<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AiM</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Advances in Microbiology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2165-3402</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/aim.2023.1310032</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AiM-128821</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Evaluation of the Microbiological Quality of Poultry Imported into Togo and the Antibiotic Resistance of &lt;i&gt;Salmonella&lt;/i&gt; spp. Isolated
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kossi</surname><given-names>Touglo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yawavi</surname><given-names>Justine Sanni</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lionel</surname><given-names>Amegan</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Koffi</surname><given-names>Akolly</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yaovi</surname><given-names>Akoula Nuto</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wembo</surname><given-names>Afiwa Halatoko</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Adodo</surname><given-names>Sadji</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bawimodom</surname><given-names>Bidjada</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bouraïma</surname><given-names>Djeri</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yaovi</surname><given-names>Agbekponou Ameyapoh</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Simplice</surname><given-names>Damintoti Karou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Laboratoire de Microbiologie des Aliments, de l’Eau et Produits Divers, Institut National d’Hygi&amp;amp;egrave;ne (INH), Lom&amp;amp;eacute;, Togo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Laboratoire de Microbiologie et de Contr&amp;amp;ocirc;le de la qualit&amp;amp;eacute; des Denr&amp;amp;eacute;es Alimentaires (LAMICODA), Universit&amp;amp;eacute; de Lom&amp;amp;eacute;, Lom&amp;amp;eacute;, Togo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Laboratoire de Bact&amp;amp;eacute;riologie M&amp;amp;eacute;dicale de l’Institut National d’Hygi&amp;amp;egrave;ne (INH), Lom&amp;amp;eacute;, Togo</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>07</day><month>10</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>10</issue><fpage>499</fpage><lpage>516</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>7,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>28,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>31,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  In Togo, despite the government’s efforts, food requirements in terms of animal proteins are not covered by national production and are subject to huge imports of meat products. However, the hygienic quality of these imports is not guaranteed for the consumer. The aim of this study was to estimate the frequency of unhygienically unsatisfactory imported poultry and to determine the antibiotic resistance profile of 
  Salmonella spp. strains. A total of 285 samples of imported poultry, including 55 chicken thighs, 10 chicken backbones, 25 chicken wings, 5 whole chickens, 30 sausages, 35 chicken forequarters, 95 chicken drumsticks and 30 guinea fowl wings, were analyzed using standard AFNOR routine methods. The following germs were tested: Total Aerobic Mesophilic Flora (TAMF), Anaerobic-Sulfite-Reducing (ASR), 
  Escherichia coli, 
  Staphylococcus aureus and 
  Salmonella spp. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was carried out on 
  Salmonella spp. strains isolated using the agar disk diffusion method (CA-SFM). Results showed 100% compliance for TAMF, coagulase-positive 
  Staphylococci and 
  Escherichia coli. On the other hand, 3.84% and 2.46% non-compliance were recorded for ASR and 
  Salmonella respectively. Non-compliance with hygiene rules is generally thought to be the cause of meat contamination. Seven 7 strains of 
  Salmonella were isolated, 5 of which were of the OMA serogroup, and the other two of the OMB and HMB groups. Antibiotic susceptibility tests revealed resistance to certain beta-lactam antibiotics and quinolones, in particular: cefalexin (28.57%), cefoxitin (14.28%), cefuroxime (28.57%), ceftazidime (28.57%), ceftriaxone (28.57%) and nalidixic acid (28.57%). This result may be explained by the uncontrolled use of B-lactam and quinolone antibiotics in poultry farming. As 
  Salmonella spp. is a pathogenic enteric bacterium that causes food-borne illness in humans, resistance to third-generation cephalosporins remains a major public health problem.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Imported Poultry</kwd><kwd> Hygienic quality</kwd><kwd> &lt;i&gt;Salmonella&lt;/i&gt; spp</kwd><kwd> Antibiotic Resistance</kwd><kwd> Togo</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>In recent years, the agri-food industry, and in particular the livestock sector, has been rocked by a number of crises: food poisoning in the United States caused by salmonellosis and E. coli 015.H7, and the epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza and influenza AH1N1 in Europe [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref1">1</xref>] . The main source of human infection is the ingestion of contaminated food, particularly raw or undercooked meat, mainly poultry [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref2">2</xref>] . Yet meat remains a highly prized foodstuff, thanks to its high nutritional value. It is rich in nutrients, particularly essential amino acids, making it an almost irreplaceable food. It is also easy to digest, which is at least part of the reason for the rapid development of the meat products industry and all the related commercial transactions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref3">3</xref>] . The nutrients provided by meat, such as protein, are considered essential for human growth [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref4">4</xref>] . Of all animal sources, beef and chicken are the main sources of meat protein and are widely consumed in many countries. Meat is considered a potential medium for microbial growth due to its high protein content and high nutritional value [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref5">5</xref>] . In Togo, there is a major shortfall in the coverage of meat product needs, and per capita consumption of meat and offal per year is estimated at 7.5 kg, whereas the recommended standard is 12 kg per person per year. Over the last 5 years, this figure has risen by just 0.1 percentage points per year. As a result, the country imports around 30,000 head of cattle, 40,000 small ruminants, a million live poultry and almost 10,000 tons of meat a year to cover the needs of the population. Because imported chicken meat is cheaper than locally produced meat, broiler numbers on poultry farms have been falling steadily since 2003 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref6">6</xref>] . As a result, food quality has become a major concern for consumers in many countries, including Togo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref3">3</xref>] . It is therefore imperative to examine the microbiological quality of broiler meat in order to assess the risk it may pose to public health [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref7">7</xref>] . Several studies on pathogenic germs in meat have been carried out. However, they have not systematically taken into account the prevalence of germs, the frequency of meat of unacceptable hygienic quality, and the impact of the presence of these germs in the fight against antimicrobial resistance. Studies carried out in Africa report high prevalence of Escherichia coli and Salmonella in chickens [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref8">8</xref>] . This high prevalence of pathogenic germs is compounded by very high levels of resistance to the antibiotics tested [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref9">9</xref>] . This study was conducted to estimate the frequency of unsatisfactory hygiene in imported poultry and to determine the antibiotic resistance profile of the Salmonella strains isolated.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Period, Study Area and Sample Collection</title><p>From 10 November 2020 to 03 June 2021, 285 samples of whole chicken (n = 5), chicken armor (n = 10), chicken forequarters (n = 35), chicken wings (n = 25), chicken thighs (n = 55), chicken drumsticks (n = 95), guinea fowl wings (n = 30) and sausages (n = 30) were collected from seven (7) cold stores in Lom&#233;. The samples were transported directly to the laboratory for analysis in insulated coolers within 1 hour of sampling. The locations of the sampling sites are shown on the map in (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Microbiological Analyses</title><p>TAMF, Escherichia coli, Anaerobic Sulphito Reducing, coagulase-positive Staphylococci and Salmonella were tested and enumerated. Twenty-six grams (26 g) of meat were aseptically sampled and placed in a stomacher bag to which we added up to 260 mL of tap peptone water; then the stomacher was agitated for 2 to 3 minutes. This produces a 1:10 dilution of the product. After homogenizing the stock suspension in the Stomacher, dilutions from 10 to 10 were made from the stock solution at 10-1, each time taking 1 mL added to 9 mL of peptone water in a test tube.</p><p>TAMF was enumerated on Plat Count Agar (PCA) medium according to NF EN ISO 4833-1 (2013), Escherichia coli was enumerated according to NF ISO 16649-2 (2001) on Tryptone Bile X Glucuronide (TBX) medium and Staphylococcus aureus according to NF EN ISO 6888-1 (1999) on Baird Parker medium (supplemented with 1% potassium tellurite egg yolk). AnaerobicSulphitoReducing (ASR) bacteria were enumerated in accordance with NF ISO 15213 (2003) on Tryptone Sulfite Cyclo-serine (TSC) agar and Salmonella were detected on Xylose Lysine Desoxycholate (XLD) and Hecktoen agar media in accordance with NF EN ISO 6579-1 (2017).</p><p>The results were calculated and expressed using the following formula:</p><p>N = a + b V ( 1 + 0.1 ) d 1 ( UFC / g )</p><p>N = number of microorganisms; V = volume of inoculum; a = number of colonies in the first dilution; b = number of colonies in the second dilution; d1 = dilution rate; 0.1 = dilution factor.</p><p>The criteria for meat products (FCD, 2021) with M = 10 m were used to interpret the results according to the 3-class plan [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref10">10</xref>] .</p><disp-formula id="scirp.128821-formula1"><graphic  xlink:href="//html.scirp.org/file/1-2271983x4.png?20231031164212668"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>m: represents the threshold value and M represents the limit of acceptability.</p><p>Calculations of standard deviations (CFU/g &#177; standard deviation) in relation to average results were carried out.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Serological Identification and Antibiogram of Isolated Salmonella Strains</title><p>Isolated Salmonella strains were serologically identified by slide agglutination with anti-somatic O antigen sera to determine the group, followed by agglutination with flagellar H antigen sera to identify the serotype within the group according to the Kaufmann-White scheme. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was carried out by the agar disc diffusion method using Mueller Hinton agar (Kirby-Bauer).</p><p>Interpretation was carried out in accordance with CA-SFM 2023 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref11">11</xref>] , using the reference strain Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 for quality control. The antibiotic discs (Liofilchem, Italy) used were as follows: Amoxicillin (20 μg), Amoxicillin + clavulanic acid (20/10 μg), Ticarcillin (75 μg), Ticarcillin + clavulanic acid (75/10 μg), Piperacillin (30 μg), Piperacillin + Tazobactam (30/6 μg) Cefalexin (30 μg), Cefoxitin (30 μg), Cefuroxime (30 μg), Ceftazidime (10 μg), Ceftriaxone (30 μg), Cefepime (30 μg), Aztreonam (30 μg), Imipenem (10 μg), Ertapeneme (10 μg), Amikacin (30 μg), Gentamicin (10 μg), Tobramycin (10 μg), Chloramphenicol (30 μg), Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (25 μg), Ciprofloxacin (5 μg), Ofloxacin (5 μg), Nalidixic acid (30 μg), Levofloxacin (5 μg), Fosfomycin (200 μg), Nitrofurantoine (100 μg).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Prevalence of germs isolated in the various samples</title><sec id="s3_1_1"><title>3.1.1. Prevalence of Total Aerobic Mesophilic Flora</title><p>TAMF was detected in 185/285 (71.71%) of the samples, with total contamination of guinea fowl wings, chicken wings and chicken armor. It should also be noted that all samples from chambers A, E and G were contaminated with TAMF (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_2"><title>3.1.2. Prevalence of Escherichia coli</title><p>Escherichia coli was detected in 94/285 (32.98%) of the samples and chicken wings were the most contaminated with 30/30 (100%). Samples from cold rooms A, E and G were all contaminated (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_3"><title>3.1.3. Prevalence of Anaerobic Sulphito Reducing</title><p>The samples were 42/285 (14.73%) contaminated with RSA and the chicken wings</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Total Aerobic Mesophilic Floracarriage rates in samples</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >A</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >B</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >E</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >F</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >G</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >API (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30/30 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30/30 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5/5 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20/20 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25/25 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ARP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10/10 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10/10 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CUP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/40 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15/15 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15/55 (27.27)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43/45 (95.56)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50/50 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93/95 (97.89)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PEN (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5/5 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5/5 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >QAP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5/5 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/30 (6.67)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7/35 (20)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SAU (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35/35 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/40 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/30 (6.67)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35/35 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43/45 (95.56)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70/70 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >185/285 (71.71)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Legend: CUP: chicken leg, ARP: chicken breast, PEN: whole chicken, SAU: sausage, PIP: chicken drumstick, AIP: chicken wing, QAP: chicken forequarter, API: guinea fowl wing. A, B, C, D, E, F, G: names of cold rooms.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Escherichia coli carriage rates in samples</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >A</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >B</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >E</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >F</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >G</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >API (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30/30 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30/30 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/20 (10)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/25 (8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ARP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/10 (20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/10 (20)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CUP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9/40 (22.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13/15 (86.67)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22/55 (40)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/45 (4.44)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16/50 (32)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18/95 (18.95)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PEN (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/5 (20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/5 (20)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >QAP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/5 (20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18/30 (60)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19/35 (54.29)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SAU (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31/35 (88.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9/40 (22.25)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18/30 (60)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16/35 (45.71)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/45 (4.44)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18/70 (25.71)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94/285 (32.98)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Legend: CUP: chicken leg, ARP: chicken breast, PEN: whole chicken, SAU: sausage, PIP: chicken drumstick, AIP: chicken wing, QAP: chicken forequarter, API: guinea fowl wing. A, B, C, D, E, F, G: names of cold rooms.</p><p>were the most contaminated with 28/30 (93.33%). Samples from cold room A were the most contaminated with ASR at 29/35 (82.86%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_4"><title>3.1.4. Prevalence of Staphylococci</title><p>Staphylococci were absent from all the samples analyzed (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_5"><title>3.1.5. Prevalence of Salmonella</title><p>Salmonella spp. was detected in 7/285 (2.45%) of the samples: 1.82% of chicken thighs, 100% of whole chickens and 2.86% of chicken forequarters (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Sample Contamination Levels and Declaration of Conformity</title><p>The distribution of germs by level of contamination revealed rates of 28.57% and 3.33% respectively of chicken forequarters and guinea fowl wings that were unsatisfactory with regard to sulphite-reducing anaerobes. With regard to Salmonella, 100% of Whole Chicken as well as 2.86% of Chicken Forequarters and 1.82% of Chicken Legs were Unsatisfactory with regard to compliance criteria (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Salmonella Serotype and Antibiotic Susceptibility Profile</title><p>Serogrouping of the seven strains revealed 5 OMA strains, including one from chicken thighs, one isolated from chicken forequarters and the others from whole chickens. The other two salmonella strains were OMB and HMB, both from whole chickens. Antibiotic sensitivity tests revealed resistance to certain beta-lactam antibiotics and quinolones, in particular amoxicillin (28.57%), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (14.28%), cefalexime (28.57%), cefoxitin (14.28%), cefuroxime (28.57%), ceftazidime (28.57%), ceftriaxone (28.57%), aztreonam (28.57%) and nalidixic acid (28.57%). However, 100% of strains were sensitive to imipenem, the latest generation of beta-lactam antibiotics (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Carriage rate of Anaerobic Sulphito Reducingin samples</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >A</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >B</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >E</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >F</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >G</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >API (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28/30 (93.33)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28/30 (93.33)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/20 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/25 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ARP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/10 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/10 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CUP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/40 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/15 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/55 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/45 (2.22)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/50 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/95 (1.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PEN (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >QAP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/5 (20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12/30 (40)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13/35 (37.14)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SAU (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29/35 (82.86)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/40 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12/30 (40)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/35 (00)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/45 (2.22)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/70 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42/285 (14.73)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Legend: CUP: chicken leg, ARP: chicken breast, PEN: whole chicken, SAU: sausage, PIP: chicken drumstick, AIP: chicken wing, QAP: chicken forequarter, API: guinea fowl wing. A, B, C, D, E, F, G: names of cold rooms.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Carriage rate of Staphylococci in the samples</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >A</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >B</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >E</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >F</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >G</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >API (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/20 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/25 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ARP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/10 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/10 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CUP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/40 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/15 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/55 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/45 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/50 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/95 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PEN (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >QAP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/35 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SAU (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/35 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/40 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/35 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/45 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/70 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/285 (0)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Legend: CUP: chicken leg, ARP: chicken breast, PEN: whole chicken, SAU: sausage, PIP: chicken drumstick, AIP: chicken wing, QAP: chicken forequarter, API: guinea fowl wing. A, B, C, D, E, F, G: names of cold rooms.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Carriage rate of Salmonella spp. in the samples</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >A</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >B</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >D</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >E</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >F</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >G</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >API (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/5 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/20 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/25 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ARP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/10 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/10 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CUP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/40 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/15 (6.67)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/55 (1.82)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PIP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/50 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/95 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PEN (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5/5 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5/5 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >QAP (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/5 (20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/35 (2.86)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SAU (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/35 (2.86)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/40 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/35 (17.14)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/45 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/70 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7/285 (2.46)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Legend: CUP: chicken leg, ARP: chicken breast, PEN: whole chicken, SAU: sausage, PIP: chicken drumstick, AIP: chicken wing, QAP: chicken forequarter, API: guinea fowl wing. A, B, C, D, E, F, G: names of cold rooms.</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Breakdown of germs isolated by level of contamination</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >FAMT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >E. coli</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >ASR</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >STAPH</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >SALM</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >CUP (n = 55)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.80%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.82%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.18%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.82%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >ARP (n = 10)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >PEN (n = 5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >SAU (n = 30)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >PIP (n = 95)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >AIP (n = 25)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >QAP (n = 35)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.71%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.29%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.57%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.86%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.57%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.14%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.86%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >API (n = 30)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.33%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.67%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.67%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.33%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >S</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >S</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Legend: CUP: chicken leg, ARP: chicken armor, PEN: whole chicken, SAU: sausage, PIP: chicken drumstick, AIP: chicken wing, QAP: chicken forequarter, API: guinea fowl wing. TP: carriage rate, C: conformity, S: satisfactory, A: acceptable, NS: unsatisfactory.</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Results of antibiogram tests on isolated salmonella (n = 7)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Antibiotics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Resistance (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sensitivity (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AM (10 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (28.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (71.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AMC (20 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (28.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (71.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TC (75 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TCC (75/10 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PRL (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CL (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (28.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FOX (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (14.28)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.71</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CXM (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (28.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (71.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CAZ (10 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (28.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (71.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CTR (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (28.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (71.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEF (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ATM (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (28.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (71.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >IPM (10 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ETP (10 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AK (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GEN (10 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TOB (10 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NET (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SXT(1.25/23.75 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NA (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (28.57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (71.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >OFX (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NOR (30 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CIP (5 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FF (200 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >N (100 μg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (100)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Legend: AM: Amoxicillin, AMC: Augmentin, TC: Ticarcillin TCC: Ticarcillin + clavulanic acid, PRL: Piperacillin + Tazobactam, CL: Cefalexin, FOX: Cefoxitin, CXM: Cefuroxime, CAZ: Ceftazidime, CTR: Ceftriaxone, CEF: Cefepime, ATM: Aztreonam, IPM: Imipeneme, ETP: Ertapeneme, AK: Amikacin, GEN: Gentamicin, TOB: Tobramycin, NET: Netilmicin, C: Chloramphenicol, SXT: Trimethoprime-Sulfamethoxazole, NA: Nalidixic acid, OFX: Ofloxacin, NOR: Norfloxacin, CIP: Ciprofloxacin, FF: Fosfomycin and N: Nitrofurantoin.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>In Togo, despite the government’s efforts, food requirements in terms of animal proteins are not covered by national production and are subject to huge imports of meat products. It is therefore imperative to examine the microbiological quality of broiler meat in order to assess the risk it may pose to public health. The table “<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>” and “<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>” below summarize the prevalence, average loads and base 10 log expressions obtained in this study.</p><p>In this study, qualitative and quantitative analysis revealed that 71.71% of the samples were contaminated with TAMF, with an average load of (5.92 log10 CFU/g). This could be mainly due to the lack of hygiene of the processes in the slaughterhouses of origin. Our results are similar to those obtained by Omorodion et al. (2014) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref12">12</xref>] and L. Kozačinski et al. (2006) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref13">13</xref>] with respective loads of 5.96 log CFU/g and 5.23 log10 CFU/g in market chicken meat. In contrast to our study, Bhandari et al. (2013) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref14">14</xref>] , Sengupta et al. (2012) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref15">15</xref>] , found respective loads of 7.24 log, CFU/g, 6.39 log CFU/g as well as 'Abraham Adu-Gyamfi et al. (2012) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref16">16</xref>] who in a study of chickens in supermarkets, local markets and farms, obtained respective averages of 6.46, 6.91 and 6.57 log10 CFU/g. In Korea, the average levels of TAMF found in chicken samples were 3.10 log CFU/g [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref17">17</xref>] , which is lower than in the present study (5.92 log CFU/g). Also, low loads of TAMF compared to our results were reported by Siddiqui et al. (2008) (3.67 log CFU/g) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref18">18</xref>] ; Al jasser et al. (2012) (4.03 log CFU/g) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref19">19</xref>] and Fernandes et al. 2016 (4.15 log CFU/g) in Brazil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref20">20</xref>] .</p><p>Despite the 71.71% prevalence of TAMF and a mean load of 5.92 log CFU/g, all the samples submitted to our study were downgraded to Satisfactory according to the FCD 2022 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref10">10</xref>] criteria and the three-class design analysis. In contrast,</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence, average load and expression in log 10 of the results obtained</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Germs</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Results</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Expression in log 10</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Prevalence%</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AMFT</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.4 &#177; 8.3 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.92 log10 UFC/g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.71%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Escherichia coli</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1 &#177; 7.1 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.85 log10 UFC/g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.98%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ASR</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.6 &#177; 9.8 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.98 log10 UFC/g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.73%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Staphylococci</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Salmonella</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.46%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>. Summary of the average loads of all the germs tested for according to the different types of samples.</p><p>Parameters</p><p>Criteria</p><p>CUP (55)</p><p>ARP (10)</p><p>PEN (5)</p><p>SAU (30)</p><p>PIP (95)</p><p>AIP (25)</p><p>QAP (35)</p><p>API (30)</p><p>ASR</p><p>≤m</p><p>≤100</p><p>&lt;10</p><p>&lt;10</p><p>&lt;10</p><p>&lt;10</p><p>&lt;10</p><p>&lt;10</p><p>(24) &lt;10</p><p>(15) ≤100</p><p>m &lt; x &lt; M</p><p>100 &lt; x &lt; 10<sup>3</sup></p><p>(1) 2.6 &#215; 10<sup>2</sup></p><p>(14) 3.3 &#177; 2.6 &#215; 10<sup>2</sup></p><p>M</p><p>M˃10<sup>3</sup></p><p>(10) 1.1 &#177; 1.05 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup></p><p>(1) 1.3 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup></p><p>AMTF</p><p>≤m</p><p>&lt;5 &#215; 10<sup>6</sup></p><p>&lt;5 &#215; 10<sup>6</sup></p><p>8.3 &#215; 10<sup>6</sup> &#177; 4.7 &#215; 10<sup>6</sup></p><p>&lt;5 &#215; 10<sup>6</sup></p><p>(3) &lt;1.0 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup></p><p>3.6 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup> &#177; 3.6 &#215; 10<sup>4</sup></p><p>(27) &lt;1 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup></p><p>5.8 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup> &#177; 3.5 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup></p><p>m &lt; x &lt; M</p><p>10<sup>7</sup> &lt; x &lt; 10<sup>8</sup></p><p>(92) 4.5 &#177; 2.9 &#215; 10<sup>6</sup></p><p>(8) 5.3 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup> &#177; 4.9 &#215; 10<sup>5 </sup></p><p>M</p><p>Escherichia coli</p><p>≤m</p><p>(43) &lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;400</p><p>&lt;400</p><p>(16) &lt;100</p><p>(1) &lt;400</p><p>m &lt; x &lt; M</p><p>(12) 1.1 &#215; 10<sup>4</sup> &#177; 7.6 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup></p><p>(19) 1.1 &#215; 10<sup>4</sup> &#177; 7.6 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup></p><p>(29) 1.9 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup> &#177; 1.3 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup></p><p>M</p><p>Staphylococci</p><p>≤m</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>&lt;100</p><p>Salmonella</p><p>ND</p><p>(54) ND</p><p>ND</p><p>(5) D</p><p>ND</p><p>ND</p><p>ND</p><p>(34) ND</p><p>ND</p><p>D</p><p>(1) D</p><p>(1) D</p><p>Legend: CUP: chicken leg, ARP: chicken breast, PEN: whole chicken, SAU: sausage, PIP: chicken drumstick, AIP: chicken wing, QAP: chicken forequarter, API: guinea fowl wing. A, B, C, D, E, F, G: names of cold rooms. D: Detected, ND: Not Detected; m = the criterion and M = 10 m.</p><p>a similar study carried out in Casablanca, Morocco, revealed that 29.2% of all poultry meat samples tested had an unacceptable TAMF according to Moroccan regulations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref21">21</xref>] . Our results are also contrary to those of G&#220;RAN et al. (2019) in Turkey, who on 240 samples of organic frozen chicken meat were 100% unsatisfactory with an average AMTF in chicken pieces (breast, thigh, chicken wings) of 4.99 &#177; 0.80 log10 CFU/g [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref22">22</xref>] .</p><p>It should be mentioned that TAMF can predict the shelf life of food products and is mainly used as an indicator of hygiene and process quality but not safety. TAMF in raw poultry indicates the hygienic conditions of the processing plants in which the food is treated and a high load increases the risk of microbial spoilage of the products [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref22">22</xref>] .</p><p>Staphylococci were absent from all the samples analyzed in our study. In contrast to our results, Maharjan et al. (2019) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref23">23</xref>] note the presence of 17.1% Staphylococci aureus in market meat; Kozačinski et al. (2012) (17.9%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref13">13</xref>] and Khallaf et al. (2014) (16.66%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref24">24</xref>] . This difference could be explained by the absence of this germ throughout the production chain. Indeed, Khallaf et al worked on chickens taken from slaughterhouse sites with different levels of hygiene. Thus, the degree of hygiene in slaughterhouses, the cleanliness of the water used during scalding, the hygiene of staff and the precautions taken during evisceration may be risk factors for contamination of chickens. Also, relatively high prevalence has been obtained by, Lidija Kozačinski, et al., (2006) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref13">13</xref>] ; Yar et al. (2021) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref25">25</xref>] and N. Alloui et al. (2013) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref8">8</xref>] respectively 30.30%; 35.4% and 46.66%. In other studies, Jansen et al (2018) (95%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref26">26</xref>] and Saikia et al. (2010) (100%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref27">27</xref>] obtained higher prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus in meat. These total Staphylococci were found with a load of 1.99 log CFU/g by Maharjan et al. (2019) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref23">23</xref>] in market meat and also in studies carried out by Sengupta et al. (2012) (3.7 log CFU/g) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref15">15</xref>] and Saikia et al. (2010) (4.07 log CFU/g) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref27">27</xref>] .</p><p>The presence of staphylococci in meat reflects unsanitary conditions, cross-contamination between the processing phase and the surrounding environment, processing temperature and personal contact. Staphylococcus aureus is a commensal organism of human skin and also a common pathogen, causing minor to severe infections, including food poisoning [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref28">28</xref>] .</p><p>Escherichia coli, which is an indicator of fecal contamination, synonymous with a lack of hygiene in the production process, gave a prevalence of 32.98% with an average load of 3.85 log10UFC/g during our study. A similar prevalence was obtained by Yar et al. (2021), 26.2% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref25">25</xref>] . Our results are lower than those obtained by N. Cohen et al. 2007 (48.4%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref21">21</xref>] ; Jansen et al. 2018 (67%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref26">26</xref>] and Mahmoud et al. (2020) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref29">29</xref>] , (54% and 48%) in chicken thighs. Compared to the average load, the mean numbers of Escherichia parcel detected in supermarkets, local markets and farms in a study carried out in Accra, Ghana by Abraham Adu-Gyamfi et al. (2012) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref16">16</xref>] are lower than ours (3.85 log10 CFU/g) and were 1.27, 2.59 and 2.74 log10 CFU/g respectively.</p><p>In contrast to our study, high prevalence was obtained by Egerv&#228;rn et al. (2014) (95%) in poultry meat imported mainly from Brazil (n = 40) in Sweden [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref30">30</xref>] . This difference in prevalence could be explained by the number of samples tested in these studies and ours and also by the fact that Escherichia coli is a mesophilic germ whose growth is inhibited by negative cold. Chicken meat is one of the main sources of good quality protein, but it is also sensitive to microbial contamination and is often implicated in food-borne illness. The presence of Escherichia coli is an important indicator of pollution and is the food-borne pathogen of greatest concern for public health [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref31">31</xref>] .</p><p>ASR were found in our study with a prevalence of 14.73% and a mean load of 2.98 lo10UFC/g. Our results are superior to those obtained by L. Kozačinski al.:2006 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref13">13</xref>] and Khan et al. 2015 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref32">32</xref>] ; who find prevalence of (1.50%) and (6%) in chickens, respectively. A contrary trend was recorded by Miwa et al. with a relatively high prevalence (82% - 84%) of Clostridium perfringens in poultry meat compared to beef (16%) and pork (10%) (Miwa et al. 1998) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref33">33</xref>] . In contrast to our study, a high prevalence was obtained by Singh et al. (2005) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref34">34</xref>] . According to Billon, these microorganisms are telluric germs, present in the intestines of animals and also found in humans, and can be responsible for toxic infections when the number of spores (genus clostridium) contained in the food exceeds the criteria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref35">35</xref>] . Salmonella spp. was detected in 7/285 (2.45%) of the samples in our study. Similar results were obtained by: N. Cohen et al. (2007) (1.6%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref21">21</xref>] in Morocco and Jansen et al. 2018 (1.2%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref26">26</xref>] . Our results are inferior to those obtained by L. Kozačinski et al. (2006) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref13">13</xref>] , Adeyanju and Ishola (2014) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref36">36</xref>] , Fernandes et al. (2016) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref20">20</xref>] , Mahmoud et al. (2020) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref29">29</xref>] ; respectively 10.60%; 33%; 18% and 9% in similar studies on frozen chicken. Contrary to our study, high prevalence was obtained by N. Alloui et al. (2013) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref8">8</xref>] 83.33% and 73.33% by Elgroud et al. in 2009 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref37">37</xref>] . Also, the prevalence of Salmonella in chicken and meat in slaughterhouses in Thailand and Japan was 41.2% and 40.7%, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref38">38</xref>] .</p><p>This prevalence, whatever their values, are alarming because Escherichia coli and Salmonella are the most important and most frequent pathogens responsible for food poisoning and food-related infections in chicken meat [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref39">39</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref40">40</xref>] . Similarly, breaded products based on frozen reformulated chicken have already been implicated in cases of salmonellosis in humans. An epidemic of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis involving several strains and more than 400 human cases was reported in the UK in 2020 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref41">41</xref>] . It should be noted that poultry can act as a reservoir for Salmonella and cause food-borne infections in humans [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref42">42</xref>] .</p><p>However, strict animal hygiene can reduce the number of contaminated carcasses. Therefore, the lack of strict hygiene throughout the production chain, the absence of health monitoring programs and the non-compliant prophylactic use of antibiotics against Salmonella could explain the presence of these Salmonella in these samples.</p><p>In this study, in terms of hygienic quality, all the samples were downgraded to satisfactory in terms of AMTF and Staphylococcus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref10">10</xref>] . 28.57% and 3.33% of chicken forequarters and guinea fowl wings respectively were Unsatisfactory with respect to reducing sulphur anaerobes. With regard to Salmonella spp, 1.82%, 2.86% and 100% of chicken thighs, chicken forequarters and whole chicken, respectively, were contaminated (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>). Certain rules of good hygiene and manufacturing practice, such as conditions of slaughter, plucking, evisceration, bleeding, washing, rinsing, preservation and sale, are often not respected during the slaughter process. Non-compliance with these hygiene rules is generally thought to be the cause of meat contamination.</p><p>In relation to Salmonella antibiograms, 28.7% (2/7) of Salmonella spp. (AOM) isolated were resistant to the following molecules: amoxicillin, amoxicillin-Ac clavulanique, cefalexime, cefuroxime, ceftazidime; aztreonam, nalidixic acid, ceftriaxone and 14.28% (1/7) were resistant to cefoxitin. All the other molecules tested showed no resistance. These tests revealed the presence of an ESBL strain (Amoxicillin-R, Amox + clav.-R, Cefalexin-R, Cefoxitin-S, Ceftriaxone-R, Cefepime -S), so we observed a “champagne cork” synergy between the amoxicillin + Clavulanic acid disc and the Ceftriaxone disc or another C3G/C4G. We also observed a cephalosporinase hyperproducing strain (Amoxicillin-R, Amox+clav.-R, Cefalexin-R, Cefepime -S). R, Cefalexin-R, Cefoxitin-R, Ceftriaxone-R, Cefepime -S).</p><p>According to the 2023 veterinary recommendations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref11">11</xref>] of the CA SFM: 1) If an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) is detected, the strain must be considered resistant to all beta-lactams available in veterinary medicine, with the exception of the amoxicillin-clavulanic acid combination. For this antibiotic, the raw result (S, I or R) is not subject to this interpretation rule. However, the in vivo efficacy of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid on a strain with an ESBL has not been documented in veterinary medicine. 2) In the event of evidence of cephalosporinase hyperproduction, the strain should be considered resistant to all beta-lactam antibiotics available in veterinary medicine [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref11">11</xref>] . However, the two ESBL and cephalosporinase hyperproducing strains in our study are resistant to all beta-lactams. These results confirm that, in poultry, these drugs are used either to treat disease or as non-prescription growth promoters, as they are cheap and readily available. Similar results showing resistance to Cefotaxime have been obtained from local chicken products by Sasaki et al. (2021) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref43">43</xref>] and by other studies in Japan and Brazil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref44">44</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref45">45</xref>] . Our results (28.7%) differ from those obtained by Caroline Bouda in Burkina Faso, who found resistance of around 60% to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid in chicken and guinea fowl isolates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref46">46</xref>] . Similar studies have shown that the increase in antimicrobial resistance among Salmonella strains in recent years can be attributed to the selection pressure created by the inappropriate application of antibiotics in veterinary and human medicine [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref47">47</xref>] .</p><p>We can extrapolate from the resistance observed to nalidixic acid by concluding that these two strains are then resistant to Fluoroquinolones, as nalidixic acid is the best marker of the first levels of resistance to quinolones [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref11">11</xref>] . In parallel with our study, very high levels of resistance to nalidixic acid (72.3%) were observed in a study in China [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref48">48</xref>] and in Brazil; in a comparative study between 2014 and 2017, with respective rates of 57.5% and 86.5% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref49">49</xref>] .</p><p>Sasaki et al. (2021) observed different high rates of resistance from us for streptomycin (51.1%), tetracycline (33.1%) and kanamycin (18.4%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref43">43</xref>] . However, the high sensitivities that we observed to the molecules tested could be explained either by the low use or the non-use of these antibiotics in poultry farms today. This difference in results with these authors can also be explained by the current awareness among farmers of the overuse of antibiotics, as these antibiotics are used haphazardly on farms and inevitably create selection pressure that favors the development of multi-resistant bacteria.</p><p>This multi-resistance is much more worrying, as these are antibiotic molecules commonly used in the treatment of human salmonellosis. In recent years, antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella spp. has increased due to factors such as the widespread use of antimicrobial agents in the food industry and veterinary medicine, growth-promoting substances and prophylactic and therapeutic solutions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref50">50</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref51">51</xref>] .</p><p>However, this undesirable trend has caused concern in the scientific community, as it not only increases the difficulty of treating salmonellosis, but also the spread of antimicrobial resistance in the food chain, particularly in chickens and poultry products [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref50">50</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref52">52</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.128821-ref53">53</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusions</title><p>Non-compliance with hygiene rules and poor preservation are generally thought to be the cause of contamination of chicken meat. The use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals can lead to increased bacterial resistance. It has been shown that some of the multi-resistant Salmonella strains found in humans are of animal origin and have acquired their resistance genes on farms before being transmitted to humans via food. Monitoring antimicrobial resistance in food animals can provide important information to address this problem.</p><p>The present study was undertaken to fill this gap and contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance control strategies in Togo. It has enabled the acquisition of data on the hygienic quality of imported chickens and bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which is necessary for better therapeutic management of infections and also contributes to the development of a strategy for controlling antimicrobial resistance.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Ethical Considerations</title><p>Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the poultry carcasses sellers and the study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of Togo.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Touglo, K., Sanni, Y.J., Amegan, L., Akolly, K., Nuto, Y.A., Halatoko, W.A., Sadji, A., Bidjada, B., Djeri, B., Karou, S.D. and Ameyapoh, Y.A. (2023) Evaluation of the Microbiological Quality of Poultry Imported into Togo and the Antibiotic Resistance of Salmonella spp. Isolated. Advances in Microbiology, 13, 499-516. https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2023.1310032</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.128821-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hanak, E., Boutrif, E., Fabre, P. and Pineiro, M. (2000) Food Safety Management in Developing Countries.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wingstrand, A., Neimann, J., Engberg, J., Nielsen, E.M., Gerner-Smidt, P., Wegener, H.C., et al. (2006) Fresh Chicken as Main Risk Factor for Campylobacteriosis, Denmark. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 12, 280-284. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1202.050936</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bumona Zayukua, E., Di M’balu Umba, J., Nzau Kusika, C., Ndyanabo Masimango, T. and Ndongala Lufimpadio, J.G. (2019) Contribution &amp;agrave; l’analyse microbiologique des poulets, des chinchards (Trachurus trachurus) et des poissons sal&amp;eacute;s vendus à Kinshasa en vue de la sensibilisation &amp;agrave; la m&amp;eacute;thode ISO-22000:2005 HACCP. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 42, 7256-7268. https://doi.org/10.35759/JAnmPlSci.v42-2.7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bhat, Z.F., Morton, J.D., Mason, S.L. and Bekhit, A.E.-D.A. (2019) Pulsed Electric Field Improved Protein Digestion of Beef during In-Vitro Gastrointestinal Simulation. LWT, 102, 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.12.013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Purohit, A.S., Reed, C. and Mohan, A. (2016) Development and Evaluation of Quail Breakfast Sausage. LWT—Food Science and Technology, 69, 447-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.01.058</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Accueil-Minist&amp;egrave;re de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et du D&amp;eacute;veloppement Rural. https://agriculture.gouv.tg</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cardinale, E., Perrier, J.D., Aidara, A., Tall, F., Coudert, C., Gueye, I.L., et al. (2000) Identification d’une nouvelle salmonelle multir&amp;eacute;sistante dans une viande de poulet de chair au S&amp;eacute;n&amp;eacute;gal. Revue d’&amp;eacute;levage et de m&amp;eacute;decine v&amp;eacute;t&amp;eacute;rinaire des pays tropicaux, 53, 5-8. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.9764</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alloui, M.N., Szczurek, W. and &amp;Sacute;wi&amp;aogon;tkiewicz, S. (2013) The Usefulness of Prebiotics and Probiotics in Modern Poultry Nutrition: A Review. Annals of Animal Science, 13, 17-32. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10220-012-0055-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abba, H., Somda, M.K., Antipas, B.B., Barro, N. and Traore, A.S. (2017) Pr&amp;eacute;valence et susceptibilit&amp;eacute; aux antibiotiques des souches de Salmonella spp. non typhiques isol&amp;eacute;es de la viande de poulets au Tchad. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 11, 107-117. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v11i1.9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">fcd crit&amp;egrave;res microbiologiques 2021—Recherche Google.https://www.fcd.fr/media/filer_public/52/8f/528faece-f678-4947-9243-b90440695a40/fcd_criteres_microbiologiques_2021_produits_ls_mp_04102021_vdef.pdf .</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">(2023) Comit&amp;eacute; de l’antibiogramme de la Soci&amp;eacute;t&amp;eacute; Franaise de Microbiologie Recommandations V&amp;eacute;t&amp;eacute;rinaires 2023—Recherche Google. https://www.sfm-microbiologie.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CASFM_VET2023.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Omorodion, N. and Odu, N.N. (2014) Microbiological Quality of Meats Sold in Port Harcourt Metropolis, Nigeria. Natural Sciences, 12, 58-62.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koza&amp;ccaron;inski, L., Had&amp;zcaron;iosmanovi&amp;cacute;, M. and Zdolec, N. (2006) Microbiological Quality of Poultry Meat on the Croatian Market. Veterinarski Arhiv, 76, 305-313.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bhandari, N., Nepali, D.B. and Paudyal, S. (2013) Assessment of Bacterial Load in Broiler Chicken Meat from the Retail Meat Shops in Chitwan, Nepal. International Journal of Infection and Microbiology, 2, 99-104. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijim.v2i3.8671</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sengupta, R., Das, R., Ganguly, S. and Mukhopadhayay, S.K. (2012) Commonly Occurring Bacterial Pathogens Affecting the Quality of Chicken Meat. International Journal of Chemical and Biochemical Sciences, 1, 21-23.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adu-Gyamfi, A., Torgby-Tetteh, W. and Appiah, V. (2012) Microbiological Quality of Chicken Sold in Accra and Determination of D10-Value of E. coli. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 3, 693-698. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2012.35094</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kim, Y.-J., Whan, C.-J., Kim, H.-S., Kim, K.-Y., Yim, J.-H., Cho, S.-H., et al. (2016) Improvement of Karmali Agar by Supplementation with Tazobactam for Detecting Campylobacter in Raw Poultry. Journal of Food Protection, 79, 1982-1985. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-105</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddiqui, M.A., Khan, L.A., Suradkar, U.S., Mendhe, M.S., Rindhe, S.N. and Sirsat, P.R. (2008) Bacterial Isolation and Their Antibiogram from Non-Specific Infection in Poultry of Marathwada Region. Veterinary World, 1, 52-53.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Al-jasser</surname><given-names> M.S. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2012</year>)<article-title>Effect of Cooling and Freezing Temperatures on Microbial and Chemical Properties of Chicken Meat during Storage</article-title><source> Journal of Food Agriculture &amp; Environment</source><volume> 10</volume>,<fpage> 113</fpage>-<lpage>116</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fernandes, R.T.V., Arruda, A.M.V.D., Costa, M.K.D.O., Lima, P.D.O., Santos, L.O.G.D., Melo, A.D.S., et al. (2016) Physicochemical and Microbiological Parameters of Frozen and Chilled Chicken Meat. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 45, 417-421. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902016000700009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cohen, N., Ennaji, H., Bouchrif, B., Hassar, M. and Karib, H. (2007) Comparative Study of Microbiological Quality of Raw Poultry Meat at Various Seasons and for Different Slaughtering Processes in Casablanca (Morocco). Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 16, 502-508. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2006-00061</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Javadi, A. and Safarmashaei, S. (2011) Microbial Profile of Marketed Broiler Meat. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 9, 652-656.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maharjan, S., Rayamajhee, B., Chhetri, V.S., Sherchan, S.P., Panta, O.P. and Karki, T.B. (2019) Microbial Quality of Poultry Meat in an ISO 22000:2005 Certified Poultry Processing Plant of Kathmandu Valley. Food Contamination, 6, Article No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40550-019-0078-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Khallaf, M., Benbakhta, B., Nasri, I., Sarhane, B., Senouci, S. and Ennaji, M.M. (2014) Pr&amp;eacute;valence du Staphylococcus aureus isol&amp;eacute; &amp;agrave; partir de la viande de poulet commercialis&amp;eacute;e au niveau de Rabat, Morocco. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 7, 1665-1670.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yar, D.D., JimahKwenin, W.K., Kwame Zanu, W., IddrisuBalali, G., Kwame Adepa, E. and Francis, G. (2021) Microbial Quality of Frozen Chicken Parts from Three Import Countries into the Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana. Microbiology Research Journal International, 31, 43-53. https://doi.org/10.9734/mrji/2021/v31i630326</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jansen, W., Woudstra, S., Müller, A., Grabowski, N., Schoo, G., Gerulat, B., et al. (2018) The Safety and Quality of Pork and Poultry Meat Imports for the Common European Market Received at Border Inspection Post Hamburg Harbour between 2014 and 2015. PLOS ONE, 13, e0192550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192550</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Saikia, P. and Joshi, S. (2010) Retail Market Poultry Meats of North-East India-A Microbiological Survey for Pathogenic Contaminants. Research Journal of Microbiology, 5, 36-43. https://doi.org/10.3923/jm.2010.36.43</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Farley, J.E., Hayat, M.J., Sacamano, P.L., Ross, T. and Carroll, K. (2015) Prevalence and Risk Factors for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an HIV-Positive Cohort. American Journal of Infection Control, 43, 329-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.12.024</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mahmoud, R., Saleh, A. and Alsadi, I. (2020) Assessment of Microbiological Quality of Imported Broiler Chicken Carcasses Retailed for Sale in Al Beida City, Libya. Damanhour Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 4, 16-19. https://doi.org/10.21608/djvs.2020.33638.1019</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Egerv&amp;auml;rn, M., B&amp;ouml;rjesson, S., Byfors, S., Finn, M., Kaipe, C., Englund, S., et al. (2014) Escherichia coli with Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases or Transferable AmpC Beta-Lactamases and Salmonella on Meat Imported into Sweden. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 171, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.11.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Helali, S., Sawelem Eid Alatawi, A. and Abdelghani, A. (2018) Pathogenic Escherichia coli Biosensor Detection on Chicken Food Samples. Journal of Food Safety, 38, e12510. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfs.12510</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Khan, M., Nazir, J., Anjum, A.A., Ahmad, M., Nawaz, M. and Shabbir, M.Z. (2015) Toxinotyping and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Enterotoxigenic Clostridium perfringens Isolates from Mutton, Beef and Chicken Meat. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52, 5323-5328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-014-1584-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miwa, N., Nishina, T., Kubo, S., Atsumi, M. and Honda, H. (1998) Amount of Enterotoxigenic Clostridium perfringens in Meat Detected by Nested PCR. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 42, 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(98)00082-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Singh, R.V., Bhilegaonkar, K.N. and Agarwal, R.K. (2005) Studies on Occurrence and Characterization of Clostridium perfringens from Select Meats. Journal of Food Safety, 25, 146-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.2005.00560.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Billon, J. and Poumeyrol, M. (1981) Evolution de l’origine des toxi-infections et intoxications alimentaires au cours des derni&amp;egrave;res ann&amp;eacute;es. Etude des 543 cas examin&amp;eacute;s au Laboratoire Central d’Hygi&amp;egrave;ne Alimentaire durant les ann&amp;eacute;es 1974-1980. Bulletin de l’Acad&amp;eacute;mie V&amp;eacute;t&amp;eacute;rinaire de France, 134, 425-435. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/65656</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adeyanju, G.T. and Ishola, O. (2014) Salmonella and Escherichia coli Contamination of Poultry Meat from a Processing Plant and Retail Markets in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. SpringerPlus, 3, 139. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-139</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Elgroud, R., Zerdoumi, F., Benazzouz, M., Bouzitouna-Bentchouala, C., Granier, S.A., Fr&amp;eacute;my, S., et al. (2009) Characteristics of Salmonella Contamination of Broilers and Slaughterhouses in the Region of Constantine (Algeria). Zoonoses and Public Health, 56, 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01164.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Noenchat, P., Direksin, K. and Sornplang, P. (2023) The Phenotypic and Genotypic Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Salmonella Isolated from Chickens and Meat at Poultry Slaughter Houses in Japan and Thailand. Veterinary World, 16, 1527-1533.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Akbar, A. and Anal, A.K. (2014) Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Loaded Active Packaging, a Challenge Study against Salmonella typhimurium and Staphylococcus aureus in Ready-to-Eat Poultry Meat. Food Control, 38, 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.065</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rouger, A., Tresse, O. and Zagorec, M. (2017) Bacterial Contaminants of Poultry Meat: Sources, Species, and Dynamics. Microorganisms, 5, Article No. 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms5030050</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">J&amp;oslash;rgensen, F., McLauchlin, J., Verlander, N.Q., Aird, H., Balasegaram, S., Chattaway, M.A., et al. (2022) Levels and Genotypes of Salmonella and Levels of Escherichia coli in Frozen Ready-to-Cook Chicken and Turkey Products in England Tested in 2020 in Relation to an Outbreak of S. enteritidis. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 369, Article ID: 109609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109609</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ramtahal, M.A., Amoako, D.G., Akebe, A.L.K., Somboro, A.M., Bester, L.A. and Essack, S.Y. (2022) A Public Health Insight into Salmonella in Poultry in Africa: A Review of the Past Decade: 2010-2020. Microbial Drug Resistance, 28, 710-733. https://doi.org/10.1089/mdr.2021.0384</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sasaki, Y., Kakizawa, H., Baba, Y., Ito, T., Haremaki, Y., Yonemichi, M., et al. (2021) Antimicrobial Resistance in Salmonella Isolated from Food Workers and Chicken Products in Japan. Antibiotics, 10, Article No. 1541. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121541</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Voss-Rech, D., Vaz, C.S.L., Alves, L., Coldebella, A., Le&amp;atilde;o, J.A., Rodrigues, D.P., et al. (2015) A Temporal Study of Salmonella enterica Serotypes from Broiler Farms in Brazil. Poultry Science, 94, 433-441. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/peu081</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Perin, A.P., Martins, B.T.F., Barreiros, M.A.B., Yamatogi, R.S., Nero, L.A. and dos Santos Bersot, L. (2020) Occurrence, Quantification, Pulse Types, and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Salmonella sp. Isolated from Chicken Meat in the State of Paran&amp;aacute;, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 51, 335-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-019-00188-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bouda, S.C., Kagamb&amp;egrave;ga, A., Bonifait, L., Gall, F.L., Ibrahim, H.B., Bako, E., et al. (2019) Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella enterica Isolated from Chicken and Guineafowl in Burkina Faso. International Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 4, 64-71. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmb.20190403.12</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kagamb&amp;egrave;ga, A., Lienemann, T., Aulu, L., Traor&amp;eacute;, A.S., Barro, N., Siitonen, A., et al. (2013) Prevalence and Characterization of Salmonella enterica from the Feces of Cattle, Poultry, Swine and Hedgehogs in Burkina Faso and Their Comparison to Human Salmonella Isolates. BMC Microbiology, 13, Article No. 253. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-13-253</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yang, X., Huang, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, S., Chen, L., Xiao, C., et al. (2020) Prevalence, Abundance, Serovars and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella Isolated from Retail Raw Poultry Meat in China. Science of the Total Environment, 713, Article ID: 136385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136385</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rau, R.B., Ribeiro, A.R., Dos Santos, A. and Barth, A.L. (2021) Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella from Poultry Meat in Brazil: Results of a Nationwide Survey. Epidemiology &amp; Infection, 149, e228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268821002156</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sodagari, H.R., Mashak, Z. and Ghadimianazar, A. (2015) Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella Serotypes Isolated from Retail Chicken Meat and Giblets in Iran. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 9, 463-469. https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.5945</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abd-Elghany, S.M., Sallam, K.I., Abd-Elkhalek, A. and Tamura, T. (2015) Occurrence, Genetic Characterization and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella Isolated from Chicken Meat and Giblets. Epidemiology &amp; Infection, 143, 997-1003. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268814001708</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Ricke, S.C. and Calo, J.R. (2015) Antibiotic Resistance in Pathogenic Salmonella. In: Chen, C.-Y., Yan, X.H. and Jackson, C.R., Eds., Antimicrobial Resistance and Food Safety, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801214-7.00003-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.128821-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lee, S.-K., Choi, D., Kim, H.-S., Kim, D.-H. and Seo, K.-H. (2016) Prevalence, Seasonal Occurrence, and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella spp. Isolates Recovered from Chicken Carcasses Sampled at Major Poultry Processing Plants of South Korea. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 13, 544-550. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2016.2144</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>