Table 1.
Number of resistant isolates (# R) and prevalences of resistance to each antimicrobial with 95% confidence intervals (CI) examined for the isolates obtained by passive and active surveillance of swine S. Typhimurium var. 5-.
No significant differences were detected by chi-square or Fisher’s Exact tests.
Table 2.
Number of resistant isolates (# R) and prevalences of resistance to each antimicrobial with 95% confidence intervals (CI) examined for the isolates obtained by passive and active surveillance of poultry S. Heidelberg.
No significant differences were detected by chi-square or Fisher’s Exact tests.
Table 3.
Percentages of resistance (% R) for isolates obtained by passive and active surveillance of swine S. Typhimurium var. 5- and poultry S. Heidelberg, including the % R of passive and active surveillance isolates found by Poppe et al. [27] and Johnson et al. [28] for comparison.
Fig 1.
Observed ecological diversities of the swine S. Typhimurium var. 5- AMR profiles for all values of the q parameter, including Species richness [SR], Shannon entropy [SE], Simpson diversity [SD], Berger-Parker [BP] for passive surveillance (red) and active surveillance (black) isolates with confidence intervals (dotted lines) for the passive surveillance sample generated by subsampling to the size of the active surveillance sample.
Fig 2.
Observed ecological diversities of the poultry S. Heidelberg AMR profiles for all values of the q parameter, including Species richness [SR], Shannon entropy [SE], Simpson diversity [SD], Berger-Parker [BP] for passive surveillance (red) and active surveillance (black) isolates with confidence intervals (dotted lines) for the active surveillance sample generated by subsampling to the size of the passive surveillance sample.