Cited by 28Escherichia coli research studiesListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology

Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during silage fermentation

Open access
Byrne, C.M., O'kiely, P., Bolton, D.J., Sheridan, J.J., Mcdowell, D.A., Blair, I.S.·2002·Journal of Food Protection

Abstract

The survival characteristics of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in silage derived from contaminated grass were investigated. The survival of other enteric bacteria was also investigated to determine if E. coli O157:H7 demonstrates enhanced acid tolerance in comparison. Samples of chopped grass were treated as follows: (i) no additive (control); (ii) inoculation with E. coli O157:H7 to a final concentration of log10 4.0 CFU g(-1); (iii) addition of an 85% solution of formic acid at 3.0 ml kg(-1) grass; and (iv) addition of both E. coli O157:H7 and formic acid, at the above concentrations. Treated 6-kg grass samples were packed into laboratory silos, sealed, and stored at 15 degrees C for up to 180 days. Individual replicate silos were removed from storage periodically and subjected to microbiological and chemical analyses. Chemical analyses of the silage samples indicated that lactic acid-dominant fermentations, with a rapid drop in pH, occurred. Numbers of enteric bacteria decreased from log10 7.0 to 8.0 CFU g(-1) to undetectable levels within 19 days' storage. E. coli O157:H7 did not survive the silage fermentation process, with numbers declining from approximately log10 4.0 CFU g(-1) to undetectable levels within 19 days of ensiling. The pattern of decline in numbers of E. coli O157:H7 was the same as that for the enteric bacteria, indicating that under the conditions tested, the acid tolerance of E. coli O157:H7 was not significantly different from the acid tolerance of other enteric bacteria. This study found that E. coli O157:H7 did not survive a good silage fermentation process, indicating that properly ensiled grass that is correctly stored is unlikely to be a vector for the transmission of the pathogen among cattle.

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 · 10.4315/0362-028x-65.12.1854

Cites

31 of 31 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Booth, I. R., F. Thomson-Carter, P. Carter, S. Jordan, S. Park, L. Malcolm, and J. Glover. 1999. Acid tolerance of Escherichia coli- the sting in the tail, p. 27-38. In C. S. Stewart and H. J. Flint (ed.), Escherichia coli O157:H7 in farm animals. CABI Publishing, New York.
  2. In P. Lingvall and S. Lindgren (ed.), Proceedings of the Eurobac Conference. Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.
  3. In J. H. Charney and D. J. R. Charney (ed.), Grass for dairy cattle. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK.
  4. Ostling, C. E. 1993. The role of manure and enterobacteria in silage fermentation. Ph.D. dissertation no. 55. Department of Microbiology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
  5. In D. Lovelock and R. Davies (ed.), Techniques for the study of mixed populations. Academic Press, London.
  6. Reinders, R. D., P. G. H. Bijker, and S.J.W.H. Oude Elferink. 1999. Growth and survival of Escherichia coli O157 in selected farm en- vironments, p. 19-27. In G. Duffy, P. Garvey, J. Coia, Y. Wasteson, and D. A. McDowell (ed.), Proceedings of concerted action CT98- 3935 meeting on survival and growth of verocytotoxigenic E. coli O157:H7. National Food Center, Dublin.
  7. In C. S. Stewart and H. J. Flint (ed.), Escherichia coli O157 in farm animals. CABI Publishing, New York.
  8. Wilson, R. K. 1978. Estimation of water soluble and individual car- bohydrates in grass samples, p. 46. In Proceedings of Euroanalysis. University College, Dublin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Byrne, C. M., O'kiely, P., Bolton, D. J., Sheridan, J. J., Mcdowell, D. A., & Blair, I. S.
Affiliations
  • Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
Corresponding author
Byrne, C.M.
Venue
Journal of Food Protection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-12
Volume
65
Issue
12
Pages
1854-1860
ISSN
0362-028X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W121377907
Cited by
28
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Food Protection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Teagasc
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Endocrinology › Escherichia coli research studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Keywords
Escherichia coli O157:H7, silage fermentation, acid resistance, enteric bacteria, formic acid, silage additives, lactic acid fermentation, pathogen survival, cattle feed contamination, pathogen transmission
MeSH terms
Fermentation, Food Contamination, Food Handling, Food Microbiology, Food Preservation, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Lactobacillus, Silage, Time Factors, Escherichia coli O157

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