Veterinary antibiotic resistance, residues, and ecological risks in environmental samples obtained from poultry farms, Egypt
In Egypt, poultry production constitutes one of the main sources of pollution with veterinary antibiotics (VAs) into the environment. About 80 % of meat production in Egypt is of poultry origin, and the potential environmental risks associated with the use of VAs in these farms have not yet been pro...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental monitoring and assessment 2015-02, Vol.187 (2), p.2-2, Article 2 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 2 |
| container_title | Environmental monitoring and assessment |
| container_volume | 187 |
| creator | Dahshan, Hesham Abd-Elall, Amr Mohamed Mohamed Megahed, Ayman Mohamed Abd-El-Kader, Mahdy A. Nabawy, Ehab Elsayed |
| description | In Egypt, poultry production constitutes one of the main sources of pollution with veterinary antibiotics (VAs) into the environment. About 80 % of meat production in Egypt is of poultry origin, and the potential environmental risks associated with the use of VAs in these farms have not yet been properly evaluated. Thus, the main purpose of this research was to evaluate the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant enteric key bacteria and the incidence of residual antibiotics in poultry farm environmental samples and to determine whether fertilizing soils with poultry litter from farms potentially brings ecological risks. From December 2011 to September 2012, a total of 225 litter, bird dropping, and water samples were collected from 75 randomly selected boiler poultry farms. A high prevalence of
Escherichia coli
(
n
= 179; 79.5 %) in contrast to the low prevalence of
Salmonella
spp. (
n
= 7; 3.1 %) was detected. Amongst
E. coli
isolates, serotypes O142:K86, O125:K70, O91:K, and O119:K69 were the most common. Meanwhile,
Salmonella enterica
serotypes emek and enteritidis were recovered. The antibiograms using the disc diffusion method revealed significantly more common resistant and multi-resistant isolates in broiler poultry farms. Residues of tetracycline and ciprofloxacin were detected at 2.125 and 1.401 mg kg
−1
mean levels, respectively, in environmental samples contaminated with
E. coli
-resistant strains by HPLC. The risk evaluations highlighted that tetracycline residues in poultry litter significantly display environmental risks with a hazard quotient value above 1 (1.64). Our study implies that ineffective implementation of veterinary laws which guide and guard against incorrect VA usage may potentially bring health and environmental risks. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10661-014-4218-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1654683490</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3562242561</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-535e1786083d2889bef3655cdc18979fae04b9374b282a780d2a5c2615c692fd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1rFTEUhoMo9lr9AW5kwI2Ljp58T5ZSahUK3bRuh0zmzCV1JhmTjFDwx5v2VhFB6Cohec57cvIQ8prCewqgP2QKStEWqGgFo13Ln5AdlZq3zEjzlOyAKt0qrswReZHzDQAYLcxzcsSkAhDAduTnVyyYfLDptrGh-MHH4l2TMPtcbHB4cr8fN8wnFRgbdHGOe-_s3CSfv-XGhwbDD59iWDCUepztss6YmzgU6wOOzZTi0qxxm0ttMtm01Kiz_e1aXpJnk50zvnpYj8n1p7Or08_txeX5l9OPF60TIEsruUSqOwUdH1nXmQEnrqR0o6Od0WayCGIwXIuBdczqDkZmpWOKSqcMm0Z-TN4dctcUv9dJSr_47HCebcC45Z4qKVTHhYHHoIwbMFRW9O0_6E3cUqiDVErUB3KtTaXogXIp5pxw6tfkl_rdPYX-zmJ_sNhXi_2dxZ7XmjcPyduw4Pin4re2CrADkOtV2GP6q_V_U38B0tCn8A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1646553779</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Veterinary antibiotic resistance, residues, and ecological risks in environmental samples obtained from poultry farms, Egypt</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Dahshan, Hesham ; Abd-Elall, Amr Mohamed Mohamed ; Megahed, Ayman Mohamed ; Abd-El-Kader, Mahdy A. ; Nabawy, Ehab Elsayed</creator><creatorcontrib>Dahshan, Hesham ; Abd-Elall, Amr Mohamed Mohamed ; Megahed, Ayman Mohamed ; Abd-El-Kader, Mahdy A. ; Nabawy, Ehab Elsayed</creatorcontrib><description>In Egypt, poultry production constitutes one of the main sources of pollution with veterinary antibiotics (VAs) into the environment. About 80 % of meat production in Egypt is of poultry origin, and the potential environmental risks associated with the use of VAs in these farms have not yet been properly evaluated. Thus, the main purpose of this research was to evaluate the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant enteric key bacteria and the incidence of residual antibiotics in poultry farm environmental samples and to determine whether fertilizing soils with poultry litter from farms potentially brings ecological risks. From December 2011 to September 2012, a total of 225 litter, bird dropping, and water samples were collected from 75 randomly selected boiler poultry farms. A high prevalence of
Escherichia coli
(
n
= 179; 79.5 %) in contrast to the low prevalence of
Salmonella
spp. (
n
= 7; 3.1 %) was detected. Amongst
E. coli
isolates, serotypes O142:K86, O125:K70, O91:K, and O119:K69 were the most common. Meanwhile,
Salmonella enterica
serotypes emek and enteritidis were recovered. The antibiograms using the disc diffusion method revealed significantly more common resistant and multi-resistant isolates in broiler poultry farms. Residues of tetracycline and ciprofloxacin were detected at 2.125 and 1.401 mg kg
−1
mean levels, respectively, in environmental samples contaminated with
E. coli
-resistant strains by HPLC. The risk evaluations highlighted that tetracycline residues in poultry litter significantly display environmental risks with a hazard quotient value above 1 (1.64). Our study implies that ineffective implementation of veterinary laws which guide and guard against incorrect VA usage may potentially bring health and environmental risks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6369</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2959</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10661-014-4218-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25600402</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Agricultural wastes ; Agriculture ; Animal Husbandry ; Animals ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - analysis ; Antibiotic resistance ; Antibiotics ; Antimicrobial agents ; Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution ; Bacteria ; Birds ; Ciprofloxacin ; Cross-sectional studies ; Drug resistance ; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial - genetics ; E coli ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Ecology ; Ecotoxicology ; Egypt ; Environment ; Environmental Management ; Environmental Monitoring ; Environmental Pollutants - analysis ; Environmental risk ; Farmers ; Farms ; Laboratories ; Liquid chromatography ; Litter ; Meat production ; Monitoring/Environmental Analysis ; Pathogens ; Pollutants ; Pollution ; Pollution sources ; Poultry ; Poultry farming ; Poultry production ; Prevalence ; Questionnaires ; Salmonella ; Salmonella enterica ; Serotypes ; Soil microorganisms ; Studies ; Veterinary medicine ; Water analysis ; Water sampling</subject><ispartof>Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2015-02, Vol.187 (2), p.2-2, Article 2</ispartof><rights>Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-535e1786083d2889bef3655cdc18979fae04b9374b282a780d2a5c2615c692fd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-535e1786083d2889bef3655cdc18979fae04b9374b282a780d2a5c2615c692fd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10661-014-4218-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10661-014-4218-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25600402$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dahshan, Hesham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abd-Elall, Amr Mohamed Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Megahed, Ayman Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abd-El-Kader, Mahdy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nabawy, Ehab Elsayed</creatorcontrib><title>Veterinary antibiotic resistance, residues, and ecological risks in environmental samples obtained from poultry farms, Egypt</title><title>Environmental monitoring and assessment</title><addtitle>Environ Monit Assess</addtitle><addtitle>Environ Monit Assess</addtitle><description>In Egypt, poultry production constitutes one of the main sources of pollution with veterinary antibiotics (VAs) into the environment. About 80 % of meat production in Egypt is of poultry origin, and the potential environmental risks associated with the use of VAs in these farms have not yet been properly evaluated. Thus, the main purpose of this research was to evaluate the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant enteric key bacteria and the incidence of residual antibiotics in poultry farm environmental samples and to determine whether fertilizing soils with poultry litter from farms potentially brings ecological risks. From December 2011 to September 2012, a total of 225 litter, bird dropping, and water samples were collected from 75 randomly selected boiler poultry farms. A high prevalence of
Escherichia coli
(
n
= 179; 79.5 %) in contrast to the low prevalence of
Salmonella
spp. (
n
= 7; 3.1 %) was detected. Amongst
E. coli
isolates, serotypes O142:K86, O125:K70, O91:K, and O119:K69 were the most common. Meanwhile,
Salmonella enterica
serotypes emek and enteritidis were recovered. The antibiograms using the disc diffusion method revealed significantly more common resistant and multi-resistant isolates in broiler poultry farms. Residues of tetracycline and ciprofloxacin were detected at 2.125 and 1.401 mg kg
−1
mean levels, respectively, in environmental samples contaminated with
E. coli
-resistant strains by HPLC. The risk evaluations highlighted that tetracycline residues in poultry litter significantly display environmental risks with a hazard quotient value above 1 (1.64). Our study implies that ineffective implementation of veterinary laws which guide and guard against incorrect VA usage may potentially bring health and environmental risks.</description><subject>Agricultural wastes</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Animal Husbandry</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - analysis</subject><subject>Antibiotic resistance</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Antimicrobial agents</subject><subject>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Ciprofloxacin</subject><subject>Cross-sectional studies</subject><subject>Drug resistance</subject><subject>Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial - genetics</subject><subject>E coli</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecotoxicology</subject><subject>Egypt</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Management</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring</subject><subject>Environmental Pollutants - analysis</subject><subject>Environmental risk</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Liquid chromatography</subject><subject>Litter</subject><subject>Meat production</subject><subject>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</subject><subject>Pathogens</subject><subject>Pollutants</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Pollution sources</subject><subject>Poultry</subject><subject>Poultry farming</subject><subject>Poultry production</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Salmonella</subject><subject>Salmonella enterica</subject><subject>Serotypes</subject><subject>Soil microorganisms</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Veterinary medicine</subject><subject>Water analysis</subject><subject>Water sampling</subject><issn>0167-6369</issn><issn>1573-2959</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</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>eNqNkU1rFTEUhoMo9lr9AW5kwI2Ljp58T5ZSahUK3bRuh0zmzCV1JhmTjFDwx5v2VhFB6Cohec57cvIQ8prCewqgP2QKStEWqGgFo13Ln5AdlZq3zEjzlOyAKt0qrswReZHzDQAYLcxzcsSkAhDAduTnVyyYfLDptrGh-MHH4l2TMPtcbHB4cr8fN8wnFRgbdHGOe-_s3CSfv-XGhwbDD59iWDCUepztss6YmzgU6wOOzZTi0qxxm0ttMtm01Kiz_e1aXpJnk50zvnpYj8n1p7Or08_txeX5l9OPF60TIEsruUSqOwUdH1nXmQEnrqR0o6Od0WayCGIwXIuBdczqDkZmpWOKSqcMm0Z-TN4dctcUv9dJSr_47HCebcC45Z4qKVTHhYHHoIwbMFRW9O0_6E3cUqiDVErUB3KtTaXogXIp5pxw6tfkl_rdPYX-zmJ_sNhXi_2dxZ7XmjcPyduw4Pin4re2CrADkOtV2GP6q_V_U38B0tCn8A</recordid><startdate>20150201</startdate><enddate>20150201</enddate><creator>Dahshan, Hesham</creator><creator>Abd-Elall, Amr Mohamed Mohamed</creator><creator>Megahed, Ayman Mohamed</creator><creator>Abd-El-Kader, Mahdy A.</creator><creator>Nabawy, Ehab Elsayed</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><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>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150201</creationdate><title>Veterinary antibiotic resistance, residues, and ecological risks in environmental samples obtained from poultry farms, Egypt</title><author>Dahshan, Hesham ; Abd-Elall, Amr Mohamed Mohamed ; Megahed, Ayman Mohamed ; Abd-El-Kader, Mahdy A. ; Nabawy, Ehab Elsayed</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-535e1786083d2889bef3655cdc18979fae04b9374b282a780d2a5c2615c692fd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Agricultural wastes</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Animal Husbandry</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - analysis</topic><topic>Antibiotic resistance</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Antimicrobial agents</topic><topic>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Ciprofloxacin</topic><topic>Cross-sectional studies</topic><topic>Drug resistance</topic><topic>Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial - genetics</topic><topic>E coli</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecotoxicology</topic><topic>Egypt</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Management</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring</topic><topic>Environmental Pollutants - analysis</topic><topic>Environmental risk</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Liquid chromatography</topic><topic>Litter</topic><topic>Meat production</topic><topic>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</topic><topic>Pathogens</topic><topic>Pollutants</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Pollution sources</topic><topic>Poultry</topic><topic>Poultry farming</topic><topic>Poultry production</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Salmonella</topic><topic>Salmonella enterica</topic><topic>Serotypes</topic><topic>Soil microorganisms</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Veterinary medicine</topic><topic>Water analysis</topic><topic>Water sampling</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dahshan, Hesham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abd-Elall, Amr Mohamed Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Megahed, Ayman Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abd-El-Kader, Mahdy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nabawy, Ehab Elsayed</creatorcontrib><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>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><jtitle>Environmental monitoring and assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dahshan, Hesham</au><au>Abd-Elall, Amr Mohamed Mohamed</au><au>Megahed, Ayman Mohamed</au><au>Abd-El-Kader, Mahdy A.</au><au>Nabawy, Ehab Elsayed</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Veterinary antibiotic resistance, residues, and ecological risks in environmental samples obtained from poultry farms, Egypt</atitle><jtitle>Environmental monitoring and assessment</jtitle><stitle>Environ Monit Assess</stitle><addtitle>Environ Monit Assess</addtitle><date>2015-02-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>187</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>2</spage><epage>2</epage><pages>2-2</pages><artnum>2</artnum><issn>0167-6369</issn><eissn>1573-2959</eissn><abstract>In Egypt, poultry production constitutes one of the main sources of pollution with veterinary antibiotics (VAs) into the environment. About 80 % of meat production in Egypt is of poultry origin, and the potential environmental risks associated with the use of VAs in these farms have not yet been properly evaluated. Thus, the main purpose of this research was to evaluate the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant enteric key bacteria and the incidence of residual antibiotics in poultry farm environmental samples and to determine whether fertilizing soils with poultry litter from farms potentially brings ecological risks. From December 2011 to September 2012, a total of 225 litter, bird dropping, and water samples were collected from 75 randomly selected boiler poultry farms. A high prevalence of
Escherichia coli
(
n
= 179; 79.5 %) in contrast to the low prevalence of
Salmonella
spp. (
n
= 7; 3.1 %) was detected. Amongst
E. coli
isolates, serotypes O142:K86, O125:K70, O91:K, and O119:K69 were the most common. Meanwhile,
Salmonella enterica
serotypes emek and enteritidis were recovered. The antibiograms using the disc diffusion method revealed significantly more common resistant and multi-resistant isolates in broiler poultry farms. Residues of tetracycline and ciprofloxacin were detected at 2.125 and 1.401 mg kg
−1
mean levels, respectively, in environmental samples contaminated with
E. coli
-resistant strains by HPLC. The risk evaluations highlighted that tetracycline residues in poultry litter significantly display environmental risks with a hazard quotient value above 1 (1.64). Our study implies that ineffective implementation of veterinary laws which guide and guard against incorrect VA usage may potentially bring health and environmental risks.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>25600402</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10661-014-4218-3</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0167-6369 |
| ispartof | Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2015-02, Vol.187 (2), p.2-2, Article 2 |
| issn | 0167-6369 1573-2959 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1654683490 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Agricultural wastes Agriculture Animal Husbandry Animals Anti-Bacterial Agents - analysis Antibiotic resistance Antibiotics Antimicrobial agents Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution Bacteria Birds Ciprofloxacin Cross-sectional studies Drug resistance Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial - genetics E coli Earth and Environmental Science Ecology Ecotoxicology Egypt Environment Environmental Management Environmental Monitoring Environmental Pollutants - analysis Environmental risk Farmers Farms Laboratories Liquid chromatography Litter Meat production Monitoring/Environmental Analysis Pathogens Pollutants Pollution Pollution sources Poultry Poultry farming Poultry production Prevalence Questionnaires Salmonella Salmonella enterica Serotypes Soil microorganisms Studies Veterinary medicine Water analysis Water sampling |
| title | Veterinary antibiotic resistance, residues, and ecological risks in environmental samples obtained from poultry farms, Egypt |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T15%3A21%3A59IST&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=Veterinary%20antibiotic%20resistance,%20residues,%20and%20ecological%20risks%20in%20environmental%20samples%20obtained%20from%20poultry%20farms,%20Egypt&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20monitoring%20and%20assessment&rft.au=Dahshan,%20Hesham&rft.date=2015-02-01&rft.volume=187&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=2&rft.epage=2&rft.pages=2-2&rft.artnum=2&rft.issn=0167-6369&rft.eissn=1573-2959&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10661-014-4218-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3562242561%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=1646553779&rft_id=info:pmid/25600402&rfr_iscdi=true |