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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Preventive veterinary medicine 2022-01, Vol.198, p.105546-105546, Article 105546
Hauptverfasser: Parker, Elizabeth M., Parker, Anthony J., Short, Gwen, O’Connor, Annette M., Wittum, Thomas E.
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