Which Bacteria Are Common to Raw Poultry? A Safety and Pathogen Guide

Raw poultry serves as a complex ecological niche for a diverse array of bacterial taxa. The intrinsic composition of poultry muscle, the alkaline pH range (5.5 to 6.5), and the high water activity (aw > 0.98) create a permissive environment for the proliferation of both commensal and pathogenic microorganisms [1, 2]. From a veterinary microbiology perspective, the bacterial flora of raw poultry can be categorized into three broad groups: enteric pathogens (e.g., Salmonella enterica, Campylobacter jejuni), opportunistic commensals with zoonotic potential (e.g., Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp.), and spoilage organisms (e.g., Pseudomonas spp., Lactobacillus spp.). This review focuses specifically on the pathogenic and safety-relevant bacteria that are consistently isolated from raw poultry products at the retail and processing levels, with an emphasis on their biological mechanisms, antimicrobial resistance determinants, and diagnostic detection strategies [3, 4].

Major Bacterial Pathogens in Raw Poultry

Salmonella enterica

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica, particularly serovars Enteritidis and Typhimurium, remains one of the most frequently isolated bacterial pathogens from raw poultry worldwide [5, 6, 7]. Salmonella is a Gram-negative, facultatively anaerobic rod that colonizes the avian gastrointestinal tract, primarily the ceca and crop, without necessarily causing clinical disease in the bird [8, 9]. The bacterium can be shed intermittently in feces and contaminate carcasses during slaughter and evisceration [10, 11]. The prevalence of Salmonella on retail raw chicken has been reported in numerous surveys: in the United Kingdom, a 2005 study found 5.7% of retail raw chicken samples positive for Salmonella [54]; in the Republic of Ireland, prevalence ranged from 21.0% to 26.3% depending on the season [44]; and in China, a 2014 study reported 52.2% of raw poultry samples harbored Salmonella [37]. More recent genomic surveillance in Jiangxi province, China, demonstrated that 38.6% of isolates from poultry farms carried multiple antimicrobial resistance genes, with resistance to tetracyclines and sulfonamides being most common [6].

The genomic mechanisms driving Salmonella persistence in the poultry production chain are increasingly well understood. Mobile genetic elements, including integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs) and plasmids, mediate the horizontal acquisition of antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence factors [3]. For example, a study on Salmonella Infantis along the United States poultry production line revealed that a large conjugative plasmid harboring multiple resistance determinants was present across all processing stages, indicating stable clonal dissemination [3]. Furthermore, Salmonella possesses a suite of virulence genes, such as those encoding the Salmonella pathogenicity islands (SPIs), fimbriae, and flagella, which facilitate adherence to epithelial surfaces and invasion of intestinal cells [12, 13]. The flagellin protein itself can be a target for diagnostic capture assays [12].

From a biophysical perspective, survival of Salmonella on raw poultry skin is influenced by serotype-specific growth kinetics. General regression neural network models have been developed to predict Salmonella growth on chicken skin as a function of temperature and time, demonstrating that serotypes such as Typhimurium and Enteritidis exhibit different lag phases and maximum population densities under refrigerated conditions [48]. This heterogeneity underscores the need for serotype-specific risk assessment models in food safety surveillance.

Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli

Campylobacter species, particularly Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli, are microaerophilic, Gram-negative, spiral-shaped bacteria that are the most frequently reported bacterial cause of gastroenteritis in many industrialized nations [9, 11, 14]. Raw poultry is the primary reservoir and vehicle for Campylobacter transmission [36, 40]. Prevalence on retail raw chicken consistently exceeds 50% in numerous studies: a survey in Ireland found 83.1% of raw chicken samples positive for Campylobacter [44]; a study in the United States reported a temporal pattern showing 74% of chicken carcass rinses positive for Campylobacter [36]; and a 2006 survey in Iran found 62.4% of raw chicken meat samples positive [61]. More recent work from Romania reported that 89.4% of poultry isolates belonged to C. jejuni and 10.6% to C. coli, with high genetic diversity as determined by whole-genome sequencing [67].

Campylobacter's adaptation to the avian intestinal tract is linked to its ability to form biofilms on meat surfaces and processing equipment [31, 32]. Biofilm formation is inversely correlated with extracellular DNase activity, with DNase-positive strains producing thinner biofilms [31]. The meat juice exudate from raw poultry provides a nutrient-rich microenvironment that enhances Campylobacter biofilm maturation [32]. Cold stress tolerance is a critical phenotype for Campylobacter survival during refrigerated storage; phylogenetic analyses indicate that genes encoding cold shock proteins (e.g., cspA) and two-component regulatory systems are associated with increased survival at 4 degrees Celsius [14]. Additionally, the bacterium can be transferred via common kitchen items such as cooking salt, contributing to cross-contamination events [15].

Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter is a growing concern. Resistance to fluoroquinolones (e.g., ciprofloxacin) has been reported in over 80% of isolates from some regions, with mutations in the gyrA gene being the primary mechanism [57, 58]. Tetracycline resistance, mediated by the tet(O) gene, is also widespread [63]. Phage-based biocontrol strategies using broad-host phages such as CP6 have shown efficacy in reducing Campylobacter loads on poultry meat under experimental conditions [9].

Escherichia coli (including avian pathogenic and ESBL-producing strains)

Escherichia coli is a normal inhabitant of the avian gut, but specific pathotypes, including avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) and extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC), are frequently isolated from raw poultry and have zoonotic potential [4, 16, 17]. The presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli in retail poultry is a significant concern, as these enzymes hydrolyze third-generation cephalosporins, critically important antimicrobials [4, 17]. A study on raw chicken meat in Singapore found that 23.4% of samples contained ESBL-producing E. coli, with blaCTX-M-15 and blaCTX-M-55 being the dominant genes [17]. In Bangladesh, 72.5% of E. coli isolates from Sonali chicken meat were multidrug-resistant (MDR) and 35% produced ESBL [4]. Similarly, a Swiss study reported that 42% of imported raw poultry meat samples carried ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, predominantly E. coli [33].

The virulence repertoire of poultry-associated E. coli includes genes encoding adhesins (fimH, papC), toxins (hlyA, astA), and siderophore receptors (iroN, fyuA) [16, 18]. The mcr-1 gene, conferring resistance to colistin, a last-resort antimicrobial, has also been detected in E. coli from retail poultry in Czech Republic [16]. The mobile colistin resistance element is typically carried on plasmids, raising concerns about horizontal transfer to other Gram-negative pathogens [16].

From a diagnostic perspective, characterization of E. coli isolates involves serotyping (e.g., O77:H18), which can be linked to specific virulence profiles and phylogenetic backgrounds [1]. A recent genetic analysis of E. coli O77:H18 associated with clustered cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome in France demonstrated that the isolate possessed the Shiga toxin genes stx2a and stx2d, highlighting the public health implications of poultry-derived STEC strains [1].

Listeria monocytogenes

Listeria monocytogenes is a Gram-positive, facultatively anaerobic, psychrotrophic bacterium capable of growth at refrigeration temperatures, making it a particular concern for ready-to-eat and raw poultry products [59, 66]. Isolation from raw poultry is less frequent than Salmonella or Campylobacter but still significant. A survey of retail foods in the United States identified L. monocytogenes in 4.2% of raw poultry samples [59]. The USDA-FSIS method for isolation from raw meat and poultry involves a two-step enrichment procedure, followed by plating onto selective agar containing lithium chloride and ceftazidime [66]. The pathogen's ability to form biofilms on stainless steel and polypropylene surfaces in processing plants contributes to its persistence [59]. L. monocytogenes serovars 1/2a, 1/2b, and 4b are most commonly associated with listeriosis, and their carriage of virulence genes such as inlA, inlB, and hlyA is well documented [59].

Yersinia enterocolitica

Yersinia enterocolitica, particularly biotype 1A, has been increasingly recognized as a contaminant of raw poultry meat [5, 53]. A European study on pork and poultry meat found that Y. enterocolitica biotype 1A exhibited high genomic heterogeneity, as determined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) [5]. The bacterium is psychrotrophic and can multiply at 4 degrees Celsius, which is relevant for raw poultry stored under refrigeration. Pathogenicity in Y. enterocolitica is linked to the presence of the pYV virulence plasmid and chromosomal genes such as ail, ystA, and inv [53]. However, biotype 1A isolates often lack the pYV plasmid and are considered less virulent, yet their presence indicates fecal contamination and potential for opportunistic infection.

Arcobacter butzleri and Arcobacter cryaerophilus

Arcobacter species, particularly Arcobacter butzleri, have been isolated from raw poultry at prevalence rates ranging from 20% to 80% depending on the geographic region [60]. In a survey of retail raw meats in Northern Ireland, Arcobacter was isolated from 46.7% of raw chicken samples [60]. Arcobacter spp. are Gram-negative, spiral-shaped, microaerophilic bacteria closely related to Campylobacter. They are capable of biofilm formation and can survive on poultry processing equipment. Their role as emerging foodborne pathogens is supported by their ability to adhere to and invade epithelial cells, though the exact virulence mechanisms are less defined than those of Campylobacter [60].

Clostridium perfringens

Clostridium perfringens type A is a Gram-positive, spore-forming, anaerobic rod that is a common contaminant of raw poultry, often present as a component of the normal intestinal flora [19, 45]. The prevalence in raw poultry meat can exceed 50%, with counts typically below 10^4 CFU/g [45]. Spores can survive cooking and subsequently germinate under temperature abuse conditions. The enterotoxin (CPE) produced by some strains is responsible for foodborne illness. In poultry, C. perfringens is also associated with necrotic enteritis, a disease that is managed through the use of feed additives and probiotics [10, 51]. The application of lactic acid bacteria to raw chicken meat has been shown to reduce C. perfringens growth, suggesting a potential biocontrol strategy [51].

Staphylococcus aureus

Staphylococcus aureus is a Gram-positive, coagulase-positive coccus that can be introduced onto raw poultry through human handling during processing [20, 33]. The bacterium is frequently isolated from raw chicken meat and giblets, with prevalence rates ranging from 25% to 60% [20]. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) has also been detected in raw poultry, particularly sequence type ST398, which is associated with livestock [33]. A study on Swiss raw poultry meat found that 14.3% of samples harbored MRSA [33]. The primary virulence factors of S. aureus in the context of poultry include enterotoxins (e.g., SEA, SEB) and the Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL), though the latter is more commonly associated with human clinical isolates [20].

Clostridioides difficile

Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile is a spore-forming, anaerobic bacterium that has been detected in raw poultry meat in several European surveillance programs [21]. A Slovenian national food surveillance study detected C. difficile in 1.4% of raw poultry samples, with ribotype 078 being the most prevalent [21]. The presence of toxigenic C. difficile in raw poultry is concerning because it indicates fecal contamination and the potential for foodborne transmission.

Comparative Prevalence Table

The following table summarizes the typical prevalence ranges of major bacterial pathogens found in raw poultry, based on cited studies.

Diagnostic Decision Workflow for Raw Poultry Pathogens

The microbiological analysis of raw poultry samples typically follows a hierarchical workflow based on target enrichment, selective plating, and confirmatory molecular or biochemical tests. A Mermaid diagram representing this decision tree is provided below.

flowchart TD
    A[Raw poultry sample] --> B{Initial processing}
    B --> C["Non-selective enrichment<br/>(Buffered Peptone Water, 37°C, 24h")]
    B --> D[Direct plating onto selective agars]
    C --> E["Salmonella: XLD, HE, or chromogenic agar"]
    C --> F["Listeria: PALCAM or ALOA agar"]
    C --> G["Campylobacter: mCCDA or Campy-Cefex agar under microaerophilic conditions"]
    D --> H[MacConkey agar for Enterobacteriaceae]
    D --> I[Blood agar for Staphylococcus/Enterococcus]
    G --> J[Presumptive Campylobacter colonies]
    J --> K["Gram stain: spiral-shaped rods"]
    J --> L[Oxidase and catalase positive]
    J --> M["PCR detection of hipO (C. jejuni") or ask (C. coli)]
    E --> N[Presumptive Salmonella colonies]
    N --> O["Triple Sugar Iron (TSI") slant]
    O --> P["Lysine Iron Agar (LIA")]
    P --> Q[Serological typing using O and H antisera]
    Q --> R[Whole-genome sequencing for antimicrobial resistance and MLST]
    F --> S[Presumptive Listeria colonies]
    S --> T[Catalase positive, umbrella motility on SIM medium]
    T --> U[16S rRNA sequencing or MALDI-TOF MS confirm]
    H --> V[Presumptive E. coli colonies]
    V --> W[Indole test, IMViC profile]
    V --> X[ESBL screening using double-disk synergy test or chromogenic ESBL agar]
    I --> Y[Presumptive Staphylococcus colonies]
    Y --> Z[Coagulase test, DNAse test]
    Z --> AA[Antimicrobial susceptibility testing by broth microdilution]
    AA --> AB[Interpretation using CLSI breakpoints]

This workflow is designed for a routine food safety laboratory and can be adapted for high-throughput surveillance of multiple pathogens concurrently [40, 66].

Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles and One Health Implications

The high prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among poultry-associated bacteria is a direct consequence of the selective pressure exerted by antibiotics used in poultry production [3, 4, 17]. The primary resistance mechanisms include enzymatic inactivation (e.g., beta-lactamases, aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes), target site alteration (e.g., gyrA mutations in Campylobacter), and efflux pump over-expression (e.g., tetA in Salmonella). The carriage of AMR genes on mobile genetic elements, such as plasmids and transposons, facilitates the dissemination of resistance across different bacterial species [3, 18].

One Health surveillance programs integrate human, animal, and food-chain data to track AMR trends. For example, the quantile regression forest model developed by Liu et al. uses multi-source food safety surveillance data to predict Salmonella foodborne risk, incorporating AMR data as a critical variable [2]. Additionally, the presence of mcr-1-positive E. coli in poultry meat underscores the urgency of reducing colistin use in poultry flocks [16].

Biofilm Formation and its Role in Persistence

Bacterial biofilm formation on poultry processing surfaces is a key factor contributing to the persistence of Campylobacter, Salmonella, and L. monocytogenes [31, 32]. Biofilms are structured communities of bacterial cells encased in a self-produced extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) consisting of polysaccharides, proteins, and extracellular DNA (eDNA). For Campylobacter, the inverse correlation between DNase activity and biofilm strength suggests that eDNA is a structural component of the biofilm matrix [31]. Biofilms on chicken skin and conveyor belts can withstand routine cleaning and disinfection, leading to repeated product contamination [22, 32].

The role of meat juice in enhancing biofilm formation has been demonstrated for both Campylobacter and Salmonella, with the organic load providing essential nutrients and promoting surface conditioning [32]. Wooden cutting boards used in wet markets harbor a distinct microbiome with higher bacterial loads compared to plastic boards, highlighting the importance of surface material in biofilm ecology [22].

Emerging and Neglected Pathogens

Beyond the well-established pathogens, several emerging bacteria have been identified in raw poultry. Helicobacter pullorum, a urease-negative Helicobacter species, has been isolated from poultry meat and may have zoonotic potential. Streptococcus zooepidemicus, though more commonly associated with horses, has been detected in poultry and can cause septicemia in birds [50]. Gallibacterium anatis, an opportunistic pathogen of laying hens, can contaminate poultry meat during processing.

Conclusion

The bacterial ecology of raw poultry is dominated by thermophilic enteropathogens such as Campylobacter and Salmonella, followed by commensal bacteria with pathogenic potential such as ESBL-producing E. coli. The prevalence of these organisms varies geographically and is influenced by farm management practices, processing conditions, and antimicrobial use. Veterinary diagnostic laboratories play a crucial role in the surveillance of these pathogens using a combination of culture-based methods, molecular typing, and whole-genome sequencing. The data generated from such surveillance inform risk assessment models and guide the development of intervention strategies, including biosecurity measures, vaccination, and bioprotective cultures. A comprehensive understanding of the bacterial flora of raw poultry is essential for maintaining food safety and mitigating the spread of antimicrobial resistance within the food chain.

References

[1] Vorimore F, Tran ML, Cointe A et al. Analysis of the genetic and phylogenetic context of Escherichia coli O77g:H18 associated with clustered cases of HUS in France in 2025. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42029118/

[2] Liu W, Zhou Y, Yan R et al. Quantile regression forest-based early warning of Salmonella foodborne risk using multi-source food safety surveillance data. Food Res Int. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41942211/

[3] Zhang Y, Chu M, Samala S et al. Mobile genetic elements drive the evolution and multidrug resistance of Salmonella infantis along the United States poultry production line. BMC Genomics. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41776394/

[4] Ali M, Tipu JH, Islam O et al. Molecular characterization of multidrug-resistant and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli isolated from Sonali chicken meat in Bangladesh. Sci Rep. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40659793/

[5] Yu M, Wang Y, Hao X et al. Phylogenetic relationship, genomic heterogeneity, and population structure of Yersinia enterocolitica biotype 1A isolated from pork and poultry meat. Food Res Int. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40382034/

[6] Jiang X, Siddique A, Zhu L et al. Ecological prevalence and genomic characterization of Salmonella isolated from selected poultry farms in Jiangxi province, China. Poult Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40279690/

[7] Malkiely Y, Endeshaw G, Maler I et al. Non-typhoidal Salmonella contamination of food sources from animal origin in Israel between 2007 and 2021. Prev Vet Med. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40081183/

[8] Qu M, Su S, Jiang L et al. Exosomal miR-27a-5p attenuates inflammation through Toll-like receptor 7 in foodborne Salmonella infections. Vet Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39823714/

[9] Zhang X, Tang M, Zhou Q et al. A broad host phage, CP6, for combating multidrug-resistant Campylobacter prevalent in poultry meat. Poult Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38442560/

[10] Lyimu WM, Leta S, Everaert N et al. Influence of Live Attenuated Salmonella Vaccines on Cecal Microbiome Composition and Microbiota Abundances in Young Broiler Chickens. Vaccines (Basel). 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37376505/

[11] Janecko N, Zamudio R, Palau R et al. Repeated cross-sectional study identifies differing risk factors associated with microbial contamination in common food products in the United Kingdom. Food Microbiol. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36681400/

[12] Yang Y, Zhang J, Zhu C et al. A promising detection candidate for flagellated Salmonella spp. AMB Express. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31414324/

[13] Kosa KM, Cates SC, Brophy J et al. Older Adults and Parents of Young Children Have Different Handling Practices for Raw Poultry. J Food Prot. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30673351/

[14] Hur JI, Kim J, Ryu S et al. Phylogenetic Association and Genetic Factors in Cold Stress Tolerance in Campylobacter jejuni. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36314968/

[15] Santos-Ferreira N, Alves Â, Cardoso MJ et al. Cross-contamination of lettuce with Campylobacter spp. via cooking salt during handling raw poultry. PLoS One. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34010301/

[16] Kubelová M, Koláčková I, Gelbíčová T et al. Virulence Properties of mcr-1-Positive Escherichia coli Isolated from Retail Poultry Meat. Microorganisms. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33540889/

[17] Guo S, Aung KT, Leekitcharoenphon P et al. Prevalence and genomic analysis of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in retail raw meats in Singapore. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33331642/

[18] Liu Y, Cui Y, Peng W et al. Prevalence of pathogens harbouring mobile antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence factors in retail beef and mutton. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32510554/

[19] Omer MK, Álvarez-Ordoñez A, Prieto M et al. A Systematic Review of Bacterial Foodborne Outbreaks Related to Red Meat and Meat Products. Foodborne

[20] Ali SS, Moawad MS, Hussein MA et al. Efficacy of metal oxide nanoparticles as novel antimicrobial agents against multi-drug and multi-virulent Staphylococcus aureus isolates from retail raw chicken meat and giblets. Int J Food Microbiol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33676332/

[21] Tkalec V, Jamnikar-Ciglenecki U, Rupnik M et al. Clostridioides difficile in national food surveillance, Slovenia, 2015 to 2017. Euro Surveill. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32347203/

[22] Ngan WY, Rao S, Chan LC et al. Impacts of Wet Market Modernization Levels and Hygiene Practices on the Microbiome and Microbial Safety of Wooden Cutting Boards in Hong Kong. Microorganisms. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33297499/

[23] Akinde SB, Adeyemi FM, Oyedara OO et al. 16S rRNA metagenomics data on the bacterial communities in integrated poultry-fish farm ponds. Data Brief. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35647232/

[24] Vatral CD, Gilman AD, Quinlan JJ. Consumer Awareness of the Message Not To Wash Raw Poultry, Current Practices, and Barriers to Following That Message. J Food Prot. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34935942/

[25] Wyszyńska AK, Godlewska R. Lactic Acid Bacteria - A Promising Tool for Controlling Chicken Campylobacter Infection. Front Microbiol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34650524/

[26] El Baaboua A, El Maadoudi M, Bouyahya A et al. Prevalence and antimicrobial profiling of Campylobacter spp. isolated from meats, animal, and human feces in Northern of Morocco. Int J Food Microbiol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33991875/

[27] Møretrø T, Nguyen-The C, Didier P et al. Consumer practices and prevalence of Campylobacter, Salmonella and norovirus in kitchens from six European countries. Int J Food Microbiol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33812164/

[28] Teichmann J, Litt PK, Sharma M et al. Influence of Poultry Litter Amendment Type and Irrigation Events on Survival and Persistence of Salmonella Newport. J Food Prot. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32318725/

[29] Keerthirathne TP, Ross K, Fallowfield H et al. A Successful Technique for the Surface Decontamination of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Externally Contaminated Whole Shell Eggs Using Common Commercial Kitchen Equipment. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31750744/

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.