On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:10:27 -0400, Bob Pastorio >
wrote:

>Curly Sue wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:26:57 GMT, "
>> > wrote:

>>>Eggs aren't inherently pathogen laden. The chicken doesn't deposit
>>>disease causing agents into the egg.
>>=20
>> She sure can! In fact, that is the problem: salmonella that gets
>> *in* the egg as it's formed. External salmonella is reduced by
>> washing of the eggs.
>
>Actually, it isn't reduced that way.

Yes it is. :>

(BTW, what's with all the "=20" in your post? Did you change news
clients?)

> Eggs are washed in a detergent=20
>solution that removes any surface dirt and also removes the cuticle.=20

And reduces external salmonella that comes from fecal contamination
after the egg is laid.

>Bacterial contamination happens more frequently through the shell that=20
>by ovarian or oviducal contamination.

Interesting. That's another dimension to the problem.

>>=20
>> "Eggs will remain safe for consumption"... with qualifications. The
>> problem is those qualifications are not always met.
>
>I agree that the real world is a different place than an ideal.
>
>Here's a paper on the subject:=20
><http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/psym986.pdf>
>And a puzzling quote from it...
>"Several recent studies related to cooling of eggs have provided=20
>further insight into the importance of cooling of eggs. Gast and Beard=20
>(1992) orally inoculated laying hens with a phage type 13a strain of=20
>SE. (Table 5) One group of eggs from the inoculated hens was sampled=20
>on the day of collection, one group was held for 7 days at 7.2=B0C and a =
>
>third group was held for 7 days at 25=B0C. Only 3% of the freshly laid=20
>eggs and 4% of the eggs held for 7 days at 7.2=B0C were contaminated=20
>with SE. However, 16% of the eggs from the 25=B0C were contaminated with =
>
>SE. Contaminated eggs from all three groups contained relatively small=20
>numbers of SE (less than 10/ml and rarely exceeding l00/ml).=20
>Nevertheless, longer storage periods likely would have produced
>increased numbers. Saeed and Koons (1993) artificially inoculated eggs=20
>with SE also observed substantial growth in eggs stored at room=20
>temperature for 2-3 days. However, minimal or no growth occurred in=20
>refrigerated eggs at 4=B0C."
>
>My question is where did the increased contamination in the stored=20
>eggs come from if the initial samples only had 3% contamination.

Later on it said:

"These authors further found that refrigerated storage (4 C) was
necessary to reduce growth and rate of penetration into the egg. Some
researchers are now investigating new cryogenic approaches to rapid
chilling of shell eggs."

I.e., refrigeration reduced rate of penetration of SE into the eggs
(as well as growth). Although they didn't say it, I assume that
their determination of "contamination" was based on internal content
of salmonella so the increased contamination came from movement of the
bacteria from outside the egg to inside.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!