Discrepancy Between the Occurrence of Arcobacter in Chickens and Broiler Carcass Contamination
Both Campylobacter and Arcobacter are commonly present on broiler carcasses. For Campylobacter, the superficial contamination originates predominantly from fecal contamination during slaughter. In contrast with Campylobacter, the source of the Arcobacter contamination is not clear. In several studie...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Poultry science 2007-04, Vol.86 (4), p.744-751 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 751 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 744 |
container_title | Poultry science |
container_volume | 86 |
creator | Driessche, E. van Houf, K |
description | Both Campylobacter and Arcobacter are commonly present on broiler carcasses. For Campylobacter, the superficial contamination originates predominantly from fecal contamination during slaughter. In contrast with Campylobacter, the source of the Arcobacter contamination is not clear. In several studies, arcobacters have been isolated in poultry processing plants from the carcasses and slaughter equipment, but not from the intestinal content. In literature, contradictory reports about the Arcobacter colonization of the chicken gut have been published. In most of those studies, arcobacters were not isolated from cecal content nor from litter or the feathers, though some studies reported the isolation of arcobacters from cloacal swab samples. The present study assessed if arcobacters are part of the chicken intestine, skin, or feather flora. Because no isolation protocol has been validated for poultry intestinal content, a previously developed Arcobacter isolation procedure for feces from livestock animals was first validated. With this method, a good repeatability, in-lab reproducibility and sensitivity, and a good suppression of the chicken fecal accompanying flora were achieved when 125 mg/L of 5-fluorouracil, 10 mg/L of amphotericine B, 100 mg/L of cycloheximide, 16 mg/L of cefoperazone, 64 mg/L of novobiocine, and 64 mg/L of trimethoprim were applied. The validated method was used to examine the presence of arcobacters in and on living chickens of 4 flocks at slaughter age. Because arcobacters were not isolated from the intestinal tract nor from the skin or feathers of the birds, this study was not able to identify arcobacters as part of the intestinal or skin flora, nor could confirm the role of process water as reservoir. However, the results clearly demonstrated that the time period for processing the samples and the way of sample collection are crucial in the interpretation of epidemiological studies. As the reservoir of the carcass contamination remains unidentified, studies about the capacity of arcobacters to colonize the chicken intestinal tract may contribute in the assessment of the transmission routes of this emerging foodborn pathogen. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ps/86.4.744 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_223145172</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1244891491</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-bc740f43f0d2dec53db2543482e8ca88a17ef4b93c20d13b5f8a6cb177fbc17e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpF0E1LxDAQBuAgiq6rJ-8avErXfDbdo1s_YWEP6tWQTBOtuklNWsR_b2UXPA3MPLwDL0InlMwomfPLLl9W5UzMlBA7aEIlkwWniu6iCSGcFVLN6QE6zPmdEEbLUu2jA6p4OZeimqCX6zZDcp0J8IMXrv92LuD-zeEVwJCSC-Bw9PgqQbQGepdwG3D91sKHCxmb0OBFiu3nuK9NApMzrmPozboNpm9jOEJ73nxmd7ydU_R8e_NU3xfL1d1DfbUsgCvZFxaUIF5wTxrWOJC8sUwKLirmKjBVZahyXtg5B0Yayq30lSnBUqW8hfHGp-h8k9ul-DW43Ov3OKQwvtSMcSokVWxEFxsEKeacnNddatcm_WhK9F-Vusu6KrXQY5WjPt1GDnbtmn-77W4EZxvgTdTmNbVZPz8yQjkhSnFeUv4LJqh4ug</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223145172</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Discrepancy Between the Occurrence of Arcobacter in Chickens and Broiler Carcass Contamination</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Driessche, E. van ; Houf, K</creator><creatorcontrib>Driessche, E. van ; Houf, K</creatorcontrib><description>Both Campylobacter and Arcobacter are commonly present on broiler carcasses. For Campylobacter, the superficial contamination originates predominantly from fecal contamination during slaughter. In contrast with Campylobacter, the source of the Arcobacter contamination is not clear. In several studies, arcobacters have been isolated in poultry processing plants from the carcasses and slaughter equipment, but not from the intestinal content. In literature, contradictory reports about the Arcobacter colonization of the chicken gut have been published. In most of those studies, arcobacters were not isolated from cecal content nor from litter or the feathers, though some studies reported the isolation of arcobacters from cloacal swab samples. The present study assessed if arcobacters are part of the chicken intestine, skin, or feather flora. Because no isolation protocol has been validated for poultry intestinal content, a previously developed Arcobacter isolation procedure for feces from livestock animals was first validated. With this method, a good repeatability, in-lab reproducibility and sensitivity, and a good suppression of the chicken fecal accompanying flora were achieved when 125 mg/L of 5-fluorouracil, 10 mg/L of amphotericine B, 100 mg/L of cycloheximide, 16 mg/L of cefoperazone, 64 mg/L of novobiocine, and 64 mg/L of trimethoprim were applied. The validated method was used to examine the presence of arcobacters in and on living chickens of 4 flocks at slaughter age. Because arcobacters were not isolated from the intestinal tract nor from the skin or feathers of the birds, this study was not able to identify arcobacters as part of the intestinal or skin flora, nor could confirm the role of process water as reservoir. However, the results clearly demonstrated that the time period for processing the samples and the way of sample collection are crucial in the interpretation of epidemiological studies. As the reservoir of the carcass contamination remains unidentified, studies about the capacity of arcobacters to colonize the chicken intestinal tract may contribute in the assessment of the transmission routes of this emerging foodborn pathogen.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-5791</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3171</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ps/86.4.744</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17369548</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Abattoirs ; Animals ; Arcobacter ; Arcobacter - isolation & purification ; bacterial contamination ; broiler chickens ; carcass characteristics ; cecum ; chicken meat ; Chickens ; digesta ; disease reservoirs ; epidemiology ; etiology ; feathers ; Feathers - microbiology ; feces ; food contact surfaces ; Food Contamination ; food microbiology ; food pathogens ; incidence ; intestinal microorganisms ; Meat - microbiology ; meat packing plants ; Poultry ; poultry manure ; skin ; Skin - microbiology ; slaughterhouses ; Water Microbiology</subject><ispartof>Poultry science, 2007-04, Vol.86 (4), p.744-751</ispartof><rights>Copyright Poultry Science Association Apr 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-bc740f43f0d2dec53db2543482e8ca88a17ef4b93c20d13b5f8a6cb177fbc17e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-bc740f43f0d2dec53db2543482e8ca88a17ef4b93c20d13b5f8a6cb177fbc17e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17369548$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Driessche, E. van</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Houf, K</creatorcontrib><title>Discrepancy Between the Occurrence of Arcobacter in Chickens and Broiler Carcass Contamination</title><title>Poultry science</title><addtitle>Poult Sci</addtitle><description>Both Campylobacter and Arcobacter are commonly present on broiler carcasses. For Campylobacter, the superficial contamination originates predominantly from fecal contamination during slaughter. In contrast with Campylobacter, the source of the Arcobacter contamination is not clear. In several studies, arcobacters have been isolated in poultry processing plants from the carcasses and slaughter equipment, but not from the intestinal content. In literature, contradictory reports about the Arcobacter colonization of the chicken gut have been published. In most of those studies, arcobacters were not isolated from cecal content nor from litter or the feathers, though some studies reported the isolation of arcobacters from cloacal swab samples. The present study assessed if arcobacters are part of the chicken intestine, skin, or feather flora. Because no isolation protocol has been validated for poultry intestinal content, a previously developed Arcobacter isolation procedure for feces from livestock animals was first validated. With this method, a good repeatability, in-lab reproducibility and sensitivity, and a good suppression of the chicken fecal accompanying flora were achieved when 125 mg/L of 5-fluorouracil, 10 mg/L of amphotericine B, 100 mg/L of cycloheximide, 16 mg/L of cefoperazone, 64 mg/L of novobiocine, and 64 mg/L of trimethoprim were applied. The validated method was used to examine the presence of arcobacters in and on living chickens of 4 flocks at slaughter age. Because arcobacters were not isolated from the intestinal tract nor from the skin or feathers of the birds, this study was not able to identify arcobacters as part of the intestinal or skin flora, nor could confirm the role of process water as reservoir. However, the results clearly demonstrated that the time period for processing the samples and the way of sample collection are crucial in the interpretation of epidemiological studies. As the reservoir of the carcass contamination remains unidentified, studies about the capacity of arcobacters to colonize the chicken intestinal tract may contribute in the assessment of the transmission routes of this emerging foodborn pathogen.</description><subject>Abattoirs</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Arcobacter</subject><subject>Arcobacter - isolation & purification</subject><subject>bacterial contamination</subject><subject>broiler chickens</subject><subject>carcass characteristics</subject><subject>cecum</subject><subject>chicken meat</subject><subject>Chickens</subject><subject>digesta</subject><subject>disease reservoirs</subject><subject>epidemiology</subject><subject>etiology</subject><subject>feathers</subject><subject>Feathers - microbiology</subject><subject>feces</subject><subject>food contact surfaces</subject><subject>Food Contamination</subject><subject>food microbiology</subject><subject>food pathogens</subject><subject>incidence</subject><subject>intestinal microorganisms</subject><subject>Meat - microbiology</subject><subject>meat packing plants</subject><subject>Poultry</subject><subject>poultry manure</subject><subject>skin</subject><subject>Skin - microbiology</subject><subject>slaughterhouses</subject><subject>Water Microbiology</subject><issn>0032-5791</issn><issn>1525-3171</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpF0E1LxDAQBuAgiq6rJ-8avErXfDbdo1s_YWEP6tWQTBOtuklNWsR_b2UXPA3MPLwDL0InlMwomfPLLl9W5UzMlBA7aEIlkwWniu6iCSGcFVLN6QE6zPmdEEbLUu2jA6p4OZeimqCX6zZDcp0J8IMXrv92LuD-zeEVwJCSC-Bw9PgqQbQGepdwG3D91sKHCxmb0OBFiu3nuK9NApMzrmPozboNpm9jOEJ73nxmd7ydU_R8e_NU3xfL1d1DfbUsgCvZFxaUIF5wTxrWOJC8sUwKLirmKjBVZahyXtg5B0Yayq30lSnBUqW8hfHGp-h8k9ul-DW43Ov3OKQwvtSMcSokVWxEFxsEKeacnNddatcm_WhK9F-Vusu6KrXQY5WjPt1GDnbtmn-77W4EZxvgTdTmNbVZPz8yQjkhSnFeUv4LJqh4ug</recordid><startdate>20070401</startdate><enddate>20070401</enddate><creator>Driessche, E. van</creator><creator>Houf, K</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070401</creationdate><title>Discrepancy Between the Occurrence of Arcobacter in Chickens and Broiler Carcass Contamination</title><author>Driessche, E. van ; Houf, K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-bc740f43f0d2dec53db2543482e8ca88a17ef4b93c20d13b5f8a6cb177fbc17e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Abattoirs</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Arcobacter</topic><topic>Arcobacter - isolation & purification</topic><topic>bacterial contamination</topic><topic>broiler chickens</topic><topic>carcass characteristics</topic><topic>cecum</topic><topic>chicken meat</topic><topic>Chickens</topic><topic>digesta</topic><topic>disease reservoirs</topic><topic>epidemiology</topic><topic>etiology</topic><topic>feathers</topic><topic>Feathers - microbiology</topic><topic>feces</topic><topic>food contact surfaces</topic><topic>Food Contamination</topic><topic>food microbiology</topic><topic>food pathogens</topic><topic>incidence</topic><topic>intestinal microorganisms</topic><topic>Meat - microbiology</topic><topic>meat packing plants</topic><topic>Poultry</topic><topic>poultry manure</topic><topic>skin</topic><topic>Skin - microbiology</topic><topic>slaughterhouses</topic><topic>Water Microbiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Driessche, E. van</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Houf, K</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Poultry science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Driessche, E. van</au><au>Houf, K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Discrepancy Between the Occurrence of Arcobacter in Chickens and Broiler Carcass Contamination</atitle><jtitle>Poultry science</jtitle><addtitle>Poult Sci</addtitle><date>2007-04-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>86</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>744</spage><epage>751</epage><pages>744-751</pages><issn>0032-5791</issn><eissn>1525-3171</eissn><abstract>Both Campylobacter and Arcobacter are commonly present on broiler carcasses. For Campylobacter, the superficial contamination originates predominantly from fecal contamination during slaughter. In contrast with Campylobacter, the source of the Arcobacter contamination is not clear. In several studies, arcobacters have been isolated in poultry processing plants from the carcasses and slaughter equipment, but not from the intestinal content. In literature, contradictory reports about the Arcobacter colonization of the chicken gut have been published. In most of those studies, arcobacters were not isolated from cecal content nor from litter or the feathers, though some studies reported the isolation of arcobacters from cloacal swab samples. The present study assessed if arcobacters are part of the chicken intestine, skin, or feather flora. Because no isolation protocol has been validated for poultry intestinal content, a previously developed Arcobacter isolation procedure for feces from livestock animals was first validated. With this method, a good repeatability, in-lab reproducibility and sensitivity, and a good suppression of the chicken fecal accompanying flora were achieved when 125 mg/L of 5-fluorouracil, 10 mg/L of amphotericine B, 100 mg/L of cycloheximide, 16 mg/L of cefoperazone, 64 mg/L of novobiocine, and 64 mg/L of trimethoprim were applied. The validated method was used to examine the presence of arcobacters in and on living chickens of 4 flocks at slaughter age. Because arcobacters were not isolated from the intestinal tract nor from the skin or feathers of the birds, this study was not able to identify arcobacters as part of the intestinal or skin flora, nor could confirm the role of process water as reservoir. However, the results clearly demonstrated that the time period for processing the samples and the way of sample collection are crucial in the interpretation of epidemiological studies. As the reservoir of the carcass contamination remains unidentified, studies about the capacity of arcobacters to colonize the chicken intestinal tract may contribute in the assessment of the transmission routes of this emerging foodborn pathogen.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>17369548</pmid><doi>10.1093/ps/86.4.744</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0032-5791 |
ispartof | Poultry science, 2007-04, Vol.86 (4), p.744-751 |
issn | 0032-5791 1525-3171 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_223145172 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Abattoirs Animals Arcobacter Arcobacter - isolation & purification bacterial contamination broiler chickens carcass characteristics cecum chicken meat Chickens digesta disease reservoirs epidemiology etiology feathers Feathers - microbiology feces food contact surfaces Food Contamination food microbiology food pathogens incidence intestinal microorganisms Meat - microbiology meat packing plants Poultry poultry manure skin Skin - microbiology slaughterhouses Water Microbiology |
title | Discrepancy Between the Occurrence of Arcobacter in Chickens and Broiler Carcass Contamination |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T22%3A36%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Discrepancy%20Between%20the%20Occurrence%20of%20Arcobacter%20in%20Chickens%20and%20Broiler%20Carcass%20Contamination&rft.jtitle=Poultry%20science&rft.au=Driessche,%20E.%20van&rft.date=2007-04-01&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=744&rft.epage=751&rft.pages=744-751&rft.issn=0032-5791&rft.eissn=1525-3171&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ps/86.4.744&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1244891491%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223145172&rft_id=info:pmid/17369548&rfr_iscdi=true |