Mohamed et al (2020): Detection of contaminated with July 2020 Vol. 23 Issue 11

Detection of bacterial contamination in imported and local red and white meat in Tikrit city, Iraq

Afrah M. Mohamed1; IntisarAbdul-Jabbar Shamkhi2; Nuha H. Sadiq3

1Agriculture College/ Tikrit University/Iraq 2Science College/ Tikrit University/Iraq 3Agriculture College/ Tikrit University/Iraq

Corresponding author: Intisar Abdul-Jabbar Shamkhi [email protected]

Abstract The present study has been designed to detect the bacterial contamination of red and white meat (America, Turkey, and Indian). 25 gm of meat was bought from three different places of Tikrit (Arbeyn Street, Al-Zuhur Street, and Al-Qadisia Street). Meat extraction samples were cultured in different diagnostic and nutrient cultures to detect bacterial contamination which represented mainly of , Staphylococcus epidermidis, E. coli, spp. and Bacillus spp. The results of sheep meat showed Staphylococcus aureus was (Al-Zuhur Street and Al-Qadisia Street) a high significant number compare with another type of bacteria. For Cow meat contamination, E. coli and Salmonella spp. (Al- Arbeyn Street) show a highly significant number compare with other types of bacteria. For chicken meat contamination, Staphylococcus aureus (in Chicken thighs/ Turkey) show a highly significant number compare with another type of bacteria. All of them reached the maximum level of the permitted range specified by the “Central Organization for Standardization and Quality Control”. Bacillus bacteria showed lower results in all samples.

Keywords: Meat contamination, Staphylococcus spp, Salmonella spp, Bacillus spp

How to cite this article: Mohamed AM, Shamjhi IA-J, Sadiq NH (2020): Detection of bacterial contamination in imported and local red and white meat in TIkrit city, Iraq, Ann Trop Med & Public Health; 23(S11): SP231123. DOI: http://doi.org/10.36295/ASRO.2020.231123

Introduction Food-borne pathogens are the leading cause of illness and death in developing countries costing billions of dollars in medical care and medical and social costs [1]. Numerous cases of raw meat as one of the main sources of have been reported [2]. E. coli O157, Salmonella spp., and Campylobacter spp. were the most dominant pathogens involved and were often present in fresh meat and poultry [3]. Changes in eating habits, mass catering, complex and lengthy food supply procedures with increased international movement and poor practices are major contributing factors [4]. Typically, the meat of healthy animals is sterile; however, contamination may occur during the various stages of slaughter, preparation, and transportation.

A variety of microbes can contaminate meat, although different species may become dominant depending on factors that include pH, oxygen, water availability, and storage temperatures [5-6]. Schlegelova et al. reported that contamination of meat by resistant strains of S. aureus and E. coli during the slaughtering process dramatically have been increased indicating, secondary contamination from the environment of slaughterhouses [7, 18]. The frequency of Salmonella isolation in raw beef products is higher than E. coli O157, due to higher survival ability outside of the animal's gut [8]. The observed prevalence of E. coli and Salmonella in beef and sheep meat varies considerably from survey to survey ranging from 11.9–50% to 7.1– 33% for each bacterium, respectively using cultivation and PCR based methods [9-11]. So, the aim of the study is a diagnosis of bacterial contamination in red and white meat in Tikrit city.

Materials and methods Meat sample collections The meat of the market/ in Tikrit was used for this study. A total of 100 raw meat samples including beef (n =), chicken (n =) and sheep (n =) were randomly collected during the periods from December 2016 to January

Annals of Tropical Medicine & Public http://doi.org/10.36295/ASRO.2020.231123

Mohamed et al (2020): Detection of meat contaminated with bacteria July 2020 Vol. 23 Issue 11

2017. The samples were collected within 4 h post-slaughter and during the early afternoon in order to minimize the microbial changes due to environmental temperatures and post-slaughter timings. The collection was dependent on the co-operation of the shop owners. Butchers working in these outlets lack knowledge regarding the importance of disinfecting and sanitizing; consequently, they clean their shops once in 24 h with detergent and water. No sanitizers’ medium was used before sampling.

Meat sample preparation Twenty-five grams of collected meat samples were weighed and transferred to sterile flasks containing 100 ml of phosphate buffer saline (PBS). Samples were homogenized using a meat grinder under aseptic conditions and were stored for further analysis.

Total Viable Bacteria Count One ml of aliquots of each dilution was transferred in septic conditions to sterile Petri-plates and mixed with about 15 ml of nutrient agar tempered to 45- 50Cº. The cooled plat was inverted and incubated at 37Cº for 48hr. Following the incubation, the colonies on duplicate plates (Containing 30-300 colonies) were counted using the Quebec colony counter. The concentration of bacteria in the original sample was calculated by multiplying the number of colonies on a dilution plate by the corresponding dilution factor and the number of microbes was expressed as colony-forming units (CUF) per gram (APHA, 1985). More of 300 colonies in one plate negligible.

Statistical Analysis The data were analyzed by using the Minitab program, according to Chi-square test

Results Sheep meat contamination The present results show a different number of bacterial cells in 1gm of meat in different regions. Whereas, Staphylococcus aureus (Al-Zuhur Street and Al-Qadisia Street) show a highly significant number compare with another type of bacteria. Otherwise, contamination by Staphylococcus epidermidis and E. coli is present and the number of cells in 1gm reaches 7.405 and 11.11 respectively. Finally, there is no contamination by Bacillus Spp. As shown in table (1).

Table (1): Sheep meat contamination by different types of bacteria

Bacteria Staph. Staph. Salmonella Bacillaus Location E. coli P value aureus Epidermidis Spp. Spp. & type Sheep meat/ Al- Arbeyn 11.11 7.405 7.405 11.11 0.0 0.0001 street Sheep meat/ Al-Zuhur street 14.81 3.705 3.705 3.705 0.0 0.0001 Sheep meat (small sheep) Al- 7.405 7.405 7.405 0.0 0.0 0.0001 Qadisia street

Sheep meat/ Al-Qadisia street 14.81 3.705 11.11 7.405 0.0 0.0001

Cow meat contamination The present results show a different number of bacterial cells in 1gm of meat in different regions. Whereas, E. coli and Salmonella spp. (Al- Arbeyn Street) show a highly significant number compare with another type of bacteria. Otherwise, contamination byStaphylococcusepidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus Spp. is present and the number of cells in 1gm reaches 14.82, 7.41 and 1.36 respectively. As shown in table (1).

Annals of Tropical Medicine & Public http://doi.org/10.36295/ASRO.2020.231123

Mohamed et al (2020): Detection of meat contaminated with bacteria July 2020 Vol. 23 Issue 11

Table (2): Cow meat contamination by different types of bacteria

Bacteria Staph. Staph. Salmonella Bacillaus Location Epidermidi E. coli P value aureus Spp. Spp. & type s Cow meat/ India 7.52 2.22 6.17 5.31 1.36 0.0001

Cow meat/ best type 11.31 3.34 9.26 7.97 1.36 0.0001

Cow meat/ Ground beef 10.63 2.93 8.24 7.27 1.36 0.0001

Cow meat/ Al-Zuhur street 7.41 0.0 7.41 3.71 0.0 0.0001

Cow meat/ Al- Arbeyn street 14.82 7.41 18.53 18.53 0.0 0.0001

Chicken meat contamination The present results show a different number of bacterial cells in 1gm of meat in different regions. Whereas, Staphylococcus aureus (in Chicken thighs/ Turkey) show a highly significant number compare with another type of bacteria. Otherwise, contamination by staphylococcus epidermidis, E. coli, Salmonella spp, and Bacillus Spp. is present and the number of cells in 1gm reaches 3.45, 5.17, 5.17 and 3.45 respectively as shown in table (3).

Table (3): Chicken meat contamination by different types of bacteria

Bacteria Staph. Staph. Salmonella Bacillaus E. coli P value Type aureus epidermidis Spp. Spp.

Chicken thighs/ America 3.45 3.45 5.17 5.17 3.45 0.0001

Chicken/ Turkey 5.17 1.72 1.72 1.72 0.0 0.0001

Chicken thighs/ Turkey 6.91 1.72 3.45 5.17 0.0 0.0001 Chicken breast/ gozda- 3.45 0.0 1.72 0.0 0.0 0.0001 Turkey Chicken breast/ Oglu- 6.91 3.45 1.72 1.72 0.0 0.0001 Turkey

Discussion The presence of bacteria in meat has been widely reported from different parts of the world [12-13]. Some groups recognized the presence of viable bacteria, especially Gram-negative organisms from 106 to 109, as an indication of open-air meat spoilage [14], while others argued this assertion and considered the presence of a high number of background organisms as a pathogen reduction strategy due to the organisms’ antagonistic effect against pathogenic bacteria and thus safer for meat quality. Therefore, it is considered that fresh meat that contains 105 – 106 of background organisms are inherently safer than those that contain less bioload; however, this hypothesis applies only to harmless bacteria [15]. In the study of [16] referred that predominant bacteria were E. coli then Staphylococcus spp. also, the study revealed the count of bacterial contamination near the standard Iraqi values, this agreed with our study. The contamination of carcasses by bacteria from Staphylococcus aureus is caused either by the animal itself or by the hands of the cutters. Therefore, intensifying the awareness of health, care, and cleanliness during the circulation of meat is important to reduce pollution. The difference in the isolation rates of the different bacterial species may be due to the extent to which the health conditions applied everywhere, the nature of the production and its intensity, and according to the country's technical development or its backwardness, and through this study, we observed the non-typical reality of slaughter sites and avoided the most basic health ingredients [17].

Reference 1. Fratamico PM, Bhunia AK, Smith JL. (2005). Foodborne Pathogens in Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Caister Academic Press, Wymondham, Norfolk, UK. 273 p. Annals of Tropical Medicine & Public http://doi.org/10.36295/ASRO.2020.231123

Mohamed et al (2020): Detection of meat contaminated with bacteria July 2020 Vol. 23 Issue 11

2. Bhandare, S. G., Sherikarv, A. T., Paturkar, A. M., Waskar, V. S., & Zende, R. J. (2007). A comparison of microbial contamination on sheep/goat carcasses in a modern Indian abattoir and traditional meat shops. Food Control. 18: 854-868. 3. Todd, E. C. D.; Guzewich, J. J. and Bryan, F. L. (1997). Surveillance of Foodborne Disease IV. Dissemination and Uses of Surveillance Data. J. Food Prote. 60(6): 715-723. 4. Hedberg CW.; Levine WC. White KE, Carlson RH, Winsor DK, Cameron DN, MacDonald KL, Osterholm MT (1992). An International Foodborne Outbreak of Shigellosis Associated With a Commercial Airline. JAMA 268: 3208- 3212. 5. Ercolin, D., Russo, F., Torrieri, E., Masi, P. and Villani, F. (2006) Changes in the spoilage-related microbiota of beef during refrigerated storage under different packaging conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72(7): 4663-4671. 6. Weigand, I., Geiss, H., Mack, D., Sturenburg, E. and Seifert, H. (2007) Detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases among Enterobacteriaceae by use of semiautomated microbiology systems and manual detection procedures. J. Clin. Microbiol., 45(4): 1167-1174 7. Schlegelova, J.; Napravn Ikova, E., Dendis, M., Horvath, R., Bened Ik, J., Babak, V., Kl Imova, E., Navratilova, P. And Sustackova, A. (2004). Beef carcass contamination in a slaughterhouse and prevalence of resistance to antimicrobial drugs in isolates of selected microbial species. Meat Sci. 66, 557–565. 8. Rhoades, J.R., Duffy, G. And Koutsoumanis, K. (2009). Prevalence and concentration of verocytotoxigenic , Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes in the beef production chain: A review. Food Microbiol. 26, 357–376. 9. Kafili, T., Emamjomeh, Z. And Kazerouni Timsar, M. (2006). Study to determine the critical control points in beef slaughter line in order to establish a HACCP system. Iran. J. Food Sci. Technol. 3, 35–47. 10. Dallal, M., Doyle, M., Rezadehbashi, M., Dabiri, H., Sanaei, M., Modarresi, S., Bakhtiari, R., Sharifiy, K., Taremi, M. And Zali, M. (2010). Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Salmonella serotypes, Campylobacter and Yersinia spp. isolated from retail chicken and beef, Tehran, Iran. Food Control 21, 388–392 11. Bonyadian, M., Tahmasby, H., Akhondzadeh, D., Salehi, A.N., Mollanouri, S.S. And Khosravi, Y. (2013). Evaluation of sheep meat contamination to Escherichia coli and Escherichia coli o157, o26 and o128 serotypes in Shahrekord by PCR. Vet. J. (Pajouhesh-Va-Sazandegi) 25, 38–41 12. Holds G.; Pointon A.;Lorimer M, Kiermeier A.; Raven G. and Sumner J. (2007). Microbial profiles of carcasses and minced meat from kangaroos processed in South Australia. Int J Food Microbiol 123: 88- 92. 13. Kinsella K.J.; Prendergast DM. McCann MS.; Blair IS.; McDowell DA. and Sheridan JJ. (2008).the survival of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 and total viable counts on beef surfaces at different relative humidities and temperatures. J App Microbiol 106: 171–180. 14. Eribo B.E. and Jay J.M. (1985). Incidence of Acinetobacter spp. and Other Gram-Negative, Oxidase- Negative Bacteria in Fresh and Spoiled Ground Beef. App Env Microbiol 49: 256-257. 15. Ikeme. I. A. Meat Science and Technology. A comprehensive approach. J.M. Jay. Modern Food Microbiology. 6thEdition. Aspen Publishers Inc. Jay JM (1996). Microorganisms in fresh ground : the relative safety of products with low versus high numbers. Meat Sci. 43: 59-66. 16. Samir A. A. Abid A.; Abdul A. j. and Salah M. (2013).The Bacteria Contamination of Red Local and Imported Meat. Iraqi j. sci. 54(2): 249-254. 17. Hussien O. A. (2018). Detection and diagnosis of some bacterial Contamination in red meat of market in Thi-Qar city. J. Coll. Edu. Pur. Sci. 8(2): 227-236. 18. Al Shareefi, E. and Cotter, S.C., 2018. The nutritional ecology of maturation in a carnivorous insect. Behavioral Ecology, 30(1), pp.256-266.

Annals of Tropical Medicine & Public http://doi.org/10.36295/ASRO.2020.231123