|
Direct
No evidence from studies ( 3.4.1)
|
Direct
Increased shedding of AMR bacteria by calves fed waste milk in an observational study (Duse et al., 2015) and in three experimental studies (Langford et al., 2003; Aust et al., 2013; Brunton et al., 2014) ( 3.4.1)
Increased shedding of antimicrobial resistant bacteria by calves fed milk spiked with antimicrobials in three experimental studies (Berge et al., 2006; Alali et al., 2004; Pereira et al., 2014) ( 3.4.1)
Indirect
In lactating cows, residue levels will be higher after intramammary than after systemic treatment ( 3.2.4)
Antimicrobial concentrations in milk during treatment will be higher than the MIC but then decline ( 3.2.4)
|
|
|
|
Direct
Increased shedding of AMR bacteria by calves fed waste milk in 1 observational study (Duse et al., 2015) and in three experimental studies (Langford et al., 2003; Aust et al., 2013; Brunton et al., 2014) ( 3.4.1)
Increased shedding of AMR bacteria by calves fed milk spiked with antimicrobials in three experimental studies (Berge et al., 2006; Alali et al., 2004; Pereira et al., 2014) ( 3.4.1)
Indirect
Antimicrobial concentrations in milk during treatment will be higher than the MIC but then decline ( 3.2.4)
|
Direct
No evidence from studies ( 3.4.1)
|
|
Loss of waste milk as valuable feed for calves
Low compliance if not well founded and communicated
Disposal of waste milk could increase residues in the environment
|
|
Direct
In a dairy herd using cefquinome to treat cows, calves receiving waste milk shed greater numbers of cefotaxime resistant E. coli than calves receiving milk replacer (Brunton et al., 2014)
Indirect
|
Direct
No evidence from studies ( 3.4.1)
|
Reduced risk for shedding bacteria resistant to CIAs by calves
Ameliorates some disadvantages of a complete ban (L2)
To focus on highest priority, CIAs targets resistance of most public health significance and could also be a lever for reducing the use of these antimicrobials
|
|
|
Direct
No evidence from studies (3.4.1)
Indirect
|
Direct
In an observational study there was no difference in shedding of AMR E. coli by calves fed milk during treatment or withdrawal (Duse et al., 2015)
Indirect
|
|
Partial loss of waste milk as valuable feed for calves
Low compliance if not well founded and communicated
Separation of milk fractions from individual cows includes practicalities that might interfere with compliance
Disposal of waste milk might increase residues in the environment
|
|
Direct
No evidence from studies (3.4.1).
Indirect
In lactating cows, residue levels will be higher after intramammary than after systemic treatment ( 3.2.4)
Antimicrobial concentrations in milk during treatment will be higher than the MIC but then decline ( 3.2.4)
|
Direct
No evidence from studies ( 3.4.1)
|
|
|
|
Direct
Some milk treatment methods, mainly to remove β‐lactam antimicrobials, are described ( 3.6.2 and Table 18)
|
Direct
Evidence on activity spectrum towards different antimicrobials is lacking ( 3.6.2 and Table 18)
|
|
Practicality at the farm level is not obvious and might interfere with compliance
Potential impact on nutritional and properties of the milk
A need to adapt and evaluate methods for practical use
|
|
Direct
No evidence from studies that AMR bacteria in waste milk increase shedding by calves ( 3.4.1)
Some milk treatment methods to remove bacteria are described ( 3.6.3 and Table 19)
|
Direct
Pasteurisation of milk containing antimicrobial residues had no effect on the increased faecal shedding of antimicrobial‐resistant E. coli. (Aust et al., 2013) ( 3.4.1)
|
Probably higher compliance than to a complete ban
|
Practicality at the farm level is not obvious and might interfere with compliance
-
Potential impact on nutritional and properties of the milk
A need to adapt and evaluate methods for practical use
|