| Literature DB >> 34202847 |
Michael Agbaje1, Patience Ayo-Ajayi2,3, Olugbenga Kehinde4, Ezekiel Omoshaba1, Morenike Dipeolu4, Folorunso O Fasina5,6.
Abstract
Salmonella remains one of the notable food-borne bacterial pathogens. It is associated with poultry and poultry products including eggs. This study investigated Salmonella distribution in eggshell and content, their antimicrobial resistance pattern, and the possible risk factors driving contamination in Ogun State, Nigeria. A total of 500 eggs (5 eggs pooled into one sample) were collected and culturally examined for the presence of Salmonella serovars. Isolates were further characterized biochemically using Microbact 20E (Oxoid) and Antimicrobial susceptibility determined by the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method. A total of 14 Salmonella isolates spread across 10 serovars were recovered from the 100 pooled egg samples; 10 (10%) from the market and 4 (4%) farms, 13(13%) eggshell, and 1(1%) egg content. All tested serovars were susceptible to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, florfenicol, and kanamycin. Resistance was mostly observed in sulfamethoxazole 8 (80%), followed by ciprofloxacin 5 (50%) and tetracycline 3 (30%). Sales of eggs in the market appear to be a strong factor encouraging contamination in addition to poor biosecurity and unhygienic handling of eggs on the farm.Entities:
Keywords: Nigeria; Salmonella; antimicrobial resistance; biosecurity; egg; poultry
Year: 2021 PMID: 34202847 PMCID: PMC8300622 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10070773
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Zonal distribution of Salmonella serovars in eggs according to sources of samples and types.
| Zone | Sources of Isolates | Identified Serovars | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market (%) | Farm (%) | Shell (%) | Contents (%) | Market ( | Farm ( | |
| Egba ( | 5/10 (50) | 2/15 (13.3) | 7/25 (28) | 0 | Agama (3), Colorado (1), Lattenkamp (1) | Kingston (1), Kentucky (1) |
| Yewa ( | 4/10 (40) | 0/15 (0) | 4/25 (16) | 0 | Durham (2), Bradford (1), Derby (1) | - |
| Ijebu ( | 1/10 (10) | 1/15 (6.7) | 2/25 (8) | 0 | Kentucky (1) | Carno (1) |
| Remo ( | 0/10 (0) | 1/15 (6.7) | 0 | 1/25 (4) | - | Alachua (1) |
| Total | 10/40 (25) * | 4/60 (6.7) | 13/100 (13) * | 1/100 (1) | ||
* p-value is significant at <0.0001. Between markets and farms, Χ2 = 39.7, p-value < 0.0001; and between shell and contents, Χ2 = 63.9, p-value < 0.0001.
Frequency resistance of Salmonella isolates by serovars.
| Serotypes | No of Isolates Tested | No (%) of Resistant Isolates | No (%) of Resistant to Antimicrobials | Antmicr Type Resist ( | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP | CHL | CIP | FFN | GEN | KAN | NAL | STR | SMX | TET | TMP | ||||
| Agama | 3 | 1 (33.30) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | 1 |
| Alachua | 1 | 1 (100) | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
| Bradford | 1 | 1 (100) | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | 2 |
| Carno | 1 | 1 (100) | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 4 |
| Colorado | 1 | 0 (0) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Derby | 1 | 1 (100) | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | - | 3 |
| Durham | 2 | 1 (50) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | 1 |
| Kentucky | 2 | 2 (100) | - | - | 2 | - | 1 | - | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 6 |
| Kingston | 1 | 1 (100) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | - | 2 |
| Lattenkamp | 1 | 1 (100) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | 1 |
| Total | 14 | 10 (71.4) * | 0 | 0 | 5 (50) | 0 | 2 (20) | 0 | 2 (20) | 2 (20) | 8 (80) | 3 (30) | 1 (10) | |
AMP: ampicillin; CHL: chloramphenicol; CIP: ciprofloxacin; FFN: florfenicol; GEN: gentamicin; KAN: kanamycin; NAL: nalidixic acid; STR: streptomycin; SMX: sulfamethoxazole; TET: tetracycline; TMP: trimethoprim. * Significant proportion of the tested isolates were resistant to selected antimicrobials (Χ2 = 4.9, p-value = 0.03). Antimic Type Resist = cumulative number of antimicrobial resistant to.
Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Salmonella isolates from eggs in Ogun State, Nigeria.
| Zones | No. (%) of Isolates | Resistance Pattern | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Egba | 7 (50) | Agama (2), Lattenkamp (1), Kingston (1) | SMX (4) |
| Kentucky (1) | SMX-GEN-TET-STR-CIP-NAL (1) | ||
| Yewa | 4 (28.6) | Durham (1) | SMX (1) |
| Bradford (1) | SMX-CIP (1) | ||
| Derby (1) | SMX-TET-CIP (1) | ||
| Ijebu | 2 (14.3) | Kentucky (1) | CIP-NAL (1) |
| Carno (1) | SMX-GEN-STR-TMP (1) | ||
| Remo | 1 (7.1) | Alachua (1) | CIP (1) |
Note: All antimicrobials tested were fully sensitive to two S. Agama isolates in Egba and one S. Durham isolate in Yewa zones. AMP: ampicillin; CHL: chloramphenicol; CIP: ciprofloxacin; FFN: florfenicol; GEN: gentamicin; KAN: kanamycin; NAL: nalidixic acid; STR: streptomycin; SMX: sulfamethoxazole; TET: tetracycline; TMP: trimethoprim.
Husbandry and biosecurity practices in the study area.
| Items | Response | Frequency | Percentage | Χ2 ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Husbandry system | Cage | 44 | 73.3 | 25.9 (<0.0001) |
| Deep litter | 16 | 26.6 | ||
| Presence of other farms <500 m away | Yes | 48 | 80.0 | 42.8 (<0.0001) |
| No | 12 | 20.0 | ||
| Presence of wild birds and rodents around the farm | Yes | 53 | 88.0 | 68.7 (<0.0001) |
| No | 7 | 12.0 | ||
| Sanitation | ||||
| Wearing protective clothing | Yes | 13 | 21.6 | 38.3 (<0.0001) |
| No | 47 | 78.3 | ||
| Sharing of tools with other farms | Yes | 32 | 53.3 | 0.52 (0.47) |
| No | 28 | 46.6 | ||
| Cleaning of eggs before sale | Yes | 0 | 0.0 | 119.0 (<0.0001) |
| No | 60 | 100.0 | ||
| Inclusion of antibiotics in feed | Yes | 12 | 20.0 | 42.8 (<0.0001) |
| No | 48 | 80.0 | ||
|
| Farm premises | 41 | 68.3 | 16.0 (0.0001) |
| Point of sale of eggs | Off-farm premises | 19 | 31.6 |