Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:10:36.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of swab and maceration methods for bacterial sampling of pig carcasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

I. R. Morgan ,
F. Krautil  and
J. A. Craven
I. R. Morgan
Affiliation:
Attwood Veterinary Research Laboratory, Mickleham Road, Westmeadows, Victoria, Australia3047
F. Krautil
Affiliation:
Attwood Veterinary Research Laboratory, Mickleham Road, Westmeadows, Victoria, Australia3047
J. A. Craven
Affiliation:
Attwood Veterinary Research Laboratory, Mickleham Road, Westmeadows, Victoria, Australia3047
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A swabbing technique was compared with an excision and maceration technique for bacteriological sampling of pig carcass skin surfaces. Total viable counts at 37 °C obtained by swabbing were 46% of those obtained by maceration. At 21 °C, swabbing gave total viable counts which were 54% of the counts obtained from excision samples. Escherichia coli counts showed wide variation with both sampling methods. Neither method was more efficient than the other in recovering E. coli, although excision sampling gave generally higher counts. Both methods were equally effective at recovering salmonellac from carcass surfaces. There was no significant difference between the methods in recovering particular Salmonella serotypes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 95 , Issue 2 , October 1985 , pp. 383 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. M. & Baird-Parker, A. C. (1975). A rapid and direct plate method for enumerating Escherichia coli biotype 1 in food. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 39, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. E., Sebaugh, J. L., Marshall, H. T. & Stringer, W. C. (1980). A method for decreasing sampling variance in bacteriological analyses of meat surfaces. Journal of Food Protection 43, 21–22.Google Scholar
Holbrook, R., Anderson, J. M. & Baird-Parker, A. C. (1980). Modified direct plate method for counting Escherichia coli in foods. Food Technology in Australia 32, 78–83.Google Scholar
Ingram, M. & Roberts, T. A. (1976). The microbiology of the red meat carcass and the slaughterhouse. Royal Society of Health Journal 96, 270–276.Google ScholarPubMed
Kitchell, A. G., Ingram, G. C. & Hudson, W. R. (1973). Microbial sampling in abattoirs. In Sampling: Microbiological Monitoring of Environments, p. 43. Society for Applied Bacteriology, Technical Series No. 7. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nortje, G. L., Swanepoel, E., Naude, R. T., Holzapfel, W. H. & Steyn, P. L. (1982). Evaluation of three carcass surface microhial sampling techniques. Journal of Food Protection 45, 1016–1017.Google Scholar
Ojala, O. (1964), A comparison of sampling methods used for the estimation of surface contamination of meat. Nordish Veterinärmedicin 16, 231–240.Google Scholar
Scrolefield, J., Menon, T. G. & Lam, C. W. (1981). Psychrotroph contamination of pig carcasses. Report of 27th European Congress of Meat Research Workers, Vienna, vol. 2, pp. 621–624.Google Scholar
Sharpe, A. N. & Kilsby, D. C. (1971). A rapid, inexpensive bacterial count technique using agar droplets. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 34, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokhal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1969). Biometry. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Vassiliadis, P., Kalopathaki, V., Trichoopoulos, D., Marrommati, C. H. & Serie, Ch. (1981). Improved isolation of salmoncllae from naturally contaminated meat products by using Rappaport-Vassiliadis enrichment broth. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 42, 615–618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vracko, R. & Sherris, J. C. (1963). Indole-spot test in bacteriology. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 39, 429–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar