Table 2.
Serotype | FSIS ground beef prevalencea | Region A | Region B | Region C | Total by serotype | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cull | FF | Cull | FF | Cull | FF | |||
Montevideo | 1 | – | – | 2.8 | 27.9 | – | 1.8 | 26.9 |
Lille | – | – | 2.8 | 15.9 | – | 0.3 | 14.9 | |
Cerro | 8 | 13.9 | – | – | 12.9 | – | − | 13.0 |
Anatum | 3 | – | 0.9 | 16.7 | 10.0 | – | 1.5 | 12.8 |
Dublin | 11 | – | – | – | 0.9 | 13.9 | 5.3 | 6.9 |
Kentucky | 7 | – | – | – | 4.4 | – | – | 4.0 |
Mbandaka | 6 | – | – | 8.4 | 3.2 | – | 0.3 | 4.0 |
Muenster | 5 | – | 1.5 | 2.8 | 1.8 | – | – | 3.1 |
Meleagridis | 13 | – | 0.3 | – | 1.2 | – | 1.8 | 2.9 |
Typhimurium | 2 | – | 0.3 | 5.6 | 0.6 | 5.6 | – | 1.9 |
Brandenberg | – | – | 5.6 | 1.2 | − | − | 1.6 | |
Lubbock | – | – | – | 1.8 | – | – | 1.6 | |
Nontypable | – | – | 2.8 | 0.6 | – | 0.6 | 1.3 | |
Litchfield | – | – | 2.8 | 0.6 | – | – | 0.8 | |
Livingstone | – | – | – | 0.9 | – | – | 0.8 | |
Derby | – | – | 5.6 | – | – | – | 0.5 | |
Elmorane | – | 0.6 | – | – | – | – | 0.5 | |
London | 5.6 | – | – | – | – | – | 0.5 | |
Muenchen | – | – | – | 0.6 | – | – | 0.5 | |
Newport | 4 | – | – | 2.8 | – | 2.8 | – | 0.5 |
Agona | 9 | – | – | − | 0.3 | – | – | 0.3 |
Cubana | – | – | – | – | – | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
O4;I;- | – | – | – | 0.3 | – | – | 0.3 | |
Total percent by region and production source | 19.4 | 3.5 | 58.3 | 84.7 | 22.2 | 11.7 |
Isolates collected from n = 289 positive PLN (n = 376 total isolates; cull n = 36 isolates from 33 PLN; FF n = 340 isolates from 256 PLN). Percentages calculated as the number of isolates of each serotype observed in each region, divided by the total number of isolates from the production source (n = 36 for cull and n = 340 for FF).
Ranking of Salmonella serotypes isolated from ground beef as determined by FSIS testing from 1998 to 2006 (average of 22,554 samples tested and 2.87% positive each year).