https://doi.org/10.4081/ijfs.2026.15822
Evaluation of swab and wash-based sampling methods for process hygiene monitoring of rabbitcarcasses
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Accepted: 19 July 2026
Published: 9 September 2026
Rabbit meat is increasingly consumed as a nutritious alternative to conventional meats; however, information on appropriate microbiological sampling methods for rabbit carcasses remains limited. The primary objective of this study was to compare swab- and wash-based sampling methods for microbial monitoring of rabbit carcasses. As a secondary objective, we assessed whether anatomical sampling location (neck vs. hind leg) influenced aerobic plate count (APC) recovery. Carcasses were sampled at a commercial slaughter facility using three methods: surface swabbing of the neck and hind leg, site-specific wash-water sampling of the neck and hind leg, and whole-carcass wash sampling. APC was enumerated using 3M Petrifilm Aerobic Count plates and expressed as log CFU/mL. Within both the surface-swab and site-specific wash-water sampling methods, APC did not differ significantly between neck and hind leg samples, indicating that sampling location had little effect on bacterial recovery. Whole-carcass wash sampling yielded a significantly higher overall APC than combined neck-and-hind-leg swabbing (2.75±0.16 vs. 1.71±0.84 log CFU/mL, respectively; p<0.05), suggesting that whole-carcass wash sampling is more sensitive for detecting surface microbial contamination and may therefore represent a useful approach for routine process hygiene monitoring in rabbit slaughter facilities.
Downloads
da Silva Guedes J, Velilla-Rodriguez D, González-Fandos E, 2024. Microbiological quality and safety of fresh rabbit meat with special reference to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and ESBL-producing Escherichia coli. Antibiotics 13:256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13030256
Dalle Zotte A, 2002. Perception of rabbit meat quality and major factors influencing the rabbit carcass and meat quality. Livest Prod Sci 75:11-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00308-6
Dorsa WJ, Cutter CN, Siragusa GR, 1996. Evaluation of six sampling methods for recovery of bacteria from beef carcass surfaces. Lett Appl Microbiol 22:39-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.1996.tb01104.x
EFSA, ECDC, 2023. The European Union One Health 2022 zoonoses report. EFSA J 21:e8442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8442
Gallina S, Bianchi DM, Rui G, Maurella C, Barzanti P, Baioni E, Virgilio S, Mioni R, Lanni L, Migliazzo A, Losio MN, Bove D, Scuota S, Goffredo E, Decastelli L, 2015. Microbiological recovery from bovine, swine, equine, and ovine carcasses: comparison of excision, sponge and swab sampling methods. Food Control 50:919-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.10.052
Kohler R, Krause G, Beutin L, Stephan R, Zweifel C, 2008. Shedding of food-borne pathogens and microbiological carcass contamination in rabbits at slaughter. Vet Microbiol 132:149-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.04.020
Knysz P, Szkucik K, Gondek M, 2025. Rabbit carcasses as important vectors of multidrug-resistant Enterococcus faecalis, but not E. faecium: prevalence and molecular characterization from a study in Poland. BMC Vet Res 21:400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04849-y
Martínez B, Celda MF, Anastasio B, García I, López-Mendoza MC, 2010. Microbiological sampling of carcasses by excision or swabbing with three types of sponge or gauze. J Food Prot 73:81-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-73.1.81
MFDS, 2022. Korean Food Code. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety ed. Osong, Republic of Korea.
Pepperell R, Reid CA, Nicolau Solano S, Hutchison ML, Walters LD, Johnston AM, Buncic S, 2005. Experimental comparison of excision and swabbing microbiological sampling methods for carcasses. J Food Prot 68:2163-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-68.10.2163
USDA FSIS, 2024. Microbiological sampling of raw poultry. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service ed., Washington, DC, USA.
Zamaratskaia G, Havrysh O, Korzeniowska M, Getya A, 2023. Potential and limitations of rabbit meat in maintaining food security in Ukraine. Meat Sci 204:109293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109293
CRediT authorship contribution
Kun-Ho Seo: conceptualization, supervision, project administration. Kun-Ho Seo, Yun- Gyeong Kim: methodology, writing – original draft, review and editing. Yun-Gyeong Kim, Hye-Young Youn, Hyeon-Jin Kim, Yong-Seok Jang: investigation. Yun-Gyeong Kim, Hyeon-Jin Kim: data curation, formal analysis. Yong-Seok Jang, Hyunsook Kim, Kun-Ho Seo: resources.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.