| Literature DB >> 27755598 |
Suchawan Pornsukarom1, Siddhartha Thakur1.
Abstract
Land application of swine manure in commercial hog farms is an integral part of their waste management system which recycles the nutrients back to the soil. However, manure application can lead to the dissemination of bacterial pathogens in the environment and pose a serious public health threat. The aim of this study was to determine the dissemination of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella in the environment due to manure application in commercial swine farms in North Carolina (n = 6) and Iowa (n = 7), two leading pork producing states in the US. We collected manure and soil samples twice on day 0 (before and after manure application) from four distinct plots of lands (5 soil samples/plot) located at 20 feet away from each other in the field. Subsequent soil samples were collected again on days 7, 14, 21 from the same plots. A total of 1,300 soil samples (NC = 600; IA = 700) and 130 manure samples (NC = 60; IA = 70) were collected and analyzed in this study. The overall Salmonella prevalence was 13.22% (189/1,430), represented by 10.69% and 38.46% prevalence in soil and manure, respectively. The prevalence in NC (25.45%) was significantly higher than in IA (2.73%) (P<0.001) and a consistent decrease in Salmonella prevalence was detected from Day 0-Day 21 in all the farms that tested positive. Salmonella serotypes detected in NC were not detected in IA, thereby highlighting serotype association based on manure storage and soil application method used in the two regions. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was done by the broth microdilution method to a panel of 15 antimicrobial drugs. A high frequency of isolates (58.73%) were multidrug resistant (resistance to three or more class of antimicrobials) and the most frequent resistance was detected against streptomycin (88.36%), sulfisoxazole (67.2%), and tetracycline (57.67%). Genotypic characterization by pulse field gel electrophoresis revealed clonally related Salmonella in both manure and soil at multiple time points in the positive farms. Our study highlights the potential role of swine manure application in the dissemination and persistence of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella in the environment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27755598 PMCID: PMC5068702 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Salmonella prevalence among North Carolina samples (NCF 1-NCF 6) and Iowa samples (IAF 6) at different time points.
Distribution of Salmonella serotypes by farms at different time points following manure application.
| Farms | Day 0 (n; %) | Day 7 | Day 14 | Day 21 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 189) | Manure | Before | After | |||
| Altona (1; 2.13%) | Altona (5; 10.64%) | Altona (4; 8.51%) | Altona (2; 4.26%) | Altona (2; 4.26%) | ||
| (n = 47) | Mbandaka (1; 2.13%) | Mbandaka (1; 2.13%) | Mbandaka (1; 2.13%) | |||
| Muenster (5; 10.64%) | Muenster (5; 10.64%) | Muenster (3; 6.38%) | Muenster (3; 6.38%) | |||
| Uganda (2; 4.26%) | Uganda (1; 2.13%) | Uganda (1; 2.13%) | ||||
| Worthington (1; 2.13%) | Worthington (8; 17.02%) | Worthington (1; 2.13%) | ||||
| Derby (2; 50%) | ||||||
| (n = 4) | Rough_O:z10:e,n,z15 (1; 25%) | |||||
| Johannesburg (1; 25%) | ||||||
| Derby (1; 1.69%) | Derby (3; 5.08%) | Derby (1; 1.69%) | ||||
| (n = 59) | Johannesburg (4; 6.78%) | Johannesburg (2; 3.39%) | Johannesburg (1; 1.69%) | |||
| Rissen (1; 1.69%) | ||||||
| Typhimurium var5- (2; 3.39%) | Typhimurium var5- (15; 25.42%) | Typhimurium var5- (16; 27.12%) | Typhimurium var5- (8; 13.56%) | |||
| Worthington (5; 8.47%) | ||||||
| 6,7:-:e,n,z15 (1; 3.33%) | ||||||
| (n = 30) | Mbandaka (1; 3.33%) | |||||
| Senftenberg (9; 30%) | Senftenberg (1; 3.33%) | Senftenberg (10; 33.33%) | Senftenberg (6; 20%) | Senftenberg (1; 3.33%) | Senftenberg (1; 3.33%) | |
| Derby (1; 9.09%) | Derby (1; 9.09%) | |||||
| (n = 11) | Ohio (3; 27.27%) | Ohio (4; 36.36%) | ||||
| Ouakam (1; 9.09%) | ||||||
| Typhimurium var5- (1; 9.09%) | ||||||
| 4,12:i:- (1; 5.88%) | ||||||
| (n = 17) | Rissen (9; 52.94%) | Rissen (7; 41.18%) | ||||
| Anatum (10; 47.62%) | Anatum (2; 9.52%) | Anatum (1; 4.76%) | ||||
| (n = 21) | Infantis (1; 4.76%) | |||||
| Litchfield (6; 28.57%) | Litchfield (1; 4.76%) | |||||
a Manure (NCF 1–6) in North Carolina is stored in lagoons while in Iowa (IAF 6), it is stored in the form of slurry in pits.
b Soil samples
c The percentage was calculated within each commercial swine farm.
Comparison of resistance and MIC distribution for Salmonella isolated in North Carolina and Iowa (NC = 168; IA = 21).
| AM | Origin | %R | [95% CI] | Distribution of MICs in μg/mL (%) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.015 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | 512 | ||||
| NC | 25.60 | [19.0–32.2] | 51.8 | 1.8 | 13.7 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 23.2 | |||||||||
| IA | 14.29 | [-0.7–29.3] | 33.3 | 0.0 | 42.9 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 14.3 | |||||||||
| NC | 7.14 | [3.3–11.0] | 61.3 | 0.0 | 40.7 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 24.4 | 4.2 | 3.6 | |||||||||
| IA | 14.29 | [-0.7–29.3] | 66.7 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 9.5 | |||||||||
| NC | 5.36 | [2.0–8.8] | 91.1 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 | ||||||||
| IA | 23.81 | [5.6–42.0] | 76.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 4.7 | 4.7 | ||||||||
| NC | 0 | [0.0] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 18.5 | 57.1 | 20.2 | 1.2 | |||||||||
| IA | 0 | [0.0] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 0.0 | |||||||||
| NC | 1.19 | [-0.5–2.8] | 0.0 | 17.9 | 79.8 | 1.2 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||
| IA | 0 | [0.0] | 0.0 | 9.5 | 85.7 | 4.8 | 0.0 | ||||||||||||
| NC | 0 | [0.0] | 79.2 | 19.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||
| IA | 0 | [0.0] | 47.6 | 47.6 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||
| NC | 73.21 | [66.5–79.9] | 3.0 | 2.4 | 14.9 | 6.0 | 0.6 | 73.2 | |||||||||||
| IA | 19.05 | [2.3–35.9] | 0.0 | 9.5 | 23.8 | 14.3 | 33.3 | 19.0 | |||||||||||
| NC | 6.55 | [2.8–10.3] | 0.0 | 0.6 | 18.5 | 66.7 | 5.4 | 2.4 | 4.2 | 2.4 | |||||||||
| IA | 19.05 | [2.3–35.9] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.0 | 52.4 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 9.5 | 9.5 | |||||||||
| NC | 17.26 | [11.6–23.0] | 1.8 | 54.8 | 25.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 16.1 | |||||||||
| IA | 0 | [0.0] | 28.6 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||||
| NC | 47.02 | [39.5–54.6] | 51.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 3.6 | 43.5 | |||||||||||
| IA | 14.29 | [-0.7–29.3] | 81.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 14.3 | |||||||||||
| NC | 0 | [0.0] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.3 | 56.0 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.0 | ||||||||||
| IA | 0 | [0.0] | 0.0 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 85.7 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||||
| NC | 89.29 | [84.6–94.0] | 10.7 | 13.1 | 76.2 | ||||||||||||||
| IA | 80.95 | [64.2–97.8] | 19.0 | 0.0 | 81.0 | ||||||||||||||
| NC | 5.36 | [2.0–8.8] | 71.4 | 1.2 | 14.3 | 7.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.4 | |||||||||
| IA | 4.76 | [-4.4–13.9] | 95.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.8 | |||||||||
| NC | 5.36 | [2.0–8.8] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.2 | 72.6 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 5.4 | ||||||||||
| IA | 23.81 | [3.04–13.2] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 71.4 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 23.8 | ||||||||||
| NC | 63.69 | [56.4–71.0] | 19.6 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 61.3 | |||||||||||
| IA | 9.52 | [35.8–54.3] | 90.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 4.8 | |||||||||||
The vertical bars indicate the breakpoints for resistance.
a amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (AUG2; 1/0.5-32/16 μg/ml), ampicilin (AMP; 1–32 μg/ml), azithromycin (AZI; 0.12–16 μg/ml), cefoxitin (FOX; 0.5–32 μg/ml), ceftiofur (XNL; 0.12–8 μg/ml), ceftriaxone (AXO; 0.25–64 μg/ml), chloramphenicol (CHL; 2–32 μg/ml), ciprofloxacin (CIP; 0.015–4 μg/ml), gentamicin (GEN; 0.25–16 μg/ml), kanamycin (KAN; 8–64 μg/ml), nalidixic acid (NAL; 0.5–32 μg/ml), streptomycin (STR; 32–64 μg/ml), sulfisoxazole (FIS; 16–256 μg/ml), trimetroprim/sulfamethoxazole (SXT; 0.12/2.38-4/76 μg/ml), and tetracycline (TET; 4–32 μg/ml)
b Percent resistant isolates to each antimicrobial in a state.
Distribution of Salmonella serotypes associated with predominant R-patterns.
| Predominant patterns | Manure n(%) | Soil n(%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typhimurium var5- | AMP FIS KAN STR (19) | 2 (10.53) | 17 (89.47) |
| FIS KAN STR (17) | 0 | 17 (100) | |
| AMP AUG2 FIS KAN STR (2) | 0 | 2 (100) | |
| FIS KAN STR TET (2) | 0 | 2 (100) | |
| AMP CHL FIS KAN STR TET (1) | 1 (100) | 0 | |
| AMP FIS STR (1) | 0 | 1 (100) | |
| Senftenberg | FIS STR TET (25) | 7 (28.0) | 18 (72.0) |
| AMP FIS STR TET (2) | 2 (100) | 0 | |
| AMP AUG2 FIS FOX KAN STR TET (1) | 0 | 1 (100) | |
| Worthington | FIS GEN KAN STR TET (9) | 0 | 9 (100) |
| STR TET (5) | 0 | 5 (100) | |
| FIS GEN KAN STR SXT TET (1) | 0 | 1 (100) | |
| Rissen | STR TET (15) | 9 (60) | 6 (40) |
| AMP CHL FIS STR SXT TET (1) | 1 (100) | 0 | |
| AMP STR TET (1) | 0 | 1 (100) | |
| Anatum | Pan-susceptible (3) | 3 (100) | 0 |
| STR (3) | 1 (33.33) | 2 (66.67) | |
| AMP AUG2 AXO FOX KAN STR XNL (2) | 2 (100) | 0 | |
| FIS STR (2) | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | |
| AMP AXO FIS STR XNL (1) | 1 (100) | 0 | |
| AUG2 AXO FOX KAN STR XNL (1) | 1 (100) | 0 | |
| AXO FOX XNL (1) | 1 (100) | 0 |
a ampicillin (AMP), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (AUG2), cefoxitin (FOX), ceftiofur (XNL), ceftriaxone (AXO), chloramphenicol (CHL), kanamycin (KAN), streptomycin (STR), sulfisoxazole (FIS), trimetroprim/sulfamethoxazole (SXT), and tetracycline (TET)
b number of isolates (percent resistant to a specific R-pattern)
1 Salmonella serotypes isolated from commercial swine farms in North Carolina.
2 Salmonella serotype isolated from commercial swine farm in Iowa.
Fig 2Phylogenetic analysis representing PFGE-XbaI with antimicrobial resistant patterns of Salmonella Senftenberg from NCF 4 at 90% cut-off genotypic similarity (Cluster A).
Fig 4Phylogenetic analysis representing PFGE-XbaI with antimicrobial resistant patterns of Salmonella Rissen from NCF 3&6 at 90% cut-off genotypic similarity (Cluster F).
Fig 3Phylogenetic analysis representing PFGE-XbaI with antimicrobial resistant patterns of Salmonella Altona from NCF 1 at 90% cut-off genotypic similarity (Cluster B).