Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Food Prot ; 86(10): 100139, 2023 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37567500

ABSTRACT

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in beef cattle shedding of foodborne pathogens due to the potential to contaminate surrounding food crops; however, the number of studies published on this topic has declined as the majority of research has emphasized on postharvest mitigation efforts. A field study was conducted to determine the prevalence of pathogens and indicator bacteria in beef cattle fed two different direct-fed microbials (DFMs). Fecal samples from a total of 3,708 crossbred yearling cattle randomly assigned to 16 pens and two treatment groups at a commercial cattle feedlot were taken. During the study period, diets were supplemented with two different DFMs i.) Lactobacillus acidophilus (NP51) and Propionibacterium freudenreichii (NP24) (9 log10CFU/head/day), and ii.) Lactobacillus salivarius (L28) (6 log10CFU/head/day). Fecal samples from pen floors were collected on days 0, 21, 42, 63, 103, and analyzed for the presence of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 and concentration of E. coli O157:H7, Enterobacteriaceae, and C. perfringens. Fecal samples collected from cattle fed L28 had significantly lower concentration of C. perfringens (p < 0.05) and had a similar prevalence with no significant differences in E. coli O157:H7 as those fed NP51/NP24 through the study until day 103. On day 103, the prevalence in cattle fed L28 was 40% with a concentration of 0.95 log10MPN/g while those fed NP51/NP24 were 65% with a concentration of 1.2 log10MPN/g. Cattle supplemented with NP51/NP24 achieved a significant log reduction of EB by 2.4 log10CFU/g over the course of the 103-day supplementation period compared to L28. Salmonella prevalence was also measured, but not detected in any samples at significant amounts to draw conclusions. It is evident that E. coli O157:H7 and other foodborne pathogens are still prevalent in cattle operations and that preharvest mitigation strategies should be considered to reduce the risk to beef products.


Subject(s)
Cattle Diseases , Escherichia coli Infections , Escherichia coli O157 , Cattle , Animals , Prevalence , Colony Count, Microbial , Antibiosis , Random Allocation , Feces/microbiology , Escherichia coli Infections/epidemiology , Salmonella , Animal Feed/microbiology , Cattle Diseases/microbiology
2.
Foods ; 11(23)2022 Nov 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36496642

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the prevalence and concentration of foodborne pathogens in the feces and peripheral lymph nodes (PLNs) of beef cattle when supplemented with direct-fed microbials (DFMs) in feedlots. Fecal samples were collected from the pen floors over a 5-month period at three different feedlots in a similar geographical location in Nebraska, where each feed yard represented a treatment group: (i.) control: no supplement, (ii.) Bovamine Defend: supplemented with NP51 and NP24 at a target dose of 9 log10CFU/g/head/day, and (iii.) Probicon: supplemented with L28 at a target dose of 6 log10CFU/g/head/day. Each fecal sample was tested for the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, and concentration of E. coli O157:H7, Enterobacteriaceae and Clostridium perfringens. Cattle were harvested and PLNs were collected on the harvest floor. Real-time Salmonella PCR assays were performed for each PLN sample to determine Salmonella presence. The cattle supplemented with both DFMs had reduced foodborne pathogens in fecal samples, but feces collected from the pens housing the cattle supplemented with Probicon consistently had significantly less E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella prevalence as well as a lower C. perfringens concentration. While DFMs do not eliminate foodborne pathogens in fecal shedding and PLNs, the use of DFMs as a pre-harvest intervention allows for an effective way to target multiple pathogens reducing the public health risks and environmental dissemination from cattle.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...