4.7 Article

Microbial loads and antibiotic resistance patterns of Staphylococcus aureus in different types of raw poultry-based meat preparations

Journal

POULTRY SCIENCE
Volume 96, Issue 11, Pages 4046-4052

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.3382/ps/pex200

Keywords

chicken meat preparations; microbiological quality; Staphylococcus aureus; antibiotic resistance

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [AGL2011-29645]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The hygiene status of raw chicken-meat preparations from retail outlets in North-Western Spain was investigated. Microbial counts (aerobic plate counts (APCs), psychrotrophs, Enterobacteriaceae, fecal coliforms, enterococci, pseudomonads, fluorescent pseudomonads, yeasts and molds, and Staphylococcus aureus) were determined for minced meat, hamburgers, nuggets, white sausages, red sausages, escalope, and roll-ups. S. aureus isolates were tested for susceptibility to twenty antimicrobials of veterinary and human clinical significance (disc diffusion method, CLSI). Average microbial loads (log(10) cfu/g) ranged from 2.63 +/- 0.80 (enterococci) to 6.66 +/- 1.09 (psychrotrophs). Average APCs (6.44 +/- 1.16 log(10) cfu/g) were regarded as acceptable according to EU microbiological criteria. The type of product had an influence (P < 0.05) on microbial loads, samples of escalope showing the highest counts for most microbial groups. Two-thirds (66.7%) of the samples tested harbored S. aureus. All the S. aureus isolates were multi-resistant (to between three and fifteen antibiotics). The greatest prevalence of resistance was shown for ampicillin, oxacillin, penicillin G, ceftazidime, and nalidixic acid. The results of this study show that poultry-based meat preparations present high microbial loads and are a major reservoir of antibiotic-resistant S. aureus strains. This highlights the need for correct handling of such foodstuffs with a view to reducing risks to consumers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available