The Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in Polish Poultry Meat

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Polish Journal of Microbiology

Polish Society of Microbiologists

Subject: Microbiology

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 1733-1331
eISSN: 2544-4646

DESCRIPTION

191
Reader(s)
651
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Related articles

VOLUME 67 , ISSUE 1 (March 2018) > List of articles

The Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in Polish Poultry Meat

Anna Szosland-Fałtyn * / Beata Bartodziejska / Joanna Królasik / Beata Paziak-Domańska / Dorota Korsak / Magdalena Chmiela

Keywords : Campylobacter spp., microbiological quality, poultry meat

Citation Information : Polish Journal of Microbiology. Volume 67, Issue 1, Pages 117-120, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0011.6152

License : (CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0)

Received Date : 09-February-2017 / Accepted: 17-May-2017 / Published Online: 09-March-2018

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

The prevalence, count and molecular identification of Campylobacter spp. in Polish poultry meat were analysed. 181 samples of meat from chicken (70), turkey (47), duck (54) and goose (10) were studied. Campylobacter spp. was found in 64% of meat samples. The highest prevalence of this pathogen was detected for duck meat. On average 80% of duck samples were contaminated with Campylobacter spp. The counts of Campylobacter spp. in positive samples remained under ten colony forming units per gram of product in 59% of poultry meat. C. jejuni was more frequently detected in poultry meat than C. coli.

Graphical ABSTRACT

During the last few decades, the global production of poultry meat has increased rapidly from 58.5 million tonnes in 2000 to 95.5 million tonnes in 2014. Production is not equally distributed; the Americas accounted for 43% of the total production, Asia (mainly China) for 34%, Europe for 17% and Africa and Oceania for 5% and 1% of the whole production in 2012 (93 million tonnes), respectively. In 2023, poultry meat is expected to be the largest meat sector by around 130.7 million tonnes (Skarp et al., 2016). Chicken meat is currently the first most widely produced poultry meat followed by turkey meat, duck meat and goose meat. Although much attention has focused on microbiological safety of poultry meat, this type of product remains a significant cause of food-borne disease in the world. The most reported poultry-borne gastroenteritic disease is campylobacteriosis. In 2015 there were 229,213 cases of campylobacteriosis diagnosed (EFSA, 2016). Infection in humans is mainly caused by the zoonotic pathogen Campylobacter spp. Poultry is a natural host for Campylobacter spp. in general, and that colonized birds are the primary vector for transmitting this pathogen to humans (Bless et al., 2014; Rożynek et al., 2009).

Although poultry meat is becoming increasingly popular, relatively little research has been done investigating the presence and count of Campylobacter spp. in other than chicken types of poultry meat. In order to add more insight to these issue the objective of this study was to determine the prevalence, count and genetic diversity of Campylobacter spp. in different kind of poultry meat available in local trade network.

One hundred and eighty one samples of four types of commercially available fresh poultry meat were microbiologically analysed from 2013 to 2015. The samples of meat were transported to the Laboratory of Microbiology in isothermal containers, maintaining the temperature at 0–2°C, and tested immediately on reaching the laboratory. A total of 70 chicken, 47 turkey, 54 duck and 10 goose meat portions were examined in terms of the prevalence and count of Campylobacter spp. isolation and count were performed according to PN-ISO 10272-1:2007+Ap1:2008 and PKN ISO/TS 10272-2:2008. To confirm isolates and identify the species, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods was applied (Maćkiw et al., 2012). For quality control, C. jejuni ATCC 33291 and C. coli ATCC 33559 strains were used. Prevalence data for Campylobacter spp. sorted by meat type, and species were analyzed using the analysis of variance test ANOVA (Statistica 6.0 PL). The significance level was P < 0.05. In case of finding significant differences the post-hoc analysis was done using the Tukey test.

The frequency of Campylobacter spp. detection and counts in the tested poultry meat is shown in Table I. Examination of the meats revealed that the vast majority of samples (64%) were contaminated with Campylobacter spp. The prevalence of this genus ranged from 38% to 80%, respectively for turkey and duck. The direct plating method yielded enumeration results from < 10 CFU/g to 1.0 × 103 CFU/g. Enumeration data showed the greater number of samples were positive only after enrichment (68%) indicating low microbiological load of Campylobacter on analysed poultry meat (Table I).

Table I

Campylobacter spp. presence and counts in different types of poultry meat.

10.5604_01.3001.0011.6152-tbl1.jpg

Of the 116 positive samples, isolates originating from a variety of poultry meat were lost in the course of freeze storage, leaving isolates from 97 samples for inclusion in the PCR analysis. Of the 97 Campylobacter spp. isolates, 61 and 36 were confirmed based on PCR as C. jejuni and C. coli, respectively (Table II). Variability in C. jejuni and C. coli prevalence observed in samples obtained from different types of poultry meat was not statistically significant.

Table II

Genotypic identification of Campylobacter spp.

10.5604_01.3001.0011.6152-tbl2.jpg

Due to the lack of regulation in the EU legislation routine tests of poultry meat for the presence of Campylobacter spp. are not carried out in Poland (Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as amended). Therefore, the above quantitative and qualitative assessment results of Campylobacter spp. prevalence in different types of poultry meat, available in Polish trade are a valuable source of information on this pathogen contamination.

In this study Campylobacter spp. was isolated from 64% of poultry meat. Within the tested meat types, highest Campylobacter spp. prevalence was found in duck (80%) followed by chicken (70%), goose (60%), and turkey (38%). Similar results were obtained by Korsak et al. (2015). Polish studies at the retail level revealed that 49.3% of poultry samples were contaminated with Campylobacter spp. Our results on the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in raw poultry meat are in agreement with data from other countries (Adzitey et al., 2012; Guyard-Nicodeme et al., 2015; Hansson et al., 2015). During the seven years of the study in the United States the average prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in retail broiler meat was 41%, with no statistical differences in the prevalence by year (P > 0.05) (Williams and Oyarzabal, 2012). In this study the prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in chicken meat was 70% and was lower than the frequency of contamination detected in research performed on chicken in Germany or Ireland, respectively, 87% and 91%. (Luber and Bartelt, 2007; Madden et al., 2011; Moran et al., 2009). The percentage obtained in our experiment for duck samples positive for this pathogen is similar to findings reported from Great Britain (Colles et al., 2011), Tanzania (Nonga and Muhairwa, 2010) and South Korea (Wei et al., 2014). According to Colles et al. (2011) and Wei et al. (2014) the percentage of contaminated duck samples was 93.3–100.0% and 96.6% respectively. Lower values were found by Jamali et al. (2015) and Rahimi et al. (2011). These authors detected Campylobacter spp. in 39.2% and 35.5% duck samples, respectively. The differences among results might be due to diverse isolation methods, geographic, and seasonal factors (Adzitey et al., 2012; Jamali et al., 2015). With regard to the range of Campylobacter sp. – positive samples in turkey meat, the results of Atanassova et al. (2007) and Rahimi and Tajbakhsh (2008) are similar to the results obtained in this investigation. Of the turkey meat examined, 34.0% and 24.7% samples were Campylobacter sp. positive (Atanassova et al., 2007; Rahimi and Tajbakhsh, 2008). Other authors have described higher levels. Cakmak and Erol (2012) detected Campylobacter spp. from 45.6% of the turkey meat samples. On the other hand Noormohamed and Fakhr (2014) found in their study that 17% of the turkey samples were positive for Campylobacter spp. There are very few data about prevalence of microbial contamination on goose meat. The first study has shown the occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in 26.5% goose samples (Rahimi et al., 2011). In later research reported by Jamali et al. (2015) prevalence was 26.1%.

Our findings showed that C. jejuni was more prevalent than C. coli in poultry meat that is in agreement with data from other countries (Ghafir et al., 2007; Jamali et al., 2015; Noormohamed and Fakhr, 2014; Rahimi et al., 2011; Wei et al., 2014; Williams and Oyarzabal, 2012). The higher prevalence of C. jejuni in poultry meat is contrary to the findings conducted by researchers from India, Reunion Island and Poland. Malik et al. (2014) observed a shift in the prevalence of important species of Campylobacter spp. C. coli were prevalent in 93.75% (30/32) and C. jejuni in 6.25% (2/32) among broilers slaughtered at chicken shop. Henry et al. (2011) also detected C. coli as a predominant species in chicken flocks. Maćkiw et al. (2012) reported that C. coli was the most ubiquitous. Its presence was determined in 75.5% samples of chicken meat and giblets, whereas C. jejuni was found in 24.5% of samples.

The quantitative results from present study showed low Campylobacter spp. contamination level of examined poultry meat. Campylobacter spp. counts were < 10 CFU/g in 68% of positive cases. 22% and 26% samples showed a pathogen concentration with a range of ≥ 10 to < 100 CFU/g and with ≥ 100 CFU/g, respectively. Our findings are similar to data from the Belgian monitoring program where 58% of the samples were contaminated with < 10 CFU/g, 29% of the samples were contaminated with a range of ≥ 10 to < 100 CFU/g and 11% of the samples were contaminated with ≥ 100 CFU/g. The average Campylobacter spp. concentration was 4.8 × 101 CFU/g (Habib et al., 2008). The higher Campylobacter spp. load were found on Estonian broiler chicken products. Enumeration data, conducted by Mäesaar et al. (2014) showed that the overall arithmetic Campylobacter spp. CFU mean was 1.6 × 103 CFU/g of product. Relatively low counts obtained in our study and in research conducted by Habib et al. (2008) might also be considered hazardous. In a restaurant-associated outbreak, the number of C. jejuni bacteria in the causative chicken meal was estimated to range from 53 to 750 CFU/g. Additionally, in vitro models indicate that the efficiency with which some Campylobacter strains invade intestinal cell lines is optimal at the lowest range of multiplicities of infection, which suggests that species is a highly efficient solitary invader (Habib et al., 2008). Our study revealed that fresh poultry meat is often contaminated with Campylobacter spp. that decreases the quality of this kind of meat and constitutes a public health hazards.

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (theme: 500-01-ZJ-03).

References


  1. Adzitey F., G. Rusul, N. Huda, T. Cogan and J. Corry. 2012. Prevalence, antibiotic resistance and RAPD typing of Campylobacter species isolated from ducks, their rearing and processing environments in Penang, Malaysia. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 154(3): 197–205.
    [CROSSREF]
  2. Atanassova V., F. Reich, L. Beckmann and G. Klein. 2007. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in turkey meat from a slaughterhouse and in turkey meat retail products. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 49(1): 141–145.
    [CROSSREF]
  3. Bless P.J., C. Schmutz, K. Suter, M. Jost, J. Hattendorf, M. Mäusezahl-Feuz and D. Mäusezah. 2014. A tradition and an epidemic: determinants of the campylobacteriosis winter peak in Switzerland. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 29(7): 527–537.
    [CROSSREF]
  4. Cakmak O. and I. Erol. 2012. Prevalence of thermophilic Campylobacter spp. in turkey meat and antibiotic resistance of C. jejuni isolates. J. Food Saf. 32(4): 452–458.
    [CROSSREF]
  5. Colles F.M., J.S. Ali, S.K. Sheppard, N.D. McCarthy and M.C.J. Maiden. 2011. Campylobacter populations in wild and domesticated Mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). Environt. Microbiol. Rep. 3(5): 574–580.
    [CROSSREF]
  6. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15.11.05 on the microbial criteria for foodstuffs, as amended.
  7. EFSA. 2016. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2015. EFSA J. 14(12): 4634.
  8. Ghafir Y., B. China, K. Dierick, L. De Zutter and G. Daube. 2007. A seven-year survey of Campylobacter contamination in meat at different production stages in Belgium. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 116: 111–120.
    [CROSSREF]
  9. Guyard-Nicodeme M., K. Rivoal, E. Houard, V. Rose, S. Quesne, F. Gauchard and M. Chemaly. 2015. Prevalence and characterization of Campylobacter jejuni from chicken meat sold in French outlets. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 203: 8–14.
    [CROSSREF]
  10. Habib I., I. Sampers, M. Uyttendaele, D. Berkvens and L. De Zutter. 2008. Baseline data from a Belgium-wide survey of Campylobacter species contamination in chicken meat preparations and considerations for a reliable monitoring program. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74(17): 5483–5489.
    [CROSSREF]
  11. Hansson I., A. Nyman, E. Lahti, P. Gustafsson and E. Olsson Engvall. 2015. Associations between Campylobacter levels on chicken skin, underlying muscle, caecum and packaged fillets. Food Microbiol. 48: 178–181.
    [CROSSREF]
  12. Henry I., J. Reichardt, M. Denis and E. Cardinale. 2011. Prevalence and risk factors for Campylobacter spp. in chicken broiler flocks in reunion Island (Indian Ocean). Prev. Vet. Med. 100: 64–70.
    [CROSSREF]
  13. Jamali H., A. Ghaderpour, B. Radmehr, K. Swee Chuan Wei, L. Ching Chai and S. Ismail. 2015. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter species isolates in ducks and geese. Food Control. 50: 328–330.
    [CROSSREF]
  14. Korsak D., E. Maćkiw, E. Rożynek and M. Żyłowska. 2015. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in retail chicken, turkey, pork, and beef meat in Poland between 2009 and 2013. J. Food Protect. 78(5): 1024–1028.
    [CROSSREF]
  15. Luber P. and E. Bartelt. 2007. Enumeration of Campylobacter spp. on the surface and within chicken breast fillets. J. Appl. Microbiol. 102: 313–318.
    [PUBMED]
  16. Maćkiw E., D. Korsak, K. Rzewuska, K. Tomczuk and E. Rozynek. 2012. Antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from food in Poland. Food Control. 23: 297–301.
    [CROSSREF]
  17. Madden R.H., L. Moran, P. Scates, J. McBride and C. Kelly. 2011. Prevalence of Campylobacter and Salmonella in raw chicken on retail sale in the republic of Ireland. J. Food Protect. 74(11): 1912–1916.
    [CROSSREF]
  18. Mäesaar M., K. Praakle, K. Meremäe, T. Kramarenko, J. Sõgel, A. Viltrop, K. Muutra, K. Kovalenko, D. Matt, A. Hörman, M.-L. Hänninen and M. Roasto. 2014. Prevalence and counts of Campylobacter spp. in poultry meat at retail level in Estonia. Food Control. 44: 72–77.
    [CROSSREF]
  19. Malik H., A. Kumar, S. Rajagunalan, J.L. Kataria, and A.S. Sachan. 2014. Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli among broilers in Bareilly region. Vet. World. 7(10): 784–787.
    [CROSSREF]
  20. Moran L., P. Scates and R.H. Madden. 2009. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in raw retail poultry on sale in Northern Ireland. J. Food Protect. 9(72): 1830–1835.
    [CROSSREF]
  21. Nonga H.E. and A.P. Muhairwa. 2010. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility of thermophilic Campylobacter isolates from free range domestic duck in Morogoro municipality, Tanzania. Trop. Anim. Health Pro. 42(2): 165–172.
    [CROSSREF]
  22. Noormohamed A. and M.K. Fakhr. 2014. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter spp. in Oklahoma conventional and organic retail poultry. Open Microbiol. J. 10: 130–137.
    [CROSSREF]
  23. PKN ISO/TS 10272-2:2008. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. Part 2: Colony-count technique.
  24. Polish Standard PN-ISO 10272-1:2007+Ap1:2008. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. Part 1: Detection method.
  25. Rahimi E., F. Alian and F. Alian. 2011. Prevalence and characteristic of Campylobacter species isolated from raw duck and goose meat in Iran. IPCBEE 9: 171–175.
  26. Rahimi E. and E. Tajbakhsh. 2008. Prevalence of Campylobacter species in poultry meat in the Esfahan city, Iran. Bulg. J. Vet. Med. 11(4): 257–262.
  27. Rożynek E., K. Dzierżanowska-Fangrat, B. Szczepańska, S. Wardak, J. Szych, P. Konieczny, P. Albrecht and D. Dzierżanowska. 2009. Trends in antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter isolates in Poland (2000–2007). Pol. J. Microbiol. 58(2): 111–115.
    [PUBMED]
  28. Skarp C.P.A., M.L. Hänninen and H.I.K. Rautelin. 2016. Campylobacteriosis: the role of poultry meat. Clin. Microbiol. Infec. 22(2): 103–109.
    [CROSSREF]
  29. Wei B., S.Y. Cha, M. Kang, J.H. Roh, H.S. Seo, R.H. Yoon and H.K. Jang. 2014. Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles and molecular typing of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolates from ducks in South Korea. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80(24): 7604–7610.
    [CROSSREF]
  30. Williams A. and O.A. Oyarzabal. 2012. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in skinless, boneless retail broiler meat from 2005 through 2011 in Alabama, USA. BMC Microbiol. 12: 184–190.
    [CROSSREF]
XML PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

Table I

Campylobacter spp. presence and counts in different types of poultry meat.

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

Table II

Genotypic identification of Campylobacter spp.

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

REFERENCES

  1. Adzitey F., G. Rusul, N. Huda, T. Cogan and J. Corry. 2012. Prevalence, antibiotic resistance and RAPD typing of Campylobacter species isolated from ducks, their rearing and processing environments in Penang, Malaysia. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 154(3): 197–205.
    [CROSSREF]
  2. Atanassova V., F. Reich, L. Beckmann and G. Klein. 2007. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in turkey meat from a slaughterhouse and in turkey meat retail products. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 49(1): 141–145.
    [CROSSREF]
  3. Bless P.J., C. Schmutz, K. Suter, M. Jost, J. Hattendorf, M. Mäusezahl-Feuz and D. Mäusezah. 2014. A tradition and an epidemic: determinants of the campylobacteriosis winter peak in Switzerland. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 29(7): 527–537.
    [CROSSREF]
  4. Cakmak O. and I. Erol. 2012. Prevalence of thermophilic Campylobacter spp. in turkey meat and antibiotic resistance of C. jejuni isolates. J. Food Saf. 32(4): 452–458.
    [CROSSREF]
  5. Colles F.M., J.S. Ali, S.K. Sheppard, N.D. McCarthy and M.C.J. Maiden. 2011. Campylobacter populations in wild and domesticated Mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos). Environt. Microbiol. Rep. 3(5): 574–580.
    [CROSSREF]
  6. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15.11.05 on the microbial criteria for foodstuffs, as amended.
  7. EFSA. 2016. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2015. EFSA J. 14(12): 4634.
  8. Ghafir Y., B. China, K. Dierick, L. De Zutter and G. Daube. 2007. A seven-year survey of Campylobacter contamination in meat at different production stages in Belgium. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 116: 111–120.
    [CROSSREF]
  9. Guyard-Nicodeme M., K. Rivoal, E. Houard, V. Rose, S. Quesne, F. Gauchard and M. Chemaly. 2015. Prevalence and characterization of Campylobacter jejuni from chicken meat sold in French outlets. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 203: 8–14.
    [CROSSREF]
  10. Habib I., I. Sampers, M. Uyttendaele, D. Berkvens and L. De Zutter. 2008. Baseline data from a Belgium-wide survey of Campylobacter species contamination in chicken meat preparations and considerations for a reliable monitoring program. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74(17): 5483–5489.
    [CROSSREF]
  11. Hansson I., A. Nyman, E. Lahti, P. Gustafsson and E. Olsson Engvall. 2015. Associations between Campylobacter levels on chicken skin, underlying muscle, caecum and packaged fillets. Food Microbiol. 48: 178–181.
    [CROSSREF]
  12. Henry I., J. Reichardt, M. Denis and E. Cardinale. 2011. Prevalence and risk factors for Campylobacter spp. in chicken broiler flocks in reunion Island (Indian Ocean). Prev. Vet. Med. 100: 64–70.
    [CROSSREF]
  13. Jamali H., A. Ghaderpour, B. Radmehr, K. Swee Chuan Wei, L. Ching Chai and S. Ismail. 2015. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter species isolates in ducks and geese. Food Control. 50: 328–330.
    [CROSSREF]
  14. Korsak D., E. Maćkiw, E. Rożynek and M. Żyłowska. 2015. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in retail chicken, turkey, pork, and beef meat in Poland between 2009 and 2013. J. Food Protect. 78(5): 1024–1028.
    [CROSSREF]
  15. Luber P. and E. Bartelt. 2007. Enumeration of Campylobacter spp. on the surface and within chicken breast fillets. J. Appl. Microbiol. 102: 313–318.
    [PUBMED]
  16. Maćkiw E., D. Korsak, K. Rzewuska, K. Tomczuk and E. Rozynek. 2012. Antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from food in Poland. Food Control. 23: 297–301.
    [CROSSREF]
  17. Madden R.H., L. Moran, P. Scates, J. McBride and C. Kelly. 2011. Prevalence of Campylobacter and Salmonella in raw chicken on retail sale in the republic of Ireland. J. Food Protect. 74(11): 1912–1916.
    [CROSSREF]
  18. Mäesaar M., K. Praakle, K. Meremäe, T. Kramarenko, J. Sõgel, A. Viltrop, K. Muutra, K. Kovalenko, D. Matt, A. Hörman, M.-L. Hänninen and M. Roasto. 2014. Prevalence and counts of Campylobacter spp. in poultry meat at retail level in Estonia. Food Control. 44: 72–77.
    [CROSSREF]
  19. Malik H., A. Kumar, S. Rajagunalan, J.L. Kataria, and A.S. Sachan. 2014. Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli among broilers in Bareilly region. Vet. World. 7(10): 784–787.
    [CROSSREF]
  20. Moran L., P. Scates and R.H. Madden. 2009. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in raw retail poultry on sale in Northern Ireland. J. Food Protect. 9(72): 1830–1835.
    [CROSSREF]
  21. Nonga H.E. and A.P. Muhairwa. 2010. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility of thermophilic Campylobacter isolates from free range domestic duck in Morogoro municipality, Tanzania. Trop. Anim. Health Pro. 42(2): 165–172.
    [CROSSREF]
  22. Noormohamed A. and M.K. Fakhr. 2014. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter spp. in Oklahoma conventional and organic retail poultry. Open Microbiol. J. 10: 130–137.
    [CROSSREF]
  23. PKN ISO/TS 10272-2:2008. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. Part 2: Colony-count technique.
  24. Polish Standard PN-ISO 10272-1:2007+Ap1:2008. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. Part 1: Detection method.
  25. Rahimi E., F. Alian and F. Alian. 2011. Prevalence and characteristic of Campylobacter species isolated from raw duck and goose meat in Iran. IPCBEE 9: 171–175.
  26. Rahimi E. and E. Tajbakhsh. 2008. Prevalence of Campylobacter species in poultry meat in the Esfahan city, Iran. Bulg. J. Vet. Med. 11(4): 257–262.
  27. Rożynek E., K. Dzierżanowska-Fangrat, B. Szczepańska, S. Wardak, J. Szych, P. Konieczny, P. Albrecht and D. Dzierżanowska. 2009. Trends in antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter isolates in Poland (2000–2007). Pol. J. Microbiol. 58(2): 111–115.
    [PUBMED]
  28. Skarp C.P.A., M.L. Hänninen and H.I.K. Rautelin. 2016. Campylobacteriosis: the role of poultry meat. Clin. Microbiol. Infec. 22(2): 103–109.
    [CROSSREF]
  29. Wei B., S.Y. Cha, M. Kang, J.H. Roh, H.S. Seo, R.H. Yoon and H.K. Jang. 2014. Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles and molecular typing of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolates from ducks in South Korea. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80(24): 7604–7610.
    [CROSSREF]
  30. Williams A. and O.A. Oyarzabal. 2012. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in skinless, boneless retail broiler meat from 2005 through 2011 in Alabama, USA. BMC Microbiol. 12: 184–190.
    [CROSSREF]

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS