My husband and I had stir fried spinach tonight from my more-or-less organic garden, as we have done all summer. Why don't I worry about e coli even though I use a lot of manure?
a) I use horse manure, not cow, in my compost. From what I hear on the radio, the nasty brand of e coli which causes serious human illness comes solely from the gut of cows which are fed on grain.
b) I compost my manure and heat it up good and hot, but I am not sure that would kill e coli due to heat alone. I don't know what temp is required to kill ecoli and I can't guarantee that every single bit of my compost was heated that high.
c) Then my compost pile sits for a while and is incorporated a shovelful at a time in my garden.
d) We have been eating greens and root crops from my garden all summer and have not have the slightest trace of stomach upset ( aching back from turning soil, yes). When this contamination issue came up, we knew we would have died already if my compost were contaminated.
In the winter my husband and I eat bagged organic spinach and hope to again, because the ground is frozen here in New Mexico and the farmers market will disappear until next spring as well. I would appreciate it if you, Farmerdill, and others who are knowledable on the subject would fill us in on what is known about this strain of e coli. I am not worried about my spinach but what do I do when I have to start purchasing it at the store? Clearly this applies to salad greens as well What about other store bought greens -- turnip greens, collards, mustard, chard?
The mainstream news has not given us enough details. I understand they don't know where this contamination came from, but is this deadly strain of e coli only related to grain fed cattle?
I would really like to hear any scientific info that has not come out in the press, if any of you have any.
We had spinach tonight.
Hi, Betty, this is something that I've been following pretty closely.
The particular strain of E. coli in the spinach is indeed from the feces of feed lot cattle. The contaminated spinach all seems to have come from one huge farm near San Juan Bautista, California, and has been sold under a number of brand names, including Dole, Fresh Express, Trader Joe's, and Earthbound Farm. I've seen conflicting reports as to whether or not organic spinach was involved; non-organic spinach most definitely was contaminated.
There are two schools of thought as to the source of the contamination.
- One theory says that the bacteria are actually incorporated within the plant because of contaminated floodwaters which overran the fields earlier this spring. If that's the case, cooking at 160 degrees or higher for at least 15 seconds will kill the bacteria and render the spinach safe to eat. Don't eat it raw, but even steaming and putting it in a casserole will make it safe.
- The other theory has to do with cross-contamination at the washing facility. All the bagged spinach is triple-washed, with the organically-raised spinach supposedly processed separately. However, if the wash water itself was contaminated, it won't matter which facility was used; all the greens will be affected. If this is correct, then washing with vinegar or a dilute bleach solution will kill the bacteria on the surfaces of the leaves, and cooking, of course, will still render it safe to eat.
The only other greens that were involved in the advisory were bagged salad mixes which contained spinach along with other lettuces. Those were not tested separately, but were assumed to be contaminated because of the spinach content.
Thank you, Kate Peterson! My garden hasn't seen a cow in my lifetime ( or any flood waters or cow feces). I will go to bagged spinach when necessary. Hopefully they will have cleaned up their act.by then. I guess until we know it is safe I will stir fry it. I am pretty sure it get's 15 seconds of heat in my wok.
Please keep us posted on anything else you learn. Spinach is so delicious and full of nutrition that I would hate to have to give it up. And it can't be scrubbed!
I have never bought salad mixes. I make my own. But spinach!!!
Is the problem really from feeding grain to cattle or just cattle in general?
I've been using bagged steer manure/compost in my garden. Should I worry? I didn't get to it in time to plant spinach, though I plan to in the future.
I take it that spinach lasagna and spinach pizza would be safe, since they're cooked?
This e coli outbreak is another reason why confinement animal feed operations (CAFO) are bad news. Doubtful this type/level of contamination would have happened with pastured animals.
There is a great Op Ed piece in today's online New York Times in the Health Section. It is called Green Leafy Sewerage and, GM, it confirms what you are saying and what I heard on the radio. This bad strain of e coli occurs only in the stomachs of grain fed cows. Apparently there is some statement that just 7 days on pasture will cure it. So feed lots are generally the source of the trouble.
WH, I don't know what to tell you about the steer manure. I think it may be processed in such a way that the bacteria are killed, but that is a good question to ask some scientific person. That would not be me. All I know is electrons and computers.
I do highly recommend the times article which, at the moment, has a head line on the front page, but if it disappears, simply click on the front page head line Health and it will be on the health page.
I certainly do love my spinach patch and all those horses who contributed to it.
Betty
One of the bags of steer manure at our garden center indicated that it had been sterilized. I would think you could contact the company to ask whether they do that. It would seem like a requirement to be able to sell it to home gardeners in view of the fact that bagged steer manure comes from feedlots and they know the contamination issues.
pajaritomt, Eliot Coleman wrote a great book on 4 season gardening in Maine, and if I remember correctly he grew spinach all year round. And NOT in a fancy greenhouse either.
We use cattle manure but it is well aged and turned. Here is the answer to part b of your ? pajaritomt
Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival in ovine or bovine manure and manure slurry. Indira T. Kudva, Kathryn Blanch and Carolyn J. Hovde.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology v64.n9 (Sept 1998): pp3166(9).
About this publication | How to Cite | Source Citation | Translate
Subjects
Abstract:
Research was conducted to examine the survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in the manures of cattle and sheep exposed to fluctuating environmental conditions and in experimentally inoculated manure. E. coli O157:H7 was found to survive for over one year in a nonaerated ovine manure pile exposed to environmental conditions. It survived for four months and 47 days for aerated ovine manure and bovine manure, respectively.
Source Citation: Kudva, Indira T., Kathryn Blanch, and Carolyn J. Hovde. "Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival in ovine or bovine manure and manure slurry." Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64.n9 (Sept 1998): 3166(9). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. Moose Jaw Public Library. 22 Sep. 2006
.
This message was edited Sep 22, 2006 10:54 PM
Thanks to you , lilypon and also to the MooseJaw Public library for giving us the facts. These are pretty important facts right now.
I wonder if some of the conflicting information relates to size of "pile"? I'm trying to find the full study online so I can see how the manure was "stored" for the study. If anyone has a link, please post.
If the cattle are pastured with adequate space, the "piles" would seem to break down quickly and not provide such a protective home for the bacteria as would a manure pile. It would be good to know if this is the case.
You're welcome pajaritomt (and I click MJPL's reference desk's counter when I answer a ? here for our stats ;).
I think the difference in the breakdown of the two piles is due to one being regularly turned by a cultivator and the other is just unloaded and left. My father-in-law would muck out his barn daily in the winter and would just dump it a ways from the barn but in the spring he would take his cultivator to the manure pile to spread it and would continue doing it throughout the summer to keep the weeds down (his manure was at least 5 years old before it was spread on their garden or the field ........(it was a smaller farm with lots of cattle and a great backlog of the good stuff ;). I think the guilty Spinach growers were using very fresh manure, contaminated water ...as mentioned above (or else someone along the packaging line had very filthy hands). :S
garden_mermaid you could ILLO the article from Library of Congress. They will need this to bring it in for you:
Kudva, Indira T., Kathryn Blanch, and Carolyn J. Hovde. "Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival in ovine or bovine manure and manure slurry." Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64.n9 (Sept 1998): 3166(9).
********************************************
This is what the Library of Congress has in it's collection:
Applied and environmental microbiology.
LC Control Number: 76643211
Type of Material: Serial (Periodical, Newspaper, etc.)
Brief Description: Applied and environmental microbiology.
[Washington] American Society for Microbiology.
v. ill. 26 cm.
v. 31- Jan. 1976-
ISSN: 0099-2240
If they are missing that issue I'm sure there are other major libraries that it can be ILLO'ed in from.
This message was edited Sep 22, 2006 8:22 PM
Lilypon,
Any chance that you are a librarian? I have lots of librarian friends and you certainly think like them. And that's a compliment. This is great, useful info.
Betty
Thanks Betty :) (LOL here and yes I do believe I've been called *Madame Librarian* ;) on the Canadian forum once or twice (I think they notice I post long articles.....with citations ;). I work on reference desk and in archives.
Pam
This message was edited Sep 22, 2006 11:48 PM
I also found this (it deals mainly with goats) but it does list the other animals Escherichia coli O157: H7 has been found in. It also has a bibliography of it's sources so those that are interested can do further research.
Detection of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in fecal samples in meat goats. Ray Mobley, Uford Madden and Alexis Brooks-Walter.
Education 124.3 (Spring 2004): p439(8).
8 PDF pages | About this publication | How to Cite | Source Citation | Translate
Subjects
Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2004 Project Innovation (Alabama)
INTRODUCTION
Pathogenic Escherichia coli (E. coli) is recognized as one of the most important food borne human pathogens (Anonymous, 1994; Cray, & Moon, 1995, FDA/CFSAN, 1992). Specifically, E. coli O157: H7 was responsible for 17 of the reported 24 cases of food borne illness in humans in the United States between 1982 and 1993 (Anonymous, 1994; Cray & Moon, 1995). Reed and Kaplan, in 1996, estimated 10,000 to 20,000 cases of E. coli O157:H7 infections occurred annually with 500 deaths (Ohio State University Fact Sheet; Reed & Kaplin, 1996). In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that E. coli O157:H7 causes 73,000 cases of diarrheal illnesses each year (ARS, 2001).
Although the organism is primarily detected in cattle and sheep, it has also been found in water, raw milk, unpasteurized apple juice, lettuce, sprouts, and yogurt (Agard, Alexander et al, 2002; Dev, Main, and Gould, 1991; Luedtke & Powell, 2002; Samadpour et al, 2002; Savell, & Smith, 2000; Wang & Doyle, 1998). In the United States over the past decade, the number of cases of human foodborne illnesses related to consumption of beef, and fresh produce has increased (FDA/CFSAN; 1992, Luedtke & Powell, 2002). E. coli O157: H7 is a gram-negative bacterium that has principally been found in the digestive tract of cattle and sheep, but has been isolated from other animals including deer, horses, dogs and birds. Feces from theses animals may be the potential primary source for E. coli O157:H7 contamination of numerous food products (Kudva, Blanch, & Hovde, 1998). E. coli O157: H7 has also been isolated from pork, lamb and poultry products (Cray & Moon, 1995; Doyle & Schoeni, 1987).
The bacterium is transmitted to food products primarily through the fecal-oral route or by cross-contamination. This occurs when the organism is deposited in the food from direct or cross contamination during slaughter, processing and preparation. Kudva et al (1998) conducted a study in which cattle and sheep manure was inoculated with E. coli O157:H7 to determine survivability. The study found that the bacterium survived in sheep manure for 21 months and positive culture was found in bovine manure at 47 days. The bacterium in bovine manure frozen at -20[degrees]C survived for at least 100 days, whereas it survived for 100 days in bovine manure incubated at 4[degrees]C or 10[degrees]C (Keene et al, 1997; Kudva, Blanch, & Hovde, 1998; Rice, Hancock & Besser, 1995; U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Inspection Service, 1997; Wallace, Cheasty & Jones, 1997). Feeding studies involving human volunteers indicated that colonization of the small intestine may require a large dose (100 million to 10 billion bacteria) of enterotoxigenic E. coli (FDA/CFSAN). The organism is however known to be very virulent and may require as low an infectious dose of less than 100 cfu. In dairy herds, the prevalence and mechanism of transmission of E. coli O157: H7 are poorly understood (Samadpour, Ongerth & Liston, 1990).
The long-term survival of the bacterium in manure also raises concerns for goat feces to serve as a primary source of contamination of goat meat and goat meat products. There have been limited studies conducted to determine the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in goats and sufficient quantities to cause illness. The consumption of goat meat is increasing and is expected to become a significant alternative food source in the United States. Goat milk and goat milk products are used instead of cow's milk by many lactose intolerant consumers, particularly, black infants who cannot digest regular cow's milk. Therefore, there is a need to determine if this organism will constitute a significant hazard for meat and milk products from this species. The purpose of this study was to determine if E. coli O157:H7 is a naturally occurring bacterium in goats and to determine the prevalence of the organism and the related food safety risks that may be associated with the production and consumption of goat meat, and goat meat products.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Selection of herds and animals. Twelve meat goat herds were randomly selected from a list of producers in the North Florida area provided by the Meat Goat Breeders Association. Farm visits were made to observe the herds for general health and obtain the approval of the producers for the study. Five mature animals were selected per herd or 10% of the adult herd, depending on herd size. Specific information regarding tag or identifying features, background management practices, and general medical condition of each goat was recorded.
Sample collection. Samples were obtained from each animal by digital rectal extraction using sterilized gloves to avoid cross-contamination. Each sample was immediately placed in sterile collection tubes containing 15 ml of Cary-Blair medium (Remel Co., Lenexa, Kans.) and kept cold (4[degrees]C) with frozen ice packs. The samples were taken to the laboratory for microbiological analysis using standard isolation, culture and identification techniques within 24 to 72 hours of rectal retrieval (Samadpour, Ongerth, & Liston, 1990). All herds were sampled between September 2001 and April 2002. A general physical examination of each animal was conducted at the time of sampling to determine if there were differences in clinical signs and symptoms observed in positive versus non-positive animals. Samples were numbered to correspond with the animals and herds from which the samples were taken.
Microbial Analysis. Each fecal sample was weighed, placed in 10 ml nutrient broth and serially diluted. Duplicates of each sample were plated on the surface of sorbitol MacConkey (SMAC), nutrient and Rainbow Agar (Biolog, Hayward, CA) plates. All plates were incubated at 37[degrees]C for 24 hours (Samadpour, Ongerth, & Liston, 1990). Enterohemorrhagic E. coli O157: H7 ferments sorbitol slower than other species and appears colorless on SMAC plates. Rainbow Agar is designed for identification of enterohemorrhagic E. coli O157: H7, which forms black colonies, while others appear mauve, red or pink. Colonies that were non-sorbitol fermenting (colorless on SMAC) and dark purple/black on Rainbow Agar were considered to be enterohemorrhagic E. coli O157: H7. These tests were then duplicated with individually isolated colonies to reconfirm the results. The total number of bacteria was calculated as colony forming units per gram feces.
Statistical analysis. The dam were analyzed by ANOVA procedure utilizing SAS software package Windows Version 8. 2001 (SAS Institute Cary, NC) (19). Differences in means of populations of E. coli and E. coli O157:H7 detected in meat goat fecal samples were separated by Duncan's Multiple Range Test at the 0.05 level of significance.
RESULTS
A total of 68 fecal samples from 12 meat goat herds in North Central Florida were tested for E. coli O157: H7 (Table 1). Nine of the 12 herds (75%) tested were positive for E. coli O157: H7 and 3 herds (25%) were negative. Thirty of the 68 fecal samples (44%) were positive for E. coli O157: H7 (Table 1). Five of 5 samples (100%) from herd 7, 7 of 8 samples (88%) from herd 2, and 2 of 5 samples (80%) from herd 8 were positive for the bacterium. Herds 9 and 10 had 3 of 5 samples (60%), herd 3 had 4 of 8 samples (50%), herd 12 had 2 of 5 samples (40%), herd 6 had 1 of 5 samples (20%), and herd 1 had 1 of 7 samples (14%) positive for E. coli O157:H7 respectively. Detection of the bacterium in fecal samples for the meat goat herds ranged from 14 to 100% (Table 1).
JPEGF
The total population of E. coli O157:H7 detected in meat goat herds ranged from 1.7 x [10.sup.6] cfu/g feces to 1.0 x [10.sup.10] cfu/g feces. The mean population of E. coli O157:H7 detected in meat goat herds ranged from 1.7 x [10.sup.6] cfu/g feces to 2.5 x 109 cfu/g feces (Fig. 1). The populations of E. coli O157:H7 detected in goat fecal samples ranged from 3 to 87%. Fecal samples from herds 2, 3, 9, 10, and 12 had E. coli O157:H7 populations ranging from 20 to 87% (Table 1). The populations of E. coli O157:H7 detected in feces from meat goat herds were not significantly different (p> 0.05) from each other. No increase in clinical symptoms was observed in goats with positive or negative E. coli O157:H7.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicated that E. coli O157: H7 was detected in feces from 75% of meat goat herds tested. Garber et al. (1996) reported that in pre-weaned calves, 1.8% of the herds had fecal samples with E. coli O157: H7 (Samadpour, Ongerth, & Liston, 1990; and Samadpour et al., 2002). Our study further suggests that this organism can be present in the digestive tracts and feces of goats and may be a potential primary source for E. coli O157: H7 contamination of goat meat and goat meat products from fecal contamination. This study was done over a six-month period and additional sampling will need to be done to determine if there is a seasonal influence on prevalence of the organism. Published reports have suggested young dairy animals to be the primary host of the organism (Cray & Moon, 1995; Samadpour, Ongerth, Liston, 1990). Studies in beef cattle showed 8 of 52 (15%) and in dairy cattle, 11 of 51 (22%) fecal samples tested positive for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) with an overall prevalence of 19 of 103 (18.4%). Samadpour et al. 1990 found 9 of 28 (30%) fecal samples from calves positive for STEC (Savell & Smith, 2000; U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1997)
Cattle and sheep are reservoirs of E. coli O157: H7 but other animals including deer, horses, dogs, and birds may be the potential primary sources for O157: H7 contamination of numerous food products (FDA/CFSAN; Garber et al, 1995; Keene et al, 1997; Kudva, Blanch, & Hovde, 1998; Rice, Hancock, and Besser, 1995). Our study suggests that the quantity of bacteria detected (1.7 x [10.sup.6] to 1.0 x [10.sup.10] cfu/g) in fecal samples from meat goat herds may be sufficient to also cause potential foodborne illness in exposed humans if contaminated goat meat is consumed.
Detection of O157: H7 populations in feces from meat goat herds in this study suggests that the production and processing of goat meat may carry a significant risk of O157: H7 contamination. This preliminary data indicate that preventive food safety programs would need to be implemented to control food borne illness that may be acquired from the consumption of goat meat products. Specifically, on-farm and processor level food safety programs may aid in the reduction of on farm risk of O157: H7 contamination.
As the importance and acceptance of goat products increase, so will the need to increase food safety awareness. Increased education of producers, as well as the public, will need to be implemented in order to reduce the risks of foodborne illnesses attributed to goat production and consumption caused by this organism. The results obtained in this study suggest a need for more extensive studies. This research will be expanded to include sampling at more farms and at processing facilities. Furthermore, it is anticipated that molecular techniques will be used to verify the specific type of present.
Table 1
Detection of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in fecal samples (a)
from meat goat herds in North Central Florida.
No. of No. positive % positive %
Herd Herd Animals for E. coli for E. coli E. coli
Number Size Tested O157: H7 O157: H7 O157: H7
1 80 7 1 14 5
2 100 8 7 80 20
3 80 8 4 50 27
4 50 5 0 0 0
5 50 5 0 0 0
6 15 5 1 20 10
7 60 5 5 100 3
8 40 5 4 80 74
9 60 5 3 60 10
10 40 5 3 60 21
11 50 5 0 0 0
12 30 5 2 40 1
Total 675 68 30 44
(a) Fecal samples were taken between September 2001 and April 2002
from meat goat herds in North Central Florida. No. = number of samples
tested or positive; % E. coli O157: H7 = percent E. coli O157: H7
calculated from the total population of E. coli detected in each fecal
sample.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was partially supported by a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture through a cooperative agreement with Florida A&M University (FAMU). FAMU is an 1890 Land-grant Institution dedicated to teaching, research and extension/outreach. We thank Mr. Gilbert Queeley for statistical assistance and the Director of Extension and Outreach Program, Dr. Lawrence Carter, Associate Dean for Cooperative Extension and Dr. Bobby R. Phills, Director and Dean of Land-grant Programs for their support for this project.
REFERENCES
(1.) Agard, L., Alexander, C., Green, S., Jackson, M., Patel, S., and Adesiyun, A. (2002). Microbial Quality of water supply to an urban community in Trinidad. Journal of Food Protection. 65: 1297-1303.
(2.) Anonymous. (1994). Escherichia coli O157: H7 issues and ramifications. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Veterinary Service Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, Colo.
(3.) Agriculture Research Service. (2001). Reducing Salmonella and O157:H7 at the farm. ARS News and Information.
(4.) CDC. (2001). Escherichia coli O157: H7. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control.
(5.) Cray, W.C. Jr. and Moon, H.W., (1995). Experimental Infection of Calves and Adult Cattle with Escherichia coli O157: H7. Applied Environmental Microbiology. Vol. 61 (4): 1586-1590.
(6.) Damron, W.S., (2000). Introduction to Animal Science: Global, Biological, Social and Industry Perspectives. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
(7.) Dev, V., Main, M, and Gould, I,. (1991). Waterborne outbreak of Escherichia coli O157: H7. Lancet 337:1412.
(8.) Doyle M.P. and Schoeni, JL., (1987). Isolation of Escherichia coli O157: H7 from retail fresh meats and poultry. Applied Environmental Microbiology 53:2394-2396
(9.) FDA/CFSAN (1992). Escherichia coli O157: H7. Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition.
(10.) FDA/CFSAN. (1992). Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli O157:H7. Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition.
(11.) Garber, L., Wells, S., Hancock, D., Doyle, M., Shere, J., and Zhao T., (1995). Escherichia coli O157: H7 in dairy heifers: Results of a case-control study. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association. 1290-1293.
(12.) Keene, W.E., Suzie, E., Kirk, J., Rice, D.H., Hancock, D.D., Balan, V.K., Zhao, T., and Doyle, M.P., (1997). An outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection traced to jerky made from deer meat. Journal American Medical Association 277: 1229-1231.
(13.) Kudva, I.T., Blanch, K., and Hovde, C., (1998). Analysis of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in ovine or bovine manure and manure slurry. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 3166-3174.
(14.) Luedtke, A.N. and Powell, D.A., (2002). A review of North American apple cider-associated outbreaks, media coverage and a comparative analysis of Ontario apple cider producer's information sources and production practices. Dairy Food Environmental Sanitation, 22(8): 590-598.
(15.) Ohio State University Fact Sheet.(1998). What you should know about Escherichia coli O157: H7. HYG, 5561-98. . 209:1213.
(16.) Rice, D.H., Hancock, D.D., and Besser, T.E,. (1995). Verotoxigenic O157:H7 Colonization of wild deer and range cattle. Veterinary Research 137:524.
(17.) Samadpour, M., Ongerth, J.E., and Liston, J., (1990). Development and evaluation of oligonucletide DNA probes for detection and genotyping of Shiga-like toxin producing Escherichia coli. Journal of Food Protection 57: 399-402.
(18.) Samadpour, M., Kubler, M., Buck, F.C., Depavia, G.A., Mazengia, E., Stewart, J., Yang, P., and Alfi, D. (2002). Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in ground beef and cattle feces from King County, Washington. Journal of Food Protection 65(8): 1322-1325.
(19.) SAS. (2001). SAS Windows Version 8. SAS Institute Cary, NC.
(20.) Savell, J.W. and Smith, G.G., (2000). Meat Science: Laboratory Manual, 7th ed. American Press, Boston. MA.
(21.) Swerdlow, D.L., Woodruff, B.A., and Brady, R.C., (1992). A waterborne outbreak in Missouri of Escherichia coli O157: H7 associated with bloody diarrhea and death. Annuals of Internal Medicine. 117:812-819.
(22.) U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (1997). An update: Escherichia coli O157:H7 in humans and cattle. Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, Colo.
(23.) Wallace, J.S., Cheasty, T., and Jones, K., (1997). Isolation of Vero cytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7 from wild birds. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 82:399-404.
(24.) Wang, G. and Doyle, M.P., (1998). Survival of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157: H7 in water. Journal of Food Protection 61:662-667.
(25.) Zhao, T., Doyle, M.P., Shere, J., and Garber, L., (1995). Prevalence of Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157: H7 in survey of dairy herds. Applied Environmental Microbiology 1290-1293.
RAY MOBLEY
UFORD MADDEN
Cooperative Extension and Outreach Program
College of Engineering Sciences Technology and Agriculture
ALEXIS BROOKS-WALTER
Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences
Florida A & M University
Source Citation: Mobley, Ray, Uford Madden, and Alexis Brooks-Walter. "Detection of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in fecal samples in meat goats." Education 124.3 (Spring 2004): 439(8). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCIAL LIBRARY. 22 Sep. 2006
.
How to Cite
Thomson Gale Document Number: A117036572
Disclaimer: This information is not a tool for self-diagnosis or a substitute for professional care.
Subject Terms - view other documents related to these subjects
Enterobacteriaceae Infections (23)
-- Research (6)
Escherichia Coli Infections (567)
-- Research (74)
This message was edited Sep 22, 2006 9:30 PM
This message was edited Sep 22, 2006 9:36 PM
Thanks Lilypon! Would appreciate an English translation of ILLO for those us still ignorant in web acrynyms. I'm one of those anachronistic persons who still does most of her reading and writing with paper.
Sorry garden_mermaid it means Interlibrary loan.
Looking for an item but can't find it in your library? Try Interlibrary Loan!
Interlibrary Loan is a service available through the cooperation of public libraries.
When you submit a request, your Interlibrary Loan staff sends the request out to other libraries in the province/state (in your case ;). It usually takes 2 - 4 weeks to find the item and receive it for you.
Re: Escherichia coli O157: H7 an infected human can also be a carrier. 4 years ago I had some bean sprouts and was infected with it (I however didn't spread it).
This message was edited Sep 22, 2006 10:52 PM
Should note the bean sprouts were purchased from a local grocery store.
Pam, love your information!
I just had the water from my spring tested this week, and it was positive for e. coli but I'm very annoyed that they didn't say what strain. My neighbor drank from it 3 weeks ago and didn't become ill. He says he's been drinking from that spring for 50 years.
Wow! Sounds like even horse manure isn't safe. I did notice that in California they are considering checking out wild life as a source of contamination. So, with birds being possible carriers, this really bad form of ecoli could be almost anywhere. I do remember the children dying from contaminated sprouts in Japan. It was a large number. And I remember the Odwallah e coli deaths -- the souce of which was traced to apples picked up from the ground where cattle grazed. Odwallah now flash pasturizes its juices. I am glad I stir-fried the spinach we ate. It was still pretty green, but probably got hot enough to kill bacteria. Whether or not it was, we survived! It is amazing how difficult it is to produce healthy fresh produce.
Glad I could help. :) Saskatchewan has such a small population so the only way a small city library can have the above research resources (that normally only large cities like Toronto would have)is to have all the cities/towns/villages in the province come together to cover the subscription price.
When we children we were much better off being gradually exposed to more minor bad bacteria then children now who are protected from so much (ie anti bacterial soap). Darius your neighbours may have gotten sick once and built up an immunity to whatever is in your water supply. (In scanning for the above information I saw an article where they were exposing healthy adult volunteers with low doses of e coli and they discovered when they were exposed to a stronger dose their reaction was quite moderate compared to those who didn't have the antibodies).
Children have also picked up e coli from petting zoos.
This message was edited Sep 23, 2006 3:00 PM
I have numerous librarian friends. They are always supplying us with helpful information. I also like the way they support the right to read whatever one wants. I am a big fan of librarians.
darius, the e.coli in your neighbors spring is most likely a strain compatible with human health. All healthy humans have e.coli in their colon. These are needed to protect the intestines and help produce B12 and vitamin K. Problems arise when the wrong strain of e.coli gets into our systems or when we have an imbalance in our intestinal flora.
Thanks, garden_mermaid. I just wish the #^*(%@ Lab had told me what strain was in MY spring water.
Darius did they say your water was safe to drink? (I just assumed you were told it wasn't since your neighbour told you he didn't get sick).
The presence of e coli is used as an indicator of contamination. It is monitored constantly for potable water and in sewage affluent released into streams. Usually don't differentiate strains tho. Old farmers trick was to put chlorox into the well or spring two days before the inspector was due to arrive.
This message was edited Sep 23, 2006 4:34 PM
The Lab just indicated the presence of e. coli and coliform in the sample, no ppm or anything. No statement about drinkability.
darius, has your well been designated as a agricultural well vs domestic use well? or does your county not make that distinction?
Does your neighbour's cattle graze anywhere near your spring? (? because of the Walkerton, Ontario tragedy.......the E. coli O157: H7 leached through the ground there)
Pam, I know my neighbor with cattle runs them up higher than our land but don't know if that includes up above my spring. Not sure where the property lines are, and they wanted $3,000 to do a survey. I think his land above ours is all timber but I haven't been up there.
Our spring was domestic use for many, many years until recently when they ran public water out here. It fed a neighbor's house too. I don't think our county makes any distinction between domestic use and agricultural use. I certainly plan to use it to water the gardens once I can get a solar pump.
I'll use it for the house, boiling it, if we have city water problems. I don't drink the city water so I always have bottled water on hand.
Then as long as your spring runs underground your property (and doesn't run close to your neighbours) it will be a lot safer. I brought Walkerton up because a farmer there had spread relatively fresh manure on his land and then they had a heavy rain storm (from our posting in the weather forum I was pretty sure you have also had a heavy downpour not too long ago).
From Archives researching I've stumbled onto old stories of farm families that got pretty sick from their well being contaminated. Now with higher populations of cattle it is increasing: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/irr4452
Darius you said above that your spring tested positive for coliform......
Bacteriological Test
A bacteriological test tells you if your water is free from disease-causing bacteria. It is possible to test for virtually every water-borne disease-causing bacteria and virus, but such a test would be costly. Instead, the most common test is for total coliform bacteria. Because coliform bacteria commonly inhabits the gastrointestinal tract of warm-blooded animals, they serve as indicators of fecal contamination and as a marker for other, possibly pathogenic microorganisms.
The report from the laboratory will indicate that the water is either coliform negative or coliform positive. If the test is coliform positive, then you should act immediately to determine and eliminate the source of contamination and/or disinfect the water before use.
University of Georgia: http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/extension/publications/c819-9c.html
It would be difficult for a heavy downpour to contaminate the spring itself but I have no idea of the origins of the spring water. Flow does increase when it rains. Cattle farming here is decreasing.
I want some well composted horse manure for my veggie patch but I shall be MOST careful!
Hmmm, interesting about coliform, Thanks. No way to disinfect the spring but if we ever need to use it for emergency water, I hope boiling will help.
Farmerdill's suggestion of Bleach would be best if using the water for bathing, etc.......you should boil for drinking ........
And one from Virginia regarding testing and what to do: http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/housing/356-487/356-487.html copy and pasted here because links often quit working.
Bacteria and Other Microorganisms in Household Water
Authors: Kathleen Parrott, Extension Specialist, Housing, Virginia Tech; Blake Ross, Extension Specialist, Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech; and Janice Woodard, Retired Extension Specialist, Home Management and Equipment, Virginia Tech.
Publication Number 356-487, posted April 1998
A common hazard of household water is contamination by potentially harmful bacteria and other micro-organisms. Short term gastrointestinal disorders and illnesses such as gastro-enteritis, giardiasis, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and hepatitis have been linked to water contaminated by microorganisms. The micro-organisms which find their way into a water supply can come from a variety of sources including sewage, animal wastes, or dead and decaying animals.
Public water systems are required by state and federal governments to provide biologically safe water. However, the safety of a privately-owned, individual water supply, such as a backyard well, rests in the hands of its owner.
How can an individual tell if household water is contaminated with bacteria?
Bacteria in water cannot be seen, tasted, or smelled and many health-related symptoms are not immediate. Therefore, the only way to reliably determine if water is contaminated is by a laboratory test. Testing a water supply for a specific disease-causing organism can be expensive. Handling and culturing disease organisms requires special training and equipment. Instead, water supplies are usually tested for the presence of coliform bacteria. These bacteria are always present in the digestive systems of humans and animals, and can be found in their wastes. Coliform bacteria are also present in soil and in plant material. Most of these bacteria do not cause disease. They are simply an indicator that the water supply is contaminated and that disease-causing bacteria may be present.
The test for the presence of coliform bacteria is relatively inexpensive and easy to perform. The standard test is called total coliform. The Federal goal for total coliform in public drinking water is zero. Water samples that contain any coliform bacteria are generally reported as "total coliform positive." Federal regulations now require that public drinking water found to be "total coliform positive" must be analyzed with a fecal coliform or E.coli test. These fecal bacteria originate only in human and animal waste. It is unacceptable for fecal bacteria to be present in any concentration in a water supply.
What specific test(s) should be done?
Private water supply users interested in evaluating the bacteriological safety of the water should contact a Virginia-certified water testing laboratory. Upon submitting a water sample, request a total coliform test to be followed by a fecal coliform or E.coli test if the initial test of the sample is "total coliform positive." Tests for specific bacteria or other microorganisms may be required if the water supply is suspected as the cause of a diagnosed illness among users.
When should a test be done?
The Virginia Department of Health recommends that private water supplies be analyzed for total coliform at least once a year. If you are considering buying property with a private water supply, always request a total coliform bacteria test. Testing is also recommended when any of the following conditions apply:
* there is an infant in the home;
* a new well is constructed;
* flooding occurs near the well or spring;
* any person or animal becomes sick from a suspected waterborne disease; or
* the water supply system on a well or spring has been disassembled for repairs to components such as the well itself, pump, pressure tank, treatment devices or pipe lines.
What should I do if my water is contaminated with bacteria?
First, don't panic! You have probably been drinking this water for some time with no ill effects and could possibly continue to do so. While you and your family may have developed some immunity to harmful bacteria present in the water, there is no assurance that you won't suffer ill effects in the future as a result of continued exposure. Further, guests in your home who do not have this immunity may experience more immediate problems.
Learning that your water supply has been found to be contaminated with bacteria should encourage you to take action. So that you can prevent a potential problem from getting worse, you need to identify the possible source(s) of contamination and take corrective steps to purify the contaminated water.
What should be done to eliminate contamination in household water?
Household water from surface water supplies-streams, ponds, and cisterns-is especially susceptible to contamination and, in most cases, should be continuously disinfected, as described later in this publication. Additional treatment, such as sedimentation, coagulation, and filtration, may be needed to provide a suitable supply of water.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, septic systems are a major source of contamination of an underground water supply (well or spring). Inappropriate siting of drainfields, and poor design, construction, and maintenance of septic systems, coupled with improper well or spring box construction, can lead to contamination of household water. At a minimum, having your septic tank pumped out every three to five years is recommended to reduce the probability of contamination.
Preventing the direct entry of surface water to a well or spring is an important option to consider to protect the supply from contamination with bacteria. It is important to remember that the groundwater supply itself may not necessarily be contaminated; rather the well or spring, if improperly constructed, may be funnelling contaminants from or near the land surface down into the groundwater.
A properly protected well is evidenced by the well casing extending 12 inches or more above the surface of the ground and the ground sloping away from the well to prevent surface water from collecting around the wellhead. The top of the casing should have a tight-fitting sanitary well cap. Additional protection from surface drainage should be provided by sealing the casing with cement grout to the depth necessary to protect the well from contamination.
Springs are particularly susceptible to bacterial contamination since they are generally located in surface water drainageways. A properly protected spring is developed underground and the water channeled to a sealed spring box. At no time should the water be open to the air at the surface.
Other measures to take are: 1) keep all animals away from the well or spring area; 2) keep the plumbing system clean. Any time work is performed on the plumbing or pump, the entire water system should be disinfected with chlorine, as described below. Simply pulling the pump out of the well, setting it on the grass to work on it, and returning it to the well is enough to contaminate the water supply with bacteria.
How can safe drinking water be made temporarily available while the source of contamination is being found and eliminated?
Boiling water is an extremely effective means of disinfection. Boiling your water continuously for 15 minutes will kill all bacteria. You could also purchase bottled water or use water from another source known to be safe for drinking and cooking.
Fresh liquid chlorine bleach containing 5.25 percent available chlorine (commonly found in grocery stores for laundry and other household purposes) can be added to a gallon of drinking water on an emergency basis. If the water is clear, add 8 drops of bleach; if the water is cloudy, add 16 drops. Mix bleach in water thoroughly and let stand for 30 minutes before drinking.
How can the water supply be made safe to drink after the source of contamination has been eliminated?
The Virginia Department of Health recommends cleaning and sanitizing a contaminated well or spring, and the entire plumbing system, by shock chlorination.
This treatment introduces high levels of chlorine in the water. Chlorine compounds are usually added to the water in solution form. The chlorine added may be fresh liquid chlorine bleach (sodium hypochlorite), containing 5.25 percent available chlorine, or soluble tablets or powder used for disinfecting swimming pools (calcium hypochlorite), containing about 70 percent available chlorine.
If you have water treatment equipment, such as a water softener, iron filter or sand filter, check the manufacturer's literature before shock chlorinating to prevent damage from strong chlorine solutions. Disconnect or by-pass carbon or charcoal filters during shock chlorination because the process will use up the capacity of these filters.
Be careful when handling concentrated chlorine solutions. Wear rubber gloves, goggles, and a protective apron when handling chlorine solutions. If it accidentally gets on your skin, flush immediately with water.
Never mix chlorine solutions with other cleaning agents or ammonia because toxic gases may be produced.
Do not use "fresh scent" or other chlorine bleach containing perfumes, "all fabric" bleaches or fabric softeners. Plain chlorine laundry bleach should be used for disinfecting water. Chlorine solutions lose strength while standing or when exposed to air or sunlight. Make fresh solutions frequently to maintain effectiveness.
Wait one to two weeks and retest your water for bacteria. Before retesting, check to be sure there is no chlorine left in the well or spring system using an inexpensive chlorine test kit (usually available at pool supply stores). If shock chlorination and measures to prevent contamination do not eliminate the bacteriological problem, continuous disinfection may be necessary.
How can water be continuously disinfected?
Most household water can be disinfected continuously by chlorination, distillation, ultraviolet light, or ozonation. There is no ideal disinfection method; each has its advantages and limitations.
Chlorination is widely used to disinfect water because it destroys bacteria within a reasonable contact time and provides long term protection. Chlorine, readily available at a low cost, is easy to handle and is also effective in controlling algae.
Chlorine also has its limitations. Its solutions are only moderately stable, and organic matter as well as iron and manganese can interfere with the action of chlorine. Low levels of chlorine normally used to disinfect water are not an effective treatment for the parasite Giardia. A relatively high chlorine level must be maintained for at least 30 minutes to kill Giardia. High chlorine concentrations can have objectionable tastes and odors, and even low chlorine concentrations react with some organic compounds to produce strong, unpleasant tastes and odors. Chlorinators, although simple to operate, require regular refilling with chemicals.
The heat necessary for water distillation is very effective in killing disease-causing microorganisms. One of the benefits of distillation is that it uses no chemicals. Distillation, however, takes longer to produce the processed water than some other methods, units can be expensive to operate, and the length of time distilled water is stored can affect its quality. Distilled water has a very "flat" taste.
Ultraviolet light is a very effective disinfectant. This method disinfects water without adding chemicals. Therefore, ultraviolet light disinfection units do not create any new chemical complexes, do not change the taste or odor of the water, and do not remove beneficial minerals from the water.
Ultraviolet light disinfection also has its disadvantages. This disinfection technique is more effective against bacteria than against viruses and parasites such as Giardia. There is no simple test to determine whether or not the system is providing proper disinfection. Ultraviolet light devices are most effective when water is clear and allows the light to easily pass through. Therefore, ultraviolet light devices are often combined with other treatment devices such as mechanical filters, activated carbon filters, water softeners, and reverse osmosis systems to provide complete water quality solutions. Safety features, such as detectors that activate audio and visual lamp alarms in case of lamp failure, are available to ensure that adequate disinfection conditions are maintained.
Ozonation uses ozone which is a more powerful disinfectant than chlorine. Ozone produces no tastes or odors in the water. However, as a gas, ozone is unstable and has a very short life so it must be generated at the point of use.
Even if tests confirm that you have a bacteriological problem, before investing in expensive equipment, have your household water supply inspected by a County Health Department official.
More Information
For more information about providing biologically safe household water, contact your local Cooperative Extension or Health Department Office.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the following individuals who reviewed this publication:
Allen Hammer and Robert Hicks, Virginia
Department of Health, Richmond
Robert Custard, Regional Sanitarian, Virginia
Department of Health, Manassas
Helen Smith, Extension Agent, Rappahannock County
This message was edited Sep 23, 2006 4:31 PM
This message was edited Sep 23, 2006 4:34 PM
Great Paper!
I have looked at UV systems in conjunction with a solar pump. The light is expensive and lasts about a year. I'd like to get off the city water but it will take a year of monitoring useage to make a cost analysis.