Campylobacteriosis and Salmonellosis from Poultry: Food Safety, Clinical Disease, and Prevention

Introduction

Campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis represent the two most commonly reported bacterial zoonoses linked to poultry production globally [1, 2, 3, 4]. These enteric infections are predominantly caused by Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli for campylobacteriosis, and by non-typhoidal serovars of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica for salmonellosis [2, 5]. Poultry, including broiler chickens, laying hens, turkeys, and domestic waterfowl, serve as the primary reservoir hosts for these thermophilic and facultative intracellular pathogens [6, 7, 8]. The pathogens colonize the avian gastrointestinal tract without causing overt disease in many cases, yet they are shed in high numbers in chicken feces bacteria loads, thereby contaminating the environment, feed, water, litter, and vectors such as darkling beetles [9]. This silent carriage perpetuates the farm-to-fork transmission cycle and poses substantial challenges for food safety [10, 11, 12]. The present article provides a rigorous, publication-grade synthesis of the epidemiology, clinical disease manifestations in birds, food safety risks (including the critical question does cooking chicken kill bacteria), and evidence-based prevention strategies.

Epidemiology and Transmission in Poultry

The prevalence of Campylobacter and non-typhoidal Salmonella in poultry flocks varies markedly by region, production system, and biosecurity level [13, 8, 14, 15]. In intensive broiler operations, Campylobacter colonization often peaks during the final week of the rearing period, whereas Salmonella can be introduced at any stage via contaminated feed, day-old chicks, or vertical transmission through the egg [10, 6, 15]. Longitudinal studies in no-antibiotics-ever (NAE) complexes demonstrate that both pathogens persist across multiple production stages, with Salmonella exhibiting greater stability in the house environment [15]. Co-inoculation experiments reveal that Campylobacter and Salmonella can coexist in the ceca, altering the cecal microbiota composition and serum metabolome [6]. The role of environmental reservoirs is further underscored by the detection of both pathogens in litter and in darkling beetles (Alphitobius diaperinus), which act as mechanical vectors and potential sources of re-infection between flocks [9].

Transmission within and between flocks occurs primarily via the fecal-oral route [7, 16, 17]. High shedding rates of chicken feces bacteria contaminate drinking water, feeders, and litter, facilitating rapid horizontal spread [18, 9]. In smallholder and backyard settings in low- and middle-income countries, the interplay between free-range foraging, shared water sources, and close contact with humans and other livestock amplifies transmission risks [13, 11, 12]. Mathematical models such as EPINEST simulate the epidemic dynamics of these pathogens in large-scale poultry distribution networks, highlighting the importance of farm connectivity and movement of birds [16]. Source attribution meta-analyses of European case-control studies identify poultry meat as a dominant source for both sporadic campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis, with the relative contribution varying by serovar and geographical region [19, 20].

Clinical Disease in Poultry

Clinical disease caused by Campylobacter and Salmonella in poultry is often subclinical, particularly in adult birds [2, 21, 12]. However, in young chicks and poults, both pathogens can induce enteritis, diarrhea, growth retardation, and increased mortality [22, 23, 21]. Salmonella serovars such as Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium are capable of systemic invasion, leading to septicemia, hepatitis, splenomegaly, and peritonitis [2, 23, 12]. Interleukin-10 plays a critical role in balancing tolerance and pathogen elimination in the avian gut [22]. Supplementation with lactic acid bacteria, such as Lactobacillus reuteri combined with Candida rugosa, has been shown to alleviate intestinal barrier lesions and reduce Salmonella Typhimurium colonization in broilers [23]. Campylobacter species, while generally less invasive, can cause mild to moderate catarrhal enteritis with watery diarrhea, and in some cases, hepatitis and pancreatitis [5, 21]. The pathological impact is often amplified under conditions of co-infection, immunosuppression, or concurrent coccidiosis [6, 22, 21].

Food Safety: Contamination of Poultry Meat and Eggs

Poultry carcasses become contaminated with Campylobacter and Salmonella primarily during slaughter and processing [24, 5, 25]. Inspections of slaughterhouses reveal that process hygiene criteria are frequently exceeded, with high bacterial loads on carcasses after defeathering and evisceration [24]. Retail poultry meat, both conventional and organic, is a common vehicle for these pathogens [5, 25]. In organic production systems, the prevalence of Campylobacter may be higher due to outdoor access, while Salmonella prevalence can vary depending on management practices [14, 25]. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles of isolates from poultry meat show concerning trends, with multidrug-resistant Campylobacter and Salmonella strains being reported in numerous countries [5, 26, 27]. The presence of Salmonella in table eggs is a well-documented hazard, particularly from flocks infected with S. Enteritidis [2, 8, 12].

Does Cooking Chicken Kill Bacteria? Thermal Inactivation Principles

A central question in food safety is does cooking chicken kill bacteria. The answer is affirmative, provided that the internal temperature of the meat reaches sufficient levels for an adequate duration [28, 29]. Campylobacter is highly thermosensitive; it is inactivated by heating to an internal temperature of 70°C (158°F) for at least 2 minutes [2]. Salmonella is somewhat more heat-resistant but is reliably killed at the same temperature-time combination [28]. The use of organic acids, trans-cinnamaldehyde, and caprylic acid as feed additives can reduce the carriage of these pathogens in the gut, thereby lowering the initial contamination levels on carcasses and enhancing the margin of safety provided by subsequent cooking [28, 29]. However, cooking remains the critical control point that ensures elimination of viable bacteria from poultry meat [2, 30]. Consumers must be advised to avoid cross-contamination from raw poultry juices and to cook chicken thoroughly, using a food thermometer [2, 29].

Prevention and Control Strategies

A multipronged approach is required to reduce the burden of campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis in poultry and their transmission through the food chain [18, 31, 32, 2]. Primary prevention targets on-farm colonization using biosecurity, competitive exclusion, probiotics, synbiotics, bacteriophages, and feed additives [18, 31, 32, 33, 23, 34, 29].

On-Farm Biosecurity and Management

Strict biosecurity protocols, including all-in/all-out production, disinfection of housing and equipment, control of rodents and darkling beetles, and use of sanitized water, reduce pathogen introduction and spread [15, 9]. The implementation of such measures is especially challenging in free-range and smallholder systems, yet they remain foundational [14, 12].

Competitive Exclusion and Probiotics

Competitive exclusion (CE) products consisting of defined or undefined mixtures of gut-derived bacteria modulate the cecal microbiota and reduce pathogen colonization [18, 32, 34]. Administration routes (e.g., spray, drinking water, gel) and trial repetition influence efficacy [32]. Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species have been shown to inhibit Salmonella and Campylobacter in vitro and in vivo [23, 34]. Synbiotics (probiotics combined with prebiotics) enhance the protective effect [32].

Bacteriophages

Lytic bacteriophages offer a highly specific, non-antibiotic means of controlling Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry [31, 33]. Phage cocktails applied via feed or drinking water can significantly reduce cecal colonization, especially when administered shortly before slaughter [31]. The role of dietary bacteriophages in monogastric animals has been the subject of systematic review [33].

Feed Additives and Organic Acids

Supplementation with organic acids (e.g., formic, propionic, caprylic acid) and plant-derived compounds such as trans-cinnamaldehyde lowers the pH in the gastrointestinal tract and disrupts bacterial cell membranes [28, 29]. These additives have been demonstrated to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter carriage without compromising growth performance [28, 29].

Vaccination and Immune Modulation

While vaccination against non-typhoidal Salmonella has limited commercial availability, live attenuated vaccines for Salmonella Gallinarum and Salmonella Pullorum are used in some regions [2, 12]. Modulation of the avian immune response, such as through interleukin-10 blockade, is an area of ongoing research [22]. The genetic selection of poultry for enhanced resistance to colonization is also pursued [22].

Integrated Control Pathways: A Mermaid Diagram

flowchart TD
    A[Poultry Flock], > B[Biosecurity & Management]
    A, > C[Competitive Exclusion / Probiotics]
    A, > D[Bacteriophages]
    A, > E[Feed Additives / Organic Acids]
    B, > F[Reduced Pathogen Shedding]
    C, > F
    D, > F
    E, > F
    F, > G[Lower Carcass Contamination at Slaughter]
    G, > H[Proper Cooking ≥70°C]
    H, > I[Safe Poultry Meat]
    F, > J[Reduced Environmental Contamination]
    J, > K[Reduced Transmission to Humans]

Comparative Characteristics of Campylobacter and Salmonella in Poultry

Conclusions

Campylobacteriosis and salmonellosis remain formidable challenges in poultry production and food safety. The high prevalence of chicken feces bacteria in flocks, combined with environmental persistence and antimicrobial resistance, demands integrated control measures that span from hatchery to table. Thermal inactivation through proper cooking answers the question does cooking chicken kill bacteria affirmatively, but only as a final barrier. Continued research into competitive exclusion, probiotics, bacteriophages, and alternative feed additives offers promising avenues for reducing pathogen carriage in live birds. Regulatory frameworks and source attribution models, supported by genomic epidemiology, will be essential to monitor and mitigate these pervasive zoonotic agents [10, 1, 19, 20, 3, 16, 4, 30, 17].

References

[1] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The European Union One Health 2024 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41377167/

[2] Sharma S, Kaur S, Naguib M, et al. Major Foodborne Bacterial Pathogens in Poultry: Implications for Human Health and the Poultry Industry and Probiotic Mitigation Strategies. Microorganisms. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41156822/

[3] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The European Union One Health 2023 Zoonoses report. EFSA J. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39659847/

[4] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The European Union One Health 2022 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38089471/

[5] Popa SA, Herman V, Tîrziu E, et al. Public Health Risk of Campylobacter spp. Isolated from Slaughterhouse and Retail Poultry Meat: Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles. Pathogens. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40333059/

[6] Guyard-Nicodème M, Payen C, Larivière-Gauthier G, et al. Co-inoculation of broilers by Campylobacter and Salmonella: effect on colonization, cecal microbiota, and serum metabolome. Microbiol Spectr. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41649264/

[7] Mekuria Z, Deblais L, Ojeda A, et al. Host clustering of Campylobacter species and enteric pathogens in a longitudinal cohort of infants, family members and livestock in rural Eastern Ethiopia. Microbiome. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41185061/

[8] Patch CA, Larsen KM, Armstrong CM, et al. Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Human Health Implications of Salmonella enterica and Campylobacter spp. in Vermont Backyard Poultry. Zoonoses Public Health. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40734185/

[9] Barua S, Bailey M, Zhong K, et al. Research Note: Role of darkling beetles (Alphitobius diaperinus) and litter in spreading and maintaining Salmonella Enteritidis and Campylobacter jejuni in chicken flocks. Poult Sci. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37717478/ *** 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.

[10] Lipman DJ. Genomic epidemiology of Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry production: Quantifying the contribution of primary breeders. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41880575/

[11] Aruldas K, Janagaraj V, Alagesan A, et al. Field Experiences: Conducting One Health Surveys to Determine Transmission Risks from Poultry in Markets and Farms in Southern India. Indian J Public Health. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045539/

[12] Grace D, Knight-Jones TJD, Melaku A, et al. The Public Health Importance and Management of Infectious Poultry Diseases in Smallholder Systems in Africa. Foods. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38338547/

[13] Xin C, Hoang TT, Truong DQ, et al. Prevalence of Campylobacter and non-typhoidal Salmonella along broiler chicken production and distribution networks, Northern Vietnam. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41191621/

[14] Campbell YL, Walker LL, Bartz BM, et al. Outdoor access versus conventional broiler chicken production: Updated review of animal welfare, food safety, and meat quality. Poult Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39985895/

[15] Adhikari Y, Bailey MA, Krehling JT, et al. Assessment and genomic analysis of Salmonella and Campylobacter from different stages of an integrated no-antibiotics-ever (NAE) broiler complex: a longitudinal study. Poult Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39191002/

[16] Pinotti F, Lourenço J, Gupta S, et al. EPINEST, an agent-based model to simulate epidemic dynamics in large-scale poultry production and distribution networks. PLoS Comput Biol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38381804/

[17] Shioda K, Brouwer AF, Lamar F, et al. Opportunities to Interrupt Transmission of Enteropathogens of Poultry Origin in Maputo, Mozambique: A Transmission Model Analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37910131/

[18] Peruzzo A, Tiengo A, Furlan M, et al. Competitive exclusion modulates broiler microbiota structure and microbial interaction networks. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42061253/

[19] Mughini-Gras L, Wijnen L, Pires SM, et al. Transmission pathways and risk factors for sporadic salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis: a source attribution meta-analysis of European case-control studies. Epidemiol Infect. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40589406/

[20] Thystrup C, Brinch ML, Henri C, et al. Source attribution of human Campylobacter infection: a multi-country model in the European Union. Front Microbiol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39973931/

[21] Hepps Keeney CM, Petritz OA. Zoonotic Gastroenteric Diseases of Exotic Animals. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39730215/

[22] Meunier D, Corona-Torres R, Boulton K, et al. Interleukin 10 controls the balance between tolerance, pathogen elimination, and immunopathology in birds. Elife. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41100345/

[23] Yang X, Fang H, Hu D, et al. Compound of Lactobacillus reuteri and Candida rugosa supplementation alleviates intestinal barrier lesion via improving the gut microbiota in broilers infected with Salmonella Typhimurium. Poult Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40541101/

[24] Rosamilia A, Galletti G, Casadei G, et al. Assessment of process hygiene criteria in poultry slaughterhouses: A comparative analysis of own-checks and official controls in Northeast Italy (2021-2023). Poult Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40561827/

[25] Sosnowski M, Wieczorek K, Osek J. Identification of Bacterial Pathogens in Organic Food of Animal Origin in Poland. Foods. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39517310/

[26] Iqbal S, Qureshi S, Banday MS, et al. Short Variable Regions flaA Gene (SVR-flaA) Diversity and Virulence Profile of Multidrug-Resistant Campylobacter from Poultry and Poultry Meat in India. J Food Prot. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38815809/

[27] Cornelius AJ, Carr SD, Bakker SN, et al. Antimicrobial Resistance in Selected Bacteria from Food Animals in New Zealand 2018-2022. J Food Prot. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38387832/

[28] Riaz R, Ahmed I, Raza A, et al. Response of different infection models in broiler chickens against supplemental Organic acid - A review. Microb Pathog. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40185170/

[29] Lyte JM, Arsi K, Caputi V, et al. Inclusion of trans-cinnamaldehyde and caprylic acid in feed results in detectable concentrations in the chicken gut and reduces foodborne pathogen carriage. Poult Sci. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38157787/

[30] Morgan ALK, Woolhouse MEJ, Wagenaar JA, et al. Modelling the effects of antibiotic usage in livestock on human salmonellosis. One Health. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38024252/

[31] Rahman MA, Abraham R, Abraham S, et al. Application of bacteriophages to control bacterial infections of food animals in the era of antimicrobial resistance: An overview. Vet Microbiol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41830749/

[32] Avberšek J, Mahnič A, Kušar D, et al. Administration route and trial repetition shape the effects of a commercial synbiotic on broiler production performance, cecal microbiota and pathogen colonization. Poult Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41478267/

[33] Sampath V, Kim NG, Kim IH. The Emerging Role of Dietary Bacteriophage in Monogastric Animals in the Post-Antibiotic Era-A Review. Vet Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41472126/

[34] Wishna-Kadawarage RN, Hickey RM, Siwek M. In-vitro selection of lactic acid bacteria to combat Salmonella enterica and Campylobacter jejuni in broiler chickens. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38480610/

[35] de Malet Pintos-Fonseca A, Orol Maseda S, Lopez Lopez I, et al. Evolution of Salmonella spp. isolated compared to those of Campylobacter spp. in faecal samples for 12 years. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38973561/