Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 May 26.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Food Microbiol. 2013 Sep 21;167(2):186–195. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.09.008

Table 2.

Bacterial counts in colony forming units (CFU), prevalence of S. infantarius subsp. infantarius (Sii) and S. gallolyticus subsp. macedonicus (Sgm) and prevalence of lacS/lacZ genes in dairy adapted Sii determined from fermented dairy samples (n = 95) in comparison with those of other countries.

Sample type Animal origin Samples/isolates Agar media log10 CFU/mL (average ± SDa)
pH (average ± SDa) Prevalence S. infantarius subsp. infantarius (and SBSEC members)
% Sii with lacS/lacZ genes Reference
M17 SM MRS KFS Samples %
Isolates %
Sii Sgm Sii Sgm
Kenya
Suusac Camel 17/88 6.1 ± 0.5C 6.4 ± 0.9* n.d. n.d. 4.3 ± 0.1(15)*   94.1 - 78.4 - 100 This study
Suusac Camel 15/439 8.6 ± 0.4A 7.3 ± 0.9c 8.0 ± 0.5A 8.0 ± 0.8* 5.1 ± 1.0(15)*   93.3 6.7 62.8 0.4 100 Jans (2011); Jans et al. (2012a); Wullschleger (2009)
Sour milk mala Cow   1/5 6.2* 5.8* n.d. n.d. 5.5(1)* 100.0 - 20.0 - 100 This study
Somalia
Suusac Camel 11/192 8.5 ± 0.1* 5.8 ± 0.7c* 8.4 ± 0.5A 5.6 ± 2.5* 4.5 ± 0.2(11)*   72.7 45.5 19.8 4.2 100 Jans (2011); Jans et al. (2012a); Wullschleger (2009)
Sour milk Goat   1/27 8.3 ± 0.1* 6.6 ± 0.0* 8.3 ± 0.0* 5.9 ± 0.5* 5.1(1)* 100.0 - 11.1 - This study and Wullschleger (2009)
Côte d’Ivoire
Sour milk (June) Cow 31/151 9.0 ± 1.0* n.d.b n.d. n.d. 4.5 ± 0.2(31)*   32.3 - 20.5 - 25.8 This study
Sour milk (Dec/Jan) Cow 45/94 7.9 ± 0.7B n.d.b n.d. n.d. 5.5 ± 0.1(45)*   40.0d 6.7 d 27.7 5.3 65.4 This study
Mali
Fènè Cow 19/57 n.d. 6.5 ± 1.8* n.d. n.d. 4.8 ± 1.2(19)*   36.8 31.6 19.3 21.1 55.5 Wullschleger (2009)
Sudan
Gariss Camel   9/180 8.0 ± 0.4B n.d. 8.2 ± 0.3A n.d. 4.0 ± 0.2(9) 100.0 - 68.3 - n.d. Abdelgadir et al. (2008)

Sii: S. infantarius subsp. infantarius; Sgm: S. gallolyticus subsp. macedonicus; a) SD: standard deviation; superscript figure in brackets = number of pH measurements; b) SM agar media not used as explained in Section 3.2; c) determined from 2 (Kenya) and 5 (Somalia) selected samples (Wullschleger, 2009); d) based on the following calculation: 17 samples with Sii only, 2 samples with Sgm only, 1 sample with Sii + Sgm yielding 18 (40.0%) with Sii and 3 (6.7%) with Sgm and a total of 20 (44.4%) positive for SBSEC; n.d.: not determined; “–” below detection limit. Statistics comment: *) samples not normally distributed according to Shapiro–Wilk test (alpha = 0.05) were excluded from t-test and analyzed in a pair-wise Kruskal–Wallis test (alpha = 0.05). Values per column M17, SM, MRS, KFS and pH not connected by the same capital (A, B, C) letter are significantly different (t test, alpha = 0.05).