Next Article in Journal
Ever-Adapting RND Efflux Pumps in Gram-Negative Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens: A Race against Time
Previous Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles and Genes of Staphylococci Isolated from Mastitic Cow’s Milk in Kenya
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/antibiotics10070773
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Salmonella Characterization in Poultry Eggs Sold in Farms and Markets in Relation to Handling and Biosecurity Practices in Ogun State, Nigeria

by
Michael Agbaje
1,
Patience Ayo-Ajayi
2,3,
Olugbenga Kehinde
4,
Ezekiel Omoshaba
1,
Morenike Dipeolu
4 and
Folorunso O. Fasina
5,6,*
1
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta 110124, Nigeria
2
Department of Veterinary and Pest Control Services, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Abuja 900287, Nigeria
3
Nigerian Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programe, 50 Haille Selassie Str., Asokoro, Abuja 900287, Nigeria
4
Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta 110124, Nigeria
5
Emergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Dar es Salaam 14111, Tanzania
6
Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2021, 10(7), 773; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10070773
Submission received: 2 May 2021 / Revised: 1 June 2021 / Accepted: 5 June 2021 / Published: 24 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Antibiotics Use and Antimicrobial Stewardship)
Versions Notes

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.

1. Introduction

Poultry eggs provide a significant amount of animal protein in Nigeria and other developing Sub-Saharan nations since they are cheap, available, and have little or no limitation in acceptance across the socio-cultural and religious divide [1,2]. With a poultry population of approximately 180 million, Nigeria produces an average of 3.8 million eggs annually [3]. However, this important agricultural sector is burdened by infectious diseases including Salmonella enterica [4]. Recently a national survey reported Salmonella prevalence to be 43.6% among commercial poultry farms in Nigeria [5].
Salmonellosis is an important public health burden in most developing countries and constitutes a major food-borne pathogen in the developed world [6]. The non-typhoidal (NT) Salmonella species are largely self-limiting but serious consequences may result where infected individuals are immune-compromised or co-infected with malaria or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) [7,8]. In the United States, about 1.4 million people are infected annually, with approximately 15,000 hospitalizations and 4000 deaths [9].
Traditionally, antimicrobials such as ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were drugs of choice for the treatment of salmonellosis [10]. However, the emerging antimicrobial resistance trends in the last three decades have greatly diminished their efficacies against salmonellosis. These days, fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins are mostly preferred. Even at that, there have been increasingly reported cases of resistance to fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins [11,12].
Non-typhoidal Salmonella species, like other bacterial pathogens, can acquire resistance to antimicrobial agents, thereby enhancing their pathogenicity, virulence, and impact on the infected human population [13]. While bacterial resistance is commonly acquired through mechanisms such as mutations and/or horizontal plasmid transfer, the transmission of resistant NT Salmonella to humans is mostly associated with contact with infected animals and consumption of contaminated foods, especially foods of animal origin such as poultry, fish, eggs, beef, and dairy products [12,14].
Contamination in the food chain by antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and resistance elements such as genes and plasmids are traceable to the intense use of antimicrobials in livestock production and the selective pressure that develop against bacterial organisms such as NT Salmonella sp, leading to the emergence of resistance against them [15,16].
In Nigeria, NT Salmonella has been mostly characterized in the poultry sector from feces, dust, environment, and poultry meat [5,12,17,18]. However, information on the drivers of egg contamination and transmission is scanty due to the lack of a coordinated national surveillance program. Also, increasing reports of multi-drug resistance to antimicrobial agents from Salmonella strains isolated from eggshells and contents [19,20] signals a need for continuous collection of data in the poultry sector to aid relevant authorities in decision making and response in Nigeria. Consequent to the above, this study seeks to establish: a) a baseline survey of Salmonella occurrence in poultry eggs, ii) determine the circulating Salmonella serovars and their antimicrobial resistance profile, and iii) determine possible risk factors that may be driving Salmonella contamination of eggs.

2. Results

2.1. Prevalence and Diversity of Salmonella Isolates on Shells and in Contents of Eggs

Of the 100 samples pooled from 500 eggs, 14 (14%) from markets (n = 10), and farms (n = 4) were positive for Salmonella spread across shell (13/14, 92.9%) and content (1/14; 7.1%) (Table 1). Salmonella in eggshell was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that of egg content.
Ten (10) Salmonella isolates were obtained from 40 samples (i.e., 40 × 5 = 200) eggs sold in the markets while the remaining four (4) were from 60 samples (i.e., 60 × 5 = 300) eggs obtained from the farm. The most isolates were from Egba (n = 7) followed by Yewa (n = 4), Ijebu (n = 2) and Remo (n = 1). All Salmonella isolates were obtained from eggshell except one (S. Alachua) from the Remo zone which was obtained from egg contents (Table 1). In this study, 10 different Salmonella serovars were identified from 14 Salmonella isolates from eggs predominantly sold in the market and included: Agama, Durham, Bradford, Derby, and Kentucky. Only serovars Kentucky was common in samples from the market and farms. Other serovars identified in the farm-sourced eggs include Kingston, Colorado, Lattenkamp, Carno, and Alachua (Table 1).

2.2. Salmonella Serovar Resistance to Antimicrobials and Their Resistance Patterns

The antibiotic resistance profile of fourteen Salmonella serovars was subjected to 11 commonly used antimicrobial agents (Table 2). All tested serovars were susceptible to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, florfenicol, and kanamycin. Resistance was most predominantly shown to sulfamethoxazole 8 (80%), followed by ciprofloxacin 5 (50%) and tetracycline 3 (30%). Gentamicin, nalidixic acid, and streptomycin showed equal resistance 2 (20%) with the least resistance observed in trimethoprim 1 (10%) (Table 2). The most resistant Salmonella serovar to antimicrobials was S. Kentucky (n = 6), followed by S. Carno (n = 4) and S. Derby (n = 3). There was no reissuance shown to any of the antimicrobials by S. Colorado (Table 2).
Of the 14 positive Salmonella isolates spread across 10 serovars, five were resistant to two or more antimicrobials and included Kentucky, Bradford, Derby, Carno, and Kingston while four including Agama, Lattenkamp, Durham, and Alachua showed resistance to single antimicrobials (Table 2). For the 7 Salmonella isolates tested from the Egba zone, only one multi-resistance pattern (SMX-GEN-TET-STR-CIP-NAL) was observed in comparison to two patterns each from Yewa (SMX-CIP; SMX-TET-CIP) and Ijebu (CIP-NAL; SMX-GEN-STR-TMP) with four and two isolates respectively (Table 3).

2.3. Biosecurity Practices in the Production and Handling of Eggs

The questionnaire results indicated a predominant cage system (73.3%) operations, compared to the deep litter system (26.7%). Eighty percent (48/60) of the farms were less than 500 m away from other farms and the tendency for farms to be visited by wild birds. Twenty percent of the farms included antibiotics in their poultry feeds routinely.
Wide biosecurity concerns exist across most farms with only about 21.6% (13/60) of farm operations involveing personal protective equipment (PPEs) where necessary. About half of the responding farms shared tools with other farms, thereby encouraging pathogen transfer. All respondents (100%) did not clean their eggs in any form before selling (Table 4). A fifth (12/60) of the respondents include antibiotics in feed as growth promoters or prophylactics while 4168.3% (41/60) of the respondents allow in-farms sales of eggs (Table 4).

3. Discussion

In this study, a prevalence of 14% non-typhoidal Salmonella was detected from pooled egg samples. To the best of our knowledge, this study provides the first detailed comparison of Salmonella serovars profile sold on-farm and in the open market. Our results corroborate Salmonella presence in eggs in Nigeria as previously reported [21]. A previous national study reported a 24.5% prevalence of NT Salmonella in poultry environments in Ogun State (1). The differences in the prevalence of the two studies may be attributed to the sample types investigated. While the national study employed a matrix of five samples (dust, litter, feces, feed, and water) from poultry environments, the current study focused on pooled poultry egg samples.
The occurrence of Salmonella in eggs from markets and egg shell was significantly higher. Contamination of eggs may occur during packing, grading, transporting and sales in the market, as multiple buyers visually inspect, touch, and select eggs during sales in the study area [22]. In the present study, unhygienic egg handling practices were common in all farms and markets involved. Also, all farms involved in the questionnaire survey have no egg sanitation programs in place. Data from this study further highlight the potentials continuous relevance of poultry eggs as an important transmission reservoir of Salmonella in humans. Thirteen out of the 14 Salmonella isolates identified in this study were found on the eggshells and may suggest fecal, environmental, or handling contamination [23]. Only one Salmonella serovar (S. Alachua) was detected in egg content, but, the route of contamination was not investigated. S. Alachua was recently reported from fecal samples in the Northern part of Nigeria [24]. Further study will be required to determine if S. Alachua was an accidental finding in the egg content, vertically transmissible, or can penetrate eggshells into the contents.
The fourteen Salmonella isolates identified in this study were spread across 10 serovars, which depicts high serovar diversity. Studies across Nigeria have reported similar observations [5,12,24]. Plausible reasons for this findings are the indiscriminate importation of poultry birds and eggs with no coordinated national screening and control program in place for salmonellosis. While S. Agama (n = 3) was the most occurring in this study, all three isolates were from the same market and zone. It is then possible that all three are clonally related, although clonal relatedness was not explored in this study. Two S. Kentucky serovars were identified, each from a different zone. Fagbamila et al. [5] reported S. Kentucky in 11 states out of the 12 that were sampled in Nigeria. Other studies have similarly reported S. Kentucky across Nigeria, thereby suggesting this serovar as widely circulating in Nigeria [17,24,25,26]. S. Kentucky has a worldwide distribution and was previously thought to be endemic in Africa with public health significance [27,28].
Notably in this study, Salmonella serovars commonly associated with foodborne infections (S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium) [29] were absent. The S. Gallinarum vaccine commonly used in Nigeria may protect against other group D-strains such as S. Enteritidis [5,30]. In addition, Fagbamila et al., [5] and Useh et al., [26], have suggested that these two serovars likely play minor roles in the Nigerian poultry sector. Put together, serovar diversity may be attributable to a number of reasons but not limited to poor sanitary and biosecurity conditions, indiscriminate importation of poultry chickens and eggs without adequate screening for Salmonella, and lack of focused national Salmonella surveillance and control program.
The abuse and misuse of antimicrobial agents in the poultry sector have been linked to increased resistance to antimicrobials [31]. In this study, antimicrobial resistance to Salmonella was highest in sulfamethoxazole (SMX), followed by ciprofloxacin (CIP) and tetracycline (TET) respectively. A previous study on NT Salmonella occurrence in freshly dressed poultry meat in northern Nigeria reported a high Salmonella resistance pattern to SMX, CIP, and TET [12]. This emerging resistance pattern is corroborated by studies on veterinary students’ ranked perception of abused antimicrobials in Africa in which sulphonamides and tetracycline were in the uppermost three ranked antimicrobials [32,33]. However, in contrast to our study, earlier investigations in Zimbabwe by Makaya et al. [34] and Adesiyun et al. [35] in the Caribbean region reported no resistance to SMX. It is then possible that increased use and misuse of SMX in the Nigerian poultry sector may be a driving factor in the resistance observed in SMX. In addition, resistance to ciprofloxacin raises concern since this is the drug of choice in the treatment of human invasive salmonellosis. Resistance to tetracycline is not surprising considering its extensive prophylactic usage and as additives in feed and water to enhance performance in Nigeria [16]. It may then be inferred that the frequency of Salmonella spp. resistance to these antimicrobials reflects their intense application in the poultry sector in Nigeria. The observed lack of stringent control on the availability and non-prescription use of antibiotics in poultry practice in the study area is concerning. In Nigeria, over the counter availability of most antimicrobials in local drug stores makes the control of antibiotic usage cumbersome [18].
In this study, data from the questionnaire indicated about 90% of the farms in the study area are accessed by wild birds and rodents. Similar to our results, a study involving three Caribbean countries also reported rodents in 90% of contaminated farms [36]. Investigations in Australia have demonstrated the role of environmental vectors in the epidemiology of Salmonella in farm settlements [37,38]. High and unchecked rodent populations have been associated with increased Salmonella shedding in the environment [39] and are the most effective in the spread of Salmonella pathogen around farms [40]. It is then imperative to initiate robust vector prevention programs in farmhouses which may include secured access doors and windows, sealing of holes, repairs of torn wire net, and the use of baits to help control contamination of farmhouses [41].
Furthermore, our results revealed certain practices which may encourage Salmonella occurrence and/or persistence in farms. Poor adherence to strict biosecurity measures on farms. The use of protective clothing as a barrier to infectious agents was unpopular among the majority of the farmers and may contribute to increased chances of contamination. Also, certain high-risk cross-contamination practices such as unhygienic picking of eggs with bare hands, sharing of tools with nearby farms (mostly <500 m away), and sales of eggs on the farm were observed. These practices all increase the risk of contamination and transfer of pathogens [24,38,42].
The findings in this study are subject to at least two limitations. First, the pooling of samples ultimately reduced the sample size. While investigating individual egg samples will have provided more detailed data, pooled samples are considered more effective for the successful detection of Salmonella in the context of this study [43]. Second, was our inability to match individual samples collected with corresponding husbandry and biosecurity questionnaires in the data analyses. Considering that the positivity rate of Salmonella was 14%, it was considered that analyzing data as per the region will be more informative than individual sample-farm analysis.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Location

This observational study was conducted across poultry farm settlements and markets in Ogun State Nigeria. Ogun state is comprised of four socio-cultural zones (Egba, Ijebu, Yewa, and Remo) spread across 20 Local Government areas. Ogun State covers an area of 16,762 square kilometers and stands at an elevation of 169 feet with a population of 4,054,272 [44]. Ogun State occupies latitude 6.2–7.8° N and longitude 3.0–5.0° E. A stratified probability random sampling design was adopted for this study such that poultry farms and markets from the four zones of Ogun state were evenly represented in the final sample.

4.2. Sample Collection

Egg samples from poultry farms and markets were used for Salmonella determination. A total of five hundred (500) eggs were collected representing 125 eggs per each of the four zones. From each zone, 75 eggs were obtained from 3 poultry farms and 50 eggs from 2 markets. Samples were analyzed in pools of 5 making a total of 25 sample units per zone (15 from farms and 10 from markets). Samples were collected into sterile bags using sterile nylon gloves and transported to the laboratory at 37 °C.

4.3. Isolation of Salmonella

The egg surface was disinfected with 70% alcohol and alcohol residue removed by flaming. A sterile thumb forceps was used to aseptically separate the shell from the interior content. To pre-enrich, 5 mL of homogenized egg content was dispensed and thoroughly mixed with 45 mL of buffered peptone water (BPW, Oxoid CM1049) and incubated at 37 °C for 18 h.
Following pre-enrichment, 1 mL of pre-enriched broth was aseptically transferred into 9 mL of sterile Mueller-Kaufmann Tetrathionate novobiocin selective enrichment broth (MKTTn, Oxoid CM1048) and sufficiently homogenized. Similarly, 0.1 mL of the pre-enriched broth culture was dispensed into 9.9 mL of sterile modified semi-solid Rappaport Vassiliadis (MSRV) selective enrichment broth (MSRV, Oxoid CM0910) supplemented with novobiocin (Oxoid SR0161). Inoculated MKTTn and MRSV broth were incubated at 37 °C and 41.5 °C, respectively, for 24 h.
Following incubation, a loopful of observable bacterial growth was each taken from the MRVS and MKTTn broth cultures and streaked simultaneously on the surfaces of xylose lysine desoxycholate (XLD) and Mac-Conkey (MAC) agar plates. The inoculated plates were incubated at 37 °C for 18–24 h and then examined for bacterial growth. Bacterial colonies consistent with Salmonella growth on XLD agar (light red colonies, some with black centers) and MAC agar (pale/colorless translucent colonies)) were selected for further biochemical and serological characterization.

4.4. Biochemical Identification of Salmonella

Suspected colonies were subjected to catalase and oxidase tests. For further identification different biochemical tests were carried out using MICROBACT TM GNB 24E KIT (OXOID) for Gram-negative bacteria and the result was interpreted using the computer software package Oxoid Microbact® 2000 (version 2.03).

4.5. Antibiotic Sensitivity Testing

The isolates were subjected to an antibiotic sensitivity test according to the Bauer-Kirby technique to evaluate the antimicrobial susceptibility pattern. Eleven (11) antibiotics commonly used in the study area were used namely; ampicillin (AMP, 10 μg), chloramphenicol (CHL, 30 μg), ciprofloxacin (CIP, 5 μg), florfenicol (FFN, 30 μg), gentamicin (GEN, 30 μg), kanamycin (KAN, 30 μg), nalidixic acid (NAL, 30 μg), streptomycin (STR, 10 μg), sulfamethoxazole (SMX, 25 μg), tetracycline (TET, 25 μg), trimethoprim (TMP, 5 μg).

4.6. Procedure

Briefly, the turbidity of test Salmonella isolates grown overnight in peptone water broth was adjusted to an equivalent of 0.5 McFarland concentration (approximately 1 × 108 cfu/mL). Salmonella broth culture was then evenly applied to cover the entire surface of freshly prepared Mueller Hinton agar (MHA) plate using a sterile spreader. Antimicrobial disks were carefully and firmly placed on the MHA surface at equidistance and incubated at 35 ± 2 °C for 18 h. The diameter of the zone of inhibition around each disk was measured and the result was interpreted according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommendations. Strains displaying intermediate resistance were regarded as resistant.

4.7. Serotyping of Salmonella

Presumptive Salmonella isolates were serotyped by agglutination tests with specific O and H antisera and classified according to the Kauffman-White scheme as previously described [45] at the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, National and OIE Reference Laboratory for Salmonellosis, Legnaro, Italy.

4.8. Determination of Biosecurity Practices on Poultry Farms

A test questionnaire was distributed among 15 farms not included in the final data collection to determine the clarity of the questionnaire. Based on the feedback from the respondents, adjustments were made to the final questionnaire.
Sixty (60) well-structured questionnaires were administered to farmers and farms spread across the four zones of Ogun State to evaluate the husbandry practices and adherence to biosecurity measures on farms. Fifteen (15) questionnaires were distributed per zone and included farms from which egg samples were previously taken for Salmonella detection. Farmers were informed of their rights to discontinue participation at any stage of the project and anonymity and confidentiality of data were stressed.

4.9. Data Management and Statistical Analysis

Data collation and management were computed using Microsoft Excel. The responses to the questionnaire were presented in percentages; descriptive statistics were used to describe the prevalence analysis. The Pearson’s Chi-square values and p-values for proportions were determined for the data generated using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 20.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated the presence of diverse NT Salmonella serovars in eggs with potential antimicrobial-resistant traits. Sales of eggs in the market seem to promote the risk of Salmonella contamination as well as other unhygienic biosecurity practices on the farm.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D., M.A., and O.K.; methodology, M.A.; optimization of methods, M.A., P.A.-A., and E.O.; formal analysis, E.O., and F.O.F.; investigation, P.A.-A.; resources, M.D., P.A.-A., and M.A.; data curation, M.A. and F.O.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A., E.O., and P.A.-A.; writing—review and editing, F.O.F., M.D., and O.K.; visualization, F.O.F.; supervision and statistics, M.D., M.A., and O.K.; project administration, M.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data sets used during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported through serotyping of isolates by Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, National and OIE Reference Laboratory for Salmonellosis, Legnaro, Italy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Idowu, F.; Junaid, K.; Paul, A.; Gabriel, O.; Paul, A.; Sati, N.; Maryam, M.; Jarlath, U. Antimicrobial screening of commercial eggs and determination of Tetracycline residue using two microbiological methods. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2010, 9, 959–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bettridge, J.M.; Lunch, S.E.; Brena, M.C.; Melese, K.; Dessie, T.; Terfa, Z.G.; Desta, T.; Rushton, S.; Hanotte, O.; Kaiser, P.; et al. Infection-interactions in Ethiopian village chickens. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 117, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization. Livestock and Livelihoods Spotlight NIGERIA: Cattle and Poutry Sectors. 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/CA2149EN/ca2149en.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2020).
  4. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The Structure and Importance of the Commercial and Village Based Poultry Industry in Nigeria. 2006. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/214281/ReviewNigeria.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2020).
  5. Fagbamila, I.O.; Barco, L.; Mancin, M.; Kwaga, J.; Ngulukun, S.S.; Zavagnin, P.; Lettini, A.A.; Lorenzetto, M.; Abdu, P.A.; Kabir, J.; et al. Salmonella serovars and their distribution in Nigerian commercial chicken layer farms. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Zhang, S.; Yin, Y.; Jones, M.B.; Zhang, Z.; Kaiser, B.L.D.; Dinsmore, B.A.; Fitzgerald, C.; Fields, P.I.; Deng, X. Salmonella serotype determination utilizing high-throughput genome sequencing data. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 1685–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ibrahim, G.M.; Morin, P.M. Salmonella serotyping using whole genome sequencing. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Herikstad, H.; Motarjemi, Y.; Tauxe, R.V. Salmonella surveillance: A global survey of public health serotyping. Epidemiol. Infect. 2002, 129, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Orji, M.C.; Onuigbo, H.C.; Mbata, T.I. Serological survey of mycoplasmosis and pullorum disease in Plateau State of Nigeria. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2005, 9, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Crump, J.A.; Sjölund-Karlsson, M.; Gordon, M.A.; Parry, C.M. Epidemiology, clinical presentation, laboratory diagnosis, antimicrobial resistance, and antimicrobial management of invasive Salmonella Infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 28, 901–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Glenn, L.M.; Lindsey, R.L.; Folster, J.P.; Pecic, G.; Boerlin, P.; Gilmour, M.W.; Harbottle, H.; Zhao, S.; McDermott, P.F.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J. Antimicrobial resistance genes in multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica isolated from animals, retail meats, and humans in the United States and Canada. Microb. Drug Resist. 2013, 19, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Agbaje, M.; Lettini, A.A.; Olufemi, O.E.; Longo, A.; Marafin, E.; Antonello, K.; Zavagnin, P.; Oluwasile, B.B.; Omoshaba, E.O.; Dipeolu, M.A. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Salmonella serovars Isolated from Dressed Chicken Meat at Slaughter in Kaduna, Nigeria. Rev. Elev. Med. Vet. Pays Trop. 2019, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. European Food Safety Authority; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017/2018. EFSA J. 2020, 18, e06007. [Google Scholar]
  14. Adesiji, Y.O.; Shivakumaraswamy, S.K.; Deekshit, V.K.; Kallappa, G.S.; Karunasagar, I. Molecular characterization of antimicrobial multi-drug resistance in non-typhoidal Salmonellae from chicken and clam in Mangalore, India. J. Biomed. Res. 2018, 32, 237–244. [Google Scholar]
  15. Al-Dawodi, R.; Farraj, M.A.; Essawi, T. Antimicrobial resistance in non-typhi Salmonella enterica isolated from humans and poultry in Palestine. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2012, 6, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Oluwasile, B.B.; Agbaje, M.; Ojo, O.E.; Dipeolu, M.A. Antibiotic usage pattern in selected poultry farms in Ogun State. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 2014, 12, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Muhammad, M.; Muhammad, L.U.; Mani, A.U.; Ambali, A.G. A survey of chick mortality at hatching in three selected hatcheries in Jos, Central Nigeria. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2009, 8, 656–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fashae, K.; Ogunsola, F.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Henriken, R.S. Antimicrobial susceptibility and serovar of Salmonella from chickens and humans in Ibadan, Nigeria. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2010, 4, 484–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dias de Oliveira, S.; Siqueira-Flores, F.; Dos Santos, L.R.; Brandelli, A. Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella Enteritidis strains isolated from broiler carcasses, food, human and poultry related samples. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2005, 97, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Adesiyun, A.; Webb, L.; Musai, L.; Louison, B.; Joseph, G.; Stewart-Johnson, A.; Samlal, S.; Rodrigo, S. Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents among Salmonella Isolates Recovered from Layer Farms and Eggs in the Caribbean Region. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 2153–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Obi, C.N.; Igbokwe, A.J. Microbiological analyses of freshly laid and stored domestic poultry eggs in selected poultry farms in Umuahia, Abia State, Nigeria. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2007, 2, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rouger, A.; Tresse, O.; Zagorec, M. Bacterial Contaminants of Poultry Meat: Sources, Species, and Dynamics. Microorganisms 2017, 5, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ferreira, V.; Cardoso, M.J.; Magalhães, R.; Maia, R.; Neagu, C.; Dumitraşcu, L.; Teixeira, P. Occurrence of Salmonella spp. in eggs from backyard chicken flocks in Portugal and Romania—Results of a preliminary study. Food Control 2020, 113, 107180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jibril, A.H.; Okeke, I.N.; Dalsgaard, A.; Kudirkiene, E.; Akinlabi, O.C.; Bello, M.B.; Olsen, J.E. Prevalence and risk factors of Salmonella in commercial poultry farms in Nigeria. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ogunleye, A.O.; Steve, A.; Carlson, S.A. Emergence of an SGI1-bearing Salmonella enterica serotype Kentucky isolated from septic poultry in Nigeria. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2012, 6, 483–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Useh, N.M.; Ngbede, E.O.; Akange, N.; Thomas, M.; Foley, A.; Keena, M.C.; Nelson, E.; Christopher-Hennings, J.; Tomita, M.; Suzuki, H.; et al. Draft genome sequence of 37 Salmonella enterica strains isolated from poultry sources in Nigeria. Genome Announc. 2016, 4, e00315-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Le Hello, S.; Hendriksen, R.S.; Doublet, B.; Fisher, I.; Nielsen, E.M.; Whichard, J.M.; Bouchrif, B.; Fashae, K.; Granier, S.A.; Silva, N.J.-D.; et al. International spread of an epidemic population of Salmonella enterica serotype Kentucky ST198 resistant to ciprofloxacin. J. Infect. Dis. 2011, 204, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Le Hello, S.; Harrois, D.; Bouchrif, B.; Sontag, L.; Elhani, D.; Guibert, V.; Zerouali, K.; Weill, F.X. Highly drug-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Kentucky ST198-X1: A microbiological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2013, 13, 672–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Freitas, N.O.C.; Penha, F.R.A.C.; Barrow, P.; Berchieri, J.A. Sources of human non-typhoid salmonellosis: A review. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2010, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Gast, R.K. Serotype-Specific and Serotype-Independent Strategies for Pre-harvest Control of Food-Borne Salmonella in Poultry. Avian Dis. 2007, 51, 817–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sasanya, J.J.; Okeng, J.W.; Ejobi, F.; Muganwa, M. Use of sulfonamides in layers in Kampala district, Uganda and sulphonamide residues in commercial eggs. Afr. Health Sci. 2005, 5, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
  32. Smith, W.P.; Agbaje, M.; LeRoux-Pullen, L.; van Dyk, D.; Debusho, K.L.; Shittu, A.; Sirdar, M.M.; Fasanmi, O.G.; Adebowale, O.; Fasina, O.F. Implication of the knowledge and perceptions of veterinary students of antimicrobial resistance for future prescription of antimicrobials in animal health, South Africa. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Fasina, F.O.; LeRoux-Pullen, L.; Smith, P.; Debusho, L.K.; Shittu, A.; Jajere, S.M.; Adebowale, O.; Odetokun, I.; Agbaje, M.; Fasina, M.M.; et al. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions Associated With Antimicrobial Stewardship Among Veterinary Students: A Multi-Country Survey From Nigeria, South Africa, and Sudan. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 517964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Makaya, P.V.; Matope, G.; Pfukenyi, D.M. Distribution of Salmonella serovars and antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella Enteritidis from poultry in Zimbabwe. Avian Pathol. 2012, 41, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Adesiyun, A.; Offiah, N.; Seepersadsingh, N.; Rodrigo, S.; Lashley, V.; Musai, L. Antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli isolated from table eggs. Food Control 2007, 18, 306–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adesiyun, A.; Webb, L.; Musai, L.; Louison, B.; Joseph, G.; Stewart-Johnson, A.; Samlal, S.; Rodrigo, S. Survey of Salmonella contamination in chicken layer farms in three Caribbean countries. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 1471–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chousalkar, K.; Gole, V.; Caraguel, C.; Rault, J.L. Chasing Salmonella Typhimurium in free-range egg production system. Vet. Microbiol. 2016, 192, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sodagari, H.R.; Habib, I.; Whiddon, S.; Wang, P.; Mohammed, A.B.; Robertson, I.; Goodchild, S. Occurrence and Characterization of Salmonella Isolated from Table Egg Layer Farming Environments in Western Australia and Insights into Biosecurity and Egg Handling Practices. Pathogens 2020, 9, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Lapuz, R.R.; Umali, D.V.; Suzuki, T.; Shirota, K.; Katoh, H. Comparison of the prevalence of Salmonella infection in layer hens from commercial layer farms with high and low rodent densities. Avian Dis. 2012, 56, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wales, A.; Breslin, M.; Carter, B.; Sayers, R.; Davies, R. A longitudinal study of environmental Salmonella contamination in caged and free-range layer flocks. Avian Pathol. 2007, 36, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Trampel, D.W.; Holder, T.G.; Gast, R.K. Integrated farm management to prevent Salmonella Enteritidis contamination of eggs. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014, 23, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Namata, H.; Welby, S.; Aerts, M.; Faes, C.; Abrahantes, J.C.; Imberechts, H.; Vermeersch, K.; Hooyberghs, J.; Méroc, E.; Mintiens, K. Identification of risk factors for the prevalence and persistence of Salmonella in Belgian broiler chicken flocks. Prev. Vet. Med. 2009, 90, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Carrique-Mas, J.J.; Breslin, M.; Sayers, A.R.; McLaren, I.; Arnold, M.; Davies, R. Comparison of environmental sampling methods for detecting Salmonella in commercial laying flocks in the UK. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 47, 514–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Adebowale, O.O.; Adeyemo, O.K.; Awoyomi, O.; Dada, R.; Adebowale, O. Antibiotic use and practices in commercial poultry laying hens in Ogun State Nigeria. Rev. Elev. Med. Vet. Pays Trop. 2016, 69, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Grimont, P.A.D.; Weill, F.X. Antigenic Formulae of the Salmonella Serovars, 9th ed.; World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on Salmonella; Institut Pasteur: Paris, France, 2007; pp. 1–166. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Zonal distribution of Salmonella serovars in eggs according to sources of samples and types.
Table 1. Zonal distribution of Salmonella serovars in eggs according to sources of samples and types.
ZoneSources of IsolatesIdentified Serovars
Market (%)Farm (%)Shell (%)Contents (%)Market (n)Farm (n)
Egba (n = 25)5/10 (50)2/15 (13.3)7/25 (28)0Agama (3), Colorado (1), Lattenkamp (1)Kingston (1), Kentucky (1)
Yewa (n = 25)4/10 (40)0/15 (0)4/25 (16)0Durham (2), Bradford (1), Derby (1)-
Ijebu (n = 25)1/10 (10)1/15 (6.7)2/25 (8)0Kentucky (1)Carno (1)
Remo (n = 25)0/10 (0)1/15 (6.7)01/25 (4)-Alachua (1)
Total10/40 (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.
Table
Table 2. Frequency resistance of Salmonella isolates by serovars.
Table 2. Frequency resistance of Salmonella isolates by serovars.
SerotypesNo of Isolates TestedNo (%) of Resistant IsolatesNo (%) of Resistant to AntimicrobialsAntmicr Type Resist (n)
AMPCHLCIPFFNGENKANNALSTRSMXTETTMP
Agama31 (33.30)--------1--1
Alachua11 (100)--1--------1
Bradford11 (100)--1-----1--2
Carno11 (100)----1--11-14
Colorado10 (0)-----------
Derby11 (100)--1-----11-3
Durham21 (50)--------1--1
Kentucky22 (100)--2-1-2111-6
Kingston11 (100)--------11-2
Lattenkamp11 (100)--------1--1
Total1410 (71.4) *005 (50)02 (20)02 (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.
Table
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Salmonella isolates from eggs in Ogun State, Nigeria.
Table 3. Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Salmonella isolates from eggs in Ogun State, Nigeria.
ZonesNo. (%) of IsolatesSalmonella Serovars (n)Resistance Pattern
Egba7 (50)Agama (2), Lattenkamp (1), Kingston (1)SMX (4)
Kentucky (1)SMX-GEN-TET-STR-CIP-NAL (1)
Yewa4 (28.6)Durham (1)SMX (1)
Bradford (1)SMX-CIP (1)
Derby (1)SMX-TET-CIP (1)
Ijebu2 (14.3)Kentucky (1)CIP-NAL (1)
Carno (1)SMX-GEN-STR-TMP (1)
Remo1 (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.
Table
Table 4. Husbandry and biosecurity practices in the study area.
Table 4. Husbandry and biosecurity practices in the study area.
ItemsResponseFrequencyPercentageΧ2 (p-Value)
Husbandry systemCage4473.325.9 (<0.0001)
Deep litter1626.6
Presence of other farms <500 m awayYes4880.042.8 (<0.0001)
No1220.0
Presence of wild birds and rodents around the farmYes5388.068.7 (<0.0001)
No712.0
Sanitation
Wearing protective clothingYes1321.638.3 (<0.0001)
No4778.3
Sharing of tools with other farmsYes3253.30.52 (0.47)
No2846.6
Cleaning of eggs before saleYes00.0119.0 (<0.0001)
No60100.0
Inclusion of antibiotics in feedYes1220.042.8 (<0.0001)
No4880.0
Traffic controlFarm premises4168.316.0 (0.0001)
Point of sale of eggsOff-farm premises1931.6
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Agbaje, M.; Ayo-Ajayi, P.; Kehinde, O.; Omoshaba, E.; Dipeolu, M.; Fasina, F.O. Salmonella Characterization in Poultry Eggs Sold in Farms and Markets in Relation to Handling and Biosecurity Practices in Ogun State, Nigeria. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 773. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10070773

AMA Style

Agbaje M, Ayo-Ajayi P, Kehinde O, Omoshaba E, Dipeolu M, Fasina FO. Salmonella Characterization in Poultry Eggs Sold in Farms and Markets in Relation to Handling and Biosecurity Practices in Ogun State, Nigeria. Antibiotics. 2021; 10(7):773. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10070773

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agbaje, Michael, Patience Ayo-Ajayi, Olugbenga Kehinde, Ezekiel Omoshaba, Morenike Dipeolu, and Folorunso O. Fasina. 2021. "Salmonella Characterization in Poultry Eggs Sold in Farms and Markets in Relation to Handling and Biosecurity Practices in Ogun State, Nigeria" Antibiotics 10, no. 7: 773. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10070773

APA Style

Agbaje, M., Ayo-Ajayi, P., Kehinde, O., Omoshaba, E., Dipeolu, M., & Fasina, F. O. (2021). Salmonella Characterization in Poultry Eggs Sold in Farms and Markets in Relation to Handling and Biosecurity Practices in Ogun State, Nigeria. Antibiotics, 10(7), 773. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10070773

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop