ArticleBMC veterinary research2009
A comparative study of cultural methods for the detection of Salmonella in feed and feed ingredients.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Buffering Capacity Comparison of Tris Phosphate Carbonate and Buffered Peptone WaterAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Detection ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Rapid detection of Escherichia coli in beverages using genetically engineered bacteriophage T7.AMB Express · 2019Article
- Prevention of Salmonella contamination of finished soybean meal used for animal feed by a Norwegian production plant despite frequent Salmonella contamination of raw soy beans, 1994-2012.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2014Article
- Estimation of costs for control of Salmonella in high-risk feed materials and compound feed.Infection ecology & epidemiology · 2014Article
- Accuracy and sensitivity of commercial PCR-based methods for detection of Salmonella enterica in feed.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2010Article
- An assessment of soybeans and other vegetable proteins as source of Salmonella contamination in pig production.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.