Cited by 133Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFood Safety and HygieneListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety

Evaluation of bacterial and protozoal contamination of commercially available raw meat diets for dogs

Open access
Strohmeyer, Rachel A., Morley, Paul S., Hyatt, Doreene R., Dargatz, David A., Scorza, A. Valeria, Lappin, Michael R.·2006·Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate bacterial and protozoal contamination of commercially available raw meat diets for dogs. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal study. SAMPLE POPULATION: 240 samples from 20 raw meat diets for dogs (containing beef, lamb, chicken, or turkey), 24 samples from 2 dry dog foods, and 24 samples from 2 canned dog foods. PROCEDURE: Each product was purchased commercially on 4 dates approximately 2 months apart. Three samples from each product at each sampling period were evaluated via bacterial culture for non-type-specific Escherichia coli (NTSEC), Salmonella enterica, and Campylobacter spp. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on selected isolates. Polymerase chain reaction assays were used to detect DNA from Cryptosporidium spp, Neospora spp, and Toxoplasma spp in samples obtained in the third and fourth sampling periods. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three of 288 (53%) samples were contaminated with NTSEC. Both raw and prepared foods contained NTSEC during at least 1 culture period. Salmonella enterica was recovered from 17 (5.9%) samples, all of which were raw meat products. Campylobacter spp was not isolated from any samples. In 91 of 288 (31.6%) samples, there was no gram-negative bacterial growth before enrichment and in 48 of 288 (16.7%) samples, there was no aerobic bacterial growth before enrichment. Susceptibility phenotypes were variable. Cryptosporidium spp DNA was detected in 3 samples. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bacterial contamination is common in commercially available raw meat diets, suggesting that there is a risk of foodborne illness in dogs fed these diets as well possible risk for humans associated with the dogs or their environments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2460/javma.228.4.537

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Surveys in Europe and North America have consistently found Salmonella species in a proportion of raw pet food samples, typically of fresh-frozen commercial diets.

    “Surveys in Europe and North America have consistently found Salmonella species in a proportion of samples, typically of fresh‐frozen commercial diets.”

    From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as Strohmeyer et al. 2006

    The Results report Salmonella enterica in 17 of 240 raw-meat diet samples, and the Diets passage says the commercial products were received frozen. This supports the finding for the products tested, but the paper does not establish that surveys across both Europe and North America have consistently found it. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Researchers sampling raw pet foods from commercial outlets have commonly noted that package warnings about preparation and hygienic handling are absent.

    “It has been noted by researchers sampling raw pet foods from commercial outlets that package warnings about preparation and hygienic handling of these pet foods are commonly absent (Finley et al. 2006, Strohmeyer et al. 2006, Mehlenbacher et al. 2012, Bojanic et al. 2017, van Bree et al. 2018) and that packaging may be defective and leaky (Bojanic et al. 2017).”

    From Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards. (2019) · cites this paper as Strohmeyer et al. 2006

    In the Processing for microbial culture passage (page not available), the authors say none of the sampled raw-meat products came with thawing or preparation instructions. Our copy does not say whether the packages carried warnings about hygienic handling, so it supports the preparation portion but not that additional detail. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Serovars isolated in studies and surveillance of ingredients and raw food for pets or working dogs are diverse.

    “Serovars isolated in studies and surveillance of ingredients and raw food for pets or working dogs are diverse (Strohmeyer et al. 2006) and include those considered to be of particular significance for human salmonellosis (Chengappa et al. 1993, Finley et al. 2008, Mehlenbacher et al. 2012, Bacci et al. 2019).”
  • Surveys of raw pet foods in North America have reported proportions of Salmonella-positive samples ranging between 7.1%, 8%, 9%, 20% and 21%.

    “Surveys of raw pet foods in North America (generally frozen and obtained through commercial outlets) have reported proportions of Salmonella‐positive samples ranging between 7.1% (Strohmeyer et al. 2006), 8% (Nemser et al. 2014), 9% (Mehlenbacher et al. 2012), 20% (Weese et al. 2005) and 21% (Finley et al. 2008).”
  • Higher prevalence values of E. coli-positive samples have been found among commercial raw pet foods when compared with conventionally processed foods.

    “Higher prevalence values of E. coli‐positive samples have been found among commercial raw pet foods when compared with conventionally processed foods (Strohmeyer et al. 2006, Freeman et al. 2013)”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strohmeyer, R. A., Morley, P. S., Hyatt, D. R., Dargatz, D. A., Scorza, A. V., & Lappin, M. R.
Affiliations
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (US)
Venue
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Published
2006-02-15
Volume
228
Issue
4
Pages
537-542
ISSN
0003-1488 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161516957
Cited by
133
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Keywords
raw meat diet, dogs, bacterial contamination, protozoan parasites, Salmonella enterica, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Neospora, Toxoplasma, antimicrobial susceptibility, food poisoning, canine nutrition, dry dog food
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Feed, Bacteria, Consumer Product Safety, Dogs, Food Contamination, Food Microbiology, Longitudinal Studies, Meat, Prospective Studies, Colony Count, Microbial, DNA, Protozoan, Food Parasitology, Eukaryota

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review