Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Salmonellosis in Food and Companion Animals and Its Public Health Importance

Written By

Joseph K.N. Kuria

Submitted: 23 July 2022 Reviewed: 02 December 2022 Published: 28 February 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.109324

From the Edited Volume

Salmonella - Perspectives for Low-Cost Prevention, Control and Treatment

Edited by Hongsheng Huang and Sohail Naushad

Chapter metrics overview

187 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Salmonellosis in animals is caused by typhoidal and non-typhoidal Salmonella organisms. Non-typhoidal salmonellosis is a zoonosis of major public health concern occasioning over 155, 000 mortalities yearly worldwide. The majority of the human infections are mainly acquired directly through consumption of contaminated foods of animal origin, particularly poultry, eggs and dairy products or consumption of contaminated fruits. Rodents and will birds are the main reservoirs of non-typhoidal salmonellosis. Salmonellosis has a great economic and health impact occasioned by the cost of surveillance, investigation, treatment, and prevention in both animals and humans. Non-typhoidal salmonellosis is further complicated by the wide host range and the emergence of multidrug resistant Salmonella strains due to intensification of livestock production and uncontrolled antimicrobial drug use. There is a need for more innovative prevention and control measures to safeguard losses in animals and human health. This chapter will discuss salmonellosis in food and companion animals, the public health importance, and the challenges facing its control.

Keywords

  • salmonellosis
  • animals
  • public health
  • control
  • salmonellosis transmission

1. Introduction

Salmonellosis is caused by bacterial species in the genus Salmonella, a member of the family Enterobacteriaceae, comprising about 63 genera. Salmonella has a wide host range, occurring in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. The genus has two taxonomic species, based on differences in their 16S rRNA sequence analysis, namely Salmonella enterica and Salmonella bongori [1, 2]. S. enterica has six subspecies namely subspecies enterica, salamae, arizonae, diarizonae, houtenae, and indica [3]. S. enterica subsp. enterica is the most common subspecies and predominantly infects warm-blooded animals. S. bongori species is usually found in cold-blooded animals and the environment but some are occasionally associated with human disease. Salmonella subspecies are further classified antigenically into serotypes, or serovars, of which there are currently close to 2700 [4]. Some Salmonella serovars are host adapted but the majority are not and can cause disease in a broad range of hosts.

In animals, host-adapted or typhoidal Salmonella serovars cause severe disease in the specific hosts, characterized by septicemia but generally pose no threat to other species including humans. The non-host -adapted serovars are generally carried asymptomatically in animals although in some cases they cause disease characterized by diarrhea. These serovars are zoonotic or potentially zoonotic. In humans, they cause non-typhoid salmonellosis (NTS) the 4th most important cause of gastroenteritis [1]. It is also one of the most important bacterial zoonotic diseases, estimated to cause, 155,000 deaths yearly worldwide [5]. Non-typhoidal salmonellosis is therefore not only a major public health concern worldwide but has great negative economic impact due to the cost of surveillance, investigation, treatment and prevention of illness [6]. It is transmitted to humans through the feco-oral route, mainly by consumption of contaminated raw or improperly cooked animal products. The major sources of infection are poultry, eggs and dairy products but contaminated fresh fruits and vegetables have also been recognized as vehicles of transmission [7, 8]. Other common sources of infection include pigs products and contact with companion animals, particularly dogs, cats and horses, as well as pet reptiles such as snakes and tortoises. Contamination of animal products with Salmonella can also negatively impact on food trade by limiting market access NTS organisms occur widely in the environment but the main reservoirs are rodents, reptiles and wild birds [9]. The wide host range further makes control of NTS challenging. Emergence of multidrug resistant S. enterica strains in animals due to misuse and over use of antimicrobial agents is an added complication. Since the majority of the human infections are acquired through the consumption of contaminated foods of animal origin, NTS from animals is likely to continue to be a threat to human health. This chapter will discuss salmonellosis in food and companion animals, the associated public health risks, the challenges facing its control and future research needs. The discussion material is derived from existing literature as well as personal experience. It is hoped the chapter will be found useful by students, researchers, practitioners and managers of animal and public health.

Advertisement

2. History of salmonellosis

Salmonellosis has been around for centuries. It has been determined, through recent technological development, that typhoid fever was implicated in a plague which wiped out a third of the population in the city Athens, around 430 B.C. [10]. The organism Salmonella is named after Daniel E. Salmon, an American veterinarian. It was named in his honor by his research assistant, Theobald Smith, who isolated the first known strain of Salmonella from a case of hog cholera, which he named Salmonella choleraesuis, in 1885 [11]. The first study of Salmonella in humans was conducted by Karl Joseph Eberth, a German pathologist and bacteriologist, when he described a bacillus that he suspected was the cause of typhoid. The findings were later confirmed by pathologist Georg Theodor August Gaffky and the organism name “Gaffky-Eberth bacillus”, which today is known as S. enterica serovar Typhi [12].

Notable personalities thought to have died from Salmonella infection include a US president, William Henry Harrison [13] and one of the famous Wright brothers, Wilbur Wright. The importance of typhoid as a scourge in human health is exemplified by the story of “typhoid Mary “(Mary Mallon), the domestic worker who transmitted Salmonella to at least eight households [14].

Advertisement

3. Etiology of salmonellosis in animals

3.1 Classification and nomenclature

Salmonella genus is classified under the family Enterobacteriaceae comprising about 63 genera. Their natural habitat is the intestinal tract of animals, of which about 25, such Shigella, Salmonella, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Serratia, Proteus as are clinically significant. Others, such as Escherichia coli, are considered part of the normal intestinal microbiota and cause disease only incidentally. Phylogenically, there are only two species in this genus, S. enterica and bongori bongori [1, 2], based on differences in their 16S rRNA sequence analysis. S. enterica has six subspecies (subspecies enterica, salamae, arizonae, diarizonae, houtenae, and indica [3].

3.2 Antigenic classification

Salmonella are further classified antigenically by the Kauffman and White classification system, which classifies the organism into serotypes on the basis of a common somatic (O), flagella (H) and capsular (K), antigens [15]. The (O) antigen is present in all serotypes and is a heat-stable component of the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) located in the outer cell membrane present in all Gram negative bacteria. The heat-labile H antigens are part of the flagella protein, flagellin, present in all motile Salmonella spp. Two different genes code for the flagella proteins and either or both may occur in a serovar. Only one gene is expressed at a time, hence a serovar may possess only one protein at a time and the cells are thus diphasic. The two proteins are designated as phase I and Phase II. Phase I antigens are specific to a serotype and confer serological identity whereas phase II antigens are non-specific [16]. The K antigens are heat-sensitive polysaccharides located in the bacterial capsule, which is rare among Salmonella serotypes. The human-restricted serovar Typhi and serovar Paratyphi C produce a variant of the K antigen, known as the virulence (Vi) antigen [17].

The antigenic structure of Salmonella is useful in identification of serovars. It is also a useful epidemiological tool in determining sources of infection and mode of spread [18]. In nomenclature of Salmonella serotypes, subspecies name is usually omitted. For instance, S. enterica subspecies enterica serotype gallinarum is shortened to Salmonella ser. Gallinarum or Salmonella gallinarum [1, 11]. There are about 2700 serotypes (serovars) so far identified [4], each having a unique combination of somatic O and flagella phase I and Phase II antigens. Over 50% of these serotypes belong to the S. enterica subspecies [11].

3.3 Cellular, cultural and biochemical characteristics

Salmonella species are Gram-negative non-spore forming large rods measuring 0.7–1.5 by 2.0–5.0 μm. They are motile by peritrichous flagellation with the exception of S. Gallinarum and S. Purollum. Capsulation in salmonella is limited to a few serovars such as Salmonella typhi. Salmonella are aerobic, facultatively anaerobic in gaseous requirements. Nutritional requirement is non-fastidious and they can be cultivated in simple media such as nutrient agar. The majority of Salmonella are lactose fermenters. Utilizing this characteristic, selective and differential media have been formulated for isolation, and identification. Such media include MacConkey agar, Salmonella-Shigella agar, brilliant green agar xylose lysine deoxycholate agar and Hektoen enteric [19].

Salmonella species have the ability of to utilize tetrathionate (S4O62−) as an alternative electron acceptor in anaerobic respiration. This confers the organism a selective growth advantage, a property that used for non-selective enrichment in cultures containing competitive bacteria [20]. Common to Enterobacteria, Salmonella are oxidase negative, catalase positive, nitrate positive and they metabolize glucose fermentative, often with gas production. Other biochemical properties used for identification of Salmonella include hydrogen sulfide production (except few serovars such as Salmonella paratyphi A, and S. choleraesuis), the ability to utilize citrate as a sole carbon source, decarboxylation of lysine and fermentation of dulcitol. Salmonella are negative for production of urease and indole, deanimation of phenylalanine or tryptophan and Voges–Proskauer reaction [21, 22].

3.4 Pathogenicity and virulence factors

Many virulence factors play a variety of roles in the pathogenesis of Salmonella infections. These factors enable the organism adhere to and colonize its host, invade host cell, survive and multiply in macrophages, secret toxins and evade or bypass host’s defense mechanisms. The factors include capsule, flagella, fimbriae, adhesins, invasins, hemagglutinins, exotoxins and endotoxins [16]. The various virulence factors are encoded by gene clusters, referred to as Salmonella pathogenicity islands (SPIs), located in chromosomes, plasmids and transporons [23, 24, 25].

The polysaccharide capsular O and Vi antigens in no-typhoidal and typhoidal Salmonella are known to aid the organism evade host’s defense by modifying the cell surface in order to inhibit host’s cellular response [26, 27]. Flagella are possessed by majority of Salmonella serovars and are known to confer pathogenicity in addition to motility. Certain Salmonella serovars are able to evade or minimize the host immune response by antigenic variation of flagella antigens, from one phase to the other [24, 25]. Fimbriae are the most common adhesion factors in Enterobacteria. They facilitate adhesion of Salmonella not only to hosts’ cells, thus enabling colonization, but also to surfaces and foods. They are also implicated in a variety of other roles such as biofilm formation [28], which serves to shield the organism from attack by host’s defense systems.

Endotoxin or lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is located in the outer membrane of Gram negative bacteria. It is heat stable and is released only upon bacterial cell lysis. It plays a role in pathogenesis of Salmonella infection by evoking pyrexia, activating complement system and depressing lymphocyte function among others. Endotoxin also plays a part in septic shock that can occur in systemic infections [29, 30].

Exotoxins comprise of cytotoxins and the enterotoxins. Cytotoxins are associated with killing of the mammalian cells in vitro and probably play a role in none-secretory diarrhea [31]. There is limited information regarding the mode of action of enterotoxins of Salmonella but they are antigenically related to the cholera family of enterotoxins. They are associated with diarrhea disease, probably through stimulation of intestinal secretion [16].

Certain Salmonella strains are hemolytic, another important virulence factor mediated by HylE protein, a product of hylE gene, thought to play a role in the pathogenesis of systemic salmonellosis. The protein produces hemolysis in blood agar made from the blood of a range of animals, including humans, with certain blood types [16].

3.5 Host range

Salmonella and salmonellosis occur worldwide in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Majority of Salmonella are not host specific and can cause disease in a broad range of hosts but some are host restricted. S. enterica subsp. enterica is the most common and predominantly infects warm-blooded animals. In the subspecies enterica, serovars typhi, paratyphi and hirschfeldii are restricted to humans and cause typhoid and paratyphoid fever respectively. They have no significant animal or environment reservoirs. Serovars pullorum and gallinarum are restricted to poultry; abortusovis to sheep; choleraesuis to pigs; and dublin to cattle [32, 33]. The rest of the serovars, referred to as non-typhoidal Salmonella, are zoonotic or potentially zoonotic, the most common being serovars typhimurium and enteritidis [1].

The other five S. enterica subspecies (salamae, arizonae, diarizonae, houtenae and indica) and S. bongori are usually found in cold-blooded animals and the environment but some are occasionally associated with human disease. All animal species are susceptible to Salmonella infection but clinical disease occurs more commonly in some and not others. Among domestic animals, poultry, cattle, pigs, poultry and horses show clinical disease but cats and dogs commonly do not [34, 35].

3.6 Isolation and identification

Isolation of Salmonella from samples with competing microbes involves an initial non-selective pre-enrichment followed by a selective enrichment. Selenite (SeO32−) is inhibitory to coliforms and certain other microbial species such as fecal streptococci and is used for selective enrichment of Salmonella spp from both clinical and food samples. Selective enrichment is followed by plating onto selective agars, followed by biochemical and serological confirmation of suspect presumptive colonies [36]. Serogrouping by somatic and flagella antigens, can be achieved by using monovalent specific ‘O’, ‘H’ and ‘Vi’ antisera. Phage typing, immunomagnetic separation and ELISA-based assays are some of the screening methods developed to produce rapid results, especially from food and environmental samples [37]. Several PCR assays targeting various genes have also been developed for identification of Salmonella. These include the 16S rRNA, invA, agfA, viaB, hilA, sirA, ttr, bcfD and phoP genes, among others [38, 39, 40].

Advertisement

4. Salmonellosis in animals

Salmonella has a wide host range that includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. It is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in animals and also a major cause of economic loss in livestock. The main importance of non-typhoidal salmonellosis in animals is however its zoonosis, causing a major health, social and economic impact due to cost of surveillance, investigation and treatment. The major source of direct human infections is consumption of contaminated or infected foods of animal origin, particularly meat, eggs and dairy products, and direct contact with animals, particularly companion animals, mainly dogs, cats and horses. Rodents and wild birds are the main reservoirs of non-typhoidal salmonellosis for animals. This chapter wills therefore limit the discussion on salmonellosis to livestock food animals, companion animals, rodents and wild birds.

4.1 Salmonellosis in poultry

4.1.1 Etiology and transmission

Salmonellosis in poultry and other avian species is caused by serovars in the subspecies enterica. Two of the serovar, S. pullorum and S. gallinarum are avian host-specific and cause typhoidal salmonellosis, while other serovars cause non-typhoidal infections, the most important being S. typhimurium and Salmonella enteritidis [3541, 42] S. enterica subsp. arizonae is also recognized as a cause of paratyphoid but mainly in turkeys [43]. Although S. pullorum and S. gallinarum can infect a wide range of avian species, clinical signs are observed in a few, which include chickens, turkeys and wild birds such as quails and pheasants [42].

Transmission is horizontal via fecal-oral route and vertically via infected embrocated eggs. Transovarian infection in the egg results in subsequent infection in chicks or poults and is one of the most important modes of transmission of these two diseases. Some infected hens become asymptomatic carriers and continually transmit it to their progeny. This mode of transmission is particularly critical in hatcheries since it can result in widespread dissemination of the diseases. Transmission by cannibalism and through the respiratory tract has been reported. Humans constitute a big potential of disease introduction through mobility and duties. They can track infections on vehicles, footwear, clothing, hands and contaminated equipment. Mammals, particularly dogs, cats, rodents as well as insects can also act as mechanical transmitters [42, 44, 45].

Similar to typhoidal salmonellosis, non-typhoid salmonellosis in poultry is transmitted vertically or horizontally. S. enteritidis serovar has a particular preference for vertical transmission. Horizontal transmission occurs through fecal contamination of feed and drinking water and by penetration of microorganisms into the egg subsequent to fecal contamination. Infection can be introduced into a farm by humans through clothing, footwear, equipment and vehicles. Rodents and wild birds are a notable reservoir of paratyphoid Salmonella. They are attracted into poultry houses by left-over feed and contaminate the feed by fecal material [42, 46, 47]. Dogs and cats can also track Salmonella infections over long distances to contaminate farms.

4.1.2 Clinical signs

Both S. gallinarum and S. pullorum cause systemic disease but whereas the former affects birds of all ages, S. pullorum affects primarily young ones. Birds hatched from infected eggs may be found dead in the hatching trays. Young birds may die soon after hatching without any observable signs and most acute outbreaks occur in birds under three weeks of age. In mature birds, infection is manifested by decreased egg production, fertility, hatchability and by anorexia. Diarrhea, which is usually white or yellow, watery to mucoid, is common, with fecal pasting seen around the vent.

4.1.3 Post mortem lesions

Lesions from S. gallinarum and S. pullorum infections are characterized by septicemia, with inflammation of all internal organs, including intestines, and notably liver and spleen, which show classic gray granulomatous nodules [46]. Infected ovaries may be misshapen and/or shrunken and follicles are often pedunculated, being attached to the ovary by fibrous stalks, while the abnormal ova may contain caseous material [45]. Impaction of oviducts, resulting in egg peritonitis, is also common [48]. Recently hatched chicks show signs of septicemia and omphalitis, a condition characterized by infected yolk sacs, often accompanied by unhealed navels. The yolk sacs usually contain creamy or greenish, caseous material [49, 50, 51].

In non- typhoidal salmonellosis, the highest morbidity and death rates are usually observed during the first 2 weeks after hatching. Infected adult birds are asymptomatic and do not present signs of the disease and main importance is human infection, through consumption of contaminated meat and eggs. In young birds, it may however cause enteritis with dissemination toward the spleen, lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys [43]. An enlarged, friable liver, with necrotic foci, is common. Chicks infected transovariary will show signs and lesions similar to those in typhoidal salmonellosis.

4.1.4 Diagnosis, treatment and control

Diagnosis of salmonellosis in poultry is achieved through significant clinical signs, necropsy finding as well as isolation and identification of the organism. S. gallinarum and S. pullorum can be differentiated with biochemical, serological tests and PCR.

S. gallinarum and S. pullorum may survive for a long time, months or even years in the environment, which makes it difficult to eliminate them in infected poultry houses. Once a flock is infected, the amount of Salmonella can be reduced, but not completely eliminated and depopulation is usually the only option. Pullorum disease and fowl typhoid are notifiable disease in many countries under OIE guidelines. Both diseases can be controlled and eradicated by use of serological testing and elimination of positive birds but vaccines may be used to control the disease. The diseases have largely been eradicated from commercial poultry in developed countries. Various antibiotics can be used to treat clinical cases, but they do not eliminate the organisms from the flock. The two serovars are highly adapted to the host species, and therefore are of little public health significance [45, 51].

4.2 Salmonellosis in cattle

4.2.1 Etiology and transmission

Salmonellosis in cattle is caused mainly by S. enterica ser dublin. The serovar is adapted to cattle but can also cause infection in other species including human. It causes economic losses in cattle production and is also a threat to human health [52]. Other serovars can also infect cattle and indeed, majority of Salmonella isolated from cattle are the non–host specific [53]. Salmonella infection in cattle is most commonly acquired by ingestion of feed or water contaminated by fecal matter from other livestock, rodents and wild birds or by contaminated animal by-products. Salmonella are shed by clinically infected animals and contaminate feed, water, yards, and equipment. The bacterium is also shed in saliva, nasal secretions, urine and milk in cases of systemic illness. Aerosol transmission between animals is considered possible in closely confined production systems [53, 54, 55]. Probability of vertical transmission from a dam to fetus, with calves born already infected, has been proposed [56]. The outcome of infection is determined by virulence of the serotype, dose of inoculum, degree of immunity and other stress factors.

4.2.2 Clinical signs

Salmonellosis in cattle affects all age groups causing both intestinal and systemic infection but is most severe in the young. Clinical presentations are highly variable and the differential diagnosis list is considerable [53]. Acute disease is characterized by fever, anorexia and diarrhea of varying degree. The feces may be foul smelling, and may contain varying amounts of blood, mucus, and shreds of intestinal lining. Lactation drops suddenly in dairy cows. Clinical signs may last up to a week and death is due to dehydration and toxemia. In newborn calves, the disease most commonly affects those that receive inadequate or no colostrum and signs may include central nervous system (CNS) signs or pneumonia, and death may occur in 1–2 days. Those calves that survive longer may develop complications such as polyarthritis, or gangrene of the extremities of limbs, ears and tail [57]. Pregnant cows may abort, either with or without other clinical signs [54, 57, 58]. Subacute disease is seen mainly in adult animals and signs may include mild fever, anorexia, diarrhea dehydration and weight loss. Chronic disease in manifested by low intermittent fever and anorexia. There may be watery diarrhea resulting in progressive dehydration and weight loss. The feces are usually normal or contain mucus or blood. Sick cows that recover may become carriers that shed Salmonella for varying periods of time and cause continuous new infections in the herd [5960].

4.2.3 Post mortem lesions

In animals that die peracutely due to septicemia, there may be no gross lesions other than extensive submucosal and subserosal petechial hemorrhages. In acute enteritis, seen mainly in calves, the small intestines typically shows a diffuse mucoid or mucohemorrhagic enteritis and the mesenteric lymph nodes are edematous, congested and greatly enlarged [58]. In adult cattle, chronic infection is characterized muco/necrotic enteritis, especially of the ileum, caecum and colon. The wall is thickened and covered with yellow-gray necrotic material overlying a red, granular surface. Characteristic “button” ulcers may be seen in the colon [61] and the mesenteric lymph nodes and spleen may be enlarged.

4.2.4 Diagnosis, treatment and control

Clinical signs of salmonellosis are indicative of infection but definitive diagnosis of infection involves isolation and identification of the organism. Response to antibiotic treatment is usually poor. Animals that recover from infection can remain carriers and shed bacteria intermittently or continuously for long, especially during stress periods such as transportation or calving. The carrier status can even progress to full blown clinical disease.

Control involves sourcing animals from disease-free herds in order to ensure a clean herd. New animals should be put on quarantine for at least 4 weeks. Continuous serological tests and fecal culture is recommended and positive animals culled. Control of rodents and wild birds, particularly in feeding troughs, is important. Routine disinfection of premises should be considered and aborting animals should be considered suspect, isolated, tested and culled. Vaccines are available as part of a prevention or control tool.

4.3 Salmonellosis in pigs

4.3.1 Etiology and transmission

Salmonellosis in swine occurs in form of two clinical disease entities, typhoidal and non-typhoidal. Typhoidal salmonellosis is mainly caused S. choleraesuis. This serovar is adapted to swine and do not commonly affect other animals including, humans. Non-typhoidal infections are caused by S. typhimurium and is the most commonly found serotype in pigs and a common source of food poisoning in humans Other serotypes that commonly infect pigs are enteritidis, agona, derby, hadar and heidelberg [62, 63].

The main route of transmission is feco-oral, which is exacerbated by poor hygiene and overstocking [45]. Pigs start shedding the bacteria shortly after infection and can continue to shed up to 5 months after recovery from the illness. Feed ingredients of animal origin, are another important source of infection for pigs. Mechanical transmission can be effected by humans through tracking of infections on vehicles, footwear, clothing, hands and contaminated equipment [64]. Salmonella also localizes in the tonsils and can lead to nose-to-nose transmission [65, 66]. Piglets can also get infected by the sow through milk, although rarely [67]. In addition, transmission of non-typhoidal salmonellosis can occur indirectly through contamination of feed and water by infections carried in the intestinal tract of wild birds and rodents.

4.3.2 Clinical signs

S. choleraesuis infections may occur at any age, but are more frequent in growing pigs, between 8 weeks and 5 months old. Outbreaks are frequently associated with stress conditions such as overcrowding, transportation, weather, concurrent infectious diseases such as parasitism, and poor management [68]. The disease is manifested as an acute septicemia characterized by fever, depression and anorexia. Sudden death is quite common in the acute phase of the disease, with pigs showing signs of cyanosis on the extremities such as ears, nose and tail, due to septicemia [69]. Pigs that survive the acute phase will show signs of yellow diarrhea and coughing. The diarrhea is foul- smelling and may contain blood and mucus. The bacterium may cross the blood-brain barrier during the septicemia phase and cause meningitis and nervous signs may be observed, but rarely. Arthritis may also be observed subsequent to localization of the organism in joints. Sick pregnant sows may abort.

Morbidity in S. choleraesuis infection is usually low (less than 10%) but mortality is high. The organism may localize in the mesenteric lymph nodes and such subclinical carriers intermittently or continuously shed the organism in feces, particularly under stress conditions [70].

Clinical signs of S. typhimurium are not common in well managed commercial herds but can occur in stressed and immuno-compromised ones. The main symptoms are fever, anorexia, yellowish diarrhea, dehydration, prostration, and mortality [71]. Affected pigs may recover in a period of one week but re-infection is common within the next three to four weeks. Mortality is rare, but those animals that survive can remain carriers, and therefore a source of continuous infection, for up to five months after recovery.

4.3.3 Post mortem lesions

In pigs that die suddenly from S. choleraesuis infection, the most common lesion is skin cyanosis, particularly on the ears, feet and abdomen, accompanied by swelling of the gallbladder, lymph nodes, spleen and liver. There may be necrotic foci in the liver, as well as icterus. Consolidative bacterial pneumonia will be observed in pigs that show coughing. In Pigs that show signs of diarrhea, intestinal lesions, mainly pseudomembranous inflammation of the ileum and button ulcers in the colon will be observed.

The most common macroscopic lesion in S. typhimurium infection in pigs is inflammation of the ileum, the caecum and colon. The inflammation is characterized the presence of yellowish necrotic pseudomembranes. Mesenteric lymph nodes may be inflamed and enlarged. Characteristic “button’ ulcers may be observed in the colon [72]. Some cases of rectal strictures have been reported after clinical salmonellosis. In these cases, pigs cannot defecate and intestinal contents remain trapped in the intestines, creating severe distension.

4.3.4 Diagnosis, treatment, and control

Clinical signs and lesions found during necropsy can be indicative of salmonellosis but not diagnostic. A definitive diagnosis is achieved by isolation and identification of the organism from suitable samples such as lung, liver, spleen, kidney, or lymph nodes [73]. Isolation from the intestine or feces is often unsuccessful.

Clinical disease can be controlled my antimicrobial therapy early in the onset of the disease but this will not eliminate the pathogen. The prophylactic use of antimicrobial agents is also not recommended because of expense, and promotion of antimicrobial resistance. Vaccines are available for preventing infection but their efficacy is often disappointing [74]. However, good management and husbandry is the best method of preventing clinical disease. This involves, but is not limited to, proper cleaning and disinfection. All-in-all-out pig flow and rodent control should be part of management procedures.

4.4 Salmonellosis in companion animals

4.4.1 Salmonellosis in dogs and cats

4.4.1.1 Etiology and transmission

Numerous Salmonella serovars have been isolated from dogs and cats with S. typhimurium and S. enteritidis being the most common serovars. There are no host-adapted serovars identified in dogs or cats [75, 76, 77]. Most dogs and cats are asymptomatic carriers and prevalence of Salmonella in dogs is associated with raw feed diets and contaminated feed, due to indiscriminate feeding habits, including scavenging [76, 78]. Fecal shedding of salmonellae by dogs is also a possible source of infection for other dogs as well as humans [79]. Cats may get infection from eating birds and rodents [80].

4.4.1.2 Clinical signs

These are rare although some dogs and cats may manifest signs of septicemia, particularly in puppies and kittens or in adults stressed by debilitating concurrent diseases [76]. Acute gastroenteritis is the most common symptom. The signs include fever, anorexia, diarrhea and vomiting. The diarrhea may contain blood. Other syndromes may include pneumonia, pelvic limb paresis, or conjunctivitis. As enteritis progresses, abortion may occur in pregnant dogs and cats or they may give birth to weak puppies or kittens. Recovered animals can continue to shed the pathogen in their feces and saliva due to localization of the organism in the lymph nodes.

4.4.1.3 Postmortem lesions

Description of post mortem lesions in dogs and cats is scarce but the most common is enterocolitis [81]. Other recorded lesions include liver necrosis [82], pyonephrosis [83], cholecystitis [84], hemorrhagic gastroenteritis [85] and pneumonia [57].

4.4.1.4 Diagnosis, treatment and control

Diagnosis is based on isolation of the organism in conjunction with significant clinical signs. A diagnosis is conclusive if the organism is isolated from a normally sterile site, such as blood or synovial fluid in a live animal or from tissues samples from postmortem examination. Isolation of Salmonella may not necessarily be a definitive diagnosis in healthy animals.

Treatment for a Salmonella infection is primarily supportive, to compensate for the fluid lost through vomiting and diarrhea. Depending on the extent of the infection, antibiotics may be required for septic cases to prevent shock. Control of fecal contamination is of primary importance. Dogs and cats should be fed uncontaminated and properly cooked food.

4.4.2 Salmonellosis in horses

4.4.2.1 Etiology and transmission

Salmonella abortusequi is an equine-adapted serovar and is associated with abortion in mares, neonatal septicemia, polyarthritis and testicular lesions in males [24, 25, 86]. Infections are common in Asia and African but rare in the rest of the world [87]. However, the most common serovar isolated from horses is S. typhimurium [88].

Salmonella abortusequi transmission is oral or venereal. Infection may result from ingestion of feed contaminated by uterine discharges from mares that have recently aborted or from carrier mares. Transmission from stallions to mare during mating is also thought to occur [89]. The infection may localize in the uterus and cause repeated abortion or infection of subsequent foals.

Transmission of S. typhimurium is primarily fecal-oral. Feed, water and environment are contaminated by organism excreted through feces of sick or carrier horses, birds and rodents. Acutely ill animals excrete large amounts of bacteria. Risk factors for development of disease include stress due to transportation, overcrowding, changes in feed, intense physical activity, deprivation of feed and water and surgical treatment. Antibiotic treatment has also been found to increase risk for symptomless carriers. Another source of infection is eating manure, especially in foals.

4.4.2.2 Clinical signs

Serovar abortusequi primarily affects the reproductive system. In mares, the main clinical sign is abortion, with no other evidence of illness. Abortion usually occurs at about the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy. Retained placenta and metritis are common sequel of abortion. Foals from infected mares may develop an acute septicemia soon after birth while those that survive longer may develop polyarthritis. Sign of infection in the stallion include fever, swelling of the prepuce and scrotum, and arthritis. Epididymitis, orchitis and testicular atrophy are other abnormalities associated with infection [89].

Equine salmonellosis caused by S. tyhimurium can be asymptomatic, but is commonly associated with fever and. Diarrhea that can progress to septicemia in young animals [90, 91]. Infected foals are more prone to clinical disease than adult horses. Diarrhea, often severe and watery, is the most common symptom. Other symptoms include fever, colic and poor condition. The infection is often self-limiting but some conditions may progress to septicemia, resulting in death. Septicemia leads to polyarthritis, and/or pneumonia. Laminitis is a possible complication of salmonellosis in horses, and is attributed to bacterial endotoxins.

4.4.2.3 Post mortem findings

Necropsy findings in cases of S. abortusequi include placentitis manifested by edema, hemorrhages and areas of necrosis. Foals dying soon after birth will have nonspecific changes of acute septicemia. Polyarthritis is found in those dying at a later stage.

The main lesions in cases of S. tyhimurium infection in horses includes fibrinonecrotic or necrohemorrhagic enteritis, mainly in the large intestine (large colon and cecum) [90]. Other lesions reported are enterocolitis and meningoencephalomyelitis in foals [65].

4.4.2.4 Diagnosis, treatment and control

Salmonella abortusequi can be isolated from the placenta, uterine discharges, aborted foals, and the joints of foals with polyarthritis. Serological diagnosis is possible since a high titer of anti- Salmonella agglutinins develop in mares about 2 weeks after abortion. S. tyhimurium may be isolated from fecal material but this is not reliable due to intermittent shedding of the bacteria.

Antimicrobial drugs recommended in the treatment of salmonellosis should also be effective against S. abortusequi infection. However, antibiotics use may promote latent carrier state following recovery [92]. Isolation of infected mares and disposal of aborted material should be practiced to avoid spread of the infection and infected stallions should not be used for breeding. In areas where the disease is common, vaccination is also used as a control measure. The widespread use of vaccines is credited with the almost complete eradication of the disease in developed countries.

Antibiotic treatment of equine S. tyhimurium infection is not recommended, especially in cases of uncomplicated diarrhea, due to the risk of worsening symptoms, as a result of disruption of the normal intestinal microflora by the antibiotics. Instead, supportive treatment is recommended if necessary. A major problem in control is the long-term survival of the organism in the environment. Manure should be disposed of frequently and animals with diarrhea should be isolated. Rodents and wild birds control is advisable.

Advertisement

5. Salmonella from rodents and wild birds

“Typhimurium” comes from “murine” Latin for mouse, a rodent of the subfamily Murinae. Rodents and wild birds are the main reservoir for Salmonella in the environment. They carry the organism in their intestines, mostly asymptomatically, which they transmit to food animals in the farm environment [16, 93]. Rodents are attracted to feed and shelter around livestock farms, particularly in intensive production systems [94, 95]. Apart from Salmonella, rodents are carriers of a variety of other diseases such as leptospirosis and plague [96]. The source for infection is rodents’ droppings which contaminate feed and water but mice and rats can also carry disease-causing organisms on their feet and hair [97]. Chicken can also get infection from eating dead mice and rats [94].

Salmonellosis in wild birds can be asymptomatic or it can be a fatal disease [98]. Asymptomatic birds may disseminate Salmonella to susceptible individuals through fecal shedding, shared environments, and via direct contact [99]. Birds can also transmit Salmonella to food animals with their feet [100]. Wild birds are particularly hazardous since they can transmit infections over long distances through migration. The most frequent serovar isolated from wild birds is S. typhimurium [101].

Advertisement

6. Public health importance of salmonellosis in animals

Non-typhoidal salmonellosis is one of the four major global causes of diarrheal diseases in human, alongside E. coli, Cholera and Campylobacter [1]. It is also one of the most important bacterial zoonotic diseases, estimated to cause, 155,000 deaths yearly worldwide [5]. Non-typhoidal salmonellosis in humans is therefore not only are major public health concerns worldwide but great negative economic impacts due to the cost of surveillance, investigation, treatment and prevention of illness [6]. It is transmitted from animals by the fecal-oral route in several ways:

  1. Direct contact with infected animals. Salmonella is an occupational hazard for those working or living with animals [102]

  2. Consumption of contaminated raw or undercooked animal products

  3. Consumption of foodstuff cross-contaminated by contaminated animal products

  4. Consumption of foodstuffs such as vegetables contaminated my fecal material or untreated manure from infected animals

6.1 Transmission from poultry

Poultry meat and eggs are the most common vehicles of salmonellosis to humans [7, 8] and S. enteritidis is one of the most commonly identified serovars in association with human infection [103]. Contamination of poultry products can occur at multiple points in the production chain. This includes during rearing, live birds transportation, slaughter, dressing and packaging [104]. During slaughter, fecal contamination of carcasses can occur from gut contents. In retail outlets, including butcheries and supermarkets, poultry meat can get contaminated or cross contaminate other products [105, 106, 107]. Leaking poultry packages can contaminate ready-to-eat foodstuffs in supermarket refrigerators and in the kitchen, poultry meat can cross-contaminate other foodstuffs during meal preparation [108], particularly, foodstuffs that are eaten raw such as fruits and salads. Eggs are important sources of Salmonella for humans. Eggs become contaminated either by fecal contamination of the eggshell or through transovarian transmission from infected hens [109, 110], and this can lead to human disease after consumption of the contaminated eggs. Another potential source of food contamination is poultry manure which can contaminate vegetables in the field [111].

6.2 Transmission from cattle, goats and sheep

Milk and dairy products are the second most important source of Salmonella infections for humans. Salmonellosis from dairy products is usually related to consumption of raw or inadequately pasteurized milk although Salmonella may contaminate dairy products after the pasteurization process. Milk may be contaminated by cow fecal material or manure during milking. The pathogen is shed in the feces of cows and can be present in or on the udders of cows and contaminate their milk. Unpasteurised milk and products made from it such as ice-cream, cheese, milk powder and infant formulae have been associated with Salmonella outbreaks [112, 113]. A variety of Salmonella serotypes have been isolated from these products. S. dublin, which is highly adapted to cattle as the primary host, has been associated with systemic form of salmonellosis in humans [52].

Goat meat, mutton, beef and beef products are recognized as important sources of human salmonellosis [114, 115, 116] Infections in most cases are associated with the consumption of raw meet, contaminated cooked meat or as a result of inadequate cooking. Organs and carcasses become contaminated with intestinal contents during slaughter and this is considered one of the important sources of infection [11]. Untreated manure can also contaminate vegetables at production stage [1, 117].

6.3 Transmission from pigs

Pork is ranked as the third most common source of human salmonellosis and Salmonella is the most common zoonotic pathogen affecting swine associated to human gastroenteritis [118, 119]. Many Salmonella serotypes are present in pigs, but the most commonly associated with foodborne illness in human is Salmonella typhimurium. One serotype, S. choleraesuis is adapted to swine as the primary host but also causes severe systemic illness in man [120], although it is not commonly isolated from pork. The most common cause of infection is eating improperly prepared or stored pork products that are contaminated with Salmonella.

6.4 Transmission from companion animals

Close contact between dogs and cats and their owners or those working with dogs can also be a potential source of Salmonella infections for humans [121122]. Organisms shed in the animal’s feces can contaminate human food or hands. Salmonella shedding by dogs and cats has been incriminated in infections in humans living in the same household with the shedding pet, with children accounting for a high proportion of cases. Other persons that are particularly vulnerable are the aged and the immuno-compromised. Transmission of Salmonella from horses to humans in contact has also been documented [123].

Advertisement

7. Conclusion

Microorganism will always be with us [124], and in absence of effective control, salmonellosis in animals will continue to be a major economic and public health concern for several reasons:

  1. Increased intensification of livestock production will enhance animal to animal and animal to human contact and facilitate transmission of Salmonella from animal to animal and from animal to human.

  2. Challenges of biosecurity in intensive production systems.

  3. Increased commercialization of animal food processing and marketing which will enhance food contamination and transmission to humans.

  4. Zoonotic Salmonella serovars have a very wide host range and therefore difficult to control.

  5. Emergence of multidrug resistant S. enterica strains in animals due to misuse and over use of antimicrobial agents.

Control of salmonellosis must therefore be addressed from these perspectives.

Salmonellosis in farms is spread by contact between animals, from the environment and from reservoirs, particularly rodents. Since the primary infection with Salmonella occurs at the farm level, on-farm control of Salmonella is critical in reducing transmission during production, thereby minimizing contamination of meet during slaughter and processing and therefore reducing food safety risks [125]. Design and implementation of innovative biosafety practices are needed. Although cleaning and disinfection are the main hygiene practices in livestock production, they are less effective in the presence of rodents. A central part of hygiene practice should therefore include rodent control. This should include design of farm structures so as to eliminate rodent breeding sites and to prevent entry of the pests into animal houses. It has been shown that even the smallest population of rodents on farms presents a hazard [94]. Innovative, safe and efficient methods of rodents control in farm structures, including use of natural predators such as barn owls, are need.

Vaccination is the most cost-effective method for prevention and control of animal diseases and the most widely used tool in veterinary medicine. It can play an important role in prevention of salmonellosis in food animals Although vaccines against Salmonella in various animal species are in use worldwide, their efficacy is limited probably due to the diversity and complexity of pathogenesis of Salmonella infections. There is need for research into more efficacious vaccines against Salmonella.

The close contact between companion animals and people constitutes a risk for transmission of salmonellosis particularly for children, the aged and the immuno-compromised. Studies are required to determine the extent of human salmonellosis attributable to companion animals and to identify risk factors for transmission. Sensitization of animal owners, caretakers and animal and human medical practitioners on risks associated with companion animals is important.

The wide host range of NTS implies that the risk of infection for any host is high. Measures to prevent disease in animals and humans must therefore be directed at all Salmonella serovars. Surveillance systems designed to map the spread and identify sources of infection, particularly in humans will be of great value in control of infections.

Salmonella is a complex genus that has evolved intricate virulence and antimicrobial resistance mechanisms and uncontrolled and indiscriminate use of antibiotics has increased the isolation frequency of Salmonella serovars resistant to one or more antibiotics globally [6]. Non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farms is a threat to human and animal health since majority of the human infections are acquired through the consumption of contaminated foods of animal origin. It has been demonstrated that sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals may even trigger the spread Salmonella infection throughout a herd [125]. Whereas the global movement toward barn of antibiotics use in animals is encouraging, one of the major causes of uncontrolled antibiotic use is the commercialization of manufacture, distribution and retail of antibiotics. A significant misuse of antibiotics in humans is therefore likely to continue in absence of stringent regulation supported by surveillance data. Ongoing research on methods of blocking development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria by preventing mutation, is encouraging.

References

  1. 1. World Health Organization (WHO). Salmonella (non-typhoidal). 2018. Accessed from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/salmonella-(non-typhoidal)#:~:text=Salmonella%20is%201%20of%20the,have%20been%20identified%20to%20date
  2. 2. Su LH, Chiu CH. Salmonella: clinical importance and evolution of nomenclature. Chang Gung Medical Journal. 2007;30:210-219. PMID: 17760271
  3. 3. Shima N, Nakamura J, Saito K, Kamata Y, Nagatani K, et al. Salmonella enterica subspecies arizonae detected from bilateral pleural fluid in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus and malignant lymphoma. Internal Medicine. 2020;59:1223-1226. DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.3982-19
  4. 4. Ryan MP, O'Dwyer J, Adley CC. Evaluation of the complex nomenclature of the clinically and veterinary significant pathogen salmonella. BioMed Research International. 2017;2017:3782182. DOI: 10.1155/2017/3782182
  5. 5. Ao TT, Feasey NA, Gordon MA, Keddy KH, Angulo FJ, Crump JA. Global burden of invasive nontyphoidal salmonella disease. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2015;21:941-949. DOI: 10.3201/eid2106.140999
  6. 6. Pui CF, Wong WC, Chai LC, Tunung R, Jeyaletchumi P, et al. Review article salmonella: A foodborne pathogen. International Food Research Journal. 2011;18:465-473
  7. 7. Bouchrif B, Paglietti B, Murgia M, Piana A, Cohen N, Ennaji M, et al. Prevalence and antibiotic-resistance of salmonella isolated from food in Morocco. JIDC. 2009;28:35-40
  8. 8. Marcus R, Varma JK, Medus C, et al. Re-assessment of risk factors for sporadic salmonella serotype Enteritidis infections: A case-control study in five FoodNet sites, 2002-2003. Epidemiology and Infection. 2007;135:84-92
  9. 9. Heredia N, García S. Animals as sources of food-borne pathogens: A review. Animal Nutrition. 2018;4(3):250-255. DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2018.04.006 Epub 2018 May 4
  10. 10. Papagrigorakis MJ, Yapijakis C, Synodinos PN, Effie Baziotopoulou-Valavani E. DNA examination of ancient dental pulp incriminates typhoid fever as a probable cause of the plague of Athens. IJID. 2006;10:206-214. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2005.09.001
  11. 11. Eng SK, Pusparajah P, Ab Mutalib N-S, Leng HS, Chan KG, Lee LH. Salmonella: A review on pathogenesis, epidemiology and antibiotic resistance. Frontiers in Life Science. 2015;8:284-293. DOI: 10.1080/21553769.2015.1051243
  12. 12. Willis C, Wilson TM, Greenwood M, Ward L. Pet reptiles associated with a case of salmonellosis in an infant were carrying multiple strains of salmonella. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2002;40:4802-4803
  13. 13. McHugh J, Mackowiak PA. Death in the White house: President William Henry Harrison's atypical pneumonia. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2014;59:990-995. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu470
  14. 14. Marineli F, Tsoucalas G, Karamanou M, Androutsos G. Mary Mallon (1869-1938) and the history of typhoid fever. Annals of Gastroenterology. 2013;26:132-134
  15. 15. Chenu JW, Cox JM, Pavic A. Classification of salmonella enterica serotypes from Australian poultry using repetitive sequence-based PCR. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2011;112(1):185-196. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05172.x
  16. 16. Jajere SM. A review of salmonella enterica with particular focus on the pathogenicity and virulence factors, host specificity and antimicrobial resistance including multidrug resistance. Veterinary World. 2019;4:504-521. DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2019.504-521
  17. 17. Neupane DP, Dulal HP, Song J. Enteric fever diagnosis: Current challenges and future directions. Pathogens. 2021;10:410. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens10040410
  18. 18. Al-Khafaji NSK, Al-Bavati AMK, Al-Dahmoshi HOM. In: Lamas A, Regal P, Franco CM, editors. Virulence Factors of Salmonella Typhi in “Salmonella Spp- A Global Challenge”. London, UK, London, UK: IntechOpen; 2021
  19. 19. Park SH, Ryu S, Kang DH. Development of an improved selective and differential medium for isolation of salmonella spp. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2012;50:3222-3226. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01228-12
  20. 20. Price-Carter M, Tingey J, Bobik TA, Roth JR. The alternative electron acceptor tetrathionate supports B12-dependent anaerobic growth of salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium on ethanolamine or 1, 2-propanediol. Journal of Bacteriology. 2001;83:2463-2475. DOI: 10.1128/JB.183.8.2463-2475.2001
  21. 21. Veterinary bacteriology: information about important bacteria, Salmonella species. https://www.vetbact.org/species/210 [Accessed: June 29, 2022]
  22. 22. Whitman WB, Rainey F, Kämpfer P, Trujillo M, Chun J, DeVos P, et al. Salmonella in “Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria: Salmonella”. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2015
  23. 23. Lou L, Zhang P, Piao R, Wang Y. Salmonella Pathogenicity Island 1 (SPI-1) and its complex regulatory network. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2019;9:270. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00270
  24. 24. Wang M, Qazi IH, Wang L, Zhou G, Han H. Salmonella virulence and immune escape. Microorganisms. 2020a;8:407. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8030407
  25. 25. Wang X, Ji Y, Su J, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of phage PIZ SAE-01E2 against abortion caused by salmonella enterica serovar Abortusequi in mice. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2020b;86(22):e01366-20. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01366-20
  26. 26. Marshall JM, Gunn JS. The O-antigen capsule of salmonella enterica Serovar typhimurium facilitates serum resistance and surface expression of FliC. Infection and Immunity. 2015;83:3946-3959. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00634-15
  27. 27. Parween F, Yadav J, J., and Qadri, A. The virulence polysaccharide of salmonella Typhi suppresses activation of rho family GTPases to limit inflammatory responses from epithelial cells. Cellular Infection Microbiology. 2019;9:141. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00141
  28. 28. Jin X, Marshall JS. Mechanics of biofilms formed of bacteria with fimbriae appendages. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0243280. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243280
  29. 29. Mahamuni PP, Patil AR, Ghosh JS. Proteolytic and lipolytic properties of endotoxins (enterotoxins) produced by salmonella typhi NCIM 5255, salmonella typhimurium NCIM 2501 and Shigella flexneri NCIM 5265. International Food Research Journal. 2017;24:2685-2688
  30. 30. Ogoina D. Fever, fever patterns and diseases called ‘fever’ – A review. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2011;4:108-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2011.05.002
  31. 31. van Asten AJAM, van Dijk JE. Distribution of “classic” virulence factors among salmonella spp. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology. 2005;44:251-259. DOI: 10.1016/j.femsim.2005.02.002
  32. 32. Wallis T. Host-specificity of salmonella infections in animal species. In: Maskell D, Mastroeni P, editors. Salmonella Infections: Clinical, Immunological and Molecular Aspects (Advances in Molecular and Cellular Microbiology). Cambridge: Cambridge University press; 2006. pp. 57-88. DOI: 101017/CBO9780511525360.004
  33. 33. White NJ. Salmonella typhi (Typhoid Fever) and S. paratyphi (Paratyphoid Fever). 2010. Accessed from: http://www.antimicrobe.org/b106.asp
  34. 34. Fookes M, Schroeder GN, Langridge GC, Blondel CJ, Mammina C, et al. Salmonella bongori provides insights into the evolution of the salmonellae. PLoS Pathogens. 2011;7(8):e1002191. DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002191
  35. 35. Spickler AR. Reptile-Associated Salmonellosis. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/DiseaseInfo/factsheets.php.
  36. 36. Lee KM, Runyon M, Herrmanm TJ, Phillips R, Hsieh J. Review of salmonella detection and identification methods: Aspects of rapid emergency response and food safety. Food Control. 2015;47:264-276
  37. 37. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Agents of Foodborne Illness. 2nd ed. Canberra: Food Standards Australia New Zealand 2013; 2020 https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/Documents/Salmonella%20(non-typhoidal).pdf. [Accessed: July 18, 2022
  38. 38. Chu J, Shin J, Kang S, Shin S, Chung YJ. Rapid and sensitive detection of salmonella species targeting the hilA gene using a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay. Genomics Inform. 2021;19(3):e30. DOI: 10.5808/gi.21048 Epub 2021 Sep 30
  39. 39. Halatsi K, Oikonomou I, Lambiri M, Mandilara G, Vatopoulos A, Kyriacou A. PCR detection of salmonella spp. using primers targeting the quorum sensing gene sdiA. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2006;259:201-207. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00266.x
  40. 40. Kreitlow A, Becker A, Schotte U, Malorny B, Plötz M, Abdulmawjood A, et al. Evaluation of different target genes for the detection of salmonella sp. by loop-mediated isothermal amplification. Letters in AEM. 2021;72:420-426. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/lam.13409
  41. 41. Barrow PA, Methner U, editors. Salmonella in Domestic Animals. 2nd ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2013. DOI: 10.1079/9781845939021.0000
  42. 42. Spickler AR. Fowl Typhoid and Pullorum Disease. 2019. Retrieved from http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/DiseaseInfo/factsheets.php.
  43. 43. Chaves Hernández AJ. Poultry and Avian diseases in “Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems”. 2014. Accessed from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/veterinary-science-and-veterinary-medicine/avian-disease
  44. 44. Basnet HB, Kwon HJ, Cho SH, et al. Reproduction of fowl typhoid by respiratory challenge with salmonella Gallinarum. Avian Diseases. 2008;52:156-159. DOI: 10.1637/7974-032607-Reg
  45. 45. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Terrestrial Manual. Chapter 2.3. 11. Fowl typhoid and pullorum disease. 2018 https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/2.03.11_FOWL_TYPHOID.pdf
  46. 46. Dinev, Ivan. Salmonellosis in “Diseases of Poultry, a Colour Atlas”. UK, Leicester: Ceva Sante Animal 2m printhouse Ltd; 2007. Accessed from: https://www.thepoultrysite.com/publications/diseases-of-poultry. June 24, 2022
  47. 47. Umali DV, Lapuz RRSP, Suzuki T, Shirota K, Katoh H. Transmission and shedding patterns of salmonella in naturally infected captive wild roof rats (Rattus rattus) from a salmonella-contaminated layer farm. Avian Diseases. 2012;56:288-294. DOI: 10.1637/9911-090411-Reg.1
  48. 48. Sibel Y, Özlem ŞY. Bacterial diseases affecting egg production of laying hens. Dairy and Veterinary Sciences Journal. 2019;11:555814. DOI: 10.19080/JDVS.2019.11.555814
  49. 49. EL-Sawah AA, AL Hussien MD, Nasef SA, El-Nahass E-S, Nayel AI. Characterization of E. coli and salmonella spp. isolates associated with omphalitis in baby chicks. JVMR. 2016;23:91-100
  50. 50. Khalil SA, Einas E-S. Aerobic bacteria associated with omphalitis of chicks. AJVS. 2012;37:69-77
  51. 51. Shivaprasad HL. Fowl typhoid and pullorum disease. Revue Scientifique et Technique. 2000;19:405-424. DOI: 10.20506/rst.19.2.1222
  52. 52. Kudirkiene E, Sørensen G, Torpdahl M, de Knegt LV, Nielsen LR, Rattenborg E, et al. Epidemiology of salmonella enterica Serovar Dublin in cattle and humans in Denmark, 1996 to 2016: A retrospective whole-genome-based study. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2020;86(3):e01894-e01819. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01894-19
  53. 53. Holschbach CL, Peek SF. Salmonella in dairy cattle. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice. 2018;1:133-154. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2017.10.005 Epub 2017 Dec 8
  54. 54. Abuelo A. Salmonella Dublin in dairy calves. 2020. Accessed from: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/salmonella-dublin-in-dairy-calves
  55. 55. Maunsell F, Donovan GA. Biosecurity and risk management for dairy replacements. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice. 2008;24:155-190. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.10.007
  56. 56. Hanson DL, Loneragan GH, Brown TR, Nisbet DJ, Hume ME, Edrington TS. Evidence supporting vertical transmission of salmonella in dairy cattle. Epidemiology and Infection. 2016;144:962-967. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268815002241 Epub 2015 Sep 30
  57. 57. Spickler A and Leedom Larson KR. Salmonellosis. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/DiseaseInfo/factsheets.php
  58. 58. Adem J, Bushra E. Bovine salmonellosis and its public health importance: A review. Advances in life. Science and Technology. 2016;44:224-7181 ISSN 2225-062X
  59. 59. Nielsen LR, Schukken YH, Gröhn YT, Ersbøll AK. Salmonella Dublin infection in dairy cattle: Risk factors for becoming a carrier. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2004;65:47-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.06.010
  60. 60. Abuelo A. Salmonella Dublin in Dairy Calves. Michigan State University extension, Dairy. 2020. Available from: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/salmonella-dublin-in-dairy-calves
  61. 61. Njaa BL, Panciera RJ, Clark EG., Lamm CG. Gross lesions of alimentary disease in adult cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America Food Animal Practice. 2012;28:483-513. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.07.009
  62. 62. Andino A, Hanning I. Salmonella enterica: survival, colonization, and virulence differences among serovars. Scientific World Journal. 2015;2015:520179. DOI: 10.1155/2015/520179 Epub 2015 Jan 13
  63. 63. Ferrari RG, Rosario DKA, Cunha-Neto A, Mano SB, Figueiredo EES, Conte-Junior CA. Worldwide epidemiology of salmonella Serovars in animal-based foods: A meta-analysis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2019;85(14):e00591-e00519. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00591-19
  64. 64. Campos J, Mourão J, Peixe L, Antunes P. Non-typhoidal salmonella in the pig production chain: A comprehensive analysis of its impact on human health. Pathogens. 2019;29:19. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens8010019
  65. 65. Oliveira CJ, Garcia TB, Carvalho LF, Givisiez PE. Nose-to-nose transmission of salmonella typhimurium between weaned pigs. Veterinary Microbiology. 2007;125:355-361. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.05.032
  66. 66. Van Parys A, Boyen F, Leyman B, Verbrugghe E, Haesebrouck F, Pasmans F. Tissue-specific salmonella typhimurium gene expression during persistence in pigs. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e24120. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024120 Epub 2011 Aug 24
  67. 67. Casanova-Higes A, Marín-Alcalá CM, Andrés-Barranco S, et al. Weaned piglets: Another factor to be considered for the control of salmonella infection in breeding pig farms. Veterinary Research. 2019;50:45. DOI: 10.1186/s13567-019-0666-7
  68. 68. Schwartz KJ. Salmonella Choleraesuis in swine in “hogs, pigs and pork”. 2019. Accessed from: https://swine.extension.org/salmonella-choleraesuis-in-swine/.5/7/2022
  69. 69. Laber KE, Whary MT, Bingel SA, Goodrich JA, Smit AC, Swindle MM. Biology and diseases of swine. Laboratory Animal Medicine. 2002;2002:615-673. DOI: 10.1016/B978-012263951-7/50018-1 Epub 2007 Sep 2
  70. 70. Verbrugghe E, Boyen F, Van Parys A, et al. Stress induced salmonella typhimurium recrudescence in pigs coincides with cortisol induced increased intracellular proliferation in macrophages. Veterinary Research. 2011;42(1):118. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9716-42-118
  71. 71. Côté S, Letellier A, Lessard L, Quessy S. Distribution of salmonella in tissues following natural and experimental infection in pigs. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research. 2004;68(4):241-248
  72. 72. Robbins RC, Almond G, Byers E. Swine diseases and disorders. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. 2014;2014:261-276. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52512-3.00134-0 Epub 2014 Aug 21
  73. 73. Ramirez A. Laboratory diagnostics: Salmonella. 2022. Accessed from: https://www.pig333.com/articles/diagnostic-tests-for-salmonella-in-pigs_17914/
  74. 74. Wales AD, Davies RH. Salmonella Vaccination in Pigs: A Review. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2017;64(1):1-13. DOI: 10.1111/zph.12256 Epub 2016 Feb 8
  75. 75. Bataller E, García-Romero E, Llobat L, Lizana V, Jiménez-Trigos E. Dogs as a source of salmonella spp. in apparently healthy dogs in the Valencia region. Could it be related with intestinal lactic acid bacteria? BMC Veterinary Research. 2020;16:268. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02492-3
  76. 76. Carter ME, Quinn JP. Salmonella Infections in Dogs and Cats. Wallingford, UK: CAB International; 2000. pp. 231-244
  77. 77. Reimschuessel R, Grabenstein M, Jake Guag J, Nemser SM, Song K. Multilaboratory survey to evaluate salmonella prevalence in diarrheic and nondiarrheic dogs and cats in the United States between 2012 and 2014. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2017;55:1350-1368. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02137-16
  78. 78. Finley R, Ribble C, Aramini J, Vandermeer M, Popa M, Litman M, et al. The risk of salmonellae shedding by dogs fed salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diets. The Canadian Veterinary Journal. 2007;48:69-75
  79. 79. Akwuobu CA, Agbo JO, Ofukwu RA. Salmonella infection in clinically healthy dogs in Makurdi, Benue state, north-Central Nigeria: A potential source of infection to humans. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research. 2018;30:405-409. DOI: 10.5455/javar.2018.e291
  80. 80. Centre for Diseases Control (CDC). Healthy pets, healthy people. 2021. Accessed from: https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/pets/cats.html#:~:text=Cats%20can%20become%20infected%20with,at%20risk%20for%20serious%20illness.
  81. 81. Sykes JE and Marks SL. Salmonellosis in ‘veterinarian key’. 2016. Accessed from: https://veteriankey.com/salmonellosis-2/
  82. 82. Giuliano A, Meiring T, Grant AJ, Watson PJ. Acute hepatic necrosis caused by salmonella enterica serotype I 4, 5, 12: -:1, 2 in a dog. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2015;53:3674-3676. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01256-15 Epub 2015 Aug 19
  83. 83. Crow SE, Lauerman LH, Smith KW. Pyonephrosis associated with salmonella infection in a dog. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1976;169:1324-1326
  84. 84. Timbs DV, Durham PJK, Barnsley DGC. Chronic cholecystitis in a dog infected with salmonella typhimurium. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 1974;22:100-102. DOI: 10.1080/00480169.1974.34142
  85. 85. Choudhary SP, Kalimuddin M, Prasad G, Verma BB, Narayan KG. Observations on natural and experimental salmonellosis in dogs. Journal of Diarrhoeal Diseases Research. 1985;3:149-153 http://www.jstor.org/stable/23497937
  86. 86. Mahmoud MAM, Megahed G, Yousef MS, Ali FAZ, Zaki RS, Abdelhafeez HH. Salmonella typhimurium triggered unilateral epididymo-orchitis and splenomegaly in a Holstein bull in Assiut, Egypt: A case report. Pathogens. 2020;24:314. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens9040314
  87. 87. Grandolfo E, Parisi A, Ricci A, et al. High mortality in foals associated with salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Abortusequi infection in Italy. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2018;30:483-485. DOI: 10.1177/1040638717753965 Epub 2018 Jan 11
  88. 88. Stewart AJ. Salmonellosis in horses in “MSD veterinary manual”.2016. From https://www.msdvetmanual.com/digestive-system/intestinal-diseases-in-horses-and-foals/salmonellosis-in-horses [Accessed: September 20, 2022]
  89. 89. Constable P, Hinchcliff K, Done S, and Grünberg W, editors. Abortion in mares and septicemia in foals associated with Salmonella Abortusequi (Abortivoequina) (Equine Paratyphoid). In: veterinary medicine. 11th ed. 2017. Accessed from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780702052460000188#s0935
  90. 90. Juffo GD, Bassuino DM, Gomes DC, et al. Wurster F, Pissetti C, Pavarini SP, Driemeier D. equine salmonellosis in southern Brazil. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2017;49:475-482. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-016-1216-1 Epub 2016 Dec 24
  91. 91. Smith BP. Equine salmonellosis: A contemporary view. Equine Veterinary Journal. 1981;13:147-151 Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1981.tb03471.x
  92. 92. Fakour, S.H., Musavi Rad, A. and Ahmadi, E., A. 2020. A study on latent equine salmonellosis based on phenotypic and molecular methods in Kurdistan Province of Iran, Iran Journal of Veterinary Medicine 14: 352-361. DOI: 10.22059/IJVM.2020.296678.1005058
  93. 93. Skov MN, Madsen JJ, Rahbek C, Lodal J, Jespersen JB, Jørgensen JC, et al. Transmission of salmonella between wildlife and meat-production animals in Denmark. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2008;105:1558-1568. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03914.x.Pages 1558-1568
  94. 94. Meerburg BG, Kijlstra A. Review role of rodents in transmission of salmonella and campylobacter. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2007;87:2774-2781
  95. 95. Surgeoner GA. Rodent control in livestock and poultry facilities. 2007. Accessed from: https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/rodent-control-in-livestock-and-poultry-facilities
  96. 96. Backhans A, Fellström C. Rodents on pig and chicken farms - a potential threat to human and animal health. Infection Ecology & Epidemiology. 2012;2012:2. DOI: 10.3402/iee.v2i0.17093 Epub 2012 Feb 17
  97. 97. Kordiyeh H. How do rodents play role in transmission of foodborne diseases? Nutrition & Food Science International Journal. 2018;6(1):555683. DOI: 10.19080/NFSIJ.2018.06.555683
  98. 98. Tizard I. Salmonellosis in wild birds. Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine. 2004;13:50-66
  99. 99. Afema JA, Sischo WM. Salmonella in wild birds utilizing protected and human impacted habitats in Uganda. EcoHealth. 2016;13:558-569. DOI: 10.1007/s10393-016-1149-1
  100. 100. Daniels MJ, Hutchings MR, Greig A. The risk of disease transmission to livestock posed by contamination of farm stored feed by wildlife excreta. Epidemiology and Infection. 2003;130:561-568
  101. 101. Dos Santos EJE, Azevedo RP, Lopes ATS, et al. Salmonella spp. in wild free-living birds from Atlantic forest fragments in southern Bahia, Brazil. BioMed Research International. 2020;2020:7594136. DOI: 10.1155/2020/7594136
  102. 102. Hoelzer K, Moreno Switt AI, Wiedmann M. Animal contact as a source of human non-typhoidal salmonellosis. Veterinary Research. 2011;42:34. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9716-42-34
  103. 103. Yang Y, Ricke SC, Tellez G, Kwon YM. Quantitative tracking of salmonella Enteritidis transmission routes using barcode-tagged isogenic strains in chickens: Proof-of-concept study. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2017;4:15
  104. 104. Corry JE, Allen VM, Hudson WR, Breslin MF, Davies RH. Sources of salmonella on broiler carcasses during transportation and processing: Modes of contamination and methods of control. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2002;92:424-432. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01543.x
  105. 105. Adeyanju GT, Ishola O. Salmonella and Escherichia coli contamination of poultry meat from a processing plant and retail markets in Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria. Springerplus. 2014;12:139. DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-139
  106. 106. Alwis US, Mudannayake DC, Jayasena DD, Kamalika JH, Ubeyarathna KJH. Evaluation of salmonella cross- contamination at retail chicken meat outlets in Kandy, Sri Lanka. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science. 2014;41:35-40. DOI: 10.7744/cnujas.2014.41.1.035
  107. 107. Nidaullah H, Mohd Omar AK, Rosma A, Huda N, Sohni S. Analysis of salmonella contamination in poultry meat at various retailing, different storage temperatures and carcass cuts - A literature survey. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2016;15:111-120
  108. 108. Oscar TP. Initial contamination of chicken parts with salmonella at retail and cross-contamination of cooked chicken with salmonella from raw chicken during meal preparation. Journal of Food Protection. 2013;76:33-39. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-224
  109. 109. Antunes P, Mourão J, Campos J, Peixe L. Salmonellosis: The role of poultry meat. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2016;22:110-121. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.12.004 Epub 2015 Dec 17
  110. 110. Whiley H, Ross K. Salmonella and eggs: From production to plate. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2015;26:2543-2556. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120302543
  111. 111. Sheffield CL, Crippen TL, Beier RC, Byrd JA. Salmonella typhimurium in chicken manure reduced or eliminated by addition of LT10002014. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2014;23:116-120. DOI: 10.3382/japr.2013-00867
  112. 112. Lobacz A, Zulewska J. Fate of salmonella spp. in the fresh soft raw milk cheese during storage at different temperatures. Microorganisms. 2021;9:938. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9050938
  113. 113. Paswan R, Park YW. Survivability of salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7 pathogens and food safety concerns on commercial powder milk products. Dairy. 2020;1:189-201. DOI: 10.3390/dairy1030014
  114. 114. Cetin E, Temelli S, Eyigor A. Nontyphoid salmonella prevalence, serovar distribution and antimicrobial resistance in slaughter sheep. Food Science of Animal Resources. 2020;40:21-33. DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2019.e75
  115. 115. Duffy L, Barlow R, Fegan N, Vanderlinde P. Prevalence and serotypes of salmonella associated with goats at two Australian abattoirs. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2009;48:193-197. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02501.x Epub 2008 Dec 2
  116. 116. Freitas Neto, O.C. de et al. Sources of human non-typhoid salmonellosis: A review. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science (online). 2010, v. 12, n. 1 (Accessed 19 July 2022), pp. 01-11. doi: 10.1590/S1516-635X2010000100001>.
  117. 117. Ehuwa O, Jaiswal AK, Jaiswal S. Salmonella, food safety and food handling practices. Food. 2021;10:907. DOI: 10.3390/foods10050907
  118. 118. Argüello H, Manzanilla EG, Lynch H, Walia K, Leonard FC, Egan J, et al. Surveillance data highlights feed form, biosecurity, and disease control as significant factors associated with salmonella infection on farrow-to-finish pig farms. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018;9:187. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00187
  119. 119. Evangelopoulou G, Kritas S, Govaris A, Burriel AR. Pork meat as a potential source of salmonella enterica subsp. arizonae infection in humans. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2014;52:741-744. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02933-13 Epub 2013 Dec 11
  120. 120. Chiu CH, Su LH, Chu C. Salmonella enterica serotype Choleraesuis: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical disease, and treatment. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2004;17:311-322. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.17.2.311-322.2004
  121. 121. Damborg P, Broens EM, E.M., Chomel, B.B., et al. Bacterial zoonoses transmitted by household pets: State-of-the-art and future perspectives for targeted research and policy actions. Journal of Comparative Pathology. 2016;155:S27-S40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2015.03.004
  122. 122. Wei L, Yang C, Shao W, et al. Prevalence and drug resistance of salmonella in dogs and cats in Xuzhou, China. Journal of Veterinary Research. 2020;64:263-268. DOI: 10.2478/jvetres-2020-0032
  123. 123. Bender JB, Tsukayama DT. Horses and the risk of zoonotic infections. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Equine Practice. 2004;20(3):643-653. DOI: 10.1016/j.cveq.2004.07.003
  124. 124. Falkow S. Who speaks for the microbes? Emerging Infectious Diseases. 1998;4:495-497. DOI: 10.3201/eid0403.980342
  125. 125. Food and Agricultural Organization of the Uunited Nation (FAO). Interventions for the Control of Non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. in Beef and Pork. Microbiological risk assessment series, 30. 2015. ISSN 1726-5274. From: https://www.fao.org/3/i5317e/I5317E.pdf [Accessed: September 20, 2022]

Written By

Joseph K.N. Kuria

Submitted: 23 July 2022 Reviewed: 02 December 2022 Published: 28 February 2023