Campylobacter jejuni and C.coli in Finnish poultry production

Campylobacter, mainly Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli, are worldwide recognized as a major cause of bacterial food-borne gastroenteritis (World Health Organization 2010). Epidemiological studies have shown handling or eating of poultry to be significant risk factors for human infections. Campylobacter contamination can occur at all stages of a poultry meat production cycle. In summer 1999, every broiler flock from all three major Finnish poultry slaughterhouses was studied during a five month period. Caecal samples were taken in the slaughterhouses from five birds per flock. A total of 1 132 broiler flocks were tested and 33 (2.9%) of those were Campylobacter-positive. Thirty-one isolates were identified as C. jejuni and two isolates were C. coli. The isolates were serotyped for heat-stable antigens (HS) and genotyped by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). The most common serotypes found were HS 6,7, 12 and 4-complex. Using a combination of SmaI and KpnI patterns, 18 different PFGE types were identified. Thirty-five Finnish C. jejuni strains with five SmaI/SacII PFGE types selected among human and chicken isolates from 1997 and 1998 were used for comparison of their PFGE patterns, amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) patterns, HaeIII ribotypes, and HS serotypes. The discriminatory power of PFGE, AFLP and ribotyping with HaeIII were shown to be at the same level for this selected set of strains, and these methods assigned the strains into the same groups. The PFGE and AFLP patterns within a genotype were highly similar, indicating genetic relatedness. An HS serotype was distributed among different genotypes, and different serotypes were identified within one genotype. From one turkey parent flock, the hatchery, six different commercial turkey farms (together 12 flocks) and from 11 stages at the slaughterhouse a total of 456 samples were collected during one and the half year. For the detection of Campylobacter both conventional culture and a PCR method were used. No Campylobacter were detected in either of the samples from the turkey parent flock or from the hatchery samples using the culture method. Instead PCR detected DNA of Campylobacter in five faecal samples from the turkey parent flock and in one fluff and an eggshell sample. Six out of 12 commercial turkey flocks were found negative at the farm level but only two of those were negative at slaughter. Campylobacter-positive samples within the flock at slaughter were detected between 0% and 94%, with evisceration and chilling water being the most critical stages for contamination. All of a total of 121 Campylobacter isolates were shown to be C. jejuni using a multiplex PCR assay. PFGE analysis of all isolates with KpnI restriction enzyme resulted in 11 PFGE types (I-XI) and flaA-SVR typing yielded nine flaA-SVR alleles. Three Campylobacter-positive turkey flocks were colonized by a limited number of Campylobacter genotypes both at the farm and slaughter level.In conclusion, in our first study in 1999 a low prevalence of Campylobacter in Finnish broiler flocks was detected and it has remained at a low level during the study period until the present. In the turkey meat production, we found that flocks which were negative at the farm became contaminated with Campylobacter at the slaughter process. These results suggest that proper and efficient cleaning and disinfection of slaughter and processing premises are needed to avoid cross-contamination. Prevention of colonization at the farm by a high level of biosecurity control and hygiene may be one of the most efficient ways to reduce the amount of Campylobacter-positive poultry meat in Finland. In Finland, with a persistent low level of Campylobacter-positive flocks, it could be speculated that the use of logistic slaughtering, according to Campylobacter status at farm, might have be advantageous in reducing Campylobacter contamination of retail poultry products. However, the significance of the domestic poultry meat for human campylobacteriosis in Finland should be evaluated

Campylobacter jejuni and C.coli in Finnish poultry production

Campylobacter, mainly Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli, are worldwide recognized as a major cause of bacterial food-borne gastroenteritis (World Health Organization 2010). Epidemiological studies have shown handling or eating of poultry to be significant risk factors for human infections. Campylobacter contamination can occur at all stages of a poultry meat production cycle. In summer 1999, every broiler flock from all three major Finnish poultry slaughterhouses was studied during a five month period. Caecal samples were taken in the slaughterhouses from five birds per flock. A total of 1 132 broiler flocks were tested and 33 (2.9%) of those were Campylobacter-positive. Thirty-one isolates were identified as C. jejuni and two isolates were C. coli. The isolates were serotyped for heat-stable antigens (HS) and genotyped by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). The most common serotypes found were HS 6,7, 12 and 4-complex. Using a combination of SmaI and KpnI patterns, 18 different PFGE types were identified. Thirty-five Finnish C. jejuni strains with five SmaI/SacII PFGE types selected among human and chicken isolates from 1997 and 1998 were used for comparison of their PFGE patterns, amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) patterns, HaeIII ribotypes, and HS serotypes. The discriminatory power of PFGE, AFLP and ribotyping with HaeIII were shown to be at the same level for this selected set of strains, and these methods assigned the strains into the same groups. The PFGE and AFLP patterns within a genotype were highly similar, indicating genetic relatedness. An HS serotype was distributed among different genotypes, and different serotypes were identified within one genotype. From one turkey parent flock, the hatchery, six different commercial turkey farms (together 12 flocks) and from 11 stages at the slaughterhouse a total of 456 samples were collected during one and the half year. For the detection of Campylobacter both conventional culture and a PCR method were used. No Campylobacter were detected in either of the samples from the turkey parent flock or from the hatchery samples using the culture method. Instead PCR detected DNA of Campylobacter in five faecal samples from the turkey parent flock and in one fluff and an eggshell sample. Six out of 12 commercial turkey flocks were found negative at the farm level but only two of those were negative at slaughter. Campylobacter-positive samples within the flock at slaughter were detected between 0% and 94%, with evisceration and chilling water being the most critical stages for contamination. All of a total of 121 Campylobacter isolates were shown to be C. jejuni using a multiplex PCR assay. PFGE analysis of all isolates with KpnI restriction enzyme resulted in 11 PFGE types (I-XI) and flaA-SVR typing yielded nine flaA-SVR alleles. Three Campylobacter-positive turkey flocks were colonized by a limited number of Campylobacter genotypes both at the farm and slaughter level.In conclusion, in our first study in 1999 a low prevalence of Campylobacter in Finnish broiler flocks was detected and it has remained at a low level during the study period until the present. In the turkey meat production, we found that flocks which were negative at the farm became contaminated with Campylobacter at the slaughter process. These results suggest that proper and efficient cleaning and disinfection of slaughter and processing premises are needed to avoid cross-contamination. Prevention of colonization at the farm by a high level of biosecurity control and hygiene may be one of the most efficient ways to reduce the amount of Campylobacter-positive poultry meat in Finland. In Finland, with a persistent low level of Campylobacter-positive flocks, it could be speculated that the use of logistic slaughtering, according to Campylobacter status at farm, might have be advantageous in reducing Campylobacter contamination of retail poultry products. However, the significance of the domestic poultry meat for human campylobacteriosis in Finland should be evaluated

A longitudinal study of Campylobacter distribution in a turkey

Background: Campylobacter is the most common cause of bacterial enteritis worldwide. Handling and eating of contaminated poultry meat has considered as one of the risk factors for human campylobacteriosis.Campylobacter contamination can occur at all stages of a poultry production cycle. The objective of this study was to determine the occurrence of Campylobacter during a complete turkey production cycle which lasts for 1,5 years of time. For detection of Campylobacter, a conventional culture method was compared with a PCR method. Campylobacter isolates from different types of samples have been identified to the species level by a multiplex PCR assay. Methods: Samples (N = 456) were regularly collected from one turkey parent flock, the hatchery, six different commercial turkey farms and from 11 different stages at the slaughterhouse. For the detection of Campylobacter, a conventional culture and a PCR method were used. Campylobacter isolates (n = 143) were identified to species level by a multiplex PCR assay. Results: No Campylobacter were detected in either the samples from the turkey parent flock or from hatchery samples using the culture method. PCR detected Campylobacter DNA in five faecal samples and one fluff and eggshell sample. Six flocks out of 12 commercial turkey flocks where found negative at the farm level but only two were negative at the slaughterhouse. Conclusion: During the brooding period Campylobacter might have contact with the birds without spreading of the contamination within the flock. Contamination of working surfaces and equipment during slaughter of a Campylobacter positive turkey flock can persist and lead to possible contamination of negative flocks even after the end of the day's cleaning and desinfection. Reduction of contamination at farm by a high level of biosecurity control and hygiene may be one of the most efficient ways to reduce the amount of contaminated poultry meat in Finland. Due to the low numbers of Campylobacter in the Finnish turkey production chain, enrichment PCR seems to be the optimal detection method here

A longitudinal study of Campylobacter distribution in a turkey production chain

Background: Campylobacter is the most common cause of bacterial enteritis worldwide. Handling and eating of contaminated poultry meat has considered as one of the risk factors for human campylobacteriosis.Campylobacter contamination can occur at all stages of a poultry production cycle. The objective of this study was to determine the occurrence of Campylobacter during a complete turkey production cycle which lasts for 1,5 years of time. For detection of Campylobacter, a conventional culture method was compared with a PCR method. Campylobacter isolates from different types of samples have been identified to the species level by a multiplex PCR assay. Methods: Samples (N = 456) were regularly collected from one turkey parent flock, the hatchery, six different commercial turkey farms and from 11 different stages at the slaughterhouse. For the detection of Campylobacter, a conventional culture and a PCR method were used. Campylobacter isolates (n = 143) were identified to species level by a multiplex PCR assay. Results: No Campylobacter were detected in either the samples from the turkey parent flock or from hatchery samples using the culture method. PCR detected Campylobacter DNA in five faecal samples and one fluff and eggshell sample. Six flocks out of 12 commercial turkey flocks where found negative at the farm level but only two were negative at the slaughterhouse. Conclusion: During the brooding period Campylobacter might have contact with the birds without spreading of the contamination within the flock. Contamination of working surfaces and equipment during slaughter of a Campylobacter positive turkey flock can persist and lead to possible contamination of negative flocks even after the end of the day's cleaning and desinfection. Reduction of contamination at farm by a high level of biosecurity control and hygiene may be one of the most efficient ways to reduce the amount of contaminated poultry meat in Finland. Due to the low numbers of Campylobacter in the Finnish turkey production chain, enrichment PCR seems to be the optimal detection method here

Extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli in poultry meat products on the Finnish retail market

Background: Extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli bacteria (ExPEC) exist as commensals in the human intestines and can infect extraintestinal sites and cause septicemia. The transfer of ExPEC from poultry to humans and the role of poultry meat as a source of ExPEC in human disease have been discussed previously. The aim of the present study was to provide insight into the properties of ExPEC in poultry meat products on the Finnish retail market with special attention to their prevalence, virulence and phylogenetic profiles. Furthermore, the isolates were screened for possible ESBL producers and their resistance to nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin was tested. Methods: The presence of ExPEC in 219 marinated and non-marinated raw poultry meat products from retail shops has been analyzed. One E. coli strain per product was analyzed further for phylogenetic groups and possession of ten virulence genes associated with ExPEC bacteria (kpsMT K1, ibeA, astA, iss, irp2, papC, iucD, tsh, vat and cva/cv) using PCR methods. The E. coli strains were also screened phenotypically for the production of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) and the susceptibility of 48 potential ExPEC isolates for nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin was tested. Results: E. coli was isolated from 207 (94.5%) of 219 poultry meat products. The most common phylogenetic groups were D (50.7%), A (37.7%), and B2 (7.7%). Based on virulence factor gene PCR, 23.2% of the strains were classified as ExPEC. Two ExPEC strains (1%) belonged to [O1] B2 svg+ (specific for virulent subgroup) group, which has been implicated in multiple forms of ExPEC disease. None of the ExPEC strains was resistant to ciprofloxacin or cephalosporins. One isolate (2.1%) showed resistance to nalidixic acid. Conclusions: Potential ExPEC bacteria were found in 22% of marinated and non-marinated poultry meat products on the Finnish retail market and 0.9% were contaminated with E. coli [O1] B2 svg+ group. Marinades did not have an effect on the survival of ExPEC as strains from marinated and non-marinated meat products were equally often classified as ExPEC. Poultry meat products on the Finnish retail market may have zoonotic potential

Free-Living Turtles Are a Reservoir for Salmonella but Not for Campylobacter

Different studies have reported the prevalence of Salmonella in turtles and its role in reptile-associated salmonellosis in humans, but there is a lack of scientific literature related with the epidemiology of Campylobacter in turtles. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of Campylobacter and Salmonella in free-living native (Emys orbicularis, n=83) and exotic (Trachemys scripta elegans, n=117) turtles from 11 natural ponds in Eastern Spain. In addition, different types of samples (cloacal swabs, intestinal content and water from Turtle containers) were compared. Regardless of the turtle species, natural ponds where individuals were captured and the type of sample taken, Campylobacter was not detected. Salmonella was isolated in similar proportions in native (8.0±3.1%) and exotic (15.0±3.3%) turtles (p=0.189). The prevalence of Salmonella positive turtles was associated with the natural ponds where animals were captured. Captured turtles from 8 of the 11 natural ponds were positive, ranged between 3.0±3.1% and 60.0±11.0%. Serotyping revealed 8 different serovars among four Salmonella enterica subspecies: S. enterica subsp. enterica (n = 21), S. enterica subsp. salamae (n = 2), S. enterica subsp. diarizonae (n = 3), and S. enterica subsp. houtenae (n = 1). Two serovars were predominant: S. Thompson (n=16) and S. typhimurium (n=3). In addition, there was an effect of sample type on Salmonella detection. The highest isolation of Salmonella was obtained from intestinal content samples (12.0±3.0%), while lower percentages were found for water from the containers and cloacal swabs (8.0±2.5% and 3.0±1.5%, respectively). Our results imply that free-living turtles are a risk factor for Salmonella transmission, but do not seem to be a reservoir for Campylobacter. We therefore rule out turtles as a risk factor for human campylobacteriosis. Nevertheless, further studies should be undertaken in other countries to confirm these results.This work was supported by the Conselleria de Infraestructura, Territorio y Medio Ambiente for their assistance and financial support (Life09-Trachemys, Resolution 28/02/12 CITMA). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Marín, C.; Ingresa-Capaccioni, S.; González Bodí, S.; Marco Jiménez, F.; Vega Garcia, S. (2013). Free-Living Turtles Are a Reservoir for Salmonella but Not for Campylobacter. PLoS ONE. 8(8):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072350S1688(2012). The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food‐borne Outbreaks in 2010. EFSA Journal, 10(3). doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2597Kapperud, G. (2003). Factors Associated with Increased and Decreased Risk of Campylobacter Infection: A Prospective Case-Control Study in Norway. American Journal of Epidemiology, 158(3), 234-242. doi:10.1093/aje/kwg139Mermin, J., Hutwagner, L., Vugia, D., Shallow, S., Daily, P., … Bender, J. (2004). Reptiles, Amphibians, and HumanSalmonellaInfection: A Population‐Based, Case‐Control Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 38(s3), S253-S261. doi:10.1086/381594De Jong, B., Andersson, Y., & Ekdahl, K. (2005). Effect of Regulation and Education on Reptile-associated Salmonellosis. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11(3), 398-403. doi:10.3201/eid1103.040694NAKADAI, A., KUROKI, T., KATO, Y., SUZUKI, R., YAMAI, S., YAGINUMA, C., … HAYASHIDANI, H. (2005). Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Pet Reptiles in Japan. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 67(1), 97-101. doi:10.1292/jvms.67.97Lafuente, S., Bellido, J. B., Moraga, F. A., Herrera, S., Yagüe, A., Montalvo, T., … Caylà, J. A. (2013). Salmonella paratyphi B and Salmonella litchfield outbreaks associated with pet turtle exposure in Spain. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica, 31(1), 32-35. doi:10.1016/j.eimc.2012.05.013Van PELT, W., de WIT, M. A. S., WANNET, W. J. B., LIGTVOET, E. J. J., WIDDOWSON, M. A., & van DUYNHOVEN, Y. T. H. P. (2003). Laboratory surveillance of bacterial gastroenteric pathogens in The Netherlands, 1991–2001. Epidemiology and Infection, 130(3), 431-441. doi:10.1017/s0950268803008392Havelaar, A. H., Haagsma, J. A., Mangen, M.-J. J., Kemmeren, J. M., Verhoef, L. P. B., Vijgen, S. M. C., … van Pelt, W. (2012). Disease burden of foodborne pathogens in the Netherlands, 2009. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 156(3), 231-238. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.03.029DOORDUYN, Y., VAN PELT, W., SIEZEN, C. L. E., VAN DER HORST, F., VAN DUYNHOVEN, Y. T. H. P., HOEBEE, B., & JANSSEN, R. (2007). Novel insight in the association between salmonellosis or campylobacteriosis and chronic illness, and the role of host genetics in susceptibility to these diseases. Epidemiology and Infection, 136(9), 1225-1234. doi:10.1017/s095026880700996xHAAGSMA, J. A., SIERSEMA, P. D., DE WIT, N. J., & HAVELAAR, A. H. (2010). Disease burden of post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome in The Netherlands. Epidemiology and Infection, 138(11), 1650-1656. doi:10.1017/s0950268810000531Allos, B. M., & Blaser, M. J. (1995). Campylobacter jejuni and the Expanding Spectrum of Related Infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 20(5), 1092-1101. doi:10.1093/clinids/20.5.1092Friedman, C. R., Hoekstra, R. M., Samuel, M., Marcus, R., Bender, J., … Shiferaw, B. (2004). Risk Factors for SporadicCampylobacterInfection in the United States: A Case‐Control Study in FoodNet Sites. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 38(s3), S285-S296. doi:10.1086/381598STUDAHL, A., & ANDERSSON, Y. (2000). Risk factors for indigenous campylobacter infection: a Swedish case-control study. Epidemiology and Infection, 125(2), 269-275. doi:10.1017/s0950268899004562NEIMANN, J., ENGBERG, J., MØLBAK, K., & WEGENER, H. C. (2003). A case–control study of risk factors for sporadic campylobacter infections in Denmark. Epidemiology and Infection, 130(3), 353-366. doi:10.1017/s0950268803008355DOORDUYN, Y., VAN DEN BRANDHOF, W. E., VAN DUYNHOVEN, Y. T. H. P., BREUKINK, B. J., WAGENAAR, J. A., & VAN PELT, W. (2010). Risk factors for indigenous Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli infections in The Netherlands: a case-control study. Epidemiology and Infection, 138(10), 1391-1404. doi:10.1017/s095026881000052xSchroter, M., Roggentin, P., Hofmann, J., Speicher, A., Laufs, R., & Mack, D. (2004). Pet Snakes as a Reservoir for Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae (Serogroup IIIb): a Prospective Study. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70(1), 613-615. doi:10.1128/aem.70.1.613-615.2004Van Meervenne, E., Botteldoorn, N., Lokietek, S., Vatlet, M., Cupa, A., Naranjo, M., … Bertrand, S. (2009). Turtle-associated Salmonella septicaemia and meningitis in a 2-month-old baby. Journal of Medical Microbiology, 58(10), 1379-1381. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.012146-0Williams, L. P. (1965). Pet Turtles as a Cause of Human Salmonellosis. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 192(5), 347. doi:10.1001/jama.1965.03080180005001Feeley, J. C., & Treger, M. D. (1969). Penetration of Turtle Eggs by Salmonella braenderup. Public Health Reports (1896-1970), 84(2), 156. doi:10.2307/4593527Mermin, J., Hoar, B., & Angulo, F. J. (1997). Iguanas and Salmonella Marina Infection in Children: A Reflection of the Increasing Incidence of Reptile-associated Salmonellosis in the United States. PEDIATRICS, 99(3), 399-402. doi:10.1542/peds.99.3.399Rodgers, G. L., Long, S. S., Smergel, E., & Dampier, C. (2002). Salmonella Infection Associated With a Pet Lizard in Siblings With Sickle Cell Anemia: An Avoidable Risk. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, 24(1), 75-76. doi:10.1097/00043426-200201000-00020Tu, Z.-C., Zeitlin, G., Gagner, J.-P., Keo, T., Hanna, B. A., & Blaser, M. J. (2004). Campylobacter fetus of Reptile Origin as a Human Pathogen. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 42(9), 4405-4407. doi:10.1128/jcm.42.9.4405-4407.2004Hidalgo-Vila, J., Díaz-Paniagua, C., Pérez-Santigosa, N., de Frutos-Escobar, C., & Herrero-Herrero, A. (2008). Salmonella in free-living exotic and native turtles and in pet exotic turtles from SW Spain. Research in Veterinary Science, 85(3), 449-452. doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.01.011Harris, J. R., Neil, K. P., Behravesh, C. B., Sotir, M. J., & Angulo, F. J. (2010). Recent Multistate Outbreaks of HumanSalmonellaInfections Acquired from Turtles: A Continuing Public Health Challenge. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 50(4), 554-559. doi:10.1086/649932Geue, L., & Löschner, U. (2002). Salmonella enterica in reptiles of German and Austrian origin. Veterinary Microbiology, 84(1-2), 79-91. doi:10.1016/s0378-1135(01)00437-0Sánchez-Jiménez, M. M., Rincón-Ruiz, P. A., Duque, S., Giraldo, M. A., Ramírez-Monroy, D. M., Jaramillo, G., & Cardona-Castro, N. (2011). Salmonella enterica in semi-aquatic turtles in Colombia. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 5(05), 361-364. doi:10.3855/jidc.1126HEALTH SURVEY OF WILD AND CAPTIVE BOG TURTLES (CLEMMYS MUHLENBERGII) IN NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. (2002). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 33(4), 311-316. doi:10.1638/1042-7260(2002)033[0311:hsowac]2.0.co;2Richards, J. M., Brown, J. D., Kelly, T. R., Fountain, A. L., & Sleeman, J. M. (2004). ABSENCE OF DETECTABLE SALMONELLA CLOACAL SHEDDING IN FREE-LIVING REPTILES ON ADMISSION TO THE WILDLIFE CENTER OF VIRGINIA. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 35(4), 562-563. doi:10.1638/03-070Hidalgo-Vila, J., Díaz-Paniagua, C., de Frutos-Escobar, C., Jiménez-Martínez, C., & Pérez-Santigosa, N. (2007). Salmonella in free living terrestrial and aquatic turtles. Veterinary Microbiology, 119(2-4), 311-315. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2006.08.012Acheson, D., & Allos, B. M. (2001). Campylobacter jejuni Infections: Update on Emerging Issues and Trends. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 32(8), 1201-1206. doi:10.1086/319760Briones, V., Tellez, S., Goyache, J., Ballesteros, C., del Pilar Lanzarot, M., Dominguez, L., & Fernandez-Garayzabal, J. F. (2004). Salmonella diversity associated with wild reptiles and amphibians in Spain. Environmental Microbiology, 6(8), 868-871. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00631.xMan, S. M. (2011). The clinical importance of emerging Campylobacter species. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 8(12), 669-685. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2011.191Ugarte-Ruiz, M., Gómez-Barrero, S., Porrero, M. C., Álvarez, J., García, M., Comerón, M. C., … Domínguez, L. (2012). Evaluation of four protocols for the detection and isolation of thermophilic Campylobacter from different matrices. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 113(1), 200-208. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05323.xJeffrey, J. S., Tonooka, K. H., & Lozanot, J. (2001). Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. from Skin, Crop, and Intestine of Commercial Broiler Chicken Carcasses at Processing. Poultry Science, 80(9), 1390-1392. doi:10.1093/ps/80.9.1390Perko-Mäkelä, P., Isohanni, P., Katzav, M., Lund, M., Hänninen, M.-L., & Lyhs, U. (2009). A longitudinal study of Campylobacter distribution in a turkey production chain. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 51(1). doi:10.1186/1751-0147-51-18Saelinger, C. A., Lewbart, G. A., Christian, L. S., & Lemons, C. L. (2006). Prevalence ofSalmonellaspp in cloacal, fecal, and gastrointestinal mucosal samples from wild North American turtles. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 229(2), 266-268. doi:10.2460/javma.229.2.266Chambers, D. L., & Hulse, A. C. (2006). Salmonella Serovars in the Herpetofauna of Indiana County, Pennsylvania. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(5), 3771-3773. doi:10.1128/aem.72.5.3771-3773.2006Gaertner, J. P., Hahn, D., Jackson, J., Forstner, M. R. J., & Rose, F. L. (2008). Detection of Salmonellae in Captive and Free-Ranging Turtles Using Enrichment Culture and Polymerase Chain Reaction. Journal of Herpetology, 42(2), 223-231. doi:10.1670/07-1731.1Magnino, S., Colin, P., Dei-Cas, E., Madsen, M., McLauchlin, J., Nöckler, K., … Van Peteghem, C. (2009). Biological risks associated with consumption of reptile products. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 134(3), 163-175. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.07.001XIA, X., ZHAO, S., SMITH, A., MCEVOY, J., MENG, J., & BHAGWAT, A. (2009). Characterization of Salmonella isolates from retail foods based on serotyping, pulse field gel electrophoresis, antibiotic resistance and other phenotypic properties. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 129(1), 93-98. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.11.007Franco, A., Hendriksen, R. S., Lorenzetti, S., Onorati, R., Gentile, G., Dell’Omo, G., … Battisti, A. (2011). Characterization of Salmonella Occurring at High Prevalence in a Population of the Land Iguana Conolophus subcristatus in Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e23147. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023147Scheelings, T. F., Lightfoot, D., & Holz, P. (2011). PREVALENCE OF SALMONELLA IN AUSTRALIAN REPTILES. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 47(1), 1-11. doi:10.7589/0090-3558-47.1.1Pasmans, F., Blahak, S., Martel, A., & Pantchev, N. (2008). Introducing reptiles into a captive collection: The role of the veterinarian. The Veterinary Journal, 175(1), 53-68. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2006.12.009Strohl, P., Tilly, B., Fremy, S., Brisabois, A., & Guerin-Faublee, V. (2004). Prevalence of Salmonella shedding in faeces by captive chelonians. Veterinary Record, 154(2), 56-58. doi:10.1136/vr.154.2.5