Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:55:54.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth of Salmonella enteritidis in artificially contaminated hens' shell eggs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. E. Clay  and
R. G. Board
C. E. Clay
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, Avon BA2 7AY
R. G. Board
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, Avon BA2 7AY
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.

The effect of some factors on the growth of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 in artificially contaminated shell eggs was investigated.

Salmonella enteritidis was found to be resistant to the antimicrobial properties of the albumen. Growth occurred on storage at 25 °C but not at 4 or 10 °C. The rate and extent of infection was influenced by the size of inoculum, the site of contamination relative to yolk movement, and the presence of iron in the inoculum.

Type
Special Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 106 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 271 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

REFERENCES

1. Anonymous Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4: chicken and egg. Lancet 1988; ii: 720–2.Google Scholar
2.Coyle, EF, Palmer, SR, Ribeiro, CD et al. , Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 infection: association with hens' eggs. Lancet 1988; ii: 1295–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Anonymous. Salmonella in eggs. PHLS evidence to the Agriculture Committee. PHLS Microbiology Digest 1989; 6: 1–9.Google Scholar
4.St Louis, ME, Morse, DL, Potter, ME et al. , The emergence of Grade A eggs as a major source of Salmonella enteritidis infections. J Am Med Assoc 1988; 259: 2103–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Perales, I, Audicana, A. Salmonella enteritidis and eggs. Lancet 1988; ii: 1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Hopper, SA, Mawer, S. Salmonella enteritidis in a commercial layer flock. Vet Rec 1988; 123: 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Humphrey, TJ, Baskerville, A, Mawer, S, Rowe, B, Hopper, S. Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 from the contents of intact eggs: a study involving naturally infected hens. Epidemiol Infect 1989; 103: 415–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.O'Brien, JDP. Salmonella enteritidis infection in broiler chickens. Vet Rec 1988; 122: 214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Lister, SA. Salmonella enteritidis infection in broilers and broiler breeders. Vet Rec 1988; 123: 350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Bygrave, AC, Gallagher, J. Transmission of Salmonella enteritidis in poultry. Vet Rec 1989; 125: 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Stokes, JL, Osborne, WW, Bayne, HG. Penetration and growth of Salmonella in shell eggs. Food Res 1956; 21: 510–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Hinton, M. Salmonella infection in chicks following consumption of artificially contaminated feed. Epidemiol Infect 1988; 100: 247–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Gillespie, JM, Scott, WJ. Studies in the preservation of shell eggs. IV. Experiments on the mode of infection by bacteria. Aust J Appl Sci 1950; 1: 514–30.Google Scholar
14.Board, RG. The course of microbial infection of the hen's eggs. J Appl Bacteriol 1966; 29: 319–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Board, RG. The properties and classification of the predominant bacteria in rotten eggs. J Appl Bacteriol 1985; 28: 437–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Board, PA, Board, RG. A diagnostic key for identifying organisms recovered from rotten eggs. Br Poult Sci 1968; 9: 111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Sparks, NHC, Board, RG. Bacterial penetration of the recently oviposited shell of hens' eggs. Aust Vet J 1985; 62: 168–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Alderton, G, Ward, WH, Fevold, HL. Identification of the bacteria–inhibiting iron-binding protein of egg white as conalbumen. Arch Biochem 1946; 11: 9–13.Google Scholar
19.Scade, AL, Caroline, L. Raw hen egg white and the role of iron in growth inhibition of Shigella dysenteriae, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Science 1944; 100: 14–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Feeney, RE, Nagy, DA. The antimicrobial activity of the egg white protein conalbumen. J Bacteriol 1952; 64: 628–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Garibaldi, JA, Bayne, HG. The effect of iron on the Pseudomonas spoilage of experimentally infected shell eggs. Poult Sci 1960; 39: 1517–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Garibaldi, JA, Bayne, HG. Iron and the bacterial spoilage of shell eggs. J Food Sci 1962; 27: 57–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Harris, DC, Aisen, P. Physical biochemistry of the transferrins. In: Loehr, TM, ed. Iron carriers and iron proteins. New York: VCH Publishers Inc, 1989: 239–351.Google Scholar
24.Aisen, P. Physical biochemistry of the transferrins: Update, 1984–1988. In: Loehr, TM, ed. Iron carriers and iron proteins. New York: VCH Publishers Inc, 1989: 353–71.Google Scholar
25.Board, PA, Hendon, LP, Board, RG. The influence of iron on the course of bacterial infection of the hen's egg. Br Poult Sci 1968; 9, 211–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Tranter, HS, Sparks, NHC, Board, RG. A note on the structure and iron-binding properties of egg-shell membranes. Br Poult Sci 1983; 24: 123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Sparks, NHC, Board, RG. Cuticle, shell porosity and water uptake through hens' eggshells. Br Poult Sci 1984; 23: 267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Brooks, J, Hale, HP. The mechanical properties of the thick white of the hen's egg. Biochim Biophys Acta 1959; 32: 237–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Romanoff, AL, Romanoff, AJ. The avian egg. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1949: 672–7.Google Scholar
30.Rahn, H, Ar, A. The avian egg: incubation time and water loss. Condor 1974; 76: 147–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Ar, A, Paganelli, CV, Reeves, RB, Greene, DG, Rahn, H. The avian egg: water vapour conductance, shell thickness and functional pore area. Condor 1974; 76: 153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Board, RG, Sparks, NHC, Tranter, HS. Antimicrobial defence of avian eggs. In: Gould, GW, Rhodes-Roberts, ME, Charnley, AK, Cooper, RM, Board, RG, eds. Natural antimicrobial systems, FEMS symposium No. 35. Bath University Press 1986: 82–96.Google Scholar
33.Board, RG, Ayres, JC. Influence of temperature on bacterial infection of the hen's egg. Appl Microbiol 1965; 13: 358–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Board, RG. The growth of Gram negative bacteria in the hen's egg. J Appl Bacteriol 1964; 27: 350–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Garibaldi, JA, Bayne, HG. The effect of iron on the Psuedomonas spoilage of farm washed eggs. Poult Sci 1962; 41: 850–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar