M.C.; Graat, E.A.; Haenen, A.P.; van Santen, M.G.; van Essen-Zandbergen, A.; Mevius, D.J.; van Duijkeren, E.; van Hoek, A.H. Extended-spectrum and AmpC β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in broilers and people living and/or working on broiler farms: Prevalence, risk factors and molecular characteristics. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69, 2669–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dierikx, C.; van der Goot, J.; Fabri, T.; van Essen-Zandbergen, A.; Smith, H.; Mevius, D. Extended-spectrum-b-lactamase- and AmpC-b-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in Dutch broilers and broiler farmers. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmithausen, R.M.; Kellner, S.R.; Schulze-Geisthoevel, S.V.; Hack, S.; Engelhart, S.; Bodenstein, I.; Al-Sabti, N.; Reif, M.; Fimmers, R.; Körber-Irrgang, B.; et al. Eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and of Enterobacteriaceae expressing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases on a model pig farm. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 7633–7643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Laube, H.; Friese, A.; von Salviati, C.; Guerra, B.; Rösler, U. Transmission of ESBL/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli from broiler chicken farms to surrounding areas. Vet. Microbiol. 2014, 172, 519–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Börjesson, S.; Bengtsson, B.; Jernberg, C.; Englund, S. Spread of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli isolates in Swedish broilers mediated by an incI plasmid carrying blaCTX-M-1. Acta Vet. Scand. 2013, 55, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dolejska, M.; Matulova, M.; Kohoutova, L.; Literak, I.; Bardon, J.; Cizek, A. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in turkey meat production farms in the Czech Republic: National survey reveals widespread isolates with blaSHV-12 genes on IncFII plasmids. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 53, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Päivärinta, M.; Pohjola, L.; Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M.; Heikinheimo, A. Low Occurrence of Extended-Spectrum b-lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli in Finnish Food-Producing Animals. Zoonoses Public Health 2016, 63, 624–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Cobos, S.; Köck, R.; Mellmann, A.; Frenzel, J.; Friedrich, A.W.; Rossen, J.W. Molecular Typing of Enterobacteriaceae from Pig Holdings in North-Western Germany Reveals Extended- Spectrum and AmpC β-Lactamases Producing but no Carbapenem Resistant Ones. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randall, L.P.; Clouting, C.; Horton, R.A.; Coldham, N.G.; Wu, G.; Clifton-Hadley, F.A.; Davies, R.H.; Teale, C.J. Prevalence of Escherichia coli carrying extended-spectrum b-lactamases (CTX-M and TEM 52) from broiler chickens and turkeys in Great Britain between 2006 and 2009. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dahms, C.; Hübner, N.O.; Kossow, A.; Mellmann, A.; Dittmann, K.; Kramer, A. Occurrence of ESBL-Producing Escherichia coli in Livestock and Farm Workers in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Hoek, A.H.A.M.; Stalenhoef, J.E.; van Duijkeren, E.; Franz, E. Comparative virulotyping of extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant E. coli isolated from broilers, humans on broiler farms and in the general population and UTI patients. Vet. Microbiol. 2016, 194, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vossenkuhl, B.; Brandt, J.; Fetsch, A.; Käsbohrer, A.; Kraushaar, B.; Alt, K.; Tenhagen, B.A. Comparison of spa Types, SCCmec Types and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of MRSA Isolated from Turkeys at Farm, Slaughter and from Retail Meat Indicates Transmission along the Production Chain. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, H.; Zhai, Z.; Li, Q.; Liu, L.; Guo, S.; Li, Q.; Yang, L.; Ye, C.; Chang, W.; Zhai, J. Characterization of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase–Producing Escherichia coli Isolates from Pigs and Farm Workers. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 1630–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Levels | Range of Prevalence |
---|---|
1 | 0–20% |
2 | 20–40% |
3 | 40–60% |
4 | >60% |
Paper | Reason for Paper Selection | Risk Factors | Country | Farming | Reference Population |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[3] | Risk factors of MRSA | Working hours, P.S.D. (Personal Safety Devices) | The Netherlands | Pig | 49 pig farms |
[4] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL, Working hours. | The Netherlands | Pig | 40 pig farms |
[5] | Risk factors of MRSA | Type of contact with potential sources of MRSA. | The Netherlands | Turkey, Duck | 10 duck farms, 10 turkey farms |
[6] | Risk factors of MRSA | Type of contact with potential sources of MRSA. | Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands | Pig | 4 pig farms |
[7] | Risk factors of MRSA | Working hours, Type of contact with potential sources of MRSA, P.S.D. | Germany | Pig, Cattle, Poultry | 17 pig farms, 11 cattle farms, 4 chicken farms, 2 turkey farms (at least 50 pigs or cattle per farm and 10,000 birds per farm) |
[9] | Risk factors of MRSA | Working hours, P.S.D. | Germany | Turkey | 20 turkey farms (from 3000 to 20,000 birds per farm) |
[13] | Risk factors of MRSA | Number of animals per operator, P.S.D, Working hours, Type of contact with potential sources of MRSA. | Germany | Pig, Chicken, Cattle, Turkey, Horse, Dog, Cat, Sheep/Goat, Roe | Not specified |
[14] | Risk factors of MRSA | Type of contact with potential sources of MRSA, Number of animals per operator. | European countries | Pig, Veal calf | Not specified |
[17] | Risk factors of MRSA | Working hours, P.S.D. | Denmark | Pig | 6 swine farms |
[32] | Risk factors of MRSA | Working hours, P.S.D. | The Netherlands | Pig, veal calf | 87 pig farms, 49 veal calf farms |
[33] | Risk factors of MRSA | Number of animals per operator, P.S.D., Working hours, Type of contact with potential sources of MRSA. | Germany | Turkey, Broiler | 5 fattening turkey farms (from 10,000 to 36,000 birds per farm), 2 broiler fattening farms (from 35,000 to 352,000 birds per farm) |
[34] | Risk factors of MRSA | Number of animals per operator. | Spain | Pig | 9 fattening pig farms, 11 farrow to finish pig farms (from 180 to 10,000 animals per farm) |
[35] | Risk factors of MRSA | Working hours. | The Netherlands | Pig, veal Calf | 102 veal calf farms, 50 pig farms |
[36] | Risk factors of MRSA | Type of contact with potential sources of MRSA, P.S.D., Working hours. | The Netherlands | Pig | 49 farrowing pig farms |
[37] | Risk factors of MRSA | Number of animals per operator, P.S.D. | Germany | Turkey | 2 broiler farms (13,200 birds) 5 turkey farms (25,450 birds) |
[38] | Risk factors of ESBL | Number of animals per operator, Working hours. | The Netherlands | Pig | 40 pig farms (2388 animals) |
[39] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL, Working hours. | Denmark | Pig | 39 pig farms (20 with no third- or fourth-generation cephalosporin use and 19 with previous frequent use were included) |
[40] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL, Working hours, P.S.D. | The Netherlands | Broiler | 50 broiler farms (from 14,400 to 200,000 birds per farm) |
[41] | Risk factors of ESBL | Number of animals per operator, Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL. | The Netherlands | Broiler | 26 broiler farms (>30,000 broilers per farm) |
[42] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL. | Germany, The Netherlands | Pig | 35 pig farms (550 animals) |
[43] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL, Working hours | Germany | Broiler | 7 broiler fattening farms (from 48,000 to 360,000 birds per farm) |
[44] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL, Number of animals per operator | Sweden | Broiler | Not specified |
[45] | Risk factors of ESBL | P.S.D. | Czech Republic | Turkey | 40 turkey farms |
[46] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL. | Finland | Cattle, Pig, Broiler, Turkey | 55 broiler farms, 7 turkey farms, 66 pig farms, 197 cattle farms |
[47] | Risk factors of ESBL | Number of animals per operator, P.S.D. | Germany | Pig | 47 pig farms |
[48] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL, P.S.D. | Great Britain | Turkey, Broiler | Broiler not specified, 442 turkey farms |
[49] | Risk factors of ESBL | Working hours, Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL, P.S.D. | Germany | Pig, Cattle, Poultry | 17 pig farms, 11 cattle farms, 4 chicken farms, 2 turkey farms (at least 50 pigs or cattle per farm and 10,000 birds per farm |
[50] | Risk factors of ESBL | Type of contact with potential sources of ESBL, P.S.D. | The Netherlands | Broiler | 2 broiler farms (1 conventional with 98 birds and 1 organic with 51 birds) |
Paper | Reason for Paper Selection | Country | Farming | Reason for Exclusion from Prevalence Estimation |
---|---|---|---|---|
[5] | MRSA prevalence in birds | The Netherlands | Turkey | The prevalence concerns more than one sample taken from different farms and not divided in breeding phases |
[7] | MRSA prevalence in birds | Germany | Turkey | |
[9] | MRSA prevalence in birds and in farming environmental substrates | Germany | Turkey | |
[33] | MRSA prevalence in birds and in farming environmental substrates | Germany | Turkey | |
[37] | MRSA prevalence in birds | Germany | Turkey | The prevalence concerns more than one sample taken from different farms and not divided in breeding phases |
[45] | ESBL prevalence in farming environmental substrates | Czech Republic | Turkey | The prevalence concerns more than one sample taken from different farms and not divided in breeding phases |
[46] | ESBL prevalence in birds | Finland | Turkey | The prevalence is 0 |
[48] | ESBL prevalence in farming environmental substrates | Great Britain | Turkey | The prevalence concerns more than one sample taken from different farms and not divided in breeding phases |
[49] | ESBL prevalence in birds | Germany | Turkey | The prevalence is 0 |
[51] | MRSA prevalence in farming environmental substrates | Germany | Turkey |
Breeding Phases | N° of Data Collections | N° of Tested Animals | N° of Positive Animals | Prevalence (%) | CI Min | CI Max | Resulting Level 1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Not specified 2,3 | 2 | 25 | 2 | 8.00 | 0.77 | 49.19 | 1 |
0–70 days 3 | 4 | 48 | 17 | 35.41 * | 23.28 | 49.76 | 2 |
70–100 days 3 | 8 | 96 | 43 | 44.79 | 29.91 | 60.66 | 3 |
>100 days 3,4 | 10 | 688 | 422 | 60.06 | 49.79 | 69.51 | 4 |
Breeding Phases | N° of Data Collections | N° of Tested Environmental Substrates | N° of Positive Environmental Substrates | Prevalence (%) | CI Min | CI Max | Resulting Level 1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Not specified 2 | 1 | 112 | 22 | 19.64 * | 13.29 | 28.03 | 1 |
0–70 days 3 | 4 | 20 | 5 | 25.00 * | 10.80 | 47.83 | 2 |
70–100 days 3 | 8 | 40 | 10 | 25.00 | 13.73 | 41.10 | 2 |
>100 days 3,4 | 10 | 90 | 58 | 64.33 | 49.86 | 76.59 | 4 |
Working Practices | Short Description |
---|---|
Litter preparation | Practice characterized by 2 distinct work sub – phases: (1) introducing and laying the bedding material in the farming houses. (2) housing for the technical equipment needed to create the weaning areas already provided with water in the drinking troughs and feed in the feeding troughs. |
Discharge of the poults | At this stage the turkey chicks arrive and are unloaded from transport vehicles within the circle weaning areas which are delimited by a net on the litter tray surface. |
Backhand of the poults | The tipping over of poults turned on their back; it is a manual activity carried out especially during the first 3 days of birds’ life. |
Removal of weaning areas | The removal of the nets delimiting the circle areas and therefore the release of the animals for the entire available litterfall space. |
Vaccination | This type of intervention can take a few days and not less than 3-4 workers because it is carried out inside the boxes and mobile barriers are used to isolate and channel groups of animals, which will then be taken individually and vaccinated with syringes. |
Animals’ inspection | In addition to animal inspection, it also covers the daily check of the correct functioning of the plant elements, with particular reference to the distribution systems of feeders and drinking troughs. |
Administration of any therapies individually | Treatments are carried out manually by the operator and involve the restraining of the animal. |
Lap of the dead | In mortality control, the operator must walk the entire surface of the pits on a daily basis, visually assess the condition of the animals, report any abnormalities in their physical condition and take dead animals away from the pits. Dead animals are introduced into a cold store normally located on the external yards of the breeding site. |
Litter milling | This activity consists of tipping the litter tray over, so that the surface is always dry. |
Loading of turkeys | The operators convey the animals to the central entrance using mobile barriers made of metal material. The operators then manually insert the turkeys into the crates, which are then inserted into the lorry for transport to the slaughterhouse. |
Litter removal | The activity consists of collecting and moving away from the attic of the boxes, all the material making up the spent litter, composed of animal catabolites and wood shavings or rice chaff in a single biodegradable residual product. Harvesting is carried out by an operator who, by operating a bobcat, collects the faeces and conveys them outside, where they are then loaded onto a vehicle for delivery onto agricultural land. |
Washing at low or medium pressure | Washing is carried out by insufflation of water at low or medium pressure or mist, both in the rooms and in the equipment. |
Washing at high pressure | Washing is carried out by insufflation of water at high pressure or mist, both in the rooms and in the equipment. |
Disinfection | After washing, surfaces and equipment are treated with disinfectant. Specifically, once an aqueous solution of known content has been obtained, it is directly injected into the surfaces to be treated. |
Maintenance | It includes minor interventions of ordinary maintenance to equipment. |
Levels (1 = Lowest, 4 = Highest) | Evaluation Criteria | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Type of Contact with Potential Sources of AMR | Working Hours per Operator | Personal Safety Devices | Number of Animals per Operator | |
1 | Entry into the shed in absence of animals (eg: box preparation, disinfection…) | <2 h | Wearing mask, gloves and eye glasses. | <2500 |
2 | Operations carried out remotely by animals (ex: washing, maintenance…) | 2–4 h | Wearing 2 out of 3 devices. | 2500–5000 |
3 | Contact with dejections (ex: bedding removal…) | 4–6 h | Wearing 1 out of 3 devices. | 5000–7500 |
4 | Direct contact (ex: discharge of the poults, discharge turkeys, vaccinations, weighs …) | >6 h | Wearing no device. | >7500 |
Criteria | Importance Level (MRSA) | Importance Level (ESBL) |
---|---|---|
Type of contact | 3 | 4 |
Work hours | 4 | 2 |
P.S.D | 4 | 4 |
Number animals per operator | 1 | 2 |
Working Practices | Type of Contact (Level) | Working Hours per Operator (Level) | Personal Safety Devices (Level) | Number of Animals per Operator (Level) | Occupational Exposure (Level) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Backhand of the poults | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Administration of any therapies individually | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
Vaccination | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
Litter removal | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Removal of weaning areas | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Discharge of the poults | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Litter milling | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Lap of the dead | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
Litter preparation | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
Charge of the turkeys | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Maintenance | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
Washing at high pressure | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Washing at low or medium pressure | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Animals’inspection | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
Disinfection | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Working Practices | Type of Contact (Level) | Working Hours per Operator (Level) | Personal Safety Devices (Level) | Number of Animals per Operator (Level) | Occupational Exposure (Level) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Backhand of the poults | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Vaccination | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
Administration of any therapies individually | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
Litter removal | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Removal of weaning areas | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Discharge of the poults | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Lap of the dead | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Litter milling | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Charge of the turkeys | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Animals’inspection | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
Maintenance | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
Washing at high pressure | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Washing at low or medium pressure | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Litter preparation | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Disinfection | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Working Practices | Level of Occupational Exposure (from Table 5) | Level of Animals Prevalence | Level of Environmental Prevalence | Level of Probability of Exposure |
---|---|---|---|---|
Administration of any therapies individually (>100 days) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Litter milling (>100 days) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Litter removal (>100 days) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Lap of the dead (>100 days) | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
Charge of the turkeys (>100 days) | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
Washing at high pressure | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
Washing at low or medium pressure (>100 days) | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
Maintenance (>100 days) | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
Administration of any therapies individually (70–100 days) | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Administration of any therapies individually (0–70 days) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Vaccination (0–70 days) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Backhand of the poults (0–70 days) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Litter milling (70–100 days) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Discharge of the poults (0–70 days) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Removal of weaning areas (0–70 days) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Lap of the dead (70–100 days) | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Litter milling (0–70 days) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Maintenance (70–100 days) | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Maintenance (0–70 days) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Lap of the dead (0–70 days) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Litter preparation (0–70 days) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Disinfection (>100 days) | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
Animals’inspection (>100 days) | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
Animals’inspection (70–100 days) | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Animals’inspection (0–70 days) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Franceschini, G.; Bottino, M.; Millet, I.; Martello, E.; Zaltron, F.; Favretto, A.R.; Vonesch, N.; Tomao, P.; Mannelli, A. Assessment of the Exposure of Turkey Farmers to Antimicrobial Resistance Associated with Working Practices. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci6010013
Franceschini G, Bottino M, Millet I, Martello E, Zaltron F, Favretto AR, Vonesch N, Tomao P, Mannelli A. Assessment of the Exposure of Turkey Farmers to Antimicrobial Resistance Associated with Working Practices. Veterinary Sciences. 2019; 6(1):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci6010013
Chicago/Turabian StyleFranceschini, Giorgio, Marta Bottino, Ilary Millet, Elisa Martello, Francesca Zaltron, Anna Rosa Favretto, Nicoletta Vonesch, Paola Tomao, and Alessandro Mannelli. 2019. "Assessment of the Exposure of Turkey Farmers to Antimicrobial Resistance Associated with Working Practices" Veterinary Sciences 6, no. 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci6010013