4.7 Article

Shedding of foodborne pathogens and microbial carcass contamination of hunted wild ruminants

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 159, 期 1-2, 页码 149-154

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.03.031

关键词

Hunted wild ruminants; Fecal shedding; Salmonella; Listeria monocytogenes; Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli; Carcass contamination

资金

  1. Swiss Army

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the shedding of selected bacterial foodborne pathogens, fecal samples from 239 hunted wild red deer, roe deer, chamois, and ibex were examined. All samples tested negative for Salmonella spp. and L monocytogenes, but other Listeria species were occasionally found. Of the 239 fecal samples, 32.6% tested positive for stx (Shiga toxins), 6.7% for eae (intimin) and 13.8% for both six and eae genes. Among the 56 isolated Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia call (STEC) strains, 44.6% harbored genes for the Stx2 group, 30.4% for the Stx1 group, and 21.4% for both Stxl and Stx2. Only two of these strains harbored eae. Hence, wild ruminants constitute a reservoir for STEC, but further characterization data of the isolated strains are required to assess their actual human pathogenicity. In addition, 328 carcasses from hunted wild red deer, roe deer, and chamois were examined for total viable counts (TVC) and Enterobacteriaceae by swabbing. For the examined animal species, average TVC (4.0-4.2 log CFU cm(-2)) and average Enterobacteriaceae counts/detection rates (2.3-2.6 log CFU cm(-2); 87.5-90%) were at comparable levels. On the other hand, the microbial status of carcasses differed between certain abattoirs by several orders of magnitude. Strict compliance with good hunting and hygiene practices during any step from shooting, through evisceration in the field, to dehiding, cooling, and processing is therefore of central importance to avoid contaminations and to prevent foodborne pathogens carried by the animals from entering the food chain. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据