IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v10y2013i5p2058-2068d25843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Higher Prevalence Rate of Campylobacter in Retail Beef Livers Compared to Other Beef and Pork Meat Cuts

Author

Listed:
  • Aneesa Noormohamed

    (Department of Biological Science, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA)

  • Mohamed K. Fakhr

    (Department of Biological Science, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA)

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in retail beef, beef livers, and pork meats purchased from the Tulsa (OK, USA) area and to further characterize the isolates obtained through antimicrobial susceptibility testing. A total of 97 chilled retail beef (50 beef livers and 47 other cuts), and 100 pork samples were collected. The prevalence of Campylobacter in beef livers was 39/50 (78%), while no Campylobacter was isolated from the other beef cuts. The prevalence in pork samples was 2/100 (2%). A total of 108 Campylobacter isolates (102 beef livers isolates and six pork isolates) were subjected to antimicrobial resistance profiling against sixteen different antimicrobials that belong to eight different antibiotic classes. Of the six pork Campylobacter coli isolates, four showed resistance to all antimicrobials tested. Among the beef liver isolates, the highest antibiotic resistances were to tetracyclines and β-lactams, while the lowest resistances were to macrolides, aminoglycosides, lincosamides, and phenicols. Resistances to the fluoroquinolone, macrolide, aminoglycoside, tetracycline, b-lactam, lincosamide, and phenicol antibiotic classes were significantly higher in Campylobacter coli than Campylobacter jejuni isolates. Multidrug Resistance (MDR) among the 102 Campylobacter (33 Campylobacter jejuni and 69 Campylobacter coli ) beef liver isolates was significantly higher in Campylobacter coli (62%) than Campylobacter jejuni (39%). The high prevalence of Campylobacter in retail beef livers and their antimicrobial resistance raise concern about the safety of these retail products.

Suggested Citation

  • Aneesa Noormohamed & Mohamed K. Fakhr, 2013. "A Higher Prevalence Rate of Campylobacter in Retail Beef Livers Compared to Other Beef and Pork Meat Cuts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:10:y:2013:i:5:p:2058-2068:d:25843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/5/2058/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/5/2058/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M Gwida & A Zakaria & H El-Sherbiny & R Elkenany & M Elsayed, 2019. "Prevalence of Campylobacter, Enterococcus and Staphylococcus aureus in slaughtered camels," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(12), pages 521-530.
    2. Micaela Guidotti Takeuchi & Roberta Torres de Melo & Carolyne Ferreira Dumont & Jéssica Laura Miranda Peixoto & Gabriella Rayane Aparecida Ferreira & Mariana Comassio Chueiri & Jocasta Rodrigues Iasbe, 2022. "Agents of Campylobacteriosis in Different Meat Matrices in Brazil," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:10:y:2013:i:5:p:2058-2068:d:25843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.