Salmonella detection in commercially prepared livestock feed and the raw ingredients and equipment used to manufacture the feed: A systematic review and meta-analysis
•Salmonella contamination of compound animal feed is an ongoing challenge.•Salmonella detection decreased over time but only in raw feed components.•Nine percent of feed samples were positive for Salmonella.•Salmonella detected in feed were resistant to medically important antibiotics.•Salmonella se...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Preventive veterinary medicine 2022-01, Vol.198, p.105546-105546, Article 105546 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 105546 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 105546 |
container_title | Preventive veterinary medicine |
container_volume | 198 |
creator | Parker, Elizabeth M. Parker, Anthony J. Short, Gwen O’Connor, Annette M. Wittum, Thomas E. |
description | •Salmonella contamination of compound animal feed is an ongoing challenge.•Salmonella detection decreased over time but only in raw feed components.•Nine percent of feed samples were positive for Salmonella.•Salmonella detected in feed were resistant to medically important antibiotics.•Salmonella serotypes of public health importance were detected in feed.
Salmonella contamination of livestock feed is a serious veterinary and public health issue. In this study we used a systematic review to assess the prevalence and characterization of Salmonella isolates detected in raw feed components, feed milling equipment and finished feed from 97 studies published from 1955 to 2020 across seven global regions. Eighty-five studies were included in a meta-analyses to estimate the combined prevalence of Salmonella detection and to compare the risk of contamination associated with different sample types. We found the overall combined prevalence estimate of Salmonella detection was 0.14 with a prevalence of 0.18 in raw feed components, 0.09 in finished feed and 0.08 in feed milling equipment. Animal based raw feed components were 3.9 times more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella than plant based raw feed components. Differences between studies accounted for 99 % of the variance in the prevalence estimate for all sample types and there was no effect of region on the prevalence estimates. The combined prevalence of Salmonella detection in raw feed components decreased from 0.25 in 1955 to 0.11 in 2019. The proportion of Salmonella isolates that were resistant to antimicrobials was largest for amikacin (0.20), tetracycline (0.18) streptomycin (0.17), cefotaxime (0.14) and sulfisoxazole (0.11). The prevalence of Salmonella contamination of animal feed varies widely between individual studies and is an ongoing challenge for the commercial feed industry. Control relies on the vigilant monitoring and control of Salmonella in each individual mill. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105546 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2604022390</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167587721002907</els_id><sourcerecordid>2604022390</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-da02f83737cc200801509d5dbb8992b8df7755b352bfb64314e7b9e6811dd9873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxi0EotvCK4CPXLLYzh873FYVUKRKPdCeLceegJc4SW2n1b4Qz9nJbsuVkzXj3zej-T5CPnK25Yw3n_fbOcID5ABuK5jg2K3rqnlFNlzJsuCSN6_JBklZ1ErKM3Ke0p4x1jSqfkvOykqJRpZiQ_7-NEOYRhgGQx1ksNlPI_UjtVMIEK03w3CguGw2ERwd_AOkPNk_tAcszeho_g00mkfU_ELCw5jTsQ_3i58DlnRJiOaJBjMuvbF5iXBUrSO-0B1Nh5QhmOwtxaM8PB71AbIpzGiGQ_LpHXnTmyHB--f3gtx9-3p7eVVc33z_cbm7LmwlWC6cYaJXpSyltYIxxXjNWle7rlNtKzrleinruitr0fVdU5W8Atm10CjOnWvRuQvy6TR3jtP9gqfq4JNd3RlhWpIWDauYEGXLEJUn1MYppQi9nqMPJh40Z3oNSe_1v5D0GpI-hYTKD89Llm79e9G9pILA7gQAnoqGRJ0sGmvR3ogJaTf5_y55Ai9bqvc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2604022390</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Salmonella detection in commercially prepared livestock feed and the raw ingredients and equipment used to manufacture the feed: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Parker, Elizabeth M. ; Parker, Anthony J. ; Short, Gwen ; O’Connor, Annette M. ; Wittum, Thomas E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Parker, Elizabeth M. ; Parker, Anthony J. ; Short, Gwen ; O’Connor, Annette M. ; Wittum, Thomas E.</creatorcontrib><description>•Salmonella contamination of compound animal feed is an ongoing challenge.•Salmonella detection decreased over time but only in raw feed components.•Nine percent of feed samples were positive for Salmonella.•Salmonella detected in feed were resistant to medically important antibiotics.•Salmonella serotypes of public health importance were detected in feed.
Salmonella contamination of livestock feed is a serious veterinary and public health issue. In this study we used a systematic review to assess the prevalence and characterization of Salmonella isolates detected in raw feed components, feed milling equipment and finished feed from 97 studies published from 1955 to 2020 across seven global regions. Eighty-five studies were included in a meta-analyses to estimate the combined prevalence of Salmonella detection and to compare the risk of contamination associated with different sample types. We found the overall combined prevalence estimate of Salmonella detection was 0.14 with a prevalence of 0.18 in raw feed components, 0.09 in finished feed and 0.08 in feed milling equipment. Animal based raw feed components were 3.9 times more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella than plant based raw feed components. Differences between studies accounted for 99 % of the variance in the prevalence estimate for all sample types and there was no effect of region on the prevalence estimates. The combined prevalence of Salmonella detection in raw feed components decreased from 0.25 in 1955 to 0.11 in 2019. The proportion of Salmonella isolates that were resistant to antimicrobials was largest for amikacin (0.20), tetracycline (0.18) streptomycin (0.17), cefotaxime (0.14) and sulfisoxazole (0.11). The prevalence of Salmonella contamination of animal feed varies widely between individual studies and is an ongoing challenge for the commercial feed industry. Control relies on the vigilant monitoring and control of Salmonella in each individual mill.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-5877</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-1716</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105546</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34826732</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Animal Feed - analysis ; Animals ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology ; Antimicrobial resistance ; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial ; Food Microbiology ; Livestock ; Livestock feed ; Meta-analysis ; Microbial Sensitivity Tests - veterinary ; Prevalence ; Risk ratio ; Salmonella ; Salmonella Infections, Animal - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Preventive veterinary medicine, 2022-01, Vol.198, p.105546-105546, Article 105546</ispartof><rights>2021 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-da02f83737cc200801509d5dbb8992b8df7755b352bfb64314e7b9e6811dd9873</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-da02f83737cc200801509d5dbb8992b8df7755b352bfb64314e7b9e6811dd9873</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9216-1308 ; 0000-0003-4846-1925 ; 0000-0001-6370-6623</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587721002907$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34826732$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parker, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parker, Anthony J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Short, Gwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Connor, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittum, Thomas E.</creatorcontrib><title>Salmonella detection in commercially prepared livestock feed and the raw ingredients and equipment used to manufacture the feed: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Preventive veterinary medicine</title><addtitle>Prev Vet Med</addtitle><description>•Salmonella contamination of compound animal feed is an ongoing challenge.•Salmonella detection decreased over time but only in raw feed components.•Nine percent of feed samples were positive for Salmonella.•Salmonella detected in feed were resistant to medically important antibiotics.•Salmonella serotypes of public health importance were detected in feed.
Salmonella contamination of livestock feed is a serious veterinary and public health issue. In this study we used a systematic review to assess the prevalence and characterization of Salmonella isolates detected in raw feed components, feed milling equipment and finished feed from 97 studies published from 1955 to 2020 across seven global regions. Eighty-five studies were included in a meta-analyses to estimate the combined prevalence of Salmonella detection and to compare the risk of contamination associated with different sample types. We found the overall combined prevalence estimate of Salmonella detection was 0.14 with a prevalence of 0.18 in raw feed components, 0.09 in finished feed and 0.08 in feed milling equipment. Animal based raw feed components were 3.9 times more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella than plant based raw feed components. Differences between studies accounted for 99 % of the variance in the prevalence estimate for all sample types and there was no effect of region on the prevalence estimates. The combined prevalence of Salmonella detection in raw feed components decreased from 0.25 in 1955 to 0.11 in 2019. The proportion of Salmonella isolates that were resistant to antimicrobials was largest for amikacin (0.20), tetracycline (0.18) streptomycin (0.17), cefotaxime (0.14) and sulfisoxazole (0.11). The prevalence of Salmonella contamination of animal feed varies widely between individual studies and is an ongoing challenge for the commercial feed industry. Control relies on the vigilant monitoring and control of Salmonella in each individual mill.</description><subject>Animal Feed - analysis</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</subject><subject>Antimicrobial resistance</subject><subject>Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial</subject><subject>Food Microbiology</subject><subject>Livestock</subject><subject>Livestock feed</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Microbial Sensitivity Tests - veterinary</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Risk ratio</subject><subject>Salmonella</subject><subject>Salmonella Infections, Animal - epidemiology</subject><issn>0167-5877</issn><issn>1873-1716</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxi0EotvCK4CPXLLYzh873FYVUKRKPdCeLceegJc4SW2n1b4Qz9nJbsuVkzXj3zej-T5CPnK25Yw3n_fbOcID5ABuK5jg2K3rqnlFNlzJsuCSN6_JBklZ1ErKM3Ke0p4x1jSqfkvOykqJRpZiQ_7-NEOYRhgGQx1ksNlPI_UjtVMIEK03w3CguGw2ERwd_AOkPNk_tAcszeho_g00mkfU_ELCw5jTsQ_3i58DlnRJiOaJBjMuvbF5iXBUrSO-0B1Nh5QhmOwtxaM8PB71AbIpzGiGQ_LpHXnTmyHB--f3gtx9-3p7eVVc33z_cbm7LmwlWC6cYaJXpSyltYIxxXjNWle7rlNtKzrleinruitr0fVdU5W8Atm10CjOnWvRuQvy6TR3jtP9gqfq4JNd3RlhWpIWDauYEGXLEJUn1MYppQi9nqMPJh40Z3oNSe_1v5D0GpI-hYTKD89Llm79e9G9pILA7gQAnoqGRJ0sGmvR3ogJaTf5_y55Ai9bqvc</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>Parker, Elizabeth M.</creator><creator>Parker, Anthony J.</creator><creator>Short, Gwen</creator><creator>O’Connor, Annette M.</creator><creator>Wittum, Thomas E.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9216-1308</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4846-1925</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6370-6623</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>Salmonella detection in commercially prepared livestock feed and the raw ingredients and equipment used to manufacture the feed: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Parker, Elizabeth M. ; Parker, Anthony J. ; Short, Gwen ; O’Connor, Annette M. ; Wittum, Thomas E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-da02f83737cc200801509d5dbb8992b8df7755b352bfb64314e7b9e6811dd9873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Animal Feed - analysis</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</topic><topic>Antimicrobial resistance</topic><topic>Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial</topic><topic>Food Microbiology</topic><topic>Livestock</topic><topic>Livestock feed</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Microbial Sensitivity Tests - veterinary</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Risk ratio</topic><topic>Salmonella</topic><topic>Salmonella Infections, Animal - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parker, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parker, Anthony J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Short, Gwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Connor, Annette M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittum, Thomas E.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Preventive veterinary medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parker, Elizabeth M.</au><au>Parker, Anthony J.</au><au>Short, Gwen</au><au>O’Connor, Annette M.</au><au>Wittum, Thomas E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Salmonella detection in commercially prepared livestock feed and the raw ingredients and equipment used to manufacture the feed: A systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Preventive veterinary medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Prev Vet Med</addtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>198</volume><spage>105546</spage><epage>105546</epage><pages>105546-105546</pages><artnum>105546</artnum><issn>0167-5877</issn><eissn>1873-1716</eissn><abstract>•Salmonella contamination of compound animal feed is an ongoing challenge.•Salmonella detection decreased over time but only in raw feed components.•Nine percent of feed samples were positive for Salmonella.•Salmonella detected in feed were resistant to medically important antibiotics.•Salmonella serotypes of public health importance were detected in feed.
Salmonella contamination of livestock feed is a serious veterinary and public health issue. In this study we used a systematic review to assess the prevalence and characterization of Salmonella isolates detected in raw feed components, feed milling equipment and finished feed from 97 studies published from 1955 to 2020 across seven global regions. Eighty-five studies were included in a meta-analyses to estimate the combined prevalence of Salmonella detection and to compare the risk of contamination associated with different sample types. We found the overall combined prevalence estimate of Salmonella detection was 0.14 with a prevalence of 0.18 in raw feed components, 0.09 in finished feed and 0.08 in feed milling equipment. Animal based raw feed components were 3.9 times more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella than plant based raw feed components. Differences between studies accounted for 99 % of the variance in the prevalence estimate for all sample types and there was no effect of region on the prevalence estimates. The combined prevalence of Salmonella detection in raw feed components decreased from 0.25 in 1955 to 0.11 in 2019. The proportion of Salmonella isolates that were resistant to antimicrobials was largest for amikacin (0.20), tetracycline (0.18) streptomycin (0.17), cefotaxime (0.14) and sulfisoxazole (0.11). The prevalence of Salmonella contamination of animal feed varies widely between individual studies and is an ongoing challenge for the commercial feed industry. Control relies on the vigilant monitoring and control of Salmonella in each individual mill.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>34826732</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105546</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9216-1308</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4846-1925</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6370-6623</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0167-5877 |
ispartof | Preventive veterinary medicine, 2022-01, Vol.198, p.105546-105546, Article 105546 |
issn | 0167-5877 1873-1716 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2604022390 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Animal Feed - analysis Animals Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology Antimicrobial resistance Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial Food Microbiology Livestock Livestock feed Meta-analysis Microbial Sensitivity Tests - veterinary Prevalence Risk ratio Salmonella Salmonella Infections, Animal - epidemiology |
title | Salmonella detection in commercially prepared livestock feed and the raw ingredients and equipment used to manufacture the feed: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T09%3A25%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Salmonella%20detection%20in%20commercially%20prepared%20livestock%20feed%20and%20the%20raw%20ingredients%20and%20equipment%20used%20to%20manufacture%20the%20feed:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Preventive%20veterinary%20medicine&rft.au=Parker,%20Elizabeth%20M.&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=198&rft.spage=105546&rft.epage=105546&rft.pages=105546-105546&rft.artnum=105546&rft.issn=0167-5877&rft.eissn=1873-1716&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105546&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2604022390%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2604022390&rft_id=info:pmid/34826732&rft_els_id=S0167587721002907&rfr_iscdi=true |