Epidemiology of VTEC in Non‐Ruminant Animals

Aims: To investigate if cattle on the same farm as sheep are a possible risk factor for stx in sheep and to determine whether or not sheep and cattle on the same farm share the same stx pool. Methods and Results: Faecal samples from sheep and cattle were screened for stx by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Of these samples, 87AE6 and 64AE6% were stx positive in sheep and cattle, respectively. There was no difference in stx occurrence in sheep from farms with or without cattle. From stx positive samples, 118 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) isolates were recovered by a filter-hybridization method. Serotyping, PCR and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) showed that there was a distinct association between serotypes, stx profiles and animal species. Conclusions: Keeping animals together in pens, which enhances faecal-oral contact, is suggested as a possible explanation for the differences seen in stx occurrence. Sheep and cattle isolates are distinctly different in serotype and stx profile although isolated from the same farm, and are more related to isolates within the same serotype with the same stx profile than to isolates with different serotype from the same farm. Significance and Impact of Study: The study supports the animal-host relationship hypothesis suggested in other studies and indicates that the STEC sheep reservoir in Norway may not pose a serious public health risk.

show abstract

“…1993; Blanco et al. 2001; Wasteson 2001). In addition, serogroup O91 has been associated with several H‐types.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal host associated differences in Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from sheep and cattle on the same farm

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As porcine VTEC responsible for ED do not represent any important public health concern and as the epidemiological significance of EHEC and VTEC described outside the ruminant animal species is still largely speculative (Mainil 1999; Gyles 2001; Wasteson 2001), this section will focus on EHEC and VTEC isolated from humans, ruminants and foods (Tables 3–5).…”

Section: Properties Of Ehec and Vtec From Different Originsmentioning

confidence: 99%

VerotoxigenicEscherichia colifrom animals, humans and foods: who's who?

Mainil¹,

Daube

2005

Journal of Applied Microbiology

113

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, these methods are limited in their practical use by changes that they evoke in product quality or consumer avoidance. Some of these methods can deteriorate meat proteins, denature nutrients or accelerate lipid oxidation (Heuvelink et al 1999;Nakazawa et al 1999;Castelo et al 2001;Johnsen et al 2001;Wasteson 2001;Bonardi et al 2003;Feder et al 2003;Bari et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supercritical Carbon Dioxide as a Potential Intervention for Ground Pork Decontamination

Bae

Kim

et al. 2010

Journal of Food Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground meat has been frequently implicated as a vehicle of pathogenic bacteria. Once microorganisms contaminating the surfaces are embedded within the comminuted meat, they become difficult to inactivate due to the clumpy structure. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of decontaminating ground pork with supercritical carbon dioxide (SC–CO2) treatment at various conditions (temperatures: 40, 45C; pressures: 100, 120, 140 bar; and treatment times: 20, 30, 40 min). The reduction of microorganisms in ground pork ranged from 1.66 to 2.42 log cfu/g (total mesophilic plate counts, 1.66; Listeria monocytogenes, 2.42; and Salmonella Typhimurium, 2.21 log cfu/g) following SC–CO2 treatment at 45C and 140 bar for 40 min. Even though solid foods were generally difficult to control with SC–CO2, our results indicate that it can be used to reduce the levels of microbes in ground pork through rapid diffusion. Thus, SC–CO2 can be suggested as helpful and novel devices for improving the microbiological safety of comminuted meat products. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The SC–CO2 treatment may contribute to reduce the microbial load of pathogenic bacteria contaminated deeply within ground meat in processed meat industries. It can be applied to inactivate bacterial cells of foodborne pathogens including Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhimurium and other spoiling bacteria, mostly mesophilic bacteria in comminuted meats. The major reason why it is useful especially for meat products is that it can be used at relatively mild condition than heat treatment rarely affecting meat quality. It can penetrate deep into a clumpy structure of ground meat depending on its physical property without toxicity. It is expected that SC–CO2 can be used to sterile ground pork in combination with other antimicrobial co‐solvents to develop microbiological safety of meat products.

show abstract

Epidemiology of VTEC in Non‐Ruminant Animals

Cited by 8 publications

References 39 publications

Animal host associated differences in Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from sheep and cattle on the same farm

Animal host associated differences in Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolated from sheep and cattle on the same farm

VerotoxigenicEscherichia colifrom animals, humans and foods: who's who?

Supercritical Carbon Dioxide as a Potential Intervention for Ground Pork Decontamination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About