Basrah Journal of Veterinary Research,Vol.19, No.3, 2020. Proceeding of the 17th International Conference. College of
Veterinary Medicine. University of Basrah. Iraq.
291
THE SOURCES OF ZOONOTIC BACTERIAL DISEASES FOR ANIMALS
FARMS, ITS PRODUCTS AND FARMERS HEALTH
Sherifa Mostafa M. Sabra* , Somia Eltahir Ali Ahmad*
*Department of technology and Science ., Ranyah University College, University of Taif , KSA.
Corresponding Author: Sh.sabra@tu.edu.sa
Keywords: Physical tools, Animals farms, Farmers health
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research paper were to monitor the presence of source zoonotic bacterial diseases in
the physical tools that used in animal farms. That had a role in the store and the transmission of zoonotic
bacterial diseases to farmers and affected their health and the transfer to different farm products. As well,
which caused loss of the product and diseases to consumers that may affect farmers' health and animal
health. That was used principled method for bacterial isolation and identification. It was found bacteria
41%; it may cause damage to products from food poisoning to zoonotic bacterial diseases to consumers. It
was found the Gram-negative 69% and Gram-positive 31%, which were the most resistant bacteria to
antibiotics and causes zoonotic bacterial diseases. It was found Staphylococcous Spp. 39% and
Streptococcus Spp. 13%. Escherichia coli were 49%; (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebseilla pneumonia,
and Campylobacter Spp) were (17, 12 and 11%). (Actinobacter Spp. and Proteus Spp.), were (6 and 3%),
Salmonella Spp. was 1%. It indicated the existence of PTs as stores for that may be a source of zoonotic
bacterial diseases and may easily transmitted to humans or animal products, causing health and economic
damage. It was concluded that the zoonotic bacterial diseases could be transmitted from physical tools as
sources that were used in the farm and caused health damage and economic effects. That recommended
preferring quality physical tools to minimize the health and economic damage to decrease zoonotic
bacterial diseases to be not affected animal or human health.
.
INTRODUCTION
Zoonotic bacterial diseases transmitted to humans from animals, estimated 60% human infectious
diseases and 75% infectious diseases considered zoonotic, It caused by a variety of pathogens, including
bacteria, were 50% of zoonotic bacteria (1). That resulted wide range of diseases considerable human and
animal health, and with great socioeconomic impact on endemic populations (2),
Basrah Journal of Veterinary Research,Vol.19, No.3, 2020. Proceeding of the 17th International Conference. College of
Veterinary Medicine. University of Basrah. Iraq.
292
Economic losses and financial costs associated with zoonotic diseases (3). Transmission of zoonotic
bacterial diseases happens in a variety of ways as contact with animal habitats or contaminated surfaces
(4). Diseases caused by ingesting contaminated food of public health, especially in low and middle
income countries; the risk to spread was higher due to farming, slaughtering, processing, and
decontamination methods used and weak veterinarian disease control (5). Some zoonotic bacteria
increasing frequency of antimicrobial-resistant isolates. As the leading cause of zoonotic bacterial disease
in both animals and humans, Salmonella was antimicrobial resistance (AMR) “serious threats” category
of the USA CDC in 2019 (6).
Campylobacter estimated 1.5 million campylobacteriosis infections / year (7). Zoonotic bacterial
diseases emerging in livestock, determining the conditions evolve, spread, and eventually enter the human
population. Livestock were subjected resulting from the production, processing and retail environment,
which together alter host contact rate, population size, and/or microbial traffic flows in the food chain (8).
More than 60% of human pathogens were zoonotic bacteria, climate change, urbanization, animal
migration and trade, travel and tourism, emerging and re-emerging zoonotic bacterial diseases. The
etiology impact on human health and control measures for better management. The implementation was
highly recommended for the elective prevention and control of possible zoonosis, it as reverse zoonosis.
Include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)، Campylobacter Spp., Salmonella enterica
Serovar Typhimurium. Zoonotic bacterial diseases were transmitted to animals from humans and then
back from animals to humans as reverse zoonosis (9).
Bacterial, zoonotic diseases were transmitted to humans from a wide variety of animal species act as
reservoir hosts for causative bacteria. Zoonosis estimated 75% of infectious humans' bacterial diseases.
Followed in transmission of important zoonosis, caused by ingestion of food and animals' products. Both
the economic cost and substantial at local and global levels, evidence-based prevention strategies are
currently a global priority increasingly recognized, especially in zoonosis-affected regions (10).
The aims of this paper were to monitor the presence of source of zoonotic bacterial diseases in the
physical tools used in animal farms. That had a role in the store and the transmission of zoonotic bacterial
diseases to farmers and affected their health and the transfer to different farm products. As well, which
caused loss of the product and diseases to consumers that may affect personal health.
Basrah Journal of Veterinary Research,Vol.19, No.3, 2020. Proceeding of the 17th International Conference. College of
Veterinary Medicine. University of Basrah. Iraq.
293
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Samples collection
The samples were collected in sterile condition from available physical tools were included (utensils,
machines, walls, and doors) from animals' farms. The samples were sent to "Bacterial Laboratory" and
they were inoculated separately into "Patient Bacterial Special Media". The bacterial growth colonies
were identified by "Vitek 2 Compact Automated System"; (BioMerieux, Marcy L’Etoile, France) (11).
Data analysis: The data were management by using "Excel Set" which formed the consequences (12).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 and Graph 1: Percent of main microorganisms isolated from physical tools
Items Bacterial
isolates
Nonbacterial
isolates
Percent 41% 59%
Table 1 and graph 1 presented percent of main microorganisms isolated from physical tools; it was
found that the percentage of bacteria 41% was less than half of the physical tools from which samples
were taken [1-10]. This indicated the importance of cleaning physical tools, as they were a great source of
zoonotic bacterial diseases. That afflicted humans and farm products, which affected animal production
and the general health of farmers. It may cause damages to products from food poisoning to zoonotic
bacterial diseases to consumers outside the animals' farms (1-10).
Basrah Journal of Veterinary Research,Vol.19, No.3, 2020. Proceeding of the 17th International Conference. College of
Veterinary Medicine. University of Basrah. Iraq.
294
Table 2 and graph 2: Percent of main identified bacteria isolated from physical tools
Items Gram-positive Gram-negative
Percent 31% 69%
Name Percent Name Percent
Staphylococcous
*Spp.
39% Escherichia
coli
49%
Streptococcus
Spp.
13% Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
17%
Klebseilla
pneumonia
12%
Actinobacter
Spp.
6%
Campylobacter
Spp
11%
Salmonella
Spp.
1%
Proteus Spp. 3%
*Spp: Species.
Table 2 and graph 2 presented percent of main identified bacteria isolated from physical tools; it was
found that the higher rate of Gram-negative was 69% more than twice that of Gram-positive 31%, which
is the most resistant bacteria to antibiotics and causes zoonotic bacterial diseases.
Basrah Journal of Veterinary Research,Vol.19, No.3, 2020. Proceeding of the 17th International Conference. College of
Veterinary Medicine. University of Basrah. Iraq.
295
It was found that the Gram-positive Staphylococcous Spp. 39% represented more than double of
Streptococcus Spp. 13%. One Gram-negative Escherichia coli 49% was found above one and it
represented about half. As for (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebseilla pneumonia, and Campylobacter Spp)
were (17, 12 and 11%) represented about one-fifth of the total. The two types represent (Actinobacter
Spp. and Proteus Spp.) were (6 and 3%) less than ten. The lowest was found Salmonella Spp. 1% in
representing less than ten [1-10]. It indicated the existence of physical tools as stores for that may a
source of zoonotic bacterial diseases and may easily transmitted to humans or animals products, causing
health in addition, economic damage, which will affect the health and economic sides (1-10).
Acknowledgments: The author sent all thanks to everybody joined in this paper.
REFRENCES
1-Morse, S., Mazet, A., Woolhouse, M., Parrish, R., Carroll, D., Karesh, B., Zambrana-
Torrelio, C., Lipkin, I. and Daszak, P., (2012). Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic
zoonosis. Lancet (Lond.), 380: 1956–1965.
2-CDC. One Health. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/index.html (accessed on 27
April 2020).
3-One Health. Operational Framework for Strengthening Human, Animal and Environmental
Public Health Systems at Their Interface; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, (2018).
Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/961101524657708673/pdf/122980-
REVISED-PUBLIC-World-Bank-One-Health-Framework-2018.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2020).
4-Natarajan, P. and Miller, A., (2016). Recreational Infections (Chapter 71). In Infectious Diseases;
Cohen, J., Powderly, W.G., Opal, S.M., Eds.; Elsevier Health Sciences: London, UK, 2016.
5-Karesh, B.; Dobson, A., Lloyd-Smith, O., Lubroth, J., Dixon, A., Bennett, M., Aldrich, S.,
Harrington, T., Formenty, P. and Loh, H., (2012). Ecology of zoonoses: Natural and unnatural
histories. Lancet, 380: 1936–1945.
Basrah Journal of Veterinary Research,Vol.19, No.3, 2020. Proceeding of the 17th International Conference. College of
Veterinary Medicine. University of Basrah. Iraq.
296
6-CDC. Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Resistance (AR/AMR), (2019): Biggest Threats and Data.
Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/biggest-threats.html (accessed on 27 April
2020).
7-CDC. Drug-Resistant. Campylobacter, (2019).Available online:
https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/threats-report/campylobacter-508.pdf (accessed on 27 April
2020).
8-Slingenbergh, J., Gilbert, M., de Balogh, K. and Wint, W., (2004). Ecological sources of
zoonotic diseases. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 23 (2): 467-484.
9-Tanvir, R., Abdus., S., Saiful, I., Samina, I., Jannat, H., Mohamed, E., Taufiquer, R. and
Hossam, A., (2020). Review: Zoonotic Diseases: Etiology, Impact, and Control. Microorganisms, 8:
1405; DOI:10.3390/microorganisms8091405 www.mdpi.com/journal/microorganisms .
10-Judith, R., Verena, J., Schuenemann, S. and Marcelo, S., (2020). Review: Host Diversity and
Origin of Zoonoses: The Ancient and the New. Animals, 10: 1672; doi:10.3390/ani10091672.
www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
11-Lorina, B., Yasmeen, A., Fatimah, A., Maram, B., Salma, A. and Norah, A., (2020). An
Investigation of Potential Health Risks from Zoonotic Bacterial Pathogens Associated with Farm
Rats. Environmental Health Insights https://doi.org/10.1177/1178630220942240 .
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage. Environmental Health Insights, 14: 1–9
12- Şeref, H., Ahuja, K. and Winston, L. (2007). Developing spreadsheet-based decision support
systems: Using Excel and VBA. Dynamic Ideas. ISBN 978-0-9759146-5-6. Archived from the
original on February 21, 2009. Retrieved April 7, 2010.