CODA-CERVA
Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre
Report: antimicrobial resistance in commensal
Enterococcus spp. from poultry, pigs, cows and veal calves
P. Butaye
1 Introduction Enterococci are regarded as general indicators for resistance amongst Gram positive bacteria, similarly to E.
coli for the Gram negative bacteria. As with E. coli they have the advantage of being present in nearly all
animal species, however this is frequently age dependent and the numbers of bacteria are smaller
compared to E. coli, as reflected in lower isolation successes shown in different surveillance programmes.
At the other hand, they are the most prevalent facultative aerobic Gram positive bacteria and as such most
suitable for antimicrobial resistance surveillance. Because they are continuously present, they can also be
used to follow up resistance evolution in time.
Enterococci are a diverse group of bacteria. They can be dividend in species groups. The species mainly
involved in surveillances are E. faecalis and E. faecium. Isolating and recognising these bacteria on
enterococcal selective plates, as Slanetz and Bartley agar plates, is not always evident. Species belonging to
the E. faecium group are difficult to separate and the species frequently co-isolated are E. hirae and E.
durans. The use of a specific PCR only allows detecting a single species or a limited number of species when
a multiplex PCR is used. There are no PCRs available allowing the unambiguous identification of the species
of the E. faecium group. There exists however a well validated PCR technique allowing the identification of
multiple species in one test. This technique is t-DNA PCR, which is based on the amplification of the
intergenic spacers between the genes encoding t-RNA. Exact sizing of the obtained fragments by capillary
electrophoresis and comparison with a database containing the profiles of the different bacterial species
allows the unambiguous assignment to a species.
Enterococci have been studied frequently in other countries. This will allow the comparison of antimicrobial
resistances in enterococci from different geographical regions. The genetic background or resistance in this
species is also quite well known allowing a scientific interpretation of the resistance data.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Sampling
Samples from faecal material were taken from 4 animal categories: broiler chickens, pigs, bovines (for meat
production) and veal calves. Samples were taken by samplers of the Belgian Food Agency.
2.1.1 Poultry
Caecal content of broiler chickens was taken at slaughter together with the samples in the framework of
Salmonella control programme. Caeca from 10 animals were collected and pooled. One sample originated
from one farm.
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
2/75
2.1.2 Pig
Pooled fresh faecal material of at least ten animals of approximately 6 months old was collected from
slaughter pigs at the abattoir. One sample originated from one farm.
2.1.3 Bovines
Pooled fresh faecal material was collected from the floor of barns harbouring bovines for meat production
of less than 7 months of age. One sample originated from one farm.
2.1.4 Veal calves
Pooled fresh faecal material was collected at the abattoir from veal calves of less than 7 months of age.
2.2 Isolation and identification
As compared to 2011, methodology of isolation has been changed to increase the isolation success. At first
faecal material was inoculated into a 7% NaCl supplemented BHI broth. One loopfull of this broth was then
inoculated on Slanetz and Bartley agar plates and incubated at 37°C for 18-24 hours at DGZ or ARSIA. Next
to that, the number of samples taken was increased.
Plates were then transferred to CODA-CERVA where the colonies with an enterococcal morphology were
purified on blood agar plates and Slanetz and Bartley plates and incubated at 37°C for 18-24 hours.
Based on their growth aspects on both Slanetz and Bartley and blood agar plates, colonies were selected
from identification. DNA was extracted using the alkalic extraction method and was stored at -20°C for
further processing. t-DNA intergenic spacer PCR was performed and obtained fragments were sized using
capillary electrophoresis on a Beckman CEQ8000 sequencer (Baele et al., 1998).
Obtained fragments were compared to the constructed database and strains were identified. Enterococcus
faecium, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus hirae and Enterococcus durans were taken into account.
2.3 Susceptibility testing
From a fresh culture on Columbia agar with 5% sheep blood, susceptibility was tested using a micro broth
dilution method (Trek Diagnostics). To this end, 1 to 3 colonies were suspended in sterile distilled water to
an optical density of 0.5 McFarland. Ten microliter of this suspension is inoculated in 11ml cation adjusted
Mueller Hinton broth with TES buffer.
Fifty microliter of the Mueller-Hinton broth with bacteria was brought on a micro-titer plate with the
antimicrobials lyophilised, the NVL76 plate as produced by Trek Diagnostics, using the auto-inoculating
system of Trek Diagnostics. The concentrations tested are indicated in table 1 (grey zones are the
concentrations tested).
Plates were incubated 18-24 hours at 35°C and read. The Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) was
defined as the lowest concentration by which no visible growth could be detected. MICs were semi-
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
3/75
automatically recorded by the Trek Vision system using the SWIN software. Results were automatically
exported to an Excel file.
Table 1 shows the antimicrobials tested and their abbreviations. Concentrations tested are shown in table
2.
2.4 Analysis of data
Since isolation method was adapted, isolation successes from 2011 and 2012 were compared using
Pearsons chi-square test to allow deciding on the inclusion of species.
Data were exported from the Excel file to an Access file in which the number of strains having an MIC for a
certain antibiotic were calculated. These data were set in a table that was subsequently exported to an
Excel file. In this file breakpoints based on the EUCAST ECOFFs were indicated.
The number of resistant strains was counted and resistance percentages were calculated. Exact confidence
intervals for the binomial distribution were calculated using a visual basic application in Excel. A 95%
symmetrical two-sided confidence interval was used with p=0.025. The lower and upper bound of
confidence interval for the population proportion was calculated.
Based on the Pearsons chi-square test, and where appropriate the Fischer exact test, significance of the
differences were calculated. As for the differences between years, the chi square test has been used. It
should be noted that differences seen here are not an indication of a trend. Trend cannot be calculated yet,
since this needs 3 measurement points.
Multi-resistance was determined by transforming the MIC data into resistant (R) and susceptible (S) using
ECOFF breakpoints as provided by EUCAST. Number of antimicrobials to which a strain was resistant to was
counted and cumulative percentages were calculated. The modal number of antimicrobials to which 50% of
the strains was resistant was calculated. Graphical representations were prepared.
3 Results Results are shown in tables 2 to 51 and figures 1 to 32.
The results are split up into the different animal species and different bacterial species. The division per
bacterial species is because normal susceptibility of each may differ. Analysis per animal species allows
determining differences between the animal species. Data are discussed only if a sufficient number of
strains was obtained.
3.1 Poultry
A total of 376 enterococci from poultry were tested for susceptibility. One hundred forty nine were E.
faecalis, 63 E. faecium, 51 E. hirae and 14 were E. durans. Compared to 2011, there were quite more E.
faecalis (2011: 81) and E. faecium (2011: 33) strains isolated. There were less E. hirae (2011:48) and only
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
4/75
few E. durans (2011:81) isolated. The adapted isolation method has favoured the isolation of E. faecium
and E. faecalis but the inverse is true for the other two species tested. Nevertheless, sample size is not
sufficient for attaining 170 strains of E. faecium and E. faecalis. Seen the low numbers of E. hirae and
especially for E. durans, both from the E. faecium species group, and as one can see with the same normal
susceptibility distribution for the antibiotics tested, it is no use to continue testing these species.
In E. faecalis resistance was seen against all antibiotics except florfenicol. Resistance was mainly seen
against tetracycline, erythromycin and streptomycin with at least half of the strains being resistant and
even more than 85% of the strains being resistant to tetracycline. Resistance against the other antibiotics
was less that 15%, with nearly 15% of the strains being resistant to salinomycin. Four strains were resistant
to vancomycin. Resistance against this antibiotic shows cross-resistance to avoparcin, an antibiotic that was
formerly used as growth promoter. Another antibiotic group formerly used as growth promoter and still in
use as a coccidiostat, are the ionophores of which is salinomycin is tested here, against this antibiotic
resistance was as high as 14,1%. Resistance against linezolid, a last resort antibiotic in the treatment of
human infections with gram-positive bacteria was found in four strains.
In E. faecium, no resistance against florfenicol, linezolid and vancomycin was seen. As for E. faecalis,
resistance against tetracycline, erythromycin and streptomycin was high. Next to that high resistance was
also found against quinupristin/dalfopristin, with 91,4% of the strains being resistant. Notable high
resistances (nearly 40%) were noted against ampicillin and salinomycin.
Resistance in E. hirae and E. durans is similar to what was found in E. faecium. These species are belonging
to the same species group. One notable exception is the significantly lower resistance against ampicillin in
E. hirae. Also here, resistance against salinomycin is attaining 40%.
As a general, one can state that for the antibiotics against which resistance is high (erythromycin,
tetracycline and streptomycin), it is so for the 4 species tested. As for the differences between the species,
in general, prevalence of resistance in E. faecalis is significantly lower compared to E. faecium. Resistance
prevalence in E. faecium did not differ with E. hirae and E. durans, though this may be due to the low
number of strains tested. Resistance against salinomycin is also significantly lower in E. faecalis compared
to E. faecium and E. hirae, but not with E. durans, most probably due to the low numbers of E durans
tested. A more marked difference was seen for quinupristin/dalfopristin, with lower resistance for E.
faecalis and high for the species of the E. faecium group. However, it should be noted that the normal MICs
of this antibiotic for E. faecalis are substantially higher than for the species of the E. faecium group. This
might have caused the differences seen. Resistance against the clinically important antibiotics linezolid and
vancomycin was only seen in E. faecalis, however at low numbers.
Only 10% of the E. faecalis strains were fully susceptible, and for the species of the E. faecium group, this
was below 5%. In general strains were resistant to two to four antibiotics, which is also reflected by the
high percentages of resistance against tetracycline, erythromycin or streptomycin. E. faecium was clearly
most multi-resistant, with approximately 50% of the strains being resistant to 4 different antibiotics. One E.
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
5/75
faecalis strain was resistant up to 8 antibiotics and one E. faecium strain up to 7 different antibiotics. The E.
faecalis strain remained susceptible to chloramphenicol, gentamicin and streptomycin and was resistant to
ampicillin and vancomycin two important antibiotics in the treatment of enterococcal infections. The
vancomycin resistant strains were the most resistant strains with the 4 strains being resistant to 8 or 7
different antibiotics. Most remained susceptible to ampicillin and gentamicin. None of the ampicillin
resistant strains was resistant to gentamicin. As for the gentamicin resistant E. faecalis strains (4), all were
also resistant to tetracycline but remained susceptible to ampicillin. One strain was also resistant to
ciprofloxacin.
Resistance against chloramphenicol, an antibiotic not used anymore is low, with a only 7 strains being
resistant.
The four linezolid resistant E. faecalis strains were co-resistant to 7 or 8 antibiotics, including vancomycin.
Except one, all were susceptible to ampicillin and one was resistant to gentamicin. Striking also is that these
strains were all resistant to salinomycin.
3.2 Pigs
A total of 243 strains from pigs were tested. Twenty two were E. faecalis, 121 E. faecium, 85 E. hirae and 15
E. durans. Though these numbers are substantially higher than last year, few E. faecalis were isolated. The
number of E. faecium has increased most but also the number of E. hirae has doubled. The number of E.
durans remained stable. Seen the low number of isolates of the latter, it is of no use to include this species
any longer. The number of strains from the E. faecium group outnumbered the E. faecalis strains largely.
Seen the improved isolation method, the sample size should be increased to obtain sufficient E. faecalis
strains.
In E. faecalis from pigs, most resistance was seen against erythromycin and tetracycline, and then followed
by streptomycin, gentamicin and chloramphenicol. The high prevalence of chloramphenicol resistance
should be interpreted with care seen the low number of isolates included and the large confidence
intervals. Other resistances were rare or absent, but also here, one should take into account the low
number of isolates obtained and likewise the low sensitivity to find any resistant strain.
In E. faecium, the number of strains tested is substantially higher compared to E. faecalis and the resistance
prevalence is estimated more accurately. Here we see that against all antibiotics tested, there is resistance
present. Highest resistance is present against quinupristin/dalfopristin. Half of the strains is resistant to
tetracyclines. Against the other antibiotics, resistance is lower than a quarter of the strains, with for most
antibiotics lower than 5%. Resistance against the clinically important antibiotics ampicillin is more than
17%. Gentamicin and vancomycin resistance remains low.
Also in E. hirae, resistance was seen against all antibiotics. Seen the relatively higher number of strains
isolated it is possible to compare the results from E. faecium and E. hirae, both from the same species
group. There were no significant differences in resistance prevalence between E. faecium and E. hirae. As
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
6/75
such, the results from E. faecium and E. hirae can be superposed. The number of E. durans strains was too
low to draw any conclusions but the levels of resistance were similar as those for the other species of the E.
faecium group.
In E. hirae, no one strain was fully susceptible, while in E. faecium, there were still 7 strains (approx. 6%)
and in E. faecalis 3 strain (approx. 13%) susceptible. The insusceptibility of the species of the E. faecium
group is mainly caused by the fact that most strains were resistant to quinupristin/dalfopristin. While multi-
resistance was very evident in E. faecium, with one strain resistant to as much as 10 antibiotics, most
strains E. faecalis strains were resistant to maximal one antibiotic as shown by the fact that nearly 50% of
the strains was resistant to 0/1 antibiotic. In E. faecalis, there was only on strain resistant to a maximum of
5 antibiotics, however, here, only 22 strains were tested. Also for E. hirae, there was one strain resistant to
as much as 10 antibiotics, and approximately one third of the strains was susceptible or resistant to only
one antibiotic. The highly multi-resistant E. faecium strains (resistant to more than eight antibiotics) were
all resistant to ampicillin and vancomyin, two of the most important antibiotics in the treatment of
enterococcal infections. They remained susceptible to gentamicin, but were resistant to linezolid.
Vancomycin was typically associated with multi resistance, with only one strain being resistant to 5
antibiotics and the others being resistant against 8 to 10 antibiotics. This means that this resistance is co-
selected by quite some other antibiotics. It has been demonstrated that the usage of macrolides is
associated with the maintenance of vancomycin resistance in enterococci. Similarly, linezolid resistance
was associated with multi resistance, while ampicillin resistant strains could be susceptible to all other
antibiotics. Also in E. hirae, vancomycin was typically associated with multi-resistance, including macrolide
resistance. Two of the three strains were also ampicillin resistance, and all were linezolid resistance. These
three strains remained susceptible to gentamicin. Ampicillin resistance was associated with resistance to at
least 2 other antibiotics but never with gentamicin.
3.3 Veal calves
While last year very few strains were obtained from veal calves, not allowing any analysis or conclusions,
this year, 185 strains were obtained. Fifty eight were E. faecalis, 100 E. faecium, 17 E. hirae and 10 E.
durans. While last year, the most isolated species was E. hirae (42 strains), this year, it was E. faecium. Also
in bovines, E. durans is the lowest, and will be omitted for further inclusion. Seen the raise in E. faecium
strains, it is not necessary anymore to include also the E. hirae. The number of samples should be increased
to attain sufficient E. faecalis strains.
In E. faecalis, the only antibiotic for which no resistance was noticed was salinomycin. Similarly to poultry
and pigs, resistance against tetracycline (89,7%), erythromycin (82,8%) and streptomycin (74,1%) is highest.
Half of the strains was resistant to chloramphenicol wich is extremely high for an antibiotic not used
anymore since almost 20 years. Against the other antibiotics, little resistance is noted.
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
7/75
In E. faecium, no resistance was seen against linezolid. Similarly, high resistances were seen against
tetracycline, erythromycin, and streptomycin, though significantly lower than for E. faecalis. Highest
resistance was seen against quinupristin/dalfopristin, with 82% of the strains being resistant.
Similar results were noted for E. hirae, but these strains were in general a bit more resistant than the E.
faecium strain, though in most cases not significant, most probably due to the fact that few E. hirae strains
were isolated. Though much less isolates were tested for E. durans, a similar resistance profile was found.
Surprisingly in the tree most prevalent species, resistance against vancomycin has been detected. Typically
also was that most strains the species of the E. faecium group were resistant to quinupristin/dalfopristin.
In E. faecalis, approximately 10% of the strains was susceptible to all antibiotics tested. Fifty% of the strains
were resistant to tree or more antibiotics. One strain was resistant to as much as 7 antibiotics. This strain
was resistant to ampicillin, which is an important antibiotic in the treatment of E. faecalis infections. The
strain remained however susceptible to vancomycin and gentamicin, but was ciprofloxacin resistant. The
vancomycin resistant strain was resistant to 5 different antibiotics, typically also including erythromycin.
In E. faecium, 7% of the strains remained susceptible while approximately 50% were resistant to 2 or more
antibiotics, which is lower than for E. faecalis. This means that next to quinupristin/dalfopristin resistance,
50 % of the strains were also resistant to another antibiotic. One strain was resistant to 6, one to 7 and one
up to 8 antibiotics. The strains resistant to 6 and 8 antibiotics were resistant to ampicillin but remained
susceptible to gentamicin. The strain resistant to 7 antibiotics was susceptible to ampicillin and resistant to
gentamicin. These 3 strains remained susceptible to vancomycin. The strain resistant to vancomycin was
resistant to four antibiotics, typically including erythromycin resistance.
Nearly 12% of the E. hirae strains remained susceptible and approximately half was resistant to one or
more antibiotics. One strain was resistant up to 8 antibiotics. This strain was resistant to ampicillin but
remained susceptible to gentamicin and vancomycin. The vancomycin resistant strain was resistant to as
much as 5 antibiotics including erythromycin and linezolid.
Though only 10 E. durans strains were included, half of the strains was resistant to 3 or more antibiotics.
Two strains were resistant to 5 antibiotics. The 3 ampicilin resistant strains were resistant to 3 to 5
antibiotics and remained susceptible to gentamicin and vancomycin.
3.4 Bovines
Contrary to isolates obtained from other species, most strains were E. hirae (61 strains) followed by E.
faecium (58 strains), and E. faecalis (28 strains). As for the other animal species sampled, E.durans had the
lowest isolation success with only 15 strains isolated. This was however relatively high compared to what is
seen in other animal species but still the lowest isolation rates were from bovines. Also here it is of no use
to continue testing E. durans. It is unclear what would be the best choice for the other species of the E.
faecium group to be included since the isolation success for the two species were similar. Anyhow, seen the
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
8/75
low isolation success for E. faecalis, more samples need to be taken, and as such, more E. faecium strains
will be isolated.
Resistance in E. faecalis was highest for streptomycin, tetracycline and erythromycin. There was no
resistance found against florfenicol, linezolid, salinomycin, quinupristin/dalfopristin and vancomycin.
Resistance to chloramphenicol was almost 18% and resistance against the clinically important ampicillin
and gentamicin was a bit more than 7%.
Resistance in E. faecium was mainly seen against the antibiotic quinupristin/dalfopristin. Other resistances
were lower than 30%, but the highest resistance percentages were also against tetracycline, erythromycin
and streptomycin. One strain was resistant to vancomycine and 4 to ampicillin. Gentamicin resistance was
absent and this was the sole antibiotic against which there was no resistance was found. Resistances
against the other antibiotics were lower than 5%.
Resistance of E. hirae against antibiotics was similar to what was found for E. faecium, with somehow a bit
more resistance to ampicillin and vancomycin. Here no resistance was found against florfenicol.
As for E. durans, few strains were isolated but the same trend in resistance as for the other species of the E.
faecium species group was seen.
Approximately 50% of the E. faecalis strains were resistant to two and more antibiotics. Nearly 30% of the
strains remained fully susceptible. One strain was resistant to 5 antibiotics. This included ampicillin and
gentamicin, rendering infections with such a strain difficult to treat. The strain remained susceptible to
vancomycin, so treatment with this antibiotic is still possible. The other ampicillin resistant strain remained
susceptible to gentamicin.
In E. faecium, where more strains were tested, only 10% of the strain remained fully susceptible, but most
strains were resistant to only one antibiotic (approx. 60%). Contrary, one strain was resistant to as much as
10 antibiotics, which makes it one of the most resistant strains isolated during this years’ surveillance. This
strain remained only susceptible to ciprofloxacin and gentamicin. Only 20% of the strains were resistant to
more than 3 antibiotics. All of the four ampicillin resistant strains remained susceptible to gentamicin and
one was co-resistant to vancomycin.
3.5 Comparison between animal species
Striking is the similarity that for each origin (animal species) and for each enterococcal species tested, the
highest resistances were against tetracycline erythromycin and streptomycin. For the species in the E.
faecium group, also quinupristin/dalfopristin should be taken into account. In poultry there is in general
significantly more resistance against these antibiotics compared to the other animal species, though this is
only visible when enough strains were tested and as such the confidence intervals are more tight, allowing
to detect differences.
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
9/75
Resistance to chloramphenicol, an antibiotic not being used anymore for nearly 20 years is still present and
especially in E. faecalis, and to a much lesser extend in E. faecium. This was especially true for strains from
veal calves. Chloramphenicol resistance can be mediated by a gene encoding a chloramphenicol acetyl
transferase, which does not give cross resistance with florfeniol. At the other hand there is the fex gene
that has recently been described in Staphylococcus spp. but not yet in enterococci. Since florfenicol has
been used mainly in ruminants, it may be that this resistance gene has been introduced in E. faecalis from
bovines and is spreading. This resistance has also significantly increased compared to 2011. Further
research is necessary to confirm this.
Ampicillin resistance is mainly associated with E. faecium and this mainly in poultry, flowed by pigs. This
type of resistance is chromosomally mediated, and a large part of its spread might be clonal.
Vancomycin resistance has been detected in all animal species tested, however, not always in the same
bacterial species. Percentage of resistant strains remains however low.
3.6 Comparison between 2011 and 2012
When comparing the data between 2011 and 2012, one needs to be cautious since, it may be a natural
variation and not presenting a real trend in increasing or lowering of resistance and second, for some data,
the number of strain tested were quite low. For some data, numbers were so low that no comparison could
be made. Further surveillance will be enabling us to detect true trends. Statistical differences were seen on
only tw occasion. For E. hirae and poultry and pigs, where there was a decrease in resistance for
erythromycin and tetracycline. Care has to be taken not to over interpret the differences.
4 Conclusions This is the second large nationwide study on enterococci in Belgium. The number of strains included this
year was substantially higher than before but still not ideal for most of the samples. Nevertheless it is clear
that it is not useful to test E. durans anymore since on both occasions, few strains were detected. Since
their morphological resemblance on Slantez and Bartley agar plates with the other species from the E.
faecium group, they will be isolated and identified anyhow. As for E. hirae, isolation rates were much more
favourable, however, lower than for E. faecium. Last year this was not the case. The inclusion of the NaCl
supplemented broth in the isolation procedure seems to favour the isolation of E. faecium, rather than E.
hirae. Therefor also this species will not be included anymore in the susceptibility tests, also because the
resistance percentages were nearly similar to what is found in E. faecium. They were still included in this
year’s surveillance seen the outcome of the new method was uncertain and it was necessary to have
enough data for detecting trends. It is clear that the behaviour of the species of the E. faecium group is
similar and data may be compiled, strengthening trend analysis.
Marked differences were seen between resistance in E. faecalis and the species from the E. faecium group
(E. faecium, E. hirae and E. durans) concerning resistance to quinupristin/dalfopristin, a streptogramin
antibiotic. Normal MICs of E. faecalis to this antibiotic is much higher compared to the species of the E.
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
10/75
faecium group. Moreover, there is partial cross-resistance of this antibiotic with the antibiotics of the
macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin (MLS) group of antibiotics. This may explain the high levels of
resistance seen in the E. faecium group of bacteria, since most strains were resistant to erythromycin, a
macrolide antibiotic. Erythromycin resistance is caused mostly by the presence of erm genes, encoding a
methylase of the ribosomal RNA. Since macrolides and streptogramins have overlapping binding sites, this
affects the susceptibility of the bacterium. Streptogramins however are always composed of a
streptogramin A and a streptogramin B compound. The cross-resistance affects the binding of the B
compound to the RNA, while the A compound remains active, resulting in a discrete increase of MICs, as
seen in most of the strains in this surveillance. There exist however also specific resistance genes for
streptogramins causing a high level of resistance. These high MICs are however more rarely encountered. A
molecular investigation towards the genetic background of the resistance is the only way to determine the
difference (“breakpoint”) between the high and low level resistances.
Concerning multi-resistance, the species of the E. faecium group were more multi-resistant, though this is
only on the account of quinupristin/dalfopristin resistance. In general 50% of the strains were resistant to
3-4 antibiotics. Never the less, E. faecalis could be resistant to as much as 8 antibiotics (poultry) and E.
faecium to 10 antibiotics (pigs, bovines). This high multi- resistance represents however only a small
fraction of the strains.
Comparison between the two years should be interpreted with care and few significant differences were
noted.
When comparing the obtained results with those from The Netherlands (Maran 2012, data on strains
isolated in 2011) similar results can be found. Also here most resistance was found against tetracycline,
erythromycin and streptomycin, and for E. faecium also quinupristin/dalfoprisin. While no ampicillin
resistance was found in E. faecalis in the Netherlands, we detected in Belgium. Levels of ampicillin
resistance in E. faecium were similar.
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
11/75
Table 1. List of abbreviations
Abbreviation
AMP Ampicillin
CHL Chloramphenicol
CIP Ciprofloxacin
ERY Erythromycin
FFN Florfenicol
GEN Gentamicin
LIN Linezolid
SAL Salinomycin
STr Streptomycin
SYN Synercid (quinupristin/dalfopristin)
TET Tetracycline
VAN Vancomycin
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
12/75
Table 2. Antibiotic resistance in commensal Enterococci from poultry.
AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
E. faecalis N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149
NR 10 4 4 108 0 6 4 21 76 4 129 4
%R 6,7 2,7 2,7 72,5 0 4 2,7 14,1 51 2,7 86,6 2,7
CI 3,3-12 0,7-7 0,7-7 64,6-79 0-2 1,5-9 0,7-7 8,9-21 42,7-59 0,7-7 80-92 0,7-7
E. faecium N 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162
NR 63 2 13 120 0 3 0 61 102 148 127 0
%R 38,9 1,2 8 74,1 0 1,9 0 37,7 63 91,4 78,4 0
CI 31,3-47 0,-4 4,3-13 66,6-81 0-2 0,4-5 0-2 30,2-46 55-70 85,9-95 71,3-84 0-2
E. hirae N 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
NR 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 19 11 47 26 0
%R 2 2 0 39,2 0 0 0 37,3 21,6 92,2 51 0
CI 0-10 0-10 0-17 25,8-54 0-7 0-7 0-7 24,4-52 11,3-35 81,1-98 36,6-65 0-7
E. durans N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
NR 2 0 0 9 0 0 0 6 6 14 13 0
%R 14,3 0 0 64,3 0 0 0 42,9 42,9 100 92,9 0
CI 1,8-43 0-23 0-23 31,5-83 0-23 0-23 0-23 17,7-71 17,7-71 76,8-100 66,1-100 0-23
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
13/75
Tabel 3. Antibiotic resistance in commensal Enterococci from pigs.
AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
E. faecalis N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
NR 0 4 1 14 0 4 0 0 7 0 18 0
%R 0 18,2 4,5 63,6 0 18,2 0 0 31,8 0 81,8 0
CI 0-15 5,2-40 0,1-23 40,7-83 0-15 5,2-40 0-15 0-15 13,9-55 0-15 59,7-95 0-15
E. faecium N 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121
NR 21 2 4 33 2 2 4 6 32 109 60 5
%R 17,4 1,7 3,3 27,3 1,7 1,7 3,3 5 26,4 90,1 49,6 4,1
CI 11,1-25 0,2-6 0,9-8 19,6-36 0,2-6 0,2-6 0,9-8 1,8-10 18,8-35 83,3-95 40,4-59 1,4-9
E. hirae N 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
NR 9 2 1 26 2 1 3 3 23 82 56 3
%R 10,6 2,4 1,2 30,6 2,4 1,2 3,5 3,5 27,1 96,5 65,9 3,5
CI 5-19 0,3-8 0-6 21-42 0,3-8 0-6 0,7-10 0,7-10 18-38 90-99 54,8-76 0,7-10
E. durans N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
NR 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 12 5 0
%R 6,7 0 0 26,7 0 0 0 0 20 80 33,3 0
CI 0,2-32 0-22 0,2-32 4,3-48 0-22 0,2-32 0-23 0-23 4,3-48 44,9-92 11,8-62 0-23
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
14/75
Table 4 Antibiotic resistance in commensal Enterococci from veal calves.
AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
E. faecalis N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
NR 1 30 3 48 1 4 1 0 43 1 52 1
%R 1,7 51,7 5,2 82,8 1,7 6,9 1,7 0,0 74,1 1,7 89,7 1,7
CI 0-9 38,2-55 1,1-14 70,6-91 0-9 1,9-17 0-19 0-6 61-85 0-9 78,8-96 0-9
E. faecium N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
NR 9 1 2 42 2 1 0 3 37 82 47 1
%R 9 1 2 42 2 1 0 3 37 82 47 1
CI 4,2-16 0-5 0,2-7 32,2-52 0,2-7 0-5 0-4 0,6-9 27,6-47 73,1-89 36,9-57 0-5
E. hirae N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
NR 1 2 1 7 1 0 1 1 5 13 7 1
%R 5,9 11,8 5,9 41,2 5,9 0 5,9 5,9 29,4 76,5 41,2 5,9
CI 0,1-29 1,5-36 0,1-29 18,4-67 0,1-29 0-20 0,1-29 0,1-29 10,3-56 50,1-93 18,4-67 0,1-29
E. durans N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
NR 3 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 7 4 0
%R 30 10 0 50 0 0 0 0 40 70 40 0
CI 6,7-65 0,3-45 0-31 18,7-81 0-31 0-31 0-31 0-31 12,2-74 34,8-93 12,2-74 0-31
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
15/75
Table 5. Antibiotic resistance in commensal Enterococci from bovines.
AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
E. faecalis N 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
NR 2 5 0 13 0 2 0 0 17 0 16 0
%R 7,1 17,9 0 46,4 0 7,1 0 0 60,7 0 57,1 0
CI 0,9-24 6,1-37 0-12 27,5-66 0-12 0,9-24 0-12 0-12 40,6-78 0-12 37,2-76 0-12
E. faecium N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
NR 4 1 2 14 1 0 1 2 11 48 15 1
%R 6,9 1,7 3,4 24,1 1,7 0,0 1,7 3,4 19,0 82,8 25,9 1,7
CI 1,9-17 0-9 0,4-12 13,9-37 0-9 0-6 0-9 0,4-12 9,9-31 70,6-91 15,3-39 0-9
E. hirae N 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
NR 5 1 1 20 0 1 3 6 15 44 24 5
%R 8,2 1,6 1,6 32,8 0 1,6 4,9 9,8 24,6 72,1 39,3 8,2
CI 2,7-18 0-9 0-9 21,3-46 0-6 0-9 jan/14 3,7-30 14,5-37 5,9-83 27,1-53 2,7-18
E. durans N 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 15 15 15 14
NR 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 3 11 5 0
%R 6,7 0 6,7 20 0 6,7 0 0 20 73,3 33,3 0
CI 0,2-32 0-22 0-22 7,8-55 0-22 0-22 0-22 0-22 4,3-48 51,9-96 11,8-62 0-22
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
16/75
Table 6. Antimicrobial resistance in in E. faecalis from different animal species.
AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
Poultry N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149
NR 10 4 4 108 0 6 4 21 76 4 129 4
%R 6,7 2,7 2,7 72,5 0 4 2,7 14,1 51 2,7 86,6 2,7
CI 3,3-12 0,7-7 0,7-7 64,6-79 0-2 1,5-9 0,7-7 8,9-21 42,7-59 0,7-7 80-92 0,7-7
Pig N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
NR 0 4 1 14 0 4 0 0 7 0 18 0
%R 0 18,2 4,5 63,6 0 18,2 0 0 31,8 0 81,8 0
CI 0-15 5,2-40 0,1-23 40,7-83 0-15 5,2-40 0-15 0-15 13,9-55 0-15 59,7-95 0-15
veal calves N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
NR 1 30 3 48 1 4 1 0 43 1 52 1
%R 1,7 51,7 5,2 82,8 1,7 6,9 1,7 0,0 74,1 1,7 89,7 1,7
CI 0-9 38,2-55 1,1-14 70,6-91 0-9 1,9-17 0-19 0-6 61-85 0-9 78,8-96 0-9
bovines N 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
NR 2 5 0 13 0 2 0 0 17 0 16 0
%R 7,1 17,9 0 46,4 0 7,1 0 0 60,7 0 57,1 0
CI 0,9-24 6,1-37 0-12 27,5-66 0-12 0,9-24 0-12 0-12 40,6-78 0-12 37,2-76 0-12
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
17/75
Table 7. Antimicrobial resistance in in E. faecium from different animal species.
AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
Poultry N 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162
NR 63 2 13 120 0 3 0 61 102 148 127 0
%R 38,9 1,2 8 74,1 0 1,9 0 37,7 63 91,4 78,4 0
CI 31,3-47 0,-4 4,3-13 66,6-81 0-2 0,4-5 0-2 30,2-46 55-70 85,9-95 71,3-84 0-2
Pig N 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121
NR 21 2 4 33 2 2 4 6 32 109 60 5
%R 17,4 1,7 3,3 27,3 1,7 1,7 3,3 5 26,4 90,1 49,6 4,1
CI 11,1-25 0,2-6 0,9-8 19,6-36 0,2-6 0,2-6 0,9-8 1,8-10 18,8-35 83,3-95 40,4-59 1,4-9
Veal calves N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
NR 9 1 2 42 2 1 0 3 37 82 47 1
%R 9 1 2 42 2 1 0 3 37 82 47 1
CI 4,2-16 0-5 0,2-7 32,2-52 0,2-7 0-5 0-4 0,6-9 27,6-47 73,1-89 36,9-57 0-5
bovines N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
NR 4 1 2 14 1 0 1 2 11 48 15 1
%R 6,9 1,7 3,4 24,1 1,7 0,0 1,7 3,4 19,0 82,8 25,9 1,7
CI 1,9-17 0-9 0,4-12 13,9-37 0-9 0-6 0-9 0,4-12 9,9-31 70,6-91 15,3-39 0-9
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
18/75
Table 8. Antimicrobial resistance in in E. hirae from different animal species.
AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
Poultry N 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
NR 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 19 11 47 26 0
%R 2 2 0 39,2 0 0 0 37,3 21,6 92,2 51 0
CI 0-10 0-10 0-17 25,8-54 0-7 0-7 0-7 24,4-52 11,3-35 81,1-98 36,6-65 0-7
Pigs N 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
NR 9 2 1 26 2 1 3 3 23 82 56 3
%R 10,6 2,4 1,2 30,6 2,4 1,2 3,5 3,5 27,1 96,5 65,9 3,5
CI 5-19 0,3-8 0-6 21-42 0,3-8 0-6 0,7-10 0,7-10 18-38 90-99 54,8-76 0,7-10
veal calves N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
NR 1 2 1 7 1 0 1 1 5 13 7 1
%R 5,9 11,8 5,9 41,2 5,9 0 5,9 5,9 29,4 76,5 41,2 5,9
CI 0,1-29 1,5-36 0,1-29 18,4-67 0,1-29 0-20 0,1-29 0,1-29 10,3-56 50,1-93 18,4-67 0,1-29
bovines N 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
NR 5 1 1 20 0 1 3 6 15 44 24 5
%R 8,2 1,6 1,6 32,8 0 1,6 4,9 9,8 24,6 72,1 39,3 8,2
CI 2,7-18 0-9 0-9 21,3-46 0-6 0-9 jan/14 3,7-30 14,5-37 5,9-83 27,1-53 2,7-18
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
19/75
Table 9. Antimicrobial resistance in in E.durans from different animal species.
AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
Poultry N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
NR 2 0 0 9 0 0 0 6 6 14 13 0
%R 14,3 0 0 64,3 0 0 0 42,9 42,9 100 92,9 0
CI 1,8-43 0-23 0-23 31,5-83 0-23 0-23 0-23 17,7-71 17,7-71 76,8-100 66,1-100 0-23
Pig N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
NR 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 12 5 0
%R 6,7 0 0 26,7 0 0 0 0 20 80 33,3 0
CI 0,2-32 0-22 0,2-32 4,3-48 0-22 0,2-32 0-23 0-23 4,3-48 44,9-92 11,8-62 0-23
Veal calves N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
NR 3 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 7 4 0
%R 30 10 0 50 0 0 0 0 40 70 40 0
CI 6,7-65 0,3-45 0-31 18,7-81 0-31 0-31 0-31 0-31 12,2-74 34,8-93 12,2-74 0-31
Bovines N 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 15 15 15 14
NR 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 3 11 5 0
%R 6,7 0 6,7 20 0 6,7 0 0 20 73,3 33,3 0
CI 0,2-32 0-22 0-22 7,8-55 0-22 0-22 0-22 0-22 4,3-48 51,9-96 11,8-62 0-22
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
20/75
Table 10 Antimicrobial resistance in E. faecalis from poultry
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0.5 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 20 3
1 111 0 105 22 3 0 59 38 0 3 0 90
2 24 1 9 17 28 0 86 27 0 2 0 46
4 4 11 12 2 117 1 0 50 0 8 0 6
8 4 131 1 2 1 35 0 17 0 42 1 0
16 1 2 2 3 0 104 0 0 1 82 1 0
32 2 0 1 4 0 3 0 0 2 7 35 0
64 1 3 0 1 0 1 4 1 16 4 36 0
128 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 50 0 56 4
256 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0
N 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149
NR 10 4 4 108 0 6 4 21 76 4 129 4
%R 6,7 2,7 2,7 72,5 0,0 4,0 2,7 14,1 51,0 2,7 86,6 2,7
CI 3,3-12 0,7-7 0,7-7 64,6-79 0-2 1,5-9 0,7-7 8,9-21 42,7-59 0,7-7 80-92 0,7-7
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
21/75
Table 11 Antimicrobial resistance in E. faecium from poultry
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 33 75
1 51 0 28 20 0 0 28 28 0 12 1 67
2 23 2 42 15 29 0 134 14 0 9 1 17
4 25 25 75 7 132 10 0 59 0 52 1 3
8 40 100 13 1 1 104 0 61 0 75 2 0
16 2 11 0 2 0 43 0 0 0 8 1 0
32 2 22 0 1 0 2 0 0 8 4 7 0
64 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 25 0
128 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 91 0
256 0 0 0 116 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 14 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0
N 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162
NR 63 2 13 120 0 3 0 61 102 148 127 0
%R 38,9 1,2 8,0 74,1 0,0 1,9 0,0 37,7 63,0 91,4 78,4 0,0
CI 31,3-47 0,-4 4,3-13 66,6-81 0-2 0,4-5 0-2 30,2-46 55-70 85,9-95 71,3-84 0-2
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
22/75
Table 12 Antimicrobial resistance in E. hirae from poultry
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 18
1 39 0 6 25 0 0 13 9 0 3 2 26
2 7 0 18 6 27 0 38 11 0 4 0 6
4 4 28 7 0 24 3 0 12 0 34 0 1
8 1 16 0 1 0 25 0 19 0 9 2 0
16 0 1 0 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 3 0
32 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 1 0
64 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 1 0
128 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 19 0
256 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
N 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
NR 1 1 0 20 0 0 0 19 11 47 26 0
%R 2,0 2,0 0,0 39,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 37,3 21,6 92,2 51,0 0,0
CI 0-10 0-10 0-17 25,8-54 0-7 0-7 0-7 24,4-52 11,3-35 81,1-98 36,6-65 0-7
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
23/75
Table 13 Antimicrobial resistance in E. durans from poultry
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
1 5 0 6 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 10
2 3 0 3 2 3 0 13 2 0 1 0 1
4 4 3 2 0 9 3 0 4 0 7 0 0
8 2 7 0 0 1 4 0 6 1 6 0 0
16 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0
128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0
256 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
NR 2 0 0 9 0 0 0 6 6 14 13 0
%R 14,3 0,0 0,0 64,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 42,9 42,9 100,0 92,9 0,0
CI 1,8-43 0-23 0-23 31,5-83 0-23 0-23 0-23 17,7-71 17,7-71 76,8-100 66,1-100 0-23
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
24/75
Table 14 Antimicrobial resistance in E. faecalis from pigs
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 3
1 18 0 11 6 2 0 7 11 0 0 0 14
2 4 0 3 2 7 0 15 9 0 1 0 5
4 0 7 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
8 0 9 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0
16 0 2 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 12 0 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
64 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0
128 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 0
256 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
NR 0 4 1 14 0 4 0 0 7 0 18 0
%R 0,0 18,2 4,5 63,6 0,0 18,2 0,0 0,0 31,8 0,0 81,8 0,0
CI 0-15 5,2-40 0,1-23 40,7-83 0-15 5,2-40 0-15 0-15 13,9-55 0-15 59,7-95 0-15
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
25/75
Table 15. Antimicrobial resistance in E. faecium from pigs
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 56 78
1 45 0 58 14 1 0 0 57 0 9 3 31
2 33 1 20 38 17 0 116 54 0 5 2 7
4 22 31 13 36 101 9 0 3 0 88 0 0
8 14 82 3 4 0 78 0 2 1 10 0 1
16 1 3 1 3 0 28 0 0 1 2 0 0
32 1 2 0 1 1 4 0 0 11 0 0 0
64 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 68 4 35 0
128 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 8 0 25 4
256 4 2 0 24 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0
N 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121
NR 21 2 4 33 2 2 4 6 32 109 60 5
%R 17,4 1,7 3,3 27,3 1,7 1,7 3,3 5,0 26,4 90,1 49,6 4,1
CI 11,1-25 0,2-6 0,9-8 19,6-36 0,2-6 0,2-6 0,9-8 1,8-10 18,8-35 83,3-95 40,4-59 1,4-9
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
26/75
Table 16. Antimicrobial resistance in E. hirae from pigs
Concetration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 27 55
1 58 0 12 56 0 0 5 26 0 3 1 25
2 11 0 6 0 19 0 75 54 0 2 1 2
4 7 49 2 3 64 6 2 1 0 64 1 0
8 6 30 0 1 0 51 0 0 0 10 0 0
16 1 0 1 0 1 24 0 0 0 2 1 0
32 0 4 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 1 4 0
64 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 44 3 23 0
128 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 15 0 27 3
256 2 1 0 21 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
N 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
NR 9 2 1 26 2 1 3 3 23 82 56 3
%R 10,6 2,4 1,2 30,6 2,4 1,2 3,5 3,5 27,1 96,5 65,9 3,5
CI 5-19 0,3-8 0-6 21-42 0,3-8 0-6 0,7-10 0,7-10 18-38 90-99 54,8-76 0,7-10
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
27/75
Table 17. Antimicrobial resistance in E. durans from pigs
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 9
1 9 0 8 5 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 4
2 2 0 1 2 0 0 14 12 0 0 0 2
4 3 2 1 4 15 0 1 0 0 10 0 0
8 1 13 0 3 0 9 0 0 0 1 1 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 0
128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
256 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
NR 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 12 5 0
%R 6,7 0,0 0,0 26,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 20,0 80,0 33,3 0,0
CI 0,2-32 0-22 0,2-32 4,3-48 0-22 0,2-32 0-23 0-23 4,3-48 44,9-92 11,8-62 0-23
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
28/75
Table 18. Antimicrobial resistance in E. faecalis from veal calves.
Concentratie AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0.5 0 0 22 0 0 0 2 14 0 0 5 4
1 46 0 27 6 3 0 27 36 0 3 1 31
2 11 1 5 4 14 0 27 6 0 2 0 22
4 0 5 1 0 40 4 0 2 0 9 0 0
8 0 20 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 13 0 1
16 1 0 1 1 0 25 1 0 1 24 1 0
32 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 1 0
64 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 6 0
128 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 44 0
256 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0
N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
NR 1 30 3 48 1 4 1 0 43 1 52 1
%R 1,7 51,7 5,2 82,8 1,7 6,9 1,7 0,0 74,1 1,7 89,7 1,7
CI 0-9 38,2-55 1,1-14 70,6-91 0-9 1,9-17 0-19 0-6 61-85 0-9 78,8-96 0-9
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
29/75
Table 19. Antimicrobial resistance in E. faecium from veal calves.
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 52 46
1 47 0 40 14 2 0 12 44 0 15 1 38
2 33 2 21 16 21 0 84 49 0 7 0 14
4 11 33 28 28 75 10 3 2 0 60 1 1
8 4 56 1 3 0 66 0 3 0 15 0 0
16 1 0 1 1 0 20 0 0 2 0 0 0
32 1 8 0 1 0 3 0 0 8 0 0 0
64 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 47 0 8 0
128 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 38 1
256 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
NR 9 1 2 42 2 1 0 3 37 82 47 1
%R 9,0 1,0 2,0 42,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 3,0 37,0 82,0 47,0 1,0
CI 4,2-16 0-5 0,2-7 32,2-52 0,2-7 0-5 0-4 0,6-9 27,6-47 73,1-89 36,9-57 0-5
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
30/75
Table 20. Antimicrobial resistance in E. hirae from veal calves.
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 6
1 8 0 5 7 0 0 3 7 0 2 1 7
2 6 0 2 0 4 0 13 9 0 2 0 2
4 2 5 1 3 12 1 0 0 0 8 0 1
8 0 9 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0
16 0 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0
32 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0
64 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 1 1 0
128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 5 1
256 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
NR 1 2 1 7 1 0 1 1 5 13 7 1
%R 5,9 11,8 5,9 41,2 5,9 0,0 5,9 5,9 29,4 76,5 41,2 5,9
CI 0,1-29 1,5-36 0,1-29 18,4-67 0,1-29 0-20 0,1-29 0,1-29 10,3-56 50,1-93 18,4-67 0,1-29
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
31/75
Table 21. Antimicrobial resistance in E. durans from veal calves.
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 8
1 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 2
2 3 0 4 3 1 0 10 4 0 0 1 0
4 1 1 2 1 9 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
8 1 8 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
64 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0
256 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
NR 3 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 7 4 0
%R 30,0 10,0 0,0 50,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 40,0 70,0 40,0 0,0
CI 6,7-65 0,3-45 0-31 18,7-81 0-31 0-31 0-31 0-31 12,2-74 34,8-93 12,2-74 0-31
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
32/75
Table 22. Antimicrobial resistance in E. faecalis from bovines.
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0.5 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 11 4
1 23 0 16 8 0 0 11 13 0 0 1 17
2 3 1 5 4 16 0 15 5 0 3 0 6
4 0 9 2 3 12 2 0 4 0 8 1 1
8 0 13 0 1 0 8 0 0 1 6 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 10 1 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
64 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 5 0
128 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 0
256 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
N 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
NR 2 5 0 13 0 2 0 0 17 0 16 0
%R 7,1 17,9 0,0 46,4 0,0 7,1 0,0 0,0 60,7 0,0 57,1 0,0
CI 0,9-24 6,1-37 0-12 27,5-66 0-12 0,9-24 0-12 0-12 40,6-78 0-12 37,2-76 0-12
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
33/75
Table 23. Antimicrobial resistance in E. faecium from bovines.
Cocentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 41 30
1 28 0 35 19 0 0 1 23 0 9 1 24
2 21 0 2 10 6 0 54 31 0 6 1 3
4 5 12 13 15 51 5 2 2 0 38 0 0
8 2 41 2 2 0 42 0 1 0 2 0 0
16 0 4 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0
32 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0
64 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 37 1 4 0
128 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 9 1
256 1 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
NR 4 1 2 14 1 0 1 2 11 48 15 1
%R 6,9 1,7 3,4 24,1 1,7 0,0 1,7 3,4 19,0 82,8 25,9 1,7
CI 1,9-17 0-9 0,4-12 13,9-37 0-9 0-6 0-9 0,4-12 9,9-31 70,6-91 15,3-39 0-9
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
34/75
Table 24. Antimicrobial resistance in E. hirae from bovines.
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 36 9
1 49 0 11 35 0 0 5 34 0 5 0 41
2 7 0 9 3 16 0 52 18 0 3 1 6
4 0 34 5 3 45 2 1 3 0 27 2 0
8 2 21 0 1 0 15 0 3 1 6 1 2
16 0 4 0 1 0 38 0 0 0 4 0 0
32 0 1 1 1 0 5 0 0 1 2 3 0
64 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 32 2 9 0
128 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 12 0 9 3
256 1 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0
N 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
NR 5 1 1 20 0 1 3 6 15 44 24 5
%R 8,2 1,6 1,6 32,8 0,0 1,6 4,9 9,8 24,6 72,1 39,3 8,2
CI 2,7-18 0-9 0-9 21,3-46 0-6 0-9 1-14 3,7-30 14,5-37 5,9-83 27,1-53 2,7-18
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
35/75
Table 25. Antimicrobial resistance in E. durans from bovines.
Concentration AMP CHL CIP ERY FFN GEN LZD SAL Str SYN TET VAN
<=0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 6
1 10 0 3 8 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 8
2 3 0 0 1 1 0 13 9 0 2 0 0
4 1 7 3 3 14 2 0 0 0 7 0 0
8 0 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0
16 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
64 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 10 0 3 0
128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0
256 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
512 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
N 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 15 15 15 14
NR 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 3 11 5 0
%R 6,7 0,0 6,7 20,0 0,0 6,7 0,0 0,0 20,0 73,3 33,3 0,0
CI 0,2-32 0-22 0-22 7,8-55 0-22 0-22 0-22 0-22 4,3-48 51,9-96 11,8-62 0-22
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
36/75
Table 26. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from poultry.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 16 10,7 10,7
1 21 14,1 24,8
2 28 18,8 43,6
3 61 40,9 84,6
4 15 10,1 94,6
5 3 2,0 96,6
6 1 0,7 97,3
7 3 2,0 99,3
8 1 0,7 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
37/75
Figure 1. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from poultry expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to
N antibiotics
Figure 2. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from poultry expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
38/75
Table 27. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from poultry.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 5 3,1 3,1
1 18 11,1 14,2
2 10 6,2 20,4
3 18 11,1 31,5
4 34 21,0 52,5
5 52 32,1 84,6
6 24 14,8 99,4
7 1 0,6 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
39/75
Figure 3. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from poultry expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to
N antibiotics
Figure 4. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from poultry expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
40/75
Table 28. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from poultry.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 2 3,9 3,9
1 13 25,5 29,4
2 12 23,5 52,9
3 12 23,5 76,5
4 8 15,7 92,2
5 4 7,8 100,0
6 0 0,0 100,0
7 0 0,0 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
41/75
Figure 5. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from poultry expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to N
antibiotics.
Figure 6. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from poultry expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
42/75
Table 29. Multi-resistance in E. durans from poultry.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 0 0,0 0,0
1 1 7,1 7,1
2 0 0,0 7,1
3 6 42,9 50,0
4 4 28,6 78,6
5 3 21,4 100,0
6 0 0,0 100,0
7 0 0,0 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
43/75
Figure 7. Multi-resistance in E. durans from poultry expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to
N antibiotics.
Figure 8. Multi-resistance in E. durans from poultry expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
44/75
Table 30. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from pigs.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 3 13,6 13,6
1 5 22,7 36,4
2 5 22,7 59,1
3 4 18,2 77,3
4 4 18,2 95,5
5 1 4,5 100,0
6 0 0,0 100,0
7 0 0,0 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
45/75
Figure 9. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from pigs expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to N
antibiotics.
Figure 10. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from pigs expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
46/75
Table 31. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from pigs.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 7 5,8 5,8
1 50 41,3 47,1
2 21 17,4 64,5
3 15 12,4 76,9
4 15 12,4 89,3
5 6 5,0 94,2
6 3 2,5 96,7
7 0 0,0 96,7
8 2 1,7 98,3
9 1 0,8 99,2
10 1 0,8 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
47/75
Figure 11. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from pigs expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to N
antibiotics.
Figure 12. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from pigs expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
48/75
Table 32. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from pigs.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 0 0,0 0,0
1 28 32,9 32,9
2 24 28,2 61,2
3 15 17,6 78,8
4 10 11,8 90,6
5 5 5,9 96,5
6 0 0,0 96,5
7 1 1,2 97,6
8 1 1,2 98,8
9 0 0,0 98,8
10 1 1,2 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
49/75
Figure 13. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from pigs expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to N
antibiotics.
Figure 14. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from pigs expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
50/75
Table 33. Multi-resistance in E. durans from pigs.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 2 13,3 13,3
1 6 40,0 53,3
2 4 26,7 80,0
3 1 6,7 86,7
4 2 13,3 100,0
5 0 0,0 100,0
6 0 0,0 100,0
7 0 0,0 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
51/75
Figure 15. Multi-resistance in E. durans from pigs expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to N
antibiotics.
Figure 16. Multi-resistance in E. durans from pigs expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
52/75
Table 34. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from veal calves.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 6 10,3 10,3
1 3 5,2 15,5
2 5 8,6 24,1
3 13 22,4 46,6
4 25 43,1 89,7
5 4 6,9 96,6
6 1 1,7 98,3
7 1 1,7 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
53/75
Figure 17. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from veal calves expressed as percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics.
Figure 18. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from veal calves expressed as cumulative percentage of strains
having resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
54/75
Table 35. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from veal calves.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 7 7 7
1 41 41 48
2 10 10 58
3 17 17 75
4 16 16 91
5 6 6 97
6 1 1 98
7 1 1 99
8 1 1 100
9 0 0 100
10 0 0 100
11 0 0 100
12 0 0 100
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
55/75
Figure 19. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from veal calves expressed as percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
Figure 20. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from veal calves expressed as cumulative percentage of strains
having resistance to N antibiotics
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
56/75
Table 36. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from veal calves.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 2 11,8 11,8
1 7 41,2 52,9
2 1 5,9 58,8
3 3 17,6 76,5
4 1 5,9 82,4
5 2 11,8 94,1
6 0 0,0 94,1
7 0 0,0 94,1
8 1 5,9 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
57/75
Figure 21. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from veal calves expressed as percentage of strains having resistance
to N antibiotics.
Figure 22. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from veal calves expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
58/75
Table 37. Multi-resistance in E. durans from veal calves.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 2 20 20
1 3 30 50
2 0 0 50
3 1 10 60
4 2 20 80
5 2 20 100
6 0 0 100
7 0 0 100
8 0 0 100
9 0 0 100
10 0 0 100
11 0 0 100
12 0 0 100
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
59/75
Figure 23. Multi-resistance in E. durans from veal calves expressed as percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics.
Figure 24. Multi-resistance in E. durans from veal calves expressed as cumulative percentage of strains
having resistance to N antibiotics
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
60/75
Table 38. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from bovines.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 8 28,6 28,6
1 3 10,7 39,3
2 7 25,0 64,3
3 3 10,7 75,0
4 6 21,4 96,4
5 1 3,6 100,0
6 0 0,0 100,0
7 0 0,0 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
61/75
Figure 25. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from bovines expressed as percentage of strains having resistance
to N antibiotics.
Figure 26. Multi-resistance in E. faecalis from bovines expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Culumative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
62/75
Table 39. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from bovines.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 6 10,3 10,3
1 34 58,6 69,0
2 6 10,3 79,3
3 1 1,7 81,0
4 9 15,5 96,6
5 1 1,7 98,3
6 0 0,0 98,3
7 0 0,0 98,3
8 0 0,0 98,3
9 0 0,0 98,3
10 1 1,7 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
63/75
Figure 27. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from bovines expressed as percentage of strains having resistance
to N antibiotics.
Figure 28. Multi-resistance in E. faecium from bovines expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
64/75
Table 39. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from bovines.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 17 27,9 27,9
1 17 27,9 55,7
2 6 9,8 65,6
3 6 9,8 75,4
4 4 6,6 82,0
5 7 11,5 93,4
6 1 1,6 95,1
7 3 4,9 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
65/75
Figure 29. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from bovines expressed as percentage of strains having resistance to
N antibiotics.
Figure 30. Multi-resistance in E. hirae from bovines expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
66/75
Table 40. Multi-resistance in E. durans from bovines.
Number of antimicrobials Number of strains % of bacteria Cumulative %
0 2 13,3 13,3
1 8 53,3 66,7
2 2 13,3 80,0
3 0 0,0 80,0
4 2 13,3 93,3
5 1 6,7 100,0
6 0 0,0 100,0
7 0 0,0 100,0
8 0 0,0 100,0
9 0 0,0 100,0
10 0 0,0 100,0
11 0 0,0 100,0
12 0 0,0 100,0
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
67/75
Figure 31. Multi-resistance in E. durans from bovines expressed as percentage of strains having resistance
to N antibiotics.
Figure 32. Multi-resistance in E. durans from bovines expressed as cumulative percentage of strains having
resistance to N antibiotics
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% of strains
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Cumulative %
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
68/75
Table 41. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. faecalis from poultry for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Poultry 2011 N=81 2012 N=149
AMP 11,1 5,2-20 6,7 3,3-12 NS
CHL 9,9 4,4-19 2,7 0,7-7 NS
CIP 3,7 0,8-10 2,7 0,7-7 NS
ERY 76,5 65,8-85 72,5 64,6-79 NS
FFN 0,0 0-4 0 0-2 NS
GEN 3,7 0,8-10 4 1,5-9 NS
LZD 6,2 2-14 2,7 0,7-7 NS
SAL 13,6 7-23 14,1 8,9-21 NS
Str 59,3 47,8-70 51 42,7-59 NS
SYN 1,2 0-7 2,7 0,7-7 NS
TET 90,1 81,5-96 86,6 80-92 NS
VAN 3,7 0,8-10 2,7 0,7-7 NS
Table42 Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. faecalis from pigs for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Pig 2011 N=8 2012 N=22
AMP 0
0 0-15
CHL 0
18,2 5,2-40
CIP 0
4,5 0,1-23
ERY 25
63,6 40,7-83
FFN 0
0 0-15
GEN 0
18,2 5,2-40
LZD 12,5
0 0-15
SAL 0
0 0-15
Str 25
31,8 13,9-55
SYN 0
0 0-15
TET 62,5
81,8 59,7-95
VAN 0
0 0-15
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
69/75
Table 43. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. faecalis from bovines for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Bovine 2011 N=24 2012 N=28
AMP 8,3 1-27 7,1 0,9-24 NS
CHL 8,3 1-27 17,9 6,1-37 NS
CIP 0 0-14 0 0-12 NS
ERY 62,5 40,6-81 46,4 27,5-66 NS
FFN 0 0-14 0 0-12 NS
GEN 4,2 0,1-21 7,1 0,9-24 NS
LZD 0 0-14 0 0-12 NS
SAL 4,2 0,1-21 0 0-12 NS
Str 62,5 40,6-81 60,7 40,6-78 NS
SYN 0 0-14 0 0-12 NS
TET 75 53,3-90 57,1 37,2-76 NS
VAN 0 0-14 0 0-12 NS
Table 44. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. faecalis from veal calves for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Veal calf 2011 N=12 2012 N=58
AMP 0
1,7 0-9
CHL 50
51,7 38,2-55
CIP 25
5,2 1,1-14
ERY 100
82,8 70,6-91
FFN 0
1,7 0-9
GEN 0
6,9 1,9-17
LZD 0
1,7 0-19
SAL 25
0,0 0-6
Str 100
74,1 61-85
SYN 0
1,7 0-9
TET 75
89,7 78,8-96
VAN 0
1,7 0-9
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
70/75
Table 45. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. faecium from poultry for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Poultry 2011 N=33 2012 N=162
AMP 24,2 11,1-42 38,9 31,3-47 NS
CHL 9,1 1,9-24 1,2 0,-4 NS
CIP 18,2 7-35 8 4,3-13 NS
ERY 72,7 54,5-87 74,1 66,6-81 NS
FFN 0,0 0-11 0 0-2 NS
GEN 0,0 0-11 1,9 0,4-5 NS
LZD 6,1 0,7-20 0 0-2 NS
SAL 51,5 33,5-69 37,7 30,2-46 NS
Str 54,5 36,4-72 63 55-70 NS
SYN 100,0 89,4-100 91,4 85,9-95 NS
TET 84,8 68,1-95 78,4 71,3-84 NS
VAN 9,1 1,9-24 0 0-2 NS
Table 46. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. faecium from pigs for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Pig 2011 N=8 2012 N=121
AMP 0,0
17,4 11,1-25
CHL 12,5
1,7 0,2-6
CIP 12,5
3,3 0,9-8
ERY 25,0
27,3 19,6-36
FFN 0,0
1,7 0,2-6
GEN 0,0
1,7 0,2-6
LZD 12,5
3,3 0,9-8
SAL 0,0
5 1,8-10
Str 12,5
26,4 18,8-35
SYN 100,0
90,1 83,3-95
TET 50,0
49,6 40,4-59
VAN 12,5
4,1 1,4-9
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
71/75
Table 47. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. faecium from bovines for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Bovine 2011 N=29 2012 N=58
AMP 13,8 3,9-32 6,896552 1,9-17 NS
CHL 17,2 5,8-36 1,724138 0-9 NS
CIP 13,8 3,9-32 3,448276 0,4-12 NS
ERY 58,6 38,9-76 24,13793 13,9-37 NS
FFN 0,0 0-12 1,724138 0-9 NS
GEN 0,0 0-12 0 0-6 NS
LZD 0,0 0-12 1,724138 0-9 NS
SAL 20,7 8-40 3,448276 0,4-12 NS
Str 44,8 26,4-64 18,96552 9,9-31 NS
SYN 96,6 82,2-100 82,75862 70,6-91 NS
TET 65,5 45,7-82 25,86207 15,3-39 NS
VAN 0,0 0-12 1,724138 0-9 NS
Table 48. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. faecium from veal calves for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Veal calf 2011,0 N=3 2012 N=100
AMP 0,0
9 4,2-16
CHL 0,0
1 0-5
CIP 0,0
2 0,2-7
ERY 66,7
42 32,2-52
FFN 0,0
2 0,2-7
GEN 0,0
1 0-5
LZD 0,0
0 0-4
SAL 0,0
3 0,6-9
Str 33,3
37 27,6-47
SYN 100,0
82 73,1-89
TET 66,7
47 36,9-57
VAN 0,0
1 0-5
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
72/75
Table 49. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. hirae from poultry for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Poultry 2011 N=48 2012 N=51
AMP 8,3 2,3-20 2 0-10 NS
CHL 8,3 2,3-20 2 0-10 NS
CIP 10,4 3,5-23 0 0-17 NS
ERY 70,8 55,9-83 39,2 25,8-54 S
FFN 2,1 0,1-11 0 0-7 NS
GEN 2,1 0,1-11 0 0-7 NS
LZD 8,3 2,3-20 0 0-7 NS
SAL 37,5 24-53 37,3 24,4-52 NS
Str 27,1 15,3-42 21,6 11,3-35 NS
SYN 95,8 85,7-99 92,2 81,1-98 NS
TET 87,5 74,8-95 51 36,6-65 S
VAN 10,4 3,5-23 0 0-7 NS
Table 50. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. hirae from pigs for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Pigs 2011 N=40 2012 N=85
AMP 27,5 14,6-44 10,6 5-19 NS
CHL 5 0,6-17 2,4 0,3-8 NS
CIP 7,5 1,6-20 1,2 0-6 NS
ERY 60 43,3-75 30,6 21-42 S
FFN 0 0-9 2,4 0,3-8 NS
GEN 0 0-9 1,2 0-6 NS
LZD 5 0,6-17 3,5 0,7-10 NS
SAL 7,5 1,6-20 3,5 0,7-10 NS
Str 47,5 31,5-64 27,1 18-38 NS
SYN 92,5 79,6-98 96,5 90-99 NS
TET 92,5 79,6-98 65,9 54,8-76 S
VAN 5 0,6-17 3,5 0,7-10 NS
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
73/75
Table 51. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. hirae from bovines for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
bovines 2011 N=42 2012 N=61
AMP 11,9 4-26 8,2 2,7-18 NS
CHL 2,4 0,1-13 1,6 0-9 NS
CIP 0,0 0-8 1,6 0-9 NS
ERY 28,6 15,7-45 32,8 21,3-46 NS
FFN 0,0 0-8 0 0-6 NS
GEN 0,0 0-8 1,6 0-9 NS
LZD 9,5 2,7-23 4,9 41640 NS
SAL 7,1 1,5-19 9,8 3,7-30 NS
Str 14,3 5,4-29 24,6 14,5-37 NS
SYN 78,6 63,2-90 72,1 5,9-83 NS
TET 38,1 23,6-54 39,3 27,1-53 NS
VAN 4,8 0,6-16 8,2 2,7-18 NS
Table 52. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. hirae from veal calves for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
veal calf 2011 N=3 2012 N=17
AMP 0,0
5,9 0,1-29
CHL 0,0
11,8 1,5-36
CIP 0,0
5,9 0,1-29
ERY 33,3
41,2 18,4-67
FFN 0,0
5,9 0,1-29
GEN 0,0
0 0-20
LZD 0,0
5,9 0,1-29
SAL 33,3
5,9 0,1-29
Str 33,3
29,4 10,3-56
SYN 66,7
76,5 50,1-93
TET 33,3
41,2 18,4-67
VAN 0,0
5,9 0,1-29
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
74/75
Table 53. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. durans from poultry for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Poultry 2011 N=81 2012 N=14
AMP 23,5 14,4-34 14,3 1,8-43 NS
CHL 1,2 0-7 0 0-23 NS
CIP 8,8 3,5-17 0 0-23 NS
ERY 87,7 78,5-94 64,3 31,5-83 NS
FFN 0,0 0-4 0 0-23 NS
GEN 0,0 0-4 0 0-23 NS
LZD 3,7 0,8-10 0 0-23 NS
SAL 27,2 17,9-38 42,9 17,7-71 NS
Str 48,1 36,9-60 42,9 17,7-71 NS
SYN 91,4 83-96 100 76,8-100 NS
TET 96,3 89,6-99 92,9 66,1-100 NS
VAN 3,7 0,8-10 0 0-23 NS
Table 54. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. durans from pigs for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Pig 2011 N=3 2012 N=15
AMP 27,3
6,7 0,2-32
CHL 0,0
0 0-22
CIP 9,1
0 0,2-32
ERY 72,7
26,7 4,3-48
FFN 0,0
0 0-22
GEN 0,0
0 0,2-32
LZD 0,0
0 0-23
SAL 9,1
0 0-23
Str 54,5
20 4,3-48
SYN 100,0
80 44,9-92
TET 81,8
33,3 11,8-62
VAN 0
0 0-23
CODA-CERVA
Scientific research at the service of safe food production and animal health
75/75
Table 55. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. durans from bovines for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi square
Bovine 2011 N=6 2012 N=15
AMP 16,7
6,7 0,2-32
CHL 16,7
0 0-22
CIP 0,0
6,7 0-22
ERY 50,0
20 7,8-55
FFN 0,0
0 0-22
GEN 0,0
6,7 0-22
LZD 16,7
0 0-22
SAL 16,7
0 0-22
Str 33,3
20 4,3-48
SYN 100,0
73,3 51,9-96
TET 33,3
33,3 11,8-62
VAN 16,7
0 0-22
Table 56. Comparison of resistance prevalence of E. durans fromveal calves for the years 2011 and 2012.
%R CI %R CI Chi Square
Veal calf 2011 N=1 2012 N=10
AMP 0
30 6,7-65
CHL 0
10 0,3-45
CIP 0
0 0-31
ERY 0
50 18,7-81
FFN 0
0 0-31
GEN 0
0 0-31
LZD 0
0 0-31
SAL 0
0 0-31
Str 0
40 12,2-74
SYN 100
70 34,8-93
TET 100
40 12,2-74
VAN 0
0 0-31