Current Microbiology

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 354–359 | Cite as

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles of Salmonella enterica Serotypes Recovered from Pens of Commercial Feedlot Cattle Using Different Types of Composite Samples

  • Mohammad Jahangir Alam
  • David Renter
  • Ethel Taylor
  • Diana Mina
  • Rodney Moxley
  • David Smith


Salmonella enterica in cattle production systems may be associated with important human and animal disease issues. However, tremendous diversity exists among Salmonella recovered, and more information is needed about strains of greatest potential health concern, particularly those that are multidrug resistant (MDR). By characterizing Salmonella isolates from commercial feedlot pens, this study aimed to evaluate the strain diversity and prevalence of MDR Salmonella from different types of composite pen samples. Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles, serotype, and presence or absence of the integron-encoded intI1 gene were determined for 530 Salmonella isolates recovered using composite rope (n = 335), feces (n = 59), and water (n = 136) samples from 21 pens in 3 feedlots. The study investigated only pens with available isolates from multiple sample types. Most isolates (83.0%) of the 19 Salmonella serotypes identified were susceptible or intermediately susceptible to all the antimicrobials evaluated. Resistance to sulfisoxazole (14.9%), streptomycin (3.8%), and tetracycline (3.6%) were the most common. None of the isolates tested positive for a class 1 integron, and only 2.5% were resistant to multiple antimicrobials. All the MDR isolates, namely, serotypes Uganda (n = 9), Typhimurium (n = 2), and Give (n = 2), were resistant to at least five antimicrobials. Most MDR isolates (n = 11) were from two pens during 1 week within one feedlot. Overall, many Salmonella isolates collected within a pen were similar in terms of serotype and antimicrobial susceptibility regardless of sample type. However, MDR Salmonella and rare serotypes were not recovered frequently enough to suggest a general strategy for appropriate composite sampling of feedlot cattle populations for Salmonella detection and monitoring.


  1. 1.
    Belknap EB, Navarre CB (2000) Differentiation of gastrointestinal diseases in adult cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 16:59–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002) Outbreak of multi–drug-resistant Salmonella Newport—United States, January–April 2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rev 51:545–548Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute/NCCLS (2002) Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals. Approved standard, 2nd edn. CLSI/NCCLS document M31-A, Wayne, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dargatz DA, Fedorka-Cray PJ, Ladely SR et al (2000) Survey of Salmonella serotypes shed in feces of beef cows and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns. J Food Prot 63:1648–1653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dargatz DA, Fedorka-Cray PJ, Ladely SR et al (2002) Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Salmonella isolates from cattle in feedlots. J Am Vet Med Assoc 221:268–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dargatz DA, Fedorka-Cray PJ, Ladely SR et al (2003) Prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella spp. isolates from U.S. cattle in feedlots in 1999 and 2000. J Appl Microbiol 95:753–761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ebner P, Garner K, Mathew A (2004) Class 1 integrons in various Salmonella enterica serovars isolated from animals and identification of genomic island SGI1 in Salmonella enterica var. Meleagridis. J Antimicrob Chemother 53:1004–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fedorka-Cray PJ, Dargatz DA, Thomas LA et al (1998) Survey of Salmonella serotypes in feedlot cattle. J Food Prot 61:525–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guerra B, Soto S, Cal S et al (2000) Antimicrobial resistance and spread of class 1 integrons among Salmonella serotypes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 44:2166–2169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kunze DJ, Loneragan GH, Platt TM et al (2008) Salmonella enterica burden in harvest-ready cattle populations from the southern high plains of the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:345–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loneragan GH, Brashears MM (2005) Effects of using retention-pond water for dust abatement on performance of feedlot steers and carriage of Escherichia coli O157 and Salmonella spp. J Am Vet Med Assoc 226:1378–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Losinger WC, Garber LP, Smith MA et al (1997) Management and nutritional factors associated with the detection of Salmonella sp. from cattle fecal specimens from feedlot operations in the United States. Prev Vet Med 31:231–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renter DG, Alam MJ, Ives SE et al (2006) Fecal shedding of Salmonella in feedlot cattle that were treated for apparent respiratory disease. Proceedings of the 87th Annual Conference of Research Workers in Animal Diseases, December 3–5, Chicago, IL, p. 57Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Renter DG, Smith DR, King R et al (2008) Detection and determinants of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in preslaughter feedlot pens in Alberta. Can J Vet Res 72:217–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanchez S, Hofacre CL, Lee MD et al (2002) Animal sources of salmonellosis in humans. J Am Vet Med Assoc 221:492–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith B (2002) Salmonellosis in ruminants. In: Large Animal Internal Medicine, 3rd edn. Mosby Inc, St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 775–779Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith DR, Gray JT, Moxley RA et al (2004) A diagnostic strategy to determine the Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli O157 status of pens of feedlot cattle. Epidemiol Infect 132:297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith DR, Moxley RA, Clowser SL et al (2005) Use of rope devices to describe and explain the feedlot ecology of Salmonella by time and place. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2:61–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sorenson O, Van Donkersgoed J, McFall M et al (2002) Salmonella spp. shedding by Alberta beef cattle and the detection of Salmonella spp. in ground beef. J Food Prot 65:484–491Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stephens TP, Loneragan GH, Thompson TW et al (2007) Distribution of Escherichia coli O157 and Salmonella on hide surfaces, the oral cavity, and in feces of feedlot cattle. J Food Prot 70:1346–1349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Donkersgoed J, Graham T, Gannon V (1999) The prevalence of verotoxins, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Salmonella in the feces and rumen of cattle at processing. Can Vet J 40:332–338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wagner BA, Dargatz DA, Salman MD et al (2002) Comparison of sampling techniques for measuring the antimicrobial susceptibility of enteric Escherichia coli recovered from feedlot cattle. Am J Vet Res 63:1662–1670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang H, Shi L, Li L et al (2004) Identification and characterization of class 1 integron resistance gene cassettes among Salmonella strains isolated from healthy humans in China. Microbiol Immunol 48:639–645PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Jahangir Alam
    • 1
  • David Renter
    • 1
  • Ethel Taylor
    • 1
  • Diana Mina
    • 2
  • Rodney Moxley
    • 3
  • David Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Medicine and PathobiologyKansas State UniversityManhattan USA
  2. 2.Carver College of MedicineUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Veterinary and Biomedical SciencesUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln LincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations