Listeria monocytogenes Prevalence Varies More within Fields Than between Fields or over Time on Conventionally Farmed New York Produce Fields
Past studies have shown that the on-farm distribution of Listeria monocytogenes is affected by environmental factors (e.g., weather). However, most studies were conducted at large scales (e.g., across farms), whereas few studies examined drivers of L. monocytogenes prevalence at smaller scales (e.g....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of food protection 2020-11, Vol.83 (11), p.1958-1966 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1966 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 1958 |
container_title | Journal of food protection |
container_volume | 83 |
creator | Harrand, Anna Sophia Strawn, Laura K Illas-Ortiz, Paola Mercedes Wiedmann, Martin Weller, Daniel L |
description | Past studies have shown that the on-farm distribution of Listeria monocytogenes is affected by environmental factors (e.g., weather). However, most studies were conducted at large scales (e.g., across farms), whereas few studies examined drivers of L. monocytogenes prevalence at smaller scales (e.g., within a single field). This study was performed to address this knowledge gap by (i) tracking L. monocytogenes distribution in two fields on one farm over a growing season and (ii) identifying factors associated with L. monocytogenes isolation from drag swab, soil, and agricultural water samples. Overall, L. monocytogenes was detected in 78% (21 of 27), 19% (7 of 36), and 8% (37 of 486) of water, drag swab, and soil samples, respectively. All isolates were characterized by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Of the 43 types identified, 14 were isolated on multiple sampling visits and/or from multiple sample types, indicating persistence in or repeated introduction into the farm environment during the study. Our findings also suggest that L. monocytogenes prevalence, even at the small spatial scale studied here, (i) was not uniform and (ii) varied more within fields than between fields or over time. This is illustrated by plot (in-field variation), field (between-field variation), and sampling visit (time), accounting for 18, 2, and 3% of variance in odds of isolating L. monocytogenes, respectively. Moreover, according to random forest analysis, water-related factors were among the top-ranked factors associated with L. monocytogenes isolation from all sample types. For example, the likelihood of isolating L. monocytogenes from drag and soil samples increased monotonically as rainfall increased. Overall, findings from this single-farm study suggests that mitigation strategies for L. monocytogenes in produce fields should focus on water-associated risk factors (e.g., rain and distance to water) and be tailored to specific high-risk in-field areas. |
doi_str_mv | 10.4315/JFP-20-120 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7995327</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2466045439</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-d1e6c0cdb5c5ebc0eb4362a1cdf86e6b2ff367d02285271837715393672e9e53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUcFuEzEUtCpQmwYu_YDKErdKC8_2rnd9QUIRaUEBeohQOVle79vGZWMXe5MoH8E_4yolgtOT5s2bmach5ILB21Kw6t3n-W3BoWAcTsiEqbIsFKj6BZmAkLwA3tydkfOUHgCAKy5PyZngElTDmgn5vXBpxOgMXQcf7H4M9-gx0duIWzOgt0i_m-gy8iVEpDs3rpync4dDl-hyZTxtcdwhHrEQadhipEu3Rho8nQW_RT-64M0w7OncxDV29Cvu6I8Qf2af0G2yyeH6FXnZmyHh6-c5Jcv5x-Xsplh8u_40-7AobAlyLDqG0oLt2spW2FrAtsyfGma7vpEoW973QtYdcN5UvGaNqGtWCZUxjgorMSXvD7KPmzansTlfNIN-jG5t4l4H4_T_G-9W-j5sda1UJXidBd48C8Twa4Np1A9hE_OHSfNSSiirMttNydWBZWNIKWJ_dGCgn5rTuTnNQefmMvny30xH6t-qxB_IdJaS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2466045439</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Listeria monocytogenes Prevalence Varies More within Fields Than between Fields or over Time on Conventionally Farmed New York Produce Fields</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Harrand, Anna Sophia ; Strawn, Laura K ; Illas-Ortiz, Paola Mercedes ; Wiedmann, Martin ; Weller, Daniel L</creator><creatorcontrib>Harrand, Anna Sophia ; Strawn, Laura K ; Illas-Ortiz, Paola Mercedes ; Wiedmann, Martin ; Weller, Daniel L</creatorcontrib><description>Past studies have shown that the on-farm distribution of Listeria monocytogenes is affected by environmental factors (e.g., weather). However, most studies were conducted at large scales (e.g., across farms), whereas few studies examined drivers of L. monocytogenes prevalence at smaller scales (e.g., within a single field). This study was performed to address this knowledge gap by (i) tracking L. monocytogenes distribution in two fields on one farm over a growing season and (ii) identifying factors associated with L. monocytogenes isolation from drag swab, soil, and agricultural water samples. Overall, L. monocytogenes was detected in 78% (21 of 27), 19% (7 of 36), and 8% (37 of 486) of water, drag swab, and soil samples, respectively. All isolates were characterized by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Of the 43 types identified, 14 were isolated on multiple sampling visits and/or from multiple sample types, indicating persistence in or repeated introduction into the farm environment during the study. Our findings also suggest that L. monocytogenes prevalence, even at the small spatial scale studied here, (i) was not uniform and (ii) varied more within fields than between fields or over time. This is illustrated by plot (in-field variation), field (between-field variation), and sampling visit (time), accounting for 18, 2, and 3% of variance in odds of isolating L. monocytogenes, respectively. Moreover, according to random forest analysis, water-related factors were among the top-ranked factors associated with L. monocytogenes isolation from all sample types. For example, the likelihood of isolating L. monocytogenes from drag and soil samples increased monotonically as rainfall increased. Overall, findings from this single-farm study suggests that mitigation strategies for L. monocytogenes in produce fields should focus on water-associated risk factors (e.g., rain and distance to water) and be tailored to specific high-risk in-field areas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0362-028X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-9097</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4315/JFP-20-120</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32609818</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Limited</publisher><subject>Contamination ; Drag ; Electrophoresis ; Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field ; Environmental factors ; Farms ; Food Microbiology ; Food safety ; Gel electrophoresis ; Growing season ; Irrigation ; Laboratories ; Listeria ; Listeria monocytogenes ; New York ; Packaging ; Plot (Narrative) ; Prevalence ; Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis ; Rainfall ; Risk analysis ; Risk factors ; Sampling ; Soil contamination ; Soil water ; Surface water ; Water analysis ; Water sampling ; Watersheds ; Weather</subject><ispartof>Journal of food protection, 2020-11, Vol.83 (11), p.1958-1966</ispartof><rights>Copyright ©, International Association for Food Protection.</rights><rights>Copyright Allen Press Inc. Nov 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-d1e6c0cdb5c5ebc0eb4362a1cdf86e6b2ff367d02285271837715393672e9e53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-d1e6c0cdb5c5ebc0eb4362a1cdf86e6b2ff367d02285271837715393672e9e53</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9523-0081 ; 0000-0001-7259-6331 ; 0000-0002-9143-508X ; 0000-0002-4168-5662</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2466045439?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27923,27924,64384,64388,72240</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32609818$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harrand, Anna Sophia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strawn, Laura K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Illas-Ortiz, Paola Mercedes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiedmann, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weller, Daniel L</creatorcontrib><title>Listeria monocytogenes Prevalence Varies More within Fields Than between Fields or over Time on Conventionally Farmed New York Produce Fields</title><title>Journal of food protection</title><addtitle>J Food Prot</addtitle><description>Past studies have shown that the on-farm distribution of Listeria monocytogenes is affected by environmental factors (e.g., weather). However, most studies were conducted at large scales (e.g., across farms), whereas few studies examined drivers of L. monocytogenes prevalence at smaller scales (e.g., within a single field). This study was performed to address this knowledge gap by (i) tracking L. monocytogenes distribution in two fields on one farm over a growing season and (ii) identifying factors associated with L. monocytogenes isolation from drag swab, soil, and agricultural water samples. Overall, L. monocytogenes was detected in 78% (21 of 27), 19% (7 of 36), and 8% (37 of 486) of water, drag swab, and soil samples, respectively. All isolates were characterized by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Of the 43 types identified, 14 were isolated on multiple sampling visits and/or from multiple sample types, indicating persistence in or repeated introduction into the farm environment during the study. Our findings also suggest that L. monocytogenes prevalence, even at the small spatial scale studied here, (i) was not uniform and (ii) varied more within fields than between fields or over time. This is illustrated by plot (in-field variation), field (between-field variation), and sampling visit (time), accounting for 18, 2, and 3% of variance in odds of isolating L. monocytogenes, respectively. Moreover, according to random forest analysis, water-related factors were among the top-ranked factors associated with L. monocytogenes isolation from all sample types. For example, the likelihood of isolating L. monocytogenes from drag and soil samples increased monotonically as rainfall increased. Overall, findings from this single-farm study suggests that mitigation strategies for L. monocytogenes in produce fields should focus on water-associated risk factors (e.g., rain and distance to water) and be tailored to specific high-risk in-field areas.</description><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Drag</subject><subject>Electrophoresis</subject><subject>Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field</subject><subject>Environmental factors</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Food Microbiology</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Gel electrophoresis</subject><subject>Growing season</subject><subject>Irrigation</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Listeria</subject><subject>Listeria monocytogenes</subject><subject>New York</subject><subject>Packaging</subject><subject>Plot (Narrative)</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis</subject><subject>Rainfall</subject><subject>Risk analysis</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Soil contamination</subject><subject>Soil water</subject><subject>Surface water</subject><subject>Water analysis</subject><subject>Water sampling</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><subject>Weather</subject><issn>0362-028X</issn><issn>1944-9097</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpVUcFuEzEUtCpQmwYu_YDKErdKC8_2rnd9QUIRaUEBeohQOVle79vGZWMXe5MoH8E_4yolgtOT5s2bmach5ILB21Kw6t3n-W3BoWAcTsiEqbIsFKj6BZmAkLwA3tydkfOUHgCAKy5PyZngElTDmgn5vXBpxOgMXQcf7H4M9-gx0duIWzOgt0i_m-gy8iVEpDs3rpync4dDl-hyZTxtcdwhHrEQadhipEu3Rho8nQW_RT-64M0w7OncxDV29Cvu6I8Qf2af0G2yyeH6FXnZmyHh6-c5Jcv5x-Xsplh8u_40-7AobAlyLDqG0oLt2spW2FrAtsyfGma7vpEoW973QtYdcN5UvGaNqGtWCZUxjgorMSXvD7KPmzansTlfNIN-jG5t4l4H4_T_G-9W-j5sda1UJXidBd48C8Twa4Np1A9hE_OHSfNSSiirMttNydWBZWNIKWJ_dGCgn5rTuTnNQefmMvny30xH6t-qxB_IdJaS</recordid><startdate>20201101</startdate><enddate>20201101</enddate><creator>Harrand, Anna Sophia</creator><creator>Strawn, Laura K</creator><creator>Illas-Ortiz, Paola Mercedes</creator><creator>Wiedmann, Martin</creator><creator>Weller, Daniel L</creator><general>Elsevier Limited</general><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>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9523-0081</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7259-6331</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9143-508X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4168-5662</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201101</creationdate><title>Listeria monocytogenes Prevalence Varies More within Fields Than between Fields or over Time on Conventionally Farmed New York Produce Fields</title><author>Harrand, Anna Sophia ; Strawn, Laura K ; Illas-Ortiz, Paola Mercedes ; Wiedmann, Martin ; Weller, Daniel L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-d1e6c0cdb5c5ebc0eb4362a1cdf86e6b2ff367d02285271837715393672e9e53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Drag</topic><topic>Electrophoresis</topic><topic>Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field</topic><topic>Environmental factors</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Food Microbiology</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Gel electrophoresis</topic><topic>Growing season</topic><topic>Irrigation</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Listeria</topic><topic>Listeria monocytogenes</topic><topic>New York</topic><topic>Packaging</topic><topic>Plot (Narrative)</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis</topic><topic>Rainfall</topic><topic>Risk analysis</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Soil contamination</topic><topic>Soil water</topic><topic>Surface water</topic><topic>Water analysis</topic><topic>Water sampling</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><topic>Weather</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harrand, Anna Sophia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strawn, Laura K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Illas-Ortiz, Paola Mercedes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiedmann, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weller, Daniel L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of food protection</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harrand, Anna Sophia</au><au>Strawn, Laura K</au><au>Illas-Ortiz, Paola Mercedes</au><au>Wiedmann, Martin</au><au>Weller, Daniel L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Listeria monocytogenes Prevalence Varies More within Fields Than between Fields or over Time on Conventionally Farmed New York Produce Fields</atitle><jtitle>Journal of food protection</jtitle><addtitle>J Food Prot</addtitle><date>2020-11-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>83</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1958</spage><epage>1966</epage><pages>1958-1966</pages><issn>0362-028X</issn><eissn>1944-9097</eissn><abstract>Past studies have shown that the on-farm distribution of Listeria monocytogenes is affected by environmental factors (e.g., weather). However, most studies were conducted at large scales (e.g., across farms), whereas few studies examined drivers of L. monocytogenes prevalence at smaller scales (e.g., within a single field). This study was performed to address this knowledge gap by (i) tracking L. monocytogenes distribution in two fields on one farm over a growing season and (ii) identifying factors associated with L. monocytogenes isolation from drag swab, soil, and agricultural water samples. Overall, L. monocytogenes was detected in 78% (21 of 27), 19% (7 of 36), and 8% (37 of 486) of water, drag swab, and soil samples, respectively. All isolates were characterized by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Of the 43 types identified, 14 were isolated on multiple sampling visits and/or from multiple sample types, indicating persistence in or repeated introduction into the farm environment during the study. Our findings also suggest that L. monocytogenes prevalence, even at the small spatial scale studied here, (i) was not uniform and (ii) varied more within fields than between fields or over time. This is illustrated by plot (in-field variation), field (between-field variation), and sampling visit (time), accounting for 18, 2, and 3% of variance in odds of isolating L. monocytogenes, respectively. Moreover, according to random forest analysis, water-related factors were among the top-ranked factors associated with L. monocytogenes isolation from all sample types. For example, the likelihood of isolating L. monocytogenes from drag and soil samples increased monotonically as rainfall increased. Overall, findings from this single-farm study suggests that mitigation strategies for L. monocytogenes in produce fields should focus on water-associated risk factors (e.g., rain and distance to water) and be tailored to specific high-risk in-field areas.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Limited</pub><pmid>32609818</pmid><doi>10.4315/JFP-20-120</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9523-0081</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7259-6331</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9143-508X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4168-5662</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0362-028X |
ispartof | Journal of food protection, 2020-11, Vol.83 (11), p.1958-1966 |
issn | 0362-028X 1944-9097 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7995327 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Contamination Drag Electrophoresis Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field Environmental factors Farms Food Microbiology Food safety Gel electrophoresis Growing season Irrigation Laboratories Listeria Listeria monocytogenes New York Packaging Plot (Narrative) Prevalence Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis Rainfall Risk analysis Risk factors Sampling Soil contamination Soil water Surface water Water analysis Water sampling Watersheds Weather |
title | Listeria monocytogenes Prevalence Varies More within Fields Than between Fields or over Time on Conventionally Farmed New York Produce Fields |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T16%3A36%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Listeria%20monocytogenes%20Prevalence%20Varies%20More%20within%20Fields%20Than%20between%20Fields%20or%20over%20Time%20on%20Conventionally%20Farmed%20New%20York%20Produce%20Fields&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20food%20protection&rft.au=Harrand,%20Anna%20Sophia&rft.date=2020-11-01&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1958&rft.epage=1966&rft.pages=1958-1966&rft.issn=0362-028X&rft.eissn=1944-9097&rft_id=info:doi/10.4315/JFP-20-120&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2466045439%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2466045439&rft_id=info:pmid/32609818&rfr_iscdi=true |