Correction to: Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61002-5, published online 03 March 2020


This Article contains multiple typographical errors.


In the Results section under subheading ‘Sampling feedlot and downstream environment, a beef processing plant, retail meat and urban wastewater’.


“Urban wastewater contributed 31 samples in total including composite influent (post-grit tank; n = 22) and effluent (immediately prior to release; n = 21), which were collected over the same two year period as the fecal samples.”


should read:


“Urban wastewater contributed 43 samples in total including composite influent (post-grit tank; n = 22) and effluent (immediately prior to release; n = 21), which were collected over the same two year period as the fecal samples.”


In the Results section under subheading ‘Enterococcus recovery’,


“A total of 8,307 presumptive Enterococcus spp. isolates were recovered from all sites/sources tested including bovine feces (n = 4,499), feedlot catch basins (n = 510), surface water/natural water sources (n = 521), urban wastewater influent and effluent (n = 222), beef processing (abattoir and retail beef) (n = 774), and human clinical cases (n = 1,849) (Fig. 1B).”


should read:


“A total of 8,375 presumptive Enterococcus spp. isolates were recovered from all sites/sources tested including bovine feces (n = 4,499), feedlot catch basins (n = 510), surface water/natural water sources (n = 521), urban wastewater influent and effluent (n = 222), beef processing (abattoir and retail beef) (n = 774), and human clinical cases (n = 1,849) (Fig. 1B).”


“Isolate recovery rates from surface water, wastewater effluent and meat processing samples was lower for antibiotic-free as compared to non-selective media (Supplementary File 1, Table S2).”


should read:


“Isolate recovery rates from surface water, wastewater effluent and meat processing samples was lower for antibiotic-selective as compared to non-selective media (Supplementary File 1, Table S2).”