JVDI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation Vol. 20 Issue 5, 620-624
Copyright © 2008 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Love, B. C.
Right arrow Articles by Rostagno, M. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Love, B. C.
Right arrow Articles by Rostagno, M. H.

Brief Research Reports

Comparison of five culture methods for Salmonella isolation from swine fecal samples of known infection status

Brenda C. Love1 and Marcos H. Rostagno

Correspondence: 1Corresponding Author: Brenda C. Love, Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Oklahoma State University, PO Box 7001, Stillwater, OK 74078. brenda.love{at}okstate.edu

The current study was conducted to evaluate 5 bacteriologic culture methods (methods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) for recovery of Salmonella enterica from swine feces, both for sensitivity of detection (ability to recover Salmonella from a positive sample) and for specificity (not to inadvertently identify an organism as a Salmonella species in a negative sample). Fifty-six negative samples and 46 positive samples were processed using each of the 5 methods, which differed primarily in the combinations of enrichment media used. All negative samples were negative for Salmonella when cultured by all 5 methods (100% specificity). Two of the methods (methods 1 and 4) resulted in the recovery of significantly less (P < 0.05) Salmonella when compared with the remaining 3 methods (methods 2, 3, and 5). No one method was successful in recovering Salmonella from all positive samples, although recovery with method 2 was statistically similar to the total number of positive samples analyzed (42 vs. 46 Salmonella-positive samples, P > 0.05). This study shows that culture methods differ significantly in their performance regarding the isolation of Salmonella from swine fecal samples.

Key Words: Culture methods • Salmonella • sensitivity • swine






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.