SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 56 - Sayı: 2

Hindi etlerinden hareketli Aeromonas türlerinin izolasyon ve identifikasyonu

Isolation and identification of motile Aeromonas spp. in Turkey meat

Cetin KOCA
Belgin SARIMEHMETOĞLU
Pages
95–98
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, turkey meat that analyzed in this study were found to be contaminated with a high level of motile Aeromonas spp., and this is a potential risk for public health.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study a total of 80 packaged turkey meat samples purchased from different supermarkets in Ankara including 40 leg and 40 breast meat were analysed for the presence of motile Aeromonas species.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Totally 43 of 80 turkey meat samples (53.75 %) were determined as positive for motile Aeromonas spp.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, turkey meat that analyzed in this study were found to be contaminated with a high level of motile Aeromonas spp., and this is a potential risk for public health.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study a total of 80 packaged turkey meat samples purchased from different supermarkets in Ankara including 40 leg and 40 breast meat were analysed for the presence of motile Aeromonas species. Totally 43 of 80 turkey meat samples (53.75 %) were determined as positive for motile Aeromonas spp. The distribution of the isolat were 62.5 %, 45 % in leg and breast samples, respectively. Also it is found that two different motile Aeromonas spp. were isolated in same breast samples; in 2 of the samples both A. hydrophila and A. sobria (11.1 %), in 1 of the samples A. hydrophila and A. caviae (5.6 %) and in 1 of the samples A. caviae and A. sobria were isolated (5.6 %). A. hydrophila was isolated as the most prevalent species from all of the positive samples. As a result, turkey meat that analyzed in this study were found to be contaminated with a high level of motile Aeromonas spp., and this is a potential risk for public health.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Ankara’nın değişik semtlerindeki marketlerden alınan paketlenmiş 40 göğüs kuşbaşı ve 40 but kuşbaşı örneklerinden oluşan toplam 80 hindi eti Aeromonas spp. varlığı yönünden incelenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında incelenen, 80 hindi eti örneğinin 43’ünden (% 53.75), göğüs ve but kuşbaşı örneklerinden sırasıyla % 45 ve % 62.5 düzeyinde hareketli Aeromonas türleri izole edilmiştir. Ayrıca aynı göğüs eti örneklerinden iki farklı hareketli Aeromonas spp. izole edilmiştir. Buna göre iki (% 11.1) örnekten A. hydrophila ve A. sobria, bir (% 5.6) örnekten A. hydrophila ve A. caviae ve bir (% 5.6) örnekten A. caviae ve A. sobria izole edilmiştir. Örneklerden izole edilen en yaygın tür A. hydrophila olarak saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, çalışma kapsamında incelenen hindi etlerinin büyük bölümünün hareketli Aeromonas’larla kontamine olduğu saptanmış olup, bu durum halk sağlığı açısından potansiyel bir risk oluşturmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOCA, C., SARIMEHMETOĞLU, B. (2022). Hindi etlerinden hareketli Aeromonas türlerinin izolasyon ve identifikasyonu. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 56 - Sayı: 2, 95–98. https://ajindex.com/articles/445032

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Abeyta CJr, Charles AK, Wekell MM, Sullivan JJ, Stelma GN (1986): Recovery of Aeromonas hydrophila from oysters implicated in an outbreak of foodborne illness. J Food Protect, 49, 643-646
  2. Abeyta C, Kaysner CA, Wekell MM, Stott RF (1990): Incidence of motile Aeromonas from United States west coast shellfish growing estuaries. J Food Protect, 53, 849-852
  3. Akan M (1993): Hayvanlardan ve Çevresel Kaynaklardan İzole Edilen Hareketli Aeromonas Türlerinin Biyokimyasal, Toksijenik, Enzimatik ve Yüzey Özellikleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi
  4. Akan M, Eyigor A, Diker KS (1998): Motile Aeromonads in the feces and carcasses of broiler chickens in Turkey. J Food Protect, 61, 113-115
  5. Albert JM, Ansaruzzaman M, Talukder KA, Chopra AK, Kuhn I (2000): Prevalence of enterotoxin genes in Aeromonas spp. isolated from children with diarrhea, healthy controls, and the environment. J Clin Microbiol, 38, 3785-3790
  6. Anon (1991): Aeromonas hydrophila Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook. Erişim: [http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap17.html]. 20 December 2005
  7. Anon (2000): CCFRA Microbiological Methods Manual. In: Compendium of Microbiological Methods for the Analysis of Food and Agricultural Products. Published by AOAC International
  8. Barnhart HM, Pancorbo OC, Dreesen DW, Shotts JrEB (1989): Recovery of Aeromonas hydrophila from carcasses and processing water in a broiler processing operation. J Food Protect, 52, 646-649
  9. Cahill MM (1990): Virulance factors in motile Aeromonas species. J Appl Bacteriol, 69, 1-16
  10. Doherty A, Sheridan JJ, Alien P, Mcdowell DA, Blair IS, Harrington D (1996): Survival and growth of Aeromonas hydrophila on modified atmosphere packaged normal and high pH lamb. Int J Food Microbiol, 28, 379
  11. Eley A, Geary I, Wilcox MH (1993): Growth of Aeromonas spp. at 4°C and related toxin production. Lett Appl Microbiol, 16, 36-39
  12. Gavriel AA, Landre JRB, Lamb AJ (1998): Incidence of mesophilic Aeromonas within a public drinking water supply in north-east Scotland. J Appl Microbiol, 84, 383-392
  13. Gold WL, Salit IE (1993): Aeromonas hydrophila infections of skin and soft tissue: report of 11 cases and review. Clin Infect Dis, 16, 69-74
  14. Gonzalez CJ, Lopez-Diaz TM, Garcia-Lopez ML, Prieto M, Otero A (1999): Bacterial microflora of wild brown trout, wild pike, and aquacultured rainbow trout. J Food Protect, 62, 1270-1277
  15. Gonzalez CJ, Santos JA, Gaecia-Lopez ML, Gon