Prevalence of Salmonella?

So up until recently I was under the misconception that salmonella was part of the normal flora of most if not all reptiles and birds... this is not the case as I understand it now, but I still don't know as much as I would like to so I have some statements and questions I am hoping someone can correct, verify, or answer.

1. Salmonella does not normally cause disease in reptiles or birds.
2. Salmonella can exist as part of the normal gut flora in reps and birds. How common is it?
3. Are there any effects (positive/negative) of a reptile/bird that harbors salmonella? Can you tell without micro techniques if your reptile/bird is carrying it?
4. Salmonella DOES cause disease in humans.
5. Does Salmonella cause disease in household pets?
6. Salmonella can be contracted via the fecal/oral route. Can it cause disease through wounds and other orifaces?
7. Can Salmonella be transmitted via fomites? I.E. If my snake crawls on my remote or bed and carries salmonella, are these items now potentially a source of infection?
8. And finally one slightly off-topic question, do I need to be concerned about exposing my snakes to isopropyl alcohol that may not have completely evaporated from applying hand-sanitizer?

Some clarification on this would be great....I was always under the impression (from veterinarians with extensive herp and avian experience) that salmonella was the comparable form of E. coli for these other species...

I can tell you that you are more likely in your lifetime to contract salmonella from some spinach from the grocery store then you are from your reptiles.

Of course that doesn't mean that you shouldn't practise good hygiene however it is true regardless of the animal you are dealing with, common sense would tell you that you should watch your end after handling your snake, but it applies to other animals as well.

Salmonella in reptiles is one of the "bogeyman" used by HSUS on why reptiles are not suitable pets when chances of contracting salmonella from your reptiles is very small.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth1

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

---

Yes but I would need to find it again.

I have no answers for you except that I spent the better part of my childhood catching snakes, toads, frogs. and painted turtles (tons of them!), and my parents never taught me to wash my hands and I was (and am, unfortunately) a big time nail-bitter. All of this happened during warm months, since I live in Ontario Canada, and I honestly can't think of a single time I had the stomach flu in the summer (got it sometimes during the school year though). I certainly didn't have it more than your average kid. I also swam in a small lake that was later found to be full of coliforms, and yet, I never (or at least infrequently enough that I don't remember) got sick. I honestly think that exposure to the over population in my classroom was far more likely to cause illness, than my summer-time reptile obsession.

Cool
Thanks; interesting to know

Very interesting topic. I know I'm guilty of touching reptiles and not washing my hands after, especially when i was a kid. To no ill effects. I always wash before nowadays, but sometimes I forget to after :)

Yeaaah....i sorta forget alot myself....especially having a few beers and playing with my snakey friends....eating doritos and stuff.

You'd think with 7 bottles of hand sanitizer right next to the rack and tanks i would remember.

I'm going to have to look up the info again, but I just saw some things on this. I believe snakes are not carriers of the disease but at least some lizards and tortoises are. You could still get it from a snake if the snake ate an infected rodent because it would shed the bacteria in it's feces. I've, also, read that dogs get ill from salmonella the same as humans. Salmonella and E. coli are entirely different bacteria. E. coli is a much more serious infection and has caused deaths.

You are much more inclined to get bacterial gastroenteritis from food than a pet due to poor processing practices combined with unsafe food handling on your part.

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

i think i have something to share here...

i visit the munich reptile sanctuary every now and then, its very good. and the tours are very educational.

and the experts there (im talking one universitary professor for veterinary medicine with expert knowledge on reptiles, a few professional veterinarians, most of them specialized in reptiles, a few vet students and other volunteers)... anyway when they do a tour they go out of their way to shatter this myth.

they have hundreds of reptiles, sometimes close to 1000, covering all species, they get in plenty of sick reptiles, and its several people in daily contact with reptiles. they get entire shipments of wild caught reptiles that got ceised at the border, rescues in bad condition, everything you can imagine.

and none of the employees got salmonella from any reptile. never happened. not once in all these years.

i rest my case. if a sanctuary of this caliber says it doesnt happen, then i dont believe it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

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

---

I agree that WebMD is not always a reliable source. However, if you google "salmonella rodents", many sites will come up, including CDC and FDA articles.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/disea...monellosis.htm

"Also, pocket pets (guinea pigs and rodents like hamsters), dogs, cats, birds (including pet and wild birds), horses, and farm animals (goats, calves, sheep) can pass Salmonella to people."

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/.../ucm344319.htm

"These germs can be found in the feces of many different animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, rodents, live poultry and others, or in the areas where these animals live and roam. These germs can also be found in water in tanks or aquaria where certain animals, like turtles or water frogs, live as pets."

I know you should be skeptical with anything you read online, but these are two organizations whose job it is to research this kind of thing. And it is not that difficult to test for certain types of bacteria, viruses, etc. So I'm inclined to believe that any reptile that eats rodents can come into contact with salmonella, regardless of whether it is wild caught or captive bred. That's all I'm saying, please don't read more into my statement than there is. I'm not claiming that you will automatically (or ever) get sick from it; nor am I saying every snake carries it. I'm just saying it's possible, and I personally would not rely on my snake's origin as a guarantee that it is free from salmonella.

They basically say that feces are bad, who doesn't know that? Literally, every animal in the world can give you salmonella. Now, I said can. Not will. Maybe even has the chance is a better wording. Or, has the potential.

Relevant to the topic at hand though, for me anyway as I don't feed live, is if salmonella is killed of in freezing temps. I don't know if that's been touched yet in this aged thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

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.

---

A couple years ago RodentPro (and I heard rumours of another company) had rodents test positive for Salmonella. Other suppliers all had their stock test negative and RodentPro has been checked since and hasn't tested positive again. I doubt the same could be said of the chicken and chicken egg industry. If you're going to worry about salmonella from your reptiles you might as well also worry about getting hit by lightening, getting cancer, and the world ending because of a giant meteor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

They basically say that feces are bad, who doesn't know that? Literally, every animal in the world can give you salmonella. Now, I said can. Not will. Maybe even has the chance is a better wording. Or, has the potential.

Relevant to the topic at hand though, for me anyway as I don't feed live, is if salmonella is killed of in freezing temps. I don't know if that's been touched yet in this aged thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

---

Freezing does not kill salmonella. Many people get sick every year from handling previously frozen chicken and not washing their hands or using the same cutting board for raw vegetables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

They basically say that feces are bad, who doesn't know that? Literally, every animal in the world can give you salmonella. Now, I said can. Not will. Maybe even has the chance is a better wording. Or, has the potential.

Relevant to the topic at hand though, for me anyway as I don't feed live, is if salmonella is killed of in freezing temps. I don't know if that's been touched yet in this aged thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

---

From what I understand, (and I'm not claiming to be an expert here), freezing does not kill all bacteria, it generally just stops it from multiplying. Bacteria is killed when it is cooked.

This is someone else's quote which I cannot speak to the validity of, but it goes in line with what I've been taught and explains it better than I can.

"Salmonella and other types of bacteria such as E. coli are not killed by freezing. Rather, the cells' metabolisms slow down and they stop dividing. However, when rewarmed, the cells will begin dividing again. The only way to kill salmonella and E. coli is by heating the cells to a temperature which causes them to lyse, or break open. Freezing does not necessarily lyse cells; some cells may die, but many will survive. Microbiologists often freeze colonies of bacteria for later use."

Again, I don't know if this is factual, but until I read otherwise this is what I believe to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by treeboa

A couple years ago RodentPro (and I heard rumours of another company) had rodents test positive for Salmonella. Other suppliers all had their stock test negative and RodentPro has been checked since and hasn't tested positive again. I doubt the same could be said of the chicken and chicken egg industry. If you're going to worry about salmonella from your reptiles you might as well also worry about getting hit by lightening, getting cancer, and the world ending because of a giant meteor.

---

Once again, I was not suggesting anyone worry about contracting salmonella from their snake. I was simply pointing out that I would not rely on their origin to determine whether they carry it, because the rodents they eat may be contaminated with it.

A couple of random things that I've read through the years. Don't ask me where, I could never find it again.

There are over 1500 different serotypes (subspecies) of salmonella, not all of them are particularly virulent

Salmonella can be present anywhere there is organic material. Paper money has been known to harbor salmonella germs. (so just to be safe, send all of your paper money to me)

You're more likely to contact salmonella from horseback riding then from handling reptiles. (I'm sure we'll hear an uproar from all the horseback riding enthusiasts now, sorry)

I've been handling reptiles for over 30 years and can't think of a single time I could have had salmonella poisoning so I usually don't give it a second thought. I'm not always real vigilant about washing my hands after handling my snakes but I do try very hard not to put any snake poop in my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

A couple of random things that I've read through the years. Don't ask me where, I could never find it again.

There are over 1500 different serotypes (subspecies) of salmonella, not all of them are particularly virulent

Salmonella can be present anywhere there is organic material. Paper money has been known to harbor salmonella germs. (so just to be safe, send all of your paper money to me)

You're more likely to contact salmonella from horseback riding then from handling reptiles. (I'm sure we'll hear an uproar from all the horseback riding enthusiasts now, sorry)

I've been handling reptiles for over 30 years and can't think of a single time I could have had salmonella poisoning so I usually don't give it a second thought. I'm not always real vigilant about washing my hands after handling my snakes but I do try very hard not to put any snake poop in my mouth.

---

Like I posted earlier, while salmonella poisoning is no fun (I've had it twice from chicken at a restaurant), usually you are just sick for 3-4 days and move on. Usually only the immuno-suppressed, the very young, and very old get seriously sick with it. Most people who are hospitalized end up there with dehydration from severe diarrhea.

Salmonella is often used as an excuse to call for bans on exotic pets, especially reptiles. They would be better served by going after the poultry industry for faulty processing practices that leave feces on our chicken and makes thousands sick every year. Misplaced priorities.

i just dont buy it, not at all, not after my local reptile sanctuary (which is excellent) destroyed the myth. read my earlier post, number #21.

i do not see any reptiles as carriers of salmonella. the food, like mice or rats or chickens, may carry it, and that may turn certain reptiles into temporary transmitters of the disease, but reptiles are not a vector and not a harbor for the disease.

in europe, we have a peculiar case: rabies is eradicated, its a really nasty disease. basically when the symptoms set in, the mortality rate for humans is 100%. it can be cured after the infection happens, but when any later symptoms arise, death is certain and there is no way to stop it. In nations where rabies is still frequent, hospitals have dedicated quarantine areas, and special rooms for the sole purpose of having rabies patients die there.

Now we could turn against bats, because in europe bats are the last remaining reservoir of the disease, in all other species rabies is eradicated. But all the species of bats in europe only eat insects and they dont bite anyone.

The point is: compared to that, how harmless are salmonella? its a nuisance, it knocks you out for a few days, but you survive. and you get it as food poisoning. mainly traced back to chicken farms, or to unhygienic conditions in a restaurant. EVEN IF (and i doubt it), but if reptiles are a carrier, why should this be turned against pet reptiles? If anything, wild reptiles are the problem. Also there is a lack of verified cases, just no evidence. And EVEN IF, how could a war against the wild reptile population be justified when europe does NOT go after the bats while a bite from a bat can actually kill a person?


its just phony, its just as phony as the republican-induced government shutdown the USA is facing right now. Restricting or banning reptiles based on unrealistic and falsely perceived salmonella threats? hell no. Tanking the USA economy and holding the nation hostage because of some imagined threats of potential damage to the US economy from the affordable care act? You decide.

The people up there do not make decisions based on facts. When they go against reptiles, expect EXCUSES being brought forward to justify it, but really, there is someone who wants to sell more dogs and cats and rabbits behind it. Salmonella is just one of these excuses.

It's a myth.

You'd have to literally eat a gob of fecal matter that happened to have a particularly high concentration of one of the virulent strains of salmonella to contract it. Usually when people see visible fecal matter on themselves, they don't put their fingers in their mouth or eyes.

This myth came about when little children were buying 1 inch turtles and PUTTING THE WHOLE TURTLE IN THEIR MOUTH, straight from their dirty water and likely scaring the poop out of them in the process - a HANDFUL got salmonella. We're talking about being more likely to die by slipping on a wet floor and hitting your head than salmonella from a reptile.

People get salmonella from produce or poultry. If you think that's odd, I urge you to explore the agricultural practices that are deemed acceptable in the US. I guarantee licking the cloaca of a terrestrial reptile living in a clean enclosure is less likely to give you salmonella than eating improperly prepared poultry or produce. You may say "I don't wash my produce all the time and I sometimes eat undercooked chicken or don't wash my hands after preparing chicken and I've never gotten salmonella." Exactly - the odds are even less than that for reptiles. The same can be said for e. coli - it's literally COVERING the surfaces in your kitchen and house - yet how often do you hear of poisoning? Companies that sell chemicals and people who lobby against pets create germ scares. If you want to mitigate risk in your life, get rid of your car. This is scientific fact - apologies for not choosing to take the time to find it in writing. Others in this thread seem to be well on their way to that, though. Thanks guys :)

I don't think I'll be licking cloaca anytime soon...

Very interesting posts though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MootWorm

I don't think I'll be licking cloaca anytime soon...

Very interesting posts though

---

Lmfao Mootworm!!! That is now what im gonna tell someone when they piss me off....."Go lick cloaca.." lolololol

sent from my incubator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

Tanking the USA economy and holding the nation hostage because of some imagined threats of potential damage to the US economy from the affordable care act? You decide.

---

Dangit. I gotta go get tons of hand sanitizer now. I just lost 1/4 my income due to that stupid "affordable" (hah!) care act. I'm for sure gonna get salmonella poisoning tomorrow. Just my luck.