Words: 1635
These environmental areas usually contain soil which led to my inconsideration of possible microorganisms that may be introduced to these animals that later serve as carriers and transmissions of the microorganism to people and/or our home. Sampling was performed on two different breeds of indoor dogs to test the differences before and after becoming exposed to the outdoor (soil containing) environment. By the tests I was able to compare the amount of differing microbes introduced to the dogs (as possible contaminations into the home).
The data showed a heavy increase in varied/amount of microbes present in the snout samples of both dogs, after exposure to the outdoor environment. Fig. )Thus the microbe contamination in pet owners home can show to have a significant increase in variety and amount of microbes vs.. Non- pet owners. The focus of this experiment is not whether a pet is habitually indoor or outdoor, but in the areas where the animal comes into contact when observing its environment. Animals are usually allowed out to complete their duties of defecating/urinating and before completing these duties, they observe the environment (usually areas that include soil).
I am an owner of two dogs, and with courses in which I was enrolled this semester had me observing my surrounding more readily. In my pathogenic microbiology lecture I learned the various inhabitants in natural soil. Observing my indoor dogs as I would take them outside to do their business (or “It T'” as my dogs know it as) I began to conclude that this contact could tract various microbes to their snout and eventually in my home. I hypothesized that I would find a difference in microbes in their snouts after being exposed to the outdoor environment.
My prediction was that the amount of microbes would increase and that the increase of microbes would more likely be strains of Bacillus and Colostomies (3). These Microbes re natural inhabitants of soil and with various strains containing toxic properties, marks the importance in avoiding any contact with these species. The studies performed on the two different breeds of dogs were of the oral cavity and snout before and after exposure. Materials and Methods Dogs. A sole sampling day of two different breeds of dogs was taken of their snout and oral cavity.
A total of 6 samples were taken from each individual dog in sequences of 2 samples per area and time exposure and 3 varying exposure cycles were sampled/recorded. The two samples were made as one of their snout and one f their oral cavity. Reasons for doing this type of sampling and experimentation was previous methods and knowledge learned from microbiology labs performed earlier this semester. (4) Samples. The first cycle to sampling was made early in the morning before becoming exposed to the outdoors and allowing all night for the previous days containment of microbes to be at a minimum.
A sample from the miniature schnauzers snout and mouth were made with a sterile cotton swab and the procedure was repeated for the beagle/pointer mix and both were released outside for a 30 minute time interval after the sampling. The sampled swabs were placed separately in individual Copilot bags for future experimentation and kept refrigerated until the completion all sampling periods. The second cycle samples were taken after thirty minutes of exposure outdoors and before going inside my home.
Again, a sample of the snout and mouth of both dogs were taken and separately kept to reduce any contamination to the swabs and also placed under refrigeration with the previously acquired samples. The third cycle samples were taken of both dogs after thirty minutes having been inside my home from the previous exposure time to the outdoors. Sampling methods remained the same as above. Culture. All samples were brought into the micro lab immediately after sampling was completed to streak on TTS mediums and allow for incubation at 37 degrees Celsius for a week to culture. One medium was used for the two samples obtained per cycle, per dog.
A total of 3 mediums were collectively used per dog, one for each sampling cycle. Throughout the week of incubation, daily analyses were made to detect any growth on each plate and were recorded as (+) for growth that day or (-) for no growth that day. Evaluation of sample cultures. After one week of incubation the mediums were aligned in chronological order of sampling cycles with the individual dogs beside one another for comparison. The comparison was made between dogs at individual cycles and within each dog and analyzing any differences between the three various cycling period samples.
Observations were made later in a commonality found in both dogs throughout all three cycles. The common colony (in appearance) was gram stained from each nasal sample in all three cycles. Discussion Differences in medium cultures between cycle and dog were done by visible means n the beginning. Both dogs showed a lower amount of colonial growth before going outdoors, which was expected because contact was lessened indoors by keeping both dogs in a kennel before sampling was done. (Fig. L A&B. ) The medium growth for the Schnauzer in Fig. A showed little growth with some interesting looking colonies, one which had the pigmentation (gold) and appearance of Staphylococcus erasures. This species is known to be a part of normal flora so it is not surprising that it was isolated from the dog. An interesting fact is that it was isolated from the sample of the mouth ND not the snout of the dog. Since this species is known to be more readily found in the anterior portion of the mares, I concluded that its location may have been to the constant licking that my dog does of that area and not because it is a part of her normal oral cavity flora.
Fig. L B. Showed an increase of microbes in the snout of the Beagle/Pointer mix vs.. Its mouth. No visible colonial growth resembled the characteristic appearance of Staphylococcus erasures, which does not signify the absence of this microbe without further testing because there are many strains of his microbe that take on different characteristics than the gold pigment given by most strains to this species do to its Stabilization virulence doctor. A common colony was chosen by appearance in both breeds of dogs in the sample taken from their snouts.
This colony was appeared to be a microbe similarity found in their snout for all sampling cycles. The microbe for the first cycle was gram stained for comparison and both showed to be gram positive microbes with round Cisco arranged in grape like clusters which is characteristic of Staphylococcus erasures. Some gram negative staining appeared in the gram stain of the Beagle/Pointer mix breed, though I believe to Just be some decolonize gram positives because of the low abundance amongst the high abundance of gram positive staining.
This data was support towards the isolation of Staphylococcus erasures in this gram staining for cycle one. As shown in Fig. 2 A&B. The 30 minute period exposure to the outdoors allowed for a increase abundance of microbes introduced to both breeds of dog. This data supported the original hypothesis I had, in that introduction to the outdoors would increase the amount of microbes found in the snout of both dogs. The mediums showed a higher increase of microbes in the snout of both dogs. I believe this to have an impact made by their observance characteristics.
My backyard (which was the area used for the outdoor experimentation cycling sample) is about 50% grass and 50 % dirt areas. I made an observation that the dogs both smelled grassy areas when searching for places to urinate and patches of only dirt areas when defecating. This observation led to some assumptions and research as to why this might be. In some search article I found that enteric bacteria were found to adhere to the roots of grass and that this may be a cause to bacterial adhesion to animal and human tissues. 5) I think some further experimentation I would like to see is whether the behavioral characteristics of animals are to minimize these infections by only urinating in certain areas like grass to kill enteric by acidic pH’s and/or defecate in non grassy areas so the enteric microbes have no substrate to adhere to thus minimizing their presence in those areas as well. I predict that these behavioral traits ay be found in more animals.
The same colonial appearance explained above was sampled for cycle two sampling period for both breeds of dogs. The gram staining for cycle two showed to have both some gram positive and gram negative characteristics for both isolated colonies in individual dog samples. This sample seemed to have an abundance in gram negative bacteria vs. gram positive. The colonial appearance under a microscope had cell grouping in pairs rather than grape clusters. I hypothesized it to be more characteristic of Escherichia coli.
After further research ND observation of the dogs behavioral ways after coming indoors (6), I predicted that this might be possible if this enteric was found in the grass of my backyard. The dogs both urinated before defecating, and before defecating they both observed the dirt areas that may contain enteric due to previous defecations in that area. This behavior may increase this microbe in their snouts, also observed was the cleaning (by licking) of their urethra once coming in, which may be to gather the acidic pH solution to kill any enteric present on their snouts and/or mouths.