Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:49:15.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evaluation of culture media for the isolation ofl salmonellaell from faeces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. Williams Smith
H. Williams Smith
Affiliation:
From the Livestock Research Station, Animal Health Trust, Houghton Grange, Huntingdon
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The sensitivity of different culture media for isolating salmonellae from the faeces of man, dog, horse, cow, sheep, pig, chicken, duck and turkey has been investigated. Suitable dilutions of tissue fluids of animals that had died from salmonella infection, and in which the numbers of viable salmonellae could be accurately estimated, had previously been added to the faecal specimens. Tissue fluids containing Salmonella dublin, typhi-murium, thompson, cholerae-suis, gallinarum and pullorum were used.

Selenite and tetrathionate media were greatly superior to liquid desoxycholatecitrate medium, liquid Wilson and Blair medium, cacotheline broth and brilliant green peptone water. By the use of either selenite or tetrathionate media it was usually possible to recover salmonellae from faecal specimens to which less than ten salmonellae had been added. They could nearly always be recovered from specimens containing 100 salmonellae.

Salmonellae were more easily recovered from the faeces of some species of animals than others. For selenite, the order of ease of recovery was horse, followed by sheep, human, cow, chicken, pig, turkey, dog and duck faeces, and for tetrathionate, horse, sheep, human, dog, pig, cow, turkey, chicken and duck faeces.

Selenite medium was preferable to tetrathionate for examining cow and chicken faeces but the reverse was true in the case of dog faeces; slight differences only were noted in the other species. Taken as a whole, selenite was slightly superior to tetrathionate, butbest results were obtained by the use of both media.

Some types of salmonellae were easier to recover from faeces than others.Of six salmonella types, Salm. thompson was easiest to recover followed by Salm. typhi-murium, dublin, gallinarum, pullorum and cholerae-suis, in that order.

Erroneous results were obtained when laboratory cultures were used instead of infected tissue fluids.

It was necessary to add several thousand salmonellae to faeces before they could be recovered by direct culture on desoxycholate-citrate-agar or Wilson and Blair solid medium.

Salm. cholerae-suis and Salm. abortus-ovis were exceptional in that direct plating was superior to the use of enrichment media.

With lightly infected specimens an incubation period of 24–30 hr. was optimum for selenite and tetrathionate media. A longer period was detrimental with tetrathionate but not with selenite medium.

The combination of selenite and solid Wilson and Blair medium was sometimes too inhibitory to permit the growth of salmonellae.

There was little advantage in preparing selenite medium with mannitol instead of lactose.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 1952 , pp. 21 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

References

REFERENCES

Boecker, E. (1935). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 117, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. T., Frisby, B. R. & Jebb, W. H. H. (1951). Mon. Bull. Min. Hlth Publ. Hlth Lab. Serv. 10, 89.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, J. C. & Williams Smith, H. (1949). Brit. med. J. ii, 1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P. R., Bruner, D. W.Moran, A. B. (1948). J. infect. Dis. 83, 220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F., Martin, S. P. & Pierce, C. H. (1949). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 52, 751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, R. B., Elliot, E. M. L. & Tomlinson, A. J. H. (1947). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun. Lond. no. 260.Google Scholar
Hobbs, B. C. & Allison, V. D. (1945). Mon. Bull. Min. Hlth Publ. Hlth Lab. Serv. 4, 12, 63.Google Scholar
Hynes, M. (1942). J. Path. Bact. 54, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. E. & Handley, W. R. C. (1945). Mon. Bull. Min. Hlth Publ. Hlth Lab. Serv. 4, 107.Google Scholar
Knox, R., Gell, P. G. H. & Pollock, M. R. (1942). J. Path. Bact. 44, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifson, E. (1935). J. Path. Bact. 40, 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifson, E. (1936). Amer. J. Hyg. 24, 423.Google Scholar
Miles, A. A. & Misra, S. S. (1938). J. Hyg.Camb., 38, 732.Google Scholar
Rolfe, V. (1946). Mon. Bull. Min. Hlth Publ. Hlth Lab. Serv. 5, 158.Google Scholar
Ruys, A. C. & Van Der Plaats, A. B. J. (1949). Antonie van Leuwenhoeck J. Microbiol. Serol. 15, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saphra, J. (1950). Amer. J. med. Sci. 220, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slavin, G. (1943). J. comp. Path. 53, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabet, F. (1949). J. R. Egypt. med. Assoc. 1, 1.Google Scholar
Waldhecker, M. (1935). Z. H´yg. InfektKr. 117, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams Smith, H. & Buxton, A. (1951). Brit. med. J. i, 1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W. J. & Blair, E. M. McV. (1931). J. Hyg., Camb., 31, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar