Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-7rbh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T14:55:17.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2025

A response to the following question: How to tackle food security and sustainability using a One Health Perspective?

Aliyu Evuti Haruna*
Affiliation:
Africa Centre of Excellence for Mycotoxins and Food Safety Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria Livestock productivity and Residences Support Project, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Minna, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria
Nasiru Usman Adabara
Affiliation:
Africa Centre of Excellence for Mycotoxins and Food Safety Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria
Nma Bida Alhaji
Affiliation:
Africa Centre of Excellence for Mycotoxins and Food Safety Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria
Hajara Usman Sadiq
Affiliation:
Africa Centre of Excellence for Mycotoxins and Food Safety Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria
John Yisa Adama
Affiliation:
Africa Centre of Excellence for Mycotoxins and Food Safety Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria
Hadiza Lami Muhammed
Affiliation:
Africa Centre of Excellence for Mycotoxins and Food Safety Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria
Hussaini Anthony Makun
Affiliation:
Africa Centre of Excellence for Mycotoxins and Food Safety Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria
*
Corresponding author: Aliyu Evuti Haruna; Email: pg4412669.haruna@st.futminna.edu.ng
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the prevalence of coliform contamination in fresh milk and the occurrence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria within poultry environments on an integrated farm in Minna, Niger State. Bacterial isolates obtained from raw milk, poultry cloacal swabs, and intestinal swabs from commensal rats included Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella species. These isolates were screened for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles. The results revealed a high level of bacterial contamination in milk samples, with significant associations between contamination levels and poor hygiene practices during milking and handling. Moreover, ESBL-producing bacteria displaying resistance to critically important antibiotics such as third-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones were identified across both dairy and poultry sources. These findings highlight a pressing public health concern and emphasize the need for improved biosecurity, hygiene interventions and integrated AMR surveillance to safeguard food safety and reduce the spread of MDR pathogens in animal-source foods.

Information

Type
Analysis
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Map of Niger state showing the location of LGAs (Source: Google maps).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Proportions of different organisms identified from milk identified by Microbact.12E.

Figure 2

Table 1. Antibiotic susceptibilities of 19 Salmonella isolates milk to 23 different antibiotics

Figure 3

Table 2. Multi-drug resistance patterns of 19 Salmonella isolates from milk to 23 Different antibiotics

Figure 4

Table 3. Multiple antibiotic resistance index (MARI) of 19 Salmonella isolated from milk

Figure 5

Figure 3. PCR detection of invA virulence gene in 16 Salmonella isolates. L1 = 100bp DNA ladder, L2 = Positive control, L3 to 18 are isolates KC9, KR8, KC2, KR1, KC7, KKK, KC4, KR4, KC10, KR14, KCa2, KC7, SC2, ER8, ER27 and EC6, respectively; L19 = Negative control.

Figure 6

Figure 4. PCR detection of bla TEM in Salmonella isolates, M = DNA marker, PC = positive control, ladder: 1 to 12, are isolates: KC9, KR8, KC2, KR1, KC7, KKK, KC4, KR4, KC10, KR14, KCa2, KC7, respectively; NC = negative control.

Figure 7

Figure 5. PCR detection of blaSH gene in Salmonella isolates, PC = positive control, Lanes 1 to 12, are as follows KC9, KR8, KC2, KR1, KC7, KKK, KC4, KR4, KC10, KR14, KCa2, KC7, respectively NC = negative control.

Figure 8

Table 4. Antibiotic susceptibilities of E.coli and Klebsiella isolates from rats and chickens

Figure 9

Figure 6. Percentage sensitivity of Salmonella isolates to 23 different antibiotics. S = sensitive, R = resistances. The Y-axis represents the percentage of isolates. (1) Aminoglycosides, (2) Cephalosporins, (3) Carbapenems, (4) Folate pathway inhibitors, (5) Nitrofuran derivatives, (6) Macrolide, (7) Phenicols, (8) Penicillin, (9) Quinolones, (10) Tetracyclines.

Author Comment: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state — R0/PR2

Comments

Thank you to the authors for this interesting manuscript. According to the title, this is research on coliform bacteria in milk, but there is repeated reference to poultry farms throughout (at one point you mention it as a comparator in your aims, but it is never mentioned in the methods or results), which made the reviewing of this paper difficult. For this manuscript to be published, I would recommend a re-write, ensuring that the manuscript focuses on one thing throughout.

Some points for revision include:

• A lot of your statements need referencing

• The methods section requires much more detail:

- You need to write methodological details in full so another person could replicate them (e.g. how long did you run the gel electrophoresis for, how long did you incubate the MacConkey agar plates and at what temperature)

- If you used already published methods, then you need to add the reference

- You need to add the manufacturer and ideally item number for all of the items you used.

• In your results section, the table and figure numbers don’t match with those in the text

Presentation

Overall score 3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
3 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the analysis to the question under consideration? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
3 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 3 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the study? (40%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations as well as the contributions of the analysis clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5
Are the principal conclusions supported by the analysis? (40%)
3 out of 5

Review: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state — R0/PR3

Comments

General Comments:

• Update the title to clearly reflect the investigation of isolates from both poultry environments and fresh milk as well as fermented milk. Suggested titles:

o Understanding Public Health Risks: Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Isolates from Milk and Poultry Environments in Minna, Niger State

o Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Bacterial Isolates from Fresh and Fermented Milk and Poultry Environments: Implications for Public Health in Minna, Niger State

• While the title indicates the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in coliform bacteria found in milk, the manuscript also extensively discusses results regarding Salmonella. Although part of the Enterobacteriaceae family, Salmonella is not classified as coliform bacteria (e.g., Escherichia, Klebsiella, Citrobacter, Enterobacter), as it typically does not ferment lactose, unlike coliforms.

• Clarify the connection between the milk isolates and the isolates from poultry environments in Niger State. Specifically, do these isolates originate from shared ownership, facilities, compounds, or communities? The rationale for selecting these sites and isolates should be clearly stated. The manuscript does not adequately establish how activities or antibiotic usage in poultry settings influence the prevalence of resistant bacterial isolates in milk samples, or vice versa.

• Certain portions of the manuscript fail to clearly explain the significance of including poultry environment data, giving the impression that these results were incorporated at a later stage. The inclusion of such data needs to be seamlessly integrated into the study's narrative, including in the section of (Line 53) Importance of the study: The convergence of milk contamination and the prevalence of MDR bacteria in diary production presents a public health challenge, particularly in developing regions where antimicrobial resistance surveillance is limited. This study aims to: 1. Assess coliform contamination in milk samples. 2. Identify and characterize MDR bacteria in milk samples.

• Specify the exact sources of isolates obtained from poultry environments (e.g., soil, feces, cage swabs). If this information is mentioned in the paper, ensure it is explicitly highlighted for clarity.

• Table 3 includes results from rats and chickens but fails to explain their relevance to the study. Additionally, clarify the origin of these rats and chickens—whether they are from poultry environments or dairy farms where milk samples were obtained.

• Consider restructuring explanatory paragraphs to accompany relevant figures and tables within the main text for better readability. Supplementary tables can be placed in an annex.

• Explicitly indicate the sources of Salmonella isolates (e.g., milk, poultry environments, rats, or chickens) to enhance the transparency of the data presented.

• The methods for bacterial culture, isolation, antibiotic susceptibility testing, and PCR were explained in sufficient detail.

• The references are relevant supporting the study's arguments. Ensure consistent formatting and citation style throughout.

• The inclusion of ethics approval and funding details adds credibility to the study.

• The conclusion and impact statements underscore the importance of publishing findings related to milk sample testing. However, the details regarding poultry environment samples could be expanded upon or reserved for a separate publication if no clear connection to dairy facilities can be established.

• Consider whether the inclusion of data from poultry environments is essential. Alternatively, a more focused study on the prevalence and AMR in bacterial isolates from fresh and fermented milk may be warranted. The discussion could benefit from a more focused analysis of the implications for dairy production practices and consumer safety.

Specific Comments by Line Number:

• Line 20: Rephrase “milk samples and bacterial isolates from poultry…” to avoid confusion suggesting that poultry produces milk.

• Line 90: Ensure “Determination of Antibiotic Susceptibility” is formatted consistently if intended as a title. Observe consistent formatting throughout the paper.

• Line 97: Italicize the “b” in Klebsiella for consistent formatting throughout the manuscript.

• Line 149: Consider revising “purifying” to the past tense “purified” for grammatical consistency.

• Line 181: Correct the spelling of “diary” to “dairy.”

• Lines 69-70,73, 198-201; 213-217; 219-220; 223-226; 265-274; 281-291; 297-308: Eliminate unnecessary spaces to enhance readability.

• Line 245: Provide an explanation for Table 3, specifically detailing the relevance of antibiotic susceptibilities of E. coli and Klebsiella isolates from rats and chickens to the study’s focus.

• Lines 324-327: Correct the margins for consistent formatting.

Presentation

Overall score 3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
2 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
2 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
2 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the analysis to the question under consideration? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
2 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 3 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the study? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations as well as the contributions of the analysis clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5
Are the principal conclusions supported by the analysis? (40%)
4 out of 5

Recommendation: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state — R0/PR4

Comments

Happy with this review and hope the authors can handle these as soon as possible.

Author Comment: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state — R1/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state — R1/PR6

Comments

Some progress has been made from the advice of the earlier reviewers but I am afraid a lot of work is still needed to better organise the manuscript into distinct and clear sections. There are still a lot of mistakes and problems with grammar and expression. I have annotated the PDF to show where these changes are needed. Please check carefully before resubmitting to ensure all mistakes are corrected. Thank you.

Author Comment: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state — R2/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from cow milk and poultry environments on a shared farm: a public health perspective from Minna, Niger state — R2/PR8

Comments

This is now structured appropriately and suitable for publication.