Prevalence of Salmonella?

I know I'm just adding more hearsay to the pile, but I've read that snakes carry salmonella 90% of the time and lizards are 75%. My kids handle all of the reptiles AND clean up feces for "their" particular pets. We practice good handwashing and talk about crosscontamination, but I don't freak out. Either way, most cases of salmonella go away on their own and don't require a doctor visit. You make sure you are keeping your own gut flora up and you probably have nothing to worry about anyway! Probiotics FTW!!

This isnt really answering your question but.

Salmonella is most likely to infect humans via contaminated food products. Unwashed/sanitized meats, veggies, and for some reason peanut butter.

Salmonella also is just as likely in fact more so if your yard is dirty to infect your dog then a reptile. It mostly resides in warm blooded animals and gets shed in fecal matter. This can be re-transmitted by contaminated food, a mammal eating fecal matter, or stepping in it and then cleaning themselves.

However, Salmonella has figured out how to infect birds and reptiles as well. Its just that reptiles are easier to demonize, which is why you hear about them. The main reason why humans can become infected is because of our history living amongst other mammals. Remember that most of these bacteria and micro-organisms are highly specialized in finding a host, so whenever you see it jump vast species barriers (reptiles to humans) you should be on the look out for how thats possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth1

Not trying to contradict, but is there good scientific data to support that analysis??

---

Still looking on the data I read for you but for a start her are reported outbreaks over the last couple of years showing a predominance of salmonella cases due to food.

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks.html

According to the cdc 45% of the reported cases are due to poultry.

Still looking for the full data with percentage on reptiles. ;)

The CDC seems to sensationalize the incidents and danger a bit in its reports, but I did find this tidbit

Background on Salmonella and Reptiles
Salmonella infections can come from a number of sources. The most common source of Salmonella infection is improperly handled food.

Salmonella bacteria can be harbored in the gastrointestinal tracts of many species of animal, including poultry, cattle, and pigs, presenting a risk of contamination of meat and eggs during processing. Salmonella can also be carried by pets (including cats and dogs), but especially reptiles and amphibians. As high as 90%

of reptiles are natural carriers of Salmonella bacteria, harboring strains specific to reptiles without any symptoms of disease in the reptile. While it is true that many pets can carry Salmonella, the problem with reptiles (and apparently amphibians) is that they carry

Salmonella with such high frequency.

It is prudent to assume that all reptiles and amphibians can be a potential source of Salmonella.

Courtesy of this site http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/repti...salmonella.htm

It is unfortunate that the information does not seem to be so concrete or founded in solid research and leaves several of my questions still unanswered :confusd:

But I guess it all comes down to prevalence, and the fact that herps tend to be physically closer to the ground, and more likely to trample/crawl through their own fecal matter.

I looked up a few studies of salmonella prevalence in reptiles.

A few caveats: I'll have to find the exact source to back me up, but I am 90% certain while reptiles may carry the disease, their immune systems keep it in check, which prevents shedding the part that actually infects people/other animals. However, when placed in captivity, especially stressful or less than ideal conditions, this stress suppresses their immune system, making it easier for there to a bloom in parasites - salmonella being one.

This study is an interesting example of such a phenomenon, I feel, as it is hard to know the conditions of the reptiles in the shops sampled. In addition, I find it extremely interesting that the wild reptiles that did carry salmonella, especially with significant frequency, were aquatic or semi-aquatic - makes sense to me, as reptiles will quite happily poop where they are swimming. Animals submerged in water that is pooped in by other animals, even streams and lakes, are logically going to be prone to parasites and disease commonly transmitted through feces.

Also interesting is that in this study, turtles were the group that tested positive for salmonella the least. Could that be due to lack of stress due to easier care? It doesn't specify what species of turtle(s) were in the captive/pet store group - it's entirely likely they were red eared sliders or a similarly sturdy, well adapted species that would not be stressed enough to be shedding salmonella at that time. In all, the study itself is interesting. I do not think enough information is provided to draw any definitive conclusions, though.

For more reading on salmonella, here is a paper discussing its prevalence in reptiles since we first became aware reptiles were carriers.

http://vdi.sagepub.com/content/22/1/44.full] This study found that roughly 30% of reptiles were shedding at least one type of salmonella at the time of testing.

There are many more, most of which seem to draw the same conclusion. Treat all reptiles like they may have it, wash your hands, and try to refrain from eating your pets' feces (common sense, right?). I've worked at LLL for years, and grew up with a pet snake - I can assure you I don't wash my hands at work as often as I probably should, and I definitely didn't when I was a child, but I have yet to get sick with salmonella. Stomach flus, sure, but from my understanding of salmonella - when you get it, you are so sick you need to be hospitalized. That has not happened to me, or to any other staff member that I'm aware of...and we can definitely be high risk cases on a busy day!

-Jen

Jen, awesome info.

It is very likely though that those stomach viruses or bugs you have had at least once were caused by salmonella given what you admitted. The presentation of the disease is similar to most other causes of what people refer to as a "stomach flu." The cases where hospitalization ends up being necessary are for those immunocompromised, children under 5, and the eldery for the most part.

The thing is salmonella is not the only intestinal bacteria animals carry. WebMD lists the causes of gastroenteritis both bacterial and viral ("stomach flu"). It mentions which one are zoonotic and there are many more than just salmonella. I have never gotten salmonella from my animals but I have gotten bacterial gastroenteritis that I'm pretty sure was caused by my reptiles. Salmonella doesn't usually end up in hospitalization. You are usually sick for 3-4 days and a tell tale sign is "rotten egg" smelling gas and stools. I have had it twice from eating at KFC. The first case seems to have made me sensitive to stomach bugs.

It is ridiculous that the CDC and others are so worried about reptiles and disease considering that most pets can and do carry diseases that can be passed to owners. Then there's the fact that was brought up that most cases are food born. To sit around worrying about this is silly considering that there are so many problems more worth a person's time worrying. Trust me, Salmonella is no fun, but it's not exactly AIDS.

Keep in mind too that the majority of us keep captive bred animals that are "hopefully" quarantined from any wild caught cross contamination. This means they would never come into contact with these bacteria and micro-organisms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

Keep in mind too that the majority of us keep captive bred animals that are "hopefully" quarantined from any wild caught cross contamination. This means they would never come into contact with these bacteria and micro-organisms.

---

Pardon the bump, but I was reading up on this and according to WebMD:

"Reptiles, baby chicks and ducklings, and small rodents such as hamsters are particularly likely to carry Salmonella. You should always wash your hands immediately after handling one of these animals, even if the animal is healthy. Adults should also be careful that children wash their hands after handling reptiles, pet turtles, baby chicks or ducklings, or small rodents."

So, presumably, your reptile can easily become exposed to salmonella just from being fed [rodents], regardless of whether it's CB or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surrealle

Pardon the bump, but I was reading up on this and according to WebMD:

"Reptiles, baby chicks and ducklings, and small rodents such as hamsters are particularly likely to carry Salmonella. You should always wash your hands immediately after handling one of these animals, even if the animal is healthy. Adults should also be careful that children wash their hands after handling reptiles, pet turtles, baby chicks or ducklings, or small rodents."

So, presumably, your reptile can easily become exposed to salmonella just from being fed [rodents], regardless of whether it's CB or not.

---

Also according to WebMD a cough is the first sign of pancreas cancer.

People can lie, stretch the truth, and give misinformation at will on the internet.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4