10 replies to this topic

[ganeshkashinath]

Dear All ,

 

We  received a COA from our supplier and I am of the opinion that is it is not clear in indicating the safety of the product .   

 

It says "Total Coliform is Max.1000 and E.coli and Salmonella is absent" . Does it mean could it have other fecal Coliforms and enterobacteriaceae .  ( I have attached the image ) 

Any alternative interpretation would be very helpful . 

 

Ganesh 

Attached Files

•  IFSQN.png   17.95KB   1 downloads

Edited by ganeshkashinath, 04 September 2019 - 06:39 AM.

[Charles.C]

Dear All ,

 

We  received a COA from our supplier and I am of the opinion that is it is not clear in indicating the safety of the product .   

 

It says "Total Coliform is Max.1000 and E.coli and Salmonella is absent" . Does it mean could it have other fecal Coliforms and enterobacteriaceae .  ( I have attached the image ) 

Any alternative interpretation would be very helpful . 

 

Ganesh 

 

Hi Ganesh,

 

What is the Product ?

 

Coliform/E.coli counts are not usually considered relevant to the safety of the food unless the "E.coli" refers to a specific pathogenic variety(s), eg E.coli O167, etc

 

"Moulds" could be related to safety (eg via mycotoxins).

 

Salmonella is pathogenic for all named species so is directly related to safety.

 

The interpretation of the term "Total Coliforms" depends on the specific analytical method used. You need to ask.

 

The word "absent" used for Salmonella is more appropriately replaced by "Not detected" (in 25g)

[ganeshkashinath]

Thank you . Will check on the method . 

[The Food Scientist]

Whats this product? It really depends on the product. It means that if the Total Coliform is not more than 1000 CFU/g it passes and it's considered acceptable (depends on THE PRODUCT). 

[ganeshkashinath]

The product is an animal feed supplement .  The method referred is FDA BAM ,2006  for Total Coliform Count . 

[Charles.C]

The product is an animal feed supplement .  The method referred is FDA BAM ,2006  for Total Coliform Count . 

 

Thks but regret I do not possess BAM 2006. The methodology used could potentially be either liquid or solid based.

 

The current on-line BAM Procedure afai can see makes no use of the "classic" terminology "total coliforms" (TC) . ( I have only ever used "coliforms" but TC is certainly still in common use, eg see attachments below).

 

https://www.fda.gov/...liform-bacteria

 

"coliforms" includes thermotolerant (aka fecal) coliforms and generic E.coli, among others, eg

 

 Coliform Group.pdf   305.23KB   18 downloads

 

The current online BAM, MPN procedure for "coliforms" looks similar to other reported MPN procedures for "total coliforms", eg -

 

 Methods for total coliforms, thermotolerant coliforms, E.coli.pdf   135.85KB   14 downloads

 

The terms coliform, total coliform, thermotolerant coliform, fecal coliform are all "operational" definitions rather than taxonomic so this whole area is often semantically (and procedurally) "challenged".

 

For human food, a coliform limit of 1000cfu/gram seems high but I'm not familiar with animal feed supplements (whatever that means ?)

[ganeshkashinath]

Thanks a lot . The information was  very useful .   

 

 

Best Regards,

Ganesh 

[MsMars]

Treatment of the final product (pelleting, etc.) after the supplement is added could also potentially reduce total coliforms, although if this is for animal feed and salmonella/E. coli tolerance is zero, then I don't see an issue.  

[Charles.C]

Treatment of the final product (pelleting, etc.) after the supplement is added could also potentially reduce total coliforms, although if this is for animal feed and salmonella/E. coli tolerance is zero, then I don't see an issue.  

 

Hi MsMars,

 

I think the "issue" was that the OP needed an explanation of the micro. terminologies.

 

Maybe the actual data meanings will come next. .

[ganeshkashinath]

Treatment of the final product (pelleting, etc.) after the supplement is added could also potentially reduce total coliforms, although if this is for animal feed and salmonella/E. coli tolerance is zero, then I don't see an issue.  

 

Very true , treatment does remove most of the pathogens . But in some cases they do not treat it , they blend it and feed it to animals , this is why I was concerned about the COA . 

 

 

Hi MsMars,

 

I think the "issue" was that the OP needed an explanation of the micro. terminologies.

 

Maybe the actual data meanings will come next. .

 

One more information is required , when they say Salmonella is absent in 25 grams , is 25 grams derived from a sampling plan or how is it derived ? 

[Charles.C]

Very true , treatment does remove most of the pathogens . But in some cases they do not treat it , they blend it and feed it to animals , this is why I was concerned about the COA . 

 

 

 

One more information is required , when they say Salmonella is absent in 25 grams , is 25 grams derived from a sampling plan or how is it derived ? 

 

Official, composited  lot sampling plans do exist (eg FDA) involving 15 samples or more but such quantities are usually far too workload-heavy for in-house micro.labs, or too expensive to allocate to external labs.

https://www.fda.gov/...mple-homogenate

 

Unless you have a specific agreement with yr supplier, the 25gram could have come from one or more sub-units taken from one or more master cartons. A negative result for a single sample taken from one sub-unit has very limited statistical significance.