Table 1.
Breakdown of Salmonella isolates by farm and farm type
| Farma | Farm type | Cohortb | Frequencyc (n) | % positive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABF 1 | ABF | A1 | 394 | 5.9 |
| ABF 2 | ABF | A2 | 333 | 5.1 |
| ABF 3 | ABF | A3 | 341 | 5.2 |
| ABF 4 | ABF | A4 | 342 | 5.2 |
| ABF 5 | ABF | A5 | 366 | 5.6 |
| ABF 6 | ABF | A6 | 344 | 5.2 |
| ABF 7 | ABF | A7 | 365 | 5.6 |
| ABF 8 | ABF | A8 | 232 | 3.5 |
| CONV 1d | Conventional | C1 | 388 | 5.9 |
| CONV 2d | Conventional | C2 | 362 | 5.5 |
| CONV 3 | Conventional | C3 | 121 | 1.84 |
| CONV 4 | Conventional | C3 | 171 | 2.6 |
| CONV 5 | Conventional | C3 | 72 | 1 |
| CONV 6 | Conventional | C4 | 195 | 2.9 |
| CONV 7 | Conventional | C4 | 119 | 1.8 |
| CONV 8 | Conventional | C4 | 67 | 1 |
| CONV 9 | Conventional | C5 | 69 | 1.1 |
| CONV 10 | Conventional | C5 | 70 | 1.1 |
| CONV 11 | Conventional | C5 | 286 | 4.4 |
| CONV 12 | Conventional | C6 | 69 | 1.1 |
| CONV 13 | Conventional | C6 | 67 | 1 |
| CONV 14 | Conventional | C6 | 239 | 3.6 |
| CONV 15 | Conventional | C7 | 37 | 1 |
| CONV 16 | Conventional | C7 | 127 | 1.9 |
| CONV 17 | Conventional | C7 | 215 | 3.3 |
| CONV 18d | Conventional | C8 | 210 | 3.2 |
| CONV 19d | Conventional | C8 | 185 | 2.8 |
| CONV 20 | Conventional | C9 | 194 | 2.9 |
| CONV 21 | Conventional | C9 | 67 | 1 |
| CONV 22 | Conventional | C9 | 122 | 1.9 |
| CONV 23d | Conventional | C10 | 183 | 2.8 |
| CONV 24d | Conventional | C10 | 197 | 3 |
a
ABF 1 to 8, antimicrobial-free farms owned by individual farmers; CONV 1 to 24, conventional farms owned by two different companies.
b
A1 to A8, ABF cohorts; C1 to C10, conventional cohorts.
c
Number of samples collected. Includes fecal, environmental, and slaughter samples.
d
The total number of conventional farms sampled was 30. The indicated farms were sampled at three different locations; since the name of the farm is the same, the locations appear as a single farm. Therefore, there are only 24 farms listed in the table.