Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 19, Number 9—September 2013

Livestock Density as Risk Factor for Livestock-associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the Netherlands

On This Page
citations of this article
EID Journal Metrics on Scopus

Cite This Article

To the Editor: We challenge the conclusions of Feingold et al. that “regional density of livestock is a notable risk factor for nasal carriage of LA-MRSA for persons with and without direct contact with livestock” (1). They did not study nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), but they retrospectively analyzed 87 culture-confirmed MRSA cases reported to a reference laboratory. These were a mixture of clinical disease isolates and screening (nose, throat, and perineum) isolates that were unevenly distributed between the groups (2). Because their analysis aimed to assess exposure risk by residential location, they should have excluded the 5 persons who acquired MRSA outside the Netherlands.

Retrospective case–control studies preclude direct estimation of incidence, prevalence, or risk. However, because of the symmetric property of odds ratios, disease odds ratios can be inferred indirectly from the estimated exposure odds ratios in case–control studies (3). However, this case–case study design has no true controls, precluding valid inferences of absolute or relative risks. The higher ratio of livestock-associated (LA)–MRSA to a typeable strain of MRSA (T-MRSA) in rural cases could be attributable to higher risk for LA-MRSA in rural areas, lower risk for T-MRSA in rural areas, or both.

To illustrate this point, suppose urban dwellers had equal prevalence rates of LA-MRSA and T-MRSA of 5%, and rural dwellers had prevalence rates of 2% for LA-MRSA and 1% for T-MRSA. The ratio approach used would indicate that rural dwellers had twice the risk for LA-MRSA than urban dwellers, when the absolute risk is 2.5 times higher in the urban group. At best, their conclusion could be viewed as a hypothesis that should be tested.

Three large community-based studies with better methods collectively refute this hypothesis. Across these studies, LA-MRSA prevalence (44%) was >180 times higher in 352 occupationally exposed persons than in 2,094 rural residents without farm exposure (0.24%) (46). Prevalence in family members of livestock workers was intermediate (5.2%). These consistent observations indicate that exposure to LA-MRSA in livestock-dense regions is a common occupational risk for livestock workers, a lesser indirect risk to their family members, and a negligible risk to persons without livestock or farm contact.

Finally, the contention of Feingold et al. that pig production in the Netherlands is “greatly overshadowed by the density of pig-farming operations in the United States” is mistaken (1) (Table). Pig density in the Netherlands is 35 times higher than in the United States, and more than twice that in Iowa.


Peter R. Davies, Bruce H. Alexander, Jeffrey B. Bender, John Deen, Catherine E. Dewey, Julie A. Funk, Claudia A. Munoz-Zanzi, M. Gerard O’Sullivan, Randall S. Singer, Srinand Sreevatsan, Katharina D. Stärk, and Mark A. Stevenson

Author affiliations: University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA (P.R. Davies, J.B. Bender, J. Deen, M.G. O’Sullivan, R.S Singer, S. Sreevatsan); University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (B.H. Alexander, C. A. Munoz-Zanzi); Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, Ontario, Canada (C.E. Dewey); Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine, East Lansing, Michigan, USA (J.A. Funk); Royal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom (K.D. Stärk); Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand (M.A. Stevenson)



  1. Feingold  BJ, Silbergeld  EK, Curriero  FC, van Cleef  BA, Heck  ME, Kluytmans  JA. Livestock density as risk factor for livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:18419. DOIPubMed
  2. van Loo  I, Huijsdens  X, Tiemersma  E, de Neeling  A, van de Sande-Bruinsma  N, Beaujean  D. Emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus of animal origin in humans. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13:18349. DOIPubMed
  3. Cummings  P. The relative merits of risk ratios and odds ratios. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163:43845. DOIPubMed
  4. van Cleef  BA, Verkade  EJ, Wulf  MW, Buiting  AG, Voss  A, Huijsdens  XW, Prevalence of livestock-associated MRSA in communities with high pig-densities in The Netherlands. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e9385. DOIPubMed
  5. Cuny  C, Nathaus  R, Layer  F, Strommenger  B, Altmann  D, Witte  W. Nasal colonization of humans with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) CC398 with and without exposure to pigs. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e6800. DOIPubMed
  6. Bisdorff  B, Scholhölter  JL, Claußen  K, Pulz  M, Nowak  D, Radon  K. MRSA-ST398 in livestock farmers and neighbouring residents in a rural area in Germany. Epidemiol Infect. 2012;140:18008. DOIPubMed




Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid1909.121577

Related Links


Table of Contents – Volume 19, Number 9—September 2013


Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Peter R. Davies, Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine, St Paul, MN 55108, USA

Address for correspondence. Beth J. Feingold, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, 301 Olin Hall, 3400 Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.


Page created: August 22, 2013
Page updated: August 22, 2013
Page reviewed: August 22, 2013
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.