Price, Lance B.; Lackey, Leila G.; Vailes, Rocio; Silbergeld, Ellen (United States of America)
Environmental Health Perspectives (2007)
producers. We included products from five different poultry producers in the present study: A) Bell & Evans (Fredericksburg, PA); B) Murray's (South Fallsburg, NY); C) Eberly (Stevens, PA); D) Perdue (Salisbury, MD); and E) Tyson (Springdale, AR). Producers A-C claim that their chickens are raised without any antibiotics, including fluoroquinolones. We refer to these producers and their products as antibiotic-free. Producers D and E do not claim general prohibitions on antibiotics; we refer to these producers and their products as conventional. A critical caveat to this desig- nation is that each of the conventional produc- ers announced separately in February 2002 that they had adopted company policies pro- hibiting the use of fluoroquinolones. In the same announcement, producer D claimed that no fluoroquinolones had been used in the year before the announcement. Finally, all produc- ers except producer C claimed to exclusively slaughter their own flocks in their processing plants. Representatives from producer C acknowledged that custom flocks, including those treated with antibiotics, were occasion- ally processed in their facilities during the study period.
We purchased fresh chicken products from grocery stores in the Baltimore, Maryland, area on a weekly basis from 19 January 2004 to 7 June 2004 and from 20 February 2006 to 5 June 2006. Two to three packages from each of the five producers were purchased each time (except when availability was limited). Thighs and legs (bone-in and skin-on) were the default cuts for the study. However, these cuts were not consistently available for all producers; in those cases, we tested alternative cuts, includ- ing breasts, quarters, and whole chickens. Packages were refrigerated at 40C until they were sampled (within 48 hr of purchase). A single piece of chicken was sampled from each package as follows. First, each package was wiped with 70% ethanol and cut open with a new disposable razor blade; the plastic cover was then removed and photocopied for our records. We used sterile forceps to transfer the entire piece of chicken to a stomacher bag containing 200 mL sterile Bolton broth supplemented with laked horse blood (Quad Five, Ryegate, MT); samples were shaken by hand for 2 min, the chicken was removed using forceps, and the bag was sealed 1-2 cm above the top of the broth. Enrichments were incubated at 42C for 22-26 hr (Hunt 2000; Price et al. 2005).
AST Method: None
Reference explicitly reports AST breakpoints: True
Reference reports using a MIC table: False
Is Excluded: False
Country | Sub-Region | Sub-Region Detail |
---|---|---|
United States of America | None | None |
ID | Note | Resolution |
---|
Title | Host | Host | Production Stage | Description | ROs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fluoroquinolone Usage Ban | Chicken | Broilers | Farm | Antibiotic free (ABF) farms 2004 vs ABF farms 2006, fluoroquinlone resistance | 1 |
Fluoroquinolone Usage Ban | Chicken | Broilers | Farm | Conventional (Conv) farms 2004 vsConventional farms 2006, fluoroquinlone resistance | 1 |
Production Type | Chicken | Broilers | Farm | 2004 or Pre-Ban: Antibiotic-free (Aggregated producers A+B+C) vs Conventional (Aggregated producers D+E), Fluoroquinolone resistant campylobacter | 1 |
Production Type | Chicken | Broilers | Farm | 2006 or Post-Ban: Antibiotic-free (Aggregated producers A+B+C) vs Conventional (Aggregated producers D+E), Fluoroquinolone resistant campylobacter | 1 |
Production Type | Chicken | Carcass | Farm | Post-2005 ban of fluoroquinolone use in poultry production (USA). | 1 |
Production Type | Chicken | Carcass | Farm | Pre-2005 ban of fluoroquinolone use in poultry production (USA). | 1 |