AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine if three classes of farm disinfectants were able to select for ciprofloxacin or cyclohexane tolerant [indicative of a multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) phenotype] Escherichia coli and if cyclohexane-tolerant E. coli could be isolated from farms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Chicken slurry containing ca 1 : 99 ratio ciprofloxacin resistant : susceptible E. coli (10 different resistant strains examined) was treated for 24 h with each of the disinfectants and examined for survival of resistant : susceptible strains. Ciprofloxacin-sensitive (n=5) and -resistant (n=5) E. coli were grown with sublethal concentrations of the disinfectants and then plated to agar containing ciprofloxacin or overlaid with cyclohexane. Escherichia coli (n=389) isolated from farms were tested for cyclohexane tolerance. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined against representative isolates and mutants. The disinfectants did not select for the ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli in poultry slurry but following growth with each of the three disinfectants, higher numbers (P < or = 0.023) of cyclohexane-tolerant E. coli were isolated and these had a MAR phenotype. Of the 389 farm E. coli tested, only one was cyclohexane tolerant. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible that in a farm environment, E. coli could be exposed to similar concentrations of the disinfectants that are selected for MAR type organisms under these laboratory conditions. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Data from this study suggest that cyclohexane-resistant E. coli are not common on farms, but in view of the ease of isolating them in the laboratory with farm disinfectants, further investigations on farms are warranted.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine if three classes of farm disinfectants were able to select for ciprofloxacin or cyclohexane tolerant [indicative of a multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) phenotype] Escherichia coli and if cyclohexane-tolerant E. coli could be isolated from farms. METHODS AND RESULTS:Chicken slurry containing ca 1 : 99 ratio ciprofloxacin resistant : susceptible E. coli (10 different resistant strains examined) was treated for 24 h with each of the disinfectants and examined for survival of resistant : susceptible strains. Ciprofloxacin-sensitive (n=5) and -resistant (n=5) E. coli were grown with sublethal concentrations of the disinfectants and then plated to agar containing ciprofloxacin or overlaid with cyclohexane. Escherichia coli (n=389) isolated from farms were tested for cyclohexane tolerance. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined against representative isolates and mutants. The disinfectants did not select for the ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli in poultry slurry but following growth with each of the three disinfectants, higher numbers (P < or = 0.023) of cyclohexane-tolerant E. coli were isolated and these had a MAR phenotype. Of the 389 farm E. coli tested, only one was cyclohexane tolerant. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible that in a farm environment, E. coli could be exposed to similar concentrations of the disinfectants that are selected for MAR type organisms under these laboratory conditions. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Data from this study suggest that cyclohexane-resistant E. coli are not common on farms, but in view of the ease of isolating them in the laboratory with farm disinfectants, further investigations on farms are warranted.