4.6 Article

Prevalence in Bulk Tank Milk and Epidemiology of Campylobacter jejuni in Dairy Herds in Northern Italy

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 80, 期 6, 页码 1832-1837

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.03784-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lombardy Region, Department for Agriculture and Forestry-ProZoo Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thermotolerant Campylobacter spp. are frequently the cause of human gastroenteritis and have assumed more importance in Italy following the increased consumption of raw milk. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence and genotypes of Campylobacter spp. in dairy herds and to investigate the possible sources of bulk milk contamination. Bulk milk from dairy herds (n = 282) was cultured for Campylobacter spp. and Enterobacteriaceae. At three Campylobacter jejuni-positive farms, bovine feces, pigeon intestines, milk, and water points were also investigated. Isolates were identified by PCR and genotyped using multilocus sequence typing (MLST). C. jejuni was detected in 34 (12%) bulk milk samples. The strains belonged to 14 sequence types, and the most common clonal complexes were CC-21, CC-48, and CC-403. No association was demonstrated between the presence of C. jejuni and high levels of Enterobacteriaceae in bulk milk. At the three farms examined, C. jejuni was isolated from bovine feces (25/82 [30.5%]), pigeon intestines (13/60 [21.7%]), bulk milk (10/24 [41.7%]), and water points (4/16 [25%]). MLST revealed lineages that were common between milk and bovine feces but distinct between cattle and pigeons. In one herd, C. jejuni with the same genotype was isolated repeatedly from bulk milk and a cow with an udder infection. Our results showed a high prevalence of C. jejuni in bulk milk and suggested that udder excretion, in addition to fecal matter, may be a route of bulk milk contamination. MLST analysis indicated that pigeons are probably not relevant for the transmission of C. jejuni to cattle and for milk contamination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据