Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

First detection and characterization of Salmonella spp. in poultry and swine raised in backyard production systems in central Chile

  • R. ALEGRIA-MORAN (a1) (a2), D. RIVERA (a3), V. TOLEDO (a3), A. I. MORENO-SWITT (a3) and C. HAMILTON-WEST (a1)...

Summary

Little is known about Salmonella serovars circulating in backyard poultry and swine populations worldwide. Backyard production systems (BPS) that raise swine and/or poultry are distributed across Chile, but are more heavily concentrated in central Chile, where industrialized systems are in close contact with BPS. This study aims to detect and identify circulating Salmonella serovars in poultry and swine raised in BPS. Bacteriological Salmonella isolation was carried out for 1744 samples collected from 329 BPS in central Chile. Faecal samples were taken from swine, poultry, geese, ducks, turkeys and peacocks, as well as environmental faecal samples. Confirmation of Salmonella spp. was performed using invA-polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Identification of serovars was carried out using a molecular serotyping approach, where serogroups were confirmed by a multiplex PCR of Salmonella serogroup genes for five Salmonella O antigens (i.e., D, B, C1, C2-C3, and E1), along with two PCR amplifications, followed by sequencing of fliC and fljB genes. A total of 25 samples (1·4% of total samples) from 15 BPS (4·6 % of total sampled BPS) were found positive for Salmonella. Positive samples were found in poultry (chickens and ducks), swine and environmental sources. Molecular prediction of serovars on Salmonella isolated showed 52·0% of S. Typhimurium, 16·0% of S. Infantis, 16·0% S. Enteritidis, 8·0% S. Hadar, 4·0% S. Tennessee and 4·0% S. Kentucky. Poor biosecurity measures were found on sampled BPS, where a high percentage of mixed confinement systems (72·8%); and almost half of the sampled BPS with improper management of infected mortalities (e.g. selling the carcasses of infected animals for consumption). Number of birds other than chickens (P = 0·014; OR = 1·04; IC (95%) = 1·01–1·07), mixed productive objective (P = 0·030; OR = 5·35; IC (95%) = 1·24–27·59) and mixed animal replacement origin (P = 0017; OR = 5·19; IC (95%) = 1·35–20·47) were detected as risk factors for BPS positivity to Salmonella spp. This is the first evidence of serovars of Salmonella spp. circulating in BPS from central Chile. Detected serovars have been linked to human and animal clinical outbreaks worldwide and in Chile, highlighting the importance of BPS on the control and dissemination of Salmonella serovars potentially hazardous to public health.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      First detection and characterization of Salmonella spp. in poultry and swine raised in backyard production systems in central Chile
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      First detection and characterization of Salmonella spp. in poultry and swine raised in backyard production systems in central Chile
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      First detection and characterization of Salmonella spp. in poultry and swine raised in backyard production systems in central Chile
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Author for correspondence: Dr C. Hamilton-West, Epidemiology Unit, Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Universidad de Chile, Santiago de, Chile. (Email: christopher.hamilton@veterinaria.uchile.cl)

References

Hide All
1. Conan, A, et al. Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in developing countries: a systematic review. BMC Veterinary Research 2012; 8: 240. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-240.
2. FAO. Biosecurity for highly pathogenic avian influenza. Rome, Italy. 2008 (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0359e.pdf). 17-11-2014.
3. Manning, J, Gole, V, Chousalkar, K. Screening for Salmonella in backyard chickens. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2015; 120(2): 241245. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.03.019.
4. Hamilton-West, C, et al. Characterization of backyard poultry production systems and disease risk in the central zone of Chile. Research in Veterinary Science 2012; 93(1): 121124. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.06.015.
5. Adeniyi, OR, Oguntunji, AO. A socio-economic survey of cultural practices and management of village poultry production in Ondo area, Nigeria. Livestock Research for Rural Development 2011; 23 (http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/12/aden23261.htm).
6. O'Donnell, O. Access to health care in developing countries: breaking down demand side barriers. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 2007; 23: 28202834. doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2007001200003.
7. Betancor, L, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella enterica in poultry and eggs in Uruguay during an epidemic Due to Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2010; 48(7): 24132423. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02137-09.
8. Brenner, FW, et al. Salmonella nomenclature. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2000; 38(7): 24652467 (http://jcm.asm.org/content/38/7/2465.short).
9. Zhao, S, et al. Characterization of multidrug resistant Salmonella recovered from diseased animals. Veterinary Microbiology 2007; 123(1–3): 122132. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.03.001.
10. Grunkemeyer, VL. Zoonoses, public health, and the backyard poultry flock. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Exotic Animal Practice 2011; 14(3): 477490. doi: 10.1016/j.cvex.2011.05.010.
11. Scharff, RL. Economic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the United States. Journal of Food Protection 2012; 75(1): 123131. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-058.
12. Majowicz, SE, et al. The global burden of nontyphoidal Salmonella gastroenteritis. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2010; 50(6): 882889. doi: 10.1086/650733.
13. Fica, A, et al. Salmonellosis outbreaks and the size and role of the Chilean State. Revista Chilena de Infectologia 2012; 29(2): 207214. doi: 10.4067/S0716-10182012000200014.
14. Fresno, M, et al. Identification of diverse Salmonella serotypes, virulotypes, and antimicrobial resistance phenotypes in waterfowl from Chile. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 2013; 13(12): 884887. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2013.1408.
15. Martínez, MC, et al. Multidrug-resistant outbreak-associated Salmonella strains in irrigation water from the metropolitan region, Chile. Zoonoses and Public Health 2016; 64: 299304.
16. ISP. Boletín Vigilancia de Laboratorio: Salmonella spp. 2012–2016. Chile. 2017 (http://www.ispch.cl/sites/default/files/BoletinSalmonella-23012017A.pdf). 15-03-2017.
17. Leotta, G, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in backyard chickens in Paraguay. International Journal of Poultry Science 2010; 9(6): 533536. doi: 10.3923/ijps.2010.533.536.
18. Xavier, J, et al. Seroprevalence of Salmonella and Mycoplasma infection in backyard chickens in the state of Entre Ríos in Argentina. Poultry Science 2011; 90(4): 746751. doi: 10.3382/ps.2010-01036.
19. INE. Censo Agropecuario y Forestal. Santiago, Chile. (http://www.ine.cl/estadisticas/censos/censo-agropecuario-y-forestal-2007). 2007.
20. Alegria-Moran, R, et al. Using spatial tools for high impact zoonotic agents surveillance design in backyard production systems from central Chile. Veterinaria Mexico OA 2017; 4(1). doi: 10.21753/vmoa.4.1.435.
21. Dohoo, R, Martin, W, Stryhn, H. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, 2nd edn. Canada: VER Inc. Charlottetown, PEI, 2009, p. 865.
22. Marier, EA, et al. Abattoir based survey of Salmonella in finishing pigs in the United Kingdom 2006–2007. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2014; 117(3–4): 542553. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.09.004.
23. Worcman-Barninka, D, et al. Evaluation of motility enrichment on modified semi-solid Rappaport–Vassiladis medium (MSRV) for the detection of Salmonella in foods. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2001; 64(3): 387393. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(00)00484-0.
24. Dusch, H, Altwegg, M. Evaluation of five new plating media for isolation of Salmonella species. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1995; 33(4): 802804 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228044/pdf/330802.pdf).
25. Malorny, B, et al. Multicenter validation of the analytical accuracy of Salmonella PCR: towards an international standard. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2003; 69(1): 290296. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.1.290-296.2003.
26. Ranieri, ML, et al. Comparison of typing methods with a new procedure based on sequence characterization for Salmonella Serovar prediction. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2013; 51(6): 17861797. doi: 10.1128/JCM.03201-12.
27. Shi, C, et al. Molecular methods for serovar determination of Salmonella. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 2015; 41(3): 309325. doi: 10.3109/1040841X.2013.837862.
28. Kleinbaum, D, Klein, M. Logistic Regression: A Self-Learning Text, 3rd edn. New York: Springer, 2010.
29. Hosmer, DW, et al. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16(9): 965980. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<965::AID-SIM509>3.0.CO;2-O.
30. Ao, T, et al. Global burden of invasive nontyphoidal Salmonella disease, 2010. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2015; 21(6): 941. doi: 10.3201/eid2106.140999.
31. Syed, ST, Gerber, BS, Sharp, LK. Traveling towards disease: transportation barriers to health care access. Journal of Community Health 2013; 38(5): 976993. doi: 10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1.
32. Rushton, J, et al. Impact of avian influenza outbreaks in the poultry sectors of five South East Asian countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Thailand, Viet Nam) outbreak costs, responses and potential long term control. World's Poultry Science Journal 2007; 61(3): 491514. doi: 10.1079/WPS200570.
33. Chousalkar, K, et al. Chasing Salmonella Typhimurium in free range egg production system. Veterinary Microbiology 2016; 192: 6772. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.06.013.
34. LV, DK, Pires, SM, Hald, T. Attributing foodborne salmonellosis in humans to animal reservoirs in the European Union using a multi-country stochastic model. Epidemiology and Infection 2015; 143(6): 11751186. doi: 10.1017/S0950268814001903.
35. Jafari, R, Ghorbanpour, M, Jaideri, A. An investigation into Salmonella infection status in backyard chickens in Iran. International Journal of Poultry Science 2007; 6: 227229. doi: 10.3923/ijps.2007.227.229.
36. Samanta, I, et al. Prevalence and antibiotic resistance profiles of Salmonella serotypes isolated from backyard poultry flocks in West Bengal, India. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2014; 23(3): 536545. doi: 10.3382/japr.2013-00929.
37. Wilkins, W, et al. Examining heterogeneity in the diagnostic accuracy of culture and PCR for Salmonella spp. in Swine: a systematic review/meta-regression approach. Zoonoses and Public Health 2010; 57: 121134. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2010.01366.x.
38. Rostagno, MH, Eicher, SD, Lay, DC. Immunological, physiological, and behavioral effects of Salmonella enterica carriage and shedding in experimentally infected finishing pigs. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 2011; 8(5): 623630. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2010.0735.
39. Albuquerque, A, et al. Dissemination of Salmonella enteritidis by experimentally-infected pigeons. Revista Brasileira Ciência Avícola 2013; 15(3): 211215. doi: 10.1590/S1516-635X2013000300007.
40. Koyuncu, S, Andersson, MG, Häggblom, P. Accuracy and sensitivity of commercial PCR-based methods for detection of Salmonella enterica in feed. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2010; 76(9): 28152822. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02714-09.
41. Malkawi, HI, Gharaibeh, R. Multiplex PCR for the direct detection of Salmonella enterica from chicken, lamb and beef food products. Journal of Basic Microbiology 2003; 43(4): 328336. doi: 10.1002/jobm.200390035.
42. Ogunremi, D, et al. Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay for the identification of Salmonella Serovars Enteritidis and Typhimurium using retail and Abattoir samples. Journal of Food Protection 2017; 80(2): 295301. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-167.
43. Peplow, MO, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of three Salmonella rapid detection kits using fresh and frozen poultry environmental samples versus those of standard plating. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 1999; 65(3): 10551060 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC91144/).
44. Li, K, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility, virulence gene and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis profiles of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium recovered from retail raw chickens, China. Food Control 2017; 72(Part A): 3642. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.07.032.
45. EFSA, ECDC. (European food safety authority and European centre for disease prevention and control). The European union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2013. EFSA Journal 2015; 13(1): 3991. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3991.
46. Pesciaroli, M, et al. Association between pigs with high caecal Salmonella loads and carcass contamination. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2017; 242: 8286. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.11.021.
47. Ghoddusi, A, et al. Molecular identification of Salmonella Infantis isolated from backyard chickens and detection of their resistance genesby PCR. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research 2015; 16(3): 293297 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4782701/).
48. Yokoyama, E, et al. A novel subpopulation of Salmonella enterica serovar Infantis strains isolated from broiler chicken organs other than the gastrointestinal tract. Veterinary Microbiology 2015; 175(2–4): 312318. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.11.024.
49. Basler, C, et al. Notes from the field: multistate outbreak of human salmonella infections linked to live poultry from a mail-order hatchery in Ohio – February–October 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report – CDC 2015; 64(9): 258 (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6409a5.htm).
50. CDC. Eight Multistate Outbreaks of Human Salmonella Infections Linked to Live Poultry in Backyard Flocks (Final Update). 2016 (https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/live-poultry-05-16/). 25-10-2016.
51. Denagamage, TN, et al. Longitudinal monitoring of successive commercial layer flocks for Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 2016; 13(11): 618625. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2016.2146.
52. Zhao, X, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of Salmonella isolated from free-range chickens in Shandong Province, China. BioMed Research International 2016; 2016: 6. doi: 10.1155/2016/8183931.
53. Bland, MC. Salmonella prevention measures for small backyard flock owners. Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine 2015; 24(2): 141155. doi: 10.1053/j.jepm.2015.04.008.
54. Haesendonck, R, et al. Feral pigeons: a reservoir of zoonotic Salmonella Enteritidis strains?. Veterinary Microbiology 2016; 195: 101103. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.09.017.
55. Weide-Botjes, M, et al. Molecular typing of Salmonella enterica subsp. Enterica serovar Hadar: evaluation and application of different typing methods. Veterinary Microbiology 1998; 61(3): 215227. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1135(98)00181-3.
56. Sheth, AN, et al. A national outbreak of Salmonella serotype Tennessee infections from contaminated peanut butter: a new food vehicle for Salmonellosis in the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011; 53(4): 356362. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir407.
57. Rickert-Hartman, R, Folster, JP. Ciprofloxacin-resistant Salmonella enterica Serotype Kentucky sequence type 198. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2014; 20(5): 910911. doi: 10.3201/eid2005.131575.
58. Behravesh, CB, et al. Backyard poultry flocks and Salmonellosis: a recurring, yet preventable public health challenge. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2014; 58(10): 14321438. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu067.
59. Brioudes, A, Gummow, B. Understanding pig and poultry trade networks and farming practices within the pacific islands as a basis for surveillance. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 2017; 64(1): 284299. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12370.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed