BackgroundSalmonella control in animal feed is important in order to protect animal and public health. Organic acids is one of the control measures used for treatment of Salmonella contaminated feed or feed ingredients. In the present study, the efficacy of formic acid (FA) and different blends of FA, propionic acid (PA) and sodium formate (SF) was investigated. Four Salmonella strains isolated from feed were assayed for their acid tolerance. Also, the effect of lower temperatures (5°C and 15°C) compared to room temperature was investigated in rape seed and soybean meal.ResultsThe efficacy of acid treatments varied significantly between different feed materials. The strongest reduction was seen in pelleted and compound mash feed (2.5 log10 reduction) followed by rapeseed meal (1 log10 reduction) after 5 days exposure. However, in soybean meal the acid effects were limited (less than 0.5 log10 reduction) even after several weeks’ exposure. In all experiments the survival curves showed a concave shape, with a fast initial death phase followed by reduction at a slower rate during the remaining time of the experiment.No difference in Salmonella reduction was observed between FA and a blend of FA and PA, whereas a commercial blend of FA and SF (Amasil) was slightly more efficacious (0.5-1 log10 reduction) than a blend of FA and PA (Luprocid) in compound mash feed. The Salmonella Infantis strain was found to be the most acid tolerant strain followed by, S. Putten, S. Senftenberg and S. Typhimurium. The tolerance of the S. Infantis strain compared with the S. Typhimurium strain was statistically significant (p<0.05). The lethal effect of FA on the S. Typhimurium strain and the S. Infantis strain was lower at 5°C and 15°C compared to room temperatures.ConclusionsAcid treatment of Salmonella in feed is a matter of reducing the number of viable bacterial cells rather than eliminating the organism. Recommendations on the use of acids for controlling Salmonella in feed should take into account the relative efficacy of acid treatment in different feed materials, the variation in acid tolerance between different Salmonella strains, and the treatment temperature.
The present study compared the performance of commercial PCR-based Salmonella enterica detection methods (BAX System Q7, the iQ-Check Salmonella II kit, and the TaqMan Salmonella enterica detection kit) with culturebased methods (modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis [MSRV] and NMKL71) in spiked and naturally contaminated samples of feed mill scrapings (FMS), palm kernel meal (PKM), pelleted feed (PF), rape seed meal (RSM), soybean meal (SM), and wheat grain (WG). When results from the various feeds were compared, the number of Salmonella enterica CFU/25 g required to produce a positive were as follows: PKM > FMS ؍ WG > RSM ؍ SM ؍ PF. These data are similar to those developed in earlier studies with culture-based Salmonella detection methods. PCR-based methods were performed similarly to culture-based methods, with respect to sensitivity and specificity. However, many PCR positives could not be confirmed by Salmonella isolation and for that reason the evaluated methods were found to be suitable only when rapid results were paramount. Nevertheless, PCR-based methods cannot presently replace culture-based methods when typing information is required for tracing studies or epidemiological investigations. The observed difference in detection levels is a potential problem when prevalence data are compared as well as when feed ingredients are tested for conformance with microbiological criteria. This paper also presents a statistical model that describes the detection probability when different levels (CFU) of Salmonella contamination are present in feed materials.
Background: Animal feed as a source of infection to food producing animals is much debated. In order to increase our present knowledge about possible feed transmission it is important to know that the present isolation methods for Salmonella are reliable also for feed materials.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.