Volume 62 Supplement 4
Treatment of mastitis during lactation
© The Author(s) 2009
Published: 1 April 2009
Treatment of mastitis should be based on bacteriological diagnosis and take national and international guidelines on prudent use of antimicrobials into account. In acute mastitis, where bacteriological diagnosis is not available, treatment should be initiated based on herd data and personal experience. Rapid bacteriological diagnosis would facilitate the proper selection of the antimicrobial. Treating subclinical mastitis with antimicrobials during lactation is seldom economical, because of high treatment costs and generally poor efficacy. All mastitis treatment should be evidence-based, i.e., the efficacy of each product and treatment length should be demonstrated by scientific studies. Use of on-farm written protocols for mastitis treatment promotes a judicious use of antimicrobials and reduces the use of antimicrobials.
Keywordsantibiotic antimicrobial bovine intramammary lactation mastitis systemic therapy treatment
Intramammary infection (mastitis) is the most common reason for the use of antimicrobials in dairy cows [31, 17]. Antimicrobials have been used to treat mastitis for more than fifty years, but consensus about the most efficient, safe, and economical treatment is still lacking. The concept of evidence-based medicine has been introduced to veterinary medicine  and should apply also to treatment of mastitis. The impact on public health should be taken into account as dairy cows produce milk for consumption . The aim of this article is to review current treatments of mastitis during lactation and seek for evidence-based, best practice treatment recommendations for bovine mastitis.
Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations
The bovine mammary gland is a difficult target for antimicrobial treatment. Penetration of substances into milk when administered parenterally or absorption and distribution throughout the udder when infused intramammarily (IMM) depends on their pharmacokinetic characteristics. These are lipid solubility, degree of ionization, extent of binding to serum and udder proteins, and the type of vehicle. Antimicrobial treatment of dairy cows creates residues into milk, and residue avoidance is an important aspect of mastitis treatment .
Pharmacodynamics of the antimicrobial is another aspect which should be considered. Milk should not interfere with antimicrobial activity. The activity of macrolides, tetracyclines and trimethoprim-sulphonamides has been shown to be reduced in milk [28, 13]. Selecting a substance with a low minimum inhibitory concentraton (MIC) value for the target pathogen is preferable, particularly when the antimicrobial is administered systemically. The antimicrobial should have bactericidal rather than bacteriostatic action, because phagocytosis is impaired in the mammary gland .
Antimicrobial susceptibility determined in vitro has been considered as a prerequisite for treatment. However, activity in vitro does not guarantee efficacy in vivo when treating bovine mastitis. Antimicrobial resistance amongst mastitis pathogens has not yet emerged as a clinically relevant issue, but geographical regions may differ in this respect. The biggest problem is the widespread resistance of staphylococci, particularly Staphylococcus aureus, to penicillin G [38, 35, 20]. Cure rates for mastitis caused by penicillin-resistant strains of S. aureus seem to be inferior to those of mastitis due to penicillin-susceptible strains [59, 42, 50, 52]. It is not known if this is due to pharmacologic problems of the drugs used, or virulence factors possibly linked to β-lactamase gene of the resistant isolates . Using an in vitro β-lactamase test for determining resistance to penicillin G of staphylococci before treatment is recommended .
Coagulase-negative staphylococci tend to be more resistant than S. aureus and easily develop multiresistance [38, 47]. Mastitis causing streptococci have remained susceptible to penicillin G, but emerging resistance to macrolides and lincosamides has been detected [38, 27]. Antimicrobial susceptibility of coliform bacteria varies but normally is not a limiting factor for therapy [25, 14, 55].
Intramammary or Systemic Administration?
Where to target antimicrobial therapy in clinical mastitis due to different pathogens 
Arcanobacterium pyogenes (summer mastitis)
The systemic route of administration has been suggested to be more efficient than IMM for the treatment of clinical mastitis as antimicrobials theoretically have better penetration of the udder tissue by this route [59, 9]. However, it is difficult to attain and maintain therapeutic concentrations in milk or udder tissue following systemic administration. Very few substances have optimal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics for systemic mastitis treatment. With many commonly used broad-spectrum antimicrobials such as oxytetracycline, trimethoprim-sulphonamide and ceftiofur, it is difficult to produce and maintain therapeutic concentrations in the milk [12, 23]. They have been tested for systemic treatment and prevention of mastitis with poor efficacy [10, 23, 7, 26]. Macrolides would have ideal pharmacokinetics [16, 45], but clinical studies have failed to demonstrate efficacy when used for the systemic treatment of clinical mastitis [42, 36]. In streptococcal mastitis, spiramycin and tylosin have shown reasonable efficacy [42, 30]. One additional problem for the bovine practitioner is that the recommended dosage for many antibiotic preparations for adult cattle may be too low when pharmacological aspects are considered, but residue studies have been carried out using the approved dosages. Repeated intramuscular injections of large volumes of antibiotics can be irritating and cannot be recommended from the animal welfare point of view [41, 23].
One substance used for systemic treatment is penicillin G, which as a weak acid penetrates poorly into the mammary gland, however, due to the very low MIC values of susceptible organisms, therapeutic concentrations can be achieved in milk [15, 16, 60]. Penethamate is a more liphophilic penicillin G formulation and diffuses better than penicillin G procaine into milk . The efficacy of systemic treatment with penicillin G or penethamate has been shown in clinical trials [21, 54, 42, 30]. Combinations of penicillin and aminoglycosides should not be used, as there is no scientific evidence demonstrating a better efficacy for the combination  and aminoglycosides are known to produce long-lasting residues [22, 57].
The only type of mastitis where systemic treatment would be clearly advantageous may be mastitis caused by S. aureus [52, 2]. In severe mastitis due to coliform bacteria, parenteral administration of antimicrobials has been suggested to combat bacteraemia . The general benefit of antimicrobial treatment in coliform mastitis has been questioned [22, 40], but systemic antimicrobial treatment is recommended in cases of severe Escherichia coli mastitis with heavy bacterial growth in the udder. Fluroquinolones and cefquinome have shown efficacy in experimental trials [49, 6, 43, 39] and ceftiofur in a clinical field trial . There is no evidence that administering bactericidal antimicrobials to cows with severe coliform mastitis causes the release of massive amounts of endotoxin . Finally, the antimicrobial used for systemic treatment of mastitis must be approved for dairy cattle. The availability of substances on the market differs between countries. For example, penicillin G procaine or fluoroquinolones are not approved for dairy cattle in the United States.
Treatment of Clinical Mastitis in Practice
Treatment of mastitis should be targeted towards the causative bacteria whenever possible, but in acute situations, treatment is initiated based on herd data and personal experience. Rapid or on-farm bacteriological diagnosis would facilitate the selection of the most appropriate antimicrobial. Treatment protocols and drug selection for each farm should be made by veterinarians familiar with the farm [46, 55]. The use of on-farm written protocols for mastitis treatment can promote judicious use of antimicrobials [44, 37]. Therapeutic response of the cows can be monitored using individual somatic cell count data if available, or using the California Mastitis Test, and with bacteriological samples in herds with contagious mastitis.
Suggestions for antimicrobial treatment of clinical mastitis due to different pathogens. The availability of substance on the market mentioned in the table may differ between countries
Drug of choice
IMM treatment preferable.
According to susceptibility testing
Prognosis for bacteriological cure is poor
Coagulase negative staphylococci
Combination treatment in S. aureus mastitis
Coagulase negative staphylococci
Cloxacillin Macrolides Lincosamides
IMM and/or systemic treatment depending on the drug used. Prognosis for S. aureus mastitis is poor. Cloxacillin may select for methicillin-resistant
Escherichia coli Klebsiella spp.
Antimicrobials necessary in serious cases and during puerperal period
Treating subclinical mastitis with antimicrobials is generally not economical during lactation because of high treatment costs and poor efficacy. In a study with a large number of subclinical mastitis cases , the overall bacteriological cure rate for antimicrobial treatment was 75% and that for no treatment 68%. The marginal benefit applied for streptococcal mastitis only; in mastitis due to S. aureus, antimicrobials were equal to no treatment. Treatment of subclinical mastitis will not affect the incidence of mastitis in the herd unless other preventive measures are taken. Studies on treating cows based on high somatic cell counts have generally shown that no effect on milk production has been achieved [29, 48, 18] In herd problems caused by very contagious bacteria such as S. aureus or Streptococcus agalactiae treatment of subclinical mastitis is advised .
- Anonymous: Use of antimicrobial agents in animals. Report of the working group on antimicrobial agents. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Finland. MAFF Publications 9. [Online] Helsinki, MAFF. 2003, [Accessed February 20 2006], [http://wwwb.mmm.fi/julkaisut/tyoryhmamuistiot/2003/tr2003_9.pdf]Google Scholar
- Barkema H, Schukken YH, Zadoks RN: 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. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72256-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cockcroft P, Holmes M: Evidence-based veterinary medicine. 2003, Oxford UK, Blackwell Publishing, 1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Deluyker HA, Van Oye SN, Boucher JF: Factors affecting cure and somatic cell count after pirlimycin treatment of subclinical mastitis in lactating cows. J Dairy Sci. 2005, 88: 604-614. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72724-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dosogne H, Meyer E, Sturk A, et al: Effect of enrofloxacin treatment on plasma endotoxin during bovine Escherichia coli mastitis. Inflamm Res. 2002, 51: 201-205. 10.1007/PL00000293.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Duenas MI, Paape MJ, Wettemann RP, et al: Incidence of mastitis in beef cows after intramuscular administration of oxytetracycline. J Anim Sci. 2001, 79: 1996-2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ehinger AM, Kietzmann M: Tissue distribution of oxacillin and ampicillin in the isolated perfused bovine udder. J Vet Med A. 2000, 47: 157-168. 10.1046/j.1439-0442.2000.00272.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ehinger AM, Kietzmann M: Tissue distribution of benzylpenicillin after intramammary administration in the isolated perfused bovine udder. J vet Pharm Therap. 2000, 23: 303-310. 10.1046/j.1365-2885.2000.00274.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Erskine RJ: Antibacterial therapy of clinical mastitis - part I. Drug selection. Part II Administration. North Am Vet Conf, Proc. 2003, 13-16.Google Scholar
- Erskine RJ, Barlett PC: Intramuscular administration of ceftiofur sodium versus intramammary infusion of penicillin/novobiocin for treatment of Streptococcus agalactiae mastitis in dairy cows. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996, 208: 258-260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Erskine RJ, Barlett PC, VanLente JL, et al: Efficacy of systemic ceftiofur for severe clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2002, 85: 2571-2575. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74340-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Erskine RJ, Wilson RC, Tyler JW, et al: Ceftiofur distribution in serum and milk from clinically normal cows and cows with experimental Escherichia coli - induced mastitis. Am J Vet Res. 1995, 56: 481-486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fang W, Pyörälä S: Mastitis causing Escherichia coli: serum sensitivity and susceptibility to selected antibacterials in milk. J Dairy Sci. 1996, 79: 76-82. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76336-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Finnish veterinary antimicrobial resistance monitoring and comsumption of antimicrobial agents. Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira [Internet] Helsinki, Multiprint. 2007, [Accessed January 31 2009], [http://www.palvelu.fi/evi/files/55_519_523.pdf]
- Franklin A, Holmberg O, Horn af Rantzien M, et al: Effect of procaine benzylpenicillin alone or in combination with dihydrostreptomycin on udder pathogens in vitro and in experimentally infected bovine udders. Am J Vet Res. 1984, 45: 1398-1402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Franklin A, Horn af Rantzien M, Obel N, et al: Concentrations of penicillin, streptomycin, and spiramycin in bovine udder tissue liquids. Am J Vet Res. 1986, 47: 804-807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grave T, Greko C, et al: The usage of veterinary antibacterial drugs for mastitis in cattle in Norway and Sweden during 1990-1997. Prev Vet Med. 1999, 42: 45-55. 10.1016/S0167-5877(99)00057-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hallén Sandgren C, Persson Waller K, Emanuelson U: Therapeutic effects of systemic or intramammary antimicrobial treatment of bovine subclinical mastitis during lactation. Vet J. 2008, 175: 108-117. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2006.12.005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haveri M, Roslöf A, Rantala L, et al: Virulence genes in bovine Staphylococcus aureus mastitis of different clinical characteristics and outcome. J Appl Microb. 2005, 103: 993-1000. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03356.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hendriksen RS, Mevius DJ, Schroeter A, et al: Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among bacterial pathogens isolated from cattle in different European countries: 2002-2004. Acta Vet Scand. 2008, 50: 28-10.1186/1751-0147-50-28. [http://www.actavetscand.com/content/50/1/28]PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jarp J, Bugge HP, Larsen S: Clinical trial of three therapeutic regimens for bovine mastitis. Vet Rec. 1989, 124: 630-634. 10.1136/vr.124.24.630.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jones GF, Ward GE: Evaluation of systemic administration of gentamicin for treatment of coliform mastitis in cows. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1990, 197: 731-735.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kaartinen L, Löhönen K, Wiese B, et al: Pharmacokinetics of sulphadiazine-trimethoprim in lactating dairy cows. Acta vet Scand. 1999, 40: 271-278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kehrli M, Harp J: Immunity in the mammary gland. Vet Clinics North Am - Food Animal Practice. 2001, 17: 495-516.Google Scholar
- Lehtolainen T, Shpigel N, Pohjanvirta T, et al: In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli isolates originating from clinical mastitis in Finland and Israel. J Dairy Sci. 2003, 86: 3927-3932. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)74001-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lents CA, Wettemann RP, Paape MJ, et al: Efficacy of intramuscular treatment of beef cows with oxytetracycline to reduce mastitis and to increase calf growth. J Anim Sci. 2002, 80: 1405-1412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Loch IM, Glenn K, Zadoks RN: Macrolide and lincosamide resistance genes of environmental streptococci from bovine milk. Vet Microb. 2005, 111: 133-138. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.09.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Louhi M, Inkinen K, Myllys V, et al: Relevance of sensitivity testings (MIC) of S. aureus to predict the antibacterial action in milk. J Vet Med B. 1992, 39: 253-262. 10.1111/j.1439-0450.1992.tb01166.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McDermott MP, Erb HN, Natzke RP, et al: Cost benefit analysis of lactation therapy with somatic cell counts as indications for treatment. J Dairy Sci. 1983, 66: 1198-1203. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(83)81919-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McDougall S, Agnew KE, Cursons R, et al: Parenteral treatment of clinical mastitis with tylosin base or penethamate hydriodide in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2007, 90: 779-789. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71562-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell JM, Griffiths MW, McEwen SA, et al: Antimicrobial drug residues in milk and meat: causes, concerns, prevalence, regulations, tests and test performance. J Food Protect. 1998, 61: 742-756.Google Scholar
- Moretain JP, Boisseau J: Excretion of penicillins and cephalexin in bovine milk following intramammary administration. Food Add Contamin. 1989, 6: 79-90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- OIE: Guidelines on the responsible and prudent use of antimicrobial agents in veterinary medicine. 2008, [Accessed September 25 2008], [http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/Mcode/en_chapitre_1.6.7.htm]Google Scholar
- Oliver SP, Almeida RA, Gillespie BE, et al: Extended ceftiofur therapy for treatment of experimentally-induced Streptococcus uberis mastitis in lactating dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2004, 87: 3322-3329. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73468-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Olsen JE, Christensen H, Aarestrup FM: Diversity and evolution of blaZ from Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006, 57: 450-460. 10.1093/jac/dki492.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Owens WE, Nickerson SC, Ray CH: Efficacy of parenterally or intramammarily administered tilmicosin or ceftiofur against Staphylococcus aureus mastitis during lactation. J Dairy Sci. 1999, 82: 645-647. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75279-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Passantino A: Ethical aspects for veterinarians regarding antimicrobial drug use in Italy. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007, 29: 240-244. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2006.09.023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pitkälä A, Haveri M, Pyörälä S, et al: Bovine mastitis in Finland 2001 -- prevalence, distribution of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance. J Dairy Sci. 2004, 87: 2433-2441. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73366-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Poutrel B, Stegemann MR, Roy O, et al: Evaluation of the efficacy of systemic danofloxacin in the treatment of induced acute Escherichia coli bovine mastitis. Journal of Dairy Research. 2008, 75: 310-318. 10.1017/S0022029908003348.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pyörälä S, Kaartinen L, Käck H, et al: Efficacy of Two Therapy Regimes for Treatment of Experimentally Induced Escherichia coli Mastitis in the Bovine. J Dairy Sci. 1994, 77: 453-461. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)76973-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pyörälä S, Manner E, Kesti E, et al: Local tissue damage in cows after intramuscular injections of eight different antimicrobial agents. Brief communication. Acta vet Scand. 1994, 35: 107-110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pyörälä S, Pyörälä E: Efficacy of parenteral administration of three antimicrobial agents in treatment of clinical mastitis in lactating cows: 487 cases: (1989-1995). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1998, 212: 407-412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rantala M, Kaartinen L, Välimäki E, et al: Efficacy and pharmacokinetics of enrofloxacin and flunixin meglumine for treatment of cows with experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis. J vet Pharmacol Therap. 2002, 25: 251-258. 10.1046/j.1365-2885.2002.00411.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Raymond MJ, Wohlre RD, Call DR: Assessment and Promotion of Judicious Antibiotic Use on Dairy Farms in Washington State. J Dairy Sci. 2006, 89: 3228-3240. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72598-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sanders P, Moulin G, Guillot P, et al: Pharmacokinetics of spiramycin after intravenous, intramuscular and subcutaneous administration in lactating cows. J vet Pharmacol Therap. 1992, 15: 53-61. 10.1111/j.1365-2885.1992.tb00986.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sawant AA, Sordillo LM, Jayarao BM: A survey on antibiotic usage in dairy herds in Pennsylvania. J Dairy Sci. 2005, 88: 2991-2999. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72979-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sawant AA, Gillespie BE, Oliver SP: Antimicrobial susceptibility of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species isolated from bovine milk. Vet Microb. 2009, 134: 73-81. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.09.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shephard RW, Malmo J, Pfeiffer DU: A clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment of lactating cows with high somatic cell counts in their milk. Austr Vet J. 2000, 78: 763-768. 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2000.tb10448.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shpigel NY, Levin D, Winkler M, et al: Efficacy of cefquinome for treatment of cows with mastitis experimentally induced using Escherichia coli. J Dairy Sci. 1997, 80: 318-323. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)75941-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sol J, Sampimon OC, Barkema HW, et al: Factors associated with cure after therapy of clinical mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. J Dairy Sci. 2000, 83: 278-284. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74875-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Taponen S, Dredge K, Henriksson B, et al: Efficacy of intramammary treatment with procaine penicillin G vs. procaine penicillin plus neomycin in bovine clinical mastitis caused by penicillin-susceptible, gram-positive bacteria - a double blind field study. J vet Pharm Therap. 2002, 26: 193-198. 10.1046/j.1365-2885.2003.00473.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Taponen S, Jantunen A, Pyörälä E, et al: Efficacy of targeted five day parenteral and intramammary treatment of clinical Staphylococcus aureus mastitis caused by penicillin-susceptible or penicillin-resistant bacterial isolate. Acta vet Scand. 2003, 44: 53-62. 10.1186/1751-0147-44-53.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ullberg S, Hansson E, Funke H: Distribution of penicillin in mastitic udders following intramammary injection - an autoradiographic study. Am J Vet Res. 1958, 19: 84-92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Waage S: Comparison of two regimens for the treatment of clinical bovine mastitis caused by bacteria sensitive to penicillin. Vet Rec. 1997, 141: 616-620.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wagner S, Erskine R: Antimicrobial drug use in bovine mastitis. Antimicrobial Therapy in Veterinary Medicine. Edited by: Giguère S, Prescott JD, Baggot RD, et al. 2006, Oxford, Blackwell, 4Google Scholar
- Wenz JR, Barrington GM, Garry FB, et al: Bacteraemia associated with naturally occurring acute coliform mastitis in dairy cows. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001, 219: 976-981. 10.2460/javma.2001.219.976.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Whittem T, Hanlon D: Dihydrostreptomycin or streptomycin in combination with penicillin in dairy cattle therapeutics: a review and re-analysis of published data, Part 1: Clinical pharmacology. New Zealand Vet J. 1997, 45: 178-184. 10.1080/00480169.1997.36022.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wilson DJ, Gonzalez RN, Case KL, et al: Comparison of seven antibiotic treatments with no treatment for bacteriological efficacy against bovine mastitis pathogens. J Dairy Sci. 1999, 82: 1664-1670. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75395-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ziv G: Drug selection and use in mastitis: systemic vs. local therapy. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1980, 176: 1109-1115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ziv G, Storper M: Intramuscular treatment of subclinical staphylococcal mastitis in lactating cows with penicillin G, methicillin and their esters. J vet Pharmacol Therap. 1985, 8: 276-283. 10.1111/j.1365-2885.1985.tb00957.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar