Occurrence and Characteristics of Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, and Campylobacter spp. in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Pets
Institute for Food Safety and Hygiene, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 272, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pets 2025, 2(4), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2040035
Submission received: 8 August 2025
/
Revised: 12 September 2025
/
Accepted: 24 September 2025
/
Published: 7 October 2025
Abstract
Raw meat-based diets (RMBDs) have gained popularity over the past few years. However, there is growing concern about their safety. The study objective was to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of the pathogens Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Campylobacter spp. in frozen commercially sold RMBDs. One hundred raw meat-based diet products (meat originating from Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Spain, Scandinavia, South Africa, and Australia) were purchased online or in local stores and identified using culture-based methods. Isolates were further characterized by phenotypic and whole genome sequencing-based methods. In total, 11% (n = 11) of the samples tested positive for Salmonella spp., 41% (n = 41) for L. monocytogenes, 58% (n = 58) for Y. enterocolitica, and 3% (n = 3) for Campylobacter spp. Other than for Salmonella, there are no legal regulations concerning contamination of RMBDs with these zoonotic pathogens. The results of our study show that it is indicated to reconsider the requirements for the microbiological quality of RMBDs and to further raise awareness regarding the risks of handling and feeding RMBDs.
1. Introduction
The number of pets has increased steadily in recent decades. Since they play an important role in their owners’ lives, the demand for a good quality of life and, therefore, the interest in feeding high-quality pet food has grown.
Raw meat-based diets (RMBDs), also known as “biologically appropriate raw food” or “bones and raw food” (BARF), consist of raw muscle, bones, and organs, optionally together with other ingredients like vegetables and fruits, that have not undergone heat treatment or cooking. They derive from by-products of livestock or wild animals that have been slaughtered for human consumption. They can be either commercially available (i.e., chilled, frozen, or freeze-dried) or homemade [1].
There are various reasons why feeding RMBDs has become popular. Feeding a more natural diet in respect of the dog’s carnivorous nature, mistrust in conventional pet foods and their ingredients, and perceived health benefits such as improvement in skin/coat quality, muscle mass, and oral hygiene are among some of the reasons [2,3,4]. Despite the abundant advantages propagated by manufacturers and RMBD-feeding owners, scientific evidence remains unclear [5]. In contrast, numerous studies have examined the potential risks of feeding RMBDs, highlighting concerns about their safety for both pets and humans and suggesting a potential risk to public health. It is described that RMBDs may promote nutritional imbalances, potentially leading to serious health issues, especially in young growing animals [6,7]. They have also been reported to carry a wide range of pathogens, some of which can cause disease in pets or pose a zoonotic risk, allowing pets to transmit infections to humans [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Therefore, several public health organizations, such as the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA), have warned about the risks of RMBDs and discouraged their use [16,17]. The production of raw pet food and its hygiene criteria concerning Enterobacterales and Salmonella spp. are regulated by law (EU animal by-products regulations 1069/2009 and 142/2011 and the Swiss equivalent ordinance on animal by-products Art. 30 and Anh. 5 Art. 38, respectively). Despite those regulations, recent studies have found concerning evidence of bacterial contamination, including associations between feeding RMBDs and shedding of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in pets [18,19,20]. To date, no legal regulations have been established for Listeria (L.) monocytogenes, Yersinia (Y.) enterocolitica, or Campylobacter spp.
Nevertheless, owners who feed their pets RMBDs are often unaware of the potential health risks, especially for high-risk individuals such as pregnant women, chronically ill or elderly people, and children living in the same household [2,4,13,21].
The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, and Campylobacter spp. in RMBDs and to further characterize the isolates using phenotypic and whole genome sequencing-based methods.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample Collection
Frozen raw meat-based diets were purchased online or in local stores between November 2024 and February 2025. They were randomly selected from thirteen different brands to be representative of the Swiss market. Overall, 100 samples were collected, consisting of either pure muscle or blends of intestines, bones, vegetables, and fruits. The samples with exclusively one protein source originated from the following: cattle (n = 28); horses (n = 9); rabbits (n = 9); poultry (chicken (n = 11), turkey (n = 6), quail (n = 1), duck (n = 1), goose (n = 1), and ostrich (n = 1)); game ((roe) deer (n = 5), moose (n = 1), bison (n = 1), and reindeer (n = 1)); lamb (n = 6); salmon (n = 3); calf (n = 1); goat (n = 1); and kangaroo (n = 1). Samples with mixed protein sources included the following: poultry with cattle (n = 4); poultry with cattle and deer (n = 1); poultry with insects (n = 2); poultry with rabbit (n = 1); lamb with cattle (n = 1); salmon with cattle (n = 1); salmon with calf (n = 1); and lamb with deer (n = 1). One sample consisted of vegetables only.
Most meat samples originated from Europe (Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Spain, and Scandinavia) with two exceptions (DS 25: ostrich from South Africa; DS 26: kangaroo from Australia). In four samples, there was no clear declaration about the country of origin, although the labeling indicated production in Switzerland.
Samples were stored at −20 °C and defrosted at 4 °C 24–48 h prior to testing.
For all diets, retail stores, brands, ingredients, and meat origin were recorded. All samples are listed in Supplementary Table S1.
2.2. Bacterial Screening and Identification
2.2.1. Salmonella spp.
To detect Salmonella spp., samples were examined according to ISO 6579-1:2017 [22]. First, 10 g were enriched in 90 mL of buffered peptone water (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland) and incubated at 37 °C overnight. Thereafter, 0.1 mL was added into 10 mL of Rappaport Vassiliadis (RV) broth (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland), and 1 mL into 10 mL of Muller-Kauffmann Tetrathionate Novobiocin broth (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland). Both enrichments were incubated overnight at 41.5 °C and 37 °C, respectively.
Afterwards, one loop of the suspension was inoculated onto Xylose–Lysin–Deoxycholate (XLD) agar (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland) and Rapid Salmonella (RSAL) agar (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland), respectively, and incubated at 37 °C overnight. Suspicious pink colonies with a black center on XLD agar and magenta colonies on RSAL agar were further serotyped using the White–Kauffmann–Le Minor scheme [23].
2.2.2. Listeria monocytogenes
According to ISO 11290-1:2017, samples were enriched in a two-step process [24]. First, 10 g was enriched (30 °C/overnight) in 90 mL of Half-Fraser standard broth (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland). Thereafter, 0.1 mL of the enrichment was transferred into 10 mL of Fraser broth (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland) and incubated overnight at 37 °C. Next, one loopful of the suspension was inoculated onto Agar Listeria (AL) according to Ottaviani and Agosti (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland) and incubated for 24–48 h at 37 °C. Suspicious blue colonies with a surrounding opaque halo were either identified at the species level using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS, Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany), according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Bruker) by using the MBT Compass BDAL Library March 2023 from Bruker, or, initially, subcultured onto RAPID’ L. mono (Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland) plates for 24–48 h before further identification.
2.2.3. Yersinia enterocolitica/Yersinia spp.
Samples were examined according to ISO 10273:2017 with slight modifications [25]. Of each sample, 10 g were enriched in 90 mL of Peptone Sorbitol Bile (PSB) broth (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany).
For the quantitative detection, 1 mL of the enrichment was plated onto two plates: Cefsulodin–Irgansan–Novobiocin (CIN) agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) and CHROMagarTM Y. enterocolitica (CHROMagar, Paris, France). Additionally, to establish detection limits of 100 CFU/g and 1000 CFU/g, 0.1 mL of the enrichment and its corresponding decimal dilution in sodium chloride (NAD) were spread onto the specified plates. All plates were incubated at 30 °C for 24 h.
Furthermore, 10 mL of the PSB enrichment was transferred into 90 mL of Irgasan–Ticarcillin–Chlorate (ITC) broth (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). Both enrichments were incubated at 25 °C for 44 h. To increase sensitivity for Yersinia isolation, 0.5 mL of each sample was treated with 4.5 mL of 0.5% potassium hydroxide (KOH; Honeywell Fluka Fisher Scientific, Reinach, CH) for 20 ± 5 s. A loopful of the suspension was inoculated onto CIN agar and CHROMagar. Both plates were incubated at 30 °C for 24 h. Metallic blue (apathogenic) and mauve (pathogenic) colonies on CHROMagar, as well as pink colonies on CIN agar, were considered presumptive Y. enterocolitica.
These colonies were identified to species level by MALDI-TOF (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany).
2.2.4. Campylobacter spp.
Qualitative detection of Campylobacter spp. was performed by using ISO 10272-1:2017 [26]. First, 10 g were enriched in 90 mL Bolton broth (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) and incubated under microaerophilic conditions at 37 °C for 4–6 h and then transferred to 41.5 °C for another 44 ± 4 h of incubation. Subsequently, one loopful of the suspension was inoculated onto Brilliance™ Campy Count agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) and modified charcoal cefoperazone deoxycholate agar (m-CCDA; Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK), which were then incubated under microaerophilic conditions at 41.5 °C for 44 ± 4 h. Suspicious translucent colonies on m-CCDA plates and suspicious dark red ones on Brilliance™ Campy Count agar were further identified using MALDI-TOF (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany).
2.3. DNA Extraction and Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS)
For further typing, whole genome sequences were determined for L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, and Campylobacter isolates. Isolates were inoculated onto sheep blood agar (Columbia Base Agar, Bio-Rad Laboratories AG, Cressier, Switzerland; Sheep blood defibrinated, Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) and incubated at 30 °C for 24 h (Y. enterocolitica), at 37 °C overnight (L. monocytogenes), and at 41.5 °C for 44 ± 4 h under microaerophilic conditions (Campylobacter spp.). DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hombrechtikon, Switzerland), and DNA libraries were produced with the Illumina DNA Prep(M) Tagmentation kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA).
Whole genome sequencing was performed on an Illumina MiniSeq sequencer (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). Genomes were assembled using the Skesa v2.5.1-based software shovill 1.1.1 [27,28,29] with default settings and a contig size cut-off of 500 bp.
Species were identified based on a >94% average nucleotide identity (ANI) [30]. Genomes were compared to representative genomes of the genera downloaded from NCBI in October 2024 (Listeria/Yersinia) and March 2025 (Campylobacter), using fastANI v1.33 with standard settings [31].
Multi-Locus Sequence Typing (MLST) and core-genome MLST (cgMLST) were performed in Ridom Seqsphere+ v10.0.6 (Ridom GmbH, Münster, Germany) using the cgMLST-defined schemes for L. monocytogenes [32] and Campylobacter [33] and an ad hoc scheme for Y. enterocolitica [34]. Minimal spanning tree constructions were performed in Seqsphere+ using standard settings and a cut-off of 10 allelic differences for cluster identification.
For Y. enterocolitica, biotypes were determined by aligning core-protein sequences to a pair of reference strains from each biotype, as described previously [34].
2.4. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive analysis using the chi-square test was undertaken to determine differences in prevalence of pathogens in various product groups. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. A comparison was undertaken for products containing pure muscle meat vs. mixed products and for products of different types of meat, such as cattle, horse, poultry, rabbit, game, and lamb.
3. Results
Among the 100 raw meat samples analyzed in this study, 11 (11%) tested positive for Salmonella spp., 41 (41%) for L. monocytogenes, and 3 (3%) for Campylobacter spp. Y. enterocolitica was detected quantitatively in 3 out of 100 (3%) and qualitatively in 58 out of 100 (58%) samples (Table 1).
3.1. Salmonella
Salmonella isolates were serotyped as S. Infantis (2/11; 18%), S. Typhimurium (3/11; 27%), S. diarizonae and S. Oranienburg (2/11 each; 18%), and S. Dublin and S. Enteritidis (1/11 each; 9%). Most of them were isolated from samples containing cattle (6/11; 54.5%), followed by samples containing poultry (3/11; 27%), and lastly game and lamb (1/11 each; 9%). A compilation of all Salmonella isolates can be found in Table 2. There was no statistical significance for detection of Salmonella spp. and product composition. In addition, no association between a positive result and pure versus mixed ingredients could be found.
3.2. Listeria monocytogenes
L. monocytogenes were isolated from samples consisting of cattle (12/41; 29%), poultry (11/41; 27%), game (3/41; 7%), rabbit (2/41; 5%), lamb (2/41; 5%), salmon (2/41; 5%), and horse (1/41; 2.5%), whereas some samples contained mixed meat sources like poultry with cattle (3/41; 7%), poultry with insects (2/41; 5%), cattle with lamb (1/41; 2.5%), cattle with salmon (1/41; 2.5%), and lamb with game (1/41; 2.5%).
A total of eighteen different sequence types (STs) were identified (Table 3).
A cgMLST-based analysis showed a high heterogeneity within the L. monocytogenes isolates (Figure 1).
3.3. Yersinia enterocolitica
Y. enterocolitica isolates originated from samples containing cattle (23/58; 40%), followed by poultry (9/58; 16%), game (8/58; 14%), rabbit (5/58; 9%), horse (3/58; 5%), lamb (1/58; 2%), salmon (1/58; 2%), and kangaroo (1/58; 2%). Seven samples that tested positive for Y. enterocolitica came from mixed meat sources (12%).
All isolates belonged to biotype (BT) 1A, with one exception (DSY 47-11), which was BT4. A total of eleven STs were determined (Table 4).
A cgMLST-based analysis showed a high heterogeneity within all Y. enterocolitica isolates (Figure 2).
3.4. Campylobacter spp.
All three Campylobacter-positive samples derived from poultry (p = 0.003); two originated from chicken and one from poultry, which was not further clarified (Table 5). They were identified as C. coli (2/3; 67%) and C. jejuni (1/3; 33%), respectively.
The isolates of C. jejuni were identified as ST 267, whereas the isolates of C. coli were ST 1895.
4. Discussion
Overall, there was a high contamination of the examined RMDB products with the zoonotic pathogens Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, and Y. enterocolitica.
In 11% (n = 11) of the samples, Salmonella spp. were detected. This finding is concerning, especially with regard to the zero-tolerance policy for Salmonella stated by the Swiss ordinance on animal by-products Art. 30 and Anh. 5 Art. 38 and the EU animal by-products regulations 1069/2009 and 142/2011, respectively. Previous studies have reported a contamination rate of 4–20% in RMBDs with a statistically significant correlation between dogs fed raw meat-based diets and their shedding of Salmonella [4,19,20]. The Salmonella spp. isolates belonged to different serovars, including S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium, which are accountable for 36.7% and 14.6% of human Salmonella infections in Switzerland [35]. Furthermore, S. Typhimurium is among the most frequent carriers of antimicrobial-resistance genes in Salmonella worldwide, and these resistance genes may spread via horizontal gene transfer to other Enterobacterales [9,36].
L. monocytogenes was isolated from 41% (n = 41) of the samples. In a study performed in the Netherlands, a total of 54% of the raw pet food samples tested positive [12], whereas other studies in the US and Chile reported a markedly lower contamination rate of 16–19% [13,37]. L. monocytogenes can cause serious illness in humans with not only flu-like and gastrointestinal symptoms but also septicemia, meningoencephalitis, and abortion with very high hospitalization rates of over 95% [14]. Thus, L. monocytogenes is known to be one of the most serious food-borne pathogens, and the high contamination rate described in our study is concerning. Moreover, strains belonging to highly pathogenic sequence types, such as ST 1, 4, and 6, were found [38,39]. Their genomes were compared to L. monocytogenes sequences collected in the database of the National Reference Centre for Enteropathogenic Bacteria and Listeria (NENT): One isolate (DSL 91) clustered by cgMLST with two human clinical isolates and official food isolates (poultry), while two additional isolates (DSL 48, DSL 98) clustered with one human isolate and food isolates (poultry). Therefore, RMBDs must be considered a potential source of listeria infection in humans.
After enrichment, a total of 58% (n = 58) of the samples tested positive for Y. enterocolitica. Identified biotypes were BT 1A and BT4. The latter is a pathogenic biotype, while BT 1A is considered less pathogenic. However, there is growing evidence of an underestimated impact of some BT 1A strains [34,40]. Human yersiniosis is often associated with the consumption of raw or undercooked pork, since pigs are the main reservoir host of Y. enterocolitica. Nonetheless, the high proportion of positive samples is not surprising despite the lack of products containing pork, since this pathogen is widely associated with the environment, untreated drinking water, and raw vegetables [41]. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that describes the prevalence and characteristics of Y. enterocolitica in RMBDs. Since the detection rate is 58% and potentially pathogenic isolates have been found, it may be worth further investigating this pathogen.
Three samples (3%) tested positive for Campylobacter spp.; all of them contained poultry. Since freezing is known to reduce the Campylobacter contamination level, the initial contamination level was presumably markedly higher in these products [42,43]. In other studies, detection rates of 0–29% in RMBDs have been described [13,15,44]. Since the minimal infectious dose is very low for this pathogen, with only a few hundred colony-forming units being sufficient to cause disease, the handling of RMBDs could be an infection risk.
Other than for Salmonella, there are no legal regulations concerning contamination of RMBDs with L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, or Campylobacter. The results of our study highlight the need to reconsider the requirements for the microbiological quality of RMBDs. Dogs fed raw meat-based diets are becoming potential vectors of pathogens to humans. Moreover, by handling raw meat, cross-contamination in the kitchen can occur and lead to infections. Therefore, proper information for people in contact with RMBDs and raising awareness are important. A recent study has shown that the food safety information is indeed lacking for many products and on various manufacturer and supplier websites [21]. An example of a guideline for handling raw meat was published by Public Health England in 2019, where hygiene and storage recommendations are supported by comprehensible graphics [45]. Thorough hand washing with soap and cleaning and disinfecting utensils and surfaces after use, as well as handling and storing RMBDs separately from human food, are among the recommended procedures when manipulating raw meat. It is important to note that even thorough cleaning and disinfection may not eliminate pathogens from contaminated food bowls and utensils [46]. Different veterinary and public health organizations, including the CDC and WSAVA, have already openly discouraged the use of RMBDs for dogs, based on previous studies [16,17]. The results of our study support this statement, and the use of RMBDs should be viewed critically.
Another approach is to reduce the contamination and bacterial load of RMBDs. Several studies have examined the efficacy of acidulants in RMBDs, the use of bacteriophages, and treatments like high-pressure processing or ozone sanitation systems [47,48,49,50,51]. Nevertheless, more research on the topic is needed to elucidate not only the effectiveness but also the feasibility and palatability of RMBDs treated with the procedures mentioned above.
In conclusion, our study confirms that RMBDs are a relevant source of different zoonotic pathogens, and our data support concerns about the safety of these products. This underlines the importance of proper information for people handling and feeding RMBDs to their pets and could stimulate reconsideration of regulations concerning the production of raw meat-based diets.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pets2040035/s1. Table S1: List of all samples. Table S2: Accession numbers for the individual isolates.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.S. and K.B.; methodology, D.T.S.; software, M.J.A.S.; validation, D.T.S., K.B. and R.S.; formal analysis, D.T.S. and M.J.A.S.; investigation, D.T.S.; resources, R.S.; data curation, D.T.S. and M.J.A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, D.T.S.; writing—review and editing, D.T.S., K.B., M.J.A.S. and R.S.; visualization, D.T.S.; supervision, R.S.; project administration, R.S.; funding acquisition, R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
This Whole-Genome Shotgun project has been deposited at the DDBJ/ENA/GenBank under the accession numbers JBPXXB000000000 to JBPYBB000000000. The versions described in this paper are versions JBPXXB000000000 to JBPYBB000000000. Accession numbers for the individual isolates from this study are listed in Supplementary Materials Table S2.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Nicole Cernela for her technical help in sequencing.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| RMBD | raw meat-based diet |
References
- Freeman, L.M.; Chandler, M.L.; Hamper, B.A.; Weeth, L.P. Current Knowledge about the Risks and Benefits of Raw Meat-Based Diets for Dogs and Cats. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2013, 243, 1549–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morelli, G.; Bastianello, S.; Catellani, P.; Ricci, R. Raw Meat-Based Diets for Dogs: Survey of Owners’ Motivations, Attitudes and Practices. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, S.K.; Willis, S.; Shepherd, M.L. Survey of Owner Motivations and Veterinary Input of Owners Feeding Diets Containing Raw Animal Products. PeerJ 2017, 2017, e3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viegas, F.M.; Ramos, C.P.; Xavier, R.G.C.; Lopes, E.O.; Junior, C.A.O.; Bagno, R.M.; Diniz, A.N.; Lobato, F.C.F.; Silva, R.O.S. Fecal Shedding of Salmonella Spp., Clostridium Perfringens, and Clostridioides Difficile in Dogs Fed Raw Meat-Based Diets in Brazil and Their Owners’ Motivation. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schlesinger, D.P.; Joffe, D.J. Raw Food Diets in Companion Animals: A Critical Review. Can. Vet. J. 2011, 52, 50–54. [Google Scholar]
- Köhler, B.; Stengel, C.; Neiger, R. Dietary Hyperthyroidism in Dogs. Br. Small Anim. Vet. Assoc. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2012, 53, 182–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lenox, C.; Becvarova, I.; Archipow, W. Metabolic Bone Disease and Central Retinal Degeneration in a Kitten Due to Nutritional Inadequacy of an All-Meat Raw Diet. J. Feline Med. Surg. Open Rep. 2015, 1, 2055116915579682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dhakal, J.; Cancio, L.P.M.; Deliephan, A.; Chaves, B.D.; Tubene, S. Salmonella Presence and Risk Mitigation in Pet Foods: A Growing Challenge with Implications for Human Health. In Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety; John Wiley and Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernaquez, I.; Dumaresq, J.; Picard, I.; Gaulin, C.; Dion, R.; Weaver, K.; Walker, M.; Kearney, A.; Bharat, A.; Fafard, J.; et al. Dogs Fed Raw Meat-Based Diets Are Vectors of Drug-Resistant Salmonella Infection in Humans. Commun. Med. 2025, 5, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Halloran, C.; Tørnqvist-Johnsen, C.; Woods, G.; Mitchell, J.; Reed, N.; Burr, P.; Gascoyne-Binzi, D.; Wegg, M.; Beardall, S.; Hope, J.; et al. Feline Tuberculosis Caused by Mycobacterium Bovis Infection of Domestic UK Cats Associated with Feeding a Commercial Raw Food Diet. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2021, 68, 2308–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food Safety News. Pet Food Company Refuses to Recall Products Despite Young Girl’s E. coli Infection. Available online: https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2025/07/pet-food-company-refuses-to-recall-products-despite-fda-findings-of-e-coli-and-salmonella-contamination/ (accessed on 5 August 2025).
- van Bree, F.P.J.; Bokken, G.C.A.M.; Mineur, R.; Franssen, F.; Opsteegh, M.; van der Giessen, J.W.B.; Lipman, L.J.A.; Overgaauw, P.A.M. Zoonotic Bacteria and Parasites Found in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Cats and Dogs. Vet. Rec. 2018, 182, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solís, D.; Toro, M.; Navarrete, P.; Faúndez, P.; Reyes-Jara, A. Microbiological Quality and Presence of Foodborne Pathogens in Raw and Extruded Canine Diets and Canine Fecal Samples. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 799710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matle, I.; Mbatha, K.R.; Madoroba, E. A Review of Listeria Monocytogenes from Meat and Meat Products: Epidemiology, Virulence Factors, Antimicrobial Resistance and Diagnosis. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2020, 87, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellgren, J.; Hästö, L.S.; Wikstrom, C.; Fernström, L.L.; Hansson, I. Occurrence of Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium and Enterobacteriaceae in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Dogs. Vet. Rec. 2019, 184, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Pet Food Safety. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-pets/about/pet-food-safety.html (accessed on 9 July 2025).
- World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) Global Nutrition Committee. Raw Meat Based Diets for Pets. Available online: https://wsava.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Raw-Meat-Based-Diets-for-Pets_WSAVA-Global-Nutrition-Toolkit.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2025).
- Morgan, G.; Pinchbeck, G.; Haldenby, S.; Schmidt, V.; Williams, N. Raw Meat Diets Are a Major Risk Factor for Carriage of Third-Generation Cephalosporin-Resistant and Multidrug-Resistant E. Coli by Dogs in the UK. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1460143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nüesch-Inderbinen, M.; Treier, A.; Zurfluh, K.; Stephan, R. Raw Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals: A Potential Source of Transmission of Pathogenic and Antimicrobial-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2019, 6, 191170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro-Almeida, M.; Mourão, J.; Magalhães, M.; Freitas, A.R.; Novais, C.; Peixe, L.; Antunes, P. Raw Meat-Based Diet for Pets: A Neglected Source of Human Exposure to Salmonella and Pathogenic Escherichia Coli Clones Carrying Mcr, Portugal, September 2019 to January 2020. Eurosurveillance 2024, 29, 2300561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulochova, V.; Evans, E.W. Raw Meat-Based Pet Feeding and Food Safety: Netnography Study of Pet Owner Comments and Review of Manufacturers’ Information Provision. J. Food Prot. 2021, 84, 2099–2108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 6579-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection, Enumeration and Serotyping of Salmonella—Part 1: Detection of Salmonella spp. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- Grimont, P.A.D.; Weill, F.-X. Antigenic Formulae of the Salmonella Serovars, 9th ed.; WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Salmonella, Institut Pasteur: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 11290-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection and Enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes and of Listeria spp.—Part 1: Detection Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- ISO 10273:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection of Presumptive Pathogenic Yersinia enterocolitica. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- ISO 10272-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for Detection and Enumeration of Campylobacter spp.—Part 1: Detection Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D.; et al. SPAdes: A New Genome Assembly Algorithm and Its Applications to Single-Cell Sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seemann, T. Shovill. Available online: https://github.com/tseemann/shovill (accessed on 14 April 2025).
- Souvorov, A.; Agarwala, R.; Lipman, D.J. SKESA: Strategic k-Mer Extension for Scrupulous Assemblies. Genome Biol. 2018, 19, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konstantinidis, K.T.; Tiedje, J.M. Genomic Insights That Advance the Species Definition for Prokaryotes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 2567–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jain, C.; Rodriguez-R, L.M.; Phillippy, A.M.; Konstantinidis, K.T.; Aluru, S. High Throughput ANI Analysis of 90K Prokaryotic Genomes Reveals Clear Species Boundaries. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 5114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruppitsch, W.; Pietzka, A.; Prior, K.; Bletz, S.; Fernandez, H.L.; Allerberger, F.; Harmsen, D.; Mellmann, A. Defining and Evaluating a Core Genome Multilocus Sequence Typing Scheme for Whole-Genome Sequence-Based Typing of Listeria Monocytogenes. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 2869–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nennig, M.; Llarena, A.K.; Herold, M.; Mossong, J.; Penny, C.; Losch, S.; Tresse, O.; Ragimbeau, C. Investigating Major Recurring Campylobacter Jejuni Lineages in Luxembourg Using Four Core or Whole Genome Sequencing Typing Schemes. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 10, 608020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stevens, M.J.A.; Horlbog, J.A.; Diethelm, A.; Stephan, R.; Nüesch-Inderbinen, M. Characteristics and Comparative Genome Analysis of Yersinia Enterocolitica and Related Species Associated with Human Infections in Switzerland 2019–2023. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2024, 123, 105652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federal Office of Public Health. Salmonellosis. Available online: https://www.idd.bag.admin.ch/diseases/salmonellosis/overview (accessed on 9 July 2025).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2019 NARMS update: Integrated Report Summary. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/national-antimicrobial-resistance-monitoring-system/2019-narms-update-integrated-report-summary (accessed on 9 July 2025).
- Nemser, S.M.; Doran, T.; Grabenstein, M.; McConnell, T.; McGrath, T.; Pamboukian, R.; Smith, A.C.; Achen, M.; Danzeisen, G.; Kim, S.; et al. Investigation of Listeria, Salmonella, and Toxigenic Escherichia Coli in Various Pet Foods. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2014, 11, 706–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muchaamba, F.; Eshwar, A.K.; Stevens, M.J.A.; Stephan, R.; Tasara, T. Different Shades of Listeria Monocytogenes: Strain, Serotype, and Lineage-Based Variability in Virulence and Stress Tolerance Profiles. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 792162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurpas, M.; Osek, J.; Moura, A.; Leclercq, A.; Lecuit, M.; Wieczorek, K. Genomic Characterization of Listeria Monocytogenes Isolated From Ready-to-Eat Meat and Meat Processing Environments in Poland. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Platt-Samoraj, A. Toxigenic Properties of Yersinia Enterocolitica Biotype 1A. Toxins 2022, 14, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillier, L.; Fravalo, P.; Leclercq, A.; Thébault, A.; Kooh, P.; Cadavez, V.; Gonzales-Barron, U. Risk Factors for Sporadic Yersinia Enterocolitica Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Microb. Risk Anal. 2021, 17, 100141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maziero, M.T.; Cristina, T.; De Oliveira, R.M. Effect of Refrigeration and Frozen Storage on the Campylobacter Jejuni Recovery from Naturally Contaminated Broiler Carcasses. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2010, 41, 501–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves-Tenório, A.; Nunes Silva, B.; Rodrigues, V.; Cadavez, V.; Gonzales-Barron, U. Prevalence of Pathogens in Poultry Meat: A Meta-Analysis of European Published Surveys. Foods 2018, 7, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bottari, B.; Bancalari, E.; Barera, A.; Ghidini, S.; Gatti, M. Evaluating the Presence of Human Pathogens in Commercially Frozen, Biologically Appropriate Raw Pet Food Sold in Italy. Vet. Rec. 2020, 187, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Public Health England and Animal and Plant Health Agency. Raw Pet Foods: Handling and Preventing Infection. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/raw-pet-foods-handling-and-preventing-infection (accessed on 9 July 2025).
- Weese, J.S.; Rousseau, J. Survival of Salmonella Copenhagen in Food Bowls Following Contamination with Experimentally Inoculated Raw Meat: Effects of Time, Cleaning, and Disinfection. Can. Vet. J. 2006, 47, 887–889. [Google Scholar]
- Owens, T.G.; King, B.A.; Radford, D.R.; Strange, P.; Arvaj, L.; Pezzali, J.G.; Edwards, A.M.; Ganesh, D.; DeVries, T.J.; McBride, B.W.; et al. Use of 2-Hydroxy-4-(Methylthio)-Butanoic Acid to Inhibit Salmonella and Listeria in Raw Meat for Feline Diets and Palatability in Domestic Cats. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 99, skab253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.; Maks-Warren, N.; Aguilar, V.; Piszczor, K.; Swicegood, B.; Ye, M.; Warren, J.; O’Neill, E.; Fleck, M.; Tejayadi, S. Inactivation of Salmonella, Shiga Toxin-Producing E. Coli, and Listeria Monocytogenes in Raw Diet Pet Foods Using High-Pressure Processing. J. Food Prot. 2023, 86, 100124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jun, J.W.; Park, S.C.; Wicklund, A.; Skurnik, M. Bacteriophages Reduce Yersinia Enterocolitica Contamination of Food and Kitchenware. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 271, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandran, S.; Baker, C.A.; Hamilton, A.N.; Dhulappanavar, G.R.; Jones, S.L.; Gibson, K.E. Aqueous Ozone Efficacy for Inactivation of Foodborne Pathogens on Vegetables Used in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals. J. Food Prot. 2023, 86, 100175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiprotich, S.; Altom, E.; Mason, R.; Trinetta, V.; Aldrich, G. Application of Encapsulated and Dry-Plated Food Acidulants to Control Salmonella Enterica in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Dogs. J. Food Prot. 2023, 86, 100077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Minimum-spanning tree based on cgMLST allelic profiles of 40 L. monocytogenes isolates. Each circle represents an allelic profile based on sequence analysis of 1701 cgMLST target genes. The number of connecting lines represents the number of allelic differences between two strains. Each circle contains the strain ID(s).
Figure 1.
Minimum-spanning tree based on cgMLST allelic profiles of 40 L. monocytogenes isolates. Each circle represents an allelic profile based on sequence analysis of 1701 cgMLST target genes. The number of connecting lines represents the number of allelic differences between two strains. Each circle contains the strain ID(s).
Figure 2.
Minimum-spanning tree based on cgMLST allelic profiles of 62 Y. enterocolitica isolates. Each circle represents an allelic profile based on sequence analysis of 1652 cgMLST target genes. The numbers on connecting lines represent the number of allelic differences between two strains. Each circle contains the strain ID(s).
Figure 2.
Minimum-spanning tree based on cgMLST allelic profiles of 62 Y. enterocolitica isolates. Each circle represents an allelic profile based on sequence analysis of 1652 cgMLST target genes. The numbers on connecting lines represent the number of allelic differences between two strains. Each circle contains the strain ID(s).
Table 1.
Overview of samples tested positive for Salmonella, L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, or Campylobacter categorized by their product composition.
Table 1.
Overview of samples tested positive for Salmonella, L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, or Campylobacter categorized by their product composition.
| Product Composition | Samples | Salmonella (%/CI *) | L. monocytogenes (%/CI) | Y. enterocolitica (%/CI) | Campylobacter (%/CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total positive | 11/100 (11%; CI 4.9–17.1%) | 41/100 (41%; 31.4–50.6%) | 58/100 (58%; 48.3–67.7%) | 3/100 (3%; 0–8.5%) | |
| Cattle | 28/100 | 6/28 | 12/28 | 23/28 | 0/28 |
| Horse | 9/100 | 0/9 | 1/9 | 3/9 | 0/9 |
| Poultry | 21/100 | 3/21 | 11/21 | 9/21 | 3/21 |
| Rabbit | 9/100 | 0/9 | 2/9 | 5/9 | 0/9 |
| Game | 8/100 | 1/8 | 3/8 | 8/8 | 0/8 |
| Lamb | 6/100 | 1/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 0/6 |
| Salmon | 3/100 | 0/3 | 2/3 | 1/3 | 0/3 |
| Calf | 1/100 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/1 |
| Goat | 1/100 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/1 |
| Kangaroo | 1/100 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 1/1 | 0/1 |
| Vegetable | 1/100 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/1 |
| Mixed | 12/100 | 0/12 | 8/12 | 7/12 | 0/12 |
* CI: 95% confidence intervals.
Table 2.
Compilation of Salmonella isolates from all 11 positive samples and their corresponding sample ID, product composition, and ingredients.
Table 2.
Compilation of Salmonella isolates from all 11 positive samples and their corresponding sample ID, product composition, and ingredients.
| Serovar | Sample ID | Product Composition | Ingredients |
|---|---|---|---|
| S. diarizonae | DS 16 | Cattle | Pure muscle meat |
| DS 44 | Cattle | Mixed: offal | |
| S. dublin | DS 45 | Lamb | Mixed: muscle, bone, fat, vegetable, and fruit |
| S. enteritidis | DS 58 | Cattle | Mixed: offal |
| S. infantis | DS 7 | Game (reindeer) | Pure muscle meat |
| DS 82 | Poultry (chicken) | Mixed: muscle, bone, offal, vegetable, and fruit | |
| S. oranienburg | DS 33 | Cattle | Tripe (omasum) |
| DS 35 | Cattle | Mixed: muscle and tripe (rumen) | |
| S. typhimurium | DS 10 | Poultry (goose) | Pure muscle meat |
| DS 23 | Poultry (duck) | Pure muscle meat | |
| DS 61 | Cattle | Mixed: muscle, bone, offal, vegetable, and fruit |
Table 3.
Compilation of 40 L. monocytogenes isolates from 41 positive samples with their sequence types (STs), cgMLST complex types (CT), corresponding sample IDs, and product composition.
Table 3.
Compilation of 40 L. monocytogenes isolates from 41 positive samples with their sequence types (STs), cgMLST complex types (CT), corresponding sample IDs, and product composition.
| ST | cgMLST CT | Sample ID | Product Composition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | n/d 1 | DS 47 | Cattle |
| n/d | DS 67 | Poultry (chicken) and insects | |
| 3 | n/d | DS 94 | Game (bison) |
| 4 | n/d | DS 54 | Salmon |
| n/d | DS 60 | Cattle | |
| 5 | n/d | DS 44 | Cattle |
| n/d | DS 63 | Poultry (chicken) | |
| 6 | n/d | DS 5 | Cattle |
| n/d | DS 18 | Horse | |
| n/d | DS 86 | Poultry (turkey) | |
| n/d | DS 90 | Lamb | |
| 7 | n/d | DS 48 | Poultry |
| 18047 | DS 88 | Rabbit | |
| n/d | DS 98 | Poultry (chicken) | |
| 9 | n/d | DS 22 | Poultry |
| n/d | DS 92 | Poultry (chicken) | |
| 14 | n/d | DS 73 | Poultry (chicken) and cattle |
| 17516 | DS 82 | Poultry (chicken) | |
| 16 | 19781 | DS 91 | Poultry (chicken) |
| 18 | n/d | DS 52 | Poultry (turkey) |
| 29 | 4312 | DS 3 | Game (deer) |
| n/d | DS 6 | Lamb and cattle | |
| 121 | n/d | DS 2 | Poultry (chicken) |
| 20596 | DS 15 | Salmon | |
| 4365 | DS 40 | Poultry (turkey) | |
| 219 | n/d | DS 64 | Poultry (chicken) |
| 388 | 16631 | DS 41 | Cattle and salmon |
| 14230 | DS 46 | Cattle | |
| 451 | n/d | DS 7 | Game (reindeer) |
| n/d | DS 9 | Rabbit | |
| 18488 | DS 12 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 51 | Cattle | |
| 14591 | DS 71 | Lamb | |
| 5076 | DS 76 | Poultry (chicken) and cattle | |
| n/d | DS 83 | Cattle | |
| 489 | n/d | DS 74 | Poultry (chicken) and cattle |
| n/d | DS 79 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 84 | Cattle | |
| 1000 | n/d | DS 55 | Cattle |
| unknown | n/d | DS 56 | Cattle |
1 n/d: thus far, no CT number has been assigned in the database.
Table 4.
Compilation of 62 Y. enterocolitica isolates from 58 positive samples, with their biotypes (BT) and sequence types (ST), corresponding sample IDs, and product composition.
Table 4.
Compilation of 62 Y. enterocolitica isolates from 58 positive samples, with their biotypes (BT) and sequence types (ST), corresponding sample IDs, and product composition.
| BT | ST | Sample ID | Isolate Number | Product Composition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | n/d * | DS 1 | DS 1 | Horse |
| n/d | DS 5 | DS 5-1 | Cattle | |
| ST 3 | DS 7 | DSY-7-5B | Game (reindeer) | |
| ST 3 | DS 9 | DS 9-3 | Rabbit | |
| n/d | DS 10 | DS 10-10 | Poultry (goose) | |
| n/d | DS 11 | DS 11-4, DSY-11-12 | Poultry (quail) | |
| ST 166 | DS 16 | DSY-16-5 | Cattle | |
| ST 26 | DS 19 | DSY-19-2, DSY-19-5 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 23 | DSY 23-12 | Poultry (duck) | |
| ST 358 | DS 26 | DSY 26-2 | Kangaroo | |
| n/d | DS 27 | DSY 27-1 | Rabbit | |
| ST 165 | DS 28 | DSY 28-11 | Game ((roe) deer) | |
| n/d | DSY 28-12 | |||
| n/d | DS 32 | DS 32-1 | Horse | |
| n/d | DS 34 | DSY 34-5 | Rabbit | |
| ST 3 | DS 36 | DSY 36-4 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 40 | DSY 40-2 | Poultry (turkey) | |
| n/d | DSY 40-9-1 | |||
| n/d | DS 43 | DSY 43-4 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 44 | DSY 44-4 | Cattle | |
| ST 3 | DS 46 | DSY 46-6 | Cattle | |
| ST 166 | DS 47 | DSY 47-8 | Cattle | |
| ST 3 | DS 48 | DSY 48-5 | Poultry | |
| ST 157 | DS 50 | DSY 50-11 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 51 | DSY 51-1 | Cattle | |
| ST 8 | DS 54 | DSY 54-6 | Salmon | |
| n/d | DS 55 | DSY 55-2 | Cattle | |
| ST 3 | DS 56 | DSY 56-5 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 57 | DSY 57-6, DSY 57-12 | Game ((roe) deer) | |
| ST 157 | DS 58 | DSY 58-2 | Cattle | |
| ST 17 | DS 59 | DSY 59-4 | Horse | |
| n/d | DS 60 | DSY 60-3 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 61 | DSY 61-4 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 62 | DSY 62-9 | Lamb | |
| n/d | DS 63 | DSY 63-3 | Poultry (chicken) and insects | |
| n/d | DS 68 | DSY 68-9 | Game (roe deer) | |
| ST 3 | DSY 68-12 | |||
| n/d | DS 69 | DSY 69-10 | Game (deer) | |
| n/d | DS 73 | DSY 73-9 | Poultry (chicken) and cattle | |
| ST 147 | DS 74 | DSY 74-4 | Poultry (chicken) and cattle | |
| n/d | DS 75 | DSY 75-14, DSY 75-15 | Game (deer) and lamb | |
| ST 8 | DS 76 | DSY 76-5 | Poultry (chicken) and cattle | |
| ST 8 | DS 77 | DSY 77-1 | Rabbits and poultry (turkey) | |
| n/d | DS 78 | DSY 78-3 | Cattle | |
| ST 3 | DS 79 | DSY 79-8 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 80 | DSY 80-10 | Poultry (turkey) | |
| n/d | DS 81 | DSY 81-4 | Cattle | |
| ST 147 | DS 82 | DSY 82-4 | Poultry (chicken) | |
| n/d | DS 83 | DSY 83-9 | Cattle | |
| ST 3 | DS 84 | DSY 84-8 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 85 | DSY 85-3 | Cattle | |
| n/d | DS 88 | DSY 88-12 | Rabbit | |
| ST 3 | DS 89 | DSY 89-2 | Cattle | |
| ST 3 | DS 94 | DSY 94-8 | Game (bison) | |
| ST 3 | DS 97 | DSY 97-2 | Poultry (chicken) | |
| n/d | DS 98 | DSY 98-8 | Poultry (chicken) | |
| ST 155 | DS 100 | DSY 100-10 | Game ((roe) deer), poultry (chicken), and cattle | |
| 4 | ST 18 | DS 47 | DSY 47-11 | Cattle |
* n/d: thus far, no ST number has been assigned in the database.
Table 5.
Compilation of Campylobacter isolates from all three positive samples and their corresponding sample ID, product composition, and ingredients.
Table 5.
Compilation of Campylobacter isolates from all three positive samples and their corresponding sample ID, product composition, and ingredients.
| Species | Sample ID | Product Composition | Ingredients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Campylobacter coli | DS 42 | Poultry (chicken) | Neck |
| Campylobacter coli | DS 48 | Poultry | Whole animal |
| Campylobacter jejuni | DS 92 | Poultry (chicken) | Liver |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Schmid, D.T.; Barmettler, K.; Stevens, M.J.A.; Stephan, R. Occurrence and Characteristics of Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, and Campylobacter spp. in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Pets. Pets 2025, 2, 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2040035
AMA Style
Schmid DT, Barmettler K, Stevens MJA, Stephan R. Occurrence and Characteristics of Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, and Campylobacter spp. in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Pets. Pets. 2025; 2(4):35. https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2040035
Chicago/Turabian StyleSchmid, Désirée Tahnee, Karen Barmettler, Marc J. A. Stevens, and Roger Stephan. 2025. "Occurrence and Characteristics of Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, and Campylobacter spp. in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Pets" Pets 2, no. 4: 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2040035
APA StyleSchmid, D. T., Barmettler, K., Stevens, M. J. A., & Stephan, R. (2025). Occurrence and Characteristics of Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica, and Campylobacter spp. in Raw Meat-Based Diets for Pets. Pets, 2(4), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2040035
