Pigs can become infected during routine resting or holding periods during marketing when exposed to relatively low amounts of Salmonella organisms in the preslaughter environment. Intervention at this step of the production process may have a major impact on the safety of pork products.

The objective of this study was to determine whether abattoir pens can provide a Salmonella enterica infection source during the 2 to 4 h of preharvest holding. Previous work has suggested that pigs may be getting infected, but little has been reported on the environmental contamination of abattoir holding pens. For 24 groups of pigs studied (ϳ150 animals/group) at two high-capacity abattoirs, six pooled fecal samples (n, 10 per pool) were collected from each transport trailer immediately after pigs were unloaded. Holding pens were sampled (one drinking water sample and six pooled floor samples consisting of swabs, residual liquid, and feces) prior to entry of study pigs for the routine holding period (ϳ2.5 h). After slaughter, cecal contents and ileocecal lymph nodes were collected, on the processing line, from 30 pigs in each studied group. All samples were cultured for the isolation and identification of S. enterica by primary enrichment in GN-Hajna and tetrathionate broths, secondary enrichment in Rappaport-Vassiliadis broth, and plating on brilliant green sulfa and xylose-lysinetergitol-4 agars, followed by biochemical and serological identification. The study pens were highly contaminated with S. enterica; all holding pens sampled had at least one positive sample. Additionally, 33% (8 of 24) of drinking water samples were positive for S. enterica. All 24 groups of pigs had S. enterica-positive cecal contents and ileocecal lymph nodes, including those groups from transport trailers with no positive samples. From pigs, trailers, and pens, 586 isolates representing 36 different Salmonella serovars were isolated. Of the 353 isolates from pigs (109 from ileocecal lymph nodes plus 244 from cecal contents), 19% were identified as belonging to the same serovars as those isolated from the respective pens; 27% were identified as belonging to the same serovars as those isolated from the trailers. Sixteen percent of the unique serovars were isolated from both pigs and pens, suggesting that pens served as the infection source. This study demonstrates highly contaminated abattoir holding pens and watering sources. It also demonstrates that holding pens can serve as an infection source. This study identifies the abattoir holding pens as a significant hazard and a potential control point for Salmonella contamination in the preharvest pork production chain.

Abstract. Four culture methods (A, B, C, and D) were comparatively evaluated for their ability to isolate Salmonella enterica from pooled swine fecal samples (n ϭ 100). None of the methods was able to isolate Salmonella from all positive samples. The relative sensitivity of the culture methods evaluated was 82%, 94%, 95%, and 78% for methods A, B, C, and D, respectively. The comparison of sensitivities showed that methods B and C performed significantly better (P Ͻ 0.05) than methods A and D. Although relative sensitivities of methods B and C were equal, from the 89 positive samples concomitantly detected by both, 35 (39.3%) had different serotypes (no match) isolated by each method. On the basis of the results of this study, it was concluded that culture methods differ on the isolation of S. enterica serotypes from naturally contaminated swine fecal samples. Depending on the objective(s) of investigations on the ecology and epidemiology of S. enterica in swine populations, a method or a combination of methods should be considered for more reliable results.An incredible number of different culture methods for isolation of Salmonella have been published, but currently, there appears to be no consensus on what would be the best method. 12 As a consequence, confusing and contradictory results are frequently found in the literature.For years, 2 culture methods (methods A and B, described below) have been concomitantly applied in our laboratory routine for isolation of Salmonella from swine samples. 13 A recent study 3 compared these methods with another frequently applied culture method (preenrichment in buffered peptone water, followed by enrichment in Rappaport-Vassiliadis [RV] broth and isolation on Xylose-Lysine-Tergitol-4 [XLT-4] agar), reporting better results when isolation was conducted using method B. However, we felt that continuous im- Disclaimer: Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. provement in the sensitivity of culture methods was necessary and should be persistently pursued. Therefore, culture methods C and D (described below) were developed and included in this study, whose objective was to comparatively evaluate 4 different culture methods (methods A, B, C, and D) and to assess their relative sensitivity for the isolation of Salmonella enterica from naturally contaminated swine fecal samples. The current knowledge of the effect of different culture methods on the isolation of different S. enterica serotypes from naturally contaminated samples is very limited. Most studies published to date have simply focused on the sensitivity of culture methods for the detection of positive samples presenting little information on the isolation of multiple serotypes. This information is crucial, particularly when trying to understand the complex ecology and epidemiology of Salmonella in livestock.To compare the culture methods for the isolatio...

Research suggests that abattoir holding pens pose significant Salmonella enterica risk to swine immediately preharvest. The goal of this study was to evaluate those factors related to holding that increased the prevalence of S. enterica in swine at slaughter. To accomplish this goal, we focused on holding time and flooring. Our objectives were to (1) compare Salmonella enterica prevalence among pigs held for short (15-45 min) versus long (up to 4 h) periods before slaughter; and (2) determine the impact of flooring (slatted vs. concrete) as it relates to the prevalence of S. enterica. The study consisted of seven repetitions at a large volume (11,000 head/day) Midwest abattoir. Each repetition consisted of one truck load of pigs (n = 170) sorted into one of three groups: (1) animals held for a short time (15-45 min) on solid floors (short-hold); (2) animals held for 4 +/- 0.5 h on slatted floors; and (3) animals held for 4 +/- 0.5 h on solid concrete floors. At slaughter, samples were collected from 30 pigs in each group. Cecal contents (20 mL), feces (20 g), and the ileocecal lymph node were cultured for S. enterica. Additionally, the effect of holding time on meat quality parameters (loin pH at 35 min and 6 h, color, drip loss) was evaluated for the first four replicates. The proportion of S. enterica-positive samples was highest (p < 0.05) in the cecum of pigs held on solid concrete floors (72.4%), and slightly less for pigs held on slatted floors (63.3%). Animals held for less than 45 min before slaughter demonstrated the lowest proportion of S. enterica-positive samples (52.9%). The pig prevalence, as measured by any one of the three samples being positive, was significantly different (p < 0.05) between animals held on solid floors (81%) and those animals held for 45 min or less before slaughter (69%). Meat quality, as measured by multiple parameters, was adversely affected by lack of a rest period. The mean 24-h pH was significantly lower for the short-hold group compared to the other two groups. The mean Minolta L and the drip loss were significantly higher in the short-hold group. From this and other studies, it appears that elimination of the holding process is not feasible S. enterica control option, given current U.S. harvesting systems.