Table 3.
Summary of univariate analysis of risk factors for antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella spp. from poultry farms in east coast of Malaysia (n = 371 samples).
| Risk Factors | Antimicrobials | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Identified Resistance | Antimicrobial Class Resistance | |||||||
| No Antimicrobial Resistance | Resistance to at Least One Antimicrobial | No Antimicrobial Resistance | Resistant to 1 Class |
Resistant to 2 Classes |
Resistant to 3–4 Classes |
Resistant to 5 or More Classes | ||
| Sample type | Cloacal (n = 259) | 20 (7.7%) | 100 (38.6%) | 22 (8.5%) | 36 (13.9%) | 24 (9.3%) | 35 (13.5%) | 3 (1.2%) |
| Faecal (n = 84) | 0 | 50 (59.5%) | 0 | 7 (8.3%) | 9 (10.7%) | 21 (34.2%) | 13 (15.5%) | |
| Sewage (n = 14) | 2 (14.3%) | 3 (21.4%) | 2 (14.3%) | 2 (14.3%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (7.1%) | |
| Tap water (n = 14) | 2 (14.3%) | 0 | 2 (14.3%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Age | Young (n = 187) | 12 (6.4%) | 74 (39.6%) | 13 (7%) | 20 (10.7%) | 13 (7%) | 30 (16%) | 10 (5.3%) |
| Adult (n = 184) | 12 (6.5%) | 79 (43%) | 13 (7.1%) | 24 (13%) | 21 (11.4%) | 26 (14.1%) | 7 (3.8%) | |
| Poultry origin | Local (n = 26) | 3 (11.5%) | 9 (34.6%) | 3 (11.5%) | 5 (19.2%) | 0 | 4 (15.4%) | 0 |
| Imported (n = 133) | 5 (3.8%) | 68 (51.1%) | 6 (4.5%) | 21 (15.8%) | 20 (15%) | 20 (15%) | 6 (4.5%) | |
| Both (n = 212) | 16 (7.5%) | 76 (35.8%) | 17 (8%) | 19 (9%) | 13 (6.1%) | 32 (15.9%) | 11 (5.2%) | |
| Management system | Intensive (n = 187) | 7 (3.7%) | 88 (47.1%) | 9 (4.8%) | 21 (11.2%) | 18 (9.6%) | 34 (18.2%) | 13 (7%) |
| Semi-intensive (n = 158) | 14 (8.9%) | 56 (35.4%) | 14 (8.9%) | 19 (12%) | 15 (9.5%) | 18 (11.4%) | 4 (2.5%) | |
| Mixed (n = 26) | 3 (11.5%) | 9 (34.6%) | 3 (11.5%) | 5 (19.2%) | 0 | 4 (15.4%) | 0 | |
| Production system | Broiler (n = 212) | 13 (6.1%) | 96 (45.3%) | 15 (7.1%) | 26 (12.3%) | 20 (9.4%) | 36 (17%) | 12 (5.7%) |
| Layer (n = 53) | 1 (1.9%) | 24 (45.3%) | 1 (1.9%) | 9 (17%) | 6 (11.3%) | 8 (15.1%) | 1 (1.9%) | |
| Mixed (n = 106) | 10 (9.4%) | 33 (31.1%) | 10 (9.4%) | 10 (9.4%) | 7 (6.6%) | 12 (11.3%) | 4 (3.8%) | |
| Farm size | Small (n = 104) | 9 (8.7%) | 41 (39.4%) | 9 (8.7%) | 18 (17.3%) | 8 (7.7%) | 13 (12.5%) | 2 (1.9%) |
| Medium (n = 187) | 14 (7.5%) | 83 (44.4%) | 15 (8%) | 21 (11.2%) | 19 (10.2%) | 33 (17.6%) | 9 (4.8%) | |
| Large (n = 80) | 1 (1.3%) | 29 (23.8%) | 2 (2.5%) | 6 (7.5%) | 6 (7.5%) | 10 (12.5%) | 6 (7.5%) | |
| Water source | Surface water (n = 103) Bond water (n = 133) |
6 (5.8%) 7 (5.3%) |
32 (31.1%) 65 (48.9%) |
7 (6.8%) 8 (6%) |
3 (2.9%) 20 (15.8%) |
5 (4.9%) 16 (12%) |
13 (12.6%) 22 (16.5%) |
10 (9.7%) 6 (4.5%) |
| Pump water (n = 132) | 11 (8.3%) | 56 (32.2%) | 11 (8.3%) | 22 (16.7%) | 12 (9.1%) | 21 (16%) | 1 (0.8%) | |
| Sewage system | Excellent (n = 109) Good (n = 210) |
4 (3.7%) 16 (7.6%) |
60 (55%) 76 (36.2%) |
5 (4.6%) 17 (8.1%) |
17 (15.6%) 21 (10%) |
12 (11%) 19 (9%) |
25 (23%) 23 (11%) |
5 (4.6%) 12 (5.7%) |
| Poor (n = 52) | 4 (7.7%) | 17 (32.7%) | 4 (7.7%) | 7 (13.5%) | 2 (3.8%) | 8 (15.4%) | 0 | |
| Feed source | Endogenous (n =132) | 8 (6%) | 53 (40.1%) | 8 (6.1%) | 20 (15.2%) | 14 (10.6%) | 16 (12.1%) | 3 (2.3%) |
| Exogenous (n = 213) | 15 (7%) | 88 (41.4%) | 17 (8%) | 19 (9%) | 15 (7%) | 38 (17.8%) | 14 (6.6%) | |
| Other (n = 26) | 1 (3.8%) | 12 (46.2%) | 1 (3.8%) | 6 (23.1%) | 4 (15.4%) | 2 (7.7) | 0 | |