8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Reduction of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase- and AmpC-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli through processing in two broiler chicken slaughterhouses.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Whilst broilers are recognised as a reservoir of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-β-lactamase (AmpC)-producing Escherichia coli, there is currently limited knowledge on the effect of slaughtering on its concentrations on poultry meat. The aim of this study was to establish the concentration of ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli on broiler chicken carcasses through processing. In addition the changes in ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli concentrations were compared with generic E. coli and Campylobacter. In two slaughterhouses, the surface of the whole carcasses was sampled after 5 processing steps: bleeding, scalding, defeathering, evisceration and chilling. In total, 17 batches were sampled in two different slaughterhouses during the summers of 2012 and 2013. ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli was enumerated on MacConkey agar with 1mg/l cefotaxime, and the ESBL/AmpC phenotypes and genotypes were characterised. The ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli concentrations varied significantly between the incoming batches in both slaughterhouses. The concentrations on broiler chicken carcasses were significantly reduced during processing. In Slaughterhouse 1, all subsequent processing steps reduced the concentrations except evisceration which led to a slight increase that was statistically not significant. The changes in concentration between processing steps were relatively similar for all sampled batches in this slaughterhouse. In contrast, changes varied between batches in Slaughterhouse 2, and the overall reduction through processing was higher in Slaughterhouse 2. Changes in ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli along the processing line were similar to changes in generic E. coli in both slaughterhouses. The effect of defeathering differed between ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli and Campylobacter. ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli decreased after defeathering, whereas Campylobacter concentrations increased. The genotypes of ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli (blaCTX-M-1, blaSHV-12, blaCMY-2, blaTEM-52c, blaTEM-52cvar) from both slaughterhouses match typical poultry genotypes. Their distribution differed between batches and changed throughout processing for some batches. The concentration levels found after chilling were between 10(2) and 10(5)CFU/carcass. To conclude, changes in ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli concentrations on broiler chicken carcasses during processing are influenced by batch and slaughterhouse, pointing to the role of both primary production and process control for reducing ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli levels in final products. Due to similar changes upon processing, E. coli can be used as a process indicator of ESBL/AmpC producing E. coli, because the processing steps had similar impact on both organisms. Cross contamination may potentially explain shifts in genotypes within some batches through the processing.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Int. J. Food Microbiol.
          International journal of food microbiology
          Elsevier BV
          1879-3460
          0168-1605
          Dec 23 2015
          : 215
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Division of Veterinary Public Health, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3508 TD, The Netherlands; MEYN Food Processing Technology B.V., Oostzaan 1511 MA, The Netherlands.
          [2 ] Central Veterinary Institute of Wageningen UR, Lelystad 2119 PH, The Netherlands.
          [3 ] Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven 3720 BA, The Netherlands.
          [4 ] Division of Veterinary Public Health, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3508 TD, The Netherlands.
          [5 ] Division of Veterinary Public Health, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3508 TD, The Netherlands; Emerging Pathogens Institute and Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
          [6 ] Division of Veterinary Public Health, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3508 TD, The Netherlands. Electronic address: H.Schmitt@uu.nl.
          Article
          S0168-1605(15)30098-2
          10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.08.010
          26342876
          3e6bfb88-764a-4d39-a764-9ed1d0c15891
          History

          Antibiotic resistance,Poultry,Slaughter hygiene
          Antibiotic resistance, Poultry, Slaughter hygiene

          Comments

          Comment on this article