• 1

    Hill RC. The nutritional requirements of exercising dogs. J Nutr 1998;128 (suppl 12):2686S2690S.

  • 2

    FDA. Guidance for industry #122: manufacture and labeling of raw meat foods for companion and captive noncompanion carnivores and omnivores. Available at: www.fda.gov/cvm/Guidance/Guide122.pdf. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Chengappa MM, Staats J, Oberest NH, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella in raw meat used in diets of racing Greyhounds. J Vet Diagn Invest 1993;5:372377.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    LeJeune JT, Hancock DD. Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat diets to dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;219:12211225.

  • 5

    Cantor GH, Nelson S Jr, Vanek JA, et al. Salmonella shedding in racing sled dogs. J Vet Diagn Invest 1997;9:447448.

  • 6

    Strohmeyer RA, Morley PS, Hyatt DR, et al. Evaluation of bacterial and protozoal contamination of commercially available raw meat diets for dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;228:537542.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Weese JS, Rouseau J, Arroyo L. Bacteriological examination of commercial canine and feline raw diets. Can Vet J 2005;46:513516.

  • 8

    Stone GG, Chengappa MM, Oberst NH, et al. Application of polymerase chain reaction for the correlation of Salmonella serovars recovered from Greyhound feces with their diet. J Vet Diagn Invest 1993;5:378385.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Joffe DJ, Schlesinger DP. Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets. Can Vet J 2002;43:441442.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Swaminathan B, Barrett TJ, Hunter SB, et al. PulseNet: the molecular subtyping network for foodborne bacterial disease surveillance, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:382389.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    USDA. Bacterial epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance: NARMS reports. Available at: www.ars.usda.gov/main/docs.htm?docid=6750. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    FDA. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS). Available at: www.fda.gov/cvm/narms_pg.html. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

  • 13

    Billinghurst I. Give your dog a bone: the practical commonsense way to feed dogs. Alexandria, Australia: Bridge Printery, 1993.

  • 14

    Ferguson B. Comments on raw meat diets for dogs (lett). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;228:11831185.

  • 15

    Knueven D. Comments on raw meat diets for dogs (lett). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;228:11831185.

  • 16

    United Kingdom raw meaty bones. Rebuttal of Pet Food Manufacturers' Association (PFMA) assertions. Available at: www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/RebuttaltoPFMA.pdf. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    New L. Salmonella and the raw diet. Available at: www.mountaindogfood.com/HealthCare/Salmonella2.htm. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

  • 18

    Wysong RL. Is a raw diet dangerous? Available at: www.wysong.net/controversies/rawmeat.shtml. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

  • 19

    Cave NJ, Marks SL, Kass PH, et al. Evaluation of a routine diagnostic fecal panel for dogs with diarrhea. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:5259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Hackett T, Lappin MR. Prevalence of enteric pathogens in dogs of north-central Colorado. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2003;39:5256.

  • 21

    Sokolow SH, Rand C, Marks SL, et al. Epidemiologic evaluation of diarrhea in dogs in an animal shelter. Am J Vet Res 2005;66:10181024.

  • 22

    Sheridan JJ. The effect of freezing on the survival of pathogens in different meat types. Hygiene review, Society of Food Hygiene Technology, 1997. Available at: www.sofht.co.uk/isfht/irish_97_freezing.htm. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Urban JE, Broce A. Flies and their bacterial loads in Greyhound dog kennels in Kansas. Curr Microbiol 1998;36:164170.

  • 24

    Barber DA, Bahnson PB, Isaacson R, et al. Distribution of Salmonella in swine production ecosystems. J Food Prot 2002;65:18611868.

  • 25

    Liebana E, Garcia-Migura L, Clouting C. Molecular fingerprinting evidence of the contribution of wildlife vectors in the maintenance of Salmonella Enteritidis infection in layer farms. J Appl Microbiol 2003;94:10241029.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Hohmann EL. Nontyphoidal salmonellosis. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32:263269.

  • 27

    Popoff MY, Bockemuhl J, Gheesling LL. Supplement 2002 (No. 46) to the Kauffmann-White scheme. Res Microbiol 2004;155:568570.

  • 28

    CDC. Salmonella surveillance: annual summary, 2003. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2004. Available at: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/phlisdata/salmtab/2003/SalmonellaAnnualSummary2003.pdf. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    USDA. What veterinarians and producers should know about multidrug-resistant Salmonella Newport. USDA: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services: Veterinary Services: Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, National Animal Health Monitoring System, Fort Collins, CO, 2002. #N363.0902. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/general/Snewport.PDF. Accessed Mar 19, 2006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Wells SJ, Fedorka-Cray PJ, Dargatz DA, et al. Fecal shedding of Salmonella spp. by dairy cows on farm and at cull cow markets. J Food Prot 2001;64:311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Troutt HF, Galland JC, Osburn BI, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella spp in cull (market) dairy cows at slaughter. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;219:12121215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Evaluation of the association between feeding raw meat and Salmonella enterica infections at a Greyhound breeding facility

Paul S. Morley DVM, PhD, DACVIM1, Rachel A. Strohmeyer DVM, MS2, Jeanetta D. Tankson PhD3, Doreene R. Hyatt PhD4, David A. Dargatz DVM, DACVIM, DACT5, and Paula J. Fedorka-Cray PhD6
View More View Less
  • 1 Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
  • | 2 Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
  • | 3 USDA: Agricultural Research Service, Bacterial Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Resistance Research Unit, Russell Research Center, Athens, GA 30605
  • | 4 Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
  • | 5 Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523; USDA: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services: Veterinary Services, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO 80525
  • | 6 USDA: Agricultural Research Service, Bacterial Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Resistance Research Unit, Russell Research Center, Athens, GA 30605

Abstract

Objective—To investigate Salmonella enterica infections at a Greyhound breeding facility.

Design—Cross-sectional study.

Animal and Sample Populations—138 adult and juvenile dogs and S enterica isolates recovered from the dogs and their environment.

Procedures—The investigation was conducted at the request of a Greyhound breeder. Observations regarding the environment and population of dogs were recorded. Fecal, food, and environmental specimens were collected and submitted for Salmonellaculture. Isolates were serotyped and tested for susceptibility to 16 antimicrobials. Isolates underwent genetic analyses by use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and ribotyping.

Results—S enterica was recovered from 88 of 133 (66%) samples of all types and from 57 of 61 (93%) fecal samples. Eighty-three (94.3%) of the isolates were serotype Newport, 77 (87.5%) of which had identical resistance phenotypes. Genetic evaluations suggested that several strains of S enterica existed at the facility, but there was a high degree of relatedness among many of the Newport isolates. Multiple strains of Salmonella enterica serotype Newport were recovered from raw meat fed on 1 day.

Conclusions and Clinical RelevanceS enterica infections and environmental contamination were common at this facility. A portion of the Salmonellastrains detected on the premises was likely introduced via raw meat that was the primary dietary constituent. Some strains appeared to be widely disseminated in the population. Feeding meat that had not been cooked properly, particularly meat classified as unfit for human consumption, likely contributed to the infections in these dogs.

Abstract

Objective—To investigate Salmonella enterica infections at a Greyhound breeding facility.

Design—Cross-sectional study.

Animal and Sample Populations—138 adult and juvenile dogs and S enterica isolates recovered from the dogs and their environment.

Procedures—The investigation was conducted at the request of a Greyhound breeder. Observations regarding the environment and population of dogs were recorded. Fecal, food, and environmental specimens were collected and submitted for Salmonellaculture. Isolates were serotyped and tested for susceptibility to 16 antimicrobials. Isolates underwent genetic analyses by use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and ribotyping.

Results—S enterica was recovered from 88 of 133 (66%) samples of all types and from 57 of 61 (93%) fecal samples. Eighty-three (94.3%) of the isolates were serotype Newport, 77 (87.5%) of which had identical resistance phenotypes. Genetic evaluations suggested that several strains of S enterica existed at the facility, but there was a high degree of relatedness among many of the Newport isolates. Multiple strains of Salmonella enterica serotype Newport were recovered from raw meat fed on 1 day.

Conclusions and Clinical RelevanceS enterica infections and environmental contamination were common at this facility. A portion of the Salmonellastrains detected on the premises was likely introduced via raw meat that was the primary dietary constituent. Some strains appeared to be widely disseminated in the population. Feeding meat that had not been cooked properly, particularly meat classified as unfit for human consumption, likely contributed to the infections in these dogs.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Strohmeyer's present address is 6225 NE Blakewood Ct, Kingston, WA 98346.

Supported by the James L. Voss Veterinary Teaching Hospital and by the Animal Population Health Institute through a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (USDA:CSREES).

The authors thank Denise Bolte and Leena Jain for technical support.

Address correspondence to Dr. Morley