4.3 Article

Distribution of drug resistance among enterococci and Salmonella from poultry and cattle in Ethiopia

Journal

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 857-864

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-009-9499-0

Keywords

Enterococci; Salmonella; Multiple drug resistance; Poultry; Cattle

Funding

  1. Sida/SAREC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Enterococci and Salmonella were isolated from feces of chicken in intensive poultry farms and cattle which are maintained following traditional practices. Their resistance to different antibiotics was also determined. A total of 298 enterococcal isolates consisting of Enterococcus faecium (49.6%), Enterococcus durans (26.9%), Enterococcus hirea (11.9%), and Enterococcus faecalis (11.5%) were obtained. Among the enterococci, resistance to erythromycin (Ery), clindamicin (Cli), amoxicillin (Amo), ampicillin (Amp), and cephalothin (Cep) was high. Resistance to vancomycin (Van) was detected in all enterococcal species. Over 80% of the isolates showed multiple drug resistance. The most dominant patterns in poultry were Amo/Amp/Cep/Pen and Amo/Amp/Cep/Cli/Pen/Van. Among isolates from cattle, Amo/Amp/Cep/Cli/Ery/Pen/Van and Amo/Amp/Cli/Ery/Pen/Van constituted the most dominant multiple resistance patterns. A total of 51 Salmonella isolates were obtained from poultry (43/280) and cattle (8/450). About 70% of the isolates had varying resistance to the tested antibiotics. Multiple drug resistance was observed in over 30% of the Salmonella isolates. The most frequent resistance pattern was Amo/Amp/Cip/Gen/Str in cattle and Amo/Amp/Cep/Cip/Gen/Kan/Str in poultry. Enteroccoccal and Salmonella isolates showed multiple resistance to those antibiotics used in human and veterinary medicine. The high frequency of isolation of resistant enterococci is indicative of the wide dissemination of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the farm environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available