The development of suitable intervention strategies to control Salmonella populations at the farm level requires reliable data on the occurrence and prevalence of the pathogen. Previous studies on Salmonella prevalence have focused on acquiring data from specific farm types and/or selected regions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the distribution of this pathogen across a variety of farm types and regions in order to generate comparative data from a diverse group of environmental samples. Farm samples (n = 2,496) were collected quarterly from 18 different farms across five states (Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, California, and Washington) over a 24-month period. The participating farms included beef and dairy cattle operations, swine production and farrowing facilities, and poultry farms (both broiler chicken and turkey). The samples were analyzed for the presence of Salmonella by means of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Bacteriological Analytical Manual methods optimized for farm samples. Salmonella isolates were characterized by automated riboprinting. Salmonella serovars were recovered from 4.7% of all samples. The majority of positive findings were isolated from swine farms (57.3%). The occurrence of Salmonella was lower on dairy farms (17.9%), poultry farms (16.2%), and beef cattle farms (8.5%). The most commonly isolated serovar was Salmonella Anatum (48.4%), which was isolated notably more frequently than the next most common Salmonella serovars, Arizonae (12.1%) and Javiana (8.8%). The results of this study suggest that significant reservoirs of Salmonella populations still exist on swine production facilities and to a lesser extent in other animal production facilities. Data showed that the surrounding farm environment could be an important source of contamination.
Noodles were prepared with sweetpotato flour or puree and defatted soy flour (DSF) added to all-purpose wheat flour. These ingredients provided -carotene for vitamin A and protein. Test samples were compared with control noodles. Combinations of sweetpotato and DSF increased protein, ash and total dietary fiber and decreased fat and carbohydrates. Sweetpotato contributed orange color and -carotene, while DSF reduced lightness and added no -carotene. Both ingredients increased cooking loss-10.4% from sweetpotato to 12.0% from sweetpotato and DSF combinations. Sweetpotato increased color acceptability with no change in flavor or overall acceptabilities. Sweetpotato decreased stickiness and DSF had no effect on acceptability.
In the United States, foodborne outbreaks of Escherichia coli O157:H7 illness have often been linked to the consumption of contaminated, undercooked ground beef. However, the occurrence of E. coli O157:H7 has also been reported in other farm animals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of E. coli O157:H7 on diverse farm types and from a variety of farm samples. Rectal swabs (n=1686) and environmental samples (n=576) were collected from 16 farms in five states over 24 months and analyzed for the presence of E. coli O157:H7. Overall, E. coli O157:H7 was found in 3.6% of beef cattle, 3.4% of dairy cattle, 0.9% of chicken, 7.5% of turkey, and 8.9% of swine samples. The pathogen was isolated sporadically from each of the environmental sample types. Of particular concern was the isolation of E. coli O157:H7 from fresh feed samples, indicating a potential vector for transmission. The data from this study indicate a high occurrence of E. coli O157:H7 on swine and turkey farms. This unexpected result suggests that more research on the occurrence of E. coli O157:H7 on these types of farms is required in order to better understand potential reservoirs of pathogenic E. coli.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.