Comparison Between Carcass Microbial Load Recovered by Swabbing Surfaces of Different Size and Using the Reference Excision Method

Miraglia, Dino; Ranucci, David; D'Ovidio, V.; Branciari, Raffaella; Severini, M.

doi:10.1007/s11259-005-0076-3

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The choice of swabbed zones also has an effect on analytical results (ISO 17604 2003). However, the wet and dry technique is frequently used in Europe, is more practical and does not damage the carcass as does the destructive method (Korsak et al 1998;Miraglia et al 2005;Pepperell et al 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adequate criteria must therefore be assessed for this sampling method, as described in a previous study (Ghafir et al 2008). The method of swabbing used, covering 600 cm 2 on each half-pig carcass, allowed a recovery level higher than that reported in several other studies (Dorsa et al 1996;Yu et al 2001;Hutchison et al 2005;Miraglia et al 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling

Ghafir

Daube

2008

Letters in Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To compare the Belgian swabbing sampling method for pig carcasses with the reference destructive method with regard to Escherichia coli and aerobic plate counts, Salmonella and Campylobacter prevalence and their relationship. Methods and Results: Recovery was significantly lower for the swabbing method and corresponded to a recovery of 36% for E. coli counts and 81% for aerobic plate counts in comparison with the destructive method. There was no significant difference between the swabbing and destructive sampling methods for the prevalence of Salmonella or Campylobacter. A higher median for E. coli counts was detected for samples where Salmonella or Campylobacter were detected. The same association was also observed between the median for aerobic plate counts and the presence of Campylobacter. Conclusions: The method of swabbing used, covering 600 cm2 on each half‐pig carcass, is efficient for the sampling of pig carcasses in comparison with the reference destructive method. Significance and Impact of the Study: This study describes an efficient method for microbiological pig carcass sampling. The Belgian swabbing method should continue to be used to allow the follow up of bacterial contamination in the Belgian meat production chain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling

Ghafir

Daube

2008

Letters in Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previously, other authors have described wide variation in bacterial numbers between-carcass (Roberts et al, 1984). A number of more recent studies in EU member countries have also reported similar variations (Miraglia et al, 2005;O'Brien et al, 2007;Pearce and Bolton, 2005). Scrutiny of the microbiological test results collected from approximately 100 red meat processing plants in the UK revealed large differences in counts from near-consecutive carcasses sampled midway during the processing period (Hutchison et al, 2007).…”

Section: Sampling Methodologymentioning

confidence: 80%

The assessment of the comparison of the Australian monitoring programme for carcasses to requirements in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria on foodstuffs

2010

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In most comparisons, the observed correlations were significant (with the excep tion of E. coli enumeration by tissue and skin excision sampling). Despite the large number of studies in the literature that compare different sampling protocols for animal carcasses (4,10,11,17), the establishment of such correlations is often hampered by the large number of variables that influence results obtained by different me thods (1,3,15). Hutchison et al (14) did not find a linear relationship between microbiological counts of animal car casses sampled by skin swabbing and tissue excision, and they observed a nonuniform distribution of microorganisms in the analyzed carcasses (bovine, ovine, and swine).…”

Section: R Esults a N D Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Destructive and Nondestructive Sampling Techniques of Retail Chicken Carcasses for Enumeration of Hygiene Indicator Microorganisms

Cossi

Almeida

Dias

et al. 2012

Journal of Food Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The type of sampling technique used to obtain food samples is fundamental to the success of microbiological analysis. Destructive and nondestructive techniques, such as tissue excision and rinsing, respectively, are widely employed in obtaining samples from chicken carcasses. In this study, four sampling techniques used for chicken carcasses were compared to evaluate their performances in the enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms. Sixty fresh chicken carcasses were sampled by rinsing, tissue excision, superficial swabbing, and skin excision. All samples were submitted for enumeration of mesophilic aerobes, Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, and Escherichia coli. The results were compared to determine the statistical significance of differences and correlation (P < 0.05). Tissue excision provided the highest microbial counts compared with the other procedures, with significant differences obtained only for coliforms and E. coli (P < 0.05). Significant correlations (P < 0.05) were observed for all the sampling techniques evaluated for most of the hygiene indicators. Despite presenting a higher recovery ability, tissue excision did not present significant differences for microorganism enumeration compared with other nondestructive techniques, such as rinsing, indicating its adequacy for microbiological analysis of chicken carcasses.

show abstract

Comparison Between Carcass Microbial Load Recovered by Swabbing Surfaces of Different Size and Using the Reference Excision Method

Abstract: 2005. Comparison between carcass microbial load recovered by swabbing surfaces of different size and using the reference excision method. Veterinary Research Communications, 29(Suppl. 2), 339-341

Cited by 9 publications

References 3 publications

Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling

Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling

The assessment of the comparison of the Australian monitoring programme for carcasses to requirements in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria on foodstuffs

Comparison of Destructive and Nondestructive Sampling Techniques of Retail Chicken Carcasses for Enumeration of Hygiene Indicator Microorganisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About