YoungSA at AgResearch.cri.nz
Tue Sep 28 17:07:14 EST 1999
In article <19990928090605.03282.00001989 at ng-co1.aol.com>,
leotj at aol.comspamsux (LeoTJ) wrote:
>Does anybody have any opinions good or bad on the BBL Crystal ID systems.
>are looking for an alternate biochemical identification system to the one
>are currently using. We would be using it for INDUSTRIAL bacteria
>opposed to clinical.
>Biosan Laboratories, Inc.
We tried using this system for identifying environmental isolates - from
soil, insects and from sheep skin and wool. The gram negative kit was ok,
but the gram positive one was next to useless. We had a lot of dipthoid
organisms that it should have identified without too much trouble - it
kept coming up with Bacillus spp.
The main advantage is it's ease of use - no reagents to add, no oil
overlays. However we didn't feel the results from either kit (G+ or -)
justified switching from API, which we are still using. My personal
feeling is the API kit tests more closely resemble classical micro tests,
so even if you don't get a result, the information from the reactions
gives more of a clue as to what you are dealing with, and you can see how
they match up with results in, for instance, Bergey.
The Crystal BBL software wasn't very user friendly either.
More information about the Microbio