Microbiological pathogens: live poultry considerations (2000)

Introduction-significance of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Relative importance of specific poultry-derived pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Salmonella and Campylobacter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Escherichia coli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Staphylococcus species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Listeria monocytogenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Potential for Salmonella and Campylobacter antemortem intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 The upper gastrointestinal tract and carcass contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Antemortem contamination of the upper gastrointestinal tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Antemortem crop contamination intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Chemical litter treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Role of biosecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Live haul/transport considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Medications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Competitive exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Vaccination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Introduction — significance of the problem Food-borne illness is a significant worldwide public health problem. The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, in a 1994 report entitled “Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and Consequences” estimated that as many as 9000 deaths and 6.5-33 million illnesses in the U.S. each year are caused by ingestion of contaminated foods. In 1996, the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) collected data on nine foodborne diseases in several sites within the U.S.1 Since the start of this program, Campylobacter and Salmonella have been the leading causes of laboratory-confirmed food-borne illness. In 1997, Campylobacter (3966 cases) and Salmonella (2204 cases) accounted for over 76% of theconfirmed foodborne-related diseases.2 In direct comparisons between Campylobacter and Salmonella, Campylobacter outnumbered Salmonella detection 10 to 1 in college students and 2 to 1 in the general population in the U.S.3