Zoonotic Fecal Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance in Canadian Petting Zoos
Résumé fourni par la source
This study aimed to better understand the potential public health risk associated with zoonotic pathogens in agricultural fairs and petting zoos in Canada. Prevalence of Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157:H7, and top six non-O157 STEC serogroups in feces (n = 88), hide/feather (n = 36), and hand rail samples (n = 46) was assessed, as well as distributions of antimicrobial resistant (AMR) broad and extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in pig nasal swabs (n = 4), and Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia in feces was also assessed. Neither Salmonella nor MRSA were detected. Campylobacter spp. were isolated from 32% of fecal samples. Cryptosporidium and Giardia were detected in 2% and 15% of fecal samples, respectively. Only one fecal sample was positive for STEC O157, whereas 22% were positive for non-O157 STEC. Multi-drug resistance (MDR) to antibiotics classified as critically and highly important in human medicine was proportionally greatest in E. coli from cattle feces. The β-lactamase-producing E. coli from pig, horse/donkey feces, and hand rail samples, as well as the STEC E. coli from handrail swabs were MDR. The diversity and prevalence of zoonotic pathogens and AMR bacteria detected within agricultural fairs and petting zoos emphasize the importance of hygienic practices and sanitization with respect to reducing associated zoonotic risks.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Zoonotic Fecal Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance in Canadian Petting Zoos
- Date Crossref
- 16/07/2018
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.