破坏法和海绵拭法牛肉胴体指标生物计数的比较

Mitsushi Kobayashi, Kouji Furuuchi, Jin Onodera, F. Koike, Yoshiriho Tsuji, M. Nagase, Y. Morita, H. Toyofuku
{"title":"破坏法和海绵拭法牛肉胴体指标生物计数的比较","authors":"Mitsushi Kobayashi, Kouji Furuuchi, Jin Onodera, F. Koike, Yoshiriho Tsuji, M. Nagase, Y. Morita, H. Toyofuku","doi":"10.12935/jvma.75.e24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We compared total aerobic plate counts (APC) and Enterobacteriaceae counts on Japanese black cattle ( wagyu ) carcasses obtained by a destructive method and a sponge swabbing method. A total of 60 samples were collected by each method in both winter (January – March 2020) and summer (July – September 2020). Each sample obtained by the destructive method was 20 cm 2 (about 10 g) of carcass surface from four different parts (rump, top flank, bottom flank, and brisket), each of which were 5 cm 2 . The samples obtained by the sponge swabbing method were 400 cm 2 , swabbed at the surface of the same four parts, and were 100 cm 2 each. The mean ± standard deviation of the APC and Enterobacteriaceae counts obtained by the destructive method were 1.50 ± 0.79 log cfu/cm 2 and 0.44 ± 0.21 log cfu/cm 2 , respectively, while those obtained by the sponge swabbing method were 1.00 ± 0.48 log cfu/cm 2 and 0.29 ± 0.12 log cfu/cm 2 . APC obtained by the destructive sampling method were significantly higher than those obtained by the sponge swabbing method ( P < 0.01). There were no sea-sonal differences in APC and Enterobacteriaceae counts between the two sampling methods. The linear regres-sion equation of APC obtained by the destructive and sponge swabbing methods was y = 0.25 x + 0.62, and the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) was 0.17. The correlation of APC between the destructive method and the sponge swabbing method seemed to be low.","PeriodicalId":17329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Japan Veterinary Medical Association","volume":"49 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Indicator Organism Counts on Beef Carcass Obtained by Destructive and Sponge Swabbing Methods\",\"authors\":\"Mitsushi Kobayashi, Kouji Furuuchi, Jin Onodera, F. Koike, Yoshiriho Tsuji, M. Nagase, Y. Morita, H. Toyofuku\",\"doi\":\"10.12935/jvma.75.e24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We compared total aerobic plate counts (APC) and Enterobacteriaceae counts on Japanese black cattle ( wagyu ) carcasses obtained by a destructive method and a sponge swabbing method. A total of 60 samples were collected by each method in both winter (January – March 2020) and summer (July – September 2020). Each sample obtained by the destructive method was 20 cm 2 (about 10 g) of carcass surface from four different parts (rump, top flank, bottom flank, and brisket), each of which were 5 cm 2 . The samples obtained by the sponge swabbing method were 400 cm 2 , swabbed at the surface of the same four parts, and were 100 cm 2 each. The mean ± standard deviation of the APC and Enterobacteriaceae counts obtained by the destructive method were 1.50 ± 0.79 log cfu/cm 2 and 0.44 ± 0.21 log cfu/cm 2 , respectively, while those obtained by the sponge swabbing method were 1.00 ± 0.48 log cfu/cm 2 and 0.29 ± 0.12 log cfu/cm 2 . APC obtained by the destructive sampling method were significantly higher than those obtained by the sponge swabbing method ( P < 0.01). There were no sea-sonal differences in APC and Enterobacteriaceae counts between the two sampling methods. The linear regres-sion equation of APC obtained by the destructive and sponge swabbing methods was y = 0.25 x + 0.62, and the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) was 0.17. The correlation of APC between the destructive method and the sponge swabbing method seemed to be low.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Japan Veterinary Medical Association\",\"volume\":\"49 1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Japan Veterinary Medical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12935/jvma.75.e24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Japan Veterinary Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12935/jvma.75.e24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

采用破坏法和海绵拭子法对日本黑牛(和牛)尸体进行了好氧平板总计数(APC)和肠杆菌科计数的比较。在冬季(2020年1 - 3月)和夏季(2020年7 - 9月),每种方法共采集60份样本。采用破坏法从胴体4个不同部位(臀部、上腹、下腹和胸脯)取5 cm 2的样品,每个样品20 cm 2(约10 g)。海绵拭子法获得的样品为400 cm 2,在相同的四个部分表面拭子,各为100 cm 2。破坏法APC和Enterobacteriaceae计数的平均值±标准差分别为1.50±0.79 log cfu/cm 2和0.44±0.21 log cfu/cm 2,海绵拭法APC和Enterobacteriaceae计数的平均值±标准差分别为1.00±0.48 log cfu/cm 2和0.29±0.12 log cfu/cm 2。破坏性取样法测得的APC显著高于海绵拭法(P < 0.01)。两种采样方法间APC和enterobacteraceae计数无海区差异。破坏法和海绵法测定APC的线性回归方程为y = 0.25 x + 0.62,决定系数(r2)为0.17。破坏法与海绵拭法APC的相关性较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Indicator Organism Counts on Beef Carcass Obtained by Destructive and Sponge Swabbing Methods
We compared total aerobic plate counts (APC) and Enterobacteriaceae counts on Japanese black cattle ( wagyu ) carcasses obtained by a destructive method and a sponge swabbing method. A total of 60 samples were collected by each method in both winter (January – March 2020) and summer (July – September 2020). Each sample obtained by the destructive method was 20 cm 2 (about 10 g) of carcass surface from four different parts (rump, top flank, bottom flank, and brisket), each of which were 5 cm 2 . The samples obtained by the sponge swabbing method were 400 cm 2 , swabbed at the surface of the same four parts, and were 100 cm 2 each. The mean ± standard deviation of the APC and Enterobacteriaceae counts obtained by the destructive method were 1.50 ± 0.79 log cfu/cm 2 and 0.44 ± 0.21 log cfu/cm 2 , respectively, while those obtained by the sponge swabbing method were 1.00 ± 0.48 log cfu/cm 2 and 0.29 ± 0.12 log cfu/cm 2 . APC obtained by the destructive sampling method were significantly higher than those obtained by the sponge swabbing method ( P < 0.01). There were no sea-sonal differences in APC and Enterobacteriaceae counts between the two sampling methods. The linear regres-sion equation of APC obtained by the destructive and sponge swabbing methods was y = 0.25 x + 0.62, and the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) was 0.17. The correlation of APC between the destructive method and the sponge swabbing method seemed to be low.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Histopathological and Immunohistochemical Analyses of Wild Boar Infected with Classical Swine Fever Virus Two Cases of Intervertebral Disc Herniation in Miniature Dachshunds with Worsening Neurological Signs Caused by Myelography 局所再発と全身多発転移を伴う猫の両側性肛門囊腺癌 Proceedings of the 76th Slide Conference Held by the Pathology Group of the National Meat Sanitary Inspection Office Council Identifications and Distributions of Multiple Species and Genotypes of Cryptosporidium at Farms with Calf Deaths and Treatments against Parasites
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1