Literature DB >> 14503704

Prevalence of Campylobacter within a swine slaughter and processing facility.

R A Pearce1, F M Wallace, J E Call, R L Dudley, A Oser, L Yoder, J J Sheridan, J B Luchansky.   

Abstract

In this work, the occurrence of Campylobacter in a swine slaughter and processing facility was studied. Thirty composite carcass samples, representing 360 swine carcasses, were taken immediately after exsanguination, immediately after polishing, after the final wash, and after overnight chilling at 2 degrees C. Thirty matching composite rectal samples were also taken immediately after exsanguination, and 60 nonmatching individual colon samples were collected from the same lot of swine during evisceration. Also, 72 environmental samples were collected from equipment used in the slaughter operation (42 samples) and the processing operation (30 samples). Campylobacter was isolated by direct plating on Campy-Line agar (CLA) or Campy-Cefex agar (CCA), as well as by Bolton broth enrichment and subsequent inoculation onto CLA or CCA. For all four recovery methods combined, Campylobacter was detected on 33% (10 of 30) of the composite carcasses immediately after exsanguination, 0% (0 of 30) after polishing, 7% (2 of 30) immediately before chilling, and 0% (0 of 30) after overnight chilling. The pathogen was recovered from 100% (30 of 30) of the composite rectal samples and 80% (48 of 60) of the individual colon samples. Campylobacter was detected in 4.8% (2 of 42) and 3.3% (1 of 30) of the slaughter and processing equipment samples, respectively. The recovery rate achieved with direct plating on CLA was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than those achieved with the other three recovery methods. For the 202 isolates recovered from all of the various samples tested, Campylobacter coli was the predominant species (75%) and was followed by Campylobacter spp. (24%) and Campylobacter jejuni (1%). These results indicate that although Campylobacter is highly prevalent in the intestinal tracts of swine arriving at the slaughter facility, this microorganism does not progress through the slaughtering operation and is not detectable on carcasses after overnight chilling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14503704     DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-66.9.1550

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Food Prot        ISSN: 0362-028X            Impact factor:   2.077


  6 in total

Review 1.  Quo vadis? - Monitoring Campylobacter in Germany.

Authors:  K Stingl; M-T Knüver; P Vogt; C Buhler; N-J Krüger; K Alt; B-A Tenhagen; M Hartung; A Schroeter; L Ellerbroek; B Appel; A Käsbohrer
Journal:  Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp)       Date:  2012-03-17

2.  Pet dogs and chicken meat as reservoirs of Campylobacter spp. in Barbados.

Authors:  Suzanne N Workman; George E Mathison; Marc C Lavoie
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 3.  Campylobacter and Arcobacter species in food-producing animals: prevalence at primary production and during slaughter.

Authors:  Nompumelelo Shange; Pieter Gouws; Louwrens C Hoffman
Journal:  World J Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 3.312

4.  Genotyping and antibiotic resistance of thermophilic Campylobacter isolated from chicken and pig meat in Vietnam.

Authors:  Tuan Ngoc Minh Nguyen; Helmut Hotzel; Hosny El-Adawy; Hanh Thi Tran; Minh Thi Hong Le; Herbert Tomaso; Heinrich Neubauer; Hafez Mohamed Hafez
Journal:  Gut Pathog       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 4.181

5.  Multidrug-Resistant Campylobacer jejuni on Swine Processing at a Slaughterhouse in Eastern Spain.

Authors:  Clara Marin; Laura Lorenzo-Rebenaque; Judith Moreno-Moliner; Sandra Sevilla-Navarro; Estefania Montero; Mᵃ Carmen Chinillac; Jaume Jordá; Santiago Vega
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  Prevalence, antibiogram and risk factors of thermophilic Campylobacter spp. in dressed porcine carcass of Chitwan, Nepal.

Authors:  Laxman Ghimire; Dinesh Kumar Singh; Hom Bahadur Basnet; Rebanta Kumar Bhattarai; Santosh Dhakal; Bishwas Sharma
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2014-04-05       Impact factor: 3.605

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.