Microbial Aetiology, Antibiotic Susceptibility and Pathogen-Specific Risk Factors for Udder Pathogens from Clinical Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sampling
2.2. Culture of Samples
2.3. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
2.4. Risk Factor Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Bacteriological Findings
3.2. Antibiotic Susceptibility
3.3. Risk Factors
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jamali, H.; Barkema, H.W.; Jacques, M.; Lavallée-Bourget, E.M.; Malouin, F.; Saini, V.; Stryhn, H.; Dufour, S. Invited review: Incidence, risk factors, and effects of clinical mastitis recurrence in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 101, 4729–4746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redogörelse för Husdjursorganisationernas Djurhälsovård 2017–2018; Växa Sverige: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019.
- Acar, J.; Röstel, B. Antimicrobial resistance: An overview. Rev. Sci. Tech. Int. Off. Epizoot. 2001, 20, 797–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mader, R.; Damborg, P.; Amat, J.-P.; Bengtsson, B.; Bourély, C.; Broens, E.M.; Busani, L.; Crespo, P.; Filippitzi, M.-E.; Fitzgerald, W.; et al. Building the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance network in veterinary medicine (EARS-Vet). Eurosurveillance 2021, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson Waller, K.; Hårdemark, V.; Nyman, A.K.; Duse, A. Veterinary treatment strategies for clinical mastitis in dairy cows in Sweden. Vet. Rec. 2016, 178, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haenni, M.; Galofaro, L.; Ythier, M.; Giddey, M.; Majcherczyk, P.; Moreillon, P.; Madec, J.-Y. Penicillin-binding protein gene alterations in Streptococcus uberis isolates presenting decreased susceptibility to penicillin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 1140–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nilsson, L.; Franklin, A.; Funke, H. Antimicrobial drug susceptibility of bovine udder pathogens in Sweden. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting Society Veterinary Epidemiology Preventive Medicine, Chester, UK, 9–11 April 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Bengtsson, B.; Unnerstad, H.E.; Ekman, T.; Artursson, K.; Nilsson-Öst, M.; Waller, K.P. Antimicrobial susceptibility of udder pathogens from cases of acute clinical mastitis in dairy cows. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 136, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ericsson Unnerstad, H.; Lindberg, A.; Persson Waller, K.; Ekman, T.; Artursson, K.; Nilsson-Öst, M.; Bengtsson, B. Microbial aetiology of acute clinical mastitis and agent-specific risk factors. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 137, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brolund, L. Technical Utilization of Cell Count in the Milk-Recording Service (Cellhaltens Tekniska Utnyttjande i Kokontrollen); Swedish Association for Livestock Breeding and Production: Eskilstuna, Sweden, 1990; pp. 40–42. [Google Scholar]
- European Union. Regions in the European Union—Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics—NUTS 2010/EU-27; Eurostat: Luxemburg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Nonnemann, B.; Svennesen, L.; Lyhs, U.; Kristensen, K.A.; Klaas, I.C.; Pedersen, K. Bovine mastitis bacteria resolved by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 2515–2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated from Animal: Approved Standards. CLSI Document VET01-A4, 4th ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Wayne, PA, USA, 2013.
- Bryan, L.E.; Godfrey, A.J. Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: Mode of Action and Bacterial Resistance. In Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine; Lorian, V., Ed.; William & Wilkins: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1991; pp. 599–604. [Google Scholar]
- Pichon, B.; Hill, R.; Laurent, F.; Larsen, A.R.; Skov, R.L.; Holmes, M.; Edwards, G.F.; Teale, C.; Kearns, A.M. Development of a real-time quadruplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of nuc, Panton-Valentine leucocidin (PVL), mecA and homologue mecALGA251. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012, 67, 2338–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cavaco, L.M.; Frimodt-Møller, N.; Hasman, H.; Guardabassi, L.; Nielsen, L.; Aarestrup, F.M. Prevalence of quinolone resistance mechanisms and associations to minimum inhibitory concentrations in quinolone-resistant Escherichia coli isolated from humans and swine in Denmark. Microb. Drug Resist. 2008, 14, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dohoo, I.R.; Nielsen, C.R.; Emanuelson, U. Multiple imputation in veterinary epidemiological studies: A case study and simulation. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 129, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Agricultural Statistics 2017 Including Food Statistics—Tables; Statistics Sweden: Örebro, Sweden, 2017.
- Koivula, M.; Pitkälä, A.; Pyörälä, S.; Mäntysaari, E.A. Distribution of bacteria and seasonal and regional effects in a new database for mastitis pathogens in Finland. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. Anim. Sci. 2007, 57, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levison, L.J.; Miller-Cushon, E.K.; Tucker, A.L.; Bergeron, R.; Leslie, K.E.; Barkema, H.W.; DeVries, T.J. Incidence rate of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on conventional and organic Canadian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1341–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milne, M.H.; Barret, D.C.; Fitzpatrick, J.L.; Biggs, A.M. Prevalence and aetiology of clinical mastitis on dairy farms in Devon. Vet. Rec. 2002, 151, 241–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botrel, M.-A.; Haenni, M.; Morignat, E.; Sulpice, P.; Madec, J.-Y.; Calavas, D. Distribution and antimicrobial resistance of clinical and subclinical mastitis pathogens in dairy cows in Rhône-Alpes, France. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2009, 7, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, L.; Hulland, C.; Ruegg, P.L. Characterization of clinical mastitis occurring in cows on 50 large dairy herds in Wisconsin. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 7538–7549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Barkema, H.W.; Zhang, L.; Liu, G.; Deng, Z.; Cai, L.; Shan, R.; Zhang, S.; Zou, J.; Kastelic, J.P.; et al. Incidence of clinical mastitis and distribution of pathogens on large Chinese dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4797–4806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Persson Waller, K.; Aspan, A.; Nyman, A.; Persson, Y.; Grönlund Andersson, U. CNS species and antimicrobial resistance in clinical and subclinical bovine mastitis. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 152, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mahmmod, Y.; Nonnemann, B.; Svennesen, L.; Pedersen, K.; Klaas, I. Typeability of MALDI-TOF assay for identification of non-aureus staphylococci associated with bovine intramammary infections and teat apex colonization. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 9430–9438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chehabi, C.N.; Nonnemann, B.; Astrup, L.B.; Farre, M.; Pedersen, K. In vitro antimicrobial resistance of causative agents to clinical mastitis in dairy cows. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 15, 562–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hamel, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wente, N.; Krömker, V. Non-S. aureus staphylococci (NAS) in milk samples: Infection or contamination? Vet. Microbiol. 2020, 242, 108594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, A.J.; Leach, K.A.; Breen, J.E.; Green, L.E.; Green, M.J. Survey of the incidence and aetiology of mastitis on dairy farms in England and Wales. Vet. Rec. 2007, 160, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Riekerink, R.G.M.O.; Barkema, H.W.; Kelton, D.F.; Scholl, D.T. Incidence rate of clinical mastitis on Canadian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 1366–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinozuka, Y.; Morita, T.; Watanabe, A.; Kawai, K. Live bacteria in clots from bovine clinical mastitis milk with no growth in conventional culturing. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2018, 13, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubackova, M.; Rysánek, D. Effects of freezing milk samples on the recovery of alimentary pathogens and indicator microorganisms. Acta Vet. Brno 2007, 76, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Low Prevalence of Mycoplasma bovis in Sweden. Available online: https://www.slu.se/ew-nyheter/2020/3/mjolktankar (accessed on 14 July 2021).
- Boireau, C.; Cazeau, G.; Jarrige, N.; Calavas, D.; Madec, J.-Y.; Leblond, A.; Haenni, M.; Gay, E. Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from mastitis in dairy cattle in France, 2006-2016. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 9451–9462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, S.P.; Murinda, S.E. Antimicrobial resistance of mastitis pathogens. Vet. Clin. Food Anim. 2012, 28, 165–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolte, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wente, N.; Mahmmod, Y.S.; Svennesen, L.; Krömker, V. Comparison of phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial resistance patterns associated with Staphylococcus aureus in German and Danish dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 3554–3564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Persson, Y.; Nyman, A.-K.J.; Grönlund-Andersson, U. Etiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of udder pathogens from cases of subclinical mastitis in dairy cows in Sweden. Acta Vet. Scand. 2011, 53, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Unnerstad, H.E.; Mieziewska, K.; Börjesson, S.; Hedbäck, H.; Strand, K.; Hallgren, T.; Landin, H.; Skarin, J.; Bengtsson, B. Suspected transmission and subsequent spread of MRSA from farmer to dairy cows. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 225, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, J.E.; Ronco, T.; Stegger, M.; Sieber, R.N.; Fertner, M.E.; Martin, H.L.; Farre, M.; Toft, N.; Larsen, A.R.; Pedersen, K. MRSA CC398 in dairy cattle and veal calf farms indicates spillover from pig production. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bolte, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wente, N.; Krömker, V. In vitro susceptibility of mastitis pathogens isolated from clinical mastitis cases in Northern German dairy farms. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Jong, A.; Garch, F.E.; Simjee, S.; Moyaert, H.; Rose, M.; Youala, M.; Siegwart, E.; VetPath Study Group. Monitoring of antimicrobial susceptibility of udder pathogens recovered from cases of clinical mastitis in dairy cows across Europe: VetPath results. Vet. Microbiol. 2018, 213, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, V.; de Jong, A.; Moyaert, H.; Simjee, S.; El Garch, F.; Morrissey, I.; Marion, H.; Vallé, M. Antimicrobial susceptibility monitoring of mastitis pathogens isolated from acute cases of clinical mastitis in dairy cows across Europe: VetPath results. Int. J. Antimicrob Agents 2015, 46, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franklin, A.; Olof, H.; Rantzien, M.H.; Aström, G. Effect of procaine benzylpenicillin alone or in combination with dihydrostreptomycin on udder pathogens in vitro and in experimentally infected bovine udders. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1984, 45, 1398–1402. [Google Scholar]
- Statens Jordbruksverks Föreskrifter om Läkemedel och Läkemedelsanvändning; Swedish Board of Agriculture: Jönköping, Sweden, 2013.
- Dantas Palmeira, J.; Ferreira, H.M.N. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae in cattle production—A threat around the world. Heliyon 2020, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bernardini, A.; Cuesta, T.; Tomas, A.; Bengoechea, J.A.; Martínez, J.L.; Sanchez, M.B. The intrinsic resistome of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2019, 53, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jousimies-Somer, H.; Pyörälä, S.; Kanervo, A. Susceptibilities of bovine summer mastitis bacteria to antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1996, 40, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alkasir, R.; Wang, J.; Gao, J.; Ali, T.; Zhang, L.; Szenci, O.; Bajcsy, Á.C.; Han, B. Properties and antimicrobial susceptibility of Trueperella pyogenes isolated from bovine mastitis in China. Acta Vet. Hung. 2016, 64, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galán-Relaño, Á.; Gómez-Gascón, L.; Barrero-Domínguez, B.; Luque, I.; Jurado-Martos, F.; Vela, A.I.; Sanz-Tejero, C.; Tarradas, C. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Trueperella pyogenes isolated from food-producing ruminants. Vet. Microbiol. 2020, 242, 108593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waage, S.; Skei, H.R.; Rise, J.; Rogdo, T.; Sviland, S.; Ødegaard, S.A. Outcome of clinical mastitis in dairy heifers assessed by reexamination of cases one month after treatment. J. Dairy Sci. 2000, 83, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Østerås, O.; Sølverød, L.; Reksen, O. Milk culture results in a large Norwegian survey—effects of season, parity, days in milk, resistance, and clustering. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 1010–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riekerink, R.G.M.O.; Barkema, H.W.; Stryhn, H. The effect of season on somatic cell count and the incidence of clinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 1704–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lundberg, Å.; Nyman, A.-K.; Aspán, A.; Börjesson, S.; Unnerstad, H.E.; Waller, K.P. Udder infections with Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, and Streptococcus uberis at calving in dairy herds with suboptimal udder health. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 2102–2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Makovec, J.A.; Ruegg, P.L. Results of milk samples submitted for microbiological examination in Wisconsin from 1994 to 2001. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 3466–3472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simensen, E. The relationship between weather and incidence of parturient paresis and mastitis in dairy cows. Nord. Vet. Med. 1974, 26, 382–386. [Google Scholar]
- Hogan, J.S.; Smith, K.L.; Hoblet, K.H.; Todhunter, D.A.; Schoenberger, P.S.; Hueston, W.D.; Pritchard, D.E.; Bowman, G.L.; Heider, L.E.; Brockett, B.L.; et al. Bacterial counts in bedding materials used on nine commercial dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 1989, 72, 250–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson Waller, K.; Bengtsson, B.; Lindberg, A.; Nyman, A.; Ericsson Unnerstad, H. Incidence of mastitis and bacterial findings at clinical mastitis in Swedish primiparous cows- influence of breed and stage of lactation. Vet. Microbiol. 2009, 134, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buddle, B.M.; Cooper, M.G. Dry-cow therapy for Staphylococcus aureus mastitis. N. Z. Vet. J. 1980, 28, 51–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wankhade, P.R.; Manimaran, A.; Kumaresan, A.; Jeyakumar, S.; Ramesha, K.P.; Sejian, V.; Rajendran, D.; Varghese, M.R. Metabolic and immunological changes in transition dairy cows: A review. Vet. World 2017, 10, 1367–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hillerton, J.E.; Bramley, A.J. Infection following challenge of the lactating and dry udder of dairy cows with Actinomyces pyogenes and Peptostreptococcus indolicus. Br. Vet. J. 1989, 145, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Li, X.P.; Yang, F.; Luo, J.Y.; Wang, X.R.; Liu, L.H.; Li, H.S. Influences of season, parity, lactation, udder area, milk yield, and clinical symptoms on intramammary infection in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 6484–6493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Derakhshani, H.; Fehr, K.B.; Sepehri, S.; Francoz, D.; De Buck, J.; Barkema, H.W.; Plaizier, J.C.; Khafipour, E. Invited review: Microbiota of the bovine udder: Contributing factors and potential implications for udder health and mastitis susceptibility. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10605–10625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schwan, O.; Holmberg, O. Heifer mastitis and dry-cow mastitis: A bacteriological survey in Sweden. Vet. Microbiol. 1979, 3, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnosis | 2013–2018 (n = 823) | 2002–2003 (n = 1056) Ericsson Unnerstad et al. 2009 [9] | 1994–1995 (n = 837) Nilsson et al. 1997 [7] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | CI | n | % | n | % | |
Staphylococcus aureus | 229 | 27.8 | 24.7–31.0 | 225 | 21.3 | 181 | 21.6 |
Non-aureus staphylococci 1 | 23 | 2.8 | 1.8–4.2 | 65 | 6.2 | 35 | 4.2 |
Streptococcus dysgalactiae | 130 | 15.8 | 13.4–18.5 | 165 | 15.6 | 113 | 13.5 |
Streptococcus uberis | 94 | 11.4 | 9.3–13.8 | 117 | 11.1 | 128 | 15.3 |
Streptococcus agalactiae | 10 | 1.2 | 0.6–2.2 | 6 | 0.6 | ||
Other streptococci | 4 | 0.5 | 0.1–1.2 | 9 | 0.9 | 11 | 1.2 |
Enterococci | 11 | 1.3 | 0.7–2.4 | 8 | 0.8 | 7 | 0.8 |
Trueperella pyogenes | 63 | 7.7 | 5.9–9.7 | 64 | 6.1 | 77 | 9.2 |
Escherichia coli | 124 | 15.1 | 12.7–17.7 | 168 | 15.9 | 134 | 16.0 |
Klebsiella spp. | 22 | 2.7 | 1.7–4.0 | 44 | 4.2 | 19 | 2.2 |
Other Enterobacterales 2 | 12 | 1.5 | 0.8–2.5 | 9 1 | 0.9 | 8 | 0.8 |
Other bacteria 3 | 21 | 2.6 | 1.6–3.9 | 16 2 | 1.5 | 9 | 0.9 |
Contaminated | 40 | 4.9 | 3.5–6.6 | 48 | 4.5 | 49 | 5.9 |
No growth | 40 | 4.9 | 3.5–6.6 | 112 | 10.6 | 66 | 7.9 |
Substance | Species | No | Resistance (%) | Distribution (%) of MICs (mg/L) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤0.03 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | >64 | ||||
Cefoxitin | S. aureus | 97 | 0 (0.0–3.7) | 1.0 | 49.5 | 49.5 | ||||||||||
NAS | 10 | 0 | 10.0 | 80.0 | 10.0 | |||||||||||
Cephalothin | S. aureus | 227 | 0 (0.0–1.6) | 51.5 | 44.5 | 3.5 | 0.4 | |||||||||
NAS | 21 | - | 47.6 | 38.1 | 4.8 | 9.5 | ||||||||||
Chloramphenicol | S. aureus | 227 | 0 (0.0–1.6) | 19.8 | 77.1 | 3.1 | ||||||||||
NAS | 21 | 0 (0.0–16.1) | 4.8 | 71.4 | 19.1 | 4.8 | ||||||||||
Ciprofloxacin | S. aureus | 227 | 0 (0.0–1.6) | 21.6 | 55.1 | 22.5 | 0.9 | |||||||||
NAS | 21 | 0 (0.0–16.1) | 57.1 | 38.1 | 4.8 | |||||||||||
Clindamycin | S. aureus | 227 | 0.9 (0.1–3.1) | 99.1 | 0.9 | |||||||||||
NAS | 21 | 14.3 (5.0–34.6) | 85.7 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.8 | ||||||||||
Enrofloxacin | S. aureus | 97 | - | 46.4 | 49.5 | 4.1 | ||||||||||
NAS | 10 | - | 70.0 | 30.0 | ||||||||||||
Erythromycin | S. aureus | 227 | 0 (0.0–1.6) | 56.0 | 34.8 | 9.2 | ||||||||||
NAS | 21 | 9.5 (2.7–28.9) | 71.4 | 19.1 | 4.8 | 4.8 | ||||||||||
Fusidic acid | S. aureus | 227 | 4.4 (2.1–8.0) | 73.1 | 22.5 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |||||||
NAS | 21 | 14.3 (3.0–36.3) | 57.1 | 23.8 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 9.6 | |||||||||
Gentamicin | S. aureus | 227 | 0 (0.0–1.6) | 89.4 | 9.3 | 1.3 | ||||||||||
NAS | 21 | 0 (0.0–16.1) | 100.0 | |||||||||||||
Kanamycin | S. aureus | 130 | 0.8 (0.0–4.2) | 0.8 | 9.2 | 16.9 | 54.6 | 10.8 | 6.9 | 0.8 | ||||||
NAS | 11 | - | 63.6 | 27.3 | 9.1 | |||||||||||
Linezolid | S. aureus | 62 | 0.0 (0.0–5.8) | 14.5 | 82.3 | 3.2 | ||||||||||
NAS | 5 | 0.0 (0.0–52.2) | 60.0 | 40.0 | ||||||||||||
Oxacillin | S. aureus | 165 | 0.6 (0.0–3.3) | 45.5 | 23.6 | 25.5 | 4.9 | 0.6 1 | ||||||||
NAS | 16 | 6.2 (0.2–30.2) | 50.0 | 25.0 | 18.8 | 6.2 1 | ||||||||||
Penicillin 2 | S. aureus | 227 | 2.6 (1.0–5.7) | 60.4 | 32.2 | 4.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.4 | ||||
NAS | 23 | 30.4 (13.2–52.9) | 33.3 | 28.6 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | ||||||||
Tetracycline | S. aureus | 227 | 0.9 (0.1–3.1) | 96.5 | 2.6 | 0.9 | ||||||||||
NAS | 21 | 0 (0.0–16.1) | 95.2 | 4.8 | ||||||||||||
Trimethoprim | S. aureus | 227 | 8.8 (5.5–13.3) | 20.7 | 41.0 | 29.5 | 7.5 | 1.3 | ||||||||
NAS | 21 | - | 28.6 | 14.3 | 19.1 | 19.1 | 9.5 | 9.5 | ||||||||
Trimethoprim-Sulphadoxazole | S. aureus | 97 | 0 (0.0–3.7) | 97.9 | 2.1 | |||||||||||
NAS | 10 | - | 60.0 | 20.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
Substance | Species | No | Resistance (%) | Distribution (%) of MICs (µg/L) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤0.03 | ≤0.06 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | >64 | ||||
Cefoxitin | S. agal. | 2 | - | 100.0 | ||||||||||||
S. dysg. | 41 | - | 46.3 | 43.9 | 7.3 | 2.4 | ||||||||||
S. uberis | 38 | - | 2.6 | 47.4 | 26.3 | 7.9 | 10.5 | 5.3 | ||||||||
Cephalothin | S. agal. | 9 | - | 100.0 | ||||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 96.7 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | ||||||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 74.2 | 12.4 | 11.2 | 2.3 | ||||||||||
Chloramphenicol | S. agal. | 9 | - | 100.0 | ||||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 1.7 | 25.0 | 65.0 | 7.5 | 0.8 | |||||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 4.5 | 32.6 | 61.8 | 1.1 | ||||||||||
Ciprofloxacin | S. agal. | 9 | 0 (0.0–33.6) | 77.8 | 22.2 | |||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 17.5 | 72.5 | 9.2 | 0.8 | ||||||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 1.1 | 20.2 | 52.8 | 25.8 | ||||||||||
Clindamycin | S. agal. | 9 | 0 (0.0–33.6) | 100.0 | ||||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | 0 (0.0–3.0) | 100.0 | |||||||||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 96.6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | ||||||||||
Enrofloxacin | S. agal. | 2 | - | 50.0 | 50.0 | |||||||||||
S. dysg. | 41 | - | 2.4 | 9.8 | 85.4 | 2.4 | ||||||||||
S. uberis | 38 | - | 15.8 | 68.4 | 15.8 | |||||||||||
Erythromycin | S. agal. | 9 | 0 (0–33.6) | 100.0 | ||||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 99.2 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 96.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | ||||||||||
>Fusidic acid | S. agal. | 9 | - | 22.2 | 78.8 | |||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 0.9 | 3.3 | 47.5 | 0.8 | 5.8 | 1.7 | ||||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 1.1 | 1.1 | 23.6 | 51.7 | 22.4 | |||||||||
Gentamicin | S. agal. | 9 | - | 44.4 | 44.4 | 11.1 | ||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 43.4 | 40.0 | 11.7 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | |||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 21.4 | 6.7 | 19.1 | 27.0 | 15.7 | 9.0 | 1.1 | |||||||
Kanamycin | S. agal. | 7 | - | 14.3 | 57.1 | 28.6 | ||||||||||
S. dysg. | 79 | - | 6.3 | 2.5 | 22.8 | 20.4 | 25.3 | 7.6 | 5.1 | |||||||
S. uberis | 51 | - | 5.9 | 9.8 | 7.8 | 5.9 | 27.5 | 29.4 | 11.8 | 1.9 | ||||||
Linezolid | S. agal. | 0 | - | |||||||||||||
S. dysg. | 24 | - | 100.0 | |||||||||||||
S. uberis | 24 | - | 50.0 | 50.0 | ||||||||||||
Oxacillin | S. agal. | 9 | - | 66.7 | 22.2 | 11.1 | ||||||||||
S. dysg. | 96 | - | 95.9 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 1.0 | ||||||||||
S. uberis | 65 | - | 86.1 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 6.2 | 3.1 | |||||||||
Penicillin | S. agal. | 9 | 0 (0.0–33.6) | 44.4 | 44.4 | 11.1 | ||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 97.5 | 1.7 | 0.9 | |||||||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 75.3 | 5.6 | 16.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | |||||||||
Tetracycline | S. agal. | 9 | 22.2 (2.8–60.0) | 77.8 | 11.1 | 11.1 | ||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 8.4 | 10.0 | 49.2 | 27.5 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | ||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 95.5 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | ||||||||||
Trimethoprim | S. agal. | 9 | - | 33.3 | 55.6 | 11.1 | ||||||||||
S. dysg. | 120 | - | 24.2 | 48.3 | 22.5 | 4.2 | 0.8 | |||||||||
S. uberis | 89 | - | 10.1 | 61.8 | 23.6 | 4.5 | ||||||||||
Trimethoprim-Sulphadoxazole | S. agal. | 2 | - | 50.0 | 50.0 | |||||||||||
S. dysg. | 41 | - | 85.4 | 14.6 | ||||||||||||
S. uberis | 38 | - | 78.9 | 21.1 |
Substance | Species | No | Resistance (%) | Distribution (%) of MICs (mg/L) | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤0.016 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | 512 | 1024 | >1024 | ||||
Ampicillin | E. coli | 116 | 8.6 (4.2–15.3) | 17.2 | 58.6 | 14.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 6.9 | |||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | 95.4 (77.2–99.9) | 4.6 | 18.1 | 45.4 | 22.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | |||||||||||||
Ceftazidime | E. coli | 116 | 4.3 (1.4–9.8) | 80.2 | 15.5 | 3.5 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | 0 (0.0–15.4) | 81.8 | 18.2 | |||||||||||||||||
Cefotaxime | E. coli | 116 | 0 (0.0–3.1) | 57.8 | 39.7 | 2.6 | |||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | 0 (0.0–15.4) | 81.8 | 13.6 | 4.6 | ||||||||||||||||
Chloramphenicol | E. coli | 116 | 0 (0.0–3.1) | 7.8 | 57.8 | 34.5 | |||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | - | 27.2 | 63.6 | 4.6 | 4.6 | |||||||||||||||
Ciprofloxacin | E. coli | 116 | 1.7 (0.2–6.1) | 10.3 | 69.8 | 18.1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | |||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | 4.6 (0.1–22.8) | 4.6 | 31.8 | 36.3 | 22.7 | 4.6 | ||||||||||||||
Colistin | E. coli | 116 | 6.0 (2.5–12.0) | 25.0 | 42.2 | 26.7 | 6.0 | ||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | 4.6 (0.1–22.8) | 9.1 | 63.6 | 22.7 | 4.6 | |||||||||||||||
Enrofloxacin | E. coli | 28 | 0.0 (0.0–12.3) | 100.0 | |||||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 6 | - | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Florfenicol | E. coli | 116 | 0 (0.0–3.1) | 41.4 | 53.5 | 5.2 | |||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | - | 68.2 | 27.3 | 4.5 | ||||||||||||||||
Kanamycin | E. coli | 88 | 2.3 (0.3–8.0) | 97.7 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 16 | - | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Gentamicin | E. coli | 116 | 0.9 (0.0–4.7) | 79.3 | 18.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | 0 (0.0–15.4) | 100.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Nalidixic acid | E. coli | 116 | 0.9 (0.0–4.7) | 47.4 | 47.4 | 4.3 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | - | 45.4 | 40.9 | 4.6 | 9.1 | |||||||||||||||
Streptomycin | E. coli | 116 | 7.8 (3.6–14.2) | 50.9 | 37.9 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 2.6 | 4.3 | ||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | - | 72.7 | 4.6 | 13.6 | 4.6 | 4.5 | ||||||||||||||
Sulphamethoxazole | E. coli | 116 | 6.9 (3.0–13.1) | 19.0 | 50.9 | 23.3 | 6.9 | ||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | - | 9.1 | 22.7 | 45.4 | 18.2 | 4.6 | ||||||||||||||
Tetracycline | E. coli | 116 | 4.3 (1.4–9.8) | 64.7 | 31.0 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.9 | |||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | 9.1 (1.1–29.2) | 63.6 | 22.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.5 | ||||||||||||||
Trimethoprim | E. coli | 116 | 3.5 (0.9–8.6) | 12.1 | 39.7 | 39.7 | 5.2 | 3.5 | |||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 22 | - | 31.8 | 50.0 | 13.6 | 4.6 | |||||||||||||||
Trimethoprim-Sulphadoxazole | E. coli | 28 | - | 92.9 | 7.1 | ||||||||||||||||
Klebsiella | 6 | 0.0 (0.0–45.9) | 100.0 |
Substance | No | Distribution (%) of MICs (µg/L) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
≤0.03 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | >64 | ||
Cephalothin | 60 | 85.0 | 6.7 | 5.0 | 3.3 | |||||||||
Chloramphenicol | 60 | 25.0 | 48.3 | 26.7 | ||||||||||
Cefoxitin | 18 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||
Ciprofloxacin | 60 | 5.0 | 6.7 | 5.0 | 65.0 | 18.3 | ||||||||
Clindamycin | 60 | 95.0 | 1.7 | 3.3 | ||||||||||
Enrofloxacin | 18 | 5.6 | 88.8 | 5.6 | ||||||||||
Erythromycin | 60 | 96.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | ||||||||||
Fusidic acid | 60 | 21.7 | 23.3 | 35.0 | 18.3 | 1.7 | ||||||||
Gentamicin | 60 | 43.3 | 20.0 | 33.3 | 1.7 | 1.7 | ||||||||
Kanamycin | 42 | 4.8 | 28.6 | 42.8 | 21.4 | 2.4 | ||||||||
Linezolid | 11 | 100.0 | ||||||||||||
Oxacillin | 49 | 14.2 | 20.5 | 16.3 | 18.4 | 14.3 | 12.2 | 4.1 | ||||||
Penicillin | 60 | 86.6 | 10.0 | 1.7 | 1.7 | |||||||||
Tetracycline | 60 | 86.6 | 5.0 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 5.0 | ||||||||
Trimethoprim | 60 | 41.7 | 28.3 | 8.3 | 5.0 | 16.7 | ||||||||
Trimethoprim-Sulphadoxazole | 17 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 29.4 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 35.4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Duse, A.; Persson-Waller, K.; Pedersen, K. Microbial Aetiology, Antibiotic Susceptibility and Pathogen-Specific Risk Factors for Udder Pathogens from Clinical Mastitis in Dairy Cows. Animals 2021, 11, 2113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072113
Duse A, Persson-Waller K, Pedersen K. Microbial Aetiology, Antibiotic Susceptibility and Pathogen-Specific Risk Factors for Udder Pathogens from Clinical Mastitis in Dairy Cows. Animals. 2021; 11(7):2113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072113
Chicago/Turabian StyleDuse, Anna, Karin Persson-Waller, and Karl Pedersen. 2021. "Microbial Aetiology, Antibiotic Susceptibility and Pathogen-Specific Risk Factors for Udder Pathogens from Clinical Mastitis in Dairy Cows" Animals 11, no. 7: 2113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072113