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