Let’s face it—dealing with dog poop isn’t exactly the highlight of pet ownership. But beyond the “eww factor,” have you ever wondered if those little brown presents your furry friend leaves behind could actually make you sick? Well, I’m here to tell you that unfortunately, they absolutely can.
As a dog owner myself, I’ve had to deal with my fair share of unexpected indoor accidents, especially during my pup’s training days. And let me tell you, that one time my dog got hit with serious diarrhea was a real eye-opener about the potential health risks lurking in those smelly piles.
The Surprising Dangers of Dog Poop
Dog feces isn’t just unpleasant—it’s potentially dangerous when left inside your home. Why? Because it serves as a perfect breeding ground for all sorts of nasty microorganisms and parasites that can cause illness in both humans and other animals.
Here’s something that shocked me: one gram of dog poop contains approximately 23 million coliform bacteria. That’s nearly TWICE the amount found in human waste! Pretty gross, right?
Bacteria in Dog Poop That Can Make You Sick
Dog poop can contain several types of bacteria that pose risks to human health:
-
E. coli: While many strains are harmless, some can cause nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, fever, and in rare cases, even death.
-
Campylobacter: This is actually the #1 cause of bacterial diarrheal illness in the United States. Symptoms are similar to E. coli infection.
-
Salmonella This is the most common bacterial infection transmitted from animals to humans. People infected may experience stomach cramps, diarrhea, and fever.
Parasites Hiding in Dog Feces
Beyond bacteria, dog poop can also contain various parasites that can be transmitted to humans:
- Giardia
- Toxocara
- Whipworms
- Roundworms
- Hookworms
Young children are particularly vulnerable to parasite infections since they spend more time playing in potentially contaminated areas and may not wash their hands thoroughly.
Can Dog Poop Actually Kill You?
Okay, let’s not panic too much. Dog poop itself won’t kill you, but some of the bacteria, parasites, or viruses it contains could potentially cause diseases that might become life-threatening in certain cases, especially with infections like E. coli or salmonella.
The most vulnerable groups include:
- Very young children
- Pregnant women
- Elderly individuals
- People with compromised immune systems
For most healthy adults, infections from these bacteria usually cause mild symptoms that resolve relatively quickly. However, in severe cases, complications like kidney failure or liver damage could occur.
Can Just Breathing Near Dog Poop Make You Sick?
I used to worry about this when cleaning up after my dog. Good news—merely breathing near dog feces is not likely to make you sick. The main concern would be exposure to ammonia, but dog poop emits minimal amounts of it.
If you’re picking up after your pooch at home or outside, you don’t need to stress about brief exposure to these odors. Though if your dog’s produced something particularly nasty, you might gag a bit (we’ve all been there!), but this should stop once the air clears.
However, a CU-Boulder study did find something interesting—in some urban areas, particularly Detroit and Cleveland, researchers discovered significant quantities of fecal bacteria in the atmosphere, with dog feces being the most likely source. These airborne bacteria can potentially trigger allergies and asthma.
The researchers were surprised to find such bacterial diversity in urban areas during winter. So while sticking your nose right up to dog poop is definitely a bad idea (but who would do that anyway?), normal cleanup activities are generally safe.
What Happens If You Touch Dog Poop?
We’ve all had those “oh no!” moments. Maybe your pooper scooper broke, or your bag had a hole, or your puppy had an accident right as you were cleaning it up. Whatever the scenario, accidentally touching dog poop isn’t the end of the world, but it definitely requires immediate action.
If this happens to you:
- Don’t panic (easier said than done, I know)
- Wash your hands thoroughly with warm, soapy water for at least 20 seconds
- Pay special attention to areas under fingernails and between fingers
- If you have any cuts or open sores, use an antiseptic to disinfect
- Monitor for any symptoms like fever, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or vomiting
Prevention is even better—always use disposable gloves when cleaning up dog waste and disinfect anything that may have come into contact with it.
How to Properly Clean Up Dog Poop Indoors
When your dog has an accident inside (it happens to the best of us!), here’s how to clean it up safely:
- Act quickly – The longer it sits, the more bacteria grows and the harder it is to remove stains and odors
- Wear disposable gloves to protect your hands
- Use paper towels to remove the poop, being careful not to spread it around
- Spray the area with a cleaning solution (either a commercial pet odor remover or equal parts water and white vinegar)
- Let it sit for a few minutes to soak in
- Scrub the area with a sponge to remove residue
- Disinfect after visible cleaning is complete
- Dispose of materials properly and wash your hands thoroughly
If the poop has been sitting for a while, you might need a stronger stain remover or even professional cleaning.
The Hidden Dangers: Poop Particles on Paws
Here’s something many dog owners don’t think about: unlike us, dogs can’t wipe their butts. And their paws might pick up fecal matter during walks—both their own and from other animals.
This means your dog could be tracking microscopic poop particles throughout your home. Gross, I know, but it’s reality. This is why it’s a good idea to:
- Wipe your dog’s paws after walks
- Clean your floors regularly
- Consider having designated “outside shoes” that don’t get worn throughout the house
- Wash your dog’s bedding frequently
Other Diseases That Can Be Transmitted Through Dog Feces
Beyond the common culprits I’ve already mentioned, dog poop can also transmit:
- Cryptosporidiosis: Causes watery diarrhea, stomach cramps, and mild fever
- Toxocariasis: Can cause vision loss, a rash, fever, and cough
- Ancylostomiasis (hookworm infection): Can cause intestinal pain, weakness, and anemia
Protecting Your Household from Dog Poop Hazards
Here are some practical tips to minimize the risks:
- Pick up after your dog promptly, both indoors and outdoors
- Keep your yard clean by removing dog waste regularly
- Deworm your dog according to your vet’s recommendations
- Wash your hands thoroughly after handling your dog or cleaning up after them
- Teach children proper hygiene around pets
- Disinfect areas where accidents occur
What About Dog Poop in Public Spaces?
Not picking up after your dog in public isn’t just inconsiderate—it’s a public health hazard. When it rains, uncollected dog waste can wash into water sources, contaminating them with harmful bacteria.
Also, other dogs can pick up parasites from infected feces, creating a cycle of infection. And of course, no one wants to step in it!
Final Thoughts: Balancing Love for Dogs with Health Awareness
I love my dog to pieces, and I’m guessing you do too if you’re reading this. The good news is that with proper hygiene and waste management, the risks associated with dog poop can be minimized significantly.
Being aware of the potential dangers doesn’t mean you need to panic every time your dog has an accident. It just means taking appropriate precautions to keep yourself, your family, and your furry friend healthy.
Remember that most healthy people who practice good hygiene aren’t likely to get seriously ill from occasional exposure to dog feces. But knowledge is power, and now you’re armed with information to handle those stinky situations safely!
So next time you’re sighing as you reach for the pooper scooper, just remember—you’re not just keeping your surroundings clean, you’re protecting everyone’s health. And that’s definitely worth a little effort, isn’t it?
What’s your worst dog poop cleanup story? Drop a comment below—we’ve all been there, and sometimes it helps to laugh about these stinky situations together!

Vittoria Cinquepalmi1 Department of Interdisciplinary Medicine, Occupational Medicine Section , University of Bari, Piazza Giulio Cesare, 11, 70124 Bari, Italy; E-Mails: [email protected] (C.); [email protected] (L.S.)Find articles by
Received 2012 Sep 19; Revised 2012 Dec 14; Accepted 2012 Dec 17; Issue date 2013 Jan. © 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
The risk to public health from the large number of dog stools present on streets of urban areas is cause for concern. Dog faeces may be a serious hazard because they may contain microorganisms that are both pathogenic to humans and resistant to several classes of antibiotics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential for zoonotic infections and for the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in canine faeces which contaminates the urban environment. A total of 418 canine faecal samples were collected from streets in seven areas of Bari, Southern Italy. We have isolated multi-drug resistant Enterococci and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from these dog faecal samples. The presence of the resistant bacteria in an urban environment may represent a public health hazard which requires control measures by competent authorities. No Salmonella, Yersinia or Campylobacter species were isolated. Giardia cysts were detected in 1.9% of the samples. The predominant Enterococcus species were E.faecium (61.6%), E. gallinarum (23.3%) and E. casseliflavus (5.5%). Other species, including E. faecalis were also isolated. These strains were resistant to clindamycin (86.3%), tetracycline (65.7%), erythromycin (60.27%) and ampicillin (47.9%). High-level aminoglycoside resistance (HLAR) was found in 65.7% of enterococci. Resistance to three or more antibiotics and six or more antibiotics were observed in 67.12% and 38.4% of Enterococcus spp., respectively. Resistance to vancomycin and teicoplanin was not detected in any of the Enterococcus spp. isolated. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was isolated in 0.7% of the faecal samples. Canine faeces left on the streets may represent a risk factor for transmission of microorganisms and a reservoir of multidrug- resistant bacteria thus contributing to the spread of resistance genes into an urban area.
Keywords: dogs, resistant strains, public health, fecal sample, zoonosis, bacteria
Dogs and cats live in close contact with humans. In particular, dog numbers have increased in industrialised countries. The presence of dog faeces in urban settings due to the habit of dog owners of not removing dog faeces from the street may represent a problem for hygiene and public health. Dog faeces may contain several types of microorganisms potentially pathogenic for humans. Bacteria that are pathogens for the intestinal tract and cause diarrhoea include Campylobacter, Salmonella, Yersinia and E. coli [1,2,3,4]. Dog faeces may also contribute to the diffusion of protozoa such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium [5] and of roundworms such as Toxocara canis [6]. Recently, there has been increased evidence that pets and their stools may be a reservoir for antibiotic-resistant bacteria [7], posing a new threat to public health. In particular, the presence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in pet animals, including dogs, has been reported [8]. A relatively high occurrence (7–23%) of VRE, mainly E. faecium in dogs living in urban areas has also been reported in Europe [9,10,11]. Furthermore, enterococci with high-level aminoglycoside resistance (HLAR) have been described in strains isolated from both humans and animals [12]. In addition, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been found in the stools of dogs and has been isolated from both infected and colonised pet animals [13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. The MRSA isolated from pet animals resembles MRSA strains isolated in a hospital setting suggesting transmission of these strains from animals to human or vice versa [15]. Of additional concern is also the decription of the isolation of E. coli producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases from dogs [20]. Thus, dogs represent a potential source of antimicrobial—resistant microorganisms, especially considering the overuse of antimicrobials in companion animals. In 1997, the number of cats and dogs was estimated to be above 70 million in European countries [21] and, today, close physical contact with dogs is more frequent because household pets are considered family members. The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of diverse microorganisms responsible for transmittable zoonoses in dog faecal samples collected from different streets within the city of Bari. In addition, because few studies have dealt with antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from dog stools, the presence of VRE, HLAR enterococci and MRSA was also assessed.
Materials and Methods
From February to September 2010, a total of 418 dog faecal samples (44% of fecal samples were fresh feces and 56% were aged feces) were collected from sidewalks and streets of main roads of seven sub-areas of the city of Bari, with approximately 60 different samples from each subarea. A large quantity of each formed stool specimen was collected with a plastic spoon, placed in faecal plastic containers and sent to the laboratory of Microbiology of the Department of Basic Medical Sciences of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Bari, Italy and processed within four hours.
The isolation of Salmonella was performed by first transferring a large amount of faecal sample into 10 mL of Selenite broth (Oxoid, Milan, Italy). After incubation at 37 °C for 18 h, 0.1 mL of the selective broth was inoculated onto Salmonella Shigella agar (Oxoid) and incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h. Colonies showing typical Salmonella morphology (lactose-negative, with a black centre) were struck on Triple Sugar Iron (TSI) slant (Oxoid). When Salmonella was suspected, biochemical identification was performed by an automated system (MicroScan WalkAway, Siemens, Milan, Italy).
For Campylobacter isolation, faecal samples were directly inoculated onto Skirrow medium plates (Oxoid), and incubated at 42 °C for 48–72 h under a microaerophilic atmosphere (gas generating kit, Oxoid).
For Yersinia isolation, aliquots of faecal samples were inoculated into CIN agar (Oxoid). Suspected colonies appearing as a bull’s eye were struck on TSI slant. When Yersinia was suspected the urease test was performed, and, if positive, biochemical identification was performed by the above-mentioned automated system.
For isolation of Enterococcus spp., aliquots (1 g) of stools were inoculated in 5 mL of Enterococcosel Broth (Becton Dickinson, Milan, Italy) and, after incubation for 18 h at 37 °C, aliquots were struck on Enterococcosel Agar (Becton Dickinson) and incubated for 24–48 h. Suspected colonies were identified as Enterococcus spp. by the above-mentioned automated system.
For the isolation of MRSA, aliquots of stools were inoculated in Mueller-Hinton broth with the addition of 6.5% NaCl. After incubation for 18–24 h at 37 °C, aliquots were struck onto mannitol salt agar supplemented with oxacillin (2 μg/mL) and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. S. aureus was identified via a positive latex agglutination test (Slidex Staph-Plus, bioMérieux, Florence, Italy) and the automated system. Confirmation of methicillin resistance was carried out by growth on Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with NaCl (4% w/v) and with 6 μg/mL of oxacillin and followed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detection of the mecA gene as described below.
Susceptibility to vancomycin, teicoplanin, ampicillin, erytromycin, tetracycline, levofloxacin, penicillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, chloramphenicol, clindamycin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was determined by the disk diffusion method as described in Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines [22]. Mueller Hinton agar and antimicrobial impregnated disks (Biolife, Milan, Italy) were used.
Detection of high-level aminoglycoside resistance in enterococci was performed according to the method previously described [23] by inoculating a 10 μL suspension of Enterococcus spp. equivalent to a 0.5 Mc Farland Standard onto Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) agar supplemented with 500 μg of gentamicin per mL and BHI supplemented with 2,000 μg of streptomycin per mL. The presence of more than one colony or a haze of growth was read as resistant.
The vanA, vanB, and vanC genes were targeted with specific primers in separate PCRs according to Dukta- Malen et al. [24]. As positive controls, E. faecium ATCC 51559 was used for vanA, E. faecalis ATCC 51299 was usedfor vanB, and E. gallinarum ATCC 49573 and E. casseliflavus ATCC 25788 were used for vanC2/C3. The presence of the mecA gene in S. aureus was evaluated as previously described [25]. A molecular diagnostic identification for Staphylococcus pseudintermedius was performed using the primers pse-F2 and pse-R5 according to Sasaki et al. [26].
All 418 dog faecal samples were evaluated for the presence of Giardia by microscopic examination after the use of the sedimentation flotation technique [27]. In addition, 190 of the 418 samples were analysed by using a commercially available EIA for Giardialamblia antigen (Serazym® Giardia lamblia ELISA kit, DID, Milano, Italy) which detect Giardia lamblia using labelled polyclonal antibodies. After the kit was no longer commercially available from the manufacturers, 25 further samples were analyzed by using an Immunochromatographic test (Giardia Dipstick, DID), which is a qualitative lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of Giardia antigen in faeces samples. Both assays were performed according to the manufacturers’ instructions.
All of the 418 dog stool samples examined were negative for the presence of Salmonella, Campylobacter or Yersinia. Giardia spp. was found in only one of the 418 samples analysed by microscopy. When the same samples were analysed by an ELISA (190 samples) or the immunochromatographic method (25 samples), only four (1.9%) were positive. The positive result was confirmed by repeating the exam twice. Sixty-eight of 418 faecal samples were positive for enterococci and 73 strains were isolated two different enterococcal species were identified in one faecal sample and three in another sample). The isolates were identified as E. faecium (45/73, 61.6%), E. gallinarum (17/73, 23.3%) and E. casseliflavus (4/73, 5.5%). Other species isolated (E. raffinosus, E. avium and E. durans) accounted for 0.027% of the samples. E. faecalis was identified only in one specimen.
The pattern of antibiotic resistance in Enterococcus spp. was analysed, and Table 1 shows the results obtained for each species of Enterococcus isolated. Enterococcus spp. were resistant to clindamycin (86.3%), tetracycline (65.7%), erythromycin (60.27%), ampicillin (47.9%), penicillin (46.6%), piperacillin-tazobactam (43.8%), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (34.2%), levofloxacin (23.3%) and trimethoprim-sulfametoxazole (9.6%) while a low percentage of resistance to cloramphenicol (1.4%) was found.
Antimicrobial resistance of enterococci isolated from faecal samples of dogs detected by the disk diffusion method.
| Antibiotic No. resistant (% resistant) | No. ( % resistant ) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E. faecium (n = 45) | E. gallinarum * (n = 17) | E. casseliflavus * (n = 4) | E. raffinosus (n = 2) | E. faecalis (n = 1) | E. avium (n = 2) | E. durans/hirae (n = 2) | |
| Clindamycin n = 63 (86.3%) | 38 (84.4) | 15 (88.23) | 4 (100) | 2 (100) | 1 (100) | 2 (100) | 1 (50) |
| Tetracycline n = 48 (65.7%) | 33 (73.3) | 10 (58.9) | 2 (50) | 2 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Erythromycin n = 44 (60.27%) | 35 (77.7) | 4 (23.52) | 2 (50) | 1 (50) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) |
| Ampicillin n = 35 (47.9%) | 30 (66.6) | 2 (11.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) |
| Penicillin n = 34 (46.6%) | 33 (73.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) |
| Piperacillin-Tazobactam n = 32 (43.8%) | 30 (66.6) | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) |
| Amoxicillin + clavulanic acid n = 25 (34.2%) | 23 (51.1) | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) |
| Levofloxacin n = 17 (23.3%) | 15 (33.3) | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) |
| Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole n = 7 (9.6%) | 3 (6.6) | 2 (11.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) |
| Chloramphenicol n = 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Although all strains of E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum appeared susceptible to vancomycin by the disk diffusion test, vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration was present and ranged between 6 and 12 mg/L, when tested by the E-test. This is indicative of low resistance to vancomycin and, as reported in the literature, not detectable by the disk diffusion method [28]. MIC to teicoplanin of these species ranged between 0.25-0.5 mg/L. All 17 strains of E. gallinarum possessed the vanC1gene and lacked the van C2/C3 gene. In all four strains of E. casseliflavus the van C2/C3 gene was detected. Multiresistance patterns, defined as resistance to 3 or more antibiotics was observed in 49 of 73 strains of Enterococcus (67.12%). Resistance to 6 or more antibiotics was found in 38.4% of strains (Table 2).
Multiple antimicrobial resistances among enterococci isolated from faecal samples of dogs.
| Species | No. Resistant (%) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. Antimicrobials | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| E. faecium (n = 45) | 1 (2.2 ) | 3 (6.7) | 3 (6.7 ) | 4 (8.9) | 1 (2.2 ) | 7 (15.5) | 6 (13.3 ) | 10 (22.2) | 9 (20) | 1 (2.2) | |
| E. gallinarum (n = 17) | 0 (0) | 3 (17.6) | 9 (52.9) | 2 (11.8) | 1 (5.9) | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| E. casseliflavus (n = 4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (50) | 0 (0) | 50 (2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| E. faecalis (n = 1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 100 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| E. avium (n = 2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (100 ) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| E. raffinosus (n = 2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| E. durans/hirae (n = 2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) | |
| Total (n = 73) | 1 (1.4) | 6 (8.2) | 17 (23.3) | 8 (10.9) | 5 (6.8) | 8 (10.9) | 6 (8.2) | 11 (15.1 ) | 9 (12.31) | 2 (2.7) | |
High-level gentamicin resistance (MIC ≥ 500 mg/L) and/or high-level streptomycin resistance (MIC ≥ 1000 mg/L) were detected in 65.7% of Enterococcus spp. In particular 82.2% (37/45) of the Enterococcus faecium, 50% (2/4) of the E. cassseliflavus, 17.6% (3/17) of the E. gallinarum, 50% (1/2) of the E. durans, 100% (1/1) of the E. faecalis and 100% (2/2) of the E. avium and E. raffinosus were found to be HLAR (Table 3). Only 3 strains of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) were isolated. This resistance was demonstrated both by phenotypic and molecular (PCR positivity for mecA gene) methods (Figure 1). All of these strains were not S. pseudintermedius as demonstrated by molecular methods (Figure 2). All these strains were resistant to erythromycin, tetracycline and susceptible to trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole and cloramphenicol. Resistance to amikacin and gentamicin was detected in two of these strains. One strain was resistant to both levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin. Inducible clindamycin resistance as detected by the Double Disk Diffusion test (D-test) was present in all three MRSA strains (Figure 3).
High-level aminoglycoside resistance (HLAR) in enterococci.
| No. Resistant (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E. faecium | E. gallinarum | E. casseliflavus | E. raffinosus | E. faecalis | E. avium | E. durans | Total | |
| Gentamicin only | 10/45 (22.2) | 0/17 (0) | 0/4 (0) | 0/2 (0) | 0/1 (0) | 1/2 (50) | 0/2 (0) | 11/73 (15.1) |
| Streptomycin only | 1/45 (2.2) | 1/17 (5.8) | 1/4 (25) | 2/2 (100) | 1/1 (100) | 1/2 (50) | 0/2 (0) | 7/73 (9.6) |
| Gentamicin + Streptomycin | 26/45 (57.8) | 2/17 (11.8) | 1/4 (25) | 0/2 (0) | 0/1 (0) | 0/2 (0) | 1/2 (50) | 30/73 (41.1) |
| Total HLAR | 37/45 (82.2) | 3/17 (17.6) | 2/4 (50) | 2/2(100) | 1/1 (100) | 2/2 (100) | 1/2 (50) | 48/73 (65.7) |
Detection of the mecA gene in 3 strains of S. aureus isolated from faecal samples.
Electrophoresis after PCR for S. pseudintermedius identification on a 1.0% agarose gel.Lane 1: molecular marker: 100 bp DNA ladder TrackLT (Invitrogen, Monza, Italy); Lanes 2-4: samples; Lane 5: positive control, canine isolate S. pseudintermedius (926 bp band).
D test performed on S. aureus isolated from dogs for the detection of inducible clindamycin resistance. Staphylococcal isolates showing resistance to erythromycin while being sensitive to clindamycin and giving D shaped zone of inhibition around clindamycin with flattening towards erythromycin disc were reported as resistant to clindamycin.
Dog faeces in urban settings may represent an important source of microorganisms potentially pathogenic for both dog owners and the community. In our study we did not isolate strains of Salmonella and this may be because only dogs consuming contaminated raw meat can shed Salmonella in their faeces, although we have no information about diets in these dogs [29,30]. Our results are in agreement with those of Tarsitano et al., who in a recent study conducted in Bari, Southern Italy, were also unable to identify these bacteria in faecal samples even when a PCR assay specific for the invA gene of Salmonella was used [31].
The absence of Campylobacter spp. may also be due to lo
Dog poop creates serious health issues in humans | The Federal
0