View of COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOOD-BORNE MICROORGANISMS ON BROILER AND DESI CHICKENS OF INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH

(1)

3 9

ACCENT JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS ECOLOGY & ENGINEERING

Peer Reviewed and Refereed Journal, ISSN NO. 2456-1037 Available Online: www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE

Vol. 06, Issue 05, May 2021 IMPACT FACTOR: 7.98 (INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL) 39 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOOD-BORNE MICROORGANISMS ON BROILER AND

DESI CHICKENS OF INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH Maheshwar Singh Chouhan and Tripti Sharma

Holkar Science College, Indore and Altius College, Indore, M.P., India

Abstract - Food-borne micro-organisms are the major threats to human health and it is very important to detect their presence on food items to reduce food-borne diseases. This research activity was initiated to assess microbial quality and quantity to the environmental condition of chicken. In this piece of work Poultry sample (n=100) were collected randomly from a supermarket, traditional shops, and village areas of Indore, Broilerchicken (n=50), and Desichicken (n=50). Skin swabbing and tissue carcasses collected in peptone water.Samples were incubated and cultured on media plates. Further, subculturing (on differential Media) and biochemical tests were done for confirmation of microbial species.

We found E. coli, Pseudomonasaureogenosa, S. Typhi, S. Aureus, Shigella, Clostridium prefringens, and Campylobacter are present in chicken. The highest load of microbial contamination wasobserved in broiler samples as compared to desi. This comparative study shows that broiler skin was highly contaminated by E. coli (3.7 X 10⁵cfu/ml) and Salmonella (3.2 X 10⁵cfu/ml) while in desi chicken highest load of E. coliwas found in skin sample (2.5 X 10⁵cfu/ml) and a minimum of Campylobacterwas found in tissues (0.2 X 10⁵cfu/ml). S. Aureus, Shigella, and Clostridium prefringens were only found in broiler samples. Statical analysis of broiler and desi skin sample shows that E. coli, Pseudomonasaureogenosa, S. Typhi, S. Aureus, Shigella, Clostridium prefringens, and Campylobacterreject our null hypothesis because P-value is less than the critical value (2.306). Were as tissue sample of desi and broiler data analysis of P-value shown E. coli, Pseudomonasaureogenosa, S. Typhi, and Campylobacterreject the null hypothesis. S.

Aureus, Shigella, and Clostridium prefringens were not isolated in a tissue sample.The present study concludes that presence of maximum micro-organism onbroiler which shows the poor hygienic environment.Broiler providesstrong habitat for food-borne micro-organism while desi is hostile for some micro-organism.

1 INTRODUCTION

India is one of the maingrowers of poultry meat in the world. The increase in population has led to a tremendous increase in poultry demand. In 2020, the consumption of poultry meat in India was found to be over 3.9 million metric tons¹. So, contamination of food by microorganism is a major health concern all over the world. The high rate of contamination of poultry with bacteria is responsible for health issues in human beings. Due to poor hygienic conditions, poultry is easily exposed to bacteria.

Desi spends a majority of their time in the great outdoors, running around and scratching the dirt for worms or insects, then supplementing their diet with household scraps.

Poultry are raised exclusively for their meat in shielded, with controlled temperature and feed. All these chickens get the same feed, zero physical activity, and the same exposure to the elements.

The broiler chickens spend their whole life in their farms with hundreds to thousands of chickens.

Bacteria thatare commonly found in poultry are salmonella^2-6, E-coil^7-8, Staphylococcusaureus⁹, clostridium perfringens¹⁰, campylobacter¹¹, etc.The major reservoirs for human salmonella worldwideare broiler chicken, although many reports on contamination of chicken with salmonella have been published all over the world². Today poultry chicken meat contributes substantially to the human diet because of its low cost and easy availability.

In this piece of work,a comparative study is performed on desi &broiler chickens to evaluate the presence of micro-organisms on them which shows their hygienic quality, resistance,and susceptibility to pathogens.

2 MATERIAL & METHOD 2.1 Study Area

Indore is also known as the economic capital of Madhya Pradesh. For study purpose, we selected local vendors of Indore and nearby villages for sample collection.

(2)

4 0

ACCENT JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS ECOLOGY & ENGINEERING

Vol. 06, Issue 05, May 2021 IMPACT FACTOR: 7.98 (INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL) 40 2.2 Sample Collection

A total of 400, skin swab and tissue samples were collected aseptically in peptone water tubes separately from different vendors of Indore. All samples were collected randomly from healthy chickens.

2.3 Isolation & Identification of Microorganism

Isolation & identification of microorganism was done according to the standard guideline of Prescott. After collection, the samples were homogenizedand pre-enriched by adding 10ml of buffered peptone water (HI media)

and centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 10min.The supernatant was taken in fresh sterile tubes incubated at 37℃ c for 18-20 hours. Fromthe incubated sample, a loop full culture was streaked on nutrient agar, MacConkey agar, Blood agar, Milk agar, EMB agar (HI media) &

incubated at 37 for hours. Then plates were examined for colony identification.

After colony identification, samples were again streaked on selective media (tables) for confirmation of bacteria. Again, biochemical testswere performed for further confirmation of identifiedbacteria (tables)

3 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Table 3 Table showing Mean value and P-value of Broiler and Desi Skin sample.

Name of Bacteria Mean value of no. of colonies in Broiler

skin sample

Mean value of no.

of colonies in Desi skin sample

P-Value

E. Coli 37 25 0.023325

Staphylococcus aureus 12 Not isolated -

Salmonella 32 15 1.95523

Pseudomonas 18 7 1.32874

Clostridium 13 Not isolated -

Shigella 14 Not isolated -

Campylobacter 7 5 0.068342

Table 4 Table showing Mean value and P-value of Broiler and Desi Tissue sample.

Name of Bacteria

Mean value of no. of colonies in Broiler tissue

sample

Mean value of no. of colonies in Desi tissue

sample

P-Value

E. Coli 22 17 0.028217

Staphylococcus aureus Not isolated Not isolated -

Salmonella 18 3 1.55565

Pseudomonas 5 Not isolated -

Clostridium Not isolated Not isolated -

Shigella Not isolated Not isolated -

Campylobacter 3 2 0.051003

Table 1 Details of Broiler and Desi Chicken samples collected from local Vendors S. No. Type of sample Source of a sample

(Wander) Source of a sample

(Village) Total

1 Skin Swabs 50 50 100

2 Tissue 50 50 100

Total 100 100 200

Table 2 Comparative analysis of isolated microorganisms from broiler and desi.

S.

No. Name of Bacteria Broiler Chicken Desi Chicken

Skin Sample Tissue

Sample Skin

Sample Tissue Sample

1 E. Coli Isolated

(3.7 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

Isolated (2.2 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

Isolated (1.7 X 10⁵cfu/ml) 2 Staphylococcusaureus Isolated

(1.2 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

Not Isolated Not Isolated Not Isolated

3 Salmonella Isolated

(3.2 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

4 Pseudomonas Isolated Isolated Isolated Not Isolated

(3)

4 1

ACCENT JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS ECOLOGY & ENGINEERING

Vol. 06, Issue 05, May 2021 IMPACT FACTOR: 7.98 (INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL) 41 (1.8 X

10⁵cfu/ml) (0.5 X

10⁵cfu/ml) (0.7 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

5 Clostridium Isolated

(1.3 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

6 Shigella Isolated

(1.4 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

7 Campylobacter Isolated

(0.7 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

Fig. 1 Comparative analysis of isolated microorganisms from skin samples.

Fig. 2Comparative analysis of isolated microorganisms from tissue samples.

The number of samples collected is presented in table 1.

The individual results of a microbial analysis conducted on the sample collected from two different species of chicken were presented in table 2.

Among the collected sample, the highest count of E. coli was found (3.7 X 10⁵cfu/ml) from the broiler skin sample, and the lowest count was found in the desi tissue sample (1.7 X 10⁵cfu/ml).

S. aureus count only found in broiler skin sample (1.2 X 10⁵cfu/ml) 0

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Skin Samples

Broiler skin sample Desi skin sample

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Tissue Sample

Broiler tissue tissue Desi tissue sample

(4)

4 2

ACCENT JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS ECOLOGY & ENGINEERING

Vol. 06, Issue 05, May 2021 IMPACT FACTOR: 7.98 (INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL) 42 Highest salmonella count was

found (3.2 X 10⁵cfu/ml) inbroiler skin sample & lowest in desi tissue sample (0.3 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

Pseudomonas count was (1.8 X 10⁵cfu/ml) highest in broiler skin &

lowest in its tissue sample (0.5 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

Clostridium (1.3 X 10⁵cfu/ml)

&shigella (1.4 X 10⁵cfu/ml) were only isolated from broiler skin sample.

Campylobacter was isolated from broiler skin (0.7 X 10⁵cfu/ml) & lowest in desi tissue (0.2 X 10⁵cfu/ml) sample.

Figure 1 and 2 shows a total microbial count of all the collected samples, in which highest microbial risk category is shown in boiler chicken as compared to desi.

(Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of colonies in microorganism on skin and tissue samples of broiler and desi chicken)

By observing (table 3) Statical analysis of the broiler and desi skin sample shows thatE. coli, Pseudomonasaureogenosa, S. Typhi, S.

Aureus, Shigella, Clostridium prefringens, and Campylobacter reject our null hypothesis because P-value is less than the critical value (2.306). Which is clearly showing there is lot of difference in the desi and broiler skin sample.

Table 4 conclude that tissue sample of desi and broiler data analysis of

P-value shown E. coli,

Pseudomonasaureogenosa, S. Typhi, and Campylobacterreject the null hypothesis.

S. Aureus, Shigella, and Clostridium prefringens were not isolated in tissue and skin sample which indicate that maybe desi chicken is resistant to these micro-organisms.

Chicken can be considered a good source of food due to its nutrient value, low cost and easy availability.

Contamination of poultry with microorganisms is a major health concern. Because of poor hygienic environment chickens are easily exposed to microorganisms. Broiler spends its life in closed farms with a crowd at controlled temperature and feed and with no physical activity is better habitat for food- borne micro-organisms.

Desi chicken lives in an open environment, running around and scratching soil for worms and insects,

feed with household scraps isa physically very active and healthy option for us as compared to broiler. It is recommended that precautions should be taken to prevent infections before consumption of poultry meat. One should choose healthy chickens and use proper cooking practices to get microbe-free food.

REFERENCES

1. Sandhya Keelery. 2020.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/826711 /india-poultry-meat-consumption.

2. Suvit Limawongpranee, Hideki Hayashidani, Alexandre Tomomitsu Okatani, Kori Ono, ChuzoHirota, Ken-ichi Kaneka and Masuo Ogawa. 1999. Prevalence and persistence of Salmonella in broiler chicken flocks. J. Vet.

Med. Sci. 61(3): 255-259.

3. K. Alshawabkeh and M. J. Tabbaa. 2001.

Comparative study on the resistance of three commercial strains and balady (local) breed of chickens to infection with Salmonella gallinarum. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 14, No. 1: 96-100.

4. Y. Li and A. Mustapha. 2002. Evalution of four template preparation methods for polymerase chain reaction-based detection of Salmonella in ground beef and chicken.

Letters in Applied Microbiology. 35, 508-512.

5. J. J. Carrique-Mas and R. H. Davies. 2008.

Sampling and bacteriological detection of Salmonella in poultry and poultry premises.

Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 27 (3), 665-677.

6. Madan Mohan Mali, D. S. Meena, Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Samita Saini, Sheela Choudhary, Sanjita Sharma and A. P. Singh.

2019. Isolation and identification of Salmonella in farm and backyard chicken samples in and around Jaipur. Veterinary Pracititioner. Vol. 20, No. 2: 150-152.

7. C. O. Gill, M. Badoni, L. F. Moza, S. Barbut and M. W. Griffiths. 2005. Microbiological sampling of poultry carcass portions by excision, rinsing, or swabbing. J. of Food Protection. Vol. 68, No. 12: 2718-2720.

8. C. O. Gill and M. Badoni. 2005.

Microbiological sampling of poultry carcasses by rinsing, swabbing or excision of skin. Food Microbiol.22: 101-107.

9. N. Gundogan, S. Citak, N. Yucel and A.

Devren. 2005. A note on the incidence and antibiotic resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from meat and chicken samples. Meat Science, Vol. 69, No. 4: 807- 810.

10. Victoria J. Nowell, Cornelis Popper, Valeria R.

Parreira, Yan-Fen Jiang, Richard Reid-Smith and John F. Perscott. 2010. Clostridium perfringens in retail chicken. Anaerobe, Vol.

16, No. 3: 314-315.

11. Wageha A. Awada,b, Claudia Hessa and Michael Hess. 2018. Re-thinking the chicken–

Campylobacter jejuni interaction: a reviewAvain Pathology, Vol. 47, NO. 4, 352–

363.