Prevalence, quantification, and household-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in chickens in Boussouma commune, Burkina Faso

Prevalence, quantification, and household-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in chickens in Boussouma commune, Burkina Faso | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Prevalence, quantification, and household-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in chickens in Boussouma commune, Burkina Faso Wendenso Patrick Bertrand Tiendrébéogo, Assèta Kagambèga, Arshnee Moodley, and 8 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8584782/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 04 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Microbiology → Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Village chicken production is central to rural livelihoods across sub-Saharan Africa. However, the poor biosecurity and hygiene observed in the chicken flocks, coupled with the limited access of farmers to veterinary services, provides favorable conditions for the persistence and transmission of zoonotic pathogens such as Salmonella spp. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of Salmonella in village chicken flocks; quantify fecal bacterial loads; and identify household – and flock-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in Boussouma commune in rural Burkina Faso. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in 73 poultry-keeping households. Fresh fecal samples were collected from 292 live chickens. Laboratory analysis was carried out using the ISO 6579:2012 standard methods. Quantification of Salmonella spp. In fecal matters, was done using the Most Probable Number (MPN) method. Structured household interviews captured data on poultry management, hygiene practices, flock characteristics, and household demographics. Multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to assess associations between household- and flock-level practices with Salmonella spp. presence and bacterial load. Results The animal level prevalence of Salmonella spp. in chicken feces was 57.2% (95% CI: 51.5–62.9). Salmonella spp. loads in feces ranged from 0.03 to 10.99 MPN/g (mean = 0.63 MPN/g). In multivariate logistic regression, lack of access to veterinary care (OR = 3.77; p = 0.001), on-site accumulation of poultry manure (OR = 5.61; p = 0.011), and burial of dead chickens within the household compound (OR = 1.92; p = 0.024) were associated with increased odds of infection. Protective factors included improved access to water (OR = 0.46; p = 0.020) and removal of manure from household environment (OR = 0.44; p = 0.013). Chickens from male-headed households had lower odds of infection (OR = 0.22; p = 0.029). Higher Salmonella spp. loads were associated with poor hygiene, limited water access, and lack of veterinary care. Conclusion The findings highlight critical, context-specific points of intervention for reducing zoonotic transmission risks at the animal-household interface. Targeted community-level hygiene promotion, improved water access, safer carcass and manure management, and strengthening of village-level veterinary services are essential to mitigate public health risks linked to village poultry production. Traditional chicken fecal contamination bacterial load rural farming Burkina Faso zoonoses One Health biosecurity Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Poultry production is a key source of livelihood, income and food security for millions of households across Sub-Saharan Africa, including Burkina Faso, where more than 1.6 million small-scale producers are involved in the sector [ 1 ], [ 2 ]. However, when poultry are raised under poor husbandry and hygiene conditions, flocks are highly exposed to several pathogens, including zoonotic pathogens such as Salmonella spp. Therefore, poultry production systems in low-resource settings faces major public health challenges linked to the circulation of foodborne and environmentally transmitted pathogens [ 3 ]. Globally, Salmonella spp. infections remain amoung the leading causes of foodborne disease, responsible for hundreds of millions of diarrheal cases annually [ 3 ], [ 4 ]. In high-income settings, human salmonellosis is commonly associated with the consumption of contaminated raw or undercooked poultry meat or eggs [ 5 ]. In contrast, in low-resource rural settings, transmission pathways are often broader and include poor household hygiene conditions, lack of biosecurity, and unsafe manure management, and close and continuous contact between humans and poultry [ 6 ], [ 7 ]. In such settings, environmental contamination of the household compound, water sources, food preparation areas, and children’s play areas by poultry faces represent a critical and often underestimate route of exposure to Salmonella spp. The commune of Boussouma is a rural area with a high number of internally displaced persons resulting from ongoing insecurity, where village poultry production plays a crucial role in household income diversification, food security, and livelihood resilience [ 8 ]. Poultry production systems in this area and predominantly extensive, characterized free-ranging birds, minimal housing, limited veterinary supervision, and low adoption of biosecurity measures, conditions that favor the maintenance and spread of zoonotic pathogens such as Salmonella spp. Unlike in high-income countries, poultry products are not consumed daily: chickens are primarily kept for sale, ceremonies, or breeding, while eggs are mainly used for hatching [ 7 ], [ 8 ]. Consequently, human exposure to Salmonella spp. in rural households is more likely to occur through environmental contamination of water, food, and household surfaces with poultry excreta than through the direct consumption of contaminated meat or eggs [ 9 ], [ 10 ]. Despite the public health relevance of village poultry, data on the burden of Salmonella spp. infection and the associated management-related risk factors in rural poultry systems in Burkina Faso remain limited. Moreover, few studies have quantified fecal Salmonella spp. loads in village chickens, despite their importance for understanding environmental contamination pressure and transmission potential. This study conducted in the municipality of Boussouma aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of Salmonella spp. in village chickens, (2) and bacterial loads, and (3) identify household- and flock-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection. Materials and Methods Study area The study was conducted in the rural commune of Boussouma, located in the province of Sandbondtenga in the Kuilsé region (formerly the North-Central region) of Burkina Faso. The commune covers approximately 770 km² and includes 63 administrative villages. According to the Municipal Development Plan (PCD, 2020), the population was estimated at 131,133 inhabitants in 2024, distributed across 19,536 households, of whom 60,605 were men (46.2%) and 70,527 were women (53.8%) [11] (Figure 1). Sampling plan and household selection This cross-sectional study was conducted within the framework of the Poultry Losses and One Health (POLOH) project. Due to the unstable security context in the area, purposive sampling was used with the support of local authorities to select accessible and secure villages. Of the 62 villages in the commune, 23 were included based on these criteria. A preliminary census identified 483 households engaged in traditional poultry farming within the selected villages. From this list, 73 households were randomly selected for microbiological sampling using a computer-generated randomization procedure implemented in Microsoft Excel. Additional households were randomly selected as replacements in each village in case of non-participation or exclusion. The inclusion criteria required households to practice traditional chicken farming and not administer antibiotics to their birds during the two weeks preceding sampling. Sample size calculation Animal-level prevalence The required sample size was calculated assuming an expected Salmonella spp. prevalence of 53% based on previous studies [9], a desired precision of 7%, and a 95% confidence level, yielding a minimum of 196 samples without clustering. Considering cluster sampling at the household level (for birds per household) and intra-class correlation (ICC) = 0.06 [12], the adjusted sample size increased to 232 samples (58 households). Risk Factor Analysis The sample size for risk factor analysis was calculated using Thrusfield’s formula [13]: n = (Z² × P × (1 - P)) / d² where: n = required sample size, Z = 1.96 (for 95% confidence level), P = expected prevalence (0.25, based on previous studies), d = desired precision (0.05). n = (1,96² × 0,25 × (1 - 0,25)) / 0,05² = 288 resulting in a minimum of 288 chickens. The final sample size was set at 292 chickens, corresponding to four chickens per household . Selection and collection of poultry samples In each household, four adult chickens aged 3-12 months were randomly selected, yielding a total of 292 samples. The chickens sampled in this study were privately owned by household farmers and raised under traditional free-range production systems. All birds originated from local village flocks within the selected households in the rural commune of Boussouma. Prior to sampling, a structured questionnaire was administered to collect data on poultry management, hygiene practices, biosecurity measures, and household demographics. The questionnaire was specifically developed for this study based on a review of the literature and field experience in traditional poultry production systems. It included closed-ended questions covering household characteristics, poultry management practices, hygiene conditions, and biosecurity measures. An English version of the questionnaire is provided as Supplementary Material (Additional file 1). Only birds raised under traditional systems, without antibiotic treatment in the previous two weeks and without visible clinical signs of disease, were eligible. Breeding stock were excluded. Birds were identified based on physical characteristics (e.g., feather color, size, comb type), and random selection was performed by lottery. In households with >50 chickens, birds were first grouped by age or housing area prior to random selection. Chickens were humanely euthanized on site by cervical dislocation, performed by trained personnel in accordance with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals [14]. Cecal intestinal contents were aseptically collected using sterile gloves, placed in labeled sterile bags, and stored in coolers at 4°C until further processing. Transport and storage conditions Samples were transported within four hours in temperature controlled cooler boxes to the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Epidemiology, and Surveillance of Foodborne Bacteria and Viruses (LaBESTA) at Joseph Ki-Zerbo University. Laboratory processing began immediately upon arrival. Microbiological analyses Detection of Salmonella spp. Salmonella spp. detection followed the ISO 6579:2012 standard. One gram of cecal content was pre-enrichment in 9 mL of sterile Buffered Peptone Water (BPW) at 37 °C for 24 h. For selective enrichment, 100 µL of BPW culture were transferred into 9.9 mL of Rappaport–Vassiliadis (RV) broth and incubated at 42 °C for 24 h. Isolation was carried out by streaking 10 µL from each RV tube onto Salmonella spp. Chromogenic Agar plates at 37 °C for 24 h. Presumptive colonies (add what they would look like) were biochemically confirmed using Kligler Hajna iron agar, Triple Sugar Iron, urease, and indole). Confirmed isolates were stored at −80 °C in cryovials with 15% glycerol. MALDI-TOF MS confirmation All confirmed isolates were subjected to species-level identification using the Bruker Biotyper (Bruker Daltonik GmbH), which employs matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). The direct spotting method was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Quantification of Salmonella spp. Bacterial loads were estimated using the Most Probable Number (MPN) method. Serial dilutions were prepared from 1 g of cecal content in BPW. Following incubation and selective enrichment, dilutions were enumerated on Salmonella spp. Chromogenic Agar, and MPN values were expressed as MPN/g using the US EPA online calculator [15]. Data analysis Prevalence estimation Animal level was calculated as the proportion of positive samples among the total samples examined. Flock-level prevalence was defined as households. Exact 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Clopper–Pearson method. Risk Factor Analysis Data was evaluated using Stata version 14 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Descriptive statistics were first run to summarize the distribution of the variables at the household and animal levels. Two primary statistical models were applied to examine factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in chickens. Logistic regression was employed to examine the presence of Salmonella spp.(binary outcome: presence/absence). Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated. Variables were initially screened in univariate logistic regression models based on prior evidence from the literature and field observations. Earlier research has indicated correlations with farm size, carcass disposal, and hygiene practices [16], [17], [18]. The contextual relevance of candidate variables was further evaluated through preliminary descriptive analyses and on-site observations made during fieldwork. Variables that demonstrated biological plausibility, contextual importance, or notable variation among households were subsequently included in the multivariate logistic regression model. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted next to identify significant risk factors. A stepwise selection procedure was employed to retain the most important variables for the final model. The statistical significance was set at p 1 indicated a greater likelihood of Salmonella spp. presence, and an OR < 1 indicated a protection from Salmonella spp. presence. To check for multicollinearity among the explanatory variables, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was calculated. Variables with a VIF greater than 5 were taken out of the final model. Assessment of factors that affect Salmonella spp. bacterial load in chicken feces A linear regression analysis was conducted to examine factors affecting Salmonella spp. bacterial load. The model was developed to estimate the average effect of each predictor on bacterial concentration. Forest plots, created in RStudio (version 2025.05.1, Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), to visualize regression coefficients and 95% pension intervals to facilitate interpretation of the direction and strength of the associations. The selected explanatory variables were derived from literature research, biological feasibility, and pertinent factors related to traditional poultry farming systems in rural Burkina Faso. Specifically, variables for sociodemographic conditions, husbandry and feeding practice, herd composition, and hygiene and biosecurity measures were included. These groups were selected as they account for the main domains by which Salmonella spp. can pass and persist at the household level while incorporating both animal-related and environmental exposure observed during the study. RESULTS Household Sociodemographic Characteristics Table 1 displays the sociodemographic data of the 73 surveyed households. Most respondents were men (94.5%), reflecting the male-dominated structure of household headship in the study area. More than half were aged > 50 years (54.8%). The majority of respondents reported no formal education (78.1%). Most households were headed by married individuals, either monogamous (50.7%) or polygamous (42.5%). Approximately half of the households (50.7%) reported more than 20 years of experience in poultry keeping. Children aged <5 years were present in 47.9% of households, and among these, 50.7% reporting having no additional caregiver responsible for management besides the primary household head. Table 1 . Sociodemographic profile of households involved in backyard poultry farming in Boussouma (n = 73) Variable Category N (households) % Cumulative % Gender Female 4 5.5 5.5 Male 69 94.5 100.0 Age of household head <30 years 0 0.0 0.0 30–39 years 14 19.2 19.2 40–49 years 19 26.0 45.2 ≥50 years 40 54.8 100.0 Education level Educated 16 21.9 21.9 No formal education 57 78.1 100.0 Marital status Married (monogamous) 37 50.7 50.7 Married (polygamous) 31 42.5 93.2 Not married 1 1.4 94.6 Widow(er) 4 5.5 100.0 Children under 5 0-1 38 52.1 52.1 2-3 21 28.8 80.8 ³4 14 19.2 100.0 Years of experience <10 years 16 21.9 21.9 10–19 years 20 27.4 49.3 ≥20 years 37 50.7 100.0 Caregivers None 37 50.7 50.7 One 23 31.5 82.2 Two or more 13 17.8 100.0 Livestock keeping and Farming Systems Most household maintained small poultry flocks, with 50.7% keeping 10-29 chickens and 16.4% keeping fewer than 10 birds (Table 2). Mixed livestock keeping was common: 90.4% of households owned sheep, 57.5% owned goats, 41.1% owned cattle, and 42.5% managed at least one donkey. Guineafowl were present in 23.3% of households, whereas pigeons (4.1%) and ducks (in 1.4%) were rarely kept. Table 2 . Distribution of livestock holdings at household level (n = 73) Species Category N (households) % Cumulative % Poultry Very small (3–9) 12 16.4 16.4 Small (10–29) 37 50.7 67.1 Medium (30–69) 19 26.0 93.1 Large (70+) 5 6.9 100.0 Sheep None 7 9.6 9.6 Small (1–9) 45 61.6 71.2 Medium (10–19) 15 20.5 91.8 Large (20+) 6 8.2 100.0 Goats None 31 42.5 42.5 Small (1–9) 33 45.2 87.7 Medium (10–19) 7 9.6 97.3 Large (20+) 2 2.7 100.0 Cattle None 43 58.9 58.9 1–2 24 32.9 91.8 >2 6 8.2 100.0 Donkeys None 42 57.5 57.5 1 donkey 21 28.8 86.3 >1 donkey 10 13.7 100.0 Guineafowl None 56 76.7 76.7 >0 17 23.3 100.0 Pigeons None 70 95.9 95.9 >0 3 4.1 100.0 Ducks None 72 98.6 98.6 >0 1 1.4 100.0 Characteristics of Sampled Chickens All 292 sampled birds were of local indigenous breeds (Table 3). More than half of the birds were aged >5 months (51.4%), while 34.9% were between 4-4.9 months and 13.7% were 3-3.9 months old. The majority of sampled birds were male (72.3%), with females accounting for 27.7% of the sample. Table 3. Demographic characteristics of chickens sampled (n = 292) Characteristic Category N = 292 % Age (months) 3–3.9 40 13.7 4–4.9 102 34.9 ≥ 5 150 51.4 Sex Male 211 72.3 Female 81 27.7 Salmonell a spp. Prevalence Animal-Level Prevalence Of the 292 chickens sampled, 167 were positive for Salmonella spp. yielding an animal level prevalence of 57.2% (95% CI: 51.5–62.9), while 125 samples (42.8%) were negative. Flock-Level Prevalence At the household level, 63 of the 73 households had at least one Salmonella spp. positive chicken, corresponding to a flock-level prevalence of 91.8% (95% CI: 84.1–97.1). Only six households (8.2%) were classified as negative. Bacterial Load Distribution of Salmonella spp. Among the 292 chickens sampled, 125% (42.8%) were negative for Salmonella spp. Among the 167 positive chickens, most exhibited low bacterial loads. Specifically, 133 birds (45.6% of all chickens; 79.6% of positives) has low loads (1.0001 to 1 MPN/g), 23 birds (7.9% of all chickens; 13.8% of positives) had moderate loads (1.0001-5 MPN/g), and 11 birds (3.8% of all chickens; 6.6& of positives) had high loads (> 5 MPN/g). Risk Factors Associated with Salmonella spp. Presence at animal level Univariate Logistic Regression The univariate logistic regression, several household management and hygiene practices were significantly associated with the presence of Salmonella spp. in chickens (Table 4) . Poultry treatment was protective (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12–0.53, p < 0.001). In contrast, leaving carcasses on household premises increased the OR of infection (OR = 5.85; 95% CI: 1.70–20.08, p = 0.005). The presence of guinea fowl was also associated with higher odds of Salmonella spp. detection (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.00–3.15, p = 0.048). Hygiene-related practices were consistently protective. Occassional faeces cleaning (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.06–0.65, p = 0.008), frequent cleaning (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.09–0.78, p = 0.017) and manure disposal (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.33–0.89, p = 0.017) were all associated with reduced offs of Salmonella spp. presence. Sociodemographic factors showed limited associations. Households with two or four children under five years of age had lower odds of infection, while caregiver number showed only borderline associations. No significant associations were observed for sex of household head, education level, water source, or night-time confinement of poultry in univariate analysis. Table 4. Results of univariate analyses of factors associated with Salmonella spp. presence in chicken. Variable Reference category Compared category OR 95% CI p-value Gender Female Male 0.43 [0.13 – 1.36] 0.149 Education level Educated No formal education 0.89 [0.51 – 1.57] 0.690 Number of children <5 years 0 1 0.61 [0.29 – 1.27] 0.185 2 0.36 [0.16 – 0.80] 0.013* 3 1.00 [0.34 – 2.94] 1.000 4 0.35 [0.13 – 0.96] 0.042* Tertiary activity Agriculture Gold mining 0.14 [0.01 – 1.76] 0.129 Other livestock 1.33 [0.28 – 6.44] 0.720 Poultry treatment No Yes 0.26 [0.12 – 0.53] <0.001** Vaccination (New Castel) No Yes 0.94 [0.58 – 1.53] 0.815 Sheep herd size None Small (1–9) 1.62 [0.73 – 3.59] 0.240 Goat herd size None Small (1–9) 1.70 [1.03 – 2.80] 0.039* Cattle herd size None 1–2 1.48 [0.89 – 2.47] 0.133 Donkey ownership None 1 donkey 1.40 [0.80 – 2.35] 0.243 >1 donkey 1.27 [0.63 – 2.56] 0.500 Presence of guinea fowls None ≥1 1.78 [1.00 – 3.15] 0.048* Night confinement of poultry No Yes 1.30 [0.79 – 2.14] 0.303 Carcass burial No Yes 1.30 [0.82 – 2.07] 0.272 Manure disposal No Yes 0.54 [0.33 – 0.89] 0.017* Feces cleaning Never Occasional 0.20 [0.06 – 0.65] 0.008** Frequent 0.26 [0.09 – 0.78] 0.017* Abandonment of carcasses No Yes 5.85 [1.70 – 20.08] 0.005** Water supply No Yes 1.08 [0.68 – 1.73] 0.742 Number of caregivers None One 1.62 [0.94 – 2.79] 0.083 Two or more 0.57 [0.30 – 1.09] 0.089 Multivariate Logistic Regression Model In the final multivariate logistic regression model, lack of poultry treatment remained strongly associated with Salmonella spp. presence (OR = 3.77; 95% CI: 1.70–8.32; P = 0.001). Leaving poultry carcasses on household premises was also a major independent risk factor (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: 1.48–21.23; P = 0.011), as was ownership of more than one (OR = 4.30; 95% CI: 1.63–11.35; P = 0.003). Protective factors included access to improved water sources (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24–0.88; P = 0.020) and manure disposal (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.23–0.85; P = 0,013). Each additional child under five years of age was weakly associated with reduced odds of Salmonella spp. detection (OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81–0.98; P = 0.017). Male-headed households are significantly less likely to be contaminated (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06–0.86; P = 0.029). Second, night-time confinement of poultry shows a marginal association with an increased risk, although this trend does not reach the conventional threshold for statistical significance (p = 0.051). Table 5 . Logistic regression model of risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. presence in households in Boussouma. Variable OR Std. Error 95% CI P-value Poultry treatment 3.77 1.52 [1.70 – 8.32] 0.001 Tertiary activity 1.45 0.14 [1.21 – 1.75] 0.001 Carcass abandonment on-site 5.61 3.81 [1.48 – 21.23] 0.011 Manure disposal 0.44 0.15 [0.23 – 0.85] 0.013 Water source 0.46 0.15 [0.24 – 0.88] 0.020 Number of children 1) 4.30 2.13 [1.63 – 11.35] 0.003 Carcass burial 1.92 0.56 [1.09 – 3.39] 0.024 Sex (male) 0.22 0.15 [0.06 – 0.86] 0.029 Night-time poultry confinement 1.86 0.59 [1.00 – 3.46] 0.051 Constant 0.17 0.16 [0.03 – 1.06] 0.058 Factors Associated with Salmonella spp. Bacterial Load: Linear Regression Analysis A multiple linear regression is performed to identify factors associated with the quantity of Salmonella spp. , expressed in MPN/g. The model was statistically significant (F (25,266) = 3.88; p < 0.001) and explains approximately 20% of the observed variation (adjusted R² = 0.198). Our results show that certain factors significantly influence Salmonella spp. load. Specifically, leaving poultry carcasses on site is associated with a mean increase of 0.53 log MPN/g, while burying carcasses is linked to a mean increase of 0.21 log MPN/g. In contrast, access to a borehole water supply reduces the load by approximately 0.26 log MPN/g, and manure disposal is associated with a mean reduction of 0.29 log MPN/g. The administration of treatments also shows efficacy, with an estimated reduction of 0.44 log MPN/g. Finally, the presence of three children under five years of age in the household is associated with an increase in the mean bacterial load of 0.41 log MPN/g. Discussion Animal and Flock levels prevalence of Salmonella spp. At the animal level, Salmonella spp. was detected in 57.2% (95% CI: 51.5–62.9) of chicken fecal samples in Boussouma, revealing a widespread contamination among village poultry flocks. This prevalence is considerably higher than that reported in urban poultry settings in Ouagadougou [ 19 ], where Salmonella spp. were found in 9.9% of chicken droppings, and in the Mekong Delta (Vietnam) by Nguyen [ 20 ], where fecal samples showed a prevalence of 7.7%. However, it is close to the 40.8% observed in free-ranging chickens in Ethiopia [ 21 ]. These variations in production systems, hygiene practices, and environmental exposure, particularly the free-scavenging nature of village poultry farming in rural Burkina Faso. Despite the high prevalence of Salmonella spp., most positive chickens carried only low bacterial loads. In fact, 45.6% of sampled birds harbored very small amounts of the pathogen (0.0001–1 MPN/g), while only 7.9% and 3.8% showed moderate or high loads, respectively. This distribution indicates that the majority of infected birds function as asymptomatic or chronic carriers rather than experiencing acute clinical disease. In traditional poultry systems such as those in Boussouma, repeated exposure to contaminated soil, manure, and household environments may encourage persistent low-level colonization and continuous environmental recycling of Salmonella spp. This silent circulation represents a significant qualitative risk, as it allows long-term contamination of household spaces without producing obvious signs of illness in the poultry. At the flock level, Salmonella spp. was detected in 91.8% (95% CI: 84.1–97.1) of surveyed households, confirming that contamination is nearly ubiquitous in traditional poultry settings. The presence of multiple animal species and the lack of routine cleaning, disinfection, and litter management likely increases environmental persistence and cross-contamination between flocks. Under such conditions, even low bacterial loads at the individual animal level may cumulatively sustain widespread household contamination. These findings indicate that Salmonella spp. is deeply entrenched in household poultry systems in rural Burkina Faso, not primarily through severe disease in birds, but through widespread low-level carriage and persistent environmental cycling. Risk factors for Salmonella spp. infection in chicken This study identified several significant risk factors for Salmonella spp. detection in rural poultry systems reflecting practical vulnerabilities in household-level management and hygiene practices at the animal–household interface. The absence of veterinary treatment was strongly associated with Salmonella spp. presence (OR = 3.77; 95% CI: [1.70–8.32]; p = 0.001). In Boussouma, limited access to veterinary services, poor road infrastructure, and financial constraints often lead farmers to rely on informal self-medication using antibiotics purchased from local markets. While such practices may reduce Salmonella spp. prevalence or bacterial loads in the short term, they also raise concerns regarding inappropriate antimicrobial use and the potential selection of antimicrobial-resistant strains. Similar patterns were reported in Kenya and Ethiopia [ 22 ], [ 23 ], and the FAO notes that weak veterinary coverage in low-resource settings fosters pathogen persistence [ 24 ]. Carcass management was another key determinant. Households that abandoned dead birds on-site (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: [1.48–21.23]; p = 0.011) or buried them near living areas (OR = 1.92; 95% CI: [1.09–3.39]; p = 0.024) faced elevated risks. These practices likely enhance environmental contamination and facilitate indirect transmission, particularly in household courtyards where poultry, children, and other animals interact closely. Comparable findings were reported in Nigeria and Ethiopia [ 17 ], [ 25 ]. On the other hand, households that properly disposed of poultry manure (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: [0.23–0.85]; p = 0.013) or used improved water sources (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: [0.24–0.88]; p = 0.020) showed significantly lower prevalence. These practices reduce fecal oral transmission and limit environmental survival of Salmonella spp., consistent with findings from other rural poultry systems [ 26 ]. Sociodemographic factors also influenced infection risk. Households with a higher number of children under five years of age were less likely to show Salmonella spp. presence (OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81–0.98; p = 0.017). This finding may reflect greater vigilance and improved hygiene practices when young children are present. In contrast, when bacterial load was considered, households with three or more children under five exhibited higher Salmonella spp. concentrations, which suggests increased environmental contamination through frequent contact with poultry, soil, and feces. This apparent discrepancy highlights the complexity of exposure pathways. Although heightened awareness may help reduce infection risk, persistent low-level exposures can perpetuate high bacterial burdens after contamination has taken place. Households headed by men (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: [0.06–0.86]; p = 0.029) were less affected. These results may reflect gendered disparities in access to sanitation and veterinary services [ 27 ], [ 28 ], [ 29 ]. Economic activity also played a role. Poultry, often perceived as a marginal activity, was the the third income source reported by households, termed “tertiary activity” was dominated by poultry farming (OR = 1.45; 95% CI: [1.21–1.75]; p = 0.001). Though considered minor, poultry provides a flexible source of cash and protein and is often managed with minimal supervision. This marginal status limits investment in hygiene and veterinary care, thereby increasing the risk of contamination [ 30 ], [ 31 ]. Finally, mixed livestock rearing, particularly the presence of more than one donkey (OR = 4.30; 95% CI: [1.63–11.35]; p = 0.003), was associated with a higher risk. The lack of species segregation can facilitate cross-contamination via shared soil and water sources, as observed in Rwanda and Nigeria [ 17 ], [ 32 ]. These findings underscore the importance of implementing targeted interventions, including expanding veterinary outreach, promoting hygiene education, and enhancing waste management, to mitigate the transmission of Salmonella spp. and safeguard public health in rural Burkina Faso. Factors that affect Salmonella spp. bacterial load in chicken feces The linear regression model identified six significant factors influencing the bacterial load of Salmonella spp. in chicken feces. These determinants reflect hygiene practices, access to basic services, and household dynamics, with direct implications for poultry production and public health. Abandonment of poultry carcasses on-site (Coef. = 0.53; p = 0.004) was strongly associated with increased bacterial load. Leaving dead birds exposed facilitates environmental contamination and bacterial proliferation, especially in courtyards shared with children and other animals. This study [ 33 ] demonstrated that Salmonella spp. concentrations in poultry litter can range from 0.45 to over 280,000 MPN/g, confirming that fecal contamination levels vary widely depending on management practices. Similar risks were reported by Miller [ 34 ], who found that poor carcass disposal contributes to pathogen persistence in rural environments. Similarly, carcass burial (Coef. = 0.21; p = 0.037) also contributed to higher contamination levels. Although intended as a hygienic measure, shallow or poorly located burials may lead to recontamination of soil and water. Gumasta [ 35 ] highlighted that burial near living areas increases bacterial load, especially when carcasses are not properly covered or isolated. In contrast, access to improved water sources (Coef. = − 0.26; p = 0.044) and proper manure disposal (Coef. = − 0.29; p = 0.011) were associated with significantly lower bacterial loads. These practices reduce fecal-oral transmission and limit environmental persistence of Salmonella spp. , consistent with findings from previous studies [ 26 ] in Tanzanian poultry systems. Clean water reduces the risk of recontaminating feed and drinking points, while safe manure handling prevents pathogen spread to soil and nearby dwellings. Veterinary treatment (Coef. = − 0.44; p = 0.001) was another protective factor. Households that administered antibiotics had significantly lower bacterial loads, underscoring the importance of veterinary access. Asfaw [ 23 ] and the FAO [ 24 ] emphasize that veterinary oversight reduces pathogen circulation and improves poultry health outcomes. Finally, the presence of three children under five years old (Coef. = 0.41; p = 0.026) was linked to higher bacterial load. In such households, hygiene management may be more challenging due to competing childcare responsibilities. Close contact between children and domestic animals has been associated with increased exposure to enteric pathogens [ 29 ], [ 36 ], which may indirectly contribute to environmental contamination. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions by improving carcass and manure management, expanding access to clean water and veterinary services, and supporting hygiene education in households with young children. Reducing bacterial load in poultry feces is essential not only for flock health but also for limiting zoonotic transmission in rural communities. Recommendations This study underscores the importance of practical, household-level measures to reduce Salmonella spp. contamination in village poultry systems in rural Burkina Faso. Simple, low-cost hygiene practices such as safe manure disposal, wet cleaning rather than dry sweeping, and basic biosecurity should be prioritized, even though poultry often represents a tertiary income source with limited labor and financial investment. While access to improved water sources was linked to lower Salmonella spp. prevalence, high costs and limited availability remain significant barriers. In the meantime, promoting safer water handling and reducing reliance on contaminated surface water can provide realistic alternatives. Because poultry treatment practices were associated with Salmonella spp. detection, interventions must discourage unsupervised antibiotic use and strengthen veterinary support to limit both infection and antimicrobial resistance. Finally, households with young children should be a key focus for hygiene education, as they face greater exposure once contamination occurs. Together, these context-adapted, household-centered strategies are essential to mitigating zoonotic risks. Limitations of the Study This study was carried out in a single rural commune, which means the findings may not fully apply to other settings. Sampling took place at only one point in time, so seasonal changes in Salmonella spp. prevalence and bacterial load could not be assessed. Because chickens were sampled within households, results may reflect clustering effects linked to shared environments and management practices. Village selection was guided by accessibility and security, which may have introduced bias by excluding more remote or less secure areas. The cross-sectional design also limits causal interpretation, since associations between practices and Salmonella spp. detection cannot confirm temporal or causal links. Finally, the semi-quantitative nature of the MPN method and the absence of serotype-level identification with MALDI-TOF reduce the precision of bacterial load estimates and restrict deeper epidemiological insights. Conclusions This study provides essential baseline evidence on Salmonella spp. prevalence, bacterial load, and household-level risk factors in backyard poultry systems in Boussouma, Burkina Faso. Beyond documenting widespread contamination, the findings identify practical entry points for low-cost interventions that can reduce transmission at the animal–household interface. Measures such as improved manure management, safe disposal of dead birds, avoidance of dry sweeping, and simple hygiene practices are feasible even where poultry farming remains a secondary or tertiary livelihood activity. Community engagement emerges as equally critical. Involving household heads, women, and children can foster the sustained adoption of protective behaviors. Although further longitudinal research and expanded surveillance are needed to clarify seasonal dynamics and causal pathways, this work establishes a strong foundation for targeted veterinary support, hygiene education, and locally adapted prevention strategies. By generating context-specific evidence from an underserved rural setting, the study contributes to integrated approaches that safeguard animal health, reduce household exposure, and strengthen public health resilience. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Human participants Ethical approval for the household survey component of the study was obtained from the ILRI Institutional Research Ethics Committee (IREC; Ref: ILRI-IREC2022-57) and the National Ethics Committee for Health Research of Burkina Faso (Ref: 2022-11-232). The study involving human participants was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. For household surveys, the project information sheet and consent form were read and explained to all participants in local languages, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Animal subjects Ethical approval for animal handling, sampling, and euthanasia procedures was obtained from the ILRI Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC; Ref: ILRI-IACUC2022-38). All chickens included in the study were privately owned by household farmers. Authorization to access poultry and conduct sampling was obtained from household heads prior to data and sample collection. Chickens were humanely euthanized by cervical dislocation, in accordance with internationally accepted animal welfare guidelines. Availability of data and materials The data supporting the findings of this research can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding This work was funded by the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under agreement No. AID-OAA-L-15-00003 as part of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems and the Bill & Melinda Gates, Foundation OPP#1175487. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors alone. Consent for publication Not applicable Authors' contributions All authors contributed to manuscript review, editing, final proofreading and approval for submission. Conceptualization was by W.P.B.T., A.K., N.B. and M.D.; methodology, formal analysis, data curation and original draft writing by W.P.B.T.; resources and supervision by B.O., .K. and M.D.; funding acquisition and project administration by M.D. and A.K. Acknowledgements We are grateful to all who participated and assisted us in our research. References S. B. Ayssiwede et al. , “Elevage des poulets traditionnels ou indigènes au Sénégal et en Afrique Subsaharienne: état des lieux et contraintes,” in Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire , ULg-Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium, 2013. Accessed: Dec. 27, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/165669 FAO, “Rapport pays – Élevage durable en Afrique 2050 . L’impact des systèmes de production sur les moyens de subsistance, Filières bovine et volaille BURKINA FASO,” Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture, Rome, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0199e3d3-1c86-4c05-bb29-a8fb8f516a80/content WHO, “Salmonella (non-typhoidal).” Accessed: Aug. 25, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/salmonella-(non-typhoidal) S. E. Majowicz et al. , “International Collaboration on Enteric Disease ‘Burden of Illness’ Studies. 2010,” Glob. Burd. Nontyphoidal Salmonella Gastroenteritis Clin Infect Dis , vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 882–889, 2010. T. Dallman et al. , “Phylogenetic structure of European Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak correlates with national and international egg distribution network,” Microb. Genomics , vol. 2, no. 8, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.000070. A. O. Coker, R. D. Isokpehi, B. N. Thomas, K. O. Amisu, and C. L. Obi, “Human campylobacteriosis in developing countries,” Emerg. Infect. Dis. , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 237–244, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.3201/eid0803.010233. J. de Bruyn, P. C. Thomson, I. Darnton-Hill, B. Bagnol, W. Maulaga, and R. G. Alders, “A Longitudinal Observational Study in Rural Tanzania,” Nutrients , vol. 10, no. 11, p. 1799, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.3390/nu10111799. INSD, “Annuaire statistique 2022 de la région du Centre Nord,” Burkina Faso, Dec. 2023. A. Kagambèga et al. , “Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. in poultry feces and carcasses in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso,” Food Sci. Nutr. , vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1601–1606, July 2018, doi: 10.1002/fsn3.725. L. A. Ofori et al. , “Salmonella enterica in farm environments in the Ashanti Region of Ghana,” BMC Microbiol. , vol. 23, no. 1, p. 370, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s12866-023-03121-3. I. Ouoba, G. Ilboudo S., A. Kagambèga, and M. Dione M., “Analyse genre et élevage de poulets traditionnels dans dix villages de la commune de Boussouma au Centre Nord du Burkina Faso,” 2023. R. D. Berghaus, V. A. Baxter, M. K. Jones, and C. L. Hofacre, “Intra-cluster correlations for ceca Salmonella prevalence and enumeration from 40 experimental floor pen trials in broiler chickens using a seeder bird challenge model,” Poult. Sci. , vol. 101, no. 10, p. 102102, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.102102. M. V. Thrusfield, Veterinary epidemiology , 3rd ed., Repr. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2007. S. L. Leary, Ed., AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals: 2020 edition , 2020 edition. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association, 2020. R. Blodgett, “FDA Bacteriological Analytical Manual. Appendix 2: Most Probable Number from Serial Dilutions,” FDA , p. 20, 2023. S. M. Jajere et al. , “Salmonella in native ‘village’ chickens (Gallus domesticus): prevalence and risk factors from farms in South-Central Peninsular Malaysia,” Poult. Sci. , vol. 98, no. 11, pp. 5961–5970, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.3382/ps/pez392. A. H. Jibril et al. , “Prevalence and risk factors of Salmonella in commercial poultry farms in Nigeria,” 2020, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238190. Donado-Godoy P. et al. , “Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Salmonella from Commercial Broiler Farms in Two Important Poultry-Producing Regions of Colombia,” J. Food Prot. , vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 874–883, May 2012, doi: 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-458. S. Lynseh Carine Sita Bénao, A. Métuor Dabiré, R. Yasmine Wendkuni Tiemtoré, P. Abel Sorgho, G. Géraud Joël, and J. Simporé, “Prevalence of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp Strains Isolated from Chicken Feces and Their Resistance to Antibiotics by Cefotaximase (CTX-M) Enzyme Production,” Biochem. Mol. Biol. , Apr. 2023, doi: 10.11648/j.bmb.20230801.12. T. K. Nguyen et al. , “Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of Salmonella isolated from poultry and its environment in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam,” Vet. World , pp. 3216–3223, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2021.3216-3223. K. Alebachew and A. Mekonnen, “A survey on Salmonella infection among chicken flocks in Jimma town, Ethiopia,” Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. , vol. 7, no. 14, pp. 1239–1245, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.5897/AJMR12.1429. B. I. Shapiro et al. , “Ethiopia livestock master plan: Roadmaps for growth and transformation,” p. 127, 2015. Y. T. Asfaw, G. Ameni, G. Medhin, B. Gumi, and B. Wieland, “Poultry health services in Ethiopia: availability of diagnostic, clinical, and vaccination services,” Poult. Sci. , vol. 100, no. 6, p. 101023, June 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101023. FAO, Family poultry development: Issues, opportunities and constraints. Rome, 2014. Accessed: July 05, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.fao.org/4/i3595e/i3595e.pdf A. Akalu, T. Tadesse, H. Alemayehu, G. Medhin, D. Woldeyohannes, and T. Eguale, “Prevalence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile of Salmonella from Poultry Farms and In‐Contact Humans and Associated Risk Factors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,” Int. J. Microbiol. , vol. 2024, no. 1, p. 4227460, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1155/2024/4227460. M. Mkangara, “Prevention and Control of Human Salmonella enterica Infections: An Implication in Food Safety,” Int. J. Food Sci. , vol. 2023, no. 1, p. 8899596, 2023, doi: 10.1155/2023/8899596. M. Bougma, A. Sawadogo, and E. Beckey, “Genre et sécurité alimentaire au Burkina Faso,” Afr. Sci. , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1–13, 2021. Z. Gizaw, A. W. Yalew, B. D. Bitew, J. Lee, and M. Bisesi, “Animal Handling Practice Among Rural Households in Northwest Ethiopia Increases the Risk of Childhood Diarrhea and Exposure to Pathogens From Animal Sources,” Environ. Health Insights , vol. 18, p. 11786302241245057, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1177/11786302241245057. A. Conan et al. , “Animal-related factors associated with moderate-to-severe diarrhea in children younger than five years in western Kenya: A matched case-control study,” 2017, doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005795. E. F. Guèye, “Family Poultry Research and Development in Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries: Approaches and Prospects,” Outlook Agric. , vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 13–21, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.5367/000000002101293822. L. N’Goran Etienne et al. , “Caracteristiques Du Système D’exploitation Des Poulets Locaux Dans Deux Zones Agro-Ecologiques (Sud Forestier Et Centre Savanicole) De La Côte D’Ivoire,” Eur. Sci. J. ESJ , vol. 17, no. 40, pp. 240–262, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.19044/esj.2021.v17n40p240. G. Nahimana, W. Ossebi, A. Missohou, and S. B. Ayssiwede, “Analyse de l’importance socio-économique de l’aviculture familiale dans le Département de Salemata au Sénégal,” Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. , vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 3131–3143, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.4314/ijbcs.v13i7.13. L. L. Dunn et al. , “The prevalence and concentration of Salmonella enterica in poultry litter in the southern United States,” PLOS ONE , vol. 17, no. 5, p. e0268231, May 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268231. L. P. Miller, R. A. Miknis, and G. A. Flory, Carcass management guidelines: Effective disposal of animal carcasses and contaminated materials on small to medium-sized farms , 23rd ed. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org., 2020. P. Gumasta, N. Kumar, M. Malik, and D. Sahoo, “Management of Stray, Fallen Animals and Carcass Disposal,” in Epidemiology and Environmental Hygiene in Veterinary Public Health , 1st ed., T. Rana, Ed., Wiley, 2025, pp. 551–555. doi: 10.1002/9781394208180.ch47. A. Ercumen, C. Prottas, A. Harris, A. Dioguardi, G. Dowd, and R. Guiteras, “Poultry Ownership Associated with Increased Risk of Child Diarrhea: Cross-Sectional Evidence from Uganda,” Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. , vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 526–533, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0012. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Additionalfile1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 04 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Microbiology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 27 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 26 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 24 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 21 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 21 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 19 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 18 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 18 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8584782","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":578269600,"identity":"b750fce1-942b-408b-9814-259b7caa4b6a","order_by":0,"name":"Wendenso Patrick Bertrand Tiendrébéogo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wendenso","middleName":"Patrick Bertrand","lastName":"Tiendrébéogo","suffix":""},{"id":578269601,"identity":"6f74e9b7-8815-45f3-8916-2bd7cd81e73a","order_by":1,"name":"Assèta Kagambèga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ecole Normale Supérieure","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Assèta","middleName":"","lastName":"Kagambèga","suffix":""},{"id":578269602,"identity":"8774f772-7f5b-4c99-ba3c-c2fafa39383c","order_by":2,"name":"Arshnee Moodley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International Livestock Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Arshnee","middleName":"","lastName":"Moodley","suffix":""},{"id":578269603,"identity":"70c54ac4-8443-40d0-801a-440bb5641bab","order_by":3,"name":"Linnet Ochieng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International Livestock Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Linnet","middleName":"","lastName":"Ochieng","suffix":""},{"id":578269605,"identity":"8e9046fa-aedc-4a81-bf15-076fe0dd69fe","order_by":4,"name":"Tho Abou Da","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tho","middleName":"Abou","lastName":"Da","suffix":""},{"id":578269606,"identity":"8836ebe5-36a3-46f9-8c8a-e5fec6d202a1","order_by":5,"name":"Rasmané Tao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rasmané","middleName":"","lastName":"Tao","suffix":""},{"id":578269607,"identity":"ca25c3b7-16b8-48d6-95f4-180ac9a11f2a","order_by":6,"name":"Abdoul Kader Ilboudo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdoul","middleName":"Kader","lastName":"Ilboudo","suffix":""},{"id":578269608,"identity":"456b7a7b-000f-4b93-ab08-df4c0f96ac99","order_by":7,"name":"Brice Ouedraogo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Brice","middleName":"","lastName":"Ouedraogo","suffix":""},{"id":578269609,"identity":"2413506a-67de-4378-9918-3a9e337d1c8f","order_by":8,"name":"Guy Ilboudo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Guy","middleName":"","lastName":"Ilboudo","suffix":""},{"id":578269610,"identity":"004fc3fc-8db6-4acf-900a-8a0de80f29c7","order_by":9,"name":"Nicolas Barro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Université Joseph Ki-Zerbo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nicolas","middleName":"","lastName":"Barro","suffix":""},{"id":578269611,"identity":"d3e4b271-a9f1-42bc-bb76-a48ddddaee69","order_by":10,"name":"Michel Dione","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michel","middleName":"","lastName":"Dione","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-12 18:53:25","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8584782/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8584782/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-026-04895-y","type":"published","date":"2026-03-04T15:58:17+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101203718,"identity":"c4aa503f-244e-44ee-99af-426d8f5cb37f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-27 09:40:30","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":362489,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ArticleWPBTBMCMicrobiology.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/781debc2f2ec1ccf6ec7d7f1.docx"},{"id":100986369,"identity":"9307a745-e91e-401c-a228-b40c4d64c82c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:08","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":12270,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"fe039c0609464c84b0264dd2b7b04482.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/7036424cb4df6abda987f150.json"},{"id":100986372,"identity":"7e669979-3216-4ec2-af94-78d715b89027","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:09","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":20317,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Additionalfile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/be4ca639bd3506cd73cfd4d7.docx"},{"id":101204210,"identity":"32015d43-fcc5-4439-8b5a-6082f671e7ac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-27 09:41:59","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":139514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"fe039c0609464c84b0264dd2b7b044821enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/da69515754e797e8c48ecb4c.xml"},{"id":100986380,"identity":"e85770e5-65d0-474d-9e3f-77a3d872e3dd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:09","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":202761,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/6856515ddf39dedbf626f47a.jpeg"},{"id":101203563,"identity":"8afda2ab-d1f2-43b3-9dae-1fa1cc8cb740","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-27 09:40:04","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":109777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/59242b9460d292f3b68ac31b.png"},{"id":100986376,"identity":"8c1773b4-c074-4bb8-b247-9edd0e75ffb3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:09","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":64497,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/2abfea7ef353150a5b29a229.png"},{"id":100986375,"identity":"57f845c6-ddca-4382-ba6f-eefd2435daf6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:09","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":34035,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/5f8ca004034e33d59377e6db.png"},{"id":100986379,"identity":"55993c5f-c38e-4b5e-88d4-d78b191fa402","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:09","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":136685,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"fe039c0609464c84b0264dd2b7b044821structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/ed9dc915ce741514364fa70a.xml"},{"id":100986378,"identity":"cba4e31b-8a42-4ef5-8eb3-ada3cb4ab2d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:09","extension":"html","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":150999,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/d7f629cb587d133a06ca8e57.html"},{"id":100986373,"identity":"a3585329-559e-435b-b634-ec865eadc521","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:09","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":202761,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMap of the study area.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/7497ba5e3bba980db4271073.jpeg"},{"id":100986368,"identity":"982b456b-7d9c-40fb-bd3f-e5c349490025","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 13:16:08","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":109777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eForest plot of linear regression coefficients for the quantitative load of \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSalmonella\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e spp. (MPN/g).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/3dcdbe54fbb792ae46ab15b5.png"},{"id":104251540,"identity":"1c774dbc-11da-4eea-85b4-850809e6f5c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-09 16:13:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2019293,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/ea320e37-3fc8-4270-8645-c242163f0653.pdf"},{"id":101203655,"identity":"b177ecdd-a174-444b-b576-a8150c017d79","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-27 09:40:20","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":20317,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Additionalfile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8584782/v1/d26dbfe9fc3586bc1d5df48c.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Prevalence, quantification, and household-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in chickens in Boussouma commune, Burkina Faso","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePoultry production is a key source of livelihood, income and food security for millions of households across Sub-Saharan Africa, including Burkina Faso, where more than 1.6\u0026nbsp;million small-scale producers are involved in the sector [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. However, when poultry are raised under poor husbandry and hygiene conditions, flocks are highly exposed to several pathogens, including zoonotic pathogens such as \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. Therefore, poultry production systems in low-resource settings faces major public health challenges linked to the circulation of foodborne and environmentally transmitted pathogens [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobally, \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. infections remain amoung the leading causes of foodborne disease, responsible for hundreds of millions of diarrheal cases annually [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. In high-income settings, human salmonellosis is commonly associated with the consumption of contaminated raw or undercooked poultry meat or eggs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, in low-resource rural settings, transmission pathways are often broader and include poor household hygiene conditions, lack of biosecurity, and unsafe manure management, and close and continuous contact between humans and poultry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. In such settings, environmental contamination of the household compound, water sources, food preparation areas, and children\u0026rsquo;s play areas by poultry faces represent a critical and often underestimate route of exposure to \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe commune of Boussouma is a rural area with a high number of internally displaced persons resulting from ongoing insecurity, where village poultry production plays a crucial role in household income diversification, food security, and livelihood resilience [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Poultry production systems in this area and predominantly extensive, characterized free-ranging birds, minimal housing, limited veterinary supervision, and low adoption of biosecurity measures, conditions that favor the maintenance and spread of zoonotic pathogens such as \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. Unlike in high-income countries, poultry products are not consumed daily: chickens are primarily kept for sale, ceremonies, or breeding, while eggs are mainly used for hatching [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, human exposure to \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. in rural households is more likely to occur through environmental contamination of water, food, and household surfaces with poultry excreta than through the direct consumption of contaminated meat or eggs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the public health relevance of village poultry, data on the burden of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. infection and the associated management-related risk factors in rural poultry systems in Burkina Faso remain limited. Moreover, few studies have quantified fecal \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. loads in village chickens, despite their importance for understanding environmental contamination pressure and transmission potential. This study conducted in the municipality of Boussouma aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. in village chickens, (2) and bacterial loads, and (3) identify household- and flock-level risk factors associated with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. infection.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy area\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in the rural commune of Boussouma, located in the province of Sandbondtenga in the Kuils\u0026eacute; region (formerly the North-Central region) of Burkina Faso. The commune covers approximately 770 km\u0026sup2; and includes 63 administrative villages. According to the Municipal Development Plan (PCD, 2020), the population was estimated at 131,133 inhabitants in 2024, distributed across 19,536 households, of whom 60,605 were men (46.2%) and 70,527 were women (53.8%) [11] (Figure 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSampling plan and household selection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis cross-sectional study was conducted within the framework of the Poultry Losses and One Health (POLOH) project. Due to the unstable security context in the area, purposive sampling was used with the support of local authorities to select accessible and secure villages. Of the 62 villages in the commune, 23 were included based on these criteria. A preliminary census identified 483 households engaged in traditional poultry farming within the selected villages. From this list, 73 households were randomly selected for microbiological sampling using a computer-generated randomization procedure implemented in Microsoft Excel. Additional households were randomly selected as replacements in each village in case of non-participation or exclusion. The inclusion criteria required households to practice traditional chicken farming and not administer antibiotics to their birds during the two weeks preceding sampling.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample size calculation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnimal-level prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe required sample size was calculated assuming an expected \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. prevalence of 53% based on previous studies [9], \u0026nbsp;a desired precision of 7%, and a 95% confidence level, yielding a minimum of 196 samples without clustering. Considering cluster sampling at the household level (for birds per household) and intra-class correlation (ICC) = 0.06 [12], the adjusted sample size increased to 232 samples (58 households).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRisk Factor Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample size for risk factor analysis was calculated using Thrusfield\u0026rsquo;s formula [13]:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003en = (Z\u0026sup2; \u0026times; P \u0026times; (1 - P)) / d\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ewhere:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = required sample size,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = 1.96 (for 95% confidence level),\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = expected prevalence (0.25, based on previous studies),\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = desired precision (0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003en = (1,96\u0026sup2; \u0026times; 0,25 \u0026times; (1 - 0,25)) / 0,05\u0026sup2; = 288\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eresulting in a minimum of 288 chickens. The final sample size was set at 292 chickens, corresponding to \u003cstrong\u003efour chickens per household\u003c/strong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSelection and collection of poultry samples\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn each household, four adult chickens aged 3-12 months were randomly selected, yielding a total of 292 samples. The chickens sampled in this study were privately owned by household farmers and raised under traditional free-range production systems. All birds originated from local village flocks within the selected households in the rural commune of Boussouma.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to sampling, a structured questionnaire was administered to collect data on poultry management, hygiene practices, biosecurity measures, and household demographics. The questionnaire was specifically developed for this study based on a review of the literature and field experience in traditional poultry production systems. It included closed-ended questions covering household characteristics, poultry management practices, hygiene conditions, and biosecurity measures. An English version of the questionnaire is provided as Supplementary Material (Additional file 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnly birds raised under traditional systems, without antibiotic treatment in the previous two weeks and without visible clinical signs of disease, were eligible. Breeding stock were excluded. Birds were identified based on physical characteristics (e.g., feather color, size, comb type), and random selection was performed by lottery. In households with \u0026gt;50 chickens, birds were first grouped by age or housing area prior to random selection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChickens were humanely euthanized on site by cervical dislocation, performed by trained personnel in accordance with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals [14]. Cecal intestinal contents were aseptically collected using sterile gloves, placed in labeled sterile bags, and stored in coolers at 4\u0026deg;C until further processing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTransport and storage conditions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSamples were transported within four hours in temperature controlled cooler boxes to the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Epidemiology, and Surveillance of Foodborne Bacteria and Viruses (LaBESTA) at Joseph Ki-Zerbo University. Laboratory processing began immediately upon arrival.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMicrobiological analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDetection of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. detection followed the ISO 6579:2012 standard. One gram of cecal content was pre-enrichment in 9 mL of sterile Buffered Peptone Water (BPW) at 37 \u0026deg;C for 24 h. For selective enrichment, 100 \u0026micro;L of BPW culture were transferred into 9.9 mL of Rappaport\u0026ndash;Vassiliadis (RV) broth and incubated at 42 \u0026deg;C for 24 h. Isolation was carried out by streaking 10 \u0026micro;L from each RV tube onto \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. Chromogenic Agar plates at 37 \u0026deg;C for 24 h. Presumptive colonies (add what they would look like) were biochemically confirmed using Kligler Hajna iron agar, Triple Sugar Iron, urease, and indole). Confirmed isolates were stored at \u0026minus;80 \u0026deg;C in cryovials with 15% glycerol.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMALDI-TOF MS confirmation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll confirmed isolates were subjected to species-level identification using the Bruker Biotyper (Bruker Daltonik GmbH), which employs matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). The direct spotting method was performed according to the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuantification of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003espp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBacterial loads were estimated using the Most Probable Number (MPN) method. Serial dilutions were prepared from 1 g of cecal content in BPW. Following incubation and selective enrichment, dilutions were enumerated on \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. Chromogenic Agar, and MPN values were expressed as MPN/g using the US EPA online calculator [15].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrevalence estimation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnimal level was calculated as the proportion of positive samples among the total samples examined. Flock-level prevalence was defined as households. Exact 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Clopper\u0026ndash;Pearson method. \u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRisk Factor Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData was evaluated using Stata version 14 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Descriptive statistics were first run to summarize the distribution of the variables at the household and animal levels. Two primary statistical models were applied to examine factors associated with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. infection in chickens.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLogistic regression was employed to examine the presence of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp.(binary outcome: presence/absence). Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated. Variables were initially screened in univariate logistic regression models based on prior evidence from the literature and field observations. Earlier research has indicated correlations with farm size, carcass disposal, and hygiene practices [16], [17], [18]. The contextual relevance of candidate variables was further evaluated through preliminary descriptive analyses and on-site observations made during fieldwork. Variables that demonstrated biological plausibility, contextual importance, or notable variation among households were subsequently included in the multivariate logistic regression model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMultivariate logistic regression was conducted next to identify significant risk factors. A stepwise selection procedure was employed to retain the most important variables for the final model. The statistical significance was set at p \u0026lt; 0.05. An odds ratio (OR) \u0026gt; 1 indicated a greater likelihood of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. presence, and an OR \u0026lt; 1 indicated a protection from \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. presence. To check for multicollinearity among the explanatory variables, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was calculated. Variables with a VIF greater than 5 were taken out of the final model.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssessment of factors that affect \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. bacterial load in chicken feces\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA linear regression analysis was conducted to examine factors affecting \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. bacterial load. The model was developed to estimate the average effect of each predictor on bacterial concentration. Forest plots, created in RStudio (version 2025.05.1, Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), to visualize regression coefficients and 95% pension intervals to facilitate interpretation of the direction and strength of the associations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe selected explanatory variables were derived from literature research, biological feasibility, and pertinent factors related to traditional poultry farming systems in rural Burkina Faso. Specifically, variables for sociodemographic conditions, husbandry and feeding practice, herd composition, and hygiene and biosecurity measures were included. These groups were selected as they account for the main domains by which \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. can pass and persist at the household level while incorporating both animal-related and environmental exposure observed during the study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHousehold Sociodemographic Characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 displays the sociodemographic data of the 73 surveyed households. Most respondents were men (94.5%), reflecting the male-dominated structure of household headship in the study area. More than half were aged \u0026gt; 50 years (54.8%). The majority of respondents reported no formal education (78.1%). Most households were headed by married individuals, either monogamous (50.7%) or polygamous (42.5%). Approximately half of the households (50.7%) reported more than 20 years of experience in poultry keeping. Children aged \u0026lt;5 years were present in 47.9% of households, and among these, 50.7% reporting having no additional caregiver responsible for management besides the primary household head.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e. Sociodemographic profile of households involved in backyard poultry farming in Boussouma (n = 73)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"603\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCategory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN (households)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCumulative %\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge of household head\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;30 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u0026ndash;49 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;50 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo formal education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMarital status\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried (monogamous)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried (polygamous)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot married\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWidow(er)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChildren under 5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026sup3;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYears of experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u0026ndash;19 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCaregivers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo or more\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLivestock keeping and Farming Systems\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost household maintained small poultry flocks, with 50.7% keeping 10-29 chickens and 16.4% keeping fewer than 10 birds (Table 2). Mixed livestock keeping was common: 90.4% of households owned sheep, 57.5% owned goats, 41.1% owned cattle, and 42.5% managed at least one donkey. Guineafowl were present in 23.3% of households, whereas pigeons (4.1%) and ducks (in 1.4%) were rarely kept.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e. Distribution of livestock holdings at household level (n = 73)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"590\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCategory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN (households)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCumulative %\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePoultry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVery small (3\u0026ndash;9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall (10\u0026ndash;29)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium (30\u0026ndash;69)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge (70+)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSheep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall (1\u0026ndash;9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium (10\u0026ndash;19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge (20+)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGoats\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall (1\u0026ndash;9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium (10\u0026ndash;19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge (20+)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCattle\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDonkeys\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 donkey\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;1 donkey\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGuineafowl\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePigeons\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDucks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e98.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristics of Sampled Chickens\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll\u0026nbsp;292 sampled birds were of local indigenous breeds (Table 3). More than half of the birds were aged \u0026gt;5 months (51.4%), while 34.9% were between 4-4.9 months and 13.7% were 3-3.9 months old. The majority of sampled birds were male (72.3%), with females accounting for 27.7% of the sample.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3.\u003c/strong\u003e Demographic characteristics of chickens sampled (n = 292)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"582\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCategory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;= 292\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge (months)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u0026ndash;3.9\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u0026ndash;4.9\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 5\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e211\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSalmonell\u003c/em\u003ea spp. Prevalence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnimal-Level Prevalence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf the 292 chickens sampled, 167 were positive for \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. yielding an animal level prevalence of 57.2% (95% CI: 51.5\u0026ndash;62.9), while 125 samples (42.8%) were negative.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFlock-Level Prevalence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the household level, 63 of the 73 households had at least one \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003espp. positive chicken, corresponding to a flock-level prevalence of 91.8% (95% CI: 84.1\u0026ndash;97.1). Only six households (8.2%) were classified as negative.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBacterial Load Distribution of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003espp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the 292 chickens sampled, 125% (42.8%) were negative for \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003espp. Among the 167 positive chickens, most exhibited low bacterial loads. Specifically, 133 birds (45.6% of all chickens; 79.6% of positives) has low loads (1.0001 to 1 MPN/g), 23 birds (7.9% of all chickens; 13.8% of positives) had moderate loads (1.0001-5 MPN/g), and 11 birds (3.8% of all chickens; 6.6\u0026amp; of positives) had high loads (\u0026gt; 5 MPN/g).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRisk Factors Associated with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. Presence at animal level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eUnivariate Logistic Regression\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe univariate logistic regression, several household management and hygiene practices were significantly associated with the presence of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;spp. in chickens (Table 4)\u003c/em\u003e. Poultry treatment was protective (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12\u0026ndash;0.53, p \u0026lt; 0.001). In contrast, leaving carcasses on household premises increased the OR of infection (OR = 5.85; 95% CI: 1.70\u0026ndash;20.08, p = 0.005). \u0026nbsp;The presence of guinea fowl was also associated with higher odds of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. detection (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.00\u0026ndash;3.15, p = 0.048).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHygiene-related practices were consistently protective. Occassional faeces cleaning (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.06\u0026ndash;0.65, p = 0.008), frequent cleaning (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.09\u0026ndash;0.78, p = 0.017) and manure disposal (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.33\u0026ndash;0.89, p = 0.017) were all associated with reduced offs of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. presence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSociodemographic factors showed limited associations. Households with two or four children under five years of age had lower odds of infection, while caregiver number showed only borderline associations. No significant associations were observed for sex of household head, education level, water source, or night-time confinement of poultry in univariate analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Results of univariate analyses of factors associated with\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003espp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003epresence in chicken.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReference category\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompared category\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.13 \u0026ndash; 1.36]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.149\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo formal education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.51 \u0026ndash; 1.57]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.690\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of children \u0026lt;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.29 \u0026ndash; 1.27]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.185\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.16 \u0026ndash; 0.80]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.013*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.34 \u0026ndash; 2.94]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.13 \u0026ndash; 0.96]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.042*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTertiary activity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgriculture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGold mining\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.01 \u0026ndash; 1.76]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.129\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther livestock\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.28 \u0026ndash; 6.44]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.720\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoultry treatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.12 \u0026ndash; 0.53]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVaccination (New Castel)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.58 \u0026ndash; 1.53]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.815\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSheep herd size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall (1\u0026ndash;9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.73 \u0026ndash; 3.59]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.240\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGoat herd size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall (1\u0026ndash;9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.03 \u0026ndash; 2.80]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCattle herd size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.89 \u0026ndash; 2.47]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDonkey ownership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 donkey\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.80 \u0026ndash; 2.35]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.243\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;1 donkey\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.63 \u0026ndash; 2.56]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePresence of guinea fowls\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.00 \u0026ndash; 3.15]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight confinement of poultry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.79 \u0026ndash; 2.14]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.303\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarcass burial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.82 \u0026ndash; 2.07]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.272\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManure disposal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.33 \u0026ndash; 0.89]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeces cleaning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNever\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOccasional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.06 \u0026ndash; 0.65]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.09 \u0026ndash; 0.78]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbandonment of carcasses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.70 \u0026ndash; 20.08]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.005**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater supply\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.68 \u0026ndash; 1.73]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.742\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of caregivers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.94 \u0026ndash; 2.79]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.083\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo or more\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.30 \u0026ndash; 1.09]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.089\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMultivariate Logistic Regression Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the final multivariate logistic regression model, lack of poultry treatment remained strongly associated with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. presence (OR = 3.77; 95% CI: 1.70\u0026ndash;8.32; P = 0.001). Leaving poultry carcasses on household premises was also a major independent risk factor (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: 1.48\u0026ndash;21.23; P = 0.011), as was ownership of more than one (OR = 4.30; 95% CI: 1.63\u0026ndash;11.35; P = 0.003). Protective factors included access to improved water sources (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24\u0026ndash;0.88; P = 0.020) and manure disposal (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.23\u0026ndash;0.85; P = 0,013). Each additional child under five years of age was weakly associated with reduced odds of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. detection (OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81\u0026ndash;0.98; P = 0.017). Male-headed households are significantly less likely to be contaminated (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.06\u0026ndash;0.86; P = 0.029). Second, night-time confinement of poultry shows a marginal association with an increased risk, although this trend does not reach the conventional threshold for statistical significance (p = 0.051).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e. Logistic regression model of risk factors associated with\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;spp. presence in households in Boussouma.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"595\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStd. Error\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoultry treatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.70 \u0026ndash; 8.32]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTertiary activity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.21 \u0026ndash; 1.75]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarcass abandonment on-site\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.48 \u0026ndash; 21.23]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManure disposal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.23 \u0026ndash; 0.85]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater source\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.24 \u0026ndash; 0.88]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of children \u0026lt; 5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.81 \u0026ndash; 0.98]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDonkey herd (\u0026gt;1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.63 \u0026ndash; 11.35]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarcass burial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.09 \u0026ndash; 3.39]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSex (male)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.06 \u0026ndash; 0.86]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight-time poultry confinement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[1.00 \u0026ndash; 3.46]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.051\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.03 \u0026ndash; 1.06]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactors Associated with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. Bacterial Load: Linear Regression Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA multiple linear regression is performed to identify factors associated with the quantity of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003espp.\u003c/em\u003e, expressed in MPN/g. The model was statistically significant (F (25,266) = 3.88; p \u0026lt; 0.001) and explains approximately 20% of the observed variation (adjusted R\u0026sup2; = 0.198). Our results show that certain factors significantly influence \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. load. Specifically, leaving poultry carcasses on site is associated with a mean increase of 0.53 log MPN/g, while burying carcasses is linked to a mean increase of 0.21 log MPN/g. In contrast, access to a borehole water supply reduces the load by approximately 0.26 log MPN/g, and manure disposal is associated with a mean reduction of 0.29 log MPN/g. The administration of treatments also shows efficacy, with an estimated reduction of 0.44 log MPN/g. Finally, the presence of three children under five years of age in the household is associated with an increase in the mean bacterial load of 0.41 log MPN/g.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAnimal and Flock levels prevalence of\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eSalmonella\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003espp.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the animal level, \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. was detected in 57.2% (95% CI: 51.5\u0026ndash;62.9) of chicken fecal samples in Boussouma, revealing a widespread contamination among village poultry flocks. This prevalence is considerably higher than that reported in urban poultry settings in Ouagadougou [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], where \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. were found in 9.9% of chicken droppings, and in the Mekong Delta (Vietnam) by Nguyen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], where fecal samples showed a prevalence of 7.7%. However, it is close to the 40.8% observed in free-ranging chickens in Ethiopia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. These variations in production systems, hygiene practices, and environmental exposure, particularly the free-scavenging nature of village poultry farming in rural Burkina Faso. Despite the high prevalence of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp., most positive chickens carried only low bacterial loads. In fact, 45.6% of sampled birds harbored very small amounts of the pathogen (0.0001\u0026ndash;1 MPN/g), while only 7.9% and 3.8% showed moderate or high loads, respectively. This distribution indicates that the majority of infected birds function as asymptomatic or chronic carriers rather than experiencing acute clinical disease.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn traditional poultry systems such as those in Boussouma, repeated exposure to contaminated soil, manure, and household environments may encourage persistent low-level colonization and continuous environmental recycling of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. This silent circulation represents a significant qualitative risk, as it allows long-term contamination of household spaces without producing obvious signs of illness in the poultry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the flock level, \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. was detected in 91.8% (95% CI: 84.1\u0026ndash;97.1) of surveyed households, confirming that contamination is nearly ubiquitous in traditional poultry settings. The presence of multiple animal species and the lack of routine cleaning, disinfection, and litter management likely increases environmental persistence and cross-contamination between flocks. Under such conditions, even low bacterial loads at the individual animal level may cumulatively sustain widespread household contamination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings indicate that \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. is deeply entrenched in household poultry systems in rural Burkina Faso, not primarily through severe disease in birds, but through widespread low-level carriage and persistent environmental cycling.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRisk factors for\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eSalmonella\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003espp. infection in chicken\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study identified several significant risk factors for \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. detection in rural poultry systems reflecting practical vulnerabilities in household-level management and hygiene practices at the animal\u0026ndash;household interface.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe absence of veterinary treatment was strongly associated with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. presence (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.77; 95% CI: [1.70\u0026ndash;8.32]; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001). In Boussouma, limited access to veterinary services, poor road infrastructure, and financial constraints often lead farmers to rely on informal self-medication using antibiotics purchased from local markets. While such practices may reduce \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. prevalence or bacterial loads in the short term, they also raise concerns regarding inappropriate antimicrobial use and the potential selection of antimicrobial-resistant strains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilar patterns were reported in Kenya and Ethiopia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], and the FAO notes that weak veterinary coverage in low-resource settings fosters pathogen persistence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarcass management was another key determinant. Households that abandoned dead birds on-site (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.61; 95% CI: [1.48\u0026ndash;21.23]; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.011) or buried them near living areas (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.92; 95% CI: [1.09\u0026ndash;3.39]; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.024) faced elevated risks. These practices likely enhance environmental contamination and facilitate indirect transmission, particularly in household courtyards where poultry, children, and other animals interact closely. Comparable findings were reported in Nigeria and Ethiopia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, households that properly disposed of poultry manure (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.44; 95% CI: [0.23\u0026ndash;0.85]; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013) or used improved water sources (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.46; 95% CI: [0.24\u0026ndash;0.88]; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.020) showed significantly lower prevalence. These practices reduce fecal oral transmission and limit environmental survival of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp., consistent with findings from other rural poultry systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSociodemographic factors also influenced infection risk. Households with a higher number of children under five years of age were less likely to show \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. presence (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.89; 95% CI: 0.81\u0026ndash;0.98; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.017). This finding may reflect greater vigilance and improved hygiene practices when young children are present. In contrast, when bacterial load was considered, households with three or more children under five exhibited higher \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. concentrations, which suggests increased environmental contamination through frequent contact with poultry, soil, and feces. This apparent discrepancy highlights the complexity of exposure pathways. Although heightened awareness may help reduce infection risk, persistent low-level exposures can perpetuate high bacterial burdens after contamination has taken place.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHouseholds headed by men (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22; 95% CI: [0.06\u0026ndash;0.86]; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.029) were less affected. These results may reflect gendered disparities in access to sanitation and veterinary services [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic activity also played a role. Poultry, often perceived as a marginal activity, was the\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ethe third income source reported by households, termed \u0026ldquo;tertiary activity\u0026rdquo; was dominated by poultry farming (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.45; 95% CI: [1.21\u0026ndash;1.75]; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001). Though considered minor, poultry provides a flexible source of cash and protein and is often managed with minimal supervision. This marginal status limits investment in hygiene and veterinary care, thereby increasing the risk of contamination [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, mixed livestock rearing, particularly the presence of more than one donkey (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.30; 95% CI: [1.63\u0026ndash;11.35]; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003), was associated with a higher risk. The lack of species segregation can facilitate cross-contamination via shared soil and water sources, as observed in Rwanda and Nigeria [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings underscore the importance of implementing targeted interventions, including expanding veterinary outreach, promoting hygiene education, and enhancing waste management, to mitigate the transmission of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. and safeguard public health in rural Burkina Faso.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFactors that affect\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eSalmonella\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003espp. bacterial load in chicken feces\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe linear regression model identified six significant factors influencing the bacterial load of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. in chicken feces. These determinants reflect hygiene practices, access to basic services, and household dynamics, with direct implications for poultry production and public health.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbandonment of poultry carcasses on-site (Coef. = 0.53; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004) was strongly associated with increased bacterial load. Leaving dead birds exposed facilitates environmental contamination and bacterial proliferation, especially in courtyards shared with children and other animals. This study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrated that \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. concentrations in poultry litter can range from 0.45 to over 280,000 MPN/g, confirming that fecal contamination levels vary widely depending on management practices. Similar risks were reported by Miller [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], who found that poor carcass disposal contributes to pathogen persistence in rural environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, carcass burial (Coef. = 0.21; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.037) also contributed to higher contamination levels. Although intended as a hygienic measure, shallow or poorly located burials may lead to recontamination of soil and water. Gumasta [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] highlighted that burial near living areas increases bacterial load, especially when carcasses are not properly covered or isolated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, access to improved water sources (Coef. = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.26; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.044) and proper manure disposal (Coef. = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.29; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.011) were associated with significantly lower bacterial loads. These practices reduce fecal-oral transmission and limit environmental persistence of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella spp.\u003c/em\u003e, consistent with findings from previous studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] in Tanzanian poultry systems. Clean water reduces the risk of recontaminating feed and drinking points, while safe manure handling prevents pathogen spread to soil and nearby dwellings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVeterinary treatment (Coef. = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.44; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001) was another protective factor. Households that administered antibiotics had significantly lower bacterial loads, underscoring the importance of veterinary access. Asfaw [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] and the FAO [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] emphasize that veterinary oversight reduces pathogen circulation and improves poultry health outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the presence of three children under five years old (Coef. = 0.41; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.026) was linked to higher bacterial load. In such households, hygiene management may be more challenging due to competing childcare responsibilities. Close contact between children and domestic animals has been associated with increased exposure to enteric pathogens [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], which may indirectly contribute to environmental contamination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight the need for targeted interventions by improving carcass and manure management, expanding access to clean water and veterinary services, and supporting hygiene education in households with young children. Reducing bacterial load in poultry feces is essential not only for flock health but also for limiting zoonotic transmission in rural communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRecommendations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study underscores the importance of practical, household-level measures to reduce \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. contamination in village poultry systems in rural Burkina Faso. Simple, low-cost hygiene practices such as safe manure disposal, wet cleaning rather than dry sweeping, and basic biosecurity should be prioritized, even though poultry often represents a tertiary income source with limited labor and financial investment. While access to improved water sources was linked to lower \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. prevalence, high costs and limited availability remain significant barriers. In the meantime, promoting safer water handling and reducing reliance on contaminated surface water can provide realistic alternatives. Because poultry treatment practices were associated with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. detection, interventions must discourage unsupervised antibiotic use and strengthen veterinary support to limit both infection and antimicrobial resistance. Finally, households with young children should be a key focus for hygiene education, as they face greater exposure once contamination occurs. Together, these context-adapted, household-centered strategies are essential to mitigating zoonotic risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was carried out in a single rural commune, which means the findings may not fully apply to other settings. Sampling took place at only one point in time, so seasonal changes in \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. prevalence and bacterial load could not be assessed. Because chickens were sampled within households, results may reflect clustering effects linked to shared environments and management practices. Village selection was guided by accessibility and security, which may have introduced bias by excluding more remote or less secure areas. The cross-sectional design also limits causal interpretation, since associations between practices and \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. detection cannot confirm temporal or causal links. Finally, the semi-quantitative nature of the MPN method and the absence of serotype-level identification with MALDI-TOF reduce the precision of bacterial load estimates and restrict deeper epidemiological insights.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides essential baseline evidence on \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. prevalence, bacterial load, and household-level risk factors in backyard poultry systems in Boussouma, Burkina Faso. Beyond documenting widespread contamination, the findings identify practical entry points for low-cost interventions that can reduce transmission at the animal\u0026ndash;household interface. Measures such as improved manure management, safe disposal of dead birds, avoidance of dry sweeping, and simple hygiene practices are feasible even where poultry farming remains a secondary or tertiary livelihood activity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity engagement emerges as equally critical. Involving household heads, women, and children can foster the sustained adoption of protective behaviors. Although further longitudinal research and expanded surveillance are needed to clarify seasonal dynamics and causal pathways, this work establishes a strong foundation for targeted veterinary support, hygiene education, and locally adapted prevention strategies. By generating context-specific evidence from an underserved rural setting, the study contributes to integrated approaches that safeguard animal health, reduce household exposure, and strengthen public health resilience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHuman participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for the household survey component of the study was obtained from the ILRI Institutional Research Ethics Committee (IREC; Ref: ILRI-IREC2022-57) and the National Ethics Committee for Health Research of Burkina Faso (Ref: 2022-11-232). The study involving human participants was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor household surveys, the project information sheet and consent form were read and explained to all participants in local languages, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnimal subjects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for animal handling, sampling, and euthanasia procedures was obtained from the ILRI Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC; Ref: ILRI-IACUC2022-38).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll chickens included in the study were privately owned by household farmers. Authorization to access poultry and conduct sampling was obtained from household heads prior to data and sample collection. Chickens were humanely euthanized by cervical dislocation, in accordance with internationally accepted animal welfare guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this research can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was funded by the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under agreement No. AID-OAA-L-15-00003 as part of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems and the Bill \u0026amp; Melinda Gates, Foundation OPP#1175487. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to manuscript review, editing, final proofreading and approval for submission. Conceptualization was by W.P.B.T., A.K., N.B. and M.D.; methodology, formal analysis, data curation and original draft writing by W.P.B.T.; resources and supervision by B.O., .K. and M.D.; funding acquisition and project administration by M.D. and A.K.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are grateful to all who participated and assisted us in our research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. B. Ayssiwede \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Elevage des poulets traditionnels ou indig\u0026egrave;nes au S\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;gal et en Afrique Subsaharienne: \u0026eacute;tat des lieux et contraintes,\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eAnnales de M\u0026eacute;decine V\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute;rinaire\u003c/em\u003e, ULg-Universit\u0026eacute; de Li\u0026egrave;ge, Li\u0026egrave;ge, Belgium, 2013. Accessed: Dec. 27, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/165669\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO, \u0026ldquo;Rapport pays \u0026ndash; \u0026Eacute;levage durable en Afrique 2050 . L\u0026rsquo;impact des syst\u0026egrave;mes de production sur les moyens de subsistance, Fili\u0026egrave;res bovine et volaille BURKINA FASO,\u0026rdquo; Organisation des Nations Unies pour l\u0026rsquo;alimentation et l\u0026rsquo;agriculture, Rome, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0199e3d3-1c86-4c05-bb29-a8fb8f516a80/content\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWHO, \u0026ldquo;Salmonella (non-typhoidal).\u0026rdquo; Accessed: Aug. 25, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/salmonella-(non-typhoidal)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. E. Majowicz \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;International Collaboration on Enteric Disease \u0026lsquo;Burden of Illness\u0026rsquo; Studies. 2010,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eGlob. Burd. Nontyphoidal Salmonella Gastroenteritis Clin Infect Dis\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 882\u0026ndash;889, 2010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eT. Dallman \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Phylogenetic structure of European Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak correlates with national and international egg distribution network,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eMicrob. Genomics\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 2, no. 8, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.000070.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. O. Coker, R. D. Isokpehi, B. N. Thomas, K. O. Amisu, and C. L. Obi, \u0026ldquo;Human campylobacteriosis in developing countries,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEmerg. Infect. Dis.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 237\u0026ndash;244, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.3201/eid0803.010233.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. de Bruyn, P. C. Thomson, I. Darnton-Hill, B. Bagnol, W. Maulaga, and R. G. Alders, \u0026ldquo;A Longitudinal Observational Study in Rural Tanzania,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eNutrients\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 1799, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.3390/nu10111799.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eINSD, \u0026ldquo;Annuaire statistique 2022 de la r\u0026eacute;gion du Centre Nord,\u0026rdquo; Burkina Faso, Dec. 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Kagamb\u0026egrave;ga \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. in poultry feces and carcasses in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eFood Sci. Nutr.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1601\u0026ndash;1606, July 2018, doi: 10.1002/fsn3.725.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL. A. Ofori \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Salmonella enterica in farm environments in the Ashanti Region of Ghana,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eBMC Microbiol.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 370, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s12866-023-03121-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eI. Ouoba, G. Ilboudo S., A. Kagamb\u0026egrave;ga, and M. Dione M., \u0026ldquo;Analyse genre et \u0026eacute;levage de poulets traditionnels dans dix villages de la commune de Boussouma au Centre Nord du Burkina Faso,\u0026rdquo; 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR. D. Berghaus, V. A. Baxter, M. K. Jones, and C. L. Hofacre, \u0026ldquo;Intra-cluster correlations for ceca Salmonella prevalence and enumeration from 40 experimental floor pen trials in broiler chickens using a seeder bird challenge model,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ePoult. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 101, no. 10, p. 102102, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.102102.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM. V. Thrusfield, \u003cem\u003eVeterinary epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e, 3rd ed., Repr. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. L. Leary, Ed., \u003cem\u003eAVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals: 2020 edition\u003c/em\u003e, 2020 edition. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR. Blodgett, \u0026ldquo;FDA Bacteriological Analytical Manual. Appendix 2: Most Probable Number from Serial Dilutions,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eFDA\u003c/em\u003e, p. 20, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. M. Jajere \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Salmonella in native \u0026lsquo;village\u0026rsquo; chickens (Gallus domesticus): prevalence and risk factors from farms in South-Central Peninsular Malaysia,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ePoult. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 98, no. 11, pp. 5961\u0026ndash;5970, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.3382/ps/pez392.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. H. Jibril \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Prevalence and risk factors of Salmonella in commercial poultry farms in Nigeria,\u0026rdquo; 2020, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238190.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonado-Godoy P. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Salmonella from Commercial Broiler Farms in Two Important Poultry-Producing Regions of Colombia,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ. Food Prot.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 874\u0026ndash;883, May 2012, doi: 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-458.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. Lynseh Carine Sita B\u0026eacute;nao, A. M\u0026eacute;tuor Dabir\u0026eacute;, R. Yasmine Wendkuni Tiemtor\u0026eacute;, P. Abel Sorgho, G. G\u0026eacute;raud Jo\u0026euml;l, and J. Simpor\u0026eacute;, \u0026ldquo;Prevalence of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp Strains Isolated from Chicken Feces and Their Resistance to Antibiotics by Cefotaximase (CTX-M) Enzyme Production,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eBiochem. Mol. Biol.\u003c/em\u003e, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.11648/j.bmb.20230801.12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eT. K. Nguyen \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of Salmonella isolated from poultry and its environment in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eVet. World\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 3216\u0026ndash;3223, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2021.3216-3223.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK. Alebachew and A. Mekonnen, \u0026ldquo;A survey on Salmonella infection among chicken flocks in Jimma town, Ethiopia,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAfr. J. Microbiol. Res.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 7, no. 14, pp. 1239\u0026ndash;1245, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.5897/AJMR12.1429.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB. I. Shapiro \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Ethiopia livestock master plan: Roadmaps for growth and transformation,\u0026rdquo; p. 127, 2015.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eY. T. Asfaw, G. Ameni, G. Medhin, B. Gumi, and B. Wieland, \u0026ldquo;Poultry health services in Ethiopia: availability of diagnostic, clinical, and vaccination services,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ePoult. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 100, no. 6, p. 101023, June 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO, \u003cem\u003eFamily poultry development: Issues, opportunities and constraints.\u003c/em\u003e Rome, 2014. Accessed: July 05, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.fao.org/4/i3595e/i3595e.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Akalu, T. Tadesse, H. Alemayehu, G. Medhin, D. Woldeyohannes, and T. Eguale, \u0026ldquo;Prevalence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e from Poultry Farms and In‐Contact Humans and Associated Risk Factors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Microbiol.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 2024, no. 1, p. 4227460, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1155/2024/4227460.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM. Mkangara, \u0026ldquo;Prevention and Control of Human Salmonella enterica Infections: An Implication in Food Safety,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Food Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 2023, no. 1, p. 8899596, 2023, doi: 10.1155/2023/8899596.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM. Bougma, A. Sawadogo, and E. Beckey, \u0026ldquo;Genre et s\u0026eacute;curit\u0026eacute; alimentaire au Burkina Faso,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAfr. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1\u0026ndash;13, 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZ. Gizaw, A. W. Yalew, B. D. Bitew, J. Lee, and M. Bisesi, \u0026ldquo;Animal Handling Practice Among Rural Households in Northwest Ethiopia Increases the Risk of Childhood Diarrhea and Exposure to Pathogens From Animal Sources,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Health Insights\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 18, p. 11786302241245057, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1177/11786302241245057.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Conan \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Animal-related factors associated with moderate-to-severe diarrhea in children younger than five years in western Kenya: A matched case-control study,\u0026rdquo; 2017, doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005795.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eE. F. Gu\u0026egrave;ye, \u0026ldquo;Family Poultry Research and Development in Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries: Approaches and Prospects,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eOutlook Agric.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 13\u0026ndash;21, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.5367/000000002101293822.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL. N\u0026rsquo;Goran Etienne \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Caracteristiques Du Syst\u0026egrave;me D\u0026rsquo;exploitation Des Poulets Locaux Dans Deux Zones Agro-Ecologiques (Sud Forestier Et Centre Savanicole) De La C\u0026ocirc;te D\u0026rsquo;Ivoire,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEur. Sci. J. ESJ\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 17, no. 40, pp. 240\u0026ndash;262, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.19044/esj.2021.v17n40p240.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG. Nahimana, W. Ossebi, A. Missohou, and S. B. Ayssiwede, \u0026ldquo;Analyse de l\u0026rsquo;importance socio-\u0026eacute;conomique de l\u0026rsquo;aviculture familiale dans le D\u0026eacute;partement de Salemata au S\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;gal,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Biol. Chem. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 3131\u0026ndash;3143, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.4314/ijbcs.v13i7.13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL. L. Dunn \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;The prevalence and concentration of Salmonella enterica in poultry litter in the southern United States,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 17, no. 5, p. e0268231, May 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268231.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL. P. Miller, R. A. Miknis, and G. A. Flory, \u003cem\u003eCarcass management guidelines: Effective disposal of animal carcasses and contaminated materials on small to medium-sized farms\u003c/em\u003e, 23rd ed. Rome: Food \u0026amp; Agriculture Org., 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eP. Gumasta, N. Kumar, M. Malik, and D. Sahoo, \u0026ldquo;Management of Stray, Fallen Animals and Carcass Disposal,\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eEpidemiology and Environmental Hygiene in Veterinary Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 1st ed., T. Rana, Ed., Wiley, 2025, pp. 551\u0026ndash;555. doi: 10.1002/9781394208180.ch47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Ercumen, C. Prottas, A. Harris, A. Dioguardi, G. Dowd, and R. Guiteras, \u0026ldquo;Poultry Ownership Associated with Increased Risk of Child Diarrhea: Cross-Sectional Evidence from Uganda,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAm. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 526\u0026ndash;533, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-microbiology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"mcro","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Microbiology](http://bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/mcro","title":"BMC Microbiology","twitterHandle":"#bmcmicrobiology","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Traditional, chicken, fecal contamination, bacterial load, rural farming, Burkina Faso, zoonoses, One Health, biosecurity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8584782/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8584782/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eVillage chicken production is central to rural livelihoods across sub-Saharan Africa. However, the poor biosecurity and hygiene observed in the chicken flocks, coupled with the limited access of farmers to veterinary services, provides favorable conditions for the persistence and transmission of zoonotic pathogens such as \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e in village chicken flocks; quantify fecal bacterial loads; and identify household \u0026ndash; and flock-level risk factors associated with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. infection in Boussouma commune in rural Burkina Faso.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional study was conducted in 73 poultry-keeping households. Fresh fecal samples were collected from 292 live chickens. Laboratory analysis was carried out using the ISO 6579:2012 standard methods. Quantification of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. In fecal matters, was done using the Most Probable Number (MPN) method. Structured household interviews captured data on poultry management, hygiene practices, flock characteristics, and household demographics. Multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to assess associations between household- and flock-level practices with \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. presence and bacterial load.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe animal level prevalence of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. in chicken feces was 57.2% (95% CI: 51.5\u0026ndash;62.9). \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. loads in feces ranged from 0.03 to 10.99 MPN/g (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63 MPN/g). In multivariate logistic regression, lack of access to veterinary care (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.77; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001), on-site accumulation of poultry manure (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.61; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.011), and burial of dead chickens within the household compound (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.92; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.024) were associated with increased odds of infection. Protective factors included improved access to water (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.46; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.020) and removal of manure from household environment (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.44; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013). Chickens from male-headed households had lower odds of infection (OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.029). Higher \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. loads were associated with poor hygiene, limited water access, and lack of veterinary care.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings highlight critical, context-specific points of intervention for reducing zoonotic transmission risks at the animal-household interface. Targeted community-level hygiene promotion, improved water access, safer carcass and manure management, and strengthening of village-level veterinary services are essential to mitigate public health risks linked to village poultry production.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Prevalence, quantification, and household-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in chickens in Boussouma commune, Burkina Faso","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-23 13:16:04","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8584782/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-27T09:17:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-26T16:03:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"65028827503201064919921898819928044168","date":"2026-01-26T02:58:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-24T20:39:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"298007370248926285014876296218342997551","date":"2026-01-23T22:51:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"87159087094535221848473809252562410783","date":"2026-01-23T11:50:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"203243879552781084916428967368386704196","date":"2026-01-21T14:15:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"265762740200561112994835040537882969693","date":"2026-01-21T13:06:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"258460028738865158072143058943935440976","date":"2026-01-21T12:17:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-21T11:16:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-21T11:14:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-19T10:31:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-19T04:41:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Microbiology","date":"2026-01-19T04:35:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-microbiology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"mcro","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Microbiology](http://bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/mcro","title":"BMC Microbiology","twitterHandle":"#bmcmicrobiology","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"86a225cd-f3c8-4b74-b82b-60caff2013b8","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 23rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-09T16:09:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-8584782","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-026-04895-y","journal":{"identity":"bmc-microbiology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Microbiology"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-04 15:58:17","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 4th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-23 13:16:04","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12866-026-04895-y","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-026-04895-y","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8584782","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8584782","identity":"rs-8584782","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}