Table 1. Resistance percentage of isolates for five pre-selected antimicrobial agents.
| Isolates (n) | MIC range (mg/l) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAL | FLU | ENR | CIP | MOX | ||
| Total (1,221) | ||||||
| MIC50 | 512 | 16 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | |
| MIC90 | >1,024 | 1,024 | 128 | 64 | 64 | |
| R% | 76.4 | 74.3 | 50.6 | 42.3 | 51.3 | |
| Swine (583) | ||||||
| MIC50 | 512 | 16 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | |
| MIC90 | >1,024 | 1,024 | 128 | 64 | 32 | |
| R% | 72.0a) | 71.2a) | 47.5a) | 39.8a) | 46.7a) | |
| Chicken (515) | ||||||
| MIC50 | >1,024 | 512 | 4 | 2 | 4 | |
| MIC90 | >1,024 | >1,024 | 128 | 64 | 64 | |
| R% | 81.9a,b) | 78.8a,b) | 55.2a,c) | 49.5a,c) | 57.3a–c) | |
| Turkey (42) | ||||||
| MIC50 | >1,024 | 32 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | |
| MIC90 | >1,024 | 1,024 | 32 | 16 | 16 | |
| R% | 81.0 | 69.1 | 45.2 | 45.2 | 50.0 | |
| Duck (25) | ||||||
| MIC50 | 512 | 16 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
| MIC90 | >1,024 | 1024 | 32 | 16 | 16 | |
| R% | 64.0b) | 64.0b) | 44.0 | 40.0 | 44.0b) | |
| Goose (56) | ||||||
| MIC50 | >1,024 | 16 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | |
| MIC90 | >1,024 | 1024 | 32 | 16 | 16 | |
| R% | 73.2 | 73.2 | 48.2c) | 39.3c) | 48.2c) | |
NAL: Nalidixic acid, FLU: Flumequine, ENR: Enrofloxacin, CIP: Ciprofloxacin, MOX: Moxifloxacin. a) The results of MICs between swine and chicken were significant difference calculated by student t-test (P<0.05). b) The results of MICs between chicken and duck were significant difference calculated by student t-test (P<0.05). c) The results of MICs between chicken and goose were significant difference calculated by student t-test (P<0.05).