Loading…

Isolation and Identification of Infection-Causing Bacteria in Dairy Animals and Determination of Their Antibiogram

Pathogens are always a threat to the livestock and domestic animals due to their exposure to the contaminated environments. The study was conducted to evaluation of the prevalence of Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., Salmonella spp., and S. aureus, in farm animals (cattle and buffalos). A total of 15...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of food quality 2021-12, Vol.2021, p.1-9
Main Authors: Arbab, Safia, Ullah, Hanif, Wang, Weiwei, Li, Ka, Akbar, Ali, Zhang, Jiyu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-3a795444f841ae1fea8a991f8144b9426f77613d4fd0e22e2a9483eedb5a343b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-3a795444f841ae1fea8a991f8144b9426f77613d4fd0e22e2a9483eedb5a343b3
container_end_page 9
container_issue
container_start_page 1
container_title Journal of food quality
container_volume 2021
creator Arbab, Safia
Ullah, Hanif
Wang, Weiwei
Li, Ka
Akbar, Ali
Zhang, Jiyu
description Pathogens are always a threat to the livestock and domestic animals due to their exposure to the contaminated environments. The study was conducted to evaluation of the prevalence of Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., Salmonella spp., and S. aureus, in farm animals (cattle and buffalos). A total of 150 (n = 150) samples were collected from cattle and buffaloes, 60 samples from cows’ and buffalo’s teats milk, 30 of water samples, and 60 of fecal samples isolates from dairy farm animals, which may act as reservoir disseminating such pathogens. Farm hygiene, management, and milking procedure were listed through a questionnaire. The most common pathogens detected in this study was E. coli 88 (58%) and S. aureus 81 (54%), followed by Salmonella spp. 32 (21%), and Shigella spp. 44 (29%), respectively. During the antibiogram studies, the results revealed that the highest number of bacterial isolates showed resistance against ampicillin 50 (56.8%), followed by ciprofloxacin 23 (26.1%) and augmentin 22 (25%) of Escherichia coli and ampicillin 49 (60.4%), cefpodoxime 23 (28.3%), and augmentin 20 (24.6%) of S. aureus. In the case of Salmonella spp., the highest resistance was showed by amoxicillin 16 (50%). In Shigella spp., the highest resistance was shown by ampicillin 16 (36.3%), followed by cefpodoxime and ceftazidime 10 (22.7%). The high frequency of isolates in this investigation with multiple antibiotic resistance ranges from 15. MARI % value of S. aureus and E. coli 15 (12.5%), followed by Salmonella and Shigella spp. ranges from 12 (10%), suggesting the presence of various antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well as highly resistant bacteria. The mean ± SD zone areas for the greater resistance are for E. coli and S. aureus, already known to be multiresistant, followed by Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp., when the zone areas are for the low resistance, and the findings determined that there was a little difference between S. aureus and E. coli.
doi_str_mv 10.1155/2021/2958304
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_628d354de19e41af81f14f2ff31ddde9</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A696962882</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_628d354de19e41af81f14f2ff31ddde9</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A696962882</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-3a795444f841ae1fea8a991f8144b9426f77613d4fd0e22e2a9483eedb5a343b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhiMEEkvhxg-IxBHS-jOJj8sW2kiVuJSzNWuPt7Pa2MXJCvXf19tURUgIzcHyO8-8M6Opqo-cnXOu9YVggl8Io3vJ1KtqxTulG6V197paMa7axijRv63eTdOeMak1U6sqD1M6wEwp1hB9PXiMMwVyi5RCPcSA7vRpNnCcKO7qr-BmzAQ1xfoSKD_U60gjHKYnh0ssyZHii8HtHVIuyExbSrsM4_vqTSg0fnh-z6qf37_dbq6bmx9Xw2Z90zjVsbmR0BmtlAq94oA8IPRgDA89V2pbNmlD17VcehU8QyFQgFG9RPRbDVLJrTyrhsXXJ9jb-1xmzA82AdknIeWdhTyTO6BtRe-lVh65wdKt9AhcBRGC5N57NMXr0-J1n9OvI06z3adjjmV8K1rOZcuMaf9QOyimFEOaM7iRJmfXrSkh-l4U6vwfVAmPI7kUMVDR_yr4shS4nKYpY3hZhjN7Orw9Hd4-H77gnxf8jqKH3_R_-hFLgauT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2611360996</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Isolation and Identification of Infection-Causing Bacteria in Dairy Animals and Determination of Their Antibiogram</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><source>Wiley Open Access</source><source>BSC - Ebsco (Business Source Ultimate)</source><creator>Arbab, Safia ; Ullah, Hanif ; Wang, Weiwei ; Li, Ka ; Akbar, Ali ; Zhang, Jiyu</creator><contributor>Hashemi Gahruie, Hadi ; Hadi Hashemi Gahruie</contributor><creatorcontrib>Arbab, Safia ; Ullah, Hanif ; Wang, Weiwei ; Li, Ka ; Akbar, Ali ; Zhang, Jiyu ; Hashemi Gahruie, Hadi ; Hadi Hashemi Gahruie</creatorcontrib><description>Pathogens are always a threat to the livestock and domestic animals due to their exposure to the contaminated environments. The study was conducted to evaluation of the prevalence of Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., Salmonella spp., and S. aureus, in farm animals (cattle and buffalos). A total of 150 (n = 150) samples were collected from cattle and buffaloes, 60 samples from cows’ and buffalo’s teats milk, 30 of water samples, and 60 of fecal samples isolates from dairy farm animals, which may act as reservoir disseminating such pathogens. Farm hygiene, management, and milking procedure were listed through a questionnaire. The most common pathogens detected in this study was E. coli 88 (58%) and S. aureus 81 (54%), followed by Salmonella spp. 32 (21%), and Shigella spp. 44 (29%), respectively. During the antibiogram studies, the results revealed that the highest number of bacterial isolates showed resistance against ampicillin 50 (56.8%), followed by ciprofloxacin 23 (26.1%) and augmentin 22 (25%) of Escherichia coli and ampicillin 49 (60.4%), cefpodoxime 23 (28.3%), and augmentin 20 (24.6%) of S. aureus. In the case of Salmonella spp., the highest resistance was showed by amoxicillin 16 (50%). In Shigella spp., the highest resistance was shown by ampicillin 16 (36.3%), followed by cefpodoxime and ceftazidime 10 (22.7%). The high frequency of isolates in this investigation with multiple antibiotic resistance ranges from 15. MARI % value of S. aureus and E. coli 15 (12.5%), followed by Salmonella and Shigella spp. ranges from 12 (10%), suggesting the presence of various antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well as highly resistant bacteria. The mean ± SD zone areas for the greater resistance are for E. coli and S. aureus, already known to be multiresistant, followed by Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp., when the zone areas are for the low resistance, and the findings determined that there was a little difference between S. aureus and E. coli.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0146-9428</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-4557</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1155/2021/2958304</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cairo: Hindawi</publisher><subject>Amoxicillin ; Animal lactation ; Animals ; Antibiotic resistance ; Antibiotics ; Antimicrobial agents ; Bacteria ; Bacterial infections ; Cattle ; Dairy farming ; Dairy farms ; Domestic animals ; Drinking water ; Drug resistance ; Drug resistance in microorganisms ; E coli ; Escherichia coli ; Feces ; Food contamination &amp; poisoning ; Food quality ; Gram-positive bacteria ; Health aspects ; Laboratories ; Livestock ; Metabolites ; Methylene blue ; Microorganisms ; Milk ; Morphology ; Organisms ; Pathogens ; Public health ; Salmonella ; Staphylococcus aureus ; Staphylococcus infections ; Tetracycline ; Tetracyclines ; Water analysis ; Water sampling</subject><ispartof>Journal of food quality, 2021-12, Vol.2021, p.1-9</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2021 Safia Arbab et al.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Safia Arbab et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-3a795444f841ae1fea8a991f8144b9426f77613d4fd0e22e2a9483eedb5a343b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-3a795444f841ae1fea8a991f8144b9426f77613d4fd0e22e2a9483eedb5a343b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9448-8312 ; 0000-0002-9940-9708 ; 0000-0003-1052-8522</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2611360996/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2611360996?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Hashemi Gahruie, Hadi</contributor><contributor>Hadi Hashemi Gahruie</contributor><creatorcontrib>Arbab, Safia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ullah, Hanif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Weiwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Ka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akbar, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jiyu</creatorcontrib><title>Isolation and Identification of Infection-Causing Bacteria in Dairy Animals and Determination of Their Antibiogram</title><title>Journal of food quality</title><description>Pathogens are always a threat to the livestock and domestic animals due to their exposure to the contaminated environments. The study was conducted to evaluation of the prevalence of Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., Salmonella spp., and S. aureus, in farm animals (cattle and buffalos). A total of 150 (n = 150) samples were collected from cattle and buffaloes, 60 samples from cows’ and buffalo’s teats milk, 30 of water samples, and 60 of fecal samples isolates from dairy farm animals, which may act as reservoir disseminating such pathogens. Farm hygiene, management, and milking procedure were listed through a questionnaire. The most common pathogens detected in this study was E. coli 88 (58%) and S. aureus 81 (54%), followed by Salmonella spp. 32 (21%), and Shigella spp. 44 (29%), respectively. During the antibiogram studies, the results revealed that the highest number of bacterial isolates showed resistance against ampicillin 50 (56.8%), followed by ciprofloxacin 23 (26.1%) and augmentin 22 (25%) of Escherichia coli and ampicillin 49 (60.4%), cefpodoxime 23 (28.3%), and augmentin 20 (24.6%) of S. aureus. In the case of Salmonella spp., the highest resistance was showed by amoxicillin 16 (50%). In Shigella spp., the highest resistance was shown by ampicillin 16 (36.3%), followed by cefpodoxime and ceftazidime 10 (22.7%). The high frequency of isolates in this investigation with multiple antibiotic resistance ranges from 15. MARI % value of S. aureus and E. coli 15 (12.5%), followed by Salmonella and Shigella spp. ranges from 12 (10%), suggesting the presence of various antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well as highly resistant bacteria. The mean ± SD zone areas for the greater resistance are for E. coli and S. aureus, already known to be multiresistant, followed by Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp., when the zone areas are for the low resistance, and the findings determined that there was a little difference between S. aureus and E. coli.</description><subject>Amoxicillin</subject><subject>Animal lactation</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Antibiotic resistance</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Antimicrobial agents</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Bacterial infections</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Dairy farming</subject><subject>Dairy farms</subject><subject>Domestic animals</subject><subject>Drinking water</subject><subject>Drug resistance</subject><subject>Drug resistance in microorganisms</subject><subject>E coli</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>Feces</subject><subject>Food contamination &amp; poisoning</subject><subject>Food quality</subject><subject>Gram-positive bacteria</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Livestock</subject><subject>Metabolites</subject><subject>Methylene blue</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>Milk</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Organisms</subject><subject>Pathogens</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Salmonella</subject><subject>Staphylococcus aureus</subject><subject>Staphylococcus infections</subject><subject>Tetracycline</subject><subject>Tetracyclines</subject><subject>Water analysis</subject><subject>Water sampling</subject><issn>0146-9428</issn><issn>1745-4557</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhiMEEkvhxg-IxBHS-jOJj8sW2kiVuJSzNWuPt7Pa2MXJCvXf19tURUgIzcHyO8-8M6Opqo-cnXOu9YVggl8Io3vJ1KtqxTulG6V197paMa7axijRv63eTdOeMak1U6sqD1M6wEwp1hB9PXiMMwVyi5RCPcSA7vRpNnCcKO7qr-BmzAQ1xfoSKD_U60gjHKYnh0ssyZHii8HtHVIuyExbSrsM4_vqTSg0fnh-z6qf37_dbq6bmx9Xw2Z90zjVsbmR0BmtlAq94oA8IPRgDA89V2pbNmlD17VcehU8QyFQgFG9RPRbDVLJrTyrhsXXJ9jb-1xmzA82AdknIeWdhTyTO6BtRe-lVh65wdKt9AhcBRGC5N57NMXr0-J1n9OvI06z3adjjmV8K1rOZcuMaf9QOyimFEOaM7iRJmfXrSkh-l4U6vwfVAmPI7kUMVDR_yr4shS4nKYpY3hZhjN7Orw9Hd4-H77gnxf8jqKH3_R_-hFLgauT</recordid><startdate>20211208</startdate><enddate>20211208</enddate><creator>Arbab, Safia</creator><creator>Ullah, Hanif</creator><creator>Wang, Weiwei</creator><creator>Li, Ka</creator><creator>Akbar, Ali</creator><creator>Zhang, Jiyu</creator><general>Hindawi</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Hindawi Limited</general><general>Hindawi-Wiley</general><scope>RHU</scope><scope>RHW</scope><scope>RHX</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9448-8312</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9940-9708</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1052-8522</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211208</creationdate><title>Isolation and Identification of Infection-Causing Bacteria in Dairy Animals and Determination of Their Antibiogram</title><author>Arbab, Safia ; Ullah, Hanif ; Wang, Weiwei ; Li, Ka ; Akbar, Ali ; Zhang, Jiyu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-3a795444f841ae1fea8a991f8144b9426f77613d4fd0e22e2a9483eedb5a343b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Amoxicillin</topic><topic>Animal lactation</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Antibiotic resistance</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Antimicrobial agents</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Bacterial infections</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Dairy farming</topic><topic>Dairy farms</topic><topic>Domestic animals</topic><topic>Drinking water</topic><topic>Drug resistance</topic><topic>Drug resistance in microorganisms</topic><topic>E coli</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>Feces</topic><topic>Food contamination &amp; poisoning</topic><topic>Food quality</topic><topic>Gram-positive bacteria</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Livestock</topic><topic>Metabolites</topic><topic>Methylene blue</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>Milk</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Organisms</topic><topic>Pathogens</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Salmonella</topic><topic>Staphylococcus aureus</topic><topic>Staphylococcus infections</topic><topic>Tetracycline</topic><topic>Tetracyclines</topic><topic>Water analysis</topic><topic>Water sampling</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Arbab, Safia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ullah, Hanif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Weiwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Ka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akbar, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jiyu</creatorcontrib><collection>Hindawi Publishing Complete</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Subscription Journals</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Journal of food quality</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Arbab, Safia</au><au>Ullah, Hanif</au><au>Wang, Weiwei</au><au>Li, Ka</au><au>Akbar, Ali</au><au>Zhang, Jiyu</au><au>Hashemi Gahruie, Hadi</au><au>Hadi Hashemi Gahruie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Isolation and Identification of Infection-Causing Bacteria in Dairy Animals and Determination of Their Antibiogram</atitle><jtitle>Journal of food quality</jtitle><date>2021-12-08</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>2021</volume><spage>1</spage><epage>9</epage><pages>1-9</pages><issn>0146-9428</issn><eissn>1745-4557</eissn><abstract>Pathogens are always a threat to the livestock and domestic animals due to their exposure to the contaminated environments. The study was conducted to evaluation of the prevalence of Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., Salmonella spp., and S. aureus, in farm animals (cattle and buffalos). A total of 150 (n = 150) samples were collected from cattle and buffaloes, 60 samples from cows’ and buffalo’s teats milk, 30 of water samples, and 60 of fecal samples isolates from dairy farm animals, which may act as reservoir disseminating such pathogens. Farm hygiene, management, and milking procedure were listed through a questionnaire. The most common pathogens detected in this study was E. coli 88 (58%) and S. aureus 81 (54%), followed by Salmonella spp. 32 (21%), and Shigella spp. 44 (29%), respectively. During the antibiogram studies, the results revealed that the highest number of bacterial isolates showed resistance against ampicillin 50 (56.8%), followed by ciprofloxacin 23 (26.1%) and augmentin 22 (25%) of Escherichia coli and ampicillin 49 (60.4%), cefpodoxime 23 (28.3%), and augmentin 20 (24.6%) of S. aureus. In the case of Salmonella spp., the highest resistance was showed by amoxicillin 16 (50%). In Shigella spp., the highest resistance was shown by ampicillin 16 (36.3%), followed by cefpodoxime and ceftazidime 10 (22.7%). The high frequency of isolates in this investigation with multiple antibiotic resistance ranges from 15. MARI % value of S. aureus and E. coli 15 (12.5%), followed by Salmonella and Shigella spp. ranges from 12 (10%), suggesting the presence of various antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well as highly resistant bacteria. The mean ± SD zone areas for the greater resistance are for E. coli and S. aureus, already known to be multiresistant, followed by Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp., when the zone areas are for the low resistance, and the findings determined that there was a little difference between S. aureus and E. coli.</abstract><cop>Cairo</cop><pub>Hindawi</pub><doi>10.1155/2021/2958304</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9448-8312</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9940-9708</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1052-8522</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0146-9428
ispartof Journal of food quality, 2021-12, Vol.2021, p.1-9
issn 0146-9428
1745-4557
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_628d354de19e41af81f14f2ff31ddde9
source Publicly Available Content (ProQuest); Wiley Open Access; BSC - Ebsco (Business Source Ultimate)
subjects Amoxicillin
Animal lactation
Animals
Antibiotic resistance
Antibiotics
Antimicrobial agents
Bacteria
Bacterial infections
Cattle
Dairy farming
Dairy farms
Domestic animals
Drinking water
Drug resistance
Drug resistance in microorganisms
E coli
Escherichia coli
Feces
Food contamination & poisoning
Food quality
Gram-positive bacteria
Health aspects
Laboratories
Livestock
Metabolites
Methylene blue
Microorganisms
Milk
Morphology
Organisms
Pathogens
Public health
Salmonella
Staphylococcus aureus
Staphylococcus infections
Tetracycline
Tetracyclines
Water analysis
Water sampling
title Isolation and Identification of Infection-Causing Bacteria in Dairy Animals and Determination of Their Antibiogram
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T16%3A30%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Isolation%20and%20Identification%20of%20Infection-Causing%20Bacteria%20in%20Dairy%20Animals%20and%20Determination%20of%20Their%20Antibiogram&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20food%20quality&rft.au=Arbab,%20Safia&rft.date=2021-12-08&rft.volume=2021&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=9&rft.pages=1-9&rft.issn=0146-9428&rft.eissn=1745-4557&rft_id=info:doi/10.1155/2021/2958304&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA696962882%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-3a795444f841ae1fea8a991f8144b9426f77613d4fd0e22e2a9483eedb5a343b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2611360996&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A696962882&rfr_iscdi=true