Bull Vet Inst Pulawy 52, 565-572, 2008

ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY OF BACTERIA ISOLATED

FROM COWS WITH MASTITIS IN 2006-2007
EDWARD MALINOWSKI, HENRYKA LASSA, SEBASTIAN SMULSKI,
ANNA KŁOSSOWSKA, AND MICHAŁ KACZMAROWSKI

Department of Pathophysiology of Reproduction and Mammary Gland,

National Veterinary Research Institute,
85-090 Bydgoszcz, Poland
vetri@logonet.com.pl

Received for publication July 30, 2008

Abstract

The purpose of the study was determining the in vitro sensitivity of Streptococcus agalactiae, other Streptococcus sp.,
Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Escherichia coli, and Arcanobacterium pyogenes strains to antibiotics
commonly used in veterinary praxis. These pathogens were isolated from cows with clinical or subclinical mastitis in 2006–2007.
The activity of 10–14 antibiotics to each bacterial species was examined. The sensitivity was tested by disk diffusion method and
performed according to CLSI guidelines in Mueller-Hinton agar. Streptococcus agalactiae strains were mostly sensitive to
amoxicillin (93.6%), cefquinom (96%), cefapirin (94.1%), cefoperazone (88.9%, bacitracin (87.1%), and cephalexin (79%). Other
streptococci were most susceptible to amoxicillin (91.4%), cefquinom (84.1%), bacitracin (89%), and cephalexin (79.7%).
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (97.4%), cloxacillin (90%), cefquinom (92.9%), cephalexin (90.5%), and bacitracin (88.6%) were the
most active against Staphylococcus aureus. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were sensitive to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (100%),
cefquinom (89.2%), cephalexin (89.3%), bacitracin (86,.1%), rifaximin (86.8%), and cefapirin (86.5%). Norfloxacin (85.1%),
enrofloxacin (83.9%), and marbofloxacin (84.4%) were active against Gram-negative bacilli. Only amoxicillin (87.1%) from ten
analysed antibiotics exhibited very high activity against Arcanobacterium pyogenes.

Key words: cows, mastitis, aetiological agents, antibiotic sensitivity.

Udder inflammations are still the most frequent
and costly diseases affecting dairy cows in the world (2,
15, 21, 40). Under default Dutch circumstances, mastitis
costs € 140/cow per year (17). The average cost of the
clinical mastitis case in the USA was calculated lastly as
$179 (2). Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase negative
staphylococci (CNS), Streptococcus agalactiae, and
environmental streptococci are predominant aetiological
agents in both subclinical and clinical forms of mastitis
(4, 10, 26, 28, 32). Escherichia coli is the main
aetiological agent of acute form of mastitis, though
lastly chronic and even subclinical forms were noted (4,
26). Arcanobacterium pyogenes causes purulent
inflammations that are called “summer mastitis” (26,
45). Cure rates especially in cases of Staph. aureus
mastitis as well as Arc. pyogenes mastitis are rather poor
(3, 25, 41, 42, 45). The resistance of the bacteria to
antibiotics is proved to be, the main reason of low
efficacy of the drugs the in treatment of mastitis (31),
besides such factors as the low efficiency of the
immunological system (5, 36), pathological lesions in
the udder parenchyma (3), and improper
pharmacokinetic properties of antimicrobial drugs (1,
12).
The purpose of the study was determining the
in vitro activity of antimicrobial drugs for main
pathogens isolated in 2006–2007 from cows with
clinical or subclinical forms of mastitis.
Material and Methods
Quarter milk (inflamed secretion) samples from
cows with subclinical or clinical forms of mastitis were
collected aseptically. The teats were cleaned and dipped
in a disinfectant and then teat ends were wiped with
alcohol swabs and allowed to dry. The first few streams
were discarded and then 2–4 ml of the secretion was
collected into sterile tubes. The samples were cooled and
immediately transported to laboratory. Bacteriological
examinations were performed according to commonly
accepted rules (23).
Antimicrobial sensitivity of Streptococcus
agalactiae, other strains of Streptococcus sp.,
Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase negative
staphylococci (CNS), Escherichia coli, and
Arcanobacterium pyogenes was tested by disk diffusion
method and performed according to Clinical and
Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI; formerly National
566
Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards)
guidelines in Mueller-Hinton agar (29). The following
antibacterial agents (Oxoid) were used: penicillin (P; 10
i.u), amoxicillin (Aml; 25 µg), amoxicillin with
clavulanic acid (Amc; 30 µg), ampicillin (Amp; 10 µg),
cloxacillin (Ob; 5 µg), cefoperazone (Cfp; 30 µg),
cefacetril (Cef; 30 µg), cefquinom (Ceq; 10 µg),
cephalexin (Cl; 30 µg), tetracycline (Te; 30 µg),
neomycin (N; 30 µg), streptomycin (S; 10 µg),
gentamicin (Cn; 10 µg), bacitracin (B; 10 u), lincomycin
(My; 15 µg), rifaximin (Rax; 40 µg), norfloxacin (Nor;
10 µg), enrofloxacin (Enr; 5µg), and marbofloxacin
(Mar; 5 µg). Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 and
Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 were the control strains.
Interpretation of the test results: sensitive (S),
intermediate sensitive (I), and resistant (R) was based on
CLSI criteria. Activity of 10–14 antibiotics to each
bacterial species was analysed.
Results
Results of the examinations are presented on
Figs 1-6. The most active antibiotics against Str.
agalactiae (Fig. 1), from 13 analysed, were amoxicillin
(93.6%), cefquinom (96%), cefapirin (94.1%),
cefoperazone (88.9%, bacitracin (87.1%), and
cephalexin (79%). Taking together sensitive (S) and
intermediate sensitive (I) strains, penicillin, ampicillin,
and cloxacillin were also effective. Str. agalactiae
strains were mostly resistant (R) to neomycin (80%) and
tetracycline (40.2%).
From 12 examined antibiotics, the most active
against other Streptococcus sp. (Fig. 2) were amoxicillin
(91.4%), cefquinom (84.1%), bacitracin (89%), and
cephalexin (79.7%). Taking together S and I strains,
penicillin, ampicillin, and cefoperazone were also
effective. High percentage of the strains was resistant to
tetracycline (62.3%), lincomycin (46.6%), and
cloxacillin (31.1%).
From 11 analysed antibiotics,
amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (97.4%), cefquinom
(92.9%), cephalexin (90.5%), cloxacillin (90%), and
bacitracin (88.6%) were the most active against Staph.
aureus (Fig. 3). Taking together S and I strains,
cefoperazone (97.7%), amoxicillin (76.9%), and
neomycin (77.3%) were also effective. High percentage
of strains was resistant to penicillin (66.9%), tetracycline
(41.7%), and lincomycin (39.4%).
From 13 analysed antibiotics, cefquinom
(89.2%), cephalexin (89.3%), bacitracin (86.1%),
rifaximin (86.8%), and cefacetril (86.5%) were the most
active against coagulase-negative staphylococci (Fig. 4).
Taking together S and I strains, amoxicillin (89.5%),
cloxacillin (88.3%), cefoperazon (97.5%), and neomycin
(86.8%) were also effective. In addition, all the strains
(100%) from 200 tested were sensitive to
amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. A high percentage of strains
were resistant to penicillin (60.59%), ampicillin
(69.1%), lincomycin (46.6%), and tetracycline (29.9%).
From 14 examined antibiotics, norfloxacin
(85.1%), enrofloxacin (83.9%), and marbofloxacin
(84.4%), were the most active against Gram-negative
bacilli (Fig. 5). Only 9.7%, 9.6%, and 12% of the strains
were resistant to these antibiotics, respectively. Taking
together S and I strains, effective in vitro were also
gentamicin (60.8% + 26.9%) and amoxillin/clavulanic
acid (62.7% + 20.9%). The highest percentage of the
strains was resistant to rifaximin (76.1%), streptomycin
(61.5%), cefacetril (53.5%), tetracycline (47.1%), and
neomycin (40.2%).
Only amoxicillin (87.1%) from 10 analysed
antibiotics showed very high activity against Arc.
pyogenes (Fig. 6). Taking together S and I strains, the
most active in vitro was also cefoperazone (100%) and
cephalexin (85.9%). Penicillin (60%) and ampicillin
(46.2%) in the highest percentage showed intermediate
activity. The least active were tetracycline (83.9%),
cloxacillin (46.6%), lincomycin (45.2%), and cefqiunom
(36.8%).
Discussion
The examined strains of bacteria are most
frequently isolated as main aetiological agents of clinical
and subclinical mastitis in cows (4, 7, 10, 14, 26, 28, 32,
45). Their in vitro susceptibility to antibiotics was
similar or different comparing to data reported by
authors, who applied the disc diffusion method (6, 7, 9,
22, 24, 27, 28, 37, 38, 44) or MIC determination (18, 20,
30, 32, 34, 43, 46). It should be emphasised that many
scientists assume that comparison of results achieved by
different methods in the sensitivity testing is not
legitimate (19, 34). However, from literature data it can
be also concluded that both above mentioned methods
gave comparable results (8, 13, 33).
From this study, it is visible that Str. agalactiae
strains were the most sensitive to amoxicillin,
cefquinom, cefoperazone, bacitracin, and cefalexin.
Other authors also reported a high sensitivity of Str.
agalactiae to the mentioned antibiotics (14, 22, 38).
Above 50% of these strains were only intermediate
sensitive to penicillin, ampicillin, and cloxacillin. The
analysed strains were less resistant to Pe, Amp, Ob, and
Cfp and more resistant to Te comparing to data
published five years earlier (24).
Amoxicillin, cefquinom, bacitracin, cefalexin
penicillin, ampicillin, and cefoperazone were the most
active against other Streptococcus sp. Strains than Str.
agalactiae. It agrees with many reports (7, 32, 38) in
which the same antibiotics were compared. Owens et al.
(31) found very high in vitro susceptibility of Str. uberis,
Str. dysgalactiae, and other Streptococcus sp. to
ampicillin, ceftiofur, cephapirin, cloxacillin,
enrofloxacin, penicillin, pirlimycin, and tetracycline.
Except of enrofloxacin and pirlimycin (not examined),
our strains were less susceptible to cloxacillin,
penicillin, ampicillin, and tetracycline. The sensitivity of
the presently examined isolates was almost identical
comparing to earlier data (24).
 567

S I R

5.9
5.6
4.8

3.6

1.2
3.1

8.2
13.7

13.2

17.6
5.6
3.1

4.7
0

40.2

20.9

17.6
% of strains

59.6

71.1

80
51.6

93.8

94.1

96
88.9

87.1
36.1
79

65.9

64.7
35.6

34.7

6.7 13.3
25.3

23.7
P/104 Amp/83 Ob./95 Aml/96 Cl/81 Cef/18 Cfp/17 Ceq/75 N/15 Te/97 My/91 B/85 Rax/17

Antibiotics/ number of tested strains

Fig. 1. Sensitivity to antibiotics of Str. agalactiae strains isolated from cows with mastitis: S – sensitive, I –
intermediate sensitive, R – resistant.

S I R
2.4

11.7

4.36.7
13.5

6.2

14.3
20

46.6
0 15.9
12

31.1

25.8
8.6

13.9

28.2

62.3
% of strains

17.2
58.9

26
59

91.4

19.3

89
84.1
79.7

66.1

57.5

19.7

57
42.9

34.1
27.6
29

18

P/1342 Amp/1066 Ob./1240 Aml/1284 Cl/1234 Cef/115 Cfp/266 Ceq/881 Te/1271 My/1250 B/1220 Rax/ 93

Antibiotics/number of tested strains

Fig. 2. Sensitivity to antibiotics of other Streptococcus sp. strains isolated from cows with mastitis: S – sensitive,
I – intermediate sensitive, R – resistant.
568

S I R

2.3
2.6

6.33.2

8.1 3.3
07.1
0
3.1 7

22.7
23.1

39.4
26.5

41.7
13.5
% of strains

66.9

39.9
97.4

92.9
90.5

26.4

88.6
90

27
71.2
63.4
0

37.4
33.1

33.7
31.9
P/877 Ob./847 Aml/875 Amc/114 Cl/823 Cfp/215 Ceq/562 N/436 Te/844 My/820 B/823
n
Antibiotics/number of tested strains

Fig. 3. Sensitivity to antibiotics of Staph. aureus isolated from cows with mastitis: S – sensitive, I – intermediate
sensitive, R – resistant.

S I R
2.5

10.8
6.3
4.8

4.6

2.9
10.5
11.7

13.2

10.3
5.9

9.3
7.2

29.9
21.7

46.6
0
13.9
13.2

25.2
60.5

69.1

16.5
% of strains

89.3

89.2

18.5

86.8
86.5

86.1
75.6

75.8
75.1
0

61.6
0

53.6
39.5

34.9
30.9

P/808 Amp/81 Ob./779 Aml/836 Cl/757 Cef/111 Cfp/157 Ceq/604 N/778 Te/819 My/802 B/754 Rax/68
Antibiotics/number of tested strains

Fig. 4. Sensitivity to antibiotics of CNS isolated from cows with mastitis: S - sensitive, I – intermediate sensitive, R –
resistant.
 569

S I R

12.3

5.2 9.7

6.5 9.6

12
16.4

28.7

28.8
30.8

4
36

40.2

47.1
26.9
20.9

53.9

61.5
0

76.9
% of strains

26.1

28.8
37.1

85.1

83.9

84
26.2
45.6
69.2
62.7

60.8
34.6

27.6
45.2

42.3
26.9

26.8

23.1
14.1
11.5

10.9

0
Amc/335 Cl/286 Cef/26 Cfp/157 Ceq/198 N/333 S/174 Cn/316 K/52 Te/325 Nor/309 Enr/292 Mar/225 Rax/13

Antibiotics/number of tested strains

Fig. 5. Sensitivity to antibiotics of Gram-negative bacilli isolated from cows with mastitis: S – sensitive, I –intermediate
sensitive, R – resistant.

S I R
6.5

0
16.1

21.4
6.5
20

26.9

33

36.8

45.2
46.7

19.4

10.7
0
% of strains

83.9
46.2
60

16.1
87.1
30

67.9
66.7
64.5

63.2

38.7
12.9
26.9

23.3
20

3.2

P/30 Amp/26 Ob./30 Aml/31 Cl/31 Cfp/6 Ceq/19 Te/31 My/31 B/28

Antibiotics/number of tested strains

Fig. 6. Sensitivity to antibiotics of A. pyogenes isolated from cows with mastitis: S – sensitive, I – intermediate
sensitive, R – resistant.
570
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cefquinom,
cefalexin, cloxacillin, bacitracin, and cefoperazone were
the most active against Staph. aureus. The next group
included amoxicillin and neomycin. The examined
strains were resistant mostly to penicillin, tetracycline,
and lincomycin. These strains were more susceptible to
penicillin, bacitracin, and tetracycline than staphylococci
isolated in the eastern part of Poland (37). Other authors
found higher sensitivity to Cl, Cef, Ceq, Cn, Cfp, Amp,
and P (38), or to ampicillin, ceftiofur, cephapirin,
cloxacillin, enrofloxacin, penicillin, pirlimycin, and
tetracycline (31). All the strains examined by Corti et al.
(7) were sensitive to Amc, Ob, Cfp, Ceq, N, Cn, and My
and only 9% were resistant to penicillin and 7% to
ampicillin. More than 50% of strains examined in
Finland were resistant to penicillin (32). Comparing to
older data, the presently examined Staph. aureus strains
exhibited lower degree of resistance to ampicillin,
cloxacillin, cefoperazone, lincomycin, and neomycin
(24).
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, cefquinom,
cephalexin, bacitracin, rifaximin, cefacetril, amoxicillin,
cloxacillin, cefoperazon, and neomycin were the most
active against coagulase negative staphylococci. A high
percentage of the strains were resistant to penicillin,
ampicillin, lincomycin, and tetracycline.
Owens et al. (31) demonstrated very high
susceptibility in vitro of Staphylococcus sp. to
ampicillin, ceftiofur, cephapirin, cloxacillin,
enrofloxacin, penicillin, pirlimycin, and tetracycline,
Schroder et al. (38) to cephalotin, cefacetril, cefquinom,
cefaperazon, tetracycline, ampicillin, and penicillin, and
Pitkala (32) to cephalotin, gentamicin or neomycin. Our
strains were also susceptible to cloxacillin, as well as to
cefalosporins. However, they were more resistant to
ampicillin, penicillin, and tetracycline. Other authors
noted lack of resistant strains to cefoperazone,
cefquinom, neomycin, and gentamicin (7) or to
cephalotin and ceftiofur (34). The examined strains were
more resistant to penicillin and ampicillin than five
years ago (24).
Gram-negative isolates, mostly coliforms, were
sensitive to quinolones (Nor, Enr, and Mar) and
gentamicin. Other authors reported higher sensitivity to
tetracycline, cephalexin, ampicillin, gentamicin (9, 20),
and dihydrostreptomycin (20) than in this study. Corti et
al. (7) found that all examined strains were sensitive to
Amc, Cfp, Cfq, Cn, and only 9% were resistant to
neomycin and 20% to ampicillin. On the other hand,
some authors reported high percentage of resistance to
ampicillin and tetracycline (34, 43) or to streptomycin
(43). These authors found that the examined strains were
genotypically different, multidrug resistant, and carried
multiple resistance genes. Comparing to earlier
examinations (24), the analysed strains were less
resistant to amoxicillin but more resistant to neomycin.
Sensitivity to streptomycin and cefoperazone did not
change.
Arcanobacterium pyogenes strains were highly
sensitive only to ampicillin and cefoperazone.
Characteristic feature was the intermediate sensitivity of
more than 50% of the analysed strains to penicillin and
ampicillin. Schröder et al. (38), found that all examined
strains were sensitive to penicillin, ampicillin,
cefoperazon, cefacetril, and cephalonium. Other authors
on the basis of MIC determination reported that strains
of bovine origin were susceptible to penicillins,
cephems, gentamicin, erythromycin, tilmicosin and
lincomycin, and highly resistant to tetracycline (46) as
well as to tylosin (18). The sensitivity to some
penicillins and cephalosporins and resistance to
tetracycline of our isolates was similar to above-
mentioned data. However, the sensitivity of Arc.
pyogenes isolated from bovine mastitis to antibiotics
was not frequently tested.
The majority of authors have noted the increase
in the resistance to antibiotics of bacteria, mostly
staphylococci, isolated from mastitis (28, 32, 35, 44). In
Finland, the proportion of Staph. aureus strains resistant
to at least one antimicrobial drug increased from 36.9%
in 1988 to 63.6% in 1995, and that of CNS from 26.6%
to 49.7% and multiresistance also increased (28). Other
authors found that only 35 of Staphylococcus sp. isolates
were susceptible to all 15 tested antibiotics, while the
remaining 204 isolates were resistant at least to one of
the antibiotics (44). On the other hand, Oliveira et al.
(30) have determined MIC concentration for Staph.
aureus strains from 11 countries, and they demonstrated
that overall level of resistance, tested regardless of
country, was generally low for all antimicrobial agents
that were currently available commercially to treat
bovine mastitis.
It is possible that mastitogenic bacteria can lose
the sensitivity to antibiotics over the time or even
acquire sometimes this feature. Erskine et al. (9)
reported an increase in the sensitivity to ampicillin,
penicillin, and erythromycin of Staph. aureus, to
oxacillin, gentamicin, and pirlimycin of Str. uberis, to
erythromycin, gentamicin, sulfa-trimetoprim, and
tetracycline of Str. dysgalactiae, and to ampicillin and
cephalotin of E. coli strains during seven years. The in
vitro resistance to antibiotics of bacteria isolated in the
same farm can change from one year to the next one
(22).
The in vitro testing is considered to be a
predictor of therapy outcome for mastitis (3, 23, 27, 31,
44). The examination is especially useful in cases caused
by Staphylococcus sp., newly acquired Staph. aureus,
Str. uberis, Str. dysgalactiae, and Str. agalactiae (31).
Our earlier investigations showed that recovery rates
from acute mastitis equals “zero” if the pathogens were
resistant to antibiotics used to intrammmary treatment
(27). However, the usefulness of the in vitro
susceptibility testing of mastitogenic bacteria before
treatment was sometimes useless (6, 16). It was raised
that the interpretative criteria used for categorising of
isolates as susceptible or resistant are based on human
data, so they cannot be used to predict clinical efficacy
in bovine mastitis treatment (34). On the other hand, it is
necessary to monitor mastitis pathogens to assess any
changes in their antibiotic resistance patterns (14).
Prudent use of antibiotics first of all can avoid the
increase and dissemination in antimicrobial resistance

arising from the use of antimicrobial drugs in animals
(11, 39).
References
1. Almeida R.A., Patel D., Friton G.M., Oliver S.P.:
Intracellular killing of mastitis pathogens by penethemate
hydriodide following internalization into mammary
epithelial cell. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2007, 30, 151-156.
2. Bar D., Tauer L.W., Bennett G., Gonzalez R.W., Hertl
J.A., Schukken Y.H., Schulte H.F., Welcome F.L., Gröhn
Y.T.: The cost of generic clinical mastitis in dairy cows
as estimated by using dynamic programming. J Dairy Sci
2008, 91, 2205–2214.
3. Barkema H.W., Schukken Y.H., Zadoks R.N.: Invited
review. The role of cow, pathogen, and treatment
regimen in the therapeutic success of bovine
Staphylococcus aureus mastitis. J Dairy Sci 2006, 89,
1877-1895.
4. Bradley A.J., Leach K.A., Breen J.E., Green L.A., Green
M.J.: Survey of the incidence and etiology of mastitis on
dairy farms in England and Wales. Vet Rec 2004, 160,
253-257.
5. Burton J.L., Erskine R.J.: Immunity and mastitis. Some
new ideas for an old disease. Vet Clin North Am Food
Animal Pract 2003, 19, 1-45.
6. Constable P.D., Morin D.E.: Use of antimicrobial
susceptibility testing of bacterial pathogens isolated from
the milk of dairy cows with clinical mastitis to predict
response to treatment with cephapirin and
oxytetracycline. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002, 221, 103-
108.
7. Corti S., Sicher D., Regli W.R.: Aktuelle Daten zur
Antibiotikaresistenz der wichtigsten bovinen
Mastitiserreger in der Schweiz. Schweiz Arch Tierheilk
2003, 145, 571-575.
8. Edelmann A., Pietzcker T., Wellinhausen N.:
Comparison of direct disc diffusion and standard broth
dilution susceptibility testing of blood culture isolates. J
Med Microbiol 2007, 56, 202-207.
9. Erskine R.J., Walker R.D., Bolin C.A., Bartlett P.C.,
White D.S.: Trends in antibacterial susceptibility of
mastitis pathogens during a seven-year period. J Dairy
Sci 2002, 85, 1111-1118.
10. Ferguson J. D., Azzaro G., Gambina M., Licitra G.:
Prevalence of mastitis pathogens in Ragusa, Sicily, from
2000 to 2006. J Dairy Sci 2007, 90, 5798-5913.
11. Fluit A.C., van der Bruggen J.T., Aarestrup F.M.,
Verhoef J., Sen W.T.M.: Priorities for antibiotic
resistance surveillance in Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect
2006, 12, 410-417.
12. Gehring R., Smith G.W.: An overview of factors
affecting the disposition of intramammary preparations
used to treat bovine mastitis. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2006,
29, 237-241.
13. Gosden P.E., Andrews J.M., Bowker K.E., Helt H.A.,
MacGowan A.P., Reeves D.S., Sunderland J., Wise P.:
Comparison of modified Stokes’ method of susceptibility
testing with results obtained using MIC methods and
British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
breakpoints. J Antimicrob Chemother 1998, 42, 161-169.
14. Guérin-Faublée V., Carret G., Houpffschmitt P.: In vitro
activity of 10 antimicrobial agents against bacteria
isolated from cows with clinical mastitis. Vet Rec 2003,
152, 466-471.
571
15. Halasa T., Huijps K., Österas O., Hogeveen H.:
Economic effects of bovine mastitis and mastitis
management: a review. Vet Quart 2007, 29, 19-31.
16. Hoe F.S., Ruegg P.L.: Relationship between
antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical mastitis pathogens
and treatment outcome in cows. J Am Vet Med Assoc
2005, 227, 1461-1468.
17. Huijps K., Lam T.J.S.M., Hogeveen H.: Costs of
mastitis: facts and perception. J Dairy Res 2008, 75, 113-
120.
18. Jost B.H., Field A.C., Trinh H.T., Songer J.S., Billington
S.J.: Tylosin resistance in Arcanobacterium pyogenes is
encoded by an er mx determinant. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 2003, 47, 3519-3524.
19. Klement E., Chaffer M., Leitner G., Shwimmer A.,
Friedman S., Saran A., Shpigel N.: Assessment of
accuracy of disc diffusion tests for the determination of
antimicrobial susceptibility of common bovine mastitis
pathogens: a novel approach. Microb Drug Resist 2005,
11, 342-350.
20. Lehtolainen T., Shwimmer A., Shpigel N.Y., Honkanen-
Buzalski T., Pyörälä S.: In vitro antimicrobial
susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolates from clinical
bovine mastitis in Finland and Israel. J Dairy Sci 2003,
86, 3927-3932.
21. Losinger W. C.: Economic impacts of reduced milk
production associated with an increase in bulk-tank
somatic cell count an US dairies. J Am Vet Med Assoc
2005, 226, 1652-1658.
22. Malinowski E., Pilaszek J., Kłossowska A., Sobolewska
S., Sobolewski J.: Changes of the antibiotic-sensitivity of
bacteria isolated from clinically manifested mastitis in
dairy-cows during the period of 1987-1996. Vet Med
1997, 53, 722-725.
23. Malinowski E., Kłossowska A.: Diagnostyka zakażeń i
zapaleń gruczołu mlekowego krów. Editor PIWet,
Puławy, 2002.
24. Malinowski E., Kłossowska A.: Cow mastitis pathogen
resistance to antibiotics. Vet Med 2003, 59, 230-235.
25. Malinowski E.: Trials for improvement of the efficacy of
cows’ clinical mastitis treatment – a overview.
Achievements and Prospects of Ruminant Medicine.
Editor PIWet, Pulawy, 2005, pp. 477-489.
26. Malinowski E., Lassa H., Kłossowska A., Markiewicz
H., Kaczmarowski M., Smulski S.: Relationship between
mastitis agents and somatic cell count in premilk
samples. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy 2006, 50, 349-352.
27. Malinowski E., Niewitecki W., Nadolny M., Lassa H.,
Smulski S.: Effect of lysozyme dimer injections on
results of intramammary treatment of acute mastitis in
cows. Vet Med 2006, 62, 1395-1399.
28. Myllys V., Asplund K., Brofeldt E., Hirvelä-Koski V.,
Honkanen-Buzalski T., Juntilla J., Kulkas L.,
Myllykangas O., Niskanen M., Saloniemi H., Sandholm
M., Saranpää T.: Bovine mastitis in Finland in 1998 and
1995 – changes in prevalence and antimicrobial
resistance. Acta vet Scand 1998, 39, 119-126.
29. NCCLS. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial
Susceptibility Testing. Eleventh Informational
Supplement, NCCLS document M 100-911(ISBN 1-
56238-426-0). NCCLS, 19087-1898, Pensylvania, USA,
2001.
30. Oliveira A.P.de, Watts J.L., Salmon S.A., Aerestrup
F.M.: Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus
aureus isolated from bovine mastitis in Europe and in the
United States. J Dairy Sci 2000, 83, 855-862.
31. Owens W.E., Ray C.H., Watts J.L.,Yancey R.J.:
Comparison of success of antibiotic therapy during
572
lactation and results of antimicrobial susceptibility tests
for bovine mastitis. J Dairy Sci 1997, 80, 313-317.
32. Pitkälä A., Haveri M., Pyőrälä S., Myllys V., Hankonen–
Buzalski T.: Bovine mastitis in Finland 2001- prevalence
distribution of bacteria, and antimicrobial resistance. J
Dairy Sci 2004, 87, 2433-2441.
33. Potz N.A.C., Mushtaq S., Johnson A.P., Henwood C.J.,
Walker R.A., Varey E., Warner M., James D., Livermore
D.M.: Reliability of routine disc susceptibility testing by
the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
(BSAC) method. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004, 53, 729-
738.
34. Rajala-Schultz P.J., Smith K.L., Hogan J.S., Love B.C.:
Antimicrobial susceptibility of mastitis pathogens from
first lactation and older cows. Vet Microbiol 2004, 102,
33-42.
35. Reddy P., Qi C., Zembower T., Noskin G.A., Bolon M.:
Postpartum mastitis and community-acquired methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Emerg Infect Dis 2007,
13, 298-301.
36. Reinard P., Riollet C.: Innate immunity of the bovine
mammary gland. Vet Res 2006, 37, 369–400.
37. Sachanowicz J., Jakubczak A., Piechota M.: Phenotype
and genotype traits of S. aureus strains isolated from
mastitis milk samples. Vet Med 2005, 61, 1370-1373.
38. Schröder A., Hoedemaker M., Klein G.: Resistenzen von
Mastitiserregern im norddeuschen Raum. Berl Münch
Tierärztl Wochenschr 2005, 118, 393-398.
39. Schwarz S., Kehrenberg C., Walsh T.R.: Use of
antimicrobial agents in veterinary medicine and food
animal production. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001, 17,
431-437.
40. Seegers H., Fourichon C., Beaudeqm F.: Production
effects related to mastitis and mastitis economics in dairy
cattle herds. Vet Res 2003, 34, 475-491.
41. Serieys F., Raguet Y., Coby L., Schmidt H., Friton G.:
Comparative efficacy of local and systemic antibiotic
treatment in lactating cows with clinical mastitis. J Dairy
Sci 2005, 88, 93-99.
42. Smith G.W., Lyman R. L., Anderson K. L.: Efficacy of
vaccination and antimicrobial treatment to eliminate
chronic intramammary Staphylococcus aureus infections
in dairy cattle. J AmVet Med Assoc 2006, 228, 422-425.
43. Srinivasan V., Gillespie B.E., Lewis M.J., Nguven L.T.,
Headrick S.J., Schukken Y.H., Oliver S.P.: Phenotypic
and genotypic antimicrobial resistance patterns of
Escherichia coli isolated from dairy cows with mastitis.
Vet Microbiol 2007, 124, 319-328.
44. Turutoglu H., Ercelik S., Ozturk D.: Antibiotic resistance
of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative
staphylococci isolated from bovine mastitis. Bull Vet Inst
Pulawy 2006, 50, 41-45.
45. WaageS., Skei H.R., Rise J., Rogolo T., Sviland S.,
Odegaard 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.
46. Yoshimura H., Kojima A., Ishimuru M.: Antimicrobial
susceptibility of Arcanobacterium pyogenes isolated
from cattle and pigs. J Vet Med B 2000, 47, 139-143.