Skip to main content
ARS Home » Plains Area » College Station, Texas » Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center » Food and Feed Safety Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #102303
Title: EVALUATION OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE ELISA KITS FOR DETECTION OF SALMONELLAE IN SWINE LYMPH NODES AND CECAL AND FECAL CONTENTS

Author
item Harvey, Roger
item FARRINGTON, LEIGH - TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
item Droleskey, Robert - Bob
item Anderson, Robin
item Stanker, Larry
item Nisbet, David

Submitted to: International Symposium on Epidemiology and Control of Salmonella in Pork
Publication Type: Proceedings
Publication Acceptance Date: 7/21/1999
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: N/A

Interpretive Summary: Salmonella are bacteria that can cause disease in animals and humans and that cost the U.S. Swine industry more than $100 million annually. The chief source of infection for humans is food contaminated with Salmonella. Therefore, rapid tests to detect Salmonella are very important for the food industry. We evaluated two of these tests. The EiaFoss test performed well and has the ability to detect Salmonella quickly and accurately. If adopted by the food industry, this test has the potential of improving the wholesomeness of the U.S. food supply.

Technical Abstract: We conducted a survey to determine the prevalence of salmonellae in pigs in an integrated swine operation. Isolation of salmonellae from lymph nodes, cecal contents, and fecal samples was by routine microbiological culture techniques. Simultaneously, and using the same samples, we evaluated two commercially available ELISA-based Salmonella test systems (Neogen Reveal and EiaFoss) for detection of salmonellae and compared these results to our culture results. The advantages of the Neogen test were that it was simple to use and had up to an 87% agreement with culture. The disadvantages of the Neogen test were that it was expensive, it was not suitable for cecal or fecal samples (cross-reacted with Citrobacter spp.), it had a high rate of false negatives and false positives. The advantages of the Foss test were that it had up to a 93% agreement with culture results, it had low rates of false negatives and false positives, it was applicable for cecal and fecal samples, and it reduced time and labor compared to culture procedures. The disadvantages of the Foss test were that it required purchase of an expensive auto analyzer and not all of the 3 protocols recommended by the manufacturer were equally effective in recovery of salmonellae. We concluded that under our study conditions, the Foss system was suitable for detection of salmonellae from field samples.