| Literature DB >> 28278292 |
Idowu Oluwabunmi Fagbamila1, Lisa Barco2, Marzia Mancin2, Jacob Kwaga3, Sati Samuel Ngulukun1, Paola Zavagnin2, Antonia Anna Lettini2, Monica Lorenzetto2, Paul Ayuba Abdu4, Junaidu Kabir3, Jarlath Umoh3, Antonia Ricci2, Maryam Muhammad1.
Abstract
Commercial poultry farms (n° 523), located in all the six regions of Nigeria were sampled with a view to generate baseline information about the distribution of Salmonella serovars in this country. Five different matrices (litter, dust, faeces, feed and water) were collected from each visited farm. Salmonella was isolated from at least one of the five matrices in 228 farms, with a farm prevalence of 43.6% (CI95[39.7-48.3%]). Altogether, 370 of 2615 samples collected (14.1%, CI95[12.8; 15.5%]) contained Salmonella. Considering the number of positive farms and the number of positive samples, it was evident that for the majority of the sampled farms, few samples were positive for Salmonella. With regard to the matrices, there was no difference in Salmonella prevalence among the five matrices considered. Of the 370 isolates serotyped, eighty-two different serotypes were identified and Salmonella Kentucky was identified as having the highest isolation rate in all the matrices sampled (16.2%), followed by S. Poona and S. Elisabethville. S. Kentucky was distributed across the country, whereas the other less frequent serovars had a more circumscribed diffusion. This is one of few comprehensive studies on the occurrence and distribution of Salmonella in commercial chicken layer farms from all the six regions of Nigeria. The relatively high prevalence rate documented in this study may be attributed to the generally poor infrastructure and low biosecurity measures in controlling stray animals, rodents and humans. Data collected could be valuable for instituting effective intervention strategies for Salmonella control in Nigeria and also in other developing countries with a similar poultry industry structure, with the final aim of reducing Salmonella spread in animals and ultimately in humans.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28278292 PMCID: PMC5344354 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173097
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Number of samples collected, number of farms sampled and prevalence of Salmonella per state.
| State | Number of farms as provided by the FDLVS | No. of farms sampled | No. of samples collected | No. of infected farms (%) | No. of positive samples (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ogun | 1363 | 110 | 550 | 72 (65.4) | 135 (24.5) |
| Lagos | 310 | 25 | 125 | 14 (56.0) | 19 (15.2) |
| Edo | 223 | 18 | 90 | 2 (11.1) | 3 (3.3) |
| Rivers | 273 | 22 | 110 | 11 (50.0) | 13 (11.8) |
| Enugu | 471 | 38 | 190 | 18 (47.4) | 31 (16.3) |
| Imo | 322 | 26 | 130 | 10 (38.5) | 15 (11.5) |
| Gombe | 136 | 11 | 55 | 3 (27.3) | 3 (5.5) |
| Bauchi | 260 | 21 | 105 | 12 (57.1) | 19 (18.1) |
| Plateau | 917 | 74 | 370 | 26 (35.1) | 40 (10.8) |
| Kaduna | 1351 | 109 | 545 | 33 (30.3) | 55 (10.1) |
| Kano | 558 | 45 | 225 | 21 (46.7) | 31(13.8) |
| Katsina | 297 | 24 | 120 | 6 (25.0) | 6 (5.0) |
Fig 1Distribution of Salmonella species across the twelve selected states in Nigeria.
(A) Distribution of Salmonella spp. (B) Distribution of S. Poona (C) Distribution of S. Kentucky (D) Distribution of S. Elizabethville.
Number and type of positive matrices per farm.
| No of positive matrices per farm | No of farms (%) | Details of the positive matrices |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 155 (68) | feed (34); litter (31); faeces (31); dust (30); water (29) |
| 2 | 50 (21.9) | litter-dust (5); litter-faeces (8); litter-feed (5); litter-water (1); dust-faeces (9); dust-feed (4); dust-water (2); faeces-feed (9); faeces-water (3); feed-water (4) |
| 3 | 18 (7.9) | litter-dust-faeces (2); litter-dust-feed (1); litter-dust-water (2); litter-faeces-feed (4); litter-faeces-water (1); litter-feed-water (3); dust-faeces-feed(1); dust-faeces-water (1); dust-feed-water (2); faeces-feed-water (1) |
| 4 | 4 (1.8) | litter-dust-faeces-feed (2); litter-faeces-feed-water (1); dust-faeces-feed-water (1) |
| 5 | 1 (0.4) | litter-dust-faeces-feed-water (1) |
Number of farms positive for Salmonella per each matrix in each selected state.
| State (No. farm sampled) | N° of farms positive for | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Litter | Dust | Faeces | Feed | Water | |
| Ogun (110) | 24 | 19 | 31 | 25 | 20 |
| Lagos (25) | 4 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Edo (18) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Rivers (22) | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Enugu (38) | 2 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 4 |
| Imo (26) | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Gombe (11) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Bauchi (21) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 |
| Plateau (74) | 7 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Kaduna (109) | 13 | 11 | 12 | 9 | 3 |
| Kano (45) | 5 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Katsina (24) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
Species, subspecies and frequency of Salmonella serovars isolated.
| S/N | Frequency of isolation (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | • | 60 (16.2) | ||
| • | 21 (5.66) | |||
| • | 17 (4.58) | |||
| • | 15 (4.07) | |||
| • | 14 (3.77) | |||
| • | 10 (2.70) | |||
| • | 9 (2.43) | |||
| • | 8 (2.16) | |||
| • | 7 (1.89) | |||
| • | 6 (1.62) | |||
| • | 5 (1.35) | |||
| • | 4 (1.08) | |||
| • | 3 (0.81) | |||
| • | 2 (0.54) | |||
| • | 1 (0.27) | |||
| • | 1 (0.27) | |||
| 2. | • | 2 (0.54) |
Fig 2Relative frequency of selected Salmonella serovars isolated from the different matrices.