## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Farm**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Positive Samples**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Antibiotic \({}^{2}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**MDR**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-13}  & **per Type** & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline D & Outer shell 3 & & & & & & & & & & \\  & Concentrated Feed & & & & & & & & & & \\  & Maize & & & & & & & & & & \\  & Alfalfa hay pellet 1 & & & & & & & & & & \\  & Alfalfa hay pellet 2 & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & Total Farm D & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 & 0 of 5 \\ \hline E & Concentrated Feed & + & & & & & & & & & \\  & Maize & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & Total Farm E & 1 of 2 & 0 of 2 & 0 of 2 & 0 of 2 & 0 of 2 & 0 of 2 & 0 of 2 & 0 of 2 & 0 of 2 & 0 of 2 \\ \hline  & 1 of & 1 of & 0 of & 0 of & 1 of & 0 of & 0 of & 0 of & 0 of & 0 of \\  & 14 & 14 & 14 & 14 & 14 & 14 & 14 & 14 & 14 & 14 \\  & 7.1\% & 7.1\% & 0\% & 0\% & 7.1\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Samples collected from the ring (outer) or the bottom (inner) of the milking shell. \({}^{2}\) SXT: trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole; CN: gentamicin; CIP: ciprofloxacin; AM: ampicillin; AMC: amoxicillin-clavulanic acid; FOX: cefovitin; CAZ: ceftazoline; MEM: meropenem; CTX: cefotaxime.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._support of this, it is perhaps worth reporting that the analysis conducted in the milking shells concluded to MDR isolates in 6 of the 12 AMR _Staphylococci_-positive samples (50%). Notably, 4 of the 6 MDR _Staphylococci_ isolates (66.7%) were detected in one farm (Farm D), which hosted 50% (6 of 12) of all the detected AMR _Staphylococci_ isolates. This can be considered to constitute a strong indication of poor antimicrobial stewardship in the certain farm, for which, as mentioned above, positivity of a milking shell swab to _E. coli_ was proposed as an indication of poor hygiene. In corroborating the use of milking sells as a sampling point to assess AMR emergence within a farm, it is perhaps worth referring to a CoNS AMR isolate in Farm A, which was not detected in the samples collected from the milk tank and was the only AMR _Staphylococcus_ isolate detected to be resistant to cefoxitin, hence potentially being of particular significance in terms of animal and public health protection [9; 10]. The analysis of the samples of feeds and of their ingredients provided positive results for _E. coli_ in Farms C-E, and for _Staphylococci_ in Farm A. The certain category of samples (feeds and their ingredients) was negative to the targeted pathogens only in Farm B (Tables 2 and 3). Contrary to our previous investigation that indicated heavy contamination of feeds with AMR isolates of the targeted pathogens, in this study, the positivity of the certain indicator was negligible, with only one positive _E. coli_ isolate in Farm E. In speculating the cause of the improved AMR profile of the feeds tested in this study compared to those of our previous one, it is worth noting that to avoid seasonal positivity variations, sample collection was conducted in both studies between June and August. In the year that passed between the previous study and this investigation, the study farms were instructed to adopt measures to improve storage conditions of feeds, including infrastructure improvements for better ventilation and pest control. These suggestions were followed to a level that cannot fully justify the inconsistency between the two studies.