الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 128 |  |  |
| | | from | 128 | | |
Abstract
A total of 120 random samples of edible animal offal (liver , heart and
lung ) from cattle and camel , 20 samples of each organ from each species of animals were collected randomly from different slaughter houses of El
Monufeya Governorate.
These samples were examined for Enterobacteriacae count , coliform
count , incidence of Enterobacteriacae members & isolation and identification of.coli and Salmonella spp.
Furthermore, the obtained results indicated that the mean values of total
Enterobacteriacae count in the examined lung , liver and heart of cattle and
camel samples of were 8.53 ×104 ± 1.41×104 , 3.96 ×104 ± 0.75 × 104 , 9.17 ×103
± 2.08 ×103 , 5.26 ×104 ± 1.03×104 , 8.84 ×103 ± 2.17 × 103 and 4.59×103 ± 0.66
×103 cfu/g , respectively.
Differences associated with total Enterobacteriaceae counts as a result of
variation in offal samples and species of animal were highly significant (P
0.01).
The Incidence of enteric bacteria outlined revealed that the incidence of
Citrobacter diversus and Citrobacter freundii in examined lung , liver and heart
of cattle were 15% , 15% , 0% , 25% , 10% and 10% , respectively. While in
case of camel lung , liver and heart samples were 10% , 5% , 0% , 20%, 15%
and 5% , respectively. The incidence of Enterobacter. aerogenes , Enterobacter
cloacae and Enterobacter hafniae in examined lung , liver and heart of cattle
were 40% , 20% , 15% , 15% , 35% , 10% , 5% , 5% and 0% , respectively.
While in case of camel lung , liver and heart samples incidence of Enterobacter.
aerogenes , Enterobacter cloacae was 30% , 15% , 5% , 15% , 30% and 10% ,
respectively. Moreover, Klebsiella pneumonae and Klebsiella ozaenae in
examined lung , liver and heart samples of cattle were 50% , 15% , 0%, 20% ,
10% and 5% , respectively. While in case of camel lung , liver and heart
samples incidence of Klebsiella pneumonae and Klebsiella ozaenae was 40% ,
10% , 0%, 20% , 5% and 0% , respectively. Also, the incidence of Proteus
mirabilis , Proteus rettgeri and Proteus vulgaris in examined lung , liver and
heart samples of cattle were 60% , 25% , 40% , 20% , 0% , 0% , 35% , 55%
and 25% , respectively. While in case of camel lung , liver and heart samples
incidence of Proteus mirabilis and Proteus vulgaris was 45% , 20% , 25% , 15%
, 45% and 15% , respectively. As well as the incidence of Serratia liquefaciens
and Serratia marcescens in examined lung , liver and heart samples of cattle
were 25% , 5% , 10% , 10% , 0% and 0% , respectively. While in case of camel
lung , liver and heart samples incidence of Serratia liquefaciens was 15% , 0%
and 5%.
On the other hand, the mean values of coliform count (MPN) in the
examined lung , liver and heart of cattle and camel samples of were 1.72 ×104 ±
0.39×104 , 7.44 ×103± 1.86 × 103 , 3.25 ×103 ± 0.67 ×103, 9.51 ×103 ± 2.31×103 ,
4.27 ×103 ± 0.89 × 103 and 8.38×102 ± 1.93 ×103 cfu/g , respectively.
Differences associated with coliform counts as a result of variation in
offal samples and species of animal were highly significant (P 0.01).
The incidence of E. coli from the examined samples of lung , liver and
heart samples of cattle and camel was 20%,15 %, 5%, 10%, 10% and 0% ,
respectively. Moreover, the incidence of serologically identified E. coli as
Enteropathogenic E. coli (E. coli O55 : K59(B5) and E. coli O119: K69(B19)) was
10% , Enterotoxogenic E. coli (E. coli O127: K63(B8) ) was 10% ,
Enterheamorrhagic E. coli (E. coli O26 : K60(B6) and E. coli O111 : K58(B9)) was
35% and Untypable E. coli was 5%.
On the other hand, the incidence of Salmonella organisms were isolated
from lung , liver and heart samples of cattle and camel was 10%, 15% , 0% ,
10% , 20 % and 0% , respectively. Moreover, the isolated Salmonellae could be
serologically
identified,as,S.typhimurium,(15%),,S.,enteritidis,(20%),,,S.,dublin,(5%),,,
,S.,heidlberg,(5%) ,and,S.,leopoldville (10%)
The public health significance of isolated microorganisms and the possible
sources of contamination of edible animal offal with these organisms as well as suggestive hygienic measures to improve the quality of offal were discussed and
control measures taken to reduce contamination of it inside abattoirs.