Some epidemiological studies on Salmonella in ostrich farm and slaughter house
at Ismailia province
Metawea, Y. F.
Dept. of Hygiene, Animal Behavior and Management
Fac. of Vet. Med. Moshtohor, Benha University
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the Salmonella prevalence, the serotypes
involved and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of isolated Salmonella from ostrich
farm environment as well as from both ostrich eggs and carcasses (meat and liver). It
also aimed to find out the possible sources of Salmonellae infection among ostrich
flocks and the effect of such sources on the contamination of both ostrich eggs and
carcasses. Three hundreds and fifteen samples were collected during summer season,
2012 from ostrich farm and slaughter house located at Elkassaseen, Ismailia province.
The obtained results indicated that, the overall prevalence of Salmonella in all
examined samples was 8.6 % (27/315). The prevalence of Salmonella spp. in feed,
water, ostrich dropping, eggs shells, workers hands and rodents dropping were 5.3,
6.7, 10.0, 10.0, 13.3, and 20%, respectively, while the prevalence of Salmonella in
ostrich liver and meat was 6.7 in both of them. The most predominant serotype of
Salmonella was S. enteritides (10 strains), followed by S. typhimurium (7 strains), S.
kentucky (4 strains), S. muenster (2strains), S. anatum, S. chester (one of each) and 2
untypable strains. Antibiogram patterns showed that both S. enteritidis and S.
typhimurium were highly sensitive to norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin, while they were
low to moderate sensitive to nalidixic acid, amoxicillin and doxycyline. At the same time,
they were resistant to erythromycin, kanmycin, neomycin and tetracycline. The study
concluded that there are many sources for Salmonella contamination and persistence
in ostrich production system such as; feed, water, ostrich dropping, rodents, and
workers. Moreover, breeder and grower flocks were exposed to high level of
environmental contamination with Salmonella which resulted in the contamination of
both hatching eggs and ostrich products. The suggested preventive measures for
minimizing Salmonella prevalence in ostrich products and environment were
discussed.
Introduction
The ostrich (Struthio camelus var. domesticus) is the largest of all birds and
belongs to a small order of birds known as the ratitae or running birds. Ostriches and
emus are raised commercially because of their tolerance to cold and humid conditions
and their early sexual maturity. The ostrich has been farmed for more than 100 yrs. in
South Africa and the importance of its production has been shown by its global
growth over the past few years. This increased production has necessitated
improvements in farm practices to ensure adequate and increased breeding and
survivability success. The main constraints in ostrich production are infertile eggs,
embryonic mortality, and post hatching leg deformity (Cooper, 2001). Salmonellosis
is the most frequently encountered food-borne bacterial disease in the world and an
important public health concern. There are several transmission routes of human
infections are derived from the ingestion of contaminated water and food, especially
of animal origin (Plym and Wierup, 2006). Salmonella is estimated as an annual
infectious rate of 21.6 million and approximate death rate of 600 000 with the highest
percentage in Africa and Asia (WHO, 2009). Human Salmonella infection can lead to
enteric fever, entercolitis, and systemic infections (Piyush and Anju 2008). Ostrich
are susceptible to a number of infectious agents which are common to other avian
1
species. They have no infectious or contagious species specific diseases
(Huchzermeyer, 1998). Among the well known sources of Salmonella contamination
in poultry are feed, water, carrier birds, litter and surrounding environment, also eggs
may play a great role in Salmonella transmission for birds and human (Cason et al.,
1994 and Metawea, 2003). Salmonella outbreaks among young ostrich chicks on
large ostrich farms in Southern Africa are usually associated with rodent
contaminated feed or row materials exposed to free-flying birds in the chick runs, the
use of open water reservoirs or direct piping from contaminated surface water
(Huchzermeyer, 1998). Moreover, rodents & birds excreta and feed components
(animal and plant origin) are considered as a potential source of Salmonella
contamination to the poultry feed (Metawea and Abd El-Ghaffar, 2004).
The main vertical route of transmission of S. Enteritidis is egg , as it may colonize the
ovaries and per ovarian tissues of different breeds of layer chickens, and thus poses
the threat of vertical transmission from breeders to layers and then to the eggs.
However, S. Enteritidis can also be cultured from insects and animals such as rodents
living in and around hen houses. Rodents have been considered as the most important
vector of S. Enteritidis in contaminated layer farms (Henzler and Opitz, 1991 and
Davies and Wray, 1995).
Ostrich farming in Egypt is a newly growing industry that aimed at the supply of
ostrich meat and ostrich products for the local and international markets. Its future
success depends on its ability to supply high quality and disease free products. Ostrich
meat and products may get contaminated through handling, processing, cooking,
packaging and storage. Such contamination not only renders ostrich products unfit for
human consumption but also increase human risk (Ouf et al., 2009).
In recent years, there has been increasing concern regarding the world wide
occurrence of multidrug resistant strains of a number of pathogenic bacteria including
Salmonella in food. The extensive use of antibiotics for therapeutic or preventive
purposes in veterinary medicine and as growth promoters in animal feed has
contributed to the occurrence of resistant bacteria in animals, including zoonotic
pathogens which can be transmitted to human via food chain (Su et al., 2004).
There are very few studies on the prevalence of Salmonella in the environment of
ostrich farm, as well as antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Salmonella in raw
ostrich have been performed in Egypt. Therefore, this study was conducted to
determine the Salmonella prevalence, the serotypes involved and antimicrobial
susceptibility pattern of Salmonella isolates recovered from ostrich farm environment
and from both ostrich eggs and carcasses (meat & liver), in order to find out the
possible sources of Salmonella infection among ostrich flocks and the effect of such
sources on the contamination of ostrich eggs and carcasses.
Material and methods
I-Ostrich farm and slaughter house:
a- Ostrich farm:
The present study was carried out in ostrich farm located at El-Kassaseen,
Ismailia province. It had about 1500 birds. Ostrich flocks were divided into groups
according to age as follow: 1- 10 days old chicks; 10 - 60 days old, 2-6 months old; 612 months old, and over 2 years. The ostrich chicks from day 1 to 10 days old were
kept in rearing unit I (environmentally controlled with rubber mat floor). After that,
they transferred to rearing unit II &III (run/pen) with concrete floor until they grow
to 2 months and over 2 months to 6 months old respectively. Later on, they were
2
transferred to the grower yard, where ostriches stayed up to 12 months old (when they
were ready to be slaughtered) or until 24 months old (when they could replace
discarded breeders). From the grower yard, ostriches were sent either to slaughter
house or to reproduction sector. The grower and production yards were partially
sheltered with sandy floor and are surrounded by wire mesh fence. The ostriches’
drinking water comes from tap water (surface water, Ismailia canal). All ostrich feeds
{starter feed (22%), grower feed (16%) and breeder feed (20-22%) protein} were
obtained from feed processing company (FPCo) at the 10th of Ramdan city. The ratio
of chopped green fodder to feed is maintained at 2:1 for both grower and breeder
flocks. The ostrich farm is located 500 meters far from many cultivated lands with
fruits and large animal farms (beef calves and dairy buffalos).
b- Slaughter house:
The slaughter house is located in the same geographical region and it is less than
500 meters away from the ostrich farm. It is specialized in ratites processing and it has
the ability to slaughter and process around 30 ostriches per week.
II- Sampling:
Three hundred and fifteen samples were collected during summer season, 2012
after three visits. All samples are collected after one month interval from both ostrich
farm and slaughter house.
a- Samples collected from ostrich farm:
Two hundred and eighty five samples including water, feed, ostrich dropping
samples (75 of each), egg shells swabs (30), workers hand swabs, rodents dropping
(15 of each) were collected from the ostrich farm. Water, feed and ostrich dropping
were collected from ostrich flocks at different ages. Egg shell swabs were collected
from breeder flocks over 2 years old. All samples were placed in clean plastic bags
and transported aseptically to lab in ice box for bacteriological examination.
b- Samples collected from slaughter house:
Thirty meat and liver samples (15 of each) were obtained from slaughter house
during the same period. The weight of each sample was represented by 50-100 grams
and placed in clean plastic bags and transported a aseptically to the lab in ice box for
bacteriological examination.
III- Isolation and identification of Salmonella:
a- Isolation:
The procedures of isolation of Salmonella from different samples were carried
out according to Andrews and Hammack (1998).
b- Identification of Salmonella isolates:
1- The isolates were identified microscopically and by biochemical tests which
carried out according Bailey and Scott (1994)
2- Serological identification of Salmonella isolates were carried out according to
Kauffman White Scheme using slid agglutination technique described by
Edwards and Ewing (1972). Serological identification was carried out at Food
Analysis Lab. (Fac. Vet. Med. Moshotohor, Benha Univ.)
IV- Antibiogarm test:
In vitro antimicrobial susceptibility test for the most prevalent Salmonella
serotypes (S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium) was performed by the Kirby-Bauer disk
diffusion methods using Mueller-Hinton agar, according to the National Committee
For Clinical Laboratory Standards guidelines (NCCLS, 2002). The antimicrobial
discs (Oxide) and their corresponding concentrations were as follows: norfloxacin (10
µg), amoxicillin (10 µg), erythromycin (15 µg), kanmycin (30 µg), doxycyline (30 µg),
ciprofloxacin (5 µg), nalidixic acid (30 µg), neomycin (30 µg) and tetracycline (10 µg).
3
Results and discussion
Although little information is known about Salmonella spp. in ostriches, The
prevention of Salmonella contamination of ostrich products and hatching eggs
requires detailed knowledge of the main sources associated with its presence in the
production system.
The obtained results in Tables (1 & 2) indicated that, the overall prevalence of
Salmonella in all examined samples was 8.6 % (27/315). The prevalence of
Salmonella in examined feed samples was 5.3%, and the highest prevalence (13.3%)
was found in feed samples that collected from breeder flocks over 2 years old. On the
other hand, Salmonella was not recovered from feed of either 1-10 day flock old or 26 months old flock. The highest prevalence rate of Salmonella in breeders feed
compared to that of the grower and rearing flocks may be attributed to the addition of
some feed additives in both rearing and grower rations, in addition to the exposure of
feed of breeders flocks to higher level of contamination from farm environment
(dropping of ostrich and rodents, contaminated sandy soil). Furthermore, Salmonella
may be derived from contaminated feed components (animal and/or pant origin). The
results are nearly similar to those obtained by Jones and Richardson (2004) who
found that 8% of examined completed feed from feed mills was contaminated with
Salmonella. Oliveiro et al. (2009) detected Salmonella in 2 (6.7%) out of 30 ostrich
feed in Brazilian southeast region. Additionally, Poppe et al. (1991) recoded that the
prevalence of Salmonella in feed of Canadian commercial broiler flocks was 13.4%,
while Metawea and Abd El-Ghaffar (2004) found that only 6.9 % of examined
broiler feed from feed mills was contaminated with Salmonella and the highest
prevalence rate was noticed in feed components of animal origin. Moreover,
Metawea (2003) detected Salmonella in 12.3 % of examined feed from feeders of
broiler breeder flocks. The Lowest prevalence rate was reported by Shirota et al.
(2012) who detected Salmonella in 0.17% of feed from commercial layer and
replacement pullet farms in Japan, but higher prevalence rate was recorded by Marin
et al. (2011) who isolated Salmonella from 16% of examined feed of broiler flocks in
Spain. Jones et al. (1991) suggested that feed was the ultimate source of Salmonella
contamination in the environment of poultry farms as the prevalence of Salmonella in
feed was 35%. Our results indicated that ostrich feed is an important source to
introduce Salmonella spp. in farming and these findings were in agreement with the
results obtained by others. Gopo and Banda (1997) reported that contaminated feed
was the main source of Salmonella spp. in Zimbabwe ostrich farms. Furthermore,
Higgins et al. (1997) suggested that a feed supplement could be the source of
Salmonella to many animals, including a six-month-old ostrich chicks in Quebec,
Canada. On the other hand, Oliveiro et al. (2009) indicated that feed pelletization
alone is not enough to eliminate Salmonellas spp. of feed, because it does not avoid
environmental recontamination.
The obtained results indicated that, the prevalence of Salmonella in examined
water samples was 6.7 %. The highest prevalence rate (13.3%) was detected in water
from breeder flocks over 2 years old. While, Salmonella was not recovered from
water of rearing flock less than 10 days old. This may be attributed to the using of
antibiotics in drinking water during 1-10 days of rearing, using water directly from
tap (no water tank), changing the water drinkers frequently, the Salmonella free
surrounding environment (feed, dropping), moreover neither rodents nor their
dropping were noticed in the rearing pens. On the other hand, higher prevalence of
Salmonella in the water of breeder flock may be attributed to the contamination of
4
tanks and drinkers from the environment (ostrich, wild bird and rodents droppings,
and sandy soil), unchanging the water frequently, in addition to the less use of
antibiotic in breeder flocks. These results are similar to those reported by Poppe et al.
(1991) who detected Salmonella in 12.3% of examined water from Canadian
commercial broiler flocks. Kilonzo et al. (2008) recovered Salmonella from 5
(12.5%) out of 40 drinking water samples collected from chickens’ houses (layers,
replacement pullets and broilers) in Cameron. Additionally, Nayak et al. (2003)
isolated Salmonella from 10% of examined water of drinkers of four turkey flocks.
Higher prevalence was reported by Hoover et al. (1997) who detected Salmonella in
63.8% of drinking water of two turkey flocks, however lower prevalence was
obtained by Kadria et al. (2009) who detected S. enteritidis and S. typhimuriun in 3
out of 100 water samples collected from poultry farms at Giza province. On the other
hand, Metawea (2003) found that the prevalence of Salmonella in water samples
from drinkers of broiler breeder flocks was 4.5%, but Salmonella did not recover from
both water in tanks and tap water. This variation in prevalence among farms may be
attributed to the hygienic measures applied in each farm, system of housing, water
source, site of sampling, season and the health status of poultry flock. The results
indicated that the drinking water would be another way to introduce Salmonella spp.
in ostrich farming.
The obtained data clarified that, the prevalence of Salmonella in examined
ostrich droppings was 10.7% and the highest prevalence rate (20%) was recovered
from droppings of breeder flocks over 2 years old, followed by the grower flocks
under one year. On other hand, Salmonella was not recovered from droppings of
ostrich flock under 10 days old. The highest prevalence rate of Salmonella in both
breeder and grower flocks compared to rearing flock may be attributed to old age of
animals which able to carry and intermittently shed Salmonellae for an extended
period in addition to the behaviour of the ostrich chicks which always pick up faeces
of other chicks. Once one chick is infected with Salmonella the infection will be
spread rapidly through the flock. These findings are nearly similar to those reported
by Effat and Koursi (2003) who found that, the prevalence of Salmonella in faces,
cloacal swabs and internal organs of ostrich flocks over three months at Ismailia
province was 9.23%, while Salmonella was not recovered from ostrich flock under 2
months old. Le Bouquin et al. (2010) found that the apparent prevalence of
Salmonella was 8.6% in dropping of French commercial broiler chicken flocks.
Higher prevalence was detected by Marin et al. (2011) who detected Salmonella in
31.2% of examined dropping of broiler production systems in Eastern Spain. Akhtar
et al. (2010) recorded that the prevalence of Salmonella in examined poultry dropping
was 55%, while Li et al. (2007) found that the prevalence of Salmonella in layer
dropping was 30.8%. On the other hand, Gopo and Banda (1997) isolated
Salmonella from 44.2%, of ostrich dropping and Ali and Ibrahim (2004) detected
Salmonella in 44 (55%) of 80 faecal swabs collected from ostrich showing diarrhoea.
Moreover, Moursi and Husien (2005) found that the prevalence of Salmonella in
cloacal swabs of ostrich breeder hens was 23.3%, however lower prevalence was
obtained by Lapuz et al. (2008) who detected Salmonella in 0.1% of environmental
samples (litter, manure) of layer farms in eastern Japan. Oliveiro et al. (2009) found
that no Salmonella was recovered from 80 droppings samples from ostriches of
different ages at Brazilian southeast region. The obtained results indicated that,
ostrich droppings is one of the most important sources of Salmonella in ostrich farm
as there was a positive correlation between the presence of Salmonella in dropping
and the prevalence of Salmonella in both feed and water.
5
Our results clarified that, the highest prevalence (15.5%) of Salmonella was
recovered from environmental samples (feed, water, dropping) that collected from
breeder flocks over 2 years old followed by that collected from grower flocks (8.9%).
On the other hand Salmonella was not recovered from all samples of rearing flock
under 10 days old. These findings may be attributed to the variation in system of
housing as the rearing ostrich flock was housed in environmentally controlled pens,
while both grower and breeder flocks were housed in open yards with sandy floor
(more liable to environmental contamination with Salmonella). Moreover, both
grower and breeder yards are close to other farms of large animal at the same
geographical location. The obtained results agree with those reported by Brazil
(2003), Skov et al. (2008) and Marin et al. (2009). Even with adopting good sanitary
management, it is impossible to guarantee that ostriches are not exposed to pathogenic
microorganisms, because the farming systems are based on allocation of birds in the
open air allowing contact with other animals (wild birds, rodents, insects and others)
which increase the capability to transmit Salmonella spp. On the other hand Van
Hoorebeke et al. (2010) found that, the housing system of laying flocks did not have
a significant influence on the prevalence of Salmonella in the farms.
Salmonella was detected in 3 (10%) out of 30 egg shell samples collected from
breeder flocks, and similar prevalence rate was reported by Musgrove et al. (2005)
who isolated Salmonella from 10.1% (40/396) of examined egg shells samples.
Sangeeta et al. (2010) found that, among the chicken eggs from poultry farms and
marketing channels, 10 (3.84%) and 17 (5.5%) eggs were positive for Salmonella
respectively. Higher prevalence rate was recorder by Akhtar et al. (2010) who
detected Salmonella in 48 (40%) of 120 egg shells of laying hen flocks at Pakistan,
while lower prevalence rate was reported by Shirota et al. (2012) who found that all
examined eggs from commercial layer farms in Japan was Salmonella negative.
Lapuz et al. (2008) detected Salmonella in 0.08% of examined eggs from layer farms
in eastern Japan. Chemaly et al. (2009) reported that the prevalence of Salmonella in
examined egg shells of laying hens flocks was 1.05%, while Oliveiro et al. (2009)
found that Salmonella was not recovered from all examined ostrich eggs (90).
The contamination of eggs shells with Salmonella may be attributed to the
infected breeder flock with Salmonella, in addition to the unhygienic measures carried
out in yards as well as during eggs collection, sanitation and storage. Moreover,
Bruce and Drysdale (1990) reported that the bacterial contamination of ostrich eggs
may be related to the improper cleaning of eggs from faecal matter in the farm.
Furthermore, Chen et al. (2002) found that Salmonella contamination of hatching
eggs had adversely affected the production, fertility, hatchability, viability and quality
of chicks in addition to its detrimental effect on over all growth performance of
chickens.
Salmonella was recovered from 2 (13.3%) out of 30 workers hand swabs, this
may be attributed to the contamination of workers’ hands with ostrich dropping, their
stool & boots and rodents dropping, which may be resulted in the contamination of
eggs, water and feed. Nearly similar findings were reported by Marin et al. (2011)
who detected Salmonella in 19.7% of examined farming boots and Akhtar et al.
(2010) who found that 58 (46.4%) out of 125 human stool samples were Salmonella
positive. The results indicated that the farm workers are considered one of the most
important sources of Salmonella infection in ostrich farm as the unlimited movement
of workers without restriction may be resulted in spreading the infection throughout
the farm.
6
The prevalence of Salmonella in examined rodents dropping samples was 20%.
This result nearly is similar to that obtained by Lapuz et al. ( 2008) who reported that
a total of 113 (13·3%) out of 851 rats examined from layer farms in eastern Japan
were positive for S. enteritidis and S. infantis, respectively, also suggested that roof
rats are carriers of S. Enteritidis and S. Infantis and that persistent S. Enteritidis and S.
Infantis infections in a rats population may play an important role in the spread and
maintenance of these pathogens inside the layer premises. Additionally, Metawea
and Abd El-Ghaffar (2004) detected Salmonella in 17.8% of examined rodents
droppings collected from feed mills, while lower prevalence was obtained by Umali
et al. (2012) who detected Salmonella in 3.9% of examined rodent dropping in layer
farms. On the other hand, Oliveiro et al. (2009) found that all examined rodents
droppings from ostrich farm was Salmonella negative, moreover, the introduction of
flocks infected with Salmonella spp. may contribute to rodent infection. Our results
indicated that, rodents play a major role in the transmission and maintenance of
Salmonella contamination cycles in poultry facilities. This is likely one of the major
reasons why poultry houses can be persistently infected with Salmonella even if the
facilities are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected and if replacement stocks are
obtained from Salmonella-free breeders and rearing units. It is therefore a noteworthy
suggestion that rodent control programs inside poultry premises comprise an essential
and effective tool in the management and control of Salmonella contamination in
poultry flocks Umali et al. (2012). Moreover, Lapuz et al. (2012) concluded that
significant higher prevalence rate (P < 0.05) of Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella
infantis in layer hens farms could be attributed to the high rodent population density.
The obtained results clarified that, the prevalence of Salmonella in ostrich liver
and meat samples collected from slaughter house was 6.7% of each. These results are
nearly similar to those obtained by Akbarmehr (2010) who detected Salmonella in
6.6% of examined ostrich meat in Iran. Rahimi et al. (2010) recovered Salmonella
from 4.6% of examined ostrich meat in Iran, Gaedirelwe and Sebunya (2008)
detected Salmonella in 12.9% of examined ostrich liver collected from slaughter
house in Botswana, while Khater and Abdel-Twab (2009) found that the prevalence
of Salmonella in ostrich meat was 5% while ostrich liver was Salmonella negative.
Higher prevalence rate was reported by Akhtar et al. (2010) who detected
Salmonella in 30% of examined poultry meat in Pakistan. Moreover, Gopo and
Panda (1997) isolated Salmonella from 33% of ostrich carcasses in slaughter house
and 16.9% of all examined ostrich samples upon arrival the slaughter house, while all
examined ostrich liver was Salmonella free. On the other hand, Oliveiro et al. (2009)
found that Salmonella neither recovered from liver nor carcass swabs from ostrich
slaughter house.
The results indicated that the ostrich may have been contaminated at the rearing
farm environment, during transportation and even at slaughter house environment. On
the other hand, Heyndrikx et al. (2002) found that there is no correlation was found
between contamination during the rearing period and contamination found after
slaughtering. Moreover the presence of faecal material in the transport crates and
predominantly the identity of the slaughterhouse seemed to be the determining factors
for carcass quality. Improved hygiene management during transport of ostrich and in
some slaughterhouses could significantly reduce the risk of Salmonella contamination
of meat.
The data illustrated in Table (3) clarified that the most predominant serotype of
Salmonella was S. enteritides (10 strains), followed by S. typhimurium (7 strains), S.
kentucky (4 strains), S. muenster (2 strains), S. anatum, S. chester (one strain of each),
7
and finally 2 untypable strains. Nearly similar serotypes have been previously isolated
from both ostriches and poultry flocks and also from their environment as reported by
Khafagy and Kamel (2001), Metawea (2003), Metawea and Abd El-Ghaffar
(2004), Wong et al. (2007), and Kadria et al. (2009). On the other hand, many
researches isolated the same serotypes in addition to more serotypes (Verwoerd,
2000; Ali and Ibrahim, 2004; Le Bouquin et al., 2008; Oliveiro et al., 2009 and
Marin et al., 2011). The obtained results indicated that rodent droppings, feed and
water may import Salmonella strains into ostrich flock such as S. muenster, S. anatum
and S. chester. Moreover, there was inter-transmission of Salmonella isolates between
ostrich and their environment as both S. typimurium and S. enetritides were isolated
from ostrich dropping as well as all environmental samples in addition to the ostrich
meat and liver.
The antibiogram patterns (Table 4) showed that both S. enteritidis and S.
typhimurium were highly sensitive to norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin, while both
Salmonellae were low to moderate sensitive to nalidixic acid, amoxicillin and
doxycyline, but resistant to erythromycin, kanmycin, neomycin and tetracycline. These
results are in accordance with those recorded by Sharaf et al. (2011), Kilonzo et al.
(2008), Moursi and Husein (2005) and Ali and Ibrahim (2004).
This study concluded that there are many sources for Salmonella contamination
and persistence in ostrich production system including feed, water, ostrich dropping,
rodents and workers. Also, breeder and grower flocks were exposed to high level of
environmental contamination with Salmonella which resulted in the contamination of
both hatching eggs and ostrich products. Hence, the whole production chain needs to
be controlled to eradicate the bacteria from primary production. The suggested
preventive measures for minimizing Salmonella prevalence in ostrich products and
environment include:
 The entrance of vehicles, workers and visitors should be controlled and all of them
should be submitted to the disinfection and decontamination process before their
entrance. All clothes and shoes of people should be changed and people should be
provided with clean rubber boots and coveralls.
 All workers should be trained on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) by the
responsible veterinarian. The training should include the rules about moving into
the farm, personal hygiene practices and suitable management of the ostriches in
each sector. The workers from reproduction and grower pen sector should be
forbidden from entering the hatchery and chick pen sector.
 Prohibit any animal species to enter the farm and avoid the undesirable animal
visiting (e.g. rodent control, stores the manure in especial place, provide mesh
fence and live barriers around the farm).
 The water and feed from several spots of the farm should be tested for the
bacterial presence twice a year in order to evaluate if they are pathogens free.
References
Akbarmehr, J. (2010): Isolation of Salmonella spp. from poultry (ostrich, pigeon,
and chicken) and detection of their hilA gene by PCR method. African Journal
of Microbiology Research, 24, (4): 2678-2681
Akhtar, F.; . Hussain, I.; Khan, A. and Rahman, S. U. (2010): Prevalence and
Antibiogram Studies of Salmonella enteritidis isolated from human and poultry
sources. Pakistan Vet. J., 30 (1): 25-28
Ali, A. R. and Ibrahim, H. S. (2004): Bacteriological and serological studies on S.
enteritis of ostriches. J. Egypt. Vet. Med. Ass. 64 (1): 247-261.
8
Andrews, W. H. and Hammack, T. S. (1998):˝Salmonella˝. Bacteriological
analytical manual, 8th Ed. Revision A, Chapter 6. Hall. Pupl. Comp. Limited,
London, U.K.
Bailey, W. R. and Scott, S. G.(1994): Diagnostic microbiology. 7th Ed. C.V. Mosby
Co. USA
Brazil, (2003): Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. National
program of avian health. Directive (“Instrução Normativa Conjunta”) number 2
Official Newspaper of the Government of Brazil, February 5 section 1, 11
Bruce,. J. and Drysdale, M. (1990): Egg Hygiene (Route of infection), In Avian
incubation, Poul. Sci. Symposium, 22: 262.
Cason, A; Cox, A. and Bailey, S. (1994): Transmission of S. typhimurium during
hatching of broiler chicks. Avian Dis., 38: 583-588.
Chemaly, M.; Huneau-Salaün. A.; Labbe, A.; Houdayer, C.; Petetin, I. and
Fravalo, P.(2009): Isolation of Salmonella enterica in laying-hen flocks and
assessment of egg shell contamination in France. J. Food Prot.;72,(10): 20712077.
Chen S. J.; Lee, T. E; Wang, E. M.; Cho, T. J. and Wang, C. H. (2002):
Monitoring the hygiene of chicken hatcheries in Taiwan during 1999-2001. J.
Micro. Immunol. Infect. , 35 (4): 236-242.
Cooper, R. G. (2001): Hatching, incubation and hatchability of ostrich (Struthio
Camelus Var. Domesticus) eggs: A review. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 10:262–273
Davies, R.H, Wray, C. (1995): Mice as carriers of Salmonella enteritidis on
persistently infected poultry units. Vet. Rec. 137:337–341.
Edwards, P. and Ewing, W. (1972): Identification of Enterobacteriaceae. 3rd Ed.
Burgers Publishing Company, USA.
Effat, A. and Koursi, M. (2003): Studies on diarrhea in ostrich in Ismailia province
with reference to cloacal prolepse. J. Egypt. Vet. Med. Ass. 63 (6): 271-287.
Gaedirelwe, O. G. and Sebunya, T. k. (2008): The prevalence and antibiotics
susceptibility of Salmonella spp. in poultry and ostrich samples from slaughter
houses in Gaborone, Botswana. J. Animal and Vet. Advances, 7 (9): 1151-1154
Gopo, J. M. and Banda, G. N., (1997): Occurrence of Salmonella on meat and
products in an ostrich abattoir as determined with a DNA probe, South African
Journal of Animal Science, 27, 1 – 6.
Henzler, D. J. and Opitz, H. M. (1991): The role of mice in the epizootology of
Salmonella enteritidis infection on chicken layer farms. Av. Dis. ;36: 625–631.
Heyndrikx, M.; Vandekerchove, S.; Herman L.; Rollier, K. Grijspeerd T. and
De Zutter, L. (2002): Routes for Salmonella contamination of poultry meat
:Epidemiological study from hatchery to slaughterhouse. Epid. Infect., 129, 253
-265
Higgins, R.; Desilets, A.; Cantin, M.; Messeier, S.; Khakhria, R.; Ismail, J.;
Mulvey, M. R.; Daignault, D. and Caron, H.(1997): Outbreak of Salmonella
give in province of Quebec, The Canad. Vet. J., 38, 780–781
Hoover, N. J.; Kenney, P.B.; Amick, J.D. and Hypes, W.A. (1997): Preharvest
sources of Salmonella colonization in turkey production. Poul. Sci., 76 (9):
1232-1238.
Huchzermeyer, F.W. (1998): Disease of ostriches and other ratites. Agricultural
Research Council, Onderstepoort Veterinary institute, Republic of South
Africa, 304 pp
9
Jones F.T. and Richardson, K. E. (2004): Salmonella in commercially
manufactured feeds. Poul. Sci.; 83 (3):384 -391.
Jones, G; Axtell, R. and Rivies, S. (1991): A survey of Salmonella contamination in
modern broiler production. J. of Food Prot. 54,(7): 502-507.
Kadria, G; Samaha, H. A. and Hassan, A. M. (2009): Microbial contents of air and
water in poultry farms. J. Egypt. Vet. Med. Ass. 69 (2): 127-141.
Khafagy, A.R. and Kamel, A. M. (2001): Microbial contamination and other
hatching problems causing dead in shell in ostrich (Struthio Camelus) eggs during
artificial incubation. Vet. Med. J. Giza, 49, (3): 401-411.
Khater, D. F. and Abdel-Twab, A.A. (2009): Bacterial quality of ostrich meat and
Edible offal. 3rd international Sci Conf., Fac. Vet. Med. Benha Univ. 632-645
Kilonzo, N. A.; Nahashon, S.N.; Chen, F. and Adefope, N. (2008): Prevalence and
antimicrobial resistance of pathogenic bacteria in chicken and guinea fowl. Poul.
Sci. 87(9):1841-1848.
Lapuz, R.; Sasai , K.; Shirota, K.; Katoh, H. and Baba, E. (2008):The role of
roof rats (Rattus rattus) in the spread of Salmonella enteritidis and S. infantis
contamination in layer farms in eastern Japan. Epid. Infect., 136 (9): 1235–1243.
Le Bouquin, S.; Allain, V.; Rouxel, S.; Petetin, I.; Picherot, M.; Michel, V. and
Chemaly, M.(2010): Prevalence and risk factors for Salmonella spp.
contamination in French broiler-chicken flocks at the end of the rearing period.
Prev. Vet. Med. 1; 97 (3-4):245-250.
Li, X.; Payne, J. B.; Santos, F. B.; Levine, J. F.; Anderson, K. E. and Sheldon, B.
W. (2007): Salmonella populations and prevalence in layer feces from
commercial high-rise houses and characterization of the Salmonella isolates by
serotyping, antibiotic resistance analysis, and pulsed field gel electrophoresis.
Poul. Sci., 86(3):591-597.
Marin, C.; Balasch, S.; Vega, S. and Lainez, M. (2011): Sources of Salmonella
contamination during broiler production in Eastern Spain. Prev. Vet
Med.;98(1):39 - 45.
Metawea, Y. F. (2003): Epidemiological studies on Salmonellae in poultry farms
fresh. Ph D. Thesis. Fac. of Vet. Med., Moshtohor, Benha University.
Metawea, Y. F. and Abd El-Ghaffar, T. (2004): Epidemiological studies on
Salmonellae in poultry feed mills. Benha Vet. Med. J., 15, (2): 129-141
Moursi, M. K. and Husien, M. M. (2005): Microbial causes of reduction of
hatchability in ostrich farms and some trials of control. SCVMJ, VIII (2):25- 38
Musgrove, M. T.; Jones, D. R.; Northcutt, J. K.; Harrison, M. A.; Cox, N. A.;
Ingram, K. D. and Hinton, A. J. (2005): Recovery of Salmonella from
commercial shell eggs by shell rinse and shell crush methodologies. Poul.
Sci.;84(12):1955-8.
Nayak, R.; Kenney, P. B.; Keswani, J. and Ritz C. (2003): Isolation and
characterization of Salmonella in a turkey production facility. Br. Poul. Sci.,
81(10):192-202.
NCCLS (2002): Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution
susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals; approved standard 2nd Ed.
NCCLS document M31-A2. NCCLS, PA, USA.
Oliveiro, C. F.; Sonia, L. S.; Adriano, O. T. and Angelo, B. J. (2009): Search for
Salmonella spp. in ostrich productive chain of Brazilian Southeast region. Trop.
Anim. Health Prod. 41:1607–1614
Ouf, J. M.; Elbassouny, R.A. and Shabana, E. S. (2009): Microbial criteria of
ostrich meat products. J. Vet. Med. Ass. 69 (3): 175-183.
10
Piyush, K. and Anju, B. (2008): Cloning expression and characterization of heat
shock protein 60 of Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium and its role in
protective immunity against lethal Salmonella infection in mice. Clin. Immunol.,
126: 89-96.
Plym, L. and Wierup, M. (2006): Salmonella contamination: a significant challenge
to global marketing of animal food product. Revue Scientifique et Technique –
Off. Intern. Des Epiz., 25, 541-554.
Poppe, R..; Messier, S.; Finley G. and Oggel, J. (1991): The prevalence of
Salmonella enteritidis and other Salmonella spp. among Canadian registered
commercial chicken broiler flocks. Epid.. Infect., 107, 201-211
Rahimi, E.; Ameri, M.; Kazemeini, H. R. and Elbagi, M. (2010): Prevalence and
antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella isolated from retail raw turkey, ostrich
and partridge meat in Iran. Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine; 13, (1):
23
Sangeeta, S.; Ajit, S. Y.; Satyendra, M. S. and Priyanka, B. (2010): Prevalence of
Salmonella in chicken eggs collected from poultry farms and marketing
channels and their antimicrobial resistance. Food Research International. 43,
(8): 2027–2030
Sharaf, E. M.; Mezyed, E. M. and Afifi G. S.(2011): Microbiological studies on
Salmonella microorganism in some meat products. Assuit Vet. Med. J., 57,
(128): 127-136.
Shirota, K.; Umali, D.V.; Suzuki, T. and Katoh, H.(2012): Epizootiologic role of
feeds in the epidemiology of Salmonella senftenberg contamination in
commercial layer farms in eastern Japan. Av. Dis.;56 (3):516-20.
Skov, M. N.; Madsen, J. J.; Rahbek, C.; Lodal, J.; Jespersen, J. B.; Jørgensen, J.
C.; Dietz, H. H.; Chriél, M. and Baggesen, D. L. (2008): Transmission of
Salmonella between wildlife and meat-production animals in Denmark, J. of
Appl. Micro., 105, 1558–1568.
Su, L. H.; Chiu, C.H.; Chu, C and Ou, J. T. (2004): Antimicrobial resistance in
nontyphoidal Salmonella serotypes. A global challenge. Clinical Infectious
Disease, 39, 546 - 551
Umali, D. V.; Lapuz, R. R.; Suzuki, T.; Shirota, K. and Katoh, H. (2012):
Transmission and shedding patterns of Salmonella in naturally infected captive
wild roof rats (Rattus rattus) from a Salmonella-contaminated layer farm. Av.
Dis.;56 (2):288 - 294.
Van Hoorebeke, S. F.; Van Immerseel, J.; De Vylder, R.; Ducatelle, F.;
Haesebrouck, F.; Pasmans , A. and Dewulf, J. (2010): The age of production
system and previous Salmonella infections on-farm are risk factors for low-level
Salmonella inections in laying hen flocks. Poul. Sci. 89 :1315–1319
Verwoerd, D.J. (2000): Ostrich diseases. Rev. sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 1 9 (2): 638661
Wong, T.L.; Nicol, C.; Cook, R. and MacDiarmid, S. (2007): Salmonella in
uncooked retail meats in New Zealand J. Food Prot., 70(6):1360-1365.
WHO (2009):Water related diseases - Typhoid and paratyphoid enteric fever.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/typhoid/en.
11
Table (1): Overall prevalence of Salmonella in all samples collected from ostrich farm
and slaughter house
Site
Ostrich
farm
Total
No of
sample
Sample
No +ve
4
5
8
3
2
3
1
1
27
75
75
75
30
15
15
15
15
315
Feed
Water
Ostrich droppings
Egg shell swabs
Workers hand swabs
Rodent droppings
Liver
Slaughter
house
Muscles
Total
%
5.3
6.7
10.7
10.0
3131
20.0
6.7
6.7
836
Table (2): Prevalence of Salmonella in feed, water and ostrich dropping collected
from ostrich flocks at different ages
No of
Samples
Flock age
Feed
Ostrich
dropping
Water
030
No.
+ve
0
Total
1-10 days
34
No.
+ve
0
10 -60 days
34
3
737
3
737
3
737
54
1
737
2 -6 months
34
0
030
3
737
2
3131
54
1
737
6 -12 months
34
3
737
3
737
2
3131
54
5
838
Over 2 years
34
2
3131
2
13.3
1
2030
54
7
3434
Total
74
5
431
4
737
8
3037 224
37
737
%
%
No.
030
No.
+ve
0
030
%
54
No.
+ve
0
030
%
Table (3) Frequency of isolated strains of Salmonella from ostrich farm and
slaughter house
12
Muscles
1
1
1
3
Liver
3
1
2
1
1
8
Rodent drop.
Eggs
2
1
1
1
5
Hand swabs
Ostrich. drop
1
1
1
1
4
Water
1 S. enteritidis
2 S. typhimurium
3 S. kentucky
4 S. muenster
5 S. anatum
6 S. chester
7 Untypable
Total
Feed
Strain
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Total
No
%
10 37.04
7 25.93
4 14.8
2 7.41
1 3.70
1 3.70
2 7.41
27 100
‫‪Table (4) Antibiogram of both S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium‬‬
‫‪Salmonella‬‬
‫‪typhimurium‬‬
‫‪enteritidis‬‬
‫‪S‬‬
‫‪M‬‬
‫‪R‬‬
‫‪R‬‬
‫‪L‬‬
‫‪S‬‬
‫‪M‬‬
‫‪R‬‬
‫‪R‬‬
‫‪S‬‬
‫‪L‬‬
‫‪R‬‬
‫‪R‬‬
‫‪M‬‬
‫‪S‬‬
‫‪M‬‬
‫‪R‬‬
‫‪R‬‬
‫‪R: Resistant‬‬
‫‪Conc.‬‬
‫)‪(10 µg‬‬
‫)‪(10 µg‬‬
‫)‪(15 µg‬‬
‫)‪(30 µg‬‬
‫)‪(30 µg‬‬
‫)‪(5 µg‬‬
‫)‪(30 µg‬‬
‫)‪(30 µg‬‬
‫)‪(10 µg‬‬
‫‪M: moderate sensitivity L: low sensitivity‬‬
‫‪Antibiotic‬‬
‫‪norfloxacin‬‬
‫‪amoxicillin‬‬
‫‪erythromycin‬‬
‫‪kanmycin‬‬
‫‪doxycyline‬‬
‫‪ciprofloxacin‬‬
‫‪nalidixic acid‬‬
‫‪neomycin‬‬
‫‪tetracycline‬‬
‫‪S: high sensitivity‬‬
‫الملخص العربى‬
‫بعض الدراسات الوبائية على ميكروب السالمونيال فى مزرعة ومجزر للنعام بمحافظة االسماعلية‬
‫ياسر فؤاد عبد الحليم مطاوع‬
‫قسم الصحة وسلوكيات ورعاية الحيوان ‪ -‬كلية الطب البيطري ‪ -‬جامعة بنها‬
‫اجريت ذت ا الاراستتة لل حترم عتتو متام كواجتتا ميمترول الستتال و يا واكثتر الع تترات كواجتاا و يساستتية‬
‫ع رات الستال و يا ال عوولتة متو عينتات بيبيتة ب ورعتة للنعتا و بتيج وبعتج اجتوا متو مبتابع النعتا لتبعج‬
‫ال ضادات الحيوية وذلك بغرض ال عرف على مصادر العاوم لل يمرول بيو قطعان النعا و كأثير ذ ا ال صادر‬
‫على كلوث كل مو بيج وبعج اجوا مو مبابع النعتا ‪ 3‬كتم كي يتد عتاد ‪ 134‬عينتة التاف لصتل الصتي ‪2032‬‬
‫متتو مورعتتة و ميتتور للنعتتا ب طصتتة الصصاةتتيو ب حال‪.‬تتة ااس ت اعلية‪ 3‬وقتتا اولتتح الن تتاب ان معتتاف كواجتتا‬
‫ميمرول سال و يا لتى ج يتد العينتات كتان بنستبة ‪ 3)134/27( % 837‬ك تا اولتح الن تاب ان معتاات كواجتا‬
‫ال يمتترول لتتى العليصتتةم ال يتتاام مرا النعتتا م قضتتري البتتيجم ايتتام الع تتاف و بتترام ال بتتران كا ت ‪%431‬م ‪%737‬م‬
‫‪%3037‬م ‪%3030‬م ‪ %3131‬و ‪ %20‬على ال والى‪ 3‬باالالة الى ا ت كتم عتوف ال يمترول متو كتل متو لحتم وكبتا‬
‫النعا بنسبة ‪ %737‬لمل منه ا‪ 3‬وقا اولح الن تاب ايضتا ان اكثتر الع ترات كواجتا ذتى ستال و يا ا ري يتاث ثتم‬
‫سال و يا كي ي يوريم ثم سال و يا كن اكى ثم سال و يا مو س ر وااليرا كتل متو ستال و يا ا نيت م و ريست ر ك تا لتم‬
‫يية اال بار الحساسية لبعج ال ضادات الحيوية ذى ان كتل متو ستال و يا‬
‫ي م ال وةل ل عرلة ع ركيو‪ 3‬وكا‬
‫ا ري يتتتاث وستتتال و يا كي ي يتتتويم عاليتتتة الحساستتتية لمتتتل متتتو وروللوكساستتتيو و سبروللوسمساستتتيو وان كتتتا‬
‫الع تتركيو قليلتتة‪ -‬م وستتطة الحساستتية لمتتل متتو يتتامج النالايمستتك م اموكستتيليو و دوكستتيليو ومصاومتتة لمتتل متتو‬
‫ارثرومايسو م كناميسيوم يومايسيو و ك راسيمليو‪ 3‬وقا اللصت الاراستة التى وجتود العايتا متو مصتادر العتاوم‬
‫لل يمرول وكض ل العليصة م ال ياام مرا النعتا ‪ 3‬الع تاف و بترام ال بتران باالتالة التى ان كتل متو قطعتان النعتا‬
‫النامية واامهات ك عرض التى معتاات عاليتة لل لتوث البيبتى بتال يمرول متو متا يعترض كتل متو البتيج وبعتج‬
‫اجوا مو الوبيحة لل لتوث بتال يمرول ‪ 3‬وقتا اوةت الاراستة بعتج ااجترا ات الوقابيتة ل صليتل كتل متو ال لتوث‬
‫البيبى و كلوث من يات النعا بال يمرول‪3‬‬
‫‪13‬‬