Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling

Abstract

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.

Comparison of three sampling methods for the quantification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on the surface of pig carcases

“…This is in line with other studies carried out on pig carcases (Ghafir & Daube, 2008;Lindblad, 2007;Martinez, Celda, Anastasio, Garcia, & Lopez-Mendoza, 2010;Pepperell et al, 2005).…”

“…On carcases of cattle, it has been shown, that the double swab technique produced lower colony counts than the excision method (Cenci-Goga et al, 2007). In pigs, swab sampling and excision have mostly been compared for Enterobacteriaceae, Campylobacter and total bacterial counts with swabbing methods leading to lower recovery rates (Ghafir & Daube, 2008;Lindblad, 2007;Pepperell et al, 2005). It has been pointed out, that sampling methods for certain bacteria should be carefully selected after validation trials (Cenci-Goga et al, 2007) and depend on the contamination levels (Louwers & Klein, 1994).…”

Comparison of Excision, Swabbing and Rinsing Sampling Methods to Determine the Microbiological Quality of Broiler Carcasses

“…The present study showed that recovery of bacteria from a carcass surface was dependent on the sampling method used (Gill and Badoni 2005; Ghafir and Daube 2008). The lowest recovery number and highest variation were achieved by swabbing, suggesting that swabbing was the poorest method.…”

Role of Slaughtering in Salmonella Spreading and Control in Pork Production

“…Thus, most researchers prefer nondestructive methods for recovering bacteria from carcass surfaces. In studies of swine carcasses (43,60), swabbing of a large surface can be at least as sensitive as the destructive excision method. However, the swabbing technique has inherent variability and the results obtained depend on the material used for swabbing (64,66), the pressure exerted during application, the time span, and the sample collector's skills (25).…”