The Seasonal Incidence of Thermophilic Campylobacters in Sheep

Abstract

Campylobacter infections follow a seasonal trend within the human population having the greatest incidence in late spring8. This trend is reflected in the environment when the number of thermophilic campylobacters present in raw sewage is also significantly higher than during the rest of the year6. The incidence of Campylobacter infection in Lancaster is greater per 100,000 population than the remainder of the north west of England region. Research by Jones et al. 6 showed a positive correlation between the numbers of campylobacters present within raw sewage and the incidence of infection within the human population. Together with human influences abattoir and rendering plant effluent were implicated as sources for the seasonal increase in campylobacters within raw sewage. In the Lancaster area cattle and sheep are the predominant sources of faecal material present within the effluent discharged from abattoirs. Whilst the carriage of campylobacters by poultry has been extensively investigated comparatively little information is available regarding the prevalence of Campylobacter within ruminants. The aim of this project was to assess the seasonal carriage of thermophilic campylobacters by sheep.

Keywords

Most Probable Number Carriage Rate Buffer Peptone Water England Region Seasonal Incidence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bolton F.J., Dawkins H.C. and Robertson L. (1982) J. Infect., 4, 243–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diggle P. J., Liang K.Y. and Zeger S. L. (1994) Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doyle, M. P. (1991) Colonization of chicks by Campylobacter jejuni. In L.C. Blankenship, (ed.), Colonization Control of Human Bacterial Enteropathogens in Poultry. Academic Press Inc., New York, London, pp. 121–131.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fricker C.R. and Park R.W.A. (1989) J. Appl. Bacteriol., 66, 477–490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill C. O. and L. M. Harris. (1982) Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 43, 977–980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones K., Betaieb M. and Telford D. (1990) J. Appl. Bacteriol., 69, 185–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosef O., Gondrosen B., Kapperud G. and Underdal B. (1983) Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 46, 855–859.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Skirrow. M. B. (1987) Epidem. Infect., 99, 647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turnbull P. C. B. and Rose P. (1982) J. Hyg., 88, 29–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Biological Sciences, I.E.B.SLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations