Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:52:10.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of management systems in the epidemiology of thermophilic campylobacters among poultry in Eastern zone of Tanzania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

R. R. Kazwala ,
S. F. H. Jiwa  and
A. E. Nkya
R. R. Kazwala
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Public Health, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3021, Morogoro, Tanzania
S. F. H. Jiwa
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Parasitology, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3021, Morogoro, Tanzania
A. E. Nkya
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Public Health, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3021, Morogoro, Tanzania
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A total of 255 samples of droppings collected from a total of 22 different poultry units were examined for the presence of thermophilic campylobaeters and the isolates biotyped using Skirrow's protocol. The organisms were isolated from 90 (35·3%) of all samples. Among the 22 units investigated. 13 (59%) were found to have unsatisfactory management systems, while 7 (32%) and 2 (9%) were found to have unsatisfactory and good systems respectively. Significantly large numbers of isolations, 68 of 147 (46·2%), were made from samples collected from poultry units with poor management (P < 0·005). compared with 19 out of 84 (22·6%) samples which were collected from satisfactory units and 3 out of 24 (12·5%) samples collected from units exercising particularly good management. Nineteen of 72 (26·4%) samples collected from broilers, 32 out of 132 (24·2%) samples collected from layers and 39 out of 51 (70·49%) samples collected from indigenous free range poultry were positive for campylobacters. Among the 90 strains isolated from various units, 64 (70·1%) were Campylobacter jejuni. 25 (27·7%) were C. coli. and only 1 (2·2%) was C. laridis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , April 1993 , pp. 273 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

REFERENCES

1.Stern, NJ.Recovery of Campylobacter fetus subsp fetus on eviscerated pork, lamb and beef carcasses. Food Sci 1981; 46: 1291.Google Scholar
2.Tauxe, RV, Pegues, DA, Harrgrett-Bean, N.Campylobacter infections. The emerging national pattern. Am J Public Health 1987; 77: 1219–21.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Hood, AM, Pearson, AD, Shahamat, M.The extent of surface contamination of retailed chicken with Campylobacter jejuni serogroups. Epidemiol Infect 1988; 100: 17–25.Google Scholar
4.Rosef, O, Kapperud, G.Isolation of Campylobacter fetus subsp jejuni from faeces of Norwegian poultry. Acta Vet Scand 1982; 23: 128–34.Google Scholar
5.Kazwala, RR. Studies on the origin, and quantitative distribution of thermophilic campylobacters at various stages of poultry production and poultry processing. MVM Thesis, University College, Dublin, 1989.Google Scholar
6.Prescott, JF, Bruin-Mosch, CW.Carriage of Campylobacter jejuni in health and diarrhoeic animals. Am Vet Res 1982; 42: 164–5.Google Scholar
7.Luechtefeld, W, Cambre, CR, Wang, LLW.Isolation of Campylobacter fetus subsp jejuni from zoo animals. Am Vet Med Assoc 1981; 11: 1119–22.Google Scholar
8.Acuff, RG, Vanderzant, C, Gardner, AF, Gohn, AF.Examination of turkey eggs, poults and brooder house facilities for Campylobacter jejuni. Food Protect 1988; 45: 1279–81.Google Scholar
9.Jiwa, SFH, Ishengoma, JB.Campylobacters and vibrios from clinical, alimental and environmental sources. In: Msolla, PM, Kessy, BM, Minga, U, Kassuku, AA, eds. Proceedings of 3rd Tanzania Veterinary Association Scientific Conference, 3rd–5th 12 1985, Arusha, Tanzania: 259–82.Google Scholar
10.Hayek, LJ, Cruickshank, JG.Campylobacter enteritis. B M J 1977; 11: 1219.Google Scholar
11.Annan-Prah, A, Jane, M.The mode of spread of Campylobacter jejuni/coli to broiler flocks. J Vet Med B 1988; 35: 11–8.Google Scholar
12.Kazwala, RR, Hannan, J, Collins, JD, Crinion, R, O'Mahony, H.The factors responsible for the introduction and spread of Campylobacter jejuni in commercial poultry-meat production. Vet Rec 1990; 126: 305.Google Scholar
13.Skirrow, MB, Benjamin, J.Differentiation of enteropathogenic campylobacters. J din Pathol 1980; 33: 1112.Google Scholar
14.Dunn, OJ.Enumeration data. The chi-square test. In: Dunn, OJ, ed. Basic statistics. A primer for the biomedical sciences. 2nd edn, 1977; 122–35.Google Scholar
15.Lindblom, GB, Sjogern, E, Kaijser, B.Natural campylobacter colonization in chickens raised under different environmental conditions. J Hyg 1986; 96: 385–91.Google Scholar
16.Franco, AD.Campylobacter species; consideration for controlling a food-borne pathogen. Food Protect 1988; 51: 145–53.Google Scholar
17.Chane, SM, Montrose, MS, Harrington, KS.Transmission of Campylobacter jejuni by the housefly (Musca domestica). Avian Dis 1984; 29: 384–91.Google Scholar
18.Kazwala, RR, Hannan, J, Collins, JD.The establishment and spread of Campylobacter jejuni in young chickens: experimental studies. J Prevent Med 1992; 13: 19–26.Google Scholar
19.Jiwa, SFH, Mugula, JK, Msangi, MJ.Bacteriological quality of portable water sources supplying Morogoro municipality and its outskirts: a case study in Tanzania. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 107:479–84.Google Scholar