View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Shelly McKee
Poultry Products Safety & Quality Program
Department of Poultry Science
Auburn University
1997 2006-2008 2009 HP2010*
Pathogen Baseline Case
Rate (all
foods) **
Baseline Case
Rate
FoodNet Case
Rate
Target
Campylobacter 24.6 12.71 13.02▲ 12.3
E. coli O157:H7 2.1 1.2 0.99***▼ 1
L.
monocytogenes 0.47 0.29 0.34▲ 0.24****
Salmonella 13.6 15.25 15.19▼ 6.8
2
Effective July 2011
Salmonella < 7.5%
Campylobacter < 10.4%
Growout &
Transport Immobilization
Scalding *Picking
*Evisceration
Live hang Bleed out
*Immersion
Chilling
Further
Processed Products
Sorting & Aging
Packaging
*Major points of cross
contamination
Considered to take care of most naturally occurring levels of Salmonella and/or Campylobacter that would be on carcasses post-chill
Site Tested Log10 CFU/mL
Pre-scald 4.7
Post-scald 1.8
Post-pick 3.7
Pre-evisceration 3.4
Pre-chiller 2.3
Post-chill**** 1.5
Adapted from Berrang and Dickens. 2000. J. Appl. Poul.
Res. 9:43-47 *****Best opportunity for reduction of pathogens
Site Intervention/process Campylobacter Salmonella2
Before Prescald brush 2.58a ± 0.913 20/25xy
After Prescald brush 2.12ab ± 0.92 21/25x
Before NYD spray wash 1.17b ± 0.78 14/25xyz
After NYD spray wash 1.05b ± 0.63 12/25xyz
Before I/O wash 1.93ab ± 0.76 10/25xyz
After I/O wash ND
Before Prechill spray washer 1.21b ± 0.57 8/25yz
After Prechill spray washer 1.15b ± 0.56 6/25z
Table 2. Mean1 number (log cfu/mL of rinse) of Campylobacter and prevalence of Salmonella on broiler carcass rinses collected before and after processing intervention steps
Source Modified ; M. E. Berrang2 and J. S. Bailey, 2009. J APPL POULT RES. 18:74-78.
Routinely inspect and replace worn picking fingers
Clean (remove all feathers) and Sanitize Daily
Use antimicrobial rinse after picking
Table 1. Increase in Campylobacter during picking
Modified from
Treatment Before defeathering After defeathering
Water control 0.53A,X ± 0.33 4.01A,Y ± 0.23
Source: Modified Berrang et al. 2006
J Appl. Poult. Research 15:287-291
Soften water ◦ Better at rinsing
◦ Does not interfere with antimicrobials
Measure pH, pH should be neutral to slightly acidic
Minimize mineral content
Know water source (well or city)
Sample water and test it on a routine basis
Check spray nozzle function
Check spray pressure
Check spray coverage
Check contact time
Use antimicrobial and check antimicrobial concentration
Validate the process and antimicrobial used
Some bacterial reductions; however contact time and coverage limits antimicrobial effectiveness
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Responses
*CPC= cetylpyridium chloride
*Some indicate Brushes
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
PeraceticAcid
Chlorine Acids pH2.0
ASC
Resp
onses
*ASC=acidified sodium chlorite
*Most indicate pH control for Chlorine
Table 3. Reduction of Salmonella positive carcasses treated with PAA (peracetic acid) or chlorine during chilling Chill Water Treatment Carcass Sampling Point Salmonella % Positive % Reduction
85 ppm PAA Pre-Chill 30.5a
Post-Chill 2.5c
30 ppm Chlorine Pre-Chill 25.5a
Post-Chill 11.0b
91.8
56.8
Source: Bauermeister et al., 2008. J Food Protection 71: 1119-1122
Chill Water Treatment Carcass Sampling Point Campylobacter % Positive % Reduction
85 ppm PAA Pre-Chill 83.0a
Post-Chill 47.0c
30 ppm Chlorine Pre-Chill 78.0a
Post-Chill 68.0b
43.4
12.8
Table 4. Reduction of Campylobacter positive carcasses treated with PAA (peracetic acid) or chlorine during chilling
Source: Bauermeister et al., 2008. J Food Protection 71: 1119-1122
Finishing Chillers and Pre & Post Chill Dip Tanks
Advantages •Small footprint •Higher concentration of antimicrobial can be used •Better kill than spray applications •Good Coverage •Short Dwell time •Money Savings •Antimicrobial mixed with clean water
Morris and Associates
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%R
esponses
*ASC=acidified sodium chlorite
*CPC=cetylpyridium chloride
*Most indicate pH control for Chlorine
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Water Chlorine 0.004% PAA 0.04% PAA 0.1%
Log
cfu
/sam
ple
Salmonella Typhimurium Recovered from Inoculated
Carcasses Treated with Varying Levels of Antimicrobials
Finishing Chiller Research Trial
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Water Chlorine 0.004% PAA 0.04% PAA 0.1%
Log
cfu
/sam
ple
Campylobacter jejuni Recovered from Inoculated
Carcasses Treated with Varying Levels of Antimicrobials
Finishing Chiller Research Trial
Estimated plant costs (running 280 bpm; 265K bpd; 1.3 Million bpw):
Initial equipment: $5K - $65K
Annual maintenance: up to $15K
Chemical cost (monthly): $15K - $30K
Chemical cost (yearly): $180K - $360K
Estimated Food Safety Cost
No bacteria gain at the picker (Neutral)
1 log reduction at OLR
Little to no chemical use in the primary chiller
Pre chill dip tank?
Post-chill dip tank, finishing chiller, or drench combined with an effective antimicrobial treatment to adequately reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter
Create a food safety team with key individuals from all phases of production and processing
Develop a biomapping program using microbial testing and data analysis to understand Salmonella and Campylobacter movement throughout the production continuum
Determine where food safety hazard are introduced
Share food safety policies and practices among all segments
Identify Food Safety Control Points throughout processing
Use a “multi-hurdle” approach to improve food safety
Validate antimicrobial efficacy at the step where it is used and overall bacteria reductions
Share food safety policies and practices among all segments
Recommended