Methodology article
A comparative study of cultural methods for the detection of Salmonella in feed and feed ingredients
-
* Corresponding author: Sevinc Koyuncu sevinc.koyuncu@sva.se
Department of Chemistry, Environment and Feed Hygiene, National Veterinary Institute, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden
BMC Veterinary Research 2009, 5:6 doi:10.1186/1746-6148-5-6
Published: 3 February 2009Abstract
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.
In a comparative study the ability of the standard method used for isolation of Salmonella in feed in the Nordic countries, the NMKL71 method (Nordic Committee on Food Analysis) was compared to the Modified Semisolid Rappaport Vassiliadis method (MSRV) and the international standard method (EN ISO 6579:2002). Five different feed materials were investigated, namely wheat grain, soybean meal, rape seed meal, palm kernel meal, pellets of pig feed and also scrapings from a feed mill elevator. Four different levels of the Salmonella serotypes S. Typhimurium, S. Cubana and S. Yoruba were added to each feed material, respectively. For all methods pre-enrichment in Buffered Peptone Water (BPW) were carried out followed by enrichments in the different selective media and finally plating on selective agar media.
Results
The results obtained with all three methods showed no differences in detection levels, with an accuracy and sensitivity of 65% and 56%, respectively. However, Müller-Kauffmann tetrathionate-novobiocin broth (MKTTn), performed less well due to many false-negative results on Brilliant Green agar (BGA) plates. Compared to other feed materials palm kernel meal showed a higher detection level with all serotypes and methods tested.
Conclusion
The results of this study showed that the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the investigated cultural methods were equivalent. However, the detection levels for different feed and feed ingredients varied considerably.