Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and ruminant carcasses along the
Transcript of Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and ruminant carcasses along the
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634
Any enquiries related to this output should be addressed to [email protected]
Suggested citation: Barco L, Belluco S, Roccato A and Ricci A, 2014. Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig
and ruminant carcasses along the slaughterline, factors influencing the counts and relationship between visual faecal
contamination of carcasses and counts: a review. EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634, 111 pp.
Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications
© European Food Safety Authority, 2014
EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT
Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and ruminant
carcasses along the slaughterline, factors influencing the counts and
relationship between visual faecal contamination of carcasses and counts:
a review1
Lisa Barco, Simone Belluco, Anna Roccato and Antonia Ricci2
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Padova, Italy
ABSTRACT
A literature review was conducted covering the period 2000-2012 to gather information concerning the presence
and counts of E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae on carcasses of main livestock species during different stages of
the slaughterline (review question 1); risk factors that could explain the variability of the counts of the indicator
organisms (review question 2) and the relationship between the counts of indicator organisms and visual faecal
contamination on carcasses (review question 3). In total, 86 papers considering the main livestock species (cattle,
pigs, sheep and goats) with the exception of poultry, and providing pertinent data for the scopes of the search,
were retrieved. In relation to review question 1, the steps of the processing line where a decrease of indicator
bacteria was more evident were: sequential decontamination treatments such as pasteurization and hot water
washing applied before chilling for cattle; scalding and also according to some authors, pasteurization and
chilling for pigs, plus chilling and pasteurization for small ruminants. Concerning review question 2, most of the
retrieved studies investigated risk factors related to slaughtering process. Hot water washing and steam
pasteurization were clearly effective in reducing bacterial load on beef carcasses. Hot water treatments were
effective also for pig carcasses. The dressing technique and pasteurization treatment were described as factors
able to control bacterial contamination of small ruminant carcasses. In relation to review question 3, only studies
providing data about ruminants were available and the reported results confirmed that the presence of visible
faecal contamination led to higher bacterial loads on carcasses of dirty animals than those obtained from clean
animals and the application of additional hygienic measures can be effective in order to reduce bacterial load of
contaminated carcasses at the end of the processing line.
© Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, 2014
KEY WORDS
Escherichia coli, Enterobacteriaceae, counts, ruminant carcasses, pig carcasses, slaughterhouse, process hygiene
criteria
DISCLAIMER
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried
out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),
awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to
which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety
Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present
document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
1 Question No EFSA-Q-2014-00531. 2 Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank EFSA staff: Winy Messens and Pablo Romero Barrios for the support
provided to this external scientific report submitted to EFSA.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
SUMMARY
A project entitled “Usefulness ofin poultry” was awarded by EFPadova, Italy) with the purposEnterobacteriaceae as Process Hliterature search and an experimeThe present document is the rEnterobacteriaceae counts on ppoultry carcasses and the experimexternal scientific reports (Barco
The extensive literature reviewindicator bacteria, E. coli and Ecarcasses during different stageexplain the variability of the counbetween the counts of indicatoquestion 3).
A worldwide literature search,databases (PubMed and Web of scholar was also carried out.
The principles of “systematic redefinition of the review questionthe studies for inclusion or exsynthesising data collected fromconclusions.
A total of 86 papers satisfied thprocess and were used to collecanimal species were concerned,about swine carcasses and 21 pap
A high level of variability amonof the slaughterlines, was evidenthe area of carcass sampled, the streatments applied along the slauto conflicting conclusions amoninvestigating the same risk factor
Among the indicator bacteria usthe hygiene of the entire meat interchangeable indicators useEnterobacteriaceae and E. coligenerally used to assess enteric which can be easily detected andenvironment or coming from the
In the context of the review, thlead to the same conclusions.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
f Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae as ProcFSA to Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dellse to collect available data on the indicator oHygiene Indicators (PHI) for the main livestockental study, in this case in broiler slaughterhousereport on the extensive literature review on E
pig and ruminant carcasses. The extensive literamental study in broiler slaughterhouses are publi et al., 2014; Cibin et al., 2014).
w was conducted to gather information concernEnterobacteriaceae and their counts on beef, smaes in the slaughterline (review question 1); risnts of the indicator organisms (review question 2
or organisms and visual faecal contamination o
covering the period 2000-2012, was conducScience) were consulted; in addition web-search
eview methodology” were applied and includedns and the eligibility criteria, searching for reseaxclusion in the review, collecting data from tm included studies, presenting data, interpreting
he eligible criteria considered at the different stact data for the three review questions. As far a, 41 papers provided pertinent data about beef pers about small ruminants.
ng the different studies, due to different aspects anced. Some variables, like the sampling and analspecific step of the slaughterline investigated andughterline, render the available data barely compang studies describing counts at the same stage ofr.
sed, aerobic plate counts are frequently used as production process, whereas Enterobacteriacea
ed to specifically address the level of fa, the two indicator bacteria investigated in thecontamination in foodstuffs. These are classified
d used as markers of pathogenic zoonotic agents panimals.
e studies considering both E. coli and EnterobaHowever, in case that different results were o
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
2
cess Hygiene Criteria le Venezie (Legnaro, organisms E. coli or k species, based on a es, located in the EU. Escherichia coli and ature review covering ished as two separate
ning the presence of all ruminants and pig sk factors that could 2) and the relationship on carcasses (review
cted. Two electronic hing through Google-
d the following steps: arch studies, selecting the included studies,
results and drawing
ages of the screening as the different meat carcasses, 31 papers
and to the complexity lytical methods used,
d the decontamination arable and could lead f the slaughterline or
indicators to monitor ae or E. coli are two aecal contamination. e present review, are d as faecal indicators, present in processing
acteriaceae generally obtained for the two
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
indicators, it should be pointed explaining the final outcome.
REVIEW QUESTION 1. Presetheir counts on carcasses durin
Cattle
Ten eligible papers provided perto identify the steps of the beef scounts on the carcasses was the dstage. Data have been generalldecontamination treatments havechange of bacterial loads was dapplied to the carcasses.
One study described the decreeviscerated, whereas another stuacid, no effect in terms of E. colbefore evisceration was effectivean increase of microbial load incorrelated to these slaughter phconsidered as an effective strategstudies demonstrated that washinThe application of different sequor washing with acids in all rebacteria. Finally, at the chilling chilling had higher E. coli and Edrop of the E. coli counts was rEnterobacteriaceae counts. Likethe counts of carcasses at the pre
Pigs
Fourteen papers dealing with coustages in the slaughterhouse wheslaughterline that lead to a decrchallenging because data have bdifferent operations have been usbacterial counts strongly relies on
Regarding both E. coli and Enteduring scalding (nine studies), wreduction in bacterial counts. Thlevel. The efficiency of highPasteurization was identified acommercial abattoirs are neededpoint in particular regarding Enstudies (described in five differejustifying its use as decontaminamong the selected studies focuEnterobacteriaceae during chilli
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
out that also additional variables could equally
ence of the indicator organisms E. coli and Entng different stages in the slaughterline
rtinent data concerning this issue on beef carcasslaughterline that lead to a decrease or an increasedifficulty of finding studies that provide data befly collected at distant sampling points, and ine been used. Hence, it was hard to identify if tdue to a specific phase of the slaughterline or
ease of E. coli counts after carcasses were wudy showed that when this was combined with li counts reduction was observed. Decontaminatioe in reducing bacterial load (1 study). Eviscerationn one study, whereas in five other studies, changhases were not observed. Washing treatment afgy to reduce the E. coli load of carcasses in one ng at this step had no effect on E. coli and Enterouential decontamination treatments, such as hot etrieved studies (5) led to reductions in numbestep, conflicting data were collected. In two stu
Enterobacteriaceae counts than in the previous phreported and for another study, this step did no
ely, the possibility of reducing contamination at cvious steps.
unts of E. coli and/or Enterobacteriaceae on pig ere retrieved. As with cattle, the identification orease or an increase of indicator bacteria countbeen generally collected at distant sampling poisually performed. Hence, the identification of stagn authors’ conclusions.
erobacteriaceae, a decrease in microbial contamiwhich is generally recognized as an important ophe planning and managing of this operation, henh temperature-based stages was demonstrateas effective in three retrieved studies; howevd to confirm this. Evisceration was confirmed as nterobacteriaceae. The washing process was inent papers) and never led to significant decreasation treatment. Regarding chilling, there was n
using on the effects of chilling on E. coli; in coning was observed in three out of four studies. Ho
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
3
y have had a role in
terobacteriaceae and
ses. A main challenge e of indicator bacteria fore and after a single n between, different
the effect in terms of a specific treatment
washed before being spraying with lactic
on treatments applied n and trimming led to ges of bacterial loads fter evisceration was study, whereas three
obacteriaceae counts. water, pasteurization
ers of both indicator udies, carcasses after hases, in one study, a ot have any effect on chilling step relies on
carcasses at different of the steps in the pig s on the carcasses is ints, and in between, ges that can influence
ination was observed peration to achieve a ce, is critical at plant ed against E. coli. ver more studies in a key contamination
nvestigated in seven se in bacterial counts no general agreement ntrast, a reduction of owever, the ability to
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
assess chilling efficacy depends the possibility of reducing contaOther operations along the procein different studies with contrasti
Small ruminants
Six papers provided informationcarcasses at different stages in thstages of the slaughtering procesampled area varied consideraconclusions could only be drawn
An increasing level of contaminretrieved papers; in particular, thcounts of E. coli and Enterobacslaughtering process can have an
Along the slaughterline, the chilcan be reduced: two papers concreduce the counts; thus, chillinMoreover, two studies showed bacterial loads.
Finally, concerning the washingstudies, washing had no effect washing reduced the E. coli coun
REVIEW QUESTION 2. Riskindicator organisms
Cattle
According to the defined searchdealing with risk factors influenobtained. For papers providingcomparability of data was also cl
Season emerged as a risk factor wcounts on beef carcasses and in pseason (compared to wet season)
Indicator bacteria counts on caslaughtering process took placedesign of the plant, the throughpsome other cases differences areported without attributing thesindicator bacteria counts was wiin low-throughput plants, but slaughterhouses were significantthe bacterial counts of carcasse
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
on the study design and the location of samplinamination relies on the counts before the investessing line, such as polishing, scraping and singeiing results for both E. coli and Enterobacteriacea
n on counts of E. coli and/or Enterobacteriaceahe slaughterhouse. In five out of six papers, sam
ess distant to each other; this feature, coupled wably among studies make the comparison ran according to the authors’ observations.
nation along the slaughterline was recorded in he skinning and the evisceration steps contributecteriaceae. Furthermore, it seems clear that the n influence on counts.
lling step is the most effective point where miccluded that this phase seems to be the most effecng should be regarded as a control point alonthat carcass pasteurization was another import
g step, the results were not clear or unanimouin reducing the bacterial counts, while anothe
nts before the chilling step.
k factors that could explain the variability o
h process and the established eligibility criteria,ncing E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on data for review question 2, a level of variablear.
which could have a direct impact on indicator baparticular the lowest levels of contamination were) and coldest months.
arcasses showed different values according to . In some studies, specific aspects related to thput, or the surveillance system in place, were emong plants in terms of bacterial loads of case findings to specific reasons. The effect of pidely investigated. Lower prevalences/counts we
in only one study the differences betweent. Hence, different slaughterhouses could induce
es, but the data collected from the retrieved stu
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
4
ng points. Moreover, tigated chilling stage. ing were investigated
ae.
ae on small ruminant mples were at several with the fact that the ather difficult. Thus,
three out of the six ed mostly to the final different steps of the
crobial contamination ctive point in order to ng the slaughterline. tant step in reducing
us; according to two er study showed that
of the counts of the
a total of 29 papers n beef carcasses were bility hampering the
acteria prevalence and e observed during dry
the plant where the his point, such as the evaluated, whereas in arcasses were simply plants’ throughput on ere generally reported n the two types of e different effects on udies did not clarify
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
whether any particular aspect relcontext.
The effect of using physical and another aspect that was frequenteffective treatment to reduce E. tested was used both in high andindicator bacteria counts on carpasteurization was demonstratedcarcasses, but in this last case worsening of the organoleptic fea
The effect of washing with potabdifferent studies, and produced cthis treatment mainly depends on
The effect of chemical decontamperoxyacetic acid, nisin) was unceffectiveness in reducing bacterithe different chemicals tested, awhere the treatments were applie
The two studies addressing theextremely different treatments apossible to produce a definitivecarcasses.
Finally, only one study investigaof feed and water treatment or ancarcass swabs without evidencing
Pigs
Numerous risk factors were invetechnically feasible since few stuenvironments were very often noat farm level on carcass contampelleted five times a day followethan the other regimes examinedhandling nor batch size were idehad limited impact on carcass mi
Plant throughput and features obcontamination was not found to plants, Enterobacteriaceae wereweak points. However, some autcriteria, based on daily mean log
Several managerial factors thainvestigated and described in thefrequency of lairage disinfectionspraying live animals when exte
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
lated to different slaughterhouses could produce
chemical decontamination treatments on indicatotly investigated. Steam pasteurization was frequecoli and Enterobacteriaceae loads on beef carcad low-throughput plants, and all studies reportedrcasses due to such decontamination treatment. d as an effective way to improve microbiologthe improvement of microbiological quality w
atures.
ble water at environmental temperature was also tonflicting results. Some authors demonstrated tha
n the bacterial loads of carcasses to be treated.
mination treatments (e.g. washing-spraying with clear, since different studies described opposite rial loads on beef carcasses. These conflicting reas well as the procedures followed and the stepsed.
e effect of the chilling on bacterial load of cand therefore, their results cannot be comparede answer about the effect of the chilling on t
ated batch related risk factors, and in particular iny possible interactions on numbers of E. coli reg any correlation.
estigated in the eighteen selected papers, but comudies considered the same factors, and also in thisot comparable. Only one paper considered the infmination and observed that feeding/fasting regimed by a 24 h fast), resulted in lower E. coli countsd. Regarding animal management before slaughentified as risk factor. This suggested that the stricrobial quality.
bviously have an influence on bacterial counts, bube related to the throughput of the slaughterhous
e considered useful to provide indication of abattthors underline the ineffectiveness of EC-relatedE. coli value for carcasses.
at could influence microbial conditions of ce retrieved papers. The use of water during lairagn seemed to be protective against high E. coliernal temperature was considered by operators a
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
5
a main effect in this
or bacteria counts was ently described as an asses. The equipment d a clear reduction of
Similarly, hot water gical quality of beef
was associated with a
taken into account by at the effectiveness of
lactic acid, chlorine, results related to their sults could be due to s of the slaughterline
arcasses investigated d. Hence, it was not the bacterial load of
it evaluated the effect ecovered from hide or
mparisons were barely s case, the operational fluence of risk factors me (feeding the pigs s on the thoracic area
htering, neither rough ress condition applied
ut the level of carcass se. In low-throughput toir specific hygienic
d EU process hygiene
carcasses have been e cleaning and a high i counts. In contrast, as hot was correlated
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
with an increase in carcass cproportionally with the length offactors in relation to E. coli immersion, the disinfection of thbefore chilling. As regards the eacidified sodium chlorite waterapproved according to EU legidecontamination intervention to r
Focusing on both E. coli and Entemperature used, in one study. implementation of good manufacwas recognised as effective. Bofound to be effective in decreasinselected ones. Pasteurization procounts, justifying the possibilityagreement with the results of retreatment for reducing Enterobdomestic steam cleaning systemprocessing plants.
Small ruminants
Among the retrieved papers, 1Enterobacteriaceae counts on smdata was hampered by the variab
Among the factors investigated, studies investigating this factor during the warm season comparaccount by three studies as a poplants recorded lower prevalenslaughterhouses.
The application of treatments alindicator bacteria were investigatpasteurisation of carcasses aftesignificant reduction of the prevAnother step that can have an experimental chilling treatments bacterial load; however, a loss of
Finally, the dressing technique hIn fact, inverted carcass dressingremoval, was considered by sevcontamination.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
contamination. Moreover, microbial load on f processing time between killing and scalding. Icontamination were a scalding procedure usin
he splitting machine three times a day and changieffect of decontamination treatments, both hot wr solution (SANOVA) were effective, but sinislation, only the use of hot water could currereduce E. coli levels on slaughtered carcasses in t
terobacteriaceae, washing was considered effectHowever, this result was not confirmed in ano
cturing practices (GMP) during anal plugging at tth the trimming of contaminated sites and the cng E. coli counts on contaminated carcass sites asoduced significant decreases in both E. coli andy of using such a treatment in order to reduceview question 1. Other authors, after testing tbacteriaceae loads, suggested the possibility ms as a control measure in low and very lo
16 provided data on the risk factors that canmall ruminant carcasses. Also for this question, ility of the studies.
the season did not have a significant effect on thconcluded that there was no difference between
red to the cold season. The throughput of the abossible factor that could have an impact on cou
nce and counts of indicator bacteria compared
ong the slaughterline and the effect of the slaugted by eight papers. An effective treatment is repr
er dressing; several authors concluded that thisvalence and counts of E. coli and Enterobactereffect in reducing microbial load is the chillinwas effective in the rapid reduction of the carcas
f meat quality was frequently recorded.
had an effect on indicator bacteria counts on smalg, which minimizes the contact between hands anveral authors as the technique to be adopted in o
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
6
carcasses increased In contrast, protective ng steam instead of ing the carcass hooks
water and solution an nce the latter is not ently be an efficient the EU.
tive, regardless of the ther paper where the the evisceration stage cooling process were s well as on randomly d Enterobacteriaceae ce contamination, in the efficacy of steam of using household
ow throughput meat
n affect E. coli and the comparability of
he counts: in fact, two n counts on carcasses battoir was taken into unts: low throughput
d to high throughput
ghtering technique on resented by hot water s treatment led to a riaceae on carcasses. ng phase. The use of s temperature and the
ll ruminant carcasses. nd carcass during pelt order to limit carcass
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
REVIEW QUESTION 3. The and visual faecal contamination
Cattle
Five papers provided pertinent carcasses and their E. coli and En
Clean cattle produced carcasses dirty animals. However, the ideneffective measures either on anican lead to a comparable contabacterial contamination level. Hslaughter visual evaluation of corrective measures for the initbacterial load at the end of the sla
Pigs
The literature research did not visual faecal contamination on ppossible to provide any informati
Small ruminants
Three papers investigated the reland/or Enterobacteriaceae count
1) the distinction between cleanimprove the hygiene of small rum
2) additional hygiene measures send of the day; reducing line spethe inverted dressing procedure;
3) modifications of the pelt remoof the slaughterman or the fleece
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
potential relationship between the counts of in on carcasses
information on the relationship between faecnterobacteriaceae counts.
with better microbiological quality than those ntification of the visibly contaminated animals aimals before entering the slaughterhouse and aloamination level to clean animals or in some caHence, the retrieved studies support the concthe level of animal contamination and the atially dirty carcasses can be an effective appraughterline.
provide any papers dealing with the possible ig carcasses and counts of indicator bacteria: theion about this topic in this species.
lationship between faecal contamination of carcats. The available data suggested that:
n and dirty carcasses could be an important startminant carcasses;
should be applied for high-risk (dirty) animals (i.eeed; thorough cleaning of operator hands, arms agreater spacing between carcasses);
oval methods reducing the contact between the ce can significantly improve gross visible contamin
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
7
indicator organisms
cal contamination of
derived from visibly and the application of ong the slaughterline
ases, even to a lower clusion that the pre-application of proper oach to reduce their
relationship between refore it has not been
asses and their E. coli
ting point in order to
e.: slaughtering at the and aprons; the use of
carcass and the hands nation.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ......................................Summary ....................................Table of contents ........................Background as provided by EFSASpecific objectives as provided bIntroduction and Objectives .......1. Materials and Methods ......
1.1. Defining the review q1.2. Searching for research
1.2.1. Search A: electroni1.2.2. Search B: Web-sea
1.3. Selecting studies for in1.3.1. Screening of the tit1.3.2. Examining full-text
1.4. Collecting data from t2. Results ...............................
2.1. Literature search and r2.2. Discussion of relevant2.3. Bovine .......................
2.3.1. General information2.3.2. General information2.3.3. Review question 1 2.3.4. Review question 2 2.3.5. Review question 3
2.4. Pigs ............................2.4.1. General information2.4.2. General information2.4.3. Review question 1 2.4.4. Review question 2
2.5. Small ruminants ........2.5.1. General information2.5.2. General information2.5.3. Review question 1 2.5.4. Review question 2 2.5.5. Review question 3
References ..................................Appendices .................................Appendix A. Relevance ScreAppendix B. Data CollectionAppendix C. General charactAppendix D. Counts at differAppendix E. Risk factors: deAppendix F. Faecal contaminAbbreviations .............................
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
..............................................................................A ...........................................................................
by EFSA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
questions and developing the eligibility criteria forh studies.................................................................ic databases ...........................................................arching ...................................................................nclusion or exclusion in the review ......................les and abstracts for the relevance to the study qut for the eligibility of studies ................................the included studies and creating evidence tables ...............................................................................relevance screening ..............................................t studies ...............................................................................................................................................n about the considered papers ..............................n about the slaughtering process ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................n about the considered papers ..............................n about the slaughtering process ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................n about the considered papers ..............................n about the slaughtering process ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
eening ....................................................................n .............................................................................teristics of the selected papers ..............................rent stages along the slaughterline ........................etailed results .........................................................nation ..................................................................................................................................................
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
8
................................ 1
................................ 2
................................ 8
................................ 9
................................ 9
.............................. 10
.............................. 13 r studies ................. 13 .............................. 14 .............................. 14 .............................. 15 .............................. 15
uestions .................. 16 .............................. 16 .............................. 17 .............................. 18 .............................. 18 .............................. 18 .............................. 20 .............................. 20 .............................. 20 .............................. 22 .............................. 27 .............................. 33 .............................. 35 .............................. 35 .............................. 36 .............................. 36 .............................. 42 .............................. 48 .............................. 48 .............................. 49 .............................. 49 .............................. 52 .............................. 57 .............................. 63 .............................. 69 .............................. 69 .............................. 72 .............................. 77 .............................. 82 .............................. 93 ............................ 109 ............................ 111
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY
Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 offor the organization of official coAmong others, inspection tasksinformation, ante-mortem inspec
EFSA received a mandate froinspection, requesting a series ofand rank the most relevant meatinspection system, to propose aloutline a generic framework forfor the prioritized hazards that ar
Several species were to be concovered by inspection of swine mwere published in 2011 and 20bovines/cattle (EFSA-Q-2011-00Q-2011-00365) and solipeds (EF
Current post-mortem visual inspas the main concerns for food smortem inspection can be an indi
The BIOHAZ Panel proposed rethe establishment of targets for tfood business operators own hygA potential approach for the latte
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES AS PROVI
The purpose of the Service Coorganisms E. coli or Enterobactspecies. Based on this literature sEU should be designed and carriultimate aim is to support the puslaughterhouses.
According to the Technical Specthe tasks to be covered are as foll
• To carry out literature presence of the indicatcarcasses during differenvariability of the counts the counts of indicator or
• To perform an experimecollect relevant data on broiler carcasses after chvariability of these coucarcasses with and witho
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
Y EFSA
f the European Parliament and of the Council layontrols on products of animal origin intended for s within this Regulation include checks and antion and post-mortem inspection.
m the Commission in May 2010 on the mof scientific opinions. The main scope of these opit safety risks, to assess the strengths/weaknesseslternative approaches for addressing current mear inspection, prevention and control (including rre not (sufficiently) covered by the current system
nsidered. The scientific opinions on the public meat (EFSA-Q-2010-00886) and poultry meat (E012. Four more opinions concerning the inspe0365), farmed game (EFSA-Q-2011-00366), smaFSA-Q-2011-00367) were published in 2013.
ection is not able to detect any of the public heasafety. Visual detection of faecal contamination icator of slaughter hygiene.
ecommending that the current visual inspection pthe main biological hazards on the carcass and b
giene management through the use of Process Hyger is measuring E. coli or Enterobacteriaceae on c
IDED BY EFSA
ntract is to provide EFSA with the available dteriaceae as Process Hygiene Indicators (PHI) fosearch, an experimental study in broiler slaughteried out to collect relevant data on these two indiurpose of potential PHC for evaluating process c
cifications of the Service Contract CFT/EFSA/BIOlows:
searches for data related to the main livestocor organisms E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae nt stages in the slaughterline; (ii) information thof the indicator organisms and (iii) the potential rganisms and visual faecal contamination on carc
ental study in broiler slaughterhouses located in tthe variability of the counts of E. coli and En
hilling; (ii) collect information that could lead tounts and (iii) compare E. coli and Enterobacout visual faecal contamination.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
9
ys down specific rules human consumption.
nalysis of food chain
odernization of meat inions was to identify s of the current meat at-safety risks, and to related methodology)
m.
health hazards to be EFSA-Q-2010-01469) ection of meat from all ruminants (EFSA-
alth hazards identified of carcasses at post-
process is replaced by by verification of the giene Criteria (PHC). carcasses.
data on the indicator or the main livestock rhouses located in the icator organisms. The control in EU broiler
OHAZ/2012/03-CT1,
ck species on (i) the and their counts on
hat could explain the relationship between
casses;
the EU in order to (i) nterobacteriaceae on o interpretation of the cteriaceae counts on
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The present document is the rEnterobacteriaceae on carcassespig and ruminant carcasses and tseparate external scientific report
This contract was awarded by EF
Contractor: Istituto Zooprofilattic
Contract title: Usefulness of Escpoultry
Contract number: CFT/EFSA/BI
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIV
Routine examination of meat salow level, inconsistent distributiomethods (Schaffner and Smith, 2on foods of animal origin, they 2010).
Ideally, an indicator bacterium sh
– rapidly detectable and ea
– strictly associated with tcomparable growth rates
However, controversy still remaican be indicative of the presencrecognition that indicator bacteridocumented (EFSA, 2012).
Several indicators can be useful colony count (ACC) is commonlEnterobacteriaceae and E. coli a2008). Psychrotrophic microorgindicators in products that are stoalteration of these products (Gon
Enterobacteriaceae are definedcatalase-positive and nitrate redufaeces, but also many non-faecalas Gram-negative bacilli fermenseveral bacteria, such as E. coli(Schaffner and Smith, 2004). Wito faecal contamination of foods(Smooth and Pierson, 1997). Ecounts, which are commonly usecontamination (Ghafir et al., 200
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
report on the literature search for available ds of pigs and ruminants. The extensive literature rthe experimental study in broiler slaughterhousests (Barco et al., 2014; Cibin et al., 2014).
FSA to:
co Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Padova,
cherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae as Process
OHAZ/2012/03
VES
amples for potential pathogens is impractical maon in meat samples and in some cases the need fo2004). Since indicator bacteria are found at mucare frequently used as indicators of pathogen pre
hould meet certain criteria (Jay et al., 2005); in pa
asily differentiable from other microorganisms pre
the pathogen whose presence it should indicate (s).
ins over the degree to which the presence/amountce of pathogens (Schaffner and Smith, 2004). ia are an effective tool in process hygiene assess
to evaluate hygiene levels during meat slaughterly used to evaluate the hygiene of the entire meaare more frequently used to assess enteric contamganisms, such as Pseudomonas, have great impored at low temperatures since they are responsib
nzalez-Miret et al., 2006).
d as Gram-negative, glucose fermenting, oxidaucing organisms. This family includes many bacl organisms (Schaffner and Smith, 2004). Faecal nting lactose within 48 h at 44.5 to 45.5 °C and, Enterobacter spp., Klebsiella pneumoniae and ithin this group, E. coli is the most relevant micro; thereby, it is the most widely used indicator of . coli counts are usually highly correlated withed in slaughterhouses as indicators of faecal as w
08). The proliferation of Enterobacteriaceae on liv
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
10
data on E. coli and review covering beef, are published as two
Italy
s Hygiene Criteria in
ainly because of their or laborious analytical ch higher prevalences esence (Matias et al.,
articular, it should be:
esent in the samples;
(e.g. correlate counts,
t of indicator bacteria On the contrary, the sment has been well-
ring process. Aerobic at production process.
mination (Ghafir et al., portance as spoilage ble for the superficial
ase negative, usually cteria associated with coliforms are defined d this group includes
d Citrobacter fruendii oorganism in relation faecal contamination
h Enterobacteriaceae well as environmental vestock carcasses has
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
been routinely linked to inadeqconditions (Whyte et al., 2003).
In the European Union, Regulamicrobiological criteria for foodEnterobacteriaceae as process hy
These regulations introduced twoCriteria. An EU Food Safety Crmarket; if the criterion is not mProcess Hygiene Criterion (PHCCritical Control Points (HACCPit is applicable at the process levactions are required; if the critersummarizes the EC-related PHC
Table 1: Process Hygiene CriterNo 2073/2005 and Regulation (E
Food category Microor
Carcasses of cattle, sheep, goats and horses
Aerobic col
Enterobac
Salmo
Carcasses of pigs
Aerobic col
Enterobac
Salmo
3 Commission Regulation (EC) No 20
22.12.2005, p. 1-26. 4 Commission Regulation (EC) No
microbiological criteria for foodstuff
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
quate or unhygienic processing or inappropriate
ation (EC) No 2073/20053 and Regulation (ECd-stuffs has established the monitoring of Aerobygiene criteria for carcasses of cattle, sheep, goats
o different types of criteria: Food Safety Criteria riteria (FSC) defines the acceptability of food pr
met, the product/batch has to be withdrawn fromC) is an indicator of the acceptable functioning of
) system-based manufacturing handling and distrvel. It sets an indicative contamination value ab
rion is not met, the process has to be reviewed anto be applied in red meat slaughterhouses.
ria applied in red meat slaughterhouses as definedEC) No 1441/2007
rganism Limits
lony count
<3.5 log CFU/cm2: acceptable 3.5-5.0 log CFU/cm2: marginal
> 5.0 log CFU/cm2: unacceptable
cteriaceae
<1.5 log CFU/ cm2: acceptable 1.5-2.5 log CFU/ cm2: marginal
> 2.5 log CFU/ cm2 : unacceptable
onella up to 2 out of 50 samples can be positiv
lony count
< 4.0 log CFU/cm2: acceptable 4.0-5.0 log CFU/cm2: marginal
> 5.0 log CFU/ cm2: unacceptable
cteriaceae
< 2.0 log CFU/ cm2: acceptable 2.0-3.0 log CFU/ cm2: marginal
> 3.0 log CFU/ cm2: unacceptable
onella up to 5 out of 50 samples can be positiv
073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria
1441/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Regulation ffs. OJ L 322, 7.12.2007, p. 12–29.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
11
e handling or storage
C) No 1441/20074 on bic colony count and s, horses and pigs.
and Process Hygiene roducts placed on the
m the market. An EU f Hazard Analysis and ribution processes, so ove which corrective nd improved. Table 1
d by Regulation (EC)
Stage where the criterion applies
Carcasses after dressing but
before chilling
ve
ve
a for foodstuffs. OJ L 338,
(EC) No 2073/2005 on
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
In Europe, Regulation (EC) No animal origin, provides that foodwater to remove surface contamibeen approved in accordance wiSafety Authority (EFSA) adoptelactic acid for the removal oftrimmings. It was concluded thatand applied either by spraying ovariable, the microbial reductionunlikely that such treatments wou
This opinion is the scientific basbusiness operators are allowed tdomestic bovine carcasses or compliance with the conditions sinto good hygienic practices and
A literature search considering conducted to obtain data on:
• the presence of the indicarcasses during differen
• factors that could lead todesign of the slaughtetechniques, and any othe
• any potential relationshcontamination on carcass
The present report specifically c(cattle, pigs, small ruminants). Th
5 Commission Regulation (EC) No 8
origin. OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55–26 Commission Regulation (EC) No
microbiological surface contaminati
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
853/20045, which lays down specific rules on thd business operators should not use any substanination from products of animal origin, unless useith that Regulation. In this context, on July 201
ed a Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of the sf microbial surface contamination from beef t the use of lactic acid (from 2 to 5 %, at temperor misting) for decontamination is not a safety cns achieved by treatment of beef are generally siguld contribute to the development of microbial re
sis for the Regulation (EC) No. 101/20136, whichto use lactic acid to reduce microbiological surfahalf carcasses or quarters at the level of th
set out in the Annex of the Regulation and whenHACCP-based systems.
all the main livestock species (poultry, pigs
cator organisms E. coli and Enterobacteriaceaent stages in the slaughterline;
o the variability of the counts of these indicator oerhouses, the throughput of the slaughterho
er batch specific information;
hip between the counts of indicator organismses.
considers data related to the main livestock specihe review considered studies performed worldwid
853/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene 205. o 101/2013 of 4 February 2013 concerning the use oon on bovine carcasses. OJ L 34, 5.2.2013, p. 1-3.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
12
he hygiene of food of ce other than potable e of the substance has 1 the European Food safety and efficacy of
carcasses, cuts and ratures of up to 55 °C concern and although gnificant and that it is esistance.
h lays down that food ace contamination on he slaughterhouse in n the use is integrated
and ruminants) was
e and their counts on
rganisms, such as the ouse, the processing
ms and visual faecal
ies other than poultry de.
rules for food of animal
of lactic acid to reduce
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
1. MATERIALS AND METHOD
The principles of “systematic literature search. This involved th
- defining the review ques
- searching for research stu
- selecting studies for inclu
- collecting data from the i
- assessing validity and qu
- synthesising data from in
- presenting data and resul
- interpreting results and d
1.1. Defining the review qu
The first step of the literature revorder to identify the key element
Review question 1 is relateEnterobacteriaceae, and their coelements of the question are:
• the population of interest
• the outcome, representeEnterobacteriaceae) on c
• the setting, represented b
Review question 2 is related to tterms of amount of the indicator
• the population of interest
• the intervention strategrepresented by structurahandling of animals (ewithdrawal period before
• the scenarios against whbatches slaughtered incharacteristics, animals h
• the outcome, representeEnterobacteriaceae) on c
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
DS
review methodology” (EFSA, 2010) were aphe following steps:
tions and developing the eligibility criteria for stu
udies;
usion or exclusion in the review;
included studies and creating evidence tables;
uality of included studies;
ncluded studies;
lts;
drawing conclusions.
uestions and developing the eligibility criteria f
view process consisted of the analysis of the thres and to clarify their scopes.
ed to the presence of the indicator organounts on carcasses during different stages of the s
t, represented by the main livestock species (rumi
d by the presence and amounts of indicator orgcarcasses;
by the slaughterline.
the identification of the factors which could explbacteria on carcasses. The key elements of the qu
t, represented by the main livestock species (rumi
gies/scenarios that could influence the countal/managerial characteristics of the slaughterhoe.g. transport time and lairaging before slauge slaughter);
hich the interventions/strategies/scenarios have n different ways, in slaughterhouses with handled in different ways before being slaughtere
d by the presence and amounts of indicator orgcarcasses;
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
13
plied to the present
udies;
for studies
e review questions in
nisms, E. coli and laughterline. The key
inants and pigs);
ganisms (E. coli and
lain the differences in uestion are:
inants and pigs);
ts, which could be ouse or pre-slaughter ghter, diet and feed
been compared (e.g. different processing d);
ganisms (E. coli and
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
• the setting, represented b
Review question 3 is related to and visual faecal contamination o
• the population of interest
• the outcome, representeEnterobacteriaceae) on c
• the setting, represented b
The three key elements (populaunchanged also for review questaspects, such as variables influoutcome of interest and other fashared these main key elementsliterature search.
1.2. Searching for research
Electronic databases (search A) a
1.2.1. Search A: electronic d
For search A, the search termsquestions related to “outcome”, “
Terms related to the “populationas possible and then to select thethe screening process.
Regarding the “intervention strawere included in the search strselected in order to include as mconsidered the most important on
More specifically, the search strin
(E. coli) OR (Coliform*) OR ((Microbi*) AND (Slaughter) OR(Chill*) OR (Eviscerat*) OR (DeOR (Pre harvest) OR (Pre-harves
Before identifying the definitivetested, but they were not includein the retrieval of any additional
After having adjusted the search bibliographic databases: PubMed
The search covered the period Ja
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
by the slaughterline.
the potential relationship between the counts ofof carcasses. The key elements of the question are
t, represented by the main livestock species (rumi
d by the presence and amounts of indicator orgcarcasses in relation to their visual faecal contami
by the slaughterline.
ation, outcome and setting) identified for reviewtions 2 and 3, although for these last two reviewuencing the outcome of interest and the relat
actors, have to be considered respectively. Since s it was decided to combine the three review q
h studies
and Web-searching (search B) were used to retrie
databases
s used in relation to the specific key elements “setting” and “intervention strategy /scenarios”, a
n” were omitted from the search string in order toe relevant ones in terms of species of interest in t
ategy /scenarios” related to review question 2, noring. Conversely, for “outcome” and “setting” many synonymous terms as possible, since thesnes to retrieve relevant papers.
ng used was:
(Escheric*) OR (Enterobacter*) OR (Indicator)R (Slaughterhouse*) OR (Abattoir*) OR (Carcasefeathering) OR (De-feathering) OR (Post-harvest) OR (Holding pen*)
e search terms some other terms, such as “coli”d in the final search string since it was verified threlevant papers.
string for minor differences in syntax, it was appd and Web of Science.
anuary 2000 - December 2012 (01.01.2000 - 24.06
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
14
f indicator organisms e:
inants and pigs);
ganisms (E. coli and ination;
w question 1 remain w questions additional tionship between the the review questions
questions in a unique
eve pertinent studies.
of the three review are listed in Table 2.
o get as many papers the following steps of
ot all plausible terms the terms used were e two elements were
) OR (Hygien*) OR *) OR (HACCP) OR st) OR (Post harvest)
” and “process” were hat they did not result
plied to two electronic
6.2013).
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The bibliographic software RefWfrom the electronic databases.
Table 2: List of the terms includthree review questions
Outcome SettingE. coli SlaughEscheric* SlaughEnterobacter* AbattoColiform* CarcasIndicator Hygien* Microbi*
1.2.2. Search B: Web-search
Search B was conducted by using
Since Google Scholar looks foconducted by using a few veEnterobacteriaceae) and the “spertinent articles the terms O157
The search string used was:
((Escherichia coli) OR Enterobac
The titles of the first 500 returns
1.3. Selecting studies for in
For the purpose of the present rproviding data on the presence/cspecies of interest were considere
Moreover, the relevant studies w
– referring to slaughteringto the conclusion of the c
– providing data on the car
For both searches A and B, papeGeographical restrictions were no
The screening process was indep
In the following paragraphs the elevel are described. Moreover, in
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
fWorks was used to collect and manage the ref
ded in the search string in relation to the specific
g Intervention strategy /scenariohter HACCP hterhouse* Chill* oir* Eviscerat* s* Defeathering
De-feathering Post-harvest Post harvest Pre harvest Pre-harvest Holding pen*
hing
g the Internet search engine Google Scholar.
r the search terms in the entire document theery specific terms, related to the “outcome” setting” (slaughterhouse). Moreover, to limit t and resistance were excluded from results.
cteriaceae) AND (slaughterhouse)) NOT (O157) N
were assessed in order to identify the pertinent do
nclusion or exclusion in the review
eview, primary research studies performed at thcounts of E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae on carcaed.
were defined as the ones:
process from the point at which animals enter tchilling phase;
rcasses collected at the slaughterhouses.
ers/documents in English, French, Spanish or Italot imposed.
pendently carried out by three veterinarians.
eligibility criteria used to select relevant papers atn Appendix A the checklists developed to identi
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
15
ferences downloaded
c key elements of the
os
e search process was (Escherichia coli –
the retrieval of non-
NOT (resistance).
ocuments.
he slaughterhouse and asses of the livestock
the slaughterhouse up
lian were considered.
t abstract and full text ify relevant papers at
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
the different steps of the screeniby the three reviewers involved i
1.3.1. Screening of the titles
For Search A, the first level asspapers. For Search B, the first lewas pertinent, also abstract (when
The first level assessment consconsidered in these steps were di
For the first step, it was definewritten in languages different fronot necessary to proceed with the
This first step consisted of selecti
1) were written in Engl
2) described data provid
3) provided data related
4) provided data on Enterobacteriaceae;
5) did not have the inve
The second step consisted of sele
1) provided data on minfluencing the load
2) provided data on csecondary process w
When the abstract screening dicriterion, the reviewers provideexclusion of the paper.
Each retrieved paper was individcase of disagreements between thto the next step of the screening p
1.3.2. Examining full-text fo
All retrieved articles (both from submitted to the second level ass
At this stage some eligibility crincluded since, in some cases, thand a final decision could not be
In particular, the following elassessment. Relevant papers:
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ing process are reported. These checklists were n the screening process using a subset of 50 retrie
and abstracts for the relevance to the study qu
sessment was conducted considering the title anevel assessment was conducted considering title n available), or in the case of evaluating directly,
sisted of two steps. Papers that did not fulfil iscarded and considered ineligible.
ed that if the two initial criteria were not fulfilom English, French, Spanish or Italian, or were re screening and the article was considered ineligib
ing papers that:
ish, French, Spanish or Italian;
ded by primary research (review articles were exc
d to the main livestock species;
the presence and counts of generic Esch
estigation of antimicrobial resistance as their main
ecting papers that:
more than one stage of the slaughterline or ds of indicator bacteria on carcasses;
arcasses (papers considering parts of the carcawere excluded);
id not identify precise information concerning ed an inconclusive reply (e.g. unknown), that
dually evaluated by two independent reviewers (pahem, the paper was discussed to reach a consensprocess.
or the eligibility of studies
searches A and B) related to livestock species othessment, conducted examining the full-text of the
riteria already taken into account in the first lehe abstract analysis did not allow precise informmade.
ligibility criteria were used to select the pap
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
16
validated beforehand eved papers.
uestions
nd the abstract of the and, if the document the full text.
one or more criteria
led (the papers were review papers) it was ble.
cluded);
herichia coli and/or
n purpose.
data on risk factors
sses obtained after a
a specific eligibility did not lead to the
arallel review). In the sus before proceeding
her than poultry were e papers.
evel assessment were mation to be obtained,
pers at second level
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
1) described data provid
2) considered main live
3) provided data obtain
4) provided data on the
5) did not provide data had been artificially
6) reported E. coli anslaughterline, or dEnterobacteriaceae, and E. coli and/or En
Moreover, at this stage, further study, at which stage of the slauwhich type of risk factor was invthese data was also useful to dpapers (Appendix B).
1.4. Collecting data from th
Two standardized forms were deB).
The first form was aimed at gastudies. It included informationproceeding), the aim of the stu(observational or experimentalspecifications on the sampling mthe carcass, significance and powcollecting pertinent analytical daspecies considered, the indicator counts of indicator bacteria at easteps of the slaughterline where tfactors on the counts of the indicand the counts.
Data related to multiple slaughtepresenting different scenarios we
Data were extracted from each pmethod). In cases where inconsithe forms were observed, the appropriate, they modified data in
In order to avoid double countinfor author names, geographic areduplicates were discarded.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ded by primary research (review articles were exc
estock species (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs);
ed from carcasses;
presence and counts of E. coli and/or Enterobact
about counts of E. coli and/or Enterobacteriaceacontaminated with these indicator bacteria;
nd/or Enterobacteriaceae counts at more thandescribed factors influencing the counts or considered the relationship between visual
nterobacteriaceae counts.
data (e.g. the country where the study was donughterline samples were collected, the procedure vestigated) were gathered from the screened pape
develop forms for the collection of pertinent da
he included studies and creating evidence table
esigned to extract pertinent data from the select
athering general information about the materialsn on the type of reference (e.g. article, technudy, where and when the study was conducted), and the number of plants involved in th
method and sample size (number of samples collecwer of the sample size) were collected. The seconata for the scope of the review. It included inform
bacteria investigated, the unit of enumeration, daach step of the slaughterline. Finally, it includedthe counts decreased or increased, or the effect ofcator bacteria or the relationship between visual
erhouses or data from different visits at the samere considered separately.
aper by one reviewer and then verified by a seconstencies between the data reported in the paper areviewers again verified the paper, but togethn the form accordingly.
ng of the studies published more than once, the pea where the study was conducted, sample size an
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
17
cluded);
teriaceae;
ae from carcasses that
n one stage of the of E. coli and/or faecal contamination
ne, the setting of the used to get samples,
ers. The collection of ata from the relevant
es
ted papers (Appendix
s and methods of the nical report, meeting d, the type of study he study. Moreover, cted, sampled area on nd form was aimed at mation concerning the ata on prevalence and d an evaluation of the f the investigated risk faecal contamination
me slaughterhouses or
nd person (sequential and those included in her this time, and if
apers were compared nd data reported. The
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The extraction forms were used collected data. The managementdone through the web-based softw
2. RESULTS
2.1. Literature search and
Figure 1 shows the flow chart PubMed and 5345 papers from Wthe screening since they were revFrench, Spanish or Italian. Goodocuments out of the first 500 reremained.
Of the 5500 retrieved papers, 46(thus 263 remaining) of the firstmore eligibility criteria considere
Of the 263 papers that passed livestock species different from p
After having examined the fulassessment because one or morepapers were selected since theyassessed in detail in order to colle
Two out of the 88 selected papesituation that was hardly comparnot possible to get the full-text pa
As a result, 86 papers moved fodata related to bovine slaughterruminant slaughterhouses.
2.2. Discussion of relevant
The studies described in the retroverall on the choice of effect simean with standard deviations. Mthe sum of counts recovered fromwere based on cm2 or 100 cm2 or
Authors’ conclusions about signibased on p-values. However, oftlacking. It's known that the p-valstatistically testing hypotheses (H
For these reasons studies werejudgement about significance oknowledge about all relevant info
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
to minimise the transcription errors and to obtat of references, the screening and the data extraware DistillerSR (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Can
relevance screening
of the screening processes. Search A provideWeb of Science. A total of 578 papers were excview papers and/or were written in languages diogle Scholar search (search B) resulted in 73 eturns. After having eliminated the duplicates, a
646 were excluded at step 1 (thus 854 remainint level relevance screening assessment since theyed at that level.
both steps of the first level assessment 145 repoultry.
ll-text, 57 out of 145 papers were excluded e eligibility criteria were not fulfilled and 88 my provided appropriate data for the scope of tect pertinent data.
ers were eliminated since in one case the study rable with the European situation, whereas in thaper.
orward for data extraction; in particular 41 paperhouses, 31 papers to swine slaughterhouses and
studies
rieved papers differ notably in study design, nuizes. Effect sizes used were prevalence, mean wMoreover the unit of enumeration varied from lm different sampling sites or also from different r on the total area sampled.
ificance of results, in particular in the case of riskten, important data to interpret the quality of statlue alone is an unobjective and inadequate measu
Hubbard and Lindsay, 2008).
e mainly compared qualitatively (increase or df results on authors conclusions. It has been aormation, also if not reported, could support their
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
18
ain a record of all the action processes were nada).
ed 2148 papers from cluded before starting ifferent from English, potentially pertinent
a total of 5500 papers
ng) and 591 at step 2 y did not fulfil one or
eported data on main
at the second level main livestock-related the review and were
described a hygienic he second case it was
rs provided pertinent d 21 papers to small
umber of samples but ith standard errors or logCFU, CFU, log of carcasses and counts
k factors, were mainly tistical evaluation are ure of evidence when
decrease) basing the assumed that authors r conclusion.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
In any case, all the pertinent datand are available for further evalu
Figure 1: Flow-chart summarextraction process
The number of retrieved papers some papers provided data about
Search A - electronic database
N
N° N°
S
N° of p
Total number of papers obtain- PubMed: 2148
- Web of Science: 53(578 excluded: reviews and planguages different from EN, FR, S
N°
Bovine
41
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ta extracted from the selected studies are availabuations.
rizing the results of the literature search – the sc
(86) was lower than the sum of the papers of tht more than one species.
es Search B – web se
Google Scho
N° of papers after having removed the duplicates: 5500
Screening of the first 500
Total number of docum
First level screening according to eligibility criteria
of papers that passed the 1° step: 854 of papers that passed the 2° step: 263
(145 main livestock species)
Second level screening according to eligibility criteria for papers
concerning main livestock species
Data extraction
papers that passed the second level: 88
ed by:
345 papers written in SP, IT)
of papers from which data were extracted: 86
Swine
31
Small Ruminants
21
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
19
ble in the appendices
creening and the data
he three species since
earching olar
0 returns (title)
ments selected: 73
s
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
2.3. Bovine
2.3.1. General information a
Among the retrieved papers relathe three review questions.
Fifteen papers corresponded to outside Europe. All papers descresults obtained from an experim
Twenty papers provided data oconsidered both the indicator bac
Seven papers provided informaquestion 2, three papers dealt wreview question 3.
The most common sampling metand meat excision was used in thlog cfu/cm2. The sampling site oanalytical method used to culturplating system.
More details concerning the gen(Appendix C).
2.3.2. General information a
In beef slaughterhouses, the animwater, but in most cases are notdriven from the lairage to the splace. Moreover, along the slauggraph below (Figure 2), the treatmslaughterline where they are apdescribed.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
about the considered papers
ated to bovine slaughterhouses, 41 papers provid
studies conducted in Europe, while the othercribed observational studies with the exception
mental design.
on E. coli, thirteen papers on Enterobacteriacecteria.
ation about review question 1, twenty-six papewith both review question 1 and 2 and five pape
thod was swabbing (36 papers), skin excision wahe last three papers. The unit of enumeration moston carcasses varied greatly among the retrieved sre the indicator organisms, which was most com
neral information about the retrieved papers are
about the slaughtering process
mals are received and kept in lairage facilities. Tt fed unless they are kept more than one day. Tslaughtering area, where the activities summarizghterline, different decontamination treatments cments described in the retrieved papers are listedpplied is also specified, in order to clarify th
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
20
ded pertinent data for
r 26 were conducted of seven presenting
eae and eight papers
ers addressed review ers provided data for
as used in three cases t commonly used was studies as well as the mmonly the Petrifilm
available in Table 6
The animals are given Then the animals are zed in Figure 2 take
can be applied. In the , while the step in the
he specific situations
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Figure 2: Flow-chart summardecontamination treatments desc
Since it has been demonstrated tto reduce the presence of microo(Ruby et al., 2007), in modern washes, organic acids washes pasteurization, can be applied at
holding
stunning
sticking and bleeding
hist
hide removal
opening carcass
evisceration
hova
splitting and cutting
chilling
wwwwwst
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
izing the activities carried out along the beeribed in the retrieved papers are also reported.
that the application of decontamination treatmenorganisms, especially when multiple approaches slaughterhouses different decontamination treatm(only lactic acid in EU slaughter houses), stedifferent steps of the slaughterline.
igh pressure water washing team vacuum
water washing lactic acid washing/spraying acetic acid washing steam vacuum
ot water washing acuum
washing with hot water washing with high pressure water washing with ambient temperature water washing with lactic acid washing with acetic acid steam pasteurization team vacuum
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
21
ef slaughterline. The
nts has great potential are sequentially used ments, such as water eam vacuuming and
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The retrieved studies described technologies. Hence, the data recannot be directly compared. Thone of the variables that shouldeffect of each step of the slaughte
Other variables, such as the samcarcass further hamper the compa
2.3.3. Review question 1
As regards the presence and amdifferent stages of the slaughterlon E. coli, three papers on Enterobtained through observational st
The main challenge in identifyinindicator bacteria counts on the cand after a single stage. Data havdifferent decontamination treatmthe single stages in a change in cnecessary to draw conclusions aamong studies.
In order to identify the steps obacterial loads, as reported in litetwo sampling points were consid
Gill et al. (2003) examined the trplant in Canada. These authors from less than 15 out of the 25 sbacterial load after pre-evisceratithe numbers recovered after hvacuum/hot water cleaning andreduced by the washing of the caspraying with lactic acid led to ahours E. coli counts increased removal and trimming had only tand steam pasteurization of evisFinally, after chilling, the numbapplying the decontamination trgrowth of injured bacterial cells r
Another study conducted in CanE. coli from carcasses after hicontamination was due to the de1.5 % sodium hydroxide at 55 carcasses were washed, a reductevisceration and trimming operaby spraying carcasses with lactiwere recovered from the sampled
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
the application of different decontamination treaeported in the different studies at the same stepshe effect of decontamination treatments applied d be taken into consideration before drawing cerline on the bacterial loads of carcasses.
mpling methods, the unit of enumeration and the arability of the data among the studies.
mount of E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae on bline, among the ten eligible papers, five papers probacteriaceae and two papers on both. All the tudies obtained in commercial slaughterhouses.
ng the steps of the slaughterline that led to a decrecarcasses was the paucity of studies that providedve generally been collected at distant sampling p
ments have usually been used. As a consequence,counts was not always evident. For this reason, iaccording to authors’ opinions instead of simply
of the slaughterline that could influence the verature (Gill et al., 2003), differences of less than
dered of no practical importance.
rend of E. coli counts along the slaughterline in a reported that after hide removal, indicator bac
sampled carcasses, at log total number of 3.16 loion washing and spraying with 2 % lactic acid soide removal, and the counts reported after ev
d trimming still remained very similar. The numarcass sides (about 1 log unit less), and the pasteua further reduction (about 2 log unit less). Finallyabout 2 log units. Hence, all operations on cartrivial effects on the microbiological condition of cerated carcasses appeared to be effective in redber of bacteria recovered was similar to the coreatments and authors hypothesised that this incrather than new contaminations of carcasses.
nada (Yang et al., 2012) recovered less than 2 ide removal. According to the authors, this
econtamination treatments applied on hide-on car°C and rinsing with chlorinated water). Then,
tion of bacterial load of more than 1 log unit wations the trend was reversed. Finally, the countsic acid and pasteurization and after these last trd carcasses.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
22
atments and different s of the slaughterline along the process is
onclusions about the
area sampled on the
beef carcasses during provided information papers provided data
ease or an increase of d data obtained before oints and in between, , the effective role of it has been very often y comparing the data
ariation of carcasses n 0.5 log unit between
high-throughput beef cteria were recovered og cfu/2,500 cm2. The olution was similar to visceration, splitting, mber of E. coli was urisation followed by
y, after cooling for 24 rcasses between hide f meat. Then, washing ducing E. coli counts. unts recorded before
crease was due to re-
log cfu/2,500 cm2 of low level of initial
rcasses (washing with when uneviscerated
was reported, but after s were again reduced reatments, no E. coli
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Another study (McEvoy et alEnterobacteriaceae contaminatioand at different steps along the obtained from the hock, bung anfrom the cranial back. After evisthe previous step in all the sampwas reported. Trimming, splittin0.5 log unit for all sites apart froreported. Finally, chilling causedfrom the bung samples where asame study, Enterobacteriaceae and at the same points of the scranial back were more than 1 lounits was reported after splittinrecovered from all sites, and afobtained for all sites apart from Enterobacteriaceae counts werattributed the reductions to the intemperature.
The effectiveness of applying investigated in different retrieved
Bacon et al. (2000) conducteddecontamination technologies. Asampled, E. coli counts were in tthe application of multiple deconcarcass water and organic acid wacid washing) a reduction of the all plants. Finally, at the end of thlower than 1 log cfu/100 cm2
decontamination treatments along
Arthur et al. (2004) also evaluatein reducing the load of indicator The authors collected samples aafter the application of all antimithe following decontamination tr
- after hide removal the cu
- before evisceration the c
- after evisceration two otacid and a steam pasteuri
- at chilling, carcasses wer
At the beginning of the slaughcfu/100 cm2. After hide removacfu/100 cm2 and a slight increasewashed carcasses with hot wEnterobacteriaceae counts wereremained substantially unchange
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
l., 2004), conducted in Ireland, aimed to eson at different sites (hock, brisket, cranial back anprocessing line. After hide removal, comparablend brisket samples, whereas the indicator bacterceration, bacterial loads remained similar to the n
pled sites apart from the cranial back where an ig and washing with warm water led to a reductio
om the cranial back where a further increase (of ad a reduction of the E. coli counts of about 1 log ua bacterial load comparable to the previous step
counts were also registered at the same samplinslaughterline. After hide removal, Enterobacterog unit lower than at the other sampling sites. Anng at the cranial back site. After washing, sifter chilling, clear reductions of the Enterobactecranial back, where an opposite trend was repor
re reduced or remained unchanged after coolinjury of bacterial cells due to stresses from low w
sequential decontamination treatments along thd papers.
d a study involving eight different plants, whiAt the beginning of the process, after hide removthe range 2.6 – 5.3 log cfu/100 cm2. Along the slntamination treatments (including steam vacuum
washing, hot water washing, post-evisceration finE. coli counts ranging from 1.3 to 3.0 log cfu/100he process, after a 24-36 h chilling period, the E. . These authors demonstrated the effectivenesg the slaughterline.
ed the effectiveness of applying sequential antimbacteria on hides and carcasses at two commerc
a) after hide removal, b) after evisceration and icrobial treatments and d) at chilling. The carcas
reatments along the processing line:
ut lines were steam vacuumed,
arcasses were steam vacuumed again and washed
ther washing steps were carried out with hot waisation treatment was also used,
re sprayed for 29 hours before the collection of th
hterline Enterobacteriaceae counts on hides weal the bacterial load on the carcasses resulted ie (0.3 log cfu/100 cm2) was reported at post-evisc
water and peroxyacetic acid and after steame equal to 0.2 log cfu/100 cm2, then, after coolid.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
23
stimate E. coli and nd bung) of carcasses e E. coli counts were ria were not detected numbers recovered in increase of 1 log unit on of E. coli of about about 1 log unit) was unit for all sites apart was reported. In the
ng sites of the carcass riaceae counts at the n increase of 1.45 log imilar numbers were eriaceae counts were rted. Both E. coli and ing and the authors
water activity (aw) and
he slaughterline was
ich applied different al, in the eight plants laughtering line, after
ming, pre-evisceration nal water and organic 0 cm2 was reported in coli load was always
ss of using different
microbial interventions cial processing plants.
carcass trimming, c) ses were treated with
d with lactic acid,
ater and peroxyacetic
he final sample.
ere equal to 6.2 log in a level of 1.4 log ceration. After having
m pasteurisation, the ing the bacterial load
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The same sampling points were loads on carcasses to verify the ehigh-throughput beef abattoirs. In
- before hide removal, carc
- after hide removal, carca
- after evisceration, carcawater, hot water and lact
Also in this study, as reported bwas quite high (5.28 log cfu/1001.04 cfu/cm2. A slight reductionevisceration was described and treatments (-0.38 log cfu/100Enterobacteriaceae counts (0.2 l
Bacon et al. (2000) reported thareducing or blocking the bacteriwhereas Ruby et al. (2007) desclast study, the bacterial load of three studies, authors demonstratreducing bacterial loads on carcaand before chilling. These studiechilled samples effectively reduc
Two other studies (Rigobelo etfrequency of recovery and the codetailed information about thedecontamination treatments usedhad an effect on the reported redthree plants. E. coli and Enterobaevisceration and after washing.slaughter process was describedinvestigated and samples were splitting and trimming (post-eviprocessing). The frequency of evisceration step (58 %) to the po
An opposite trend was describebrisket and renal sites of carcassIn this case also, detailed informtreatments used were not availabthen after washing a marginal deabout 1 log unit higher than thobacterial load remained essentialcarcass with cold water producremoving the contamination.
The same sampling points alongestimated the Enterobacteriaceaesplitting and after washing-befor
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
selected by Ruby et al. (2007), who estimated theffectiveness of the different decontamination tren this case the treatments used along the processin
casses were steam vacuumed,
asses were sprayed with lactic acid,
asses were steam vacuumed, then sprayed with tic acid.
by Arthur et al. (2004), the initial load of Entero cm2), and after hide removal bacterial load on cn down to an Enterobacteriaceae load of 0.8 loa further reduction was reported at the end of
0 cm2). Finally the chilling step led to aog cfu/100 cm2).
at the chilling step was an effective phase of thial load. These findings were confirmed also by cribed an increase of bacterial load during this st
carcasses before starting chilling were extremeted the effectiveness of using sequential decontamasses, especially when these treatments are appl
es showed that the overall intervention processes ced microbiological contamination of carcasses.
t al., 2008; Nero et al., 2012), conducted in Bounts of indicator bacteria at different points of e techniques applied along the processing ld were available, so it was not possible to infer duction. Nero et al. (2012) presented the results acteriaceae counts were estimated after bleeding A progressive decrease of the microbiologica
d. In the second study (Rigobelo et al., 2008),collected immediately after hide removal (pr
isceration) and after washing carcasses hangingE. coli positive carcasses progressively decre
ost-processing step (32 %).
ed by Barboza et al. (2002), who estimated E. es after hide removal, after trimming and splittin
mation about the stages of the processing line andble. A clear increase of the E. coli counts was reecrease of the bacterial load was registered, and se recovered after hide removal. Then, during thlly unchanged and the authors concluded that ates a redistribution of bacteria over the entire c
g the slaughterline were investigated by Maddee counts on brisket samples collected after hide rre chilling in different plants in Northern Ireland
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
24
e Enterobacteriaceae atments used in three ng line were:
ambient temperature
bacteriaceae on hide arcasses was equal to og cfu/100 cm2 after the decontamination
an increase of the
he processing line for Arthur et al. (2004),
tage; however, in this ely low. In these last mination treatments in ied after evisceration from hide-on to post-
Brazil, estimated the the slaughterline. No ine as well as the if specific treatments of a study involving
g, after skinning, after al counts during the only one plant was
re-evisceration), after g in the cooler (post-eased from the pre-
coli counts on neck, ng, and after washing. d the decontamination eported after splitting, the final counts were
he washing phase the t best, the washing of carcasses, rather than
en et al. (2004), who removal, after carcass . The counts reported
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
after hide removal were comparaone of the sampled plants, the concluded that washing with pobacterial load on carcasses. Theythe posterior region (mainly faecthe anterior areas of the carcasses
In order to identify the steps obacterial loads, as reported in litsampling points were consideredunit were regarded as similar, wh
In the following graph (Figure 3of the slaughterline are summariz
It should be pointed out that in soor decrease of bacterial loads waapplied on carcasses since, as repdata before and after a specific pat distant points on the slaughterdata collected in the retrieved stu
One study described the decreeviscerated, whereas another stuacid, no effect in terms of E. colbefore evisceration was effectivean increase of microbial load incorrelated to these slaughter phconsidered as an effective strategstudies demonstrated that washinThe application of different sequor washing with acids in all caFinally, at the chilling step, conflhigher E. coli and EnterobacteriE. coli counts was reported Enterobacteriaceae counts.
The counts of E. coli on beef caslaughterline are reported in Tpresented in Table 10 (Appendixincrease or decrease of the countthese data were available.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
able to the numbers obtained after carcass splittinwashing step led to an increase of the bacteri
otable water cannot be considered an effectivey remarked that during the washing process, the hcal contamination) may not only be removed, buts.
of the slaughterline that could influence the vterature (Gill et al., 2003), differences of < 0.5 ld of no practical importance. Therefore, values dhereas values differing by > 0.5 log unit were rega
3), trends of E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counzed. Only studies providing quantitative data were
ome cases it was very hard to identify if the effecas due to a specific phase of the slaughterline orported above, in only very few cases did the retr
point of the processing line. Moreover, samples wrline. The trends summarised in Figure 3 were deudies as well as the considerations reported by the
ease of E. coli counts after carcasses were wudy showed that when this was combined with li counts reduction was observed. Decontaminatioe in reducing bacterial load (1 study). Eviscerationn one study, whereas in five other studies, changhases were not observed. Washing treatment afgy to reduce the E. coli load of carcasses in one ng at this step had no effect on E. coli and Enterouential decontamination treatments, such as hot ases (five) led to reductions in numbers of botflicting data were collected. In two studies, carcasiaceae counts than in the previous phases, in oneand for another study, this step did not h
arcasses described in the selected papers at the dable 9 (Appendix D), while the counts of En
x D). In these tables, the number of samples analys for each step, the mean and the standard deviati
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
25
ng, whereas in at least ial load. The authors e treatment to reduce heavy bacterial load at t also redistributed to
ariation of carcasses log unit between two differing by < 0.5 log arded as different.
nts at different stages e considered.
ct in terms of increase r a specific treatment
rieved studies provide were usually collected efined considering the eir authors.
washed before being spraying with lactic
on treatments applied n and trimming led to ges of bacterial loads fter evisceration was study, whereas three
obacteriaceae counts. water, pasteurization th indicator bacteria. sses after chilling had e study, a drop of the have any effect on
different stages of the nterobacteriaceae are ysed at each step, the ion are reported when
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Figure 3: Trends (increase and beef slaughterhouses (BE: before
Figure 4: Trends (increase andslaughterline in beef slaughterhou
0
1
2
3
4
Was
hing
BE
Dec
onta
min
atio
ntr
eatm
ents
BE
N°
of s
tudi
es
0
1
2
3
4
Evi
scer
atio
n -
split
ting
N°
of st
udie
s
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
decrease) of E. coli counts at different stages oe evisceration - AE: after evisceration).
d decrease) of Enterobacteriaceae counts at diuses (BE: before evisceration - AE: after eviscera
Evi
scer
atio
n -
split
ting
Was
hing
AE
Dec
onta
min
atio
ntr
eatm
ents
AE
Aft
er c
hilli
ng
Was
hing
AE
Dec
onta
min
atio
ntr
eatm
ents
AE
Chi
lling
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
26
f the slaughterline in
fferent stages of the ation).
No effectIncreaseDecrease
No effectIncreaseDecrease
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
2.3.4. Review question 2
According to the defined searchdealing with risk factors influenobtained. Fifteen papers descrEnterobacteriaceae counts and fi
As already mentioned for the rstudies was hampered by differearea sampled on the carcass andacross studies. Hence, differentconclusions drawn and not in tespecific risk factors investigated
The effect of the annual season odifferent studies (Rigobelo et alseason could have a direct impaparticular, it was demonstrated tduring the rainy season (RigobelJuly) could lead to higher EnterDecember and March) (Ruby et factors and also concluded that samples significantly influence th
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae where the slaughtering took placdesign of the plant, the throughsome other cases differences amowithout attributing these findings
Zweifel et al. (2008) conducteanimals slaughtered annually). E55 % and some differences amostudy dealing with this point wasEnterobacteriaceae loads on carboth cases it was not possible tofor such differences.
The influence of plant featureBlagojevic et al. (2011), who inv(before dehiding) and at the end that the Enterobacteriaceae coun
Also the effect of the plant dEnterobacteriaceae loads of beewas a linear rail plant and had second abattoir had a serpentinelevel up to a higher level slaugclearly influenced the airbornEnterobacteriaceae load of the contamination is poor.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
h process and the established eligibility criteria,ncing E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts onribed studies that reported E. coli counts, nfive papers considered both types of indicator bact
review question 1, the comparability of data pent aspects, such as the sampling method, the unid the decontamination treatments applied, whicht studies considering the same factor were corms of counts reported. However, many other acould influence the final results presented in the r
on the prevalence of E. coli on beef carcasses wal., 2006; Ruby et al., 2007; Rigobelo et al., 20act on indicator bacteria prevalence and counts that there is a higher probability of finding E. colo et al., 2006; Rigobelo et al., 2008), and that wrobacteriaceae counts on carcasses than colderal., 2007). These last authors investigated the inthe geographical position of the plant and the
he bacterial loads of beef carcasses (Ruby et al., 2
counts on carcasses varied, perhaps according tce. In some studies, specific aspects related to th
hput, or the surveillance system in place were eong plants in terms of bacterial loads of carcasses to some specific reasons.
d a survey in low-throughput abattoirs in SwEnterobacteriaceae prevalence on cattle carcassesong the slaughterhouses in terms of counts weres conducted in France and reported significant dircasses collected at four different plants (Collo identify which main features of the plants invol
es on microbial carcass contamination has alvestigated two different abattoirs collecting samof the slaughterline (before chilling). In this case
nts did not significantly differ between the two ab
design was investigated. Prendergast et al. (2ef carcasses obtained in two Irish slaughterhousslaughter, dressing and chilling systems on a sie rail on two floors and animals moved from thghter and dressing line. The authors concluded ne bacterial numbers, but it did not have
carcasses, and that the relationship between a
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
27
a total of 29 papers n beef carcasses were nine papers reported teria.
provided by different it of enumeration, the h were not consistent ompared in terms of spects apart from the retrieved papers.
as addressed by three 008), concluding that on beef carcasses. In oli positive carcasses
warmer months (June, r months (November, nfluence of other risk year of collection of
2007).
to the slaughterhouse his point, such as the evaluated, whereas in es are simply reported
witzerland (about 220 s ranged from 0 % to e reported. The other ifferences in terms of
obert et al., 2002). In lved were responsible
lso been studied by mples at the beginning e, the authors reported battoirs.
2004), compared the ses. The first abattoir ingle floor, while the he lairage on a lower that the plant design any effect on the
airborne and carcass
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The effect of plant throughput onAustralian studies addressed thiprevalence of E. coli on carcasssupplying the domestic market slaughterhouse differed signifiprocessing operations, the authorslaughterhouses. Opposite conclulower E. coli prevalences on cthroughput slaughterhouses (28.counts on carcasses from highthroughput plants (-0.54 log slaughterhouses were not signifibacteria (E. coli and Enterobacthigher (2.07 and 2.18 log cfu/ccfu/cm2). Also, in this last casestatistically significant, probably Finally, the last retrieved paperprevalence of E. coli positive car(41 %). Also in this last case statistically significant.
Authors generally reported lowerwere the differences between theplants applied more modern asatisfactory data were generallyslaughter rate that may result in b
Different slaughterhouses could data collected from the retrievedto different slaughterhouses coul
Also the effect of the surveillancinfluencing indicator bacteria coplants in Australia. E. coli was survey demonstrated that levelssystem were comparable to thosby government inspectors (Bass efaecal contamination caused by verify how it could influence capplication of this online monitoconsequently it was an effective m
The effect of using physical and another aspect that was commonconducted on developing pathoganimal carcasses. Among these recognised as two of the mostcarcasses.
Treatments with steam or hot wain a high-throughput beef slaughevaluated the decontamination e
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
n indicator bacteria counts was frequently investis point. Phillips et al. (2001) carried out a comses among slaughterhouses concentrating on exp
and low-throughput slaughterhouses. Althoughcantly for standards of construction, governrs concluded that the incidence of E. coli was cousions were drawn by Sumner et al. (2003), who rcarcasses at low-throughput slaughterhouses (4.4 %). Also Bohaychuk et al. (2011) reported h-throughput plants (-0.23 log cfu/cm2) than cfu/cm2), but the differences found betweencant. Then, Ozdemir et al. (2010), reported that t
teriaceae) on beef carcasses at high-throughput scm2) than at the low-throughput slaughterhousese, the difference between the two types of slaubecause the same slaughtering technique was use
r reported an opposite finding. Hansson et al. (2rcasses in high-throughput plants (34 %), than in the difference between the two types of slau
r prevalences/counts in lower throughput plants, e two types of slaughterhouses significant. Althoand specialized techniques than the low-throuy found at low-throughput plants, which could better hygiene (Sumner et al., 2003).
induce different effects on the bacterial counts d studies did not clarify which one among the difd have a main effect.
ce system in place in the slaughterhouses was invounts. For this scope a microbiological baseline
detected in 25 % of carcasses (mean log posits of indicator bacteria on carcasses processed ve established in abattoirs that operate the traditioet al., 2011). Moreover, the application of an onlidehairing and evisceration operations was also
carcass hygiene. Tergney and Bolton (2006) doring system led to a reduction of the faecal conmean of reducing the enteric counts.
chemical decontamination treatments on indicatonly investigated in the retrieved studies. Extensigen reduction technologies to improve the micrtechnologies, steam pasteurisation and steam v
t effective methods for decreasing bacterial po
ater have been tested by different authors. Retzlafhterhouse, a chamber steam pasteurisation unit ffect of seven different chamber temperatures (f
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
28
tigated. Two different mparison in terms of port, slaughterhouses h the three types of
nment oversight and omparable among the reported significantly 4.7 %) than at high-higher mean E. coli on those from low-
n the two types of the mean numbers of slaughterhouses were s (1.90 and 1.98 log ughterhouse was not ed in all plants. 2001) found a lower low-throughput ones
ughterhouse was not
but in only one study ough high-throughput ughput plants, more be due to the lower
of carcasses, but the fferent aspects related
vestigated as a factor was conducted in 16
tives -0.61/cm2). The via the co-regulatory onal system overseen ine system to monitor evaluated in order to
demonstrated that the ntamination rates and
or bacteria counts was ive research has been robiological safety of vacuuming have been opulations on animal
ff et al. (2005) tested, and they specifically
from 71.1 to 87.7 °C)
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
at the pre-rigor step. When the trand Enterobacteriaceae were red
Also, Minihan et al. (2003) demoexposure time); the tested trEnterobacteriaceae at the more decontamination of the carcass.
The same conclusions were dradifferent decontaminant treatmewas always effective for substantPasteurisation equipment, consisside of carcass to be treated indunder steam pressure at an approbacterial loads were significantl(Trivedi et al., 2007), the effectmeat-processing plants (economilast case, the steam pasteurisatithree anatomical areas sampled o
The five studies addressing this pEnterobacteriaceae counts on bthroughput plants, and all studicarcasses due to this decontamina
Similarly, hot water pasteurisatioquality of the beef carcasses, bunegated by a worsening of the or
In a study conducted by Gill anfor different time frames (from reductions increased with longetreatment was applied for 11 or to be less desirable than that of th
Also Kiermeier et al. (2006), whprevalences reported in some Auwater decontamination systems registered in slaughterhouses tcontaminations of the livestock in
The use of hot water as a pre-evBosilevac et al. (2006), and its ehot water carcass wash cabinet counts by 2.7 log CFU/100 cmcabinet, applying 2 % lactic acidthis case the reduction was morwere used sequentially, a reductauthors concluded that hot watebeef carcasses before evisceration
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
reatment was conducted at temperatures higher thduced to undetectable levels (<0.4 CFU/cm2).
onstrated the positive effect of steam pasteurizatireatment significantly reduced the level of contaminated sites of the carcasses, but it did n
awn by Gill and Landers (2003a), who confirments they investigated, only pasteurisation with tially reducing the bacterial load of beef carcassessting of a fixed cabinet equipped with a carouseldividually was tested (Corantin et al., 2005). Caoximate operating temperature of 74.5 °C for 8 sly lower than those of untreated carcasses. Finativeness of a steam cleaner suitable for low-to ic and easy to operate and install equipment) wasion treatment significantly reduced Enterobacteon beef carcasses.
point showed that steam pasteurisation effectivelyeef carcasses. The equipment tested was used bies reported a clear reduction of both indicatoation treatment.
on was demonstrated as an effective way to imput in this case the improvement of microbiologrganoleptic features.
d Bryan (2000), beef carcasses were pasteurised8 to 12 seconds) and all treatments reduced E.
er treatment time and the highest reduction wa12 seconds. However, the appearance of treated he untreated ones.
ho conducted an investigation to clarify the reasoustralian slaughterhouses, concluded that the slaug
had lowest E. coli prevalences and this posithat had substantial incoming problems relatentroduced.
visceration wash in a commercial slaughterhouseffect was compared with that of lactic acid wash
tested, applying 74 °C water for 5.5 s, reducedm2 on the pre-evisceration carcasses. Similarly,d at approximately 42 °C, reduced Enterobacterre limited (1.0 log CFU/100 cm2). Moreover, wtion equal to 2.5 log CFU/100 cm2 was obtaineer washing was the more effective procedure forn.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
29
han 85 °C both E. coli
ion (90 °C for 10 s of both E. coli and
not result in complete
med that among the steam and hot water s. that allows each full arcasses were treated seconds, and the final ally, in the last study very low-throughput
s verified. Also in this riaceae counts at all
y reduced E. coli and both in high and low or bacteria counts on
prove microbiological gical quality could be
d with water at 85 °C . coli counts, but the
as obtained when the carcasses was judged
ons for higher E. coli ghterhouses using hot itive result was also ed to high level of
se was tested also by hing. The commercial d Enterobacteriaceae , a lactic acid spray
riaceae counts, but in hen the two cabinets
ed. Consequently, the r decontamination of
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Hence, hot water washing as wreducing the bacterial load of bee
The effect of washing with potdifferent studies. Mies et al. (2ineffective in reducing bacterial potable water is a redistribution obe an efficacious or desirable wa
Gill and Landers (2003a) demonthe washing treatments applied. when the initial bacterial load onplausible explanation for this finassociated with particles, which aoperation. When numbers are lomay be refractory to physical rem
In the retrieved studies the usageresults obtained were rather contr
Mies et al., 2004 evaluated the double water wash, water wash reduce the bacterial contaminaapplication of each of the treatmGill and Landers (2003a), whotreatments applied at four slaughineffective treatment in reducingdrawn for peroxyacetic acid sprtreatments may be due to the dwashing or condensation from ste
Barboza et al., (2002) evaluated for beef carcasses. Lactic acid anpopulations on the carcasses, whThe conflicting results reportedslaughterline where the treatmenwashing procedure on hides of before carcasses moved into the c
Moreover, another study (Algdecontamination treatments in without water), spray-chilling, (commercial vinegar) and a mixAll the interventions considereEnterobacteriaceae counts on be
Also the application of other chebe equally effective as demonstrato clean cattle hides before capproximately 2 logs of Enteroconsisting in the removal of hairsubsequent neutralization with a
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
well as steam pasteurisation appears to be an efef carcasses at different stages of the slaughterline
table water at ambient temperature was also ta004) and Barboza et al. (2002) concluded thatloads on beef carcasses. The main effect observeof microbial contamination over the carcass surfa
ay to reduce bacterial loads.
nstrated that different effects could be accounted Moreover, the same authors indicated that was
n carcasses was low, but effective when the load wnding could be that when counts are high the bare washed from the carcass by the large volumesow, the bacteria are probably directly associatedmoval by washing (Gill and Landers, 2003a).
e of alternative decontaminant treatments was alsoroversial.
effectiveness of the following washing systemswith 0.5 % lactic acid and water wash with 50
ation on hides of cattle before entering the ent resulted in an increase in the bacterial loads oo investigated the antimicrobial effect of diff
hterhouses confirmed that spraying carcasses withg microbial contamination on carcasses. The samraying. The authors supposed that the apparent dilution of the applied solution by water preseneam rather than from bacterial resistance.
the effect of organic acids and bacteriocin washnd the mixture of lactic acid and nisin produced hereas when only nisin was used, no positive ed in the last cited papers could be also due
nts were applied. Mies et al. (2004) described datacattle before entering the slaughterhouse, Barbochilling area.
gino et al., 2007) investigated different phylow-throughput plants, such as dry aging (mlow pressure and high pressure hot water
xture of different acids (citric acid + ascorbic acied led to a significant decrease in mean leveef carcasses.
emicals as decontaminants at different steps of thated by Nou et al. (2003), who tested the chemicaarcass dressing. This treatment led to a signobacteriaceae counts immediately after hide rer and extraneous matter from hide with a sodium hydrogen peroxide solution, and a water washing
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
30
ffective treatment for e.
aken into account by t water washing was ed after washing with ace, so this would not
for by differences in shing was ineffective was relatively high. A bacteria are probably s of water in washing
d with tissues, and so
o investigated and the
s: single water wash, 0 ppm of chlorine, to slaughterhouse. The
of the carcasses. Also ferent decontaminant h 2 % lactic acid is an me conclusions were failure of these two
nt on carcasses from
hes as decontaminants a reduction of E. coli
effects were reported. e to the step of the a obtained applying a oza et al. (2002) just
ysical and chemical multiday refrigeration
, 2.5 % acetic acid id + erythorbic acid). vels of E. coli and
he slaughterline could al dehairing, designed nificant reduction of emoval. The process sulphite solution, the
g before dehiding.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The effect of chemical decontaopposite results related to their ef
The effect of spray-chilling on thconsidered a crucial phase of theconsequently slowing proliferatiused for this purpose, and it has the carcass surface. However, thand result in a substantial reductithe process termed spray-chillingduring the first part of the cooling
One study evaluated the effect Landers, 2003b) in four plantslaughterline. This study demonscoli recovered from cooled carcadressed carcasses, for one plant of E. coli declined by about 1 lowere not due to the spray-cooldecontamination treatments applentering the cooling chamber.
Kinsella et al. (2006) investigatchamber to provide intermittent wCarcasses were sampled after drsuggested that this spray-chillingsurface counts of indicator bacter
The two studies addressing the extremely different treatments annot possible to produce a definiticarcasses.
Only one study considered batcarcasses. Feed regimen just beinfluencing bacterial load of caradministration of an experimentconfirmed that no main effects oon numbers of E. coli recovered
In the following tables (Tables 3ain terms of increase-decrease-nostudies which described differeinvestigating which risk factors c
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
amination treatments was unclear, since differeffectiveness in reducing bacterial loads on beef ca
he bacterial load of beef carcasses was quite cone slaughter process, reducing the internal temperaion of most mesophilic bacteria. Air cooling is the positive effect of limiting bacterial growth on
his methodology can provoke water evaporation fion in carcass weight (and therefore, carcass valug or spray-cooling, the carcasses are intermittentlg process in order to limit weight loss.
of a spray-cooling process on E. coli counts onts, which applied different decontamination tstrated that for two out of the four plants examinasses were at least 1 log unit higher than the numthe bacterial load remained unchanged and in th
og unit during carcass cooling. It is likely that theling step, but they could be partly explained blied along the line and the bacterial loads of the
ted the effect of a chilling system that consistedwater spraying of carcasses (spray cycle 2 min onressing and after 24 h in the spray-chilling unit, ag system can limit carcass shrinkage, without signria.
effect of spray-chilling on bacterial loads of cnd, therefore, the results presented cannot be comive indication about the effect of spray-chilling on
ch related risk factors on indicator bacteria coefore moving animals to the slaughterhouse isrcasses. Anderson et al. (2005) verified the efftal chlorate preparation on E. coli on beef carc
of feed and water treatment or any possible interafrom hide or carcasses.
a-3b-3c), the effect of the risk factors described in effect of indicator bacteria on beef carcasses arences between the variables investigated, but w
could influence that variability found, were not in
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
31
ent studies described arcasses.
ntroversial. Chilling is ature of carcasses and a process commonly n carcasses by drying from carcass surfaces
ue). For this reason, in ly sprayed with water
n carcasses (Gill and treatments along the ned, the number of E. mber recovered from
he last plant, numbers ese conflicting results by the effects of the carcasses just before
d of a humidification n, 1 min off) for 15 h. and the data obtained nificantly altering the
carcasses investigated mpared. Hence, it was n the bacterial load of
ontamination of beef s considered a factor fect of feed or water asses. Data collected
actions were observed
n the retrieved papers e summarized. Those
without specifying or ncluded in the list.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Table 3a: Slaughterhouse and fadecrease/increase/or with no effe
Effect Risk factor/Treatm
Decrease dry season
low -throughput slaugh
on line monitoring fcontamination
decontamination – spasteurization temperatu
decontamination - stpasteurization
decontamination – hot
decontamination – lactic aacid + nisin
decontamination (low-thplants) – day aging – ace
mixture of different acidshigh pressure hot w
spray cooling (1 slaught
Decrease Total
Increase
decontamination - siwash/double wash/ water
0.5% lactic acid / water wappm of chlorine
spray cooling (2 slaughte
Increase Total
No effect high-throughput slaugh
co-regulatory inspection
washing with wat
decontamination: lactiperoxyacetic acid spr
diet - sodium chlorate feedchlorate water
spray cooling (1 slaught
No effect Total
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
arm related risk factors investigated in the retrievect on E. coli counts on beef carcasses
ment Comparison factor /control Refe
wet season Rigobelo et
Rigobelo et a
terhouse high-throughput Sumner et a
faecal control Tergney and Bo
steam re > 85°C temperature 71.1 - 82.2 °C Retzlaff et a
team control - unpasteurized
Minihan et a
Corantin et a
Gill and Lande
t water control - untreated Gill and Brya
Kiermeier et
acid – lactic control - untreated Barboza et a
hroughput etic acid – – low and
water
control - untreated Algino et al
terhouse) control - before cooling Gill and Lande
ingle wash with
ash with 50 e
control untreated Mies et al.,
erhouses) control - before cooling Gill and Lande
hterhouse low-throughput
Phillips et al
Bohaychuk et
Ozdemir et a
Hansson et a
n system governmental inspection system Bass et al.
ter control - other decontamination treatments
Mies et al.
Barboza et a
c acid - raying control Gill and Lande
d – sodium control Anderson et
terhouse) ²control - before cooling Gill and Lande
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
32
ved studies leading to
erence N° of studies
al. 2008 (BR) 2
al., 2006 (BR)
l., 2003 (AU) 1
olton, 2006 (TR) 1
al., 2005 (US) 1
al., 2003 (IE)
3 al., 2005 (CA)
ers, 2003a (CA)
ant, 2000 (CA) 2
al., 2006 (AU)
al., 2002(VE) 1
l., 2007 (US) 1
ers, 2003b (CA) 1
13
2004 (USA) 1
ers, 2003b (CA) 1
2
l., 2001 (AU)
4 t al., 2011 (CA)
al., 2010 (TR)
al., 2001 (SE)
2011 (AU) 1
, 2004 (US) 2
al., 2002 (VE)
ers, 2003a (CA) 1
al., 2005 (US) 1
ers, 2003b (CA) 1
10
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Table 3b: Slaughterhouse reladecrease/increase/or with no effe
Effect Risk factor/Treat
Decrease dry season
slaughter character
high-throughput slaugh
on line monitoring contamination
decontamination – steam ptemperature > 85
decontamination - steam p
decontamination - ho
decontamination (low-tplants) – day aging – ac
mixture of different acidhigh pressure hot w
decontamination - chemic
Decrease Total
No effect slaughterhouse design: lin
floor high-throughput slaugh
slaughter character
cooling–novel spray-
No effect Total
2.3.5. Review question 3
Five papers provided informatioand their E. coli and/or Enterobaon Enterobacteriaceae and one contaminated carcasses and were
It is generally accepted that the dthe amount of dirt transferred to tto meat can result in improvedinvestigated these points were ret
In the study conducted by Sarrcleanliness at the beginning of from 1 (very clean) to 5 (very selection of carcasses from each 4 and 5) animals had the highe(categories 1, 2 and 3). A direct cand the level of microbial conslaughter visual evaluation of measures (e.g. rejection of the anmicrobial contamination) couldslaughterline.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ated risk factors investigated in the retrievedect on Enterobacteriaceae counts on beef carcasse
tment Comparison factor /control Re
wet season Ruby et
ristics control Zweifel etCollobert e
hterhouse low-throughput Ozdemir efaecal
n control Tergney and
pasteurization 5°C temperature 71.1 - 82.2 °C Retzlaff et
pasteurization control - unpasteurized Minihan eTrivedi et
ot water lactic acid / lactic acid + hot water Bosilevac ethroughput cetic acid – ds – low and water
control - untreated Algino et
cal dehairing control - untreated Nou et a
near rail one serpentine rail and two floors Prendergast
hterhouse low-throughput Ozdemir e
ristics control Blagojevic
-cooling control Kinsella e
n on the relationship between faecal contaminatacteriaceae counts. Two papers provided data opaper on both the indicator bacteria. All papers
e conducted in commercial slaughterhouses.
dirtiness of animals at the time of slaughter is dirthe carcass, and that procedures avoiding the tran
d microbiological quality of the carcasses. Verytrieved.
raino et al. (2012), beef carcasses were classifthe slaughterline and were categorised accordindirty). Enterobacteriaceae and E. coli counts wcategory and the data collected confirmed that th
est bacterial loads on carcasses in comparison correlation was observed between visual cleanlin
ntamination of carcasses. Hence, the authors coanimals’ cleanliness and the consequent applinimals, washing or application of additional procd be effective to limit carcass contamination
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
33
d studies leading to es
eference N° of studies
al. 2007 (US) 1 t al., 2008 (CH)
2 et al., 2002 (FR) et al., 2010 (TR) 1
Bolton, 2006 (TR) 1
t al., 2005 (US) 1
et al., 2003 (IE) 2
t al., 2007 (US) et al., 2006 (US) 1
t al., 2007 (US) 1
al., 2003 (US) 1
11
t et al., 2004 (IE) 1
et al., 2010 (TR) 1
et al., 2011 (RS) 1
et al., 2006 (IE) 1
4
tion of beef carcasses on E. coli, two papers
considered naturally
rectly correlated with nsfer of dirt from hide y few studies which
fied in terms of hide ng to a scale ranging were estimated for a he dirtiest (categories to the cleanest ones
ness category of hides oncluded that a pre-ication of corrective cedures to reduce the
n at the end of the
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Similar conclusions were drawn that the simplification of the cattwo main categories, including tpractice to identify the carcaspotentially have the highest micthree different classes (1: clean, conducted in two beef abattoirs iafter hide removal, at the beginnwith visually clean hides prodHowever, at the next step of significantly higher levels of cacarcasses are treated more carefmicrobiological quality of the comparable E. coli counts regard The same findings were repocontamination of animals carcaconducted at four slaughterhouscollected on the detaining rail ancontaminated area and from anosame sampling scheme was repearrived at chilling after the slaughterhouses had been applieprocedures, bacterial loads of strimmed area or that were ranmicrobiological quality of the cabetter than, the other carcasses ro In the last study dealing with thimortem and post-mortem hide cllivestock policy was introduced i1-5, with animals in categoriesslaughter without taking further ante-mortem and taking additioconducted both in the lairage or Clipping procedures are aimedcontamination to the carcass durifrom 1 to 4, according to the levewas analysed for Enterobacterifurther precautions, whereas camortem on the slaughterline. Anbetween the Enterobacteriaceae mortem or post-mortem). Clippquality to those derived from clea
In conclusion, the studies retriebacterial load than those derivcontaminated cattle and applicaslaughterhouse and/or along thcontamination level of carcasses the studies support the conclusio
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
by Blagojevic et al. (2012), but in this case the ategorization scheme, and the classification of ththe very dirty animals and the less dirty ones, ses that should be managed with particular crobial loads. Similarly, a simplified classificati2: moderately dirty and 3: very dirty) was descrin Norway (Hauge et al., 2012). Samples were cning and at the end of the slaughterline. After h
duced carcasses with a lower amount of bactef the slaughterline, the dirtiest animals were arcass contamination. This could be due to the fully and such extra care might lead to a clear carcasses. At the end of the process all carc
dless of the initial level of contamination.
orted by Gill and Landers (2004b), who evasses detained for removal of visible contaminases in Canada. A selection of visibly contaminnd sampled within the contaminated area, from other non-contaminated area of the carcass, raneated on the carcasses after trimming, and again
routine washing and decontamination treatd. The data collected confirmed that after compl
sites that had been visibly contaminated, that wndomly selected were all similar. Moreover, arcasses that were initially detained was generallyoutinely processed at the same plant.
is point, authors (McCleery et al., 2008) evaluatlipping on the microbiological quality of carcassein 2007 based on the categorization of animals, as 1 and 2 being the cleanest and consequentlyprecautions, category 3 animals being rejected a
onal measures like clipping to facilitate cleanion the slaughterline after stunning and bleeding
d to remove visible dirt from the hide in oring slaughter process. In the study, a selection of el of visual contamination of hides before enteriniaceae counts. Category 1 and 2 animals were ategory 3 and 4 animals were either clipped aalysis of data obtained revealed no statistically spopulation recovered and animal category or cli
ped animals produced carcasses with a comparan animals.
eved confirmed that carcasses derived from cleved from visibly dirty animals. However, idenation of effective measures either on animals he slaughterline can lead to lower bacterial at the end of the process comparable to that of c
on that the pre-slaughter visual evaluation of the
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
34
authors demonstrated he carcasses into only could be effective in attention since they
ion system, based on ribed in another study collected immediately hide removal, animals eria than dirty ones. not associated with fact that the dirtiest improvement of the
casses had the same
aluated the level of ation. The study was nated carcasses were a site adjacent to the
ndomly selected. The n when the carcasses tments used in the letion of the dressing were adjacent to the it emerged that the
y comparable with, or
ted the effect of ante-es. In the UK, a clean ccording to a scale of
y considered safe for at first presentation at ng. Clipping can be
g but before dehiding. rder to reduce cross carcasses categorised
ng the slaughterhouse, slaughtered without
ante-mortem or post-ignificant association ipping location (ante-rable microbiological
ean cattle had lower ntification of visibly
before entering the contamination or a
clean animals. Hence, level of hide-carcass
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
contamination and the applicatiothe initially contaminated animalend of the slaughterline.
Table 21 (Appendix F) summaralong the slaughterline in relation
2.4. Pigs
2.4.1. General information a
Among the retrieved papers, 31 pquestions. Seventeen papers werstudies identified described obseexperimental design. Eighteen pathree papers considered both indi
Fourteen papers provided inform2, two papers dealt with both revisual faecal contamination in oquestion 3) were retrieved.
The most common sampling metsampling method used in three stThe sampling site on carcasses method; in this case the most com
More information about the (Appendix C).
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
on of proper corrective measures along the slaughls can be an effective approach to reduce carcass
rizes the counts of E. coli and Enterobacteriacen to the level of visual faecal contamination.
about the considered papers
papers were eligible to provide data on pigs regare conducted in Europe, and the other fourteen ouervational studies with the exception of five stuapers provided data on E. coli, ten papers on Enicator bacteria.
mation on review question 1, fifteen papers addreeview question 1 and 2, while no papers dealingrder to study the effect of this variable on indic
thod was swabbing (28 out of 31 papers), while studies. The unit of enumeration most commonly uvaried greatly among the retrieved studies as w
mmon was classified as ISO but also Petrifilm, an
characteristics of the selected papers are av
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
35
hterline especially for s contamination at the
eae on beef carcasses
rding the three review utside Europe. All the udies dealing with an nterobacteriaceae and
essed review question g with the scoring of cator bacteria (review
skin excision was the used was log cfu/cm2. well as the analytical nd MPN were used.
vailable in Table 7
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
2.4.2. General information a
Figure 4: Flow-chart summarizin
2.4.3. Review question 1
This section is aimed at the evalcounts of indicator bacteria in swwith this issue. In particular, sevcounts and two counts of bothdescribed in the selected studies
The retrieved papers provided dathe steps of the slaughterline thacarcasses is the difficulty of finData have been generally collectsingle stage toward a change in b
E. coli
Different studies investigating thWarriner et al. (2002) evaluatedcarcass every 45-50 minutes. Tcarcasses according to the slauperformed after scalding, and byafter it. Moreover, carcasses unreduction of bacterial counts to s
Holding Stunni
EvisceraSplitting
Chilling
Head removal
PasteurizationTrimming
Lactic acid w
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
about the slaughtering process
ng the activities carried out along the pig slaughte
luation of the effect of the different stages of thewine carcasses. Fourteen papers were retrieved frven papers reported Escherichia coli counts, fiveh indicator bacteria. In Figure 4, the main slaare presented.
ata that were not always comparable. A main chaat lead to a decrease or an increase of indicator bding studies providing data obtained before andted at distant sampling points; as a consequence tbacterial levels is not always evident.
he trend of E. coli counts along the slaughterlind the effect of slaughtering on E. coli counts b
This study evaluated also differences in terms ughter time in the day. The process was charay a double polishing technique performed dry befnderwent a washing treatment before chilling. Ascalding and singeing; however, since the sampl
ing Bleeding
Singeing
Sticking
Polishing ation
ScDry
S
Wa
n
Pasteurization Anal closure
wash
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
36
erline.
e slaughterline on the rom literature dealing e Enterobacteriaceae
aughtering operations
allenge in identifying bacteria counts on the d after a single stage. the effective role of a
ne are described here. by sampling a single of bacterial loads of
acterised by scraping fore singeing and wet
Authors attributed the ing of carcasses after
Scalding
Dehairing
craping polishing
Shaving
ashing
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
these specific stages was not posreal sampling points (after scraobtained for Enterobacteriaceasignificant for E. coli.
Variations of E. coli counts wcharacterized by a dry and wet anal closure routinely performedcoli counts decreased during scaet al., 2000).
Nesbakken et al. (2008) evaluateE. coli, a slight reduction was reduction was stated as significan
A Danish study (Wu et al., 2009close to the anus, in a high thrreduced significantly (by 1-2 loattributed by authors to scaldingimmediately after the stages conafter splitting were compared to performed such as singeing, polis
Gill et al. (2000) investigated eigonly, polished carcasses were pSampling was performed by swagrid. Moreover, E. coli countsprocedure. From each plant, setscoli recovered indicated that subthe dressing processes at four ofreduced during the chilling witho
Tamplin et al. (2001) examined tthroughput (7,000 pigs/day) slaupoint-based inspection models pfollowing exsanguination and afcoli was found on all carcasses numbers recovered on different cfu/cm2).
In Canada, a study to evaluate thwas performed at Lacombe Resstudy was to compare the levinvestigated animals were raiseprovided. Samples were obtainesamples belonging to a commeexperimental design. In the LRsampled. However E. coli counCarcasses were sampled beforwashing. Random carcass samplimportance of pasteurisation wacase, carcasses had noticeable de
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
sible in the study, these results are presented in taaping and after polishing, respectively). In contae, the increase observed during evisceration
were also investigated in an Iberian study. Thscraping technique, as in the previously describ
d before evisceration in order to prevent gut conalding, but increased during evisceration despite
ed the effect of blast chilling on different bacterialobserved after the application of this chilling
nt.
9) investigated the behaviour of E. coli by samplroughput slaughterhouse (10,000 pigs per day). og units) at sequential stages of processing andg, singeing and chilling. However, sampling poisidered effective. As an example, bacterial loadsones collected after scalding. In between, severalshing, evisceration and splitting.
ght slaughterhouses processing 200 to 800 pigs ppasteurised before dressing commenced. Blast cabbing a random site on carcasses chosen from a ps were estimated by using the hydrophobic gs of 25 samples were collected at three differenbstantial numbers of those organisms were addedf the plants, and that bacterial levels on carcassout spraying process at two plants.
the prevalence and quantity of E. coli on swine caughterhouse operating under the hazard analysi
project (HIMP) program. Carcasses were sampledfter the carcasses were washed, eviscerated and sampled after bleeding and on 30.1 % of the chidays varied greatly, in particular after exsangui
he impact of slaughtering stages on E. coli countsearch Center (LRC) (Jones and Johns, 2012). vel of F-RNA coliphages with different inded and slaughtered in LRC pilot plant and Med from anal region and from random sites on ercial slaughterhouse were also analysed and u
RC pilot plant, E. coli numbers varied accordinnts in the anal region decreased at each samplinre pasteurisation, after pasteurisation, after evles showed a decrease in E. coli counts only aftes also confirmed by results obtained in the com
ecreases of E. coli counts after bleeding and after p
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
37
ables according to the trast with the results was not statistically
he slaughterline was bed paper, and by the ntent from leaking. E.
anal plugging (Rivas
l species. Concerning g technique and this
ling the left hind leg, E. coli counts were
d this reduction was ints were not located
s of samples collected l operations had been
per hour. At one plant chilling was applied. pre-designed 83 areas grid membrane filter nt sampling points. E. d to carcasses during es were substantially
arcasses at a medium-s and critical control d twice: immediately chilled overnight. E.
illed carcasses. Mean ination (53 to 11,000
ts on swine carcasses The objective of the
dicator bacteria. The MPN estimates were carcasses. Moreover, used to improve the
ng to the carcass site ng point investigated. visceration and after er pasteurisation. The
mmercial plant. In this pasteurisation.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Another study was conducted in evaluate which processing resultcarcasses carried relatively largeof carcasses was applied in earmuscle surface; however therecontamination during head reremoval, instead of before. Howand washing) led to a new inccarcasses that were pasteurised aof E. coli.
Gill and Landers (2004a) analybefore and after cooling and dem
Namvar and Warriner (2006), inpig slaughterline, described thecarcasses. In particular, twelve visits after the following operatioE. coli numbers on carcasses folbut progressively decreased towsignificantly reduced by scaldingthe polishing process. E. coli wevisceration, splitting and the finlactic acid washed carcasses tevisceration or splitting. Accordcoli represented a stable endemabattoir.
Finally, in order to understand wpig carcasses, different papers inbelonging to the retrieved papers
Regarding scalding, all five studbacterial numbers (Wu et al., 202002). Namvar and Warriner (2water temperature of 65 °C. Warbut attributed this reduction to th
Singeing was investigated in onegeneral, the sampling of carcassconsidered study attributed to siscraping increased bacterial coun(Namvar and Warriner, 2002). reduce E. coli counts, but in additional operations such as pol
As regards pasteurisation, two preduce E. coli counts (Jones andescribed a reduction in E. coli cfrom a grid and the anal region. Ipolishing. In the second paper, tshould be noted that in this case,
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
the LRC and in this case, several operations wered in lower E. coli counts on carcasses (Bryant e
e numbers of E. coli and singeing did not reducerly stages of the dressing procedure to avoid th effectiveness of the treatment was impai
emoval. The pasteurisation process was then sever in this case also, the following operations (e
crease in bacterial counts. Finally, it was obserafter head removal and chilled without spraying h
ysed results obtained by swabbing routinely promonstrated the cooling process decreased E. coli co
n a study aimed at tracing the fate of E. coli withe changes in counts recovered from the briskanimals were sampled at 45 minutes intervals
ons: bleeding, scalding, scraping, evisceration, splowing bleeding, at the beginning of processing,
wards the end of the slaughterline. In particular,g but increased during scraping and were subsequwas sporadically recovered at low levels from
nal lactic acid washing. It is interesting to note thatested positive for E. coli compared to those
ding to genotype analysis, the authors suggested mic population, in particular belonging to the
which operation would be more effective in reducnvestigating the effects of slaughtering phases ws are summarized in Figure 5.
dies dealing with counts of Escherichia coli highl009; Namvar and Warriner, 2006; Rivas et al., 22006) in particular described a scalding process rriner et al. (2002) reported a decrease of E. coli che scalding that preceded this step.
e study that observed a decrease in counts (Warses after this stage was not performed in the retrngeing a reduction observed in carcasses after pnts according to two out of three studies, both deAccording to the same authors, the polishing this case carcasses underwent, after the previishing, washing and evisceration.
papers considering this step recognized it as annd Johns, 2012; Bryant et al., 2003). The first counts on both sampling sites investigated: a regiIn this case, carcasses were submitted to a pasteuthe pasteurisation process was applied after the the slaughtering process was performed in a pilo
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
38
re separately tested to t al., 2003). Dehaired
e them. Pasteurisation he degradation of cut ired by subsequent shifted to after head evisceration, splitting rved that chilled pig had acceptable levels
ocessed pig carcasses ounts.
hin a high throughput ket region of swine during two separate
plitting, and washing. were relatively high,
, E. coli counts were uently reduced during
m carcasses following at a greater number of e sampled following that the recovered E. holding area of the
cing E. coli counts on ere retrieved. Results
lighted a reduction in 2000; Warriner et al.,
of 5 minutes with a counts after scraping,
rriner et al., 2002). In rieved papers and the polishing. In contrast, escribed in one paper process was able to
ious sampling point,
n effective process to study, in particular,
on randomly selected urisation process after shaving operation. It t plant.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The washing process was investled to significant results justifyinWarriner et al., 2002; Jones and underline that in the study perfoduring this step, but there was nonumber of lactic acid washed cevisceration and after splitting. Acoli over carcass surface. As prevevaluation of the slaughtering sequential processing stages alon
The final phase of the slaughterinbut within each study, the study reported bacterial counts beforedecrease E. coli counts (Nesbakchilling process was characteris2008). Two studies were not uobtained after chilling with coun(Tamplin et al., 2001) or after spin E. coli counts on carcasses a2000).
Figure 5: Trends (increase or deslaughterhouses.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Aft
er sc
aldi
ng
Aft
er d
ehai
ring
Aft
er si
ngei
ng
Aft
i
N° o
f stu
dies
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
igated in seven studies described in five differenng its use as decontamination treatment (NamvarJohns, 2012; Bryant et al., 2003; Gill et al., 2000
formed by Namvar and Warriner (2006), 1.5 % o significant effect on E. coli counts on carcassesarcasses tested positive for E. coli compared toAccording to authors this was probably due to viously stated, the described results were not obtastage, but were inferred from data belonging
ng the slaughterline.
ng operations is chilling. Five papers dealt with tdesigns were very different from each other. Twoe and after chilling: in both cases the chilling kken et al., 2008, Gill and Landers 2004). In onsed by a blast chilling phase (-21.9° for 70 minuseful to evaluate this stage because they compnts obtained at temporally/physically distant staglitting (Wu et al., 2009). The last retrieved paper
after chilling in only two out of eight plants inv
ecrease) of E. coli counts at different stages of th
Aft
er sc
rapi
ng
Aft
er p
olis
hing
Aft
er sh
avin
g
Aft
erpa
steu
riza
tion
Aft
erev
isce
ratio
n
Aft
er h
ead
rem
oval
Aft
er sp
littin
g
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
39
nt papers and it never r and Warriner, 2006; 0b). It is important to lactic acid was used
s. Moreover a greater o those sampled after a redistribution of E. ained from a punctual g from different, not
this slaughtering step, o studies in particular process was able to
ne of these cases, the n) (Nesbakken et al., pared E. coli counts
ges, i.e. after bleeding observed a reduction
vestigated (Gill et al.,
he slaughterline in pig
Aft
er w
ashi
ng
Aft
er c
hilli
ngNo effectIncreaseDecrease
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Enterobacteriaceae
One study (Spescha et al. 200analysed data belonging to diffecharacteristic of the first abattoirthere was a combined dehairingwater before chilling. In both abcarcass sites tested) and after chcounts decreased after singeing decreased after polishing.
Another study (Duggan et al. 201Salmonella presence. Results repof Enterobacteriaceae counts dur
Lenahan et al. (2006) also evalubelonging to four different plantwas not always demonstrated sconclusion was that chilling corelation to Decision 2001/471/EC
Hurd et al. (2008) evaluated thsamples and observed an increasevisceration. However, it shoulcomplex and had different aims, from the context. Moreover, samwere collected from bung and ple
The evisceration stage was evaluPDR processing sixty to eighty during evisceration (Inthavong ethygienic practices, if compared w
Warriner et al. (2002) evaluated tsingle pig carcass every 45-50 mtime of the day. The process wperformed dry before singeing chilling. The authors described aincrease in Enterobacteriaceae lecross-contamination operation.
The microbial contamination of paper (Rivas et al., 2000) dealingslaughtering process. The procestages before and after the siEnterobacteriaceae counts decreevisceration. According to authtechnique but to the singeing proof scraping. Interestingly, despobserved during evisceration.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
06) providing data on Enterobacteriaceae aloerent stages in two abattoirs processing 250 and r was the use of blast chilling technique, while ig and singeing process. Both plants washed caattoirs, Enterobacteriaceae counts decreased aftehilling and increased after dehairing. Moreover,and slightly increased after polishing, while in t
10) evaluated the relationship between Enterobacported in graphics also showed a non statistically ring chilling.
uated the effect of chilling on Enterobacteriaceats. They observed an average reduction even if, since some carcasses showed a slight increase ould be an important step to improve the carcC.
he Enterobacteriaceae presence in terms of prese in prevalence of Enterobacteriaceae on carcald be noticed that the experimental design of so these results in terms of counts at different st
mpling sites on carcasses are quite different froeura during and after evisceration.
uated in a study performed in a low-throughput spigs per day. In this case the authors observed at al., 2006), but in general the situation was quite with other slaughterhouses.
the effect of slaughtering on Enterobacteriaceae minutes in order to also determine differences re
was characterised by scraping after scalding and and wet after it. Moreover carcasses underwe
a reduction in counts after scalding and singeing. Oevels was observed after evisceration, which was
pig carcasses in an Iberian slaughterhouse was g with variation of Enterobacteriaceae counts onss encompassed a dry and wet scraping techniqngeing phase, respectively, and anal closure
eased during scalding and scraping but increased hors, the unexpected decrease during scraping ocess that, as described above, was performed betpite anal plugging, an increase in Enterobacte
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
40
ong the slaughterline 160 pigs per hour. A in the second abattoir arcasses with potable er scalding (in all the , in the first abattoir, the second plant they
cteriaceae counts and y significant reduction
ae counts in carcasses at carcass level, this during chilling. The ass categorisation in
evalence in pools of asses during and after this study was quite tages are extrapolated om usual since swabs
slaughterhouse in Lao a significant increase different, in terms of
counts by sampling a lated to the slaughter by double polishing
ent a washing before On the other hand, an s identified as the key
the study object of a n carcasses during the que performed in two
before evisceration. during dehairing and was not due to this tween the two phases eriaceae counts was
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
The effect of different operationalso shown in Figure 6.
As already observed for E. coli, studies (Spescha et al., 2006; Rivcritical to reduce initial bactermanaging of activity at plant leve
The same studies mentioned befof contamination in two out of thet al. (2006) determined the jointan increase in Enterobacteriaceathree different studies (Spescha eEvisceration is a key contaminat2002; Inthavong et al., 2006; Hubacterial contamination only in te
The last operation that, accordingis chilling. A decrease in EnterSpescha et al., 2006) out of four al., 2010). The fourth study (Dreported results of Enterobacteribacteria variations between differ
Figure 6: Trends (increase or slaughterline in pig slaughterhou
The counts of E. coli on small stages of the slaughterline ar
0
1
2
3
4
5
Aft
er sc
aldi
ng
Aft
er d
ehai
ring
Aft
er si
ngei
ng
N°
of st
udie
s
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ns on Enterobacteriaceae counts are summarize
Enterobacteriaceae levels also decreased duringvas et al., 2000; Warriner et al., 2002). This step
rial counts and must be carefully considered el.
fore highlighted that the dehairing process was rehree studies. In particular, one study described in t effects of the singeing and dehairing phases toae counts. In contrast singeing reduced Enterobaet al., 2006; Rivas et al., 2000; Warriner et al., 200ion point according to four studies (Rivas et al., 2
urd et al., 2008); however Hurd et al. (2008) evalerms of prevalence in the tested pig carcasses.
g to the literature, results in notable variation of crobacteriaceae counts was described in three (Lselected studies (Lenahan et al., 2009; Spescha et
Duggan et al., 2010) describing variation in coiaceae counts only in graphics and did not analyrent stages.
decrease) of Enterobacteriaceae counts at difuses
ruminant carcasses described in the selected pare reported in Table 11 (Appendix D), w
Aft
er p
olis
hing
Dur
ing
evis
cera
tion
Aft
erev
isce
ratio
n
Afte
r tr
imm
ing
Aft
er w
ashi
ng
Aft
er h
ead
rem
oval
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
41
ed below; results are
g scalding in the four p of pig processing is in the planning and
ecognised as a source the paper by Spescha
ogether, and observed acteriaceae counts in 02). 2000; Warriner et al., luated the increase in
carcass contamination Lenahan et al., 2009; t al., 2006; Duggan et ounts during chilling yse in depth indicator
fferent stages of the
apers at the different while the counts of
rem
oval
Aft
er c
hilli
ng
No effectIncreaseDecrease
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Enterobacteriaceae are presenteanalysed at each step, the increadeviation are reported when these
2.4.4. Review question 2
A total of 18 papers were collectswine carcasses. In particular, 1Enterobacteriaceae and two cons
As already mentioned for reviewwas hampered by different aspecwere not consistent across studiein terms of conclusions drawn an
Since some papers provided datfactor influencing bacterial couninstead of the papers. In Tables indicator bacteria.
E. coli
A total of 30 risk factors or trecarcasses at slaughterhouse in the
Only one paper considered theconsidered 12 treatment groupsversus 5), the feed type (pelleted to a 2×2×3 factorial design. Ttreatment, according to the statisthe thoracic area was feeding thcontrast, the highest counts werefast. A statistical difference wasanalysis. No correlation was fobetween E. coli levels on carcass2007).
Attention has been paid also to(2007) evaluated the influence oIn particular, pigs were dividedhandling. The rough treatment gentle handling was characteriseNeither handling nor group dimeof differences between groups scarcass microbial quality.
The effect of the plant throughcompared four low throughputpresumptive E. coli (74 %) repopigs/year) was higher comparedyear). These differences were staevaluation of other bacteria, an
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
d in Table 12 (Appendix D). In these tables, thase or decrease of the counts for each step, the me data were available.
ted dealing with risk factors potentially influencin11 papers described studies reporting data on E.sidered both bacteria.
w question 1, the comparability of data providedcts, such as the sampling method and the unit ofs. Hence, different studies considering the same f
nd not in terms of counts reported.
ta on both types of indicator bacteria, or considnts, it was more convenient to consider the indiv
4a and 4b, the risk factors investigated are sum
eatments were investigated in relation to Eschere collected papers.
e influence of risk factors at farm level. This and different conditions regarding the numbervs mash) and the fasting time before slaughter (4
The slaughter process took place in an experimstical model performed, which resulted in the lowhe pigs pelleted feed five times a day followee recovered from pigs fed mash, five times a das observed between these two treatments with
ound between stomach weight and E. coli counses and the weight of faeces collected on the truck
the management of the animals before slaughtof handling and group dimension on microbial cad in groups of 10 and 30 individuals subjected consisted in a quickly handling with electric p
ed by slow handling managed with the use of a pension significantly influenced E. coli counts onsuggested that the stress condition applied had
hput on bacterial counts was investigated by Ht with four high throughput slaughterhouses. orted on pig carcasses in high throughput plantsd to the percentage (58 %) in low throughput patistically significant. However, since the study w
nd these did not significantly differ among slau
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
42
e number of samples mean and the standard
ng bacterial counts on . coli, five papers on
d by different studies f enumeration, which factor were compared
dered more than one vidual studies (trials),
mmarised for both the
richia coli counts on
s study in particular r of daily feeding (2 4, 14, 24 h) according mental abattoir. The wer E. coli counts on d by a 24 h fast. In ay followed by a 4 h an a posteriori Tobit nts on carcasses and k floor (Saucier et al.,
tering. Rabaste et al. arcass contamination. to rough and gentle
pod; on the contrary, plastic board or whip. n carcasses. This lack
a limited impact on
Hansson (2000), who The percentage of s (250,000-1,300,000 plants (450-800 pigs was aimed also at the ughterhouses, authors
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
concluded that level of carcasslaughterhouse.
In contrast, another study dealiCanada found no relation betwebacterial counts (Bohaychuk et samples was reported. Most of cfu/cm2.
The effect of the surveillance sysinfluencing the counts of indicaconducted in 7 plants located incarcasses (mean log of positive scoli on carcasses processed viaabattoirs that operate the tradition
In another paper, Lindblad et al. Swedish slaughterhouses. Both Ebaseline value, but only E. coli which slaughtering was performcarcasses were obtained in the pperiod, so thus the seasonal varia
Delhalle et al. (2008) studied secarcasses in the 10 largest Belgvariables through a questionnaire(univariate mixed logistic regresmodels with microbiological datparticular that the use of water resulted in lower E. coli counts.was considered hot by operators practice of refreshing animals aftwere spraying 75 % of the timtemperature. According to the acarefully. Moreover, the E. colprocessing time between killingcontamination, were a scalding splitting machine three times a da
Hamilton et al. (2009) evaluatecarcasses. The study focused in two different high throughput abwith hot water (15 sec with wawater (SANOVA solution) wersampled using a meat excision teabattoir was significantly and compared to the control. This recontamination. Further, the twoalthough SANOVA treatment iregarding the use of hot water, reduce E. coli levels on slaughter
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ss contamination could not be related to the
ing with plant throughput and investigating 50een abattoir throughput (8000 pigs/year was thal., 2011). An overall prevalence of 33.7 % Ethe carcasses (92.7 %) had levels of E. coli l
stem in place in slaughterhouses was investigatedator bacteria. For this scope, a microbiologicaln New South Wales, Australia. E. coli was detesamples was -0.23 cfu/cm2). This survey demonsta the co-regulatory system were comparable to nal system overseen by government inspectors (B
(2006) described the results of a microbiologicalE. coli and Enterobacteriaceae were taken into data have been analysed in order to study the efmed. Authors observed that the highest E. coleriod June-July; however, the study was conduct
ation has not been confirmed for data belonging to
everal managerial factors that could influence mgian slaughterhouses. In particular, they investie, data from which were then incorporated into tssion and multivariate mixed linear regression) aa obtained from a total of 584 carcass samples. Rduring lairage cleaning and a high frequency o
. In contrast, spraying of live animals when the was correlated with an increase in carcass E. col
fter transport is common. Other possibilities conteme during lairage and spraying automatically inauthors, however, this conclusion about sprayingli counts on carcasses increased proportionally
g and scalding. In contrast, protective factors, wprocedure using steam instead of immersion, thay and the change of carcass hooks before chillin
d the effect of decontamination treatments on Eparticular on the effect of two decontamination tbattoirs over three days. In each trial, two treatmater 81.9-83.5 °C) and one performed with acidire compared with the standard hygiene procedechnique at belly level. The prevalence of E. colisubstantially reduced for both hot water and
esult was also achieved if one abattoir had higheo treatments did not differ significantly. It shois not approved according to EU legislation, and thus, this could be an effective efficient altred pig carcasses.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
43
e throughput of the
0 slaughterhouses in he cut-off value) and E. coli-positive swine lower or equal to 10
d as a potential factor l baseline study was ected in 63 % of pig trated that levels of E.
those established in Bass et al., 2011).
l survey performed at account to assess the ffect of the season in li counts on the pig ted during a one year o other years.
microbial status of pig igated different plant two statistical models and they then fed the Results highlighted in f lairage disinfection external temperature
li contamination. The emplated in the study
n relation to external g must be considered y with the length of
which reduced E. coli he disinfection of the ng.
E. coli counts in pig techniques applied in
ments, one performed ified sodium chlorite
dure. Carcasses were i on carcasses in each SANOVA treatment
er levels of microbial ould be noticed that no restriction exists
ternative operation to
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Different treatment conditions ostudy reported data aimed at evE. coli counts on pig carcasses. throughput slaughterhouses in Wthere was a reduction in E. cowashing treatment, it was foundwater temperature applied. In franging from <12.8 °C to >32.2 days) effectively reduced E. coli
In contrast, another study investeffective lowering of E. coli levnormally processed (anal plugManufacturing Practices (GMP)carcasses (which were processedevisceration to avoid intestinal rwater at the end of the slaughteduring evisceration in order to reuse of carcass washing (Rivas et
Since tissues exposed during theslaughtering, it is required to triminvestigated the effect of this prabefore and after their applicationreduce the numbers of E. coliineffective for that purpose proba
The technique of trimming ccontamination was investigatedcontaminated site on the microbsites and a random site on the cwas investigated through the pharboured high level of bacteriaprocessing. According to the aufound to be effective in decreasinselected ones.
Conter et al. (2006) investigatedwhich a prototype steam decoslaughter process. This treatment
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
occurring during slaughter were investigated byvaluating the effect of different risk factors towSamples were collected before washing and afte
Wisconsin (Algino et al., 2009). Between the selecli levels on both skinned and unskinned carca
d to be always effective in reducing E. coli counfact, in this study, washing was performed with
°C in different trials. Also both the tested chillelevels on the carcasses.
tigating the effect of pig carcass washing failedvels. More specifically, the authors divided carcagging was routinely applied before eviscerat) applied at this step to avoid intestinal ruptu
d with particular attention to the Good Manufacturuptures) and washed GMP carcasses (25 sec oerline). Results highlighted the effectiveness ofeduce of E. coli counts. In contrast, no effect waal., 2000).
e sticking of pigs are likely to be contaminated m the tissue around wound before evisceration. Giactice as well as the effect of pasteurisation by ann. The authors concluded that while the pasteurisai on the cut tissue of sticking wounds, the trably because of contamination during the routine
ontaminated sites on pig carcasses detained d. One paper in particular described the effebial level of carcasses by sampling on both the scarcasses (Gill and Landers, 2004a). Moreover, previously mentioned sampling scheme. Visiblya and were considered potential sources of bacteuthors, the trimming technique, as well as the cng E. coli counts on contaminated carcass sites as
d the effect of pasteurisation treatment in an Italintamination unit was installed before eviscerat provided a significant reduction of E. coli count
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
44
y several papers. One ward the variations in er chilling in 10 low-cted sampling points,
asses. As regards the nts, regardless of the h water temperatures er hold times (1 or 2
d to demonstrate any asses in three groups: tion), but no Good
ures; unwashed GMP uring Practices during of high pressure cold f implementing GMP as associated with the
with bacteria during ill and Badoni (2001) nalysing these tissues ation of carcasses can rimming is probably operation.
because of visible ect of trimming the specific contaminated the effect of chilling y contaminated sites
erial spreading during cooling process, were s well as on randomly
ian slaughterhouse in ation during the pig ts on pig carcasses.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Table 4a: Slaughterhouse and fadecrease/increase/or with no effe
Effect Risk factor/Treatment
Decrease Acidified sodium chlorite Chilling Chilling contaminated site
Cleaning and disinfection times a day
Frequency of lairage disin
Hot water carcass washing(83.5°C)
Lairage cleaning with wat
Low throughput slaughter
Meal frequency 5, Feed ty(pelleted), fasting time ( 2
New hooks for carcasses bchilling
Pasteurized sticking woun
Scalding with steam
Steam treatment (before pasteurization)
Trimming of the contamin Unwashed+GMP Washing Decrease Total Increase June-July Skinned
Spraying when ext temp isconsidered hot
Time between killing and Increase Total
No effect Co-regulatory system
Gentle handling
Low throughput slaughter
Small group (10 animals) Sticking wounds trimming Washed+GMP Washing T No effect Total Total
* Risk factor referring to farm managem
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
arm related risk factors investigated in the retrievect on E. coli counts on swine carcasses
Compared factor/ Control Reference
washing Standard hygiene procedure Hamilton etNo chilling Gill and LanPrewashed carcass Algino et al
e No chilling Gill and Lanthree Others regimen Delhalle et
nfection Other frequencies Delhalle et g Standard hygiene procedure Hamilton et
ter Other cleaning solutions Delhalle et
rhouses High throughput slaughterhouses Hansson 20
ype 4 h)
Meal frequency (2; 5), Feed type (pelleted; mash), fasting time (4; 14; 24 h)
Saucier et a
before Same hooks Delhalle et
nds Not pasteurized sticking wounds Gill and Ba
Immersion scalding Delhalle et
No steam treatment Conter et al
nated site No trimming Gill and LanUnwashed Rivas et al. Prewashed carcass Algino et al Other months Lindblad et Unskinned Algino et al
s Spraying with others rules Delhalle et
scalding Continuous variable Delhalle et Governmental inspection system Bass et al. 2
Rough handling Rabaste et a
rhouses High throughput slaughterhouses Bohaychuk
Large group (30 animals) Rabaste et ag Not trimmed sticking wounds Gill and Ba
Unwashed+GMP Rivas et al. Prewashed carcass Algino et al
ment; ** Risk factor referring to pre slaughter operations
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
45
ved studies leading to
N° of studies
t al. 2009 (AU) 1 nders 2004 (CA) 1 l. 2009 (US) 1 nders 2004 (CA) 1
al., 2008 (BE) 1
al., 2008 (BE) 1
t al. 2009 (AU) 1
al., 2008 (BE) 1
000 (SE) 1
al. 2007 (CA)* 1
al., 2008 (BE) 1
doni 2001 (CA) 1
al., 2008 (BE) 1
l., 2006 (IT) 1
nders 2004 (CA) 1 2000 (ES) 1
l. 2009 (US) 1 17
al. 2007 (SE) 1 l. 2009 (US) 1
al., 2008 (BE) 1
al., 2008 (BE) 1 4
2011 (AU) 1
al. 2006 (CA)** 1
et al. 2011 (CA) 1
al. 2006 (CA)** 1 doni 2001 (CA) 1 2000 (ES) 1
l. 2009 (US) 1 7
28
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Enterobacteriaceae
A total of 19 papers were rEnterobacteriaceae counts on pig
Zweifel et al. (2007) evaluated throughput Swiss abattoirs withwere collected from 750 carcassmall subset of microorganisms.comparison (log of the total nimportant difference between carof positive sites on carcasses ranuseful indicator of abattoir-specif
The influence of plant features oal. (2011), who investigated twofrom randomly selected pig carcskin microflora was calculated itransfer of incoming microbEnterobacteriaceae load was sigthat, despite the EU process hygdiscriminating between the prochygienic according to the compaevaluated in the study was sugge
Both papers described the impacother studies tried to demonstramicrobial contamination.
The use of anal plugging prior throughput abattoir (Purnell et abacon market and were consEnterobacteriaceae counts arounwas observed, while slight non sto the authors, the results, togethleakage can occur during these reduce pig carcass contamination
Different risk factors were invesskinning, washing temperature an(Algino et al., 2009). In each slother halves of the correspondindecreased in both skinned and leaving the carcasses unskinnEnterobacteriaceae. Washing wawater temperature ranged from <supposed that the highest water and underlying tissue thus enhaholding times (1 or 2 days) wasswine carcasses.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
retrieved dealing with risk factors or treatmg carcasses at slaughter.
the microbiological contamination of pig carcash a median annual slaughter of 600 animals. In sses. Authors noticed that Enterobacteriaceae a Because log normality was not ensured, log N number recovered per square centimetre). Rercass contamination within the selected abattoirsnging from 9 % to 22 %. Thus Enterobacteriacefic hygienic weak points in low throughput plants
on microbial carcass contamination was also studo different abattoirs (A and B), through the collecasses. In particular, the ratio between carcass in order to assess the process with respect to its bial loads onto dressed carcasses. In bognificantly reduced during processing. However, giene criteria (PHC, based on daily mean log valcesses in the two abattoirs, the process in plantarison of individual carcasses. Consequently a PHsted.
ct of slaughterhouse characteristics on the proceate which specific stages and factors exerted d
to scalding and dehairing was investigated in al., 2010). These carcasses were produced for thesequently not singed after dehairing. A signd the anal areas of unplugged carcasses after scsignificant decreases were observed on plugged
her with visual observation during the work, clearprocessing stages and that methods avoiding i
n.
stigated in another study in which the authors connd chilling duration in 10 very low-throughput alaughterhouse, carcass halves were sampled befng carcasses were sampled after chilling. Entero
unskinned carcasses between pre-washing anned during chilling was associated with lowas effective in reducing Enterobacteriaceae leve<12.8° to 32.2 °C, but not when temperature watemperature resulted in the least chilling and co
ancing bacterial attachment. Also, chilling for bs effective in significantly reducing Enterobacter
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
46
ments in relation to
sses in different low-total, 3,000 samples
accounted only for a values were used for
esults highlighted an s, with the percentage eae was considered a s.
died by Blagojevic et ection of 100 samples (before chilling) and ability to reduce the
oth slaughterhouses, the authors observed
lue for carcasses) not t B was clearly more HC based on the ratio
essing hygiene, while deleterious effects on
a EU licensed low-e pork rather than the nificant increase in
calding and dehairing carcasses. According
rly showed that faecal it could be useful to
nsidered the effect of abattoirs in Wisconsin fore washing and the obacteriaceae counts
nd chilling; however, wer mean levels of els on carcasses when as >32.2 °C. Authors ontraction of the skin oth the tested chiller riaceae levels on the
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Trivedi et al. (2006) evaluated tfor reducing naturally occurring or very low throughput abattoirsbefore any organic acid treatmeeffect on Enterobacteriaceae levcold storage. The steam treatmlocations with no differences in th after the application of steamcleaning systems as a critical con
The effect of GMP and washinauthors divided carcasses in thrbefore evisceration, but GMP w(which were processed with pevisceration) and washed GMPslaughterline). Interestingly, reevisceration thus demonstrating tlevels when GMP are implemEnterobacteriaceae levels after t2000).
Finally, Tomovic et al. (2011) epopulations. Two regimens of rathen 2-4 °C until 8 h post-mortethen carcasses were left at 2-4 °CEnterobacteriaceae counts in a decrease them. Authors concludea rapid chilling treatment is impl
Tables 17 and 18 (Appendix E) rwith the effect of the slaughterhslaughtering line) on the indicato
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
the effectiveness of a commercially-available dobacterial populations on freshly slaughtered pig
s. A 60 second steam treatment was applied afteent on three anatomical sites on the right half ovel was evaluated immediately after the treatmenent significantly reduced microbial contaminatiterm of mean Enterobacteriaceae population imm
m. The authors thus suggested the use of housentrol measure in low and very low throughput mea
ng during processing was investigated by Rivas ee groups: normally processed (anal plugging w
was not implemented during evisceration); unwaparticular attention to the Good Manufacturi
P carcasses (25 sec of high pressure cold wateesults showed the effectiveness of implemethat anal plugging could be more efficient agains
mented. In contrast no significant effect was othe addition of the washing treatment during pro
evaluated the effect of rapid chilling of swine capid chilling were applied. Treatment 1 consistedem, while the first phase of the second treatmenC for 24 h. Interestingly, results highlighted that t
highly significant way; in contrast treatment 1 ed that rapid chilling can improve the microbiologemented together with a 24 h duration of the entir
report E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts fromhouse and farm related features (general and at dor bacteria on pig carcasses.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
47
omestic steam cleaner carcasses in four low er the final wash and of the carcasses. The nt and 24-h later after ion at all anatomical
mediately after and 24 hold domestic steam at processing plants.
et al. (2000). These was routinely applied ashed GMP carcasses ing Practices during er at the end of the enting GMP during st Enterobacteriaceae observed on carcass
ocessing (Rivas et al.,
carcasses on bacterial d of 3h at -31 °C and
nt was equivalent, but treatment 2 decreased did not significantly
gical safety of pork if re chilling operation.
m the studies dealing different stages of the
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Table 4b: Slaughterhouse reladecrease/increase/or with no effe
Effect Treatment/R
Decrease Anal plugging
GMP appliedevisceration truptures
Chilling time
Chilling time+ 24 h 2-4 °C
Steam decont Washing T° (Decrease Total
Effect Plant features
Plant featuresEffect Total
No effect Chilling time31 °C+ 8 h 2-
Washing No effect Total Total
2.5. Small ruminants
2.5.1. General information a
Among the retrieved papers, 21regarding the three review questi
Half of the papers (11) were con(2), Canada (1), Brazil (1), Morothe exception of one paper; ten and three papers considered both
Four papers provided informatioone paper dealt with review ques
Twenty out of twenty-one papepapers, samples were collected fr
The most common sampling methe unit of enumeration mostly u
Alternative plate count was the aby Petrifilm (seven papers).
Concerning the sampled area, it surface of the sampled area range
Table 8 (Appendix C) reports gequestions (1, 2, 3) for which each
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ated risk factors investigated in the retrievedect on Enterobacteriaceae counts on swine carcas
Risk Factor Compared factor/Control Ref
g No anal plugging Purnell et ald during to reduce No such GMP applied Rivas et al.
Pre-chilling Algino et al (3h -31°C
C) Pre chilling Tomovic et
tamination No steam treatment Trivedi et al(< 32.2 °C) Pre-washing Algino et al
s Another plant Blagojevic e(SRB)
s Different plants Zweifel et a
(3 h --4 °C) Pre-chilling Tomovic et
Unwashing Rivas et al.
about the considered papers
1 papers were eligible in order to provide dataions.
nducted in Europe, while the remainder were fromocco (1) and India (1). All papers described obserpapers provided data on E. coli, eight papers on
h indicator bacteria.
on on review question 1, thirteen papers addressestion 3, while three papers answered all three revi
ers described studies that analysed pooled samrom two to five regions of the carcass.
ethod was swabbing (16 out of 21 papers), follosed was log cfu/cm2 (15 out of 21 papers).
analytical method most frequently used (10 out of
should be pointed out that a wide variability amoed from 5 to 100 cm2.
eneral information concerning the selected 21 ph paper provided pertinent data.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
48
d studies leading to sses
ference N° of studies
l. 2010 (UK) 1
2000 (ES) 1
l. 2009 (US) 2
al., 2011 (RS) 1
l. 2006 (US) 1 l. 2009 (US) 4
11 et al. 2011 1
al. 2008 (CH) 1 2
al., 2011 (RS) 1
2000 (ES) 1 2 15
a on small ruminants
m Australia (4), USA rvational studies with n Enterobacteriaceae
ed review question 2, ew questions.
mples; in most of the
owed by excision and
f 21 papers) followed
ong studies exists; the
papers and the review
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
2.5.2. General information a
The six papers providing informacarcasses along the slaughterindifferent steps of the slaughterlicattle (see Figure 2, paragraph 2and non-penetrative) with a captfollowed by bleeding in a hangin
An important step takes place afttypes of dressing can be used acccarcasses are shackled by first onskinned. Then the carcasses areforequarters and evisceration. In for pelt removal; head and feet arflaying completed. An alternaticarcasses being skinned while adopted only after skinning is improvement compared to the pskinning and reduces the contam
After dressing, evisceration takmaterial is separated and disposchilling, standing in a tunnel foBefore the chilling step, carcasse
In some slaughterhouses, washinwashing is to remove visible soilSoiled carcasses should be spraysoiling material dries, thus minim
Along the slaughterline, the uncwhile the clean operations are ev
2.5.3. Review question 1
Among the six papers, three Enterobacteriaceae. Concerning which samples were collected apapers reported data on carcasse(i.e. chilling). The retrieved papers provided slaughter processes described arused vary considerably. For thesthe different studies, as it wouldtrend of the indicator bacteria cothe studies, according to the coneffect in terms of decrease, increand Enterobacteriaceae counts o
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
about the slaughtering process
ation on the presence and counts of E. coli and Eng process seldom reported information about ne. The slaughter procedure for small ruminants2.2.2), and it commonly starts with mechanical tive bolt pistol. Electrical stunning is increasing
ng position.
fter bleeding: the dressing (or skinning or flayingcording to the features of the abattoir: in conventne then the other hind leg while the unshackled he suspended from a gambrel by both rear legslow-throughput slaughterhouses, the carcass is l
re removed and dressing initiated. Then the carcaive type of process, referred to as inverted drsuspended by the forelegs, with suspension bycompleted. This second type of dressing is u
previous one, due to the fact that it reduces themination of the carcasses.
kes place: offals are separated, inspected and csed of in a sanitary manner. Finally, the carcasor 2 h at 2-4 °C and then stored at 4±1 °C (coes can be split and cut.
ng is an additional step before chilling: the primling and bloodstains and to improve carcass appeyed/washed with potable water immediately aftemizing the time for bacterial growth.
clean operations, therefore, include stunning, blevisceration, carcass splitting and carcass dressing.
papers provided data on E. coli counts anboth the indicator bacteria, five out of six papers
at more than one step along the slaughterline, wes sampled immediately before and after one step
data that were not always comparable due to re rather heterogeneous, the sampled area and thse reasons, it is not appropriate to provide a direcd not be meaningful. Rather, it seems more informontamination at the different stages of the slaughtnclusions drawn by the authors. Figures 7 and 8 sease or no effect of the different stages of the slaon small ruminant carcasses, as reported in the elig
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
49
Enterobacteriaceae on the features of the
s is similar to that of stunning (penetrative
gly an option. This is
) operation. Different tional dressing, sheep hind leg and rump are s for skinning of the lowered onto a cradle ass is raised again and ressing, involves the y the rear legs being sually considered an e labour required for
cleaned. Condemned sses are submitted to onventional chilling).
mary object of carcass earance after chilling. er dressing before the
eeding and dehiding,
nd three papers on s performed studies in while one out of six p of the slaughterline
several reasons: the he analytical methods ct comparison among mative to analyse the terline within each of show respectively the aughterline on E. coli gible studies.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Figure 7: Trends (increase and small ruminant slaughterhouses
Figure 8: Trends (increase andslaughterline in small ruminant s
As far as E. coli counts are concsamples from the brisket area (10
0
1
2
3
Afte
rsk
inni
ng
Afte
r
N°
of st
udie
s
0
1
2
3
Afte
rsk
inni
ng
N°
of st
udie
s
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
decrease) of E. coli counts at different stages o
d decrease) of Enterobactreiaceae counts at dilaughterhouses
cerned, one study performed by Hauge et al. (2000 cm2) of 35 lambs at two different points of the
Afte
rev
iscer
atio
n
Afte
rw
ashi
ng
Bef
ore
chill
ing
NID
Afte
rev
iscer
atio
n
Afte
rw
ashi
ng
Afte
rch
illin
g
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
50
of the slaughterline in
ifferent stages of the
011b), collected swab e slaughterline: at the
No effect IncreaseDecrease
No effect IncreaseDecrease
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
beginning (after fleece removal) in order to investigate the microbcounts expressed as log cfu/100 the end of the slaughter process,of contamination of carcasses aslaughterline, just before chilling
The microbial load of sheep/goa(Bhandare et al., 2007), in whslaughterline: after flaying, after sites of the carcass (neck, shouldand mean counts were reported aflaying; 21 % and 3.9 log cfu/cm
Finally, differences in the levelsslaughterline but also at differenswab samples from an area of 2after skinning, evisceration and wforequarter (0.31 log cfu/cm2) agradual reduction (not significan0.31 after skinning to 0.07 log cf
Concerning Enterobacteriaceae represented an important point iYalcin et al. (2003) collected samareas of the same carcass at fourwashing and after chilling. AltoEnterobacteriaceae counts, lead(after dressing); 0.75 (after evisstated that even if not significanreduction of Enterobacteriaceae the most important steps in impro
The same conclusion about the which swab samples were takeabattoirs in Ireland. In this case lateral thorax, breast, brisket) an51 % of carcasses tested, counts26 %. This may be due to re-grow
A third paper by Milios et al. (2the process. Swab samples fromAfter pelt removal of hind and fevisceration steps (C- After echilling). The study showed subsequent step after the first saThe recorded counts (log cfu/cmsampling point C-2.68; samplingremoval was the determinant stathe lamb slaughterline.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
and at the end (before chilling). The two samplinbial transfer from fleece to the carcass surface ducm2, had the following values: 1.78 and 2.71 at
, respectively. The authors concluded that there ialong the slaughtering process and that the coung were significantly (p<0.05) higher than at skinni
at carcasses along the slaughterline was investigahich swab samples were taken at three differewashing and after evisceration. Samples were co
der, flank, rib, brisket, rump) and analysed in pooat the three different sampling points: 11 % and
m2 after evisceration; 8.3 % and 3.1 log cfu/cm2 aft
s of indicator bacteria can be found not only alnt sampling regions of the carcass. Martineli et20 cm2 of 30 carcasses from the forequarter andwashing processes. The highest value of E. coli and the lowest on hindquarter (0.03 log cfu/cmntly different) of these counts was observed in tfu/cm2 after washing).
counts, two out of three papers concluded thin reducing the load of these indicator bacteria omples (by the excision technique - 10 cm2 of sur different slaughterline stages: after dressing, aftogether, 176 samples were analysed in pools inding to the following mean values (expressed asceration); 0.58 (after washing) and 0.11 after c
nt (p>0.05), evisceration brought an increase, whcounts. However, the study concluded that chill
oving the hygienic quality of carcasses.
chilling step was drawn by another study (Lenen from lamb carcasses before and after chillalso, samples were collected from several areas
nd analysed in pools. Chilling reduced Enterobas remained unchanged on 23 % of carcasses, whwth or contamination just before or during the chi
011), investigated the hygienic status of a lamb m different sites of the carcass were collected dur
forelegs/ before pulling; B- After pulling/before evisceration/before pluck removal; D- After p
that Enterobacteriaceae counts progressivelyampling point and evisceration contributed most
m2) were the following: sampling point A-0.76; sag point D-2.90. In particular, the stage after evisage for the prediction of the carcasses contaminat
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
51
ng points were chosen uring skinning. E. coli
the beginning and at is an increasing level nts at the end of the ing.
ated by another study ent points along the llected from different
ols. E. coli prevalence 3.5 log cfu/cm2 after
fter washing.
long the steps of the t al. (2011) collected d hindquarter surface counts was found on
m2) after skinning. A the forequarter (from
hat the chilling step on carcasses. In fact, rface area) from four
fter evisceration, after n order to determine as log cfu/cm2): 0.38 chilling. The authors
hile chilling brought a ling represents one of
nahan et al., 2010) in ing in five different of the carcass (flank,
acteriaceae counts on hile they increased on illing process.
slaughterhouse along ring pelt removal (A- evisceration) and the
pluck removal/before y increased in each tly to the final count. ampling point B-2.27; ceration/before pluck tion rate at the end of
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
According to the retrieved paperecorded by three out of six papcaused increases of E. coli and Eof the slaughterline can have anbacteria can change according tohad a higher level of E. coli comp
Along the slaughterline, the mosthe chilling step: two papers conreduce the counts, thus being a co
Finally, concerning the washing washing had no effect in reducinthe chilling step.
The counts of E. coli on small stages of the slaughterline arEnterobacteriaceae are presenteanalysed at each step, the increadeviation are reported when these
2.5.4. Review question 2
The aim of this section is to management and slaughter charaloads on small ruminant carcasse
The great variability among the different studies and to the coindicator organism considered, thwere carried out and the specifbarely comparable.
According to the defined searchdealing with risk factors were obacteria, or considered more thaconsider the individual studies (tr
Altogether, 19 studies related to small ruminant carcasses were de
Studies were divided accordingresulting in a total of 11 studies dwhile ten studies examined slaugcounts and risk factors, eight stud
As already mentioned for reviewwas hampered by several aspectwere not consistent across studiein terms of conclusions drawn an
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ers, an increasing level of contamination along tpers; in particular, the skinning and the eviscera
Enterobacteriaceae. Furthermore, it seems clear thn influence on counts, but on the other hand, tho the sampled region. In fact, one paper reportedpared to the hindquarters.
st effective point in order to reduce the microbiancluded that this phase seems to be the most effecontrol point along the slaughterline.
step, the results are not clear or unanimous; accong the counts, while in another study it reduced
ruminant carcasses described in the selected pare reported in Table 13 (Appendix D), wd in Table 14 (Appendix D). In these tables, th
ase or decrease of the counts for each step, the me data were available.
describe results of the papers investigating acteristics, as well as other factors, on E. coli andes.
selected papers is due to the multitude of aspeomplexity of the slaughterline. Moreover, othehe sampling and analytical methods used, the settfic steps of the slaughterline investigated, rend
h process and the established eligibility criteria,btained. Since some papers provided data on bo
an one factor influencing bacterial counts, it wasrials), instead of the papers.
factors which could potentially influence indicatescribed in the retrieved papers.
g to the indicator bacteria considered and thedealing with E. coli. Of these, one study focused oghtering techniques or annual season. Concerningdies investigated the slaughtering techniques.
w question 1, the comparability of data providedts, such as the sampling method and the unit ofs. Hence, different studies considering the same f
nd not in terms of counts reported.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
52
the slaughterline was ation steps frequently hat the different steps he levels of indicator d that the forequarters
al contamination was ctive point in order to
ording to two studies, E. coli counts before
apers at the different while the counts of
e number of samples mean and the standard
the effects of farm d Enterobacteriaceae
ects considered in the er variables like the ting where the studies er the available data
a total of 16 papers oth types of indicator s more convenient to
tor bacteria counts on
e factor investigated, on batch information, g Enterobacteriaceae
d by different studies f enumeration, which factor were compared
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Among the retrieved papers, onHauge et al. (2011b) investigatregimes as: unshorn lambs; lambfarm three days before slaughtersamples collected from the briskand before chilling) led to the fol
- at the skinning point, Eslaughter compared with
- lower levels of E. colskinning; at this samplin
- increasing contaminatreduction of E. coli on shthat E. coli numbers on send of the slaughterline.
Consequently, the application ofattention to slaughter hygiene dimplemented and monitored.
Among factors related to the slalymph nodes for caseous lymphpapers.
As far as the season was concernE. coli counts on carcasses in thstudy swab samples were collectthree of the six plants applied oret al., 2006), raw meat sampledifferent sampling periods: a hot The authors concluded that seaso
Concerning the microbial contamadult sheep carcasses for caseoufrom two regions (rump and scashowed that the contribution ofEnterobacteriaceae) was statisticfor CLA had a detrimental impacimprovement in live animal manslaughter could improve the hygi
Three studies investigated the effcarcasses. In an Australian studywere collected from differingslaughterhouses and Low-Througmicroorganisms including genercarcasses from LTSs (21.4 %) coA similar conclusion was drawcarcasses after chilling from mefrequently on carcasses from LT
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
nly one study dealt with factors related to the ted E. coli counts on carcasses associated witbs shorn in the abattoir immediately before slaugr; lambs shorn on farm seven days before slaug
ket area at two points of the slaughterline (after rllowing conclusions:
E. coli counts were higher on the carcasses shornh those on farm;
li were detected on shorn lambs compared to ug point, shearing was effective in reducing E. col
tion of carcasses was recorded along the slauhorn lambs at the skinning point was negated furtshorn lambs were not significantly different from
f a shearing regime can be unsuccessful if other cduring the process (especially during evisceratio
aughterhouse, three factors, the effect of the seashadenitis and the plant features were investiga
ned, Duffy et al. (2001) did not find any differenche spring versus the fall or winter seasons. In tted from six different lamb slaughterhouses at 24rganic acid rinse to carcasses before chilling. In aes were collected from several slaughterhouses
season (April to September) and a cold season (Non had no effect on the recorded E. coli counts.
mination due to the handling of lymph nodes durus lymphadenitis (CLA), Jordan et al. (2012) colapular region) of carcasses before and after inspf inspection to higher counts of both indicator cally significant (p<0.001). In fact, the routine inct on carcass hygiene; curtailed inspection procednagement and the use of data regarding the occienic status of carcasses.
ffect of slaughterhouse throughput on E. coli couny (Phillips et al., 2001), swab samples of sheep cag throughput slaughterhouses: domestic slaughput Slaughterhouses (LTSs). The samples wereric E. coli counts, which were found to be lessompared with domestic (32.7 %) and export (35.2
wn by Sumner et al. (2003), who analysed samedium and low-throughput slaughterhouses. E. cTSs (18.5 %) compared with medium throughpu
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
53
batch characteristics. th different shearing
ghter; lambs shorn on ghter. Analysis of the removal of the fleece
n immediately before
unshorn lambs at the li loads on carcasses;
ughterline; thus, any ther along the line, so unshorn lambs at the
control measures, like on), are not properly
son, the inspection of ated by the retrieved
ces (p>0.05) between the above mentioned 4 hours after chilling; another study (Cohen
in Morocco in two November to March).
ring the inspection of llected swab samples
pection. Data analysis bacteria (E. coli and
nspection of carcasses dures coupled with an currence of lesions at
nts on small ruminant arcasses after chilling ughterhouses, export e analysed for several s prevalent on sheep 2 %) slaughterhouses. mples collected from coli was detected less ut (61.5 %) abattoirs.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
However, within LTSs there wcarcasses. Finally, another Austrorder to examine carcasses fromthus differing in terms of compleof prevalences (from 8.7 % to 8taken alone, the "snapshot" of thintegration of each plant's micrprocess elements should be comb
Among the retrieved studies, oslaughterhouse throughput (low lamb carcasses after washing/bcarcasses from the low-throughpE. coli counts compared to thosehigh-throughput slaughterhouse between the two slaughterhousesIn fact significant variations wethroughput slaughterhouse, with versus 3.18 log cfu/cm2 in winterslaughterhouse, lower counts weautumn).
Eight papers studied the influslaughterline on indicator bacteri
The results reported in differenprocessing operations. In particubacteria will be discussed: theprocedure; skin-on versus convetreatment.
Concerning the application of a peffect of this treatment on gocontamination on skin/hides of athe treated group (1 min spray wdid not significantly decrease dur
The type of dressing was investicarcasses in two studies. Gill et adressing might reduce of 1.5 log2002) comparing different types method) found that the Hybrid significantly lower EnterobacterThus, the greatest reduction in mit minimized hand contact during
The microbiological status of conventionally dressed carcasseproduction of ruminant carcassestatutory requirements. Howeverorganoleptic qualities) by severawell occur in other European
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
was a considerable in-plant disparity between thralian study (Bass et al., 2011) conducted a micr
m slaughterhouses that processed a broad range oexity of construction and processing. The results 9.5 %) of E. coli among the different slaughterhhe slaughterhouse may be misleading. Those au
robiological data with information involving livbined in order to be effective.
one study (Feizullah and Daskalov, 2010) comor high throughput) with the season. Samples
efore chilling. Concerning E. coli counts, the put slaughterhouse during the spring had significae collected from the low-throughput slaughterhouin the spring. With regards to Enterobacteriaceas were significant (P<0.001) for the autumn, wintere reported between the spring and the winter lower counts found on carcasses in spring (1.30
r); between the winter and the autumn seasons forere found in winter (1.27 cm2 in winter versus
ence of specific practices applied at one or ia counts on carcasses.
nt studies are presented following the normal orular, the effect of the following practices on the application of a pre-slaughter washing treaentionally dressed carcasses; pasteurisation treatm
pre-slaughter washing treatment, Kannan et al. (2oat carcass bacterial counts, as a strategy to
animals. The comparison between the control grouwashing with potable water) led to the conclusioring spray washing.
igated as a potential risk factor influencing indicaal. (2000a) concluded that the substitution of inveg units E. coli counts on sheep carcasses. Anothe
of pelt removal methods (Cradle dressing; Hybriand the Frame systems, considered as inverted
iaceae counts (p<0.01) compared to the conventimicrobiological contamination was achieved usingg pelt removal.
skin-on sheep carcasses was studied and disces by Fisher et al. (2007). Current EU legiss with the skin left on and flaying during the drr, demand for these skin-on, singed products (aal ethnic groups resident in the United Kingdomcountries. Skin-on carcasses had lower Entero
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
54
he hygienic status of robiological survey in of slaughter volumes, showed a wide range
houses: consequently, uthors concluded that vestock handling and
mbined together the were collected from authors found those
antly (P<0.001) lower use in the winter and
ae counts, differences ter and spring season. seasons for the low-log cfu/cm2 in spring r the high-throughput 6.05 log cfu/ cm2 in
more stages of the
rder of the slaughter he levels of indicator atment; the dressing ment and the chilling
2007) investigated the o reduce the faecal up (no washing) with on that E. coli counts
ator bacteria loads on erted for conventional er study (White et al., id method and Frame d dressing, produced ional Cradle dressing. g inverted dressing as
cussed in relation to slation prohibits the essing procedure is a associated to specific m is evident and may obacteriaceae counts
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
(p<0.001) before chilling thaneliminated by the application odressed carcasses. Moreover, theon skin-on carcasses after evichilling, thus toasting is a recomm
Hauge et al. (2011a) evaluatedcarcasses. The application of dressing/before chilling led to a 9of 1.85 log CFU per carcass (P<02.37 log CFU per carcass after application of steam was also repasses of steam spraying pistoreduced Enterobacteriaceae coorganoleptic characteristics of lam
Finally, the chilling step represecontrol the growth of bacteria combinations can be used to coinvestigated by Brown et al. (20and water circulated through thesystem involves attaching a speca chilled isotonic solution of sugapproximately 3 min thereby remThe study concluded that VPC comparison with air chilling; hcooling period. Concerning Enteand the treatment group (VPCEnterobacteriaceae on the poolebefore chilling and at 24 h webetween three different chilling ttreatments differed in the folcarcasses at 2 °C for 24h; Ultra-rtreatment - carcasses at 12 °C folowest Enterobacteriaceae countto cold shortening and consequen
According to the retrieved paperrisk factors on indicator bacteria two papers investigating this faccarcasses during the warm seasoslaughterhouse throughput coupindicator bacteria counts, withslaughterhouses and in winter for
A process that can lead to an innodes during the inspection oprocedures coupled with the usebacteria loads on carcasses.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
n conventionally dressed carcasses. However, of a chilling step that reduced the counts mainle application of a toasting step (an additional exisceration significantly reduced Enterobacteriamended step for these kind of products.
d the microbiological effects of hot water paa pasteurising treatment (82 °C± for 8 s)
99.5 % reduction of E. coli counts, corresponding0.001). Also Enterobacteriaceae counts were sigpasteurisation. The reduction of Enterobacteriaeported by Milios et al. (2011). The use of steal on each side of the carcass) after pluck remounts (almost 1 log CFU/cm2) without advmb carcasses.
ented an important point along the slaughteringand to ensure food safety. Several methods a
ool the carcass. The vascular perfusion chilling009), in which very fine ice particles in a solutioe vascular system, offering significant reductions cially designed catheter to the carotid artery in thgars and salts is then pumped through the arterimoving as much residual blood as possible fromwas capable of a rapid initial reduction of ca
owever uptake of perfusate into the carcass ocrobacteriaceae counts on the carcasses belonging
C), no conclusions can be drawn due to the fed surface samples and in the deep tissue samplere below the detection limits for all but two streatments on lamb carcasses was studied by Rublowing time-temperature combinations: Converapid treatment - carcasses at 20 °C for 3.5h then or 7h then 2 °C until 24 h. Carcasses of ultra-rapts, however, the carcasses subjected to this treatmntly to a loss of meat quality.
rs several conclusions can be drawn on the effectcounts. Annual season had no significant effect otor concluded that there was no difference betwe
on compared to the cold season. However, one papled with the season, concluded that season h
h the lowest counts being detected in spring r high-throughput slaughterhouses.
ncreasing of the counts of indicator bacteria is thof carcasses for caseous lymphadenitis; thus, of data regarding the management of animals co
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
55
this difference was ly on conventionally
xposure to gas flame) aceae counts before
asteurisation of lamb on carcasses after
g to a mean reduction gnificantly reduced by ceae counts after the am application (8-10
moval/before chilling erse effects on the
g process in order to and time-temperature g (VPC) is a method on of sodium chloride
in cooling time. The he neck of the animal, ial/venous system for m within the carcass. arcass temperature in ccurred, reducing the g to the control group fact that numbers of es taken from the loin samples. Comparison bio et al. (2012). The entional treatment - 2 °C until 24 h; Slow pid treatment had the ment were susceptible
t of different types of on the counts: in fact, een bacterial loads on aper investigating the has an influence on
for low-throughput
he handling of lymph reduced inspection ould reduce indicator
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Another factor that can have an iconcluded that low-throughput sof indicator bacteria compared to
The application of treatments alindicator bacteria levels on carslaughter does not significantly rof carcasses after dressing is esignificant reduction of the prevAnother step that can have an efof experimental chilling treatmenbacterial load; however a loss of
Finally, the dressing technique hincrease or reduction. In fact, induring pelt removal, is considerecarcass contamination.
Tables 5a and 5b summarize therelated to the slaughterhouse on E
Finally, Tables 19 and 20 (Appendealing with the effect of theslaughterline) on the counts of in
Table 5a: Slaughterhouse reladecrease/increase/or with no effe
Effect Risk factor/Treatm
Decrease low throughput-sp
Low ThroughpuSlaughterhouses (L
LTSs
low throughput–sampoint
Inverted dressin Hot water pasteurizDecrease Total Increase Pre-InspectionIncrease Total No effect Spring
Hot season Slaughterhouse throu Pre-slaughter wash
No effect Total
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
mpact on counts is the throughput of the slaughteslaughterhouses produce carcasses with lower pro high-throughput slaughterhouses.
ong the slaughterline and the effect of the slaugrcasses were investigated by eight papers. Wasreduce the microbial load. On the other hand, hoteffective; several authors concluded that this tvalence and counts of E. coli and Enterobacterffect in reducing carcass microbial load is the chnts can be effective in order to quickly reduce carmeat quality is recorded.
has an effect on indicator bacteria counts on carverted dressing, which minimizes contact betweed by several authors as the technique to be ado
e effect (in terms of decrease, increase and no eE. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts.
ndix E) report E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae coe slaughterhouse features (general and at diffndicator bacteria.
ated risk factors investigated in the retrievedect on E. coli counts on small ruminant carcasses
ment Compared factor/Control Ref
pring low throughput-winter; high throughput-spring
Feizullah (201
ut LTSs)
Domestic-export slaughterhouses
Phillips et a
Medium throughput slaughterhouses
Sumner (
mpling high throughput-sampling point Feizullah (201
ng Conventional dressing Gill et al.zation Untreated Hauge et al
n Post-inspection Jordan et a
Fall or winter Duffy et aCold season Cohen et a
ughput broad range of volume Bass et alhing no washing Kannan et
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
56
erhouse. Three papers evalences and counts
ghtering technique on shing animals before t water pasteurisation treatment leads to a riaceae on carcasses. hilling phase. The use rcass temperature and
rcasses, leading to an en hands and carcass pted in order to limit
effect) of risk factors
ounts from the studies fferent stages of the
d studies leading to
ference N° of studies
and Daskalov 10) (BG)
1
al. (2001) (AU) 1
et al. (2003) (AU)
1
and Daskalov 10) (BG)
1
. (2000) (CA) 1 l. (2011a) (NO) 1
6 al. (2012) (AU) 1
1 al. (2001) (US) 1 al. (2006) (MA) 1 . (2011) (AU) 1 al. (2007) (US) 1
4
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Table 5b: Slaughterhouse reladecrease/increase/or with no effe
Effect Risk factor/Treatm
Decrease Inverted dressing Skin on carcasse Ultra rapid chillin Hot water pasteuriza Steam applicatio low throughput-spr
Decrease Total Increase low throughput-win
Pre-Inspection Increase total No effect Vascular perfusion chNo effect Total
2.5.5. Review question 3
Three papers investigated the reland/or Enterobacteriaceae countal., 2011b), visual faecal contam2006), visual faecal contaminatiolast one (Whyte et al., 2002), thvisible contamination on carcasse
Concerning the sampling pointsslaughterline, mainly after pelt rtook samples at several sites oanalytical method of enumeratinplate count. Counts were express
Hauge et al. (2011b) investigatetotal, 140 lambs of 5 months of apasture were slaughtered in a com
The animals were divided into fabattoir immediately before slaudays); 35 lambs shorn on-farm slaughter (unshorn).
After stunning and bleeding (befcleanliness of the fleece (0– 3 scfleece (minor faecal material or mthe belly, legs, and tail; a scorepresented a very dirty fleece (fa
Immediately after the removal ocm2) for analysis of E. coli (pou
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ated risk factors investigated in the retrievedect on Enterobacteriaceae counts on small rumina
ment Compared factor/Control Referen
g Conventional dressing White et aes conventionally dressed Fisher et ang Conventional and slow chilling Rubio et aation Untreated Hauge et aln Untreated Milios et aring high throughput-winter Feizullah
(201
nter high throughput-autumn Feizullah (201
Post-inspection Jordan et a
hilling conventional chilling Brown et a
lationship between faecal contamination of carcats: all the studies were conducted in Europe. In
mination related to E. coli counts was studied, in aon in relation to Enterobacteriaceae counts was he focus was more on the development of a mees according to different types of pelt removal tec
s, two out of three papers collected samples at removal, while regarding the sampled areas, twoof the carcass. The sampling method used wang the bacteria (E. coli and/or Enterobacteriaceaesed as log cfu/cm2 or log cfu/total sampled area.
d E. coli carcass contamination associated with age, grazed in the hills for 3-4 months and finishmmercial slaughterhouse.
four groups according to the shearing regimes: 3ughter (day 0); 35 lambs shorn on-farm three day
m seven days before slaughter (7 days); 35 lam
fore fleece removal), all the lambs were assessed cale) by a skilled observer. The score ‘0’ represemud in the fleece); a score of ‘1’ represented smare of ‘2’ represented a generally dirty fleece;
faecal material or mud under the belly, legs, and ta
of the fleece, swab samples were collected from ur plate according to NMKL method No. 125 - N
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
57
d studies leading to ant carcasses
nce (study) N° of studies
al. (2002) (GB) 1 al. (2007) (GB) 1 al. (2012) (ES) 1 l. (2011a) (NO) 1 al. (2011) (GR) 1 and Daskalov
10) (BG) 1
6 and Daskalov
10) (BG) 1
al. (2012) (AU) 1 2
al. (2009) (GB) 1 1
asses and their E. coli one paper (Hauge et
another (Byrne et al., studied, while in the
ethod to assess gross chniques.
one point along the o out of three papers as swabbing and the e) was the alternative
fleece cleanliness. In hed on grass on home
35 lambs shorn in the ys before slaughter (3 mbs not shorn before
d and scored on visual ented a visually clean all spots of dirt under and a score of ‘3’ ail).
the brisket area (100 Nordic Committee on
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Food Analysis, 2005). Mean clea(3 days), 0.63 (7 day), and 2.49 (value than shorn lambs (p<0.05)log cfu/100 cm2 for carcasses wnot significantly different.
This study demonstrated that, oncontaminated carcasses than dirskinning are undeniably importanmade by controlling cleanliness o
Byrne et al. (2006) studied the rithe fleece to the ovine carcass, “clean sheep policy”. In this studat the slaughterhouse and gradedclean and dry; (B) clean and wet;
Microbiological evaluation of Enterobacteriaceae counts were shoulder, flank and rump) immed
Enterobacteriaceae were detectewere: 2.7, 2.9, 4.4, 3.9 and 4.4 sampled sites (brisket, shoulderecovered from dirty sheep were or wetness. Moreover, the paramcount on the carcass when the flecount when the fleece is dirty, rethat dirt was a contributing risk fpolicy should, therefore, differenmeasures for the latter.
Whyte et al. (2002) investigatedabattoirs (no more than 20 livestmodified cradle design and sevMoreover, a method of scoring gorder to measure gross visible co
Gross, visible contamination (stregions of the carcass using a mfilm (90 by 130 mm – 3M Pat-ifixed to a light blue cartridge contamination was based on thebetween 0 (no visible contaminat
Concerning the modified pelt (mainly hair) at the shoulder andsignificantly better than the convinverted dressing procedures (Crproduced the most visibly contawhich a similar contamination sc
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
anliness scores for the four shearing groups were(unshorn); thus the unshorn lambs were dirtier an). Mean E. coli values at skinning were of 1.65,
with cleanliness score ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’; howev
n average, visually clean animals tended to prodrty animals. While efforts to improve hygiene nt, significant improvements in the hygiene of ovof the live animals.
sk factors associated with the transfer of bacteriawith the aim to provide a scientific basis for t
dy, sheep in lairage were visually inspected by thed (based on the visual inspection of the fleece) int; (C) dirty and dry; (D) dirty and wet and (E) with
the carcasses was conducted using the swabobtained from 40 animals per category at four s
diately after pelt removal.
ed in 37.6 % of samples tested; the mean values log cfu/ 4.000 cm2. Contamination levels were
er, flank and rump). In this study, the Enterohigher than the counts found on the clean sheep
meter “fleece dryness/wetness” did not affect theeece was clean, while this parameter did influencesulting in overall higher counts. Enterobacteriacfactor regardless of wetness or dryness of the anintiate between clean and dirty sheep and requir
d methods of reducing lamb carcass contaminatiotock units/week) where cradle dressing was emplveral improved pelt removal methods were degross visible contamination on the depelted carc
ontamination when comparing different methods o
traw, wool, dirt and faecal material) was quantmethod based on the use of sheets of colourless, c
it). The adhesive sheets were applied to the carcpaper background. Quantification of the deg
e quantity of material adhering to the adhesive fition) and 10 (maximum visible contamination).
removal procedure, measurements of gross vd abdomen regions showed that a modified pelt remventional method (p<0.01 and p<0.05 respectiveradle, Hybrid and Frame methods), the Cradle meaminated carcasses for all carcass sites apart frcore to that of the Hybrid method was recorded.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
58
e: 0.66 (0 days), 0.60 nd had a higher score 1.88, 2.16, and 2.49
ver these values were
duce less microbially-during slaughter and vine carcasses can be
al contamination from the development of a e veterinary inspector to five categories: (A) h visible faecal dags.
b sampling method. eparate sites (brisket,
in the five categories similar over the four
obacteriaceae counts regardless of dryness e Enterobacteriaceae e Enterobacteriaceae
ceae counts suggested imal. The clean sheep re additional hygiene
on in low-throughput loyed. In the study, a eveloped and tested. ass was developed in of pelt removal.
tified from the same clear adhesive plastic cass surface and then gree of gross visible film. This was graded
visible contamination moval procedure was
ely). In relation to the ethod of pelt removal om the shoulder, for
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Correlation between the microcontamination was not possibEnterobacteriaceae (less than 1contamination scores.
In conclusion, the degree of grosthe contact that was likely to ofleece. Significant improvement dressing, as this minimizes hand
Despite the fact that the numberlimited, the available data sugges
1) the distinction between cleanimprove the hygiene of ovine car
2) additional hygiene measures send of the day; reduced line speinverted dressing; greater spacing
3) modifications to pelt removalthe slaughterman or the fleece ca
Table 22 (Appendix F) summaricarcasses along the slaughterline
CONCLUSIONS AND REMAR
• A total of 87 papers werprovided pertinent data aabout small ruminants.
• A high level of variabilcomplexity of the slauganalytical methods usedspecific step of the slaualong the slaughterline,conflicting conclusions aor investigating the same
• Further studies are needEnterobacteriaceae counalso those with contrastinand after specific steps in
• Studies dealing with riskto the choice of control g
• In general a better agreemregarding the presentatireaching this objective.among studies and resear
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
obiological contamination of the carcass and le because minor changes in TVC (Total V log cfu/cm2) were accompanied by large chan
ss visible contamination at the carcass sampling sccur between the carcass and the hands of the in gross visible contamination was achieved by contact with the carcass during pelt removal.
r of retrieved studies providing data for review sted that:
n and dirty carcasses could be an important startrcasses;
should be applied for high-risk (dirty) animals (i.eed; thorough cleaning of operator hands, arms ang between carcasses);
methods which reduce contact between the carcan significantly improve gross visible contaminati
izes the counts of E. coli and Enterobacteriaceain relation to the level of visual faecal contamina
RKS
e used to collect data for the three review questioabout beef carcasses, 31 papers about swine car
lity among the different studies, due to differenghterlines, was evidenced. Some variables, likd, the area of carcass sampled, the unit of enughterline investigated and the decontaminatio, render the available data barely comparableamong studies describing counts at the same stage risk factor.
ded to state precisely the effect of slaughterlinents on carcasses regarding in particular poorly ng results. Studies should be performed by sampn order to avoid confounding.
k factor should be addressed in particular by posingroups in order to better appreciate results.
ment should be obtained within the scientific comion of results. A standardized unit of enumer Confidence interval should be preferred to frch synthesis.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
59
the level of gross Viable Counts) and nges in gross visible
sites closely reflected slaughterman or the adoption of inverted
question 3 was quite
ting point in order to
e.: slaughtering at the nd aprons; the use of
cass and the hands of ion.
ae on small ruminant ation.
ons. Forty-two papers rcasses and 21 papers
nt aspects and to the ke the sampling and numeration used, the n treatments applied
e and could lead to ge of the slaughterline
e step on E. coli and investigated steps as
pling carcasses before
ng particular attention
mmunity in particular ration could help in facilitate comparison
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
REVIEW QUESTION 1. Presetheir counts on carcasses durin
• The main challenge in iincrease of indicator bacthat provided data obtainat distant sampling poinconsequence, the effectievident.
Beef carcasses
• Evisceration and trimmistudy, whereas in othecorrelated to these slaugh
• Washing after evisceratiostudy (reduction up to abwith potable water had nolog compared to the previ
• The application of diffpasteurisation and washinlog) of both E. coli and En
• Chilling does not effectivconflicting data in terms chilling treatment of beef
Pigs
• Scalding effectively reduboth indicator bacteria obwere described in all considered in the implem
• Pasteurisation effectivelyunder experimental slauslaughterhouses.
• Carcass washing does no
• Chilling is effective in rconsequently, it should Achieved reductions vari
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ence of the indicator organisms E. coli and Entng different stages in the slaughterline
identifying the steps of the slaughterline that ledcteria counts on pig and ruminant carcasses was tned before and after a single stage. Data have gennts and in between, different treatments have usuive role of the single stages in a change in co
ng led to an increase of E. coli counts up to 1 er studies (5), changes of E. coli and Enterohter phases were trivial (within 0.5 log).
on was effective to reduce the E. coli load of bbout 1 log), whereas some other studies demono effect on E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae countsious step of the slaughterline).
ferent sequential decontamination treatments, ng with acids after evisceration always led to anterobacteriaceae counts on beef carcasses.
vely reduce bacterial load on beef carcasses. Diffeof reduction/increase of E. coli and Enterobacte
f carcasses at the end of the slaughterline.
uces both E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts bserved reductions were in some cases higher thasampling regions tested. Therefore, scalding
mentation of GMP and HACCP within pig slaught
y reduces E. coli counts on pig carcasses up to 1.ughter conditions. However, more studies are ne
ot effectively reduce microbial contamination on p
reducing E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts obe carefully implemented in the context of
ied greatly according to sampling site on carcasse
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
60
terobacteriaceae and
d to a decrease or an the paucity of studies nerally been collected ually been used. As a unts was not always
log (cfu/cm2) in one obacteriaceae counts
beef carcasses in one nstrated that washing s (variation within 0.5
such as hot water, a drop (higher than 1
ferent studies reported eriaceae loads due to
on pig carcasses. For an 3 log (cfu/cm2) and
should be carefully terhouses.
.86 log (cfu/100 cm2) eeded in commercial
pig carcasses.
on pig carcasses, and slaughter operations. es.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Small ruminants
• Skinning and evisceratio(from 0.5-1.0 to 2.0 logreported by the four avai
• Carcass washing does ncarcasses.
• Chilling is effective in rcarcasses, as it reduced m
REVIEW QUESTION 2. InfoEnterobacteriaceae counts alon
Beef carcasses
• Pre-slaughter diet on farmbeef carcasses. However,
• Annual season has a dicarcasses; the lowest levedry season.
• Slaughterhouse characterdifficult to assess which throughput was not foundon beef carcasses. Althouobtained in low andprevalences/counts were g
• Steam pasteurisation and quality of beef carcasseprocedures tested were ureported a clear reductionundetectable levels.
• The effect of washing cmentioned for review quewashing treatments appliewashing seems to be ineffective when the load is
• The effect of chemical dchlorine, peroxyacetic acrelated to their effectivenresults could be due to ththe steps of the slaughterl
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
on are the two main steps along the slaughterg cfu/cm2) of E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae onlable papers.
not effectively reduce microbial contamination
reducing Enterobacteriaceae counts (two papermicrobial counts by more than 0.5 log cfu/cm2.
ormation that could explain the variability g the slaughterline
m (batch-related risk factor) does not affect microbthis was addressed in only one retrieved study.
irect impact on indicator bacteria prevalence els of carcass contamination were obtained durin
ristics have an influence on carcass contaminatifactors had the greatest impact on the counts.
d to be clearly correlated to the counts of E. coli ough in only one study differences between indid high throughput slaughterhouses were generally reported in lower throughput plants.
hot water washing are effective ways to improves, as reported for review question 1. The sed both in high and low throughput slaughterho
n for both E. coli or Enterobacteriaceae counts on
carcasses with potable water at ambient tempeestion 1. Different effects could be accounted fored as well as differences in the initial bacterial loneffective when the initial bacterial load on cs relatively high.
decontamination treatments (e.g. washing-sprayid, nisin) is unclear, since different studies descrness in reducing bacterial loads on beef carcasshe different chemicals tested, as well as the procline where the treatments were applied.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
61
rline where increases n carcasses occur, as
n on small ruminant
rs) of small ruminant
of the E. coli and
bial contamination of
and counts on beef g coldest months and
ion levels but it was . The slaughterhouse
or Enterobacteriaceae icator bacteria counts
significant, lower
e the microbiological different equipment-ouses, and all studies n beef carcasses up to
erature is unclear, as r by differences in the ad of carcasses, since
carcasses is low, but
ying with lactic acid, ribed opposite results es. These conflicting cedures followed and
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Pigs
• A high number of diffcomparisons are not possstudy design and operatio
• Hot water (>80 °C) baseE. coli counts (three studand on specific sites. The
• Anal plugging was foundone study. However otheplugging to maximize the
Small ruminants
• Carcasses of shorn lambbeginning of the slaughteof this batch-related risprocess if other control m
• Annual season has no However, the associationto the conclusion that inslaughterhouses and duri
• The effect of the slaugcarcasses was unclear.slaughterhouses had lowanother study observed tplants.
• Hot water pasteurisation prevalence and level (frcarcasses.
• Modified dressing proceas they reduce the indconventional dressing.
REVIEW QUESTION 3. ThEnterobacteriaceae and visuslaughterline
Beef carcasses
• Clean cattle produce cacarcasses.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ferent risk factors were investigated in the rible since few studies considered the same factor
onal environments were uncomparable.
ed treatments, such as pasteurization, are effectdies) and Enterobacteriaceae counts (one studyese results agree with papers described in review
d effective in reducing carcass contamination der authors suggested the importance of GMP due prevention of contamination.
bs had significantly lower (1.0 log cfu/cm2) couerline compared to those of unshorn lambs (in thesk factor). However, this advantage is lost durmeasures are not applied.
effect on microbial contamination of small n of the annual season with slaughterhouse througndicator bacteria counts are lower during springing winter for high-throughput slaughterhouses.
ghterhouse throughput on the prevalence of i. Some studies concluded that carcasses fr
wer prevalence of E. coli than those from high-thrthat the prevalence of E. coli differed greatly am
of carcasses after skinning is effective, as it signrom 1.0 to 2.0 log cfu/cm2) of indicator bacteri
edures, which reduce contact between hands anddicator bacterial load by 1.5 log unit on car
he potential relationship between the counal faecal contamination on ruminant ca
arcasses with lower bacterial loads (about 0.5-
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
62
retrieved papers but r and also in this case
tive in reducing both ) on whole carcasses question 1.
during evisceration in uring evisceration and
unts of E. coli at the e only retrieved study ring the slaughtering
ruminant carcasses. ghput (one study) led g for low-throughput
ndicator bacteria on from low-throughput roughput plants while mong the investigated
nificantly reduces the ia on small ruminant
d pelts, are advisable, rcasses compared to
nts of E. coli and arcasses along the
1 log) than do dirty
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
• Pre-slaughter visual classcorrective measures wademonstrated by the retri
• Application of effective and/or on dirty carcassescomparable to or lower th
Pig carcasses
• The literature research between visual faecal con
Small ruminants
• Visually clean small rucontaminated than dirty dirty animals and apply a
• Modified dressing methocan improve gross visiblthat methods to assess gpossible to compare data
REFERENCES
Algino R, Ingham S, Zhu J. 2treatments in very small State
Algino R, Badtram G, Ingham Bpork carcasses in very small a
Anderson R, Carr M, Miller R, KMcReynolds J, et al. 2005.supplements on Escherichia cMicrobiol 22(5):439-47.
Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Nou XDM, Koohmaraie M. 2004. EEnterobacteriaceae, and Escplants. J Food Prot 67(4):658-
Bacon RT, Belk KE, Sofos JN, animal hides and beef carcasequential interventions for de
Barboza de Martinez Y, Ferrer Kin reducing levels of micr65(11):1780-3.
Barco L, Belluco S, Roccato A apoultry carcasses along the
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
sification of the level of animal dirtiness and the as effective in reducing microbial contaminatiieved studies addressing this issue.
measures either on dirty animals before enterins along the slaughterline can lead to contaminatihat of clean animals at the end of the slaughterlin
did not provide any papers dealing with the ntamination on pig carcasses and counts of indica
uminants inspected at the lairage or before fleeanimals. Thus, an effort should be made in orderadditional hygienic measures for the latter group.
ods which reduce contact between hands and flee contamination of small ruminant carcasses. How
gross visible contamination on carcasses differ ama provided by the available studies.
2007. Survey of antimicrobial effects of beef e Inspected slaughter plants. J Food Sci 72(5):M17
B, Ingham S. 2009. Factors associated with salmabattoirs in Wisconsin. Journal of Food Protection
King D, Carstens G, Genovese K, Callaway T, E Effects of experimental chlorate preparationscoli colonization and contamination of beef cattle
X, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Kent MP, JaronEscherichia coli O157 prevalence and enumeratiocherichia coli O157 at various steps in commer-65.
Clayton RP, Reagan JO, Smith GC. 2000. Micrasses at different stages of slaughter in plants econtamination. J Food Prot 63(8):1080-6.
K, Salas EM. 2002. Combined effects of lactic acrobiological contamination in red meat carc
and Ricci A, 2014. Escherichia coli and Enterobae slaughter processing line, factors influenci
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
63
application of proper ion of carcasses, as
ng the slaughterhouse ion level of carcasses ne.
possible relationship ator bacteria.
ece removal, are less r to classify clean and
eece with the carcass, wever, due to the fact mong studies, it's not
carcass intervention 73-9.
monella prevalence on n® 72(4):714-21.
Edrington T, Jung Y, s as feed and water e and carcasses. Food
ni D, Pauling B, Allen on of aerobic bacteria, rcial beef processing
robial populations on employing multiple-
cid and nisin solution casses. J Food Prot
acteriaceae counts on ing the counts and
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
relationship between visual supporting publication 2014:E
Bass C, Crick P, Cusack D, Lockthe co-regulation of abattoirs
Bhandare SG, Sherikar AT, Patucontamination on sheep/goat cControl 18(7):854-8.
Blagojevic B, Antic D, Ducic Mmicrobial loads on the hides a
Blagojevic B, Antic D, Ducic Mabattoir process hygiene indic
Bohaychuk VM, Gensler GE, Bcarcasses from provincially in
Bosilevac JM, Nou X, Barkocy-hot water instead of lactic acidthe prevalence of Escherich69(8):1808-13.
Bryant J, Brereton DA, Gill CO.of microbiological contamina
Brown T, Ian Richardson R, Wcarcasses - A feasibility study
Byrne B, Dunne G, Lyng J, Boltwith the new hygiene regulati
Cibin V, Mancin M, Pedersen KLau Baggesen D, Ricci A, 20Hygiene Criteria in poultry121 pp.
Cohen N, Ennaji H, Hassa M, Ka(morocco). Molecular Nutritio
Collobert J, Dorey F, Dieulevecarcasses. Sci Aliments 22(3)
Conter M, Zanardi E, Ghidini S,and equipment in a pig slaugJournal of Food Science 18(4)
Corantin H, Quessy S, Gaucher pasteurization in controlling mCan J Vet Res 69(3):200-7.
Delhalle L, De Sadeleer L, BollDaube G. 2008. Risk factorsslaughterhouses. J Food Prot 7
Duffy EA, Belk KE, Sofos JN, LMicrobial contamination occu64(4):503-8.
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
faecal contamination of carcasses and countEN-636, 107 pp.
ke G, Sumner J. 2011. The use of microbiologicain new south wales, Australia. Food Control 22(6
urkar AM, Waskar VS, Zende RJ. 2007. A comcarcasses in a modern Indian abattoir and traditio
M, Buncic S. 2012. Visual cleanliness scores of cand the carcases. Vet Rec 170(22):563.
M, Buncic S. 2011. Ratio between carcass-and scator. Food Control 22(2):186-90.
Barrios PR. 2011. Microbiological baseline stunspected abattoirs in Alberta, Canada. Can Vet J 5
-Gallagher GA, Arthur TM, Koohmaraie M. 200d reduce levels of aerobic bacteria and Enterobachia coli O157:H7 on preevisceration beef car
. 2003. Implementation of a validated HACCP sation of pig carcasses at a small abattoir. Can Vet
Wilkin CA, Evans JA. 2009. Vascular perfusion y. Meat Sci 83(4):666-71.
on DJ. 2007. The development of a 'clean sheep pion (EC) 853/2004 (hygiene 2). Food Microbiol 2
K, Barrucci F, Belluco S, Roccato A, Cocola F, F14. Usefulness of Escherichia coli and Enteroba: experimental study. EFSA supporting public
arib H. 2006. The bacterial quality of red meat anon & Food Research 50(6):557-62.
eux V, Quillien N. 2002. Microbiological cont:327-34.
Guidi E, Campanini G. 2006. Microbiological cghterhouse and evaluation of a steam decontamin):387-96.
ML, Lessard L, Leblanc D, Houde A. 2005. Efmicrobiological hazards of cull cow carcasses in
laerts K, Farnir F, Saegerman C, Korsak N, De for salmonella and hygiene indicators in the 1071(7):1320-9.
LeValley SB, Kain ML, Tatum JD, Smith GC, Kurring on lamb carcasses processed in the unite
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
64
ts: a review. EFSA
al surveys to evaluate 6):959-63.
mparison of microbial onal meat shops. Food
cattle at slaughter and
skin-microflora as an
dy of beef and pork 52(10):1095-100.
06. Treatments using cteriaceae and reduce rcasses. J Food Prot
ystem for the control J 44.
chilling of red meat
policy' in compliance 24(3):301-4.
Ferrarini S, Sandri A, cteriaceae as Process cation 2014:EN-635,
nd offal in Casablanca
tamination of bovine
condition of carcasses nation system. Italian
ffectiveness of steam n a commercial plant.
ewulf J, De Zutter L, 0 largest Belgian pig
Kimberling CV. 2001. ed states. J Food Prot
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Duggan SJ, Mannion C, PrenderF, Duffy G. 2010. Trackingslaughter process in the Repub
Feizullah F and Daskalov H. 20low and high production capa
Fisher A, Wilkin CA, Purnell Gcarcasses. Meat Sci 77(4):467
Gill CO and Landers C. 2004aroutinely processed and detain8.
Gill CO and Landers C. 2004b. Mremoval of visible contaminat
Gill CO, Landers C. 2003a Micrpacking plants. Meat Sci 65(4
Gill CO and Landers C. 2003b. of decontaminated beef carcas
Gill C, Bryant J, Landers Cmicrobiological contaminatioplant. Food Microbiol 20(6):6
Gill CO and Badoni M. 2001. Thpig carcasses. Can Vet J 42(4)
Gill CO, Bryant J, Brereton conventional or inverted dress
Gill CO, Dussault F, Holley REvaluation of the hygienic pcarcasses at eight packing pla
Gill C and Bryant J. 2000. Throutinely in a commercial bee
Hamilton D, Holds G, Lorimer decontamination of pork carcAustralian abattoirs. Zoonose
Hansson IB. 2001. MicrobiologicJ Food Prot 64(6):820-5.
Hauge SJ, Nafstad O, Rotterud Oby hide cleanliness in the abat
Hauge SJ, Wahlgren M, Rotterucarcasses: Microbial effects an
Hauge SJ, Nafstad O, Skjerve Ecleanliness on microbiologic3):178-83.
Hurd HS, Brudvig J, Dickson J, impact on carcass contaminat
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
rgast DM, Leonard N, Fanning S, Gonzales-Barrg the salmonella status of pigs and pork fromblic of Ireland. J Food Prot 73(12):2148-60.
010. Investigation on lamb meat production hygiacity. Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine 1
G. 2007. The production and microbiological sta7-73.
a. Proximate sources of bacteria on boneless ned carcasses at a pork packing plant. Int J Food
Microbiological conditions of detained beef carcation. Meat Sci 66(2):335-42.
robiological effects of carcass decontaminating tr4):1005-1011.
Effects of spray-cooling processes on the microsses. J Food Prot 66(7):1247-52.
C. 2003. Identification of critical control poon in processes leading to the production of grou641-50.
he microbiological effects of trimming sticking w):297-9.
DA. 2000a. Microbiological conditions of shsing processes. J Food Prot 63(9):1291-4.
RA, Houde A, Jones T, Rheault N, Rosales Aerformances of the processes for cleaning, dres
ants. Int J Food Microbiol 58(1-2):65-72.
he effects on product of a hot water pasteurizinef carcass dressing process. Food Microbiol 17(5)
M, Kiermeier A, Kidd C, Slade J, Pointon A. ases with hot water or acidified sodium chlorite -s Public Health 57 Suppl 1:16-22.
cal meat quality in high- and low-capacity slaugh
O, Nesbakken T. 2012. The hygienic impact of cattoir. Food Control 27(1):100-7.
ud OJ, Nesbakken T. 2011a. Hot water surface pnd cost-benefit considerations. Int J Food Microb
E, Rotterud OJ, Nesbakken T. 2011b. Effects ofcal contamination of lamb carcasses. Int J Foo
Mirceta J, Polovinski M, Matthews N, Griffith Rion and human foodborne risk. Public Health Rep
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
65
ron U, Egan J, Butler m lairage through the
iene in facilities with 3(4):252-8.
atus of skin-on sheep
loins prepared from Microbiol 97(2):171-
asses before and after
reatments at four beef
obiological conditions
oints for control of und beef at a packing
wounds in pasteurized
heep carcasses from
A, Quessy S. 2000b. ssing and cooling pig
ng treatment applied ):495-504.
2010. Slaughterfloor - a comparison in two
hterhouses in Sweden.
ategorisation of cattle
pasteurisation of lamb biol 146(1):69-75.
f shearing and fleece od Microbiol 150(2-
R. 2008. Swine health p 123(3):343-51.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Inthavong P, Srikitjakarn L, KyMicrobial contamination of Southeast Asian J Trop Med P
Jones TH and Johns MW. 2012virus contamination of hog ca
Jordan D, Sentance CB, Spoonccaseous lymphadenitis and i92(4):837-40.
Kannan G, Jenkins AK, Eega Keffects on physiological stresRuminant Research 67(1):14-
Kiermeier A, Bobbitt J, Vandercarcase Escherichia coli monincoming stock and processin
Kinsella KJ, Sheridan JJ, RoweDA. 2006. Impact of a novel loss during beef carcass chilli
Lenahan M, O'Brien SB, Kinsehygiene before and after chilli
Lenahan M, Crowley H, O'Brienchilling to control the growthcoli O157:H7 in pigs. J Appl
Lindblad M, Lindmark H, Lambcarcasses at Swedish slaughte
Madden RH, Murray KA, Gilcontamination during beef ca6.
Martineli T, Rossi Junior O, Cevaluation of the muscle slaughterhouse/Avaliação mioperações de abate em matado
McCleery DR, Stirling JM, Mcclipping on the microbiologicEC-approved abattoir. J Appl
McEvoy JM, Sheridan JJ, Blair Ito hygiene assessment based 92(2):217-25.
Mies PD, Covington BR, Harricattle hides prior to slaughte67(3):579-82.
Milios K, Mataragas M, Pantouover the microbiological conwith or without pasteurizing t
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
yule M, Zessin KH, Baumann M, Douangngeupig carcasses at a slaughterhouse in Vientian
Public Health 37(6):1237-41.
. Assessment of F-RNA coliphage as a potentiaarcasses. J Food Prot 75(8):1492-500.
cer WF, Balan JA, Morris SM. 2012. Inspectionits effect on the density of microbes on sheep
KR, Kouakou B, McCommon GW. 2007. Preslauss responses and skin and carcass microbial co-9.
rlinde P, Higgs G, Pointon A, Sumner J. 2006.nitoring data to investigate the relationship betweng efficacy. Int J Food Microbiol 111(3):263-9.
e TA, Butler F, Delgado A, Quispe-Ramirez A, spray-chilling system on surface microflora, wateng. Food Microbiol 23(5):483-90.
ella K, Sweeney T, Sheridan JJ. 2010. Assessming at five Irish abattoirs. Food Control 21(3):313
n SB, Byrne C, Sweeney T, Sheridan JJ. 2009. h of Enterobacteriaceae on porcine carcasses anMicrobiol 106(5):1512-20.
bertz ST, Lindqvist R. 2007. Microbiological baserhouses. J Food Prot 70(8):1790-7.
mour A. 2004. Determination of the principaarcass dressing processes in northern Ireland. J F
Cereser N, Cardozo MV, Pinto F, Perri S. 20surface of lamb carcasses during slaught
crobiológica da superfície muscular de carcaçaouro. Ars Vet 27(3):145-51.
cIvor K, Patterson MF. 2008. Effect of ante- ancal quality and safety and ultimate pH value of Microbiol 104(5):1471-9.
IS, McDowell DA. 2004. Microbial contaminatioon criteria used in EU decision 2001/471/EC. I
s KB, Lucia LM, Acuff GR, Savell JW. 2004.er using washes with and without antimicrobial
uvakis A, Drosinos EH, Zoiopoulos PE. 2011. Entamination of carcasses in a lamb carcass dressreatment. Int J Food Microbiol 146(2):170-5.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
66
un B, Fries R. 2006. e capital, Lao PDR.
al indicator of enteric
n of lymph nodes for carcasses. Meat Sci
ughter spray-washing ounts in goats. Small
Use of routine beef een hygiene status of
Blair IS, McDowell er activity and weight
ment of lamb carcass 3-8.
The potential use of nd the incidence of E.
seline study of swine
al points of product ood Prot 67(7):1494-
011. Microbiological ter process in the as ovinas durante as
nd post-mortem hide f beef carcasses in an
on on beef in relation Int J Food Microbiol
Decontamination of agents. J Food Prot
Evaluation of control sing process operated
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Minihan D, Whyte P, O'Mahonyon the levels of EnterobacteriJ Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Pu
Namvar A and Warriner K. 20polymerase chain reaction to slaughter line. Int J Food Mic
Nero L. A. 2012. Monitoring oslaughterhouses located in Mi
Nesbakken T, Eckner K, Rotterpathogenic Yersinia enterocoindicators on pig carcasses. In
Nou X, Rivera-Betancourt M, BoKoohmaraie M. 2003. Effect and the levels of aerobic baprocessing plant. J Food Prot
Ozdemir H, Sireli UT, Can HYcarcasses. Archiv Fur Lebensm
Phillips D, Sumner J, Alexandermeat. J Food Prot 64(5):697-7
Prendergast D, Daly D, Sheridancontamination levels and the Irish beef abattoirs. Food Mic
Purnell G, James C, Wilkin CA,through the use of anal plug73(6):1108-10.
Rabaste C, Faucitano L, Saucier of handling and group size ocarcass microbial contaminati
Retzlaff D, Phebus R, Kastner Cfor a high-volume static chamsupport HACCP programs. Fo
Rigobelo EC, Santo E, Marin Escherichia coli strains in andrugs. Foodborne Pathog Dis
Rigobelo EC, Stella AE, Avila Fisolated from carcasses of beMicrobiol 110(2):194-8.
Rivas T, Vizcaino JA, Herrera FJIberian pig slaughterhouse. J F
Rubio B, Vieira C, Martinez B, Fcarcass quality of suckling lam
Ruby JR, Zhu J, Ingham SC. 20large-scale beef abattoirs oveplan carcass testing for salmon
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
y M, Collins JD. 2003. The effect of commercialiaceae and Escherichia coli on naturally contamiublic Health 50(7):352-6.
006. Application of enterobacterial repetitive intrace the fate of generic Escherichia coli within robiol 108(2):155-63.
of hygiene indicator microorganisms in bovine inas Gerais State, Brazil. 2012 annual meeting Iaf
rud OJ. 2008. The effect of blast chilling on oolitica compared to Campylobacter spp. and nnt J Food Microbiol 123(1-2):130-3.
osilevac JM, Wheeler TL, Shackelford SD, Gwarof chemical dehairing on the prevalence of Escheacteria and Enterobacteriaceae on carcasses in66(11):2005-9.
Y. 2010. Determination of microbial surface comittelhygiene 61(1):27-30.
r JF, Dutton KM. 2001. Microbiological quality700.
n J, McDowell D, Blair I. 2004. The effect of abarelationship between aerial and carcass contam
crobiol 21(5):589-96.
, James SJ. 2010. An evaluation of improvemengging of pig carcasses prior to scalding and de
L, Mormede P, Correa JA, Giguere A, Bergeronon welfare of pigs in lairage and their influenceion and meat quality. Canadian Journal of Anima
C, Marsden J. 2005. Establishment of minimum opmber steam pasteurization system (SPS 400-SC) oodborne Pathog Dis 2(2):146-51.
JM. 2008. Beef carcass contamination by shn abattoir in brazil: Characterization and resista5(6):811-7.
FA, Macedo C, Marin JM. 2006. Characterizatioeef cattle during their processing at an abattoir
J. 2000. Microbial contamination of carcasses anFood Prot 63(12):1670-5.
Fernandez AM. 2013. Effect of different post-momb. Food Sci Technol Int.
007. Using indicator bacteria and Salmonella teer an 18-month period to evaluate intervention nella. J Food Prot 70(12):2732-40.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
67
l steam pasteurization inated beef carcasses.
ntergenic consensus-a high capacity pork
carcasses from three fp.
occurrence of human numbers of hygienic
rtney BL, Reagan JO, erichia coli O157:H7 n a commercial beef
ontamination on beef
y of Australian sheep
attoir design on aerial mination levels in two
nts in carcass hygiene ehairing. J Food Prot
n R. 2007. The effects e on stomach weight, l Science 87(1):3-12.
perational parameters for beef carcasses to
higa toxin-producing ance to antimicrobial
n of Escherichia coli in brazil. Int J Food
nd equipment from an
rtem temperatures on
est results from three system efficacy and
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Saucier L, Bernier D, Bergeron meal frequency and pre-slauquality in pigs. Canadian Jour
Serraino A, Bardasi L, Riu R, PVisual evaluation of cattle clslaughtering. Meat Sci 90(2):5
Spescha C, Stephan R, Zweifel stages of slaughter in two Eur
Sumner J, Petrenas E, Dean contamination on beef and she
Tamplin ML, Feder I, PalumboEscherichia coli biotype I ocontrol point-based inspection
Tergney A and Bolton D. 2006. Vand microbial contamination o
Tomovic VM, Petrovic LS, JokRapid chilling effect on the Letters 16(6):6766-75.
Trivedi S, Reynolds AE, Chen decontaminate beef and hog cin Georgia. J Food Prot 70(3)
Warriner K, Aldsworth TG, Kauduring pork processing. J App
Whyte RT, Holder JS, Tinker development of procedures aremoval in low-throughput ab
Wu S, Dalsgaard A, Vieira AR, and genotypic analysis of pprocessed at a pig slaughterho
Yalcin S, Nizamlioglu M, Gurbuslaughtering process. J Food S
Yang X, Badoni M, Youssef MKof product at a large beef pack
Zweifel C, Fischer R, Stephan Rdifferent small-scale Swiss ab
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
R, Giguere A, Methot S, Faucitano L. 2007. Eughter fasting on behaviour, stomach content anrnal of Animal Science 87(4):479-87.
Pizzamiglio V, Liuzzo G, Galletti G, Giacometti leanliness and correlation to carcass microbial c502-6.
C. 2006. Microbiological contamination of pig ropean union-approved abattoirs. J Food Prot 69(
P, Dowsett P, West G, Wiering R, Raven eep carcases in south Australia. Int J Food Microb
o SA, Oser A, Yoder L, Luchansky JB. 2001. on swine carcasses processed under the hazard n models project. J Food Prot 64(9):1305-8.
Validation studies on an online monitoring systemon beef carcasses. Food Control 17(5):378-82.
kanovic MR, Tomovic MS, Tasic TA, Ikonic PMbacterial populations of pork carcasses. Roman
J. 2007. Use of a commercial household steamcarcasses processed by four small or very small m:635-40.
ur S, Dodd CE. 2002. Cross-contamination of carcpl Microbiol 93(1):169-77.
DB, Allen VM, White RP, Hinton MH. 20and apparatus to reduce contamination of lamb battoirs. J Food Prot 65(1):41-9.
Emborg HD, Jensen LB. 2009. Prevalence of tepopulations of Escherichia coli from animals,ouse. Int J Food Microbiol 135(3):254-9.
uz U. 2004. Microbiological conditions of sheepSaf 24(2):87-93.
K, Gill CO. 2012. Enhanced control of microbiolking plant. J Food Prot 75(1):144-9.
R. 2008. Microbiological contamination of pig anbattoirs. Meat Sci 78(3):225-31.
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
68
Effect of feed texture, nd carcass microbial
F, Merialdi G. 2012. contamination during
carcasses at different 11):2568-75.
G. 2003. Microbial biol 81(3):255-60.
Salmonella spp. and analysis and critical
m for reducing faecal
M, Sumic ZM. 2011. nian Biotechnological
m cleaning system to meat processing plants
casses and equipment
002. Assessment and carcasses during pelt
etracycline resistance , carcasses and cuts
p carcasses during the
logical contamination
nd cattle carcasses in
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Relevance Scree
The checklists used for the asseNeutral means that the answer w
First level assessment – step 1
Question
Language of the paper
Is the paper a primary research pape
Does the paper consider main livest
Does the paper provides data on prepathogenic) Escherichia coli or Ente
Is the main aim of the paper the inveresistance and does the paper providscope of the review?
First level assessment – step 2
Questions
Which animal species are considere
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ening
essment of the relevance of the retrieved papersas informative only and did not lead to paper exc
ns Answers Incl
English
French
Italian
Spanish
German
Other
er?
Yes
No
Unknown
tock species?
Yes
No
Unknown
esence/counts of (non erobacteriaceae?
Yes
No
Unknown
estigation of antimicrobial de no pertinent data for the
Yes
No
Unknown
Answers Inclusion
ed in the paper ?
Ruminants Ne
Swine Ne
Poultry Ne
Horses Ne
Others Ne
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
69
s are reported below. lusion.
lusion/Exclusion
Inclusion
Inclusion
Inclusion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Inclusion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Inclusion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Inclusion
Inclusion
n/Exclusion
eutral
eutral
eutral
eutral
eutral
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Does the paper provide data on morslaughterline or data on risk factors of indicator bacteria on carcasses?
Does the paper provide data on carc
Does the paper consider a real settin
Second level assessment
Questions
Where was the paper conducted?
Does the paper provide original data
Which species is/are considered?
Does the study provide data on carc
Which indicator organism/s is/are copaper?
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
re than one stage of the influencing the loads
Yes Inc
No Exc
Unknown Inc
casses?
Yes Inc
No Exc
Unknown Inc
ng?
Yes Ne
No Ne
Unknown Ne
Answers Inclusio
Europe Neutral
Neutra
Central and south America
Neutral
Africa Neutral
Asia Neutral
Oceania Neutral
a? Yes Inclusio
No Exclusi
Cattle Inclusio
Sheep Inclusi
Goat Inclusio
Swine Inclusio
Horse Inclusio
Other Exclusi
asses? Yes Inclusio
No Exclusi
onsidered in the Escherichia coli Inclusio
Enterobacteriaceae Inclusio
None of them Exclusi
Real setting Inclusio
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
70
lusion
clusion
lusion
lusion
clusion
lusion
eutral
eutral
eutral
on/Exclusion
l
al
l
l
l
l
on
ion
on
ion
on
on
on
ion
on
ion
on
on
ion
on
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Which kind of scenario is considere
Which kind of sample is collected?
Which is the study aim?
If a factor influencing the counts wafactor related to:
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
ed?
Pilot slaughterhouse
Inclusio
Artificial contamination with E. coli and/or Enterobacteriaceae strains
Exclusi
Swab Neutral
Skin Excision Neutral
Meat excision Neutral
Other Neutral
Counts at different stages
Inclusio
Factors influencing the counts
Inclusio
Relation between visual faecal contamination and counts of indicator bacteria
Inclusio
None Exclusi
as considered, is that
Batch characteristics
Neutral
Slaughterhouse features
Neutral
Sampling method Neutral
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
71
on
ion
l
l
l
l
on
on
on
ion
l
l
l
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Appendix B. Data Collection
The forms used for the collection
General information
Questions
Reference ID
Type of reference
Start year of the study
End year of the study
Country where the study was conducted
Type of study
Study aim
Species considered in the study
Age (months)
Number of plants involved
Plant 1 - Number of animal slaughtered/hour
Plant 1 - Number of animals slaughtered/day
Plant 1 - Number of animal slaughtered/year
Plant 2 - Number of animal slaughtered/hour
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
n
n of data from the selected papers are reported bel
Answers
Paper
Other
(YYYY)
(YYYY)
Observational
Experimental
Counts at different stages
Factors influencing the counts
Relationship between visual faecal contamination and counts
Cattle
Swine
Sheep
Goat
Horses
1
2
3
More
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
72
low.
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Plant 2 - Number of animals slaughtered/day
Plant 2 - Number of animal slaughtered/year
Plant 3 - Number of animal slaughtered/hour
Plant 3 - Number of animals slaughtered/day
Plant 3 - Number of animal slaughtered/year
Does the paper describe the use of any decontaminant treatments?
Sampling method
If a swab method was used, specify:
Sampling area on the carcasses:
Type of sample
Sampled area on the carcass
Dimension of the sampled area (cm2
Sample size (number)
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
Yes
No
NR
Swab
Skin excision
Meat excision
:
Sponge
Dry and wet
Gauze
Delimited
Undelimited
Not specified
Single
Pool
Neck
Brisket
Flank
Rump
Jowl
Belly
Back
Ham
Other 2) Single sample area (cm2)
E. coli
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
73
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Indicator bacteria considered
Analytical method
Significance level (alfa) e.g. 0.05
Power (1-beta) e.g. 0.80
Effect size (delta)
Data collection
Questions
Reference ID
Study aim
Species considered
Risk factor considered
Classification of faecal contamination (how carcasses were classified)
When was faecal contamination evaluated?
Indicator bacteria considered
Unit of enumeration
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
Enterobacteriaceae
Both
ISO
Alternative plate count
Petrifilm
MPN
Other
Answers
Counts at different stages
Factors influencing the counts
Relationship between visual faecal contamination and counts
Bovine
Swine
Goat
Sheep
Ante-mortem
Post-mortem
Enterobacteriaceae
E. coli
CFU/g
CFU/cm2
logCFU/g
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
74
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Does the paper describe how negative results have been considered?
Experimental group n°
Slaughtering stage
Slaughtering stage features
Sampling region
Counts
Sampling region
Counts
Sampling region
Counts
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
logCFU/cm2
Other
Yes
No
No negative results
N
Mean
SD
Min
Max
5 percentile
95 percentile
Prevalence (%)
other
N
Mean
SD
Min
Max
5 percentile
95 percentile
Prevalence (%)
other
N
Mean
SD
Min
Max
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
75
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
Sampling region
Counts
Stage/s where counts decrease
Stage/s where counts increase
Effect of the RF on carcass counts
Effect of faecal contamination on carcass counts
Final considerations (comments)
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
5 percentile
95 percentile
Prevalence (%)
other
N
Mean
SD
Min
Max
5 percentile
95 percentile
Prevalence (%)
other
Increase
Decrease
None
Increase
Decrease
None
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
76
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Appendix C. General characteristics of the selec
Table 6: General characteristics of the 41 paperEB: Enterobacteriaceae)
Reference (country) Type of study
Sam
Type of sample
Blagojevic et al., 2012 (RS) O Swab (sponge)
Yang et al., 2012 (CA) O Swab (sponge)
Nero 2012 (BR) O Swab
Serraino et al., 2012 (IT) O Swab (sponge)
Hauge et al., 2012 (NO) O Swab (sponge)
Bass et al., 2011 (AU) O Swab (sponge)
Blagojevic et al., 2011 (RS) O Swab (sponge)
Bohaychuk et al., 2011 (CA) O Swab (sponge)
Ozdemir et al., 2010 (TR) O Skin excision
McCleery et al., 2008 (GB) O Meat excision
Rigobelo et al., 2008 (BR) O Swab (sponge)
Zweifel et al., 2008 (CH) O Skin excision
Algino et al., 2007 (US) E Swab (sponge)
Ruby et al., 2007 (US) O Swab (sponge)
Trivedi et al., 2007 (US) E Swab (sponge)
Tergney and Bolton, 2006 (TR) O Swab (sponge)
Bosilevac et al., 2006 (US) E Swab (sponge)
Kiermeier et al., 2006 (AU) O Swab
Kinsella et al., 2006 (IE) O Meat excision
Rigobelo et al., 2006 (BR) O Swab (sponge)
Anderson et al., 2005 (US) E Swab (sponge)
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
cted papers
rs providing data on beef carcasses. (E: experimental; O: obser
mple characteristics Indicator bacteria
Method characterist
Region sampled Analytical method Unit o
brisket, flank, rump, neck EB Petrifilm lo
randomly selected EC Membrane filter log
not specified EC - EB Petrifilm lo
brisket, groin, hock EC - EB ISO lo
brisket, belly EC NMKL log brisket, flank, rump, jowl,
midloin EC Petrifilm lo
brisket, flank, rump, perianal region, neck EB Petrifilm
not specified EC Alternative plate count
brisket, flank, rump EC - EB ISO lo
brisket, flank, rump, neck EB ISO lo
rump EC Qualitative analysis pres
brisket, flank, rump, neck EB Alternative plate count lo
brisket, flank, rump EC - EB Alternative plate count loinside - outside area + navel-
plate-brisket-shank area EB Petrifilm log
rump, midline, neck EB Alternative plate count lo
brisket, flank, rump, anus, hock EC - EB ISO - Alternative plate count
brisket, foreshank, top round surface, anus hock EB Petrifilm - Bactometer log
not specified EC Qualitative analysis pres
brisket, flank, rump, neck EB ISO lo
near the anus EC Qualitative analysis pres
between the bung and the hock EC Alternative plate count log
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
77
rvational; EC: Escherichia coli;
ics Review question
of enumeration
ogCFU/cm2 3
CFU/100 cm2 1
ogCFU/ cm2 1
ogCFU/ cm2 3
CFU/100 cm2 3
ogCFU/ cm2 2
CFU/ cm2 2
CFU/ cm2 2
ogCFU/ cm2 2
ogCFU/ cm2 3
sence/absence 1-2
ogCFU/ cm2 2
ogCFU/ cm2 2
CFU/100 cm2 1-2
ogCFU/ cm2 2
NR 2
CFU/100 cm2 2
sence/absence 2
ogCFU/ cm2 2
sence/absence 2
g CFU/swab 2
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 6 (Continued): General characteristics of the 4EB: Enterobacteriaceae; NR: not reported)
Reference (country) Type of study Sa
Type of sampleCorantin et al., 2005 (CA) O Swab (gauze)
Retzlaff et al., 2005 (US) E Meat excision
Arthur et al., 2004 (US) O Swab (sponge)
Gill and Landers, 2004b (CA) O Swab (sponge)
Madden et al., 2004 (IE) O Swab (sponge)
McEvoy et al., 2004 (GB) O Swab (dry andwet)
Mies et al., 2004 (US) E Swab (sponge)
Prendergast et al., 2004 (IE) O Swab (dry andwet)
Gill et al., 2003 (CA) O Swab (gauze)
Gill and Landers, 2003a (CA) O Swab (gauze)
Gill and Landers, 2003b (CA) O Swab (gauze)
Minihan et al., 2003 (IE) O Swab (sponge)
Nou et al., 2003 (US) O Swab (sponge)
Sumner et al., 2003 (AU) O Swab (sponge)
Barboza et al., 2002 (VE) O-E Swab (sponge)
Collobert et al., 2002 (FR) O Skin excision
Hansson, 2001 (SE) O Swab (sponge)
Phillips et al., 2001 (AU) O Swab (sponge)
Gill and Bryant, 2000 (CA) E Swab (gauze)
Bacon et al., 2000 (US) O Swab (sponge)
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
41 papers providing data on beef carcasses. (E: experimental; O: obse
ample characteristics Method characteris
e Region sampled Indicator bacteria Analytical method Unit not specified EC Petrifilm l
ventral midline area EC - EB Petrifilm l
) inside - outside area + plate-brisket-shank area EB Petrifilm - Bactometer log
) randomly selected +
contaminated area + adjacent to the contaminated area
EC Membrane filter C
) brisket EB ISO ld brisket, hock, cranial back,
bung EC - EB Alternative plate count l
) brisket, belly, round EC Petrifilm ld brisket EB ISO l
randomly selected EC Membrane filter
randomly selected EC Membrane filter log
randomly selected EC Membrane filter log
) rump, midline, neck EC - EB ISO log
) anal-hock area EB Petrifilm log
) Brisket, flunk, rump EC Petrifilm L
) brisket, renal site, neck EC Petrifilm l
not specified EB Alternative plate count l
) loin, sternum EC Alternative plate count
) brisket, flank, rump EC Petrifilm pre
randomly selected EC Membrane filter log ofrecov
) brisket, flank, rump EC Petrifilm log
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
78
ervational; EC: Escherichia coli;
stics Review question
of enumeration logCFU/cm2 2
logCFU/cm2 2
gCFU/100 cm2 1
CFU/100 cm2 3
logCFU/cm2 1
logCFU/cm2 1
logCFU/cm2 2
logCFU/cm2 2
cfu/100cm2 1
g CFU/100cm2 2
g CFU/100cm2 2
CFU/1000 cm2 2
g CFU/100 cm2 2
Log CFU/cm2
logCFU/cm2 1-2
logCFU/cm2 2
CFU/cm2 2
esence/absence 2 f the total number vered from 2500
cm2 2
g CFU/100 cm2 1
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 7: General characteristics of the 31 papersEB: Enterobacteriaceae; HGMFT: Hydrophobic Gri
Reference (country) Type of study Type of sample
Jones and Johns, 2012 (CA) O -E Swab (gauze)
Bass et al., 2011 (AU) O Swab (sponge)
Bohaychuk et al., 2011 (CA) O Swab (sponge)
Blagojevic et al., 2011 (RS) O Swab (sponge)
Tomovic et al., 2011 (RS) E Swab (sponge)
Duggan et al., 2010 (IE) O Swab (sponge)
Hamilton et al., 2010 (AU) E Meat excision
Purnell et al., 2010 (UK) E Swab (sponge)
Wu et al., 2009 (DK) O Swab (sponge)
Algino et al., 2009 (US) O-E Swab (sponge)
Lenahan et al., 2009 (IE) O Swab (sponge)
Hurd et al., 2008 (US) O Swab (sponge)
Delhalle et al., 2008 (BE) O Swab
Zweifel et al., 2008 (CH) O Skin excision
Nesbakken et al., 2008 (NO) O Swab
Lindblad et al., 2007 (S) O Swab (sponge)
Rabaste et al., 2007 (CA) O Swab (sponge)
Saucier et al., 2007 (CA) E Swab (gauze)
Trivedi et al., 2007 (US) E Swab (sponge)
Conter et al., 2006 (I) E Skin excision
Inthavong et al., 2006 (LA) O Swab
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
s providing data on swine carcasses. (E: experimental; O: observd Membrane Filtration technique)
Sample characteristics Indicator bacteria
Method cha
e Region sampled Analytical method
random, anal EC HGMFT
) brisket, rump, ventral jowl (if possible) EC Petrifilm
) adjacent areas same carcass side EC ISO
) jowl, belly, ham, perianal EB Petrifilm
) jowl, belly, back, ham EB ISO
) jowl, belly, back, ham EB ISO
Belly strip EC Petrifilm
) anus EB ISO
) left leg close to the anus EC Petrifilm
) jowl, belly, ham EC - EB Petrifilm
) whole side EB ISO
) bung, skin, pleura EB ISO
ham, pelvis, forelimb, sternum EC ISO
neck, belly, back, ham EB ISO
ham EC ISO
) neck, belly, back, ham EC ISO
) brisket, internal rib cage, front feet top EC HGMFT
flank, thoracic inside EC HGMFT
) jowl, belly, ham EB ISO
jowl, belly, back, ham EC ISO
jowl, belly, ham EB ISO
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
79
vational; EC: Escherichia coli;
racteristics Review question
Unit of enumeration logCFU/100 cm2 (MPN) 1
logCFU/cm2 2
CFU/cm2 2
CFU/cm2 2
logCFU/cm2 2
logCFU/g 1
logCFU/g 2
logCFU/ cm2 2 logCFU/100
cm2 1
logCFU/ cm2 2
logCFU/ cm2 1
Prevalence 1
logCFU/ cm2 2
logCFU/ cm2 2
logCFU/ cm2 1
logCFU/ cm2 2 logCFU/983 cm2 (MPN) 2
logMPN 2
logCFU/ cm2 2
logCFU/ cm2 2
logCFU/cm2 1
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 7 (Continued): General characteristics of thecoli; EB: Enterobacteriaceae; HGMFT: Hydrophobi
Reference (country) Type of study Type of sam
Spescha et al., 2006 (CH) O Swab (dry and
Namvar and Warriner et al., 2006 (CA) O Swab (spong
Gill and Landers, 2004a (CA) O Swab (gauz
Warriner et al., 2002 (UK) O Swab (spong
Tamplin et al., 2001 (US) O Swab (spong
Hansson, 2001 (S) O Swab (spong
Gill and Badoni, 2001 (CA) O Swab (spong
Gill et al., 2000b (CA) O Swab (spong
Rivas et al., 2000 (ES) O-E Swab
Bryant et al., 2003 (CA) E Swab
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
e 31 papers providing data on swine carcasses. (E: experimental; O: c Grid Membrane Filtration technique)
Sample characteristics Indicator bacteria
Method cha
mple Region sampled Analytical method
wet) neck, belly, back, ham EB ISO
ge) brisket EC Petrifilm
ze) contaminated + randomly selected EC HGMFT
ge) brisket EC-EB ISO
ge) neck, belly, ham EC Petrifilm
ge) loin, sternum EC ISO
ge) sticking wound EC HGMFT
ge) random EC HGMFT
neck, abdomen EC - EB ISO
back, jowl, ham, belly EC HGMFT
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
80
observational; EC: Escherichia
aracteristics Review question Unit of
enumeration
logCFU/ cm2 1
logCFU/100cm2 1
logTotal (MPN) 1 -2
CFU/100 cm2 1
CFU/ cm2 1
CFU/ cm2 2
MPN 2
MPN 1
logCFU/ cm2 1-2
MPN/100 cm2 1
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 8: General characteristics of the 21 papers proEB: Enterobacteriaceae)
Reference (country) Type of study Type of sample
Rubio et al., 2013 (ES) O Skin excision
Jordan et al., 2012 (AU) O Swab (sponge)
Bass et al., 2011 (AU) O Swab (sponge)
Hauge et al., 2011a (NO) O Swab (sponge)
Hauge et al., 2011b (NO) O Swab (sponge)
Martineli et al., 2011 (BR) O Swab
Milios et al., 2011 (GR) O Swab (sponge)
Feizullah and Daskalov, 2010 (BG) O Swab (sponge)
Lenahan et al., 2010 (IE) O Swab (dry and we
Brown et al., 2009 (GB) E Meat excisionBhandare et al., 2007 (IN) O Swab Byrne et al., 2007 (IE) O Swab (sponge)
Fisher et al., 2007 (GB) O Skin excision Kannan et al., 2007 (US) O Swab (sponge)
Cohen et al., 2006 (MA) O Meat excision
Yalcin et al., 2004 (TR) O Skin excision Sumner et al., 2003 (AU) O Swab (sponge)
Whyte et al., 2002 (GB) O Swab (dry and we
Phillips et al., 2001 (AU) O Swab (sponge)Duffy et al., 2001 (US) O Swab (sponge)
Gill et al., 2000a (CA) O Swab (sponge)
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
oviding data on small ruminant carcasses. (E: experimental; O: obse
Sample characteristics Indicator bacteria
Method chara
Region sampled Analytical method
brisket, rump EB Petrifilm
rump and scapular region EC-EB Petrifilm
brisket, flank, midloin EC Petrifilm outside (mid-line of the abdomen, under the forelegs, around rectum and hind legs) and
inside the carcass EC - EB Alternative plate count
Brisket EC Alternative plate count
forequarter - hindquarter leg EC MPN
brisket, flank, rump, shoulder EB Alternative plate count
leg, chest-outer and inner surface, neck EC - EB ISO
et) brisket, flank, lateral thorax, breast EB ISO
lateral thorax, flank, brisket, breast EB Alternative plate count neck, brisket, flank, rump, shoulder EC Alternative plate count
brisket, flank, rump, shoulder EB Alternative plate count
rump, belly, flank, brisket, shoulder, neck EB Alternative plate count brisket, flank, leg EC Petrifilm
not specified EC Alternative plate count
neck, brisket, leg, shoulder EB Alternative plate count brisket, flank, rump EC Petrifilm
et) shoulder, abdomen and lateral surface of the rear leg EB Alternative plate count
brisket, flank, rump EC Petrifilm flank, breast, leg EC Petrifilm
two sites for each carcass selected from a grid of 43 areas on one side of the carcass
surface EC Membrane filter
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
81
ervational; EC: Escherichia coli;
acteristics Review question Unit of
enumeration log CFU/cm2 2
CFU/cm2 2
log CFU/cm2 2
log CFU/carcass 2
log CFU/100 cm2 1-2-3
log CFU/cm2 1
log CFU/cm2 1-2
log CFU/cm2 2
log CFU/cm2 1
log CFU/cm2 2 log CFU/cm2 1
log CFU/4000cm2 3
log CFU/cm2 2 log CFU/cm2 2
log CFU/g 2
log CFU/cm2 1 log CFU/cm2 2
log CFU/cm2 2-3
log CFU/cm2 2 log CFU/cm2 2
CFU/100 cm2 2
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Appendix D. Counts at different stages along the
Table 9: Beef - Counts of E. coli reported at different
Reference Stages of the slaughterline
Additional operations - decontamination treatments
Gill
et a
l., 2
003
(CA
)
Killing Hide removal
washing carcasses and spray with lactic acid (2%)
Evisceration vacuum/hot water clean
Trimming washing
pasteurization and spray with 2% lactic acid
Cooling
Yan
g et
al.,
201
2 (C
A)
Killing Hide removal
washing spraying with lactic acid (5%)
Evisceration Trimming
washing spraying with lactic acid (5%) pasteurization (steam at > 90°C)
Cooling
* hide-on carcasses were washed with 1.5% of sodium hy ND: none detected
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
e slaughterline
t stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of samples; D: decrease; I: in
Sampling points Sampled region N % Counts
randomly selected 425
1) after hide removal 52 3.16
2) after spraying with lactic acid 76 3.41
3) before washing 68 3.43
4) after washing 64 2.57
5) after pasteurization and spraying with lactic acid 4 0.3
6) after chilling 32 2.18
randomly selected 200
1) after hide removal* 12 1.62
2) after washing 8 0.303) after spraying with lactic acid 0 ND
4) after evisceration 0 ND 5) after trimming 20 1.436) after washing 8 1.00
7) after spraying with lactic acid 0 ND 8) after pasteurization 0 ND
ydroxide at 55°C and then washed with chlorine water
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
82
ncrease; ND: not detected)
s Unit of enumeration D I
log
of th
e to
tal n
umbe
r rec
over
ed fr
om 2
5 sa
mpl
es (c
fu/1
00 c
m2 )
X
X
X
log
of th
e to
tal n
umbe
r rec
over
ed fr
om
25 sa
mpl
es (c
fu/1
00 c
m2 )
X X
X X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 9 (Continued): Beef - Counts of E. coli report
Reference Stages of the slaughterline
Additional operations - decontamination treatments
McE
voy
et a
l., 2
004
(GB
)
Killing
Hide removal
Evisceration
Trimming splitting
washing with warm water (35-40°C)
Cooling 24 h Killing
Hide removal
Evisceration
Trimming splitting
washing with warm water (35-40°C)
Cooling 24 h
Killing
Hide removal Evisceration Trimming splitting
washing with warm water (35-40°C)
Cooling 24 h Killing
Hide removal
Evisceration
Trimming splitting
washing with warm water (35-40°C)
Cooling 24 h
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
ed at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of samples; D:
Sampling points Sampled region N % Counts Un
enum
hock
1728
2
1) after hide removal 41.7 2.91
2) after evisceration 25 2.74
3) after splitting
4) after washing 16.7 2.02
5) after chilling 5.9 1.3
brisket
1) after hide removal 47.3 2.98
2) after evisceration 30.6 2.79
3) after splitting
4) after washing 22.3 2.47
5) after chilling 6.1 1.18
cranial back
1) after hide removal 0 0 2) after evisceration 5.6 1
3) after splitting
4) after washing 11.2 2.13
5) after chilling 6.1 1.4
bung
1) after hide removal 41.2 2.41
2) after evisceration 33.4 2.67
3) after splitting
4) after washing 26.6 2
5) after chilling 5.9 1.95
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
83
decrease; I: increase)
nit of meration D I
log
N: l
og o
f the
tota
l num
ber o
f rec
over
ed/c
m2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 9 (Continued): Beef - Counts of E. coli reporreported) * min - max 8 plants sampled; ** min - max
Reference Stages of the slaughterline
Additional operationsdecontamination treatm
Bac
on e
t al.,
200
0 (U
S)
Killing Hide removal
steam vacuum of spot contam(plants 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
washing (water 29 - 38°(plants 1,2,3,4,5)
lactic (1,6 - 2,6%) or acetirinsing (plants 1,2,3,4
Evisceration Trimming
thermal pasteurization(plants 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
washing (16 to 32°C)(plants 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
lactic (1,6 - 2,6%) or acetirinsing (plants 1,2,3,4,6,
Cooling 24 h (plant 5,6,7,8) 36(plants 1,2,3,4)
Bar
boza
et a
l., 2
002
(VE)
Killing Hide removal Evisceration
Trimming
Cooling
Ner
o et
al.,
201
2
(BR
)
Killing Hide removal Evisceration Trimming
Cooling
Rig
obel
o et
al
., 20
08 (B
R) Killing
Hide removal Evisceration Trimming Cooling
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
rted at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of samples; Dx considering the three sampling area s -
ments Sampling points Sampled region N % Counts enu
flank, brisket, rump 1280
1) after hide removal 2.6 - 5.3*
mination 8)
°C)
c acid 4)
n 8)
) 8) 2) after final washing 1.0 - 3.0*
c acid 7,8)
h 3) after chilling 0.9*
neck, brisket, renal site 192
1) after hide removal 0.3 - 0.5**
2) after splitting 1.3 - 1.7**
3) after washing 1.2 - 1.4**
1) after bleeding
NR 65
2) after hide removal 3) after evisceration NR
4) after last washing
rump near the anus 216
1) after hide removal 58
NR 2) after splitting and trimming 38
3) after last washing in the cooler 32
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
84
D: decrease; I: increase; NR: not
Unit of umeration D I
leas
t squ
ares
mea
ns fo
r the
log1
0 va
lues
(lo
g C
FU/1
00cm
2)
X
X
X
log
CFU
/cm
2 X
X
NR
NR X X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 10: Beef - Counts of Enterobacteriaceae repor
Reference Stages of the slaughterline
Additional operations - decontamination treatment
Arth
ur e
t al.,
200
4 (U
S)
Killing
high-pressure water rinses ansteam vacuum
Hide removal steam vacuum
wash cabinet - cold water + lacacid (2-3%)
Evisceration Trimming
wash cabinet (water 90°C) wash cabinet (peroxyacetic aci steam pasteurization cabinet
Cooling
Rub
y et
al.,
200
7 (U
S)
Killing
Hide removal trim and steam vacuum spraying with lactic acid (5%
Evisceration Trimming
steam vacuum spray with ambient temp. Wat hot water lactic acid (5%)
Cooling
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
rted at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of samples; D:
ts Sampling points Sampled region N % Count
inside and outside area + navel-plate-brisket-foreshank
area
288
nd 1) before hide removal 6.2
(on thhide)
2) after hide removal 1.4
ctic
3) after evisceration 1.7
id) t
4) after decontamination treatments 0.2
5) after spray chilling (29 h) 0.4
inside and outside + navel-plate-
brisket-shank area 18989
1) before hide removal 4.9
2) after hide removal 1.04%)
3) after evisceration 0.8ter
4) after decontamination treatments - 0.38
5) after chilling (36-48h) 0.2
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
85
: decrease; I: increase)
ts Unit of enumeration D I
he )
log
cfu/
100
cm2
X
X
log
CFU
/100
cm
2
X
8 X
X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 10 (Continued): Beef - Counts of EnterobaI: increase)
Reference Stages of the slaughterline
Additional operations - decontamination treatmen
McE
voy
et a
l., 2
004
(GB
)
Killing Hide removal Evisceration Trimming splitting
washing with warm water (35-4Cooling 24 h Killing
Hide removal Evisceration Trimming splitting
washing with warm water (35-4Cooling 24 h Killing
Hide removal Evisceration Trimming splitting
washing with warm water (35-4Cooling 24 h Killing
Hide removal Evisceration Trimming splitting
washing with warm water (35-4Cooling 24 h
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
acteriaceae reported at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: nu
ts Sampling points Sampled region N % Count
hock
1728
1) after hide removal 69.4 3.442) after evisceration 58.3 2.75
3) after splitting 40°C) 4) after washing 44.5 3.03
5) after chilling 15.2 1.48
brisket
1) after hide removal 75 2.842) after evisceration 63.9 2.82
3) after splitting 63.9 2.7140°C) 4) after washing 63.9 2.45
5) after chilling 33.4 1.74
cranial back
1) after hide removal 13.9 1.842) after evisceration 16.7 1.97
3) after splitting 38.9 3.4240°C) 4) after washing 66.7 2.64
5) after chilling 33.4 3.03
bung
1) after hide removal 66.7 2.932) after evisceration 80.6 3.35
3) after splitting 72.3 3.5140°C) 4) after washing 55.9 3.13
5) after chilling 21.2 2.42
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
86
umber of samples; D: decrease;
ts Unit of enumeration D I
log
N: l
og o
f the
tota
l num
ber o
f rec
over
ed/c
m2
X
X
X X
X
X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 10 (Continued): Beef - Counts of EnterobaI: increase; NR: not reported)
Reference Stages of the slaughterline
Additional operations - decontamination treatmen
Ner
o et
al.,
201
2 (B
R)
Killing Hide removal Evisceration Trimming
Cooling
Mad
den
et a
l., 2
004
(IE)
Killing Hide removal
Evisceration Trimming
high-pressure washing with hot
Cooling
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
acteriaceae reported at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: nu
ts Sampling points Sampled region N % Coun
1) after bleeding
not reported 65
NR2) after hide removal NR3) after evisceration NR
NR4) after last washing NR
NR
brisket 100
1) after hide removal 0.7
2) after splitting 0.6water
3) after washing 1.02
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
87
umber of samples; D: decrease;
nts Unit of enumeration D I
R R X R NR R R R
log
cfu/
cm2
7
3
2
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 11: Swine - Counts of E. coli reported at D: decrease; I: increase; NR: not reported) * reduction as
Reference Operations
Jones and Johns 2012 (CA)
10 sec 86°
10 sec 86°
Wu et al. 2009 (DK)
(singeing, polishing, evisceration)
Nesbakken et al. 2008 (NO) Air Blast. -21.9° 1h
Namvar and Warriner 2006 (CA)
CO2 (tunnel) 65° for 5 min
Dry polishing and wash
Lactic acid 1,5%
CO2 (tunnel) 65° for 5 min
Dry polishing and wash
Lactic acid 1,5%
Gill and Landers 2004a (CA)
Warriner et al. 2002 (UK)
Scalding
Dry pol./singeing/wet pol.
Tamplin et al. 2001 (US)
Gill et al. 2000b (CA)
After evisceration
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
different stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of samples; M: ssessed according to the t-paired test
Sampling points Sampled region N % Counts (M and SD)
Before pasteurization Anal 25 100 3.80 (0.93) After pasteurization Anal 25 100 2.42 (0.94) After evisceration Anal 25 84 1.32 (1.40)
After washing Anal 25 64 -0.09 (1.27) Before pasteurization Random 25 92 1.79 (1.13) After pasteurization Random 25 64 -0.07 (1.11) After evisceration Random 25 56 -0.33 (1.17)
After washing Random 25 44 -0.67 (0.97) After stunning Left leg
105
5.07 (4.95-5.18After scalding Left leg 4.14 (3.92-4.36After splitting Left leg 2.03 (1.89-2.18After cooling Left leg NR
Before chilling Ham 60 NR After chilling Ham 60 NR After bleeding Brisket 12 4.84 +/- 0.85After scalding Brisket 12 <1,17 After scraping Brisket 12 4.01+/-1.23
After evisceration Brisket 12 <1,17 After splitting Brisket 12 <1,17 After washing Brisket 12 <1,17 After bleeding Brisket 12 4.48+/- 0.65After scalding Brisket 12 <1.17 After scraping Brisket 12 3.51 +/- 0.88
After evisceration Brisket 12 <1.17 After splitting Brisket 12 <1.17 After washing Brisket 12 <1.17 Before chilling Random 25 64 1.64
After chilling Random 25 64 1.11 After bleeding Brisket 10 90 3.86×10^4 After scraping Brisket 10 100 6.39×10^3 After polishing Brisket 10 100 5.18×10^2 After washing Brisket 10 100 5.44×10^2 After bleeding Neck, belly, ham 100 100 1700 After chilling Neck, belly, ham 122 30.1 1.1
After polishing Random 200 NR After washing Random 200 NR After chilling Random 200 NR
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
88
mean; SD: standard deviation;
Unit of enumeration D I
Log CFU/100 cm2
X X X
Log CFU/100 cm2
X
) Geometric mean log CFU/100 cm2 (CI)
- ) X ) X
X
Log CFU/cm2 X*
Log CFU/100 cm2
X X
X
X X
X
log cfu of the total number for 2500
cm2
X
CFU/100 cm2
X X
CFU/ cm2
MPN CFU 100 cm2
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 11 (Continued): Swine - Counts of E. colideviation; D: decrease; I: increase; NR: not reported)
Reference Operations
Rivas et al. 2000 (ES)
Bryant et al. 2003 (CA)
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
reported at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of sa
Sampling points Sampled region N % Counts (M and SD)
After bleeding Neck, abdomen
216
3.36 (0.45) After scalding Neck, abdomen 0.10 (0.16) After dehairing Neck, abdomen 0.45 (0.42) After scraping Neck, abdomen 0.05 (0.12)
After evisceration Neck, abdomen 1.06 (0.98) End Neck, abdomen 1.16 (0.97)
After dehairing Random 25 92 1.25(1.02) After shaving Random 25 100 1.29 (0.81)
Before head removal Random 25 4 NR After head removal Random 25 56 NR after pasteurization Random 25 12 NR
After washing Random 25 16 NR
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
89
amples; M: mean; SD: standard
Unit of enumeration D I
logCFU/ cm2
X X
MPN logCFU/ cm2 (SD)
X
X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Table 12: Swine - Counts of Enterobacteriaceae repoD: decrease; I: increase; NR: not reported)
Reference Sampling points Sa
Duggan et al. 2010 (IE)
Before chilling HamAfter chilling Ham
Lenahan et al., 2009 (IE)
Before chilling After chilling
Hurd et al. 2008 (US) Before scalding
During evisceration After evisceration
Inthavong et al. 2006 (LA)
Before evisceration HamAfter evisceration Ham
Spescha et al. 2006 (CH)
After bleeding NeckAfter scalding NeckAfter dehairing NeckAfter singeing NeckAfter polishing NeckAfter trimming NeckAfter washing Neck
After head removal NeckAfter chilling NeckAfter bleeding NeckAfter scalding Neck
After dehairing and singeing NeckAfter polishing NeckAfter trimming NeckAfter washing NeckAfter chilling Neck
Warriner et al. 2002 (UK)
After bleeding After scraping After polishing
After evisceration and washing
Rivas et al. 2000 (ES)
After bleeding NAfter scalding NAfter dehairing N
After singeing and scraping NAfter evisceration N
End N
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
orted at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of samples;
ampled region N % Counts (M and SD)
m, back, belly, jowl 30 NR m, back, belly, jowl NR
Whole side 480 Not aggregated Whole side 480 Not aggregated
Skin 7 82.1 Bung 7 pool of 5 96.4 Pleura 7 pool of 5 92.9
m, back, belly, jowl 62 2.81 (23-3.1) m, back, belly, jowl 2.98 (2.1-3.3) k, belly, back, ham 100 100 4.57; 4.51; 4.57; 4.65 k, belly, back, ham 100 0-6 1.38; 1.94; 1.,20; NR k, belly, back, ham 100 82-98 3.95; 3.84; 4.47; 4.56 k, belly, back, ham 100 12-42 2.51; 1.86; 3.05; 2.62 k, belly, back, ham 100 7-27 2.60; 2.02; 1.51; 2.20 k, belly, back, ham 100 13-49 2.96; 2.28; 2.51, 1.,94 k, belly, back, ham 100 18-36 2.68; 2.47; 2.18; 2.08 k, belly, back, ham 100 19-36 2.74; 2.16; 3.29; 2.23 k, belly, back, ham 100 0-14 1.98; 0.60; 0.09; NR k, belly, back, ham 100 99-100 6.10; 6.05; 6.08; 6.11 k, belly, back, ham 100 2-22 3.26; 1.68; 1.64; 1.64 k, belly, back, ham 100 56-86 6.09; 5.20; 5.55; 5.78 k, belly, back, ham 100 76-87 4.09; 4.00; 3.68; 3.56 k, belly, back, ham 100 83-92 4.65; 4.59; 4.27; 4.40 k, belly, back, ham 100 69-85 4.35; 3.,86; 3.89; 3.87 k, belly, back, ham 100 17-43 3.62; 2.68; 3.00; 2.,84
Brisket 10 90 1.05 x 106
Brisket 10 100 1.32 x 104 Brisket 10 100 1.,84 x 103 Brisket 10 100 4.29 x 103
Neck, abdomen - 3.54 (0.20) Neck, abdomen - 0.12 (0.29) Neck, abdomen - 0.84 (0.40) Neck, abdomen - 0.23 (0.19) Neck, abdomen - 1.18 (0.84) Neck, abdomen - 1.39 (0.98)
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
90
M: mean; SD: standard deviation;
Unit of enumeration D I
Log CFU/cm2
Log CFU/ cm2 X
X
Log CFU/ cm2 X
Log CFU/ cm2 logN(Neck,
Belly,Back, Ham)
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
CFU/100 cm2
X X X
Log CFU/ cm2
X X
X X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Table 13: Small ruminants - Counts of E. coli reporNR: not reported)
Reference (country) Stages of the slaughterline Operations
Bhandare et al., 2007 (IN) NR NR
Hauge et al., 2011b (NO)
Skinning
Fleece removal -manual and
mechanical (invertedressing)
Cooling After trimming,
grading and steamvacuum treatment
Martineli et al., 2011 (BR)
Pelt removal
NR Evisceration
Washing
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
rted at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of samples; M
Sampling points Sampled region N % Counts (M and SD)
After flying Pool (neck, shoulder, flank, brisket, rump)
32 11.1 3.55 (0.08)
After washing 32 8.3 3.11 (0.05)
After evisceration Pool (brisket, rib and flank) 32 20.8 3.95 (0.06)
ed After removal of fleece
(start of slaughter) Brisket
35
NR
2.79
m t
Before chilling (End of slaughter) 35 2.99
After skinning Forequarter legs 30
NR
0.31 (0.84) Hindquarter legs 30 0.03 (0.16)
After evisceration Forequarter legs 30 0.08 (0.21) Hindquarter legs 30 0.10 (0.25)
After washing Forequarter legs 30 0.07 (0.00) Hindquarter legs 30 0.00 (0.00)
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
91
M: mean; SD: standard deviation;
Unit of enumeration Increase Decrease
log CFU/cm2
- -
- -
X -
log CFU/100 cm2
- -
X -
log CFU/cm2
X - - - - - X - - X - X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Table 14: Small ruminants - Counts of Enterobacterdeviation; NR: not reported)
Reference (country) Stages of the slaughterline Operations
Yalcin et al., 2004 (TR)
Pelt removal
NR Evisceration Washing Cooling
Lenahan et al., 2010 (IE) 5 Abattoirs NR
Milios et al., 2011 (GR)
Pelt removal
NR
Evisceration
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
riaceae reported at different stages of the slaughterline. (N: number of
Sampling points Sampled region N % Counts (M
and SD) After dressing Pool (Leg;
shoulder, brisket, neck)
44
NR
0.38 (0.16) After evisceration 44 0.75 (0.21)
After washing 44 0.58 (0.21) After chilling (24 h) 44 0.11 (0.08)
Before chilling Pool (flank, lateral thorax, breast, brisket)
400
NR
-0.35-1.16
After chilling 400 -0.32-0.43
A- After pelt removal of hind and forelegs/ before
final pulling Pool (rump,
flank, brisket,
shoulder)
60
NR
0.76 (0.80)
B-After pulling/before evisceration 60 2.27 (0.53)
C-After evisceration/before pluck removal 60 2.68 (0.62)
D-After pluck removal/before chilling 60 2.90 (0.55)
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
92
f samples; M: mean; SD: standard
Unit of enumeration Increase Decrease
log CFU/cm2
- - X - - - - X
log CFU/cm2
- -
- X
log CFU/cm2
- -
X -
X -
X -
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Appendix E. Risk factors: detailed results
Table 15: Beef - Counts at different stages of the slaNR: not reported; SD: standard deviation)
Reference (country) Treatment/ Risk factor Specifications E
Rigobelo et al., 2006 (BR)
sampling season Rigobelo et al., 2008 (BR)
Phillips et al., 2001 (AU)
slaughterhouse
plant throughput
slaughslaught
loSumner et al., 2003 (AU) lo
Bohaychuk et al., 2011 (CA)
lohi
Hansson, 2001 (SE) hilo
Ozdemir et al., 2010 (TR)
Bass et al., 2011 (AU)
type of surveillance
applied in the plant
co
Tergney and Bolton, 2006 (TR)
application of an online
monitoring system to
monitor faecal contamination
applic
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
aughterline reported in papers describing risk factors influencing E. co
Experimental group Sampling points Sampled region N % Co
rain season pre-evisceration - post evisceration - post processing
rump, near the anus 80
30 - 70 - 27.5
dry season 22.5 - 55 - 17.5
rain season pre-evisceration - post evisceration - post processing
rump, near the anus 216
44
dry season 20
hterhoused for the export after chilling
(12 h)
rump, flank, brisket
1275
11.3 terhouses for the domestic
market 8.8
ow throughput plants 7.9 slaughterhouse after chilling
(8-48 h) flank, brisket 159
28.4 ow throughput plants 4.7 ow throughput plants
during chilling NR 1036 -0.54
gh throughput plants -0.23 gh throughput plants at the end of the
slaughterline loin,
sternum 200 34
ow throughput plants 41 high throughput
NR rump, flank, brisket
120 - 2.0
low throughput - 1.9
o-regulatory system after chilling (at
least 4 hours) flank, brisket NR
- rep
aggrtraditional system -
cation of the monitoring - yes
final inspection stand (before
trimming)
anus, rump,
brisket, flank, hock
180
-
no d-
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
93
oli counts (N: number of samples;
unts (SD) Unit of enumeration
Treatment/ RF effect
- - yes
- -
- - yes
- -
- -
no - -
- - - -
yes - -
(-0.68/-0.40) log CFU/cm2 no
(-0.43/-0.02) - -
no - -
07 (0.13) log CFU/cm2 no
90 (0.08)
ported as regated data
- no
-
etailed data log CFU/cm2 yes
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Table 15 (Continued): Beef - Counts at different stagof samples; SD: standard deviation)* log of the total nReference (country) Treatment/
Risk factor Specifications Exp
Retzlaff et al., 2005 (US)
decontamination
steam pasteurization /temperature
71.71.173.73.976.76.779.479.482.282.285.85.087.87.8
Minihan et al., 2003 (IE)steam
pasteurization
pu
pa
Corantin et al., 2005 (CA)
b
Gill and Bryant, 2000 (CA)
hot water pasteurization / temperature
8 sec8 s
9 sec9 s
10 se10 s
11 se11 s
12 se12 s
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
ges of the slaughterline reported in papers describing risk factors influnumber recovered from 2500 cm2 perimental group Sampling
points Sampled region N % Co
1 °C pre-treatment
pre rigor - before/after treatment
ventral midline area 280
5 Min: 01 °C post-treatment 20 Min: 09 °C pre-treatment 15 Min: 09 °C post-treatment 5 Min: 07 °C pre-treatment 5 Min: 07 °C post-treatment 0 4 °C pre-treatment 20 Min: 04 °C post-treatment 10 Min: 02 °C pre-treatment 10 Min: 02 °C post-treatment 0 0 °C pre-treatment 30 Min: 00 °C post-treatment 0 8 °C pre-treatment 5 Min: 08 °C post-treatment 0 untreated neck
pre chilling neck, midline, rump 30
100 0.pasteurized neck 97 0.7untreated midline 93 0.7asteurized midline 77 0.6untreated rump 90 0.9treated rump 67 0.4
before treatment Not reported randomly
selected sites 1003 14.2 0.0
after treatment 1.8 0.0c - before treatment
pre chilling randomly selected sites 250
96 ec- after treatment 64 c - before treatment 84 ec- after treatment 52 ec - before treatment 80 sec- after treatment 12 ec - before treatment 76 sec- after treatment 32 ec - before treatment 76 sec- after treatment 12
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
94
uencing E. coli counts (N: number
unts (SD) Unit of enumeration
Treatment/ RF effect
0.4 Max: 0.8
log CFU/cm2 no
0.4 Max: 5.0 0.4 Max: 1.7
no 0.4 Max: 0.8 0.4 Max: 0.8
no <0.4
0.4 Max: 6.6
no 0.4 Max: 4.1 0.4 Max: 1.7 marginally
effective <0.4 0.4 Max: 2.5
yes <0.4
0.4 Max: 0.8 yes
<0.4 84 (0.45)
log CFU/1000 cm2 yes
79 (0.37) 76 (0.39) 60 (0.44) 98 (0.77) 47 (0.34) 06 (0.19)
log CFU/cm2 yes 01 (0.05)
2.95
CFU/100 cm2* yes
1.81 2.91 1.66 3.08 0.95 3.88 1.08 3.58 0.85
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Table 15 (Continued): Beef - Counts at different stagof samples; SD: standard deviation)
Reference (country) Treatment/ Risk factor Specifications
Mies et al., 2004 (US)
decontamination
different treatments
Barboza et al., 2002 (VE) different treatments
Algino et al., 2007 (US) different treatments
miml
hh
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
ges of the slaughterline reported in papers describing risk factors influ
Experimental group Sampling points Sampled region N % Co
(single water wash
pre slaughter - before/after treatment
brisket - belly -
inside round 120 -
double water wash water wash with 0,5% lactic acid water wash with 50 ppm chlorine
lactic acid (before treatment)
after washing - before/after treatment
neck 192 -
lactic acid (after treatment) nisin (before treatment) nisin (after treatment)
lactic acid + nisin (before treatment) lactic acid + nisin (after treatment) <dry-aging 4 days before treatment
prechilling before/after treatment
flank, brisket, rump
265
9 0dry-aging 4 days after treatment 0 -
dry-aging 6 days before treatment 61 -0dry-aging 6 days after treatment 3 -
dry-aging 7 days before treatment 21 0dry-aging 4 days after treatment 11 -0
acetic acid spray before treatment 47 -0acetic acid spray after treatment 13 -
ixture of different acids before treatment 24 -0mixture of different acids after treatment 7 -low pressure hot water before treatment 24 0low pressure hot water after treatment 3 -
high pressure hot water before treatment 18 -0high pressure hot water after treatment 3 -
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
95
uencing E. coli counts (N: number
ounts SD)
Unit of enumeration
Treatment/ RF effect
- log CFU/cm2 yes
1.1
log CFU/cm2
yes 0.5 1.0
no 1.0 1.0
yes <0.2 0.64
log CFU/cm2 yes
1.38 0.76 1.35 0.10 0.66 0.34 1.05 0.33 1.23 0.13 1.24 0.13 1.29
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Table 15 (Continued): Beef - Counts at different(N: number of samples; SD: standard deviation)
Reference (country) Treatment/ Risk factor Specifications
Gill and Landers, 2003a (CA)
decontamination treatments
comparison of 4 plants
plant
plant
plant
plan
plant
plan
* log10 of the total number of E. coli recovered from 25 samples
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
t stages of the slaughterline reported in papers describing risk fa
Experimental group Sampling points
Sampled region N % Cou
plant A after skinning
- randomly selected
sites 500
60 A after washing and spraying with lactic acid 56
plant A before washing 52 plant A after washing 52
t A after spraying with peroxyacetic acid then steam pasteurization 0 None
plant B after skinning 20 B after washing and spraying with lactic acid 52
plant B before washing 92 plant B after washing 92
nt B after steam pasteurization and spraying with lactic acid 0 None
plant C after skinning 48 C after washing and spraying with lactic acid 60
plant C before washing 60 plant C after washing 32
nt C after steam pasteurization and spraying with lactic acid 0 None
plant D after skinning 64 plant D before washing 68 plant D after washing 60
plant C after spraying with lactic acid 32
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
96
ctors influencing E. coli counts.
unts (SD) Unit of enumeration
Treatment/RF effect
2.97
CFU/100 cm2* Yes
2.76 2.63 2.51
e detected
2.20 2.04 3.56 3.19
e detected
3.99 2.74 2.78 2.45
e detected
4.01 4.16 3.16 2.93
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 15 (Continued): Beef - Counts at different (N: number of samples; NR: not reported; SD: standa
Reference (country) Treatment/Risk factor Specifications
Gill and Landers, 2003b (CA) spray chilling comparison of 4 plants
Anderson et al., 2005 (US) diet different feed-water treatments
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
t stages of the slaughterline reported in papers describing risk facard deviation) * log10 of the total number of E. coli recovered from
Experimental group Sampling points Sampled region N %
plant A before cooling
cooling - before/after treatment
randomly selected
sites 200
24plant A after cooling 4
plant B before cooling 0plant B after cooling 4
plant C before cooling 12plant C after cooling 16
plant D before cooling 44plant D after cooling 68
administration of sodium chlorate - water NR bung and
hock 64 -administration of sodium chlorate - water no treatment
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
97
ctors influencing E. coli counts m 25 samples
Counts (SD) Unit of enumeration
Treatment/ RF effect
1.08
CFU/100 cm2*
controversial effect
0.0 none detected
0.0 0.48 1.40 1.59 2.98
reported as aggregated
data s
- no -
-
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 16: Beef - Counts at different stages of th(N: number of samples; NR: not reported; SD: standsamples; * prevalence obtained on the entire carcassReference (country) Treatment/Risk factor Specifi
Ruby et al., 2007 (US) sampling sea
samplin/ye
Ruby et al., 2007 (US)
slaughterhouse
loca
Prendergast et al., 2004 (IE) plant d
Ozdemir et al., 2010 (TR) plathrou
Collobert et al., 2002 (FR) pla
Blagojevich et al., 2011 (RS) pla
Zweifel et al., 2008 (CH) pla
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
he slaughterline reported in papers describing risk factors influencdard deviation) § Data reported for different stages of the slaughterlin
ications Experimental group Sampling points
Sampled region N % Counts (S
ason colder months
different stages of the slaughterline
inside outside round +
navel-plate-brisker-
shank area
18989
- Aggregatdatawarmers months
ng time ear
2005 - 0.972006 - 1.04
ation East Aggregat
data§Midwest - Southwest
design
A: linear rail - one floor end of the
slaughterline, after washing
brisket NR - -0,61
B: serpentine rail - two floors - -0,57
ant ughput
high throughput NR
rump, flank, brisket
120 2.18 (0.1
low throughput 1.98 (0.1
ant
A end of the
slaughterline
233
- 0.70B NR - 1.30-1.4C - 0.60-0.6D - 1.18-1.6
ant
A hide before dehiding
rump, flank,
brisket, neck
100
1.97 x 1B hide 2.92 x 1
A dressed carcass before chilling
1.06 x 1B dressed carcass 0.59 x 1
ant
A
NR neck,
brisket, flank, rump
50 30* not detecB 50 20* Max: 2.2C 50 55* Max: 2.3D 50 33.3* Max: 1.6E 50 23.3* Max: 1.9F 50 33.3* Max: 1.6G 50 8.3* Max: 1.6H 50 6.7* not detecI 50 16.7* not detecJ 50 3.3* not detecK 50 16.7* Max: 1.9L 50 0.0* not detecM 50 11.7* Max: 1.6P 50 8.3* not detecQ 50 36.7* Max: 4.2
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
98
cing Enterobacteriaceae counts ne; ^ counts obtained on brisket
SD) Unit of enumeration
Treatment/ RF effect
ted
logCFU/100cm2
yes
yes
ted yes
logCFU/cm2 no
11) no 12)
log/CFU/cm2 yes 43 66 65 02
mean CFU/cm2 no 02 01 01 ted
log CFU/cm2
some differences
were detected among plants
20^ 30^ 60^ 90^ 60^ 6^ ted ted ted 9^ ted 6^ ted
24^
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 16 (Continued): Beef - Counts at different stcounts (N: number of samples; SD: standard deviatio
Reference (country) Treatment/ Risk factor Specifications Expe
Retzlaff et al., 2005 (US)
decontamination
steam pasteurization /
temperature
71.1 °71.1 °73.9 °73.9 °76.7 °76.7 °79.4 °79.4 °82.2 °82.2 °85.0 °85.0 °87.8 °87.8 °
Minihan et al., 2003 (IE)
steam pasteurization
unpasunt
pastunt
Trivedi et al., 2007 (US)
steam pasteurization
befimmedia
24 h
Nou et al., 2003 (US) chemical dehairing
tre
untr
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
tages of the slaughterline reported in papers describing risk factors n)
erimental group Sampling points
Sampled region N % Counts (SD
°C pre-treatment
pre rigor - before/after treatment
ventral midline
area 280
20 Min: 0.4 Max: °C post-treatment 25 Min: 0.4 Max: 2°C pre-treatment 25 Min: 0.4 Max: °C post-treatment 5 Min: 0.4 Max: °C pre-treatment 25 Min: 0.4 Max: °C post-treatment 15 Min: 0.4 Max: °C pre-treatment 30 Min: 0.4 Max: °C post-treatment 10 Min: 0.4 Max: °C pre-treatment 5 Min: 0.4 Max: °C post-treatment 5 Min: 0.4 Max: °C pre-treatment 45 Min: 0.4 Max: °C post-treatment 0 <0.4 °C pre-treatment 15 Min: 0.4 Max:°C post-treatment 0 <0.4 ntreated neck
prechilling neck,
midline, rump
30
90 1.71 (1.06)steurized neck 57 0.85 (0.95)treated midline 97 1.92 (0.73)eurized midline 70 0.96 (0.84)ntreated rump 97 2.25 (1.20)treated rump 87 1.46 (0.90)fore treatment
before/after treatment
neck, midline,
rump 72
- 1.36 ately after treatment - 0.52 h after treatment - 0.50 ated carcasses pre
evisceration before/after treatment
anal-hock area 480
- 1.4 (0.7)
reated carcasses - 3.2 (1.0)
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
99
influencing Enterobacteriaceae
D) Unit of
enumeration
Treatment/ RF effect
9.1
log CFU/cm2
no 24.8 1.7
no 1.7 3.3
no 17.3 9.9
no 4.1
17.3 marginally effective 1.7
9.9 yes
5.0 yes
log CFU/1000
cm2 yes
log/CFU/ cm2 yes
log CFU/ 100 cm2 yes
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 16 (Continued): Beef - Counts at different stcounts (N: number of samples; SD: standard deviatio
Reference (country) Treatment/ Risk factor Specifications
Bosilevac et al., 2006 (US)
decontamination
Comparison of different
treatments lactilacti
Algino et al., 2007 (US) different treatments
drd
drd
drd
acam
mixtulow plow
high high
Kinsella et al., 2006 (IE) chilling spray chilling concon
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
tages of the slaughterline reported in papers describing risk factors n) #logN: log of the total number recovered/cm2 - mean of the four si
Experimental group Sampling points Sampled region N %
lactic acid before treatment
pre evisceration before/after treatment
brisket, foreshank,
anus-hock, top round
768
- lactic acid after treatment - hot water before treatment - hot water after treatment -
ic acid + hot water before treatment - ic acid + hot water before treatment - ry-aging 4 days before treatment
prechilling before/after treatment
flank, brisket, rump 265
9 dry-aging 4 days after treatment 3 ry-aging 6 days before treatment 84 dry-aging 6 days after treatment 33 ry-aging 7 days before treatment 26 dry-aging 4 days after treatment 16 cetic acid spray before treatment 58 acetic acid spray after treatment 30 mixture of different acids before
treatment 28
ure of different acids after treatment 22 pressure hot water before treatment 27
w pressure hot water after treatment 12 pressure hot water before treatment 19
h pressure hot water after treatment 15 spray chilling before treatment
before/after chilling neck, flank, brisket, rump 30
- spray chilling after treatment -
nventional chilling before treatment - nventional chilling after treatment -
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
100
influencing Enterobacteriaceae tes sampled
Counts (SD)
Unit of enumeration
Treatment/RF effect
4.0
log CFU/100 cm2 yes
3.0 4.4 1.7 4.7 2.2
0.96
log CFU/cm2 yes
-1.21 -0.08 -0.87 0.78 0.37 0.15 -0.84
0.04
-0.57 0.57 -0.86 0.22 -0.66 2.30#
log CFU/cm2 no 2.25# 2.55# 2.39#
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Table 17: Swine - Counts at different stages of thsamples; NR: not reported) Reference Treatment/Risk
Factor Experimental g
Bohaychuk et al. 2011 (CA)
Plant throughput (cut-off 8000)
Low throughpHigh throughp
Hamilton et al. 2010 (AU)
Hot water-acidified sodium chlorite Abattoir
A and B
A-ControlB-Hot water(83C-Acidic treatm
A-ControlB-Hot water(81C-Acidic treatm
Algino et al. 2009 (US)
Skinning Unskinned
Skinned
Washing T°
Washing T <12
Washing T 12.8°
Washing T 21.1
Washing T >3
Chilling time 1 day chillin
2 days chillin
Delhalle et al., 2008 (BE)
Mixed models considering different RF
Spraying if ext temTime between killing a
Scalding with sWashing and disinfecti
machine three timeLairage cleaning wi
Frequency of lairage dNew hooks for carcasses
Lindblad et al. 2007 (S) Season
Gill and Landers 2004a (CA)
Detained carcass, contamination Visibly contaminated
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
he slaughterline reported in papers describing risk factors influencin
group Sampling points Sampled region N %
put During chilling NR 1069 33.7% 0.0put During chilling NR 0.2
Belly 42 92.9% 03.5°) Belly 41 9.8% -ment Belly 40 12.5% -
Belly 150 69.3% 01.9°) Belly 150 22% -ment Belly 100 30% 0
d Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 121 After chilling Bell, ham, jowl
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 60 After chilling Bell, ham, jowl
2.8° Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 26 After chilling Bell, ham, jowl
°-21.1° Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 97 After chilling Bell, ham, jowl
-32.2 Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 42 After chilling Bell, ham, jowl
32.2 Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 16 After chilling Bell, ham, jowl
ng Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 112 After chilling Bell, ham, jowl
ng Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 69 After chilling Bell, ham, jowl
mp hot During chilling Ham, back, forelimb, sternum
584
0and scalding During chilling Ham, back, forelimb, sternum team During chilling Ham, back, forelimb, sternum -ion splitting es a day During chilling Ham, back, forelimb, sternum -
ith water During chilling Ham, back, forelimb, sternum -disinfection During chilling Ham, back, forelimb, sternum -before chilling During chilling Ham, back, forelimb, sternum -
Before chilling Ham,back,Belly,Neck 541 57% 0
d carcasses
Before trimming Contaminated site 25 60% After trimming Contaminated site 25 80% After chilling Contaminated site 25 32%
Before trimming Random 25 72% After trimming Random 25 76% After chilling Random 25 32%
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
101
ng E. coli counts (N: number of
Counts Unit of enumeration RF effect
1(-0.15-0.16) LogCFU/cm2 23(0.06-0.40) 0.89 (0.11)
LogCFU/g
0.83 (0.21) X 0.75 (0.19) X 0.45 (0.08) 0.65 (0.11) X
0.60 (0.,13) X -0.3
logCFU/ cm2
X -1. 2 0.5
-0.61 1.01
X
-0.71 -0.43 -1.24 0.09 -0.91 0.34 -0.31 -0.29
X -1 -0.04 -1.01
0.59 (0.22)
model parameter
logCFU/ cm2
0.23 (0.1) 0.65 (0.29) X
0.89 (0.37) X
0.56 (0.08) X 0.76 (0.15) X 0.69 (0.08) X 0.05 (0.58) logCFU/ cm2 X
4.78
log of the total number for 2500 cm2
2.92 X 1.7 X
2.37 2.24 1.69 X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies idenSafety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedurean output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authorityto the rights of the authors.
Table 17 (Continued): Swine - Counts at differen(N: number of samples; NR: not reported)
Reference Treatment/Risk
Factor Experimental group
Hansson 2001 (S) Plant throughput Low throughput (450-80
pigs/year) High throughput >250,0
Gill and Badoni 2001 (CA)
Pasteurization, sticking wound
trimming
Rivas et al. 2000 (ES)
Washing and GMP (anal plugging
before evisceration)
Unwashed-non GMPUnwashed, GMP Washed and GMP
Bass et al. 2011 (AU) Plants features
B D L M N O P
Saucier et al. 2007 (CA)
Meal frequency (2; 5), Feed type
(pelleted; mash), fasting time (4; 14;
24 h)
P-2-4h P-2-4h
P-2-14h P-2-24h P-5-4h
P-5- 14h P-5- 24h M-2-4h M-2-14h M-2-24h M-5-4h M-5-14h M-5-24h
Rabaste et al. 2006 (CA)
Handling Rough Gentle
group size 10 30
Conter et al. 2006 (I)
Steam treatment (after evisceration)
Steam treatment Control
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
ntified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the cone. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Ay reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reach
nt stages of the slaughterline reported in papers describing risk fa
Sampling points Sampled region N %
00 Before chilling Loin, sternum 100 58%
000 Before chilling Loin, sternum 100 74% Before pasteurization Sticking wound 25 80% After pasteurization Sticking wound 25 28%
After trimming Sticking wound 25 40% Before chilling Neck, abdomen 36 1Before chilling Neck, abdomen 54 0Before chilling Neck, abdomen 35 1During chilling Rump, brisket, jowl 19 42% During chilling Rump, brisket, jowl 5 40% During chilling Rump, brisket, jowl 17 29% During chilling Rump, brisket, jowl 8 12.5% During chilling Rump, brisket, jowl 5 60% During chilling Rump, brisket, jowl 20 95% During chilling Rump, brisket, jowl 3 10%
After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 100% 1After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 37.5% 1After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 25% 1After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 25% 1After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 37.5% 1After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 25% After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 87.5% 2After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 37.5% 1After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 50% 2After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 25% 1After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 12.5% After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 62.5% 1After evisceration Thoracic area, flanks 8 25%
NR Int Rib cage, brisket, feet 10 52% 1NR Int Rib cage, brisket, feet 10 68% 1NR Int Rib cage, brisket, feet 10 65% 1NR Int Rib cage, brisket, feet 10 55% 1
After evisceration Jowl, belly, back, ham 54 After evisceration Jowl, belly, back, ham 32
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
ntext of a contract between the European Food Authority is subject. It may not be considered as
hed in the present document, without prejudice
102
actors influencing E. coli counts
Counts Unit of enumeration
RF effect
logCFU/ cm2 X
2.09 logCFU/100 cm2
0.85 X 1.56
1.20 (0.72) logCFU/ cm2
0.24 (0.43) X 1.13 (0.34)
-0.6
logCFU/ cm2
-0.6 0.06 -0.45 -0.27 -0.17 -0.55
1.31 (0.43)
CFU/926 cm2 from MPN
estimate X
1.77 (0.14) 1.89 (0.54) 1.99 (0.55) 1.79 (0.25) 1.8 (0.30) 2.07 (0.49) 1.81 (0.22) 2.18 (0.60) 1.83 (0.25) 1.8 (0.28) 1.92 (0.34) 2.1 (1.12) 1.45 (0.69)
CFU/983 cm2
from MPN estimate
1.49 (0.57) 1.48 (0.58) 1.46 (0.67)
NR logCFU/ cm2 NR
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 18: Swine - Counts at different stages of th(N: number of samples; D: decrease; I: increase)
Reference Treatment/ Risk Factor Experimental group
Purnell et al. 2010 (UK) Anal plugging
Plugged Plugged Aft
Unplugged Unplugged Aft
Algino et al. 2009 (US)
Skinning Unskinned
Skinned
Washing T°
Washing T <12.8°
Washing T 12.8°-21.1°
Washing T 21.1-32.2
Washing T >32.2
Chilling time 1 day chilling
2 days chilling
Zweifel et al. 2008 (CH) Plant features
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
he slaughterline reported in papers describing risk factors influenc
Sampling points Sampled area on the carcass N % Coun
Before scalding Anal region 34 2.18 (1ter scalding and dehairing Anal region 34 1.91 (0
Before scalding Anal region 34 1.86 (1ter scalding and dehairing Anal region 34 3.01 (1
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 121 0.57After chilling Bell, ham, jowl -0.86
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 60 1.28After chilling Bell, ham, jowl 0.41
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 26 2.05After chilling Bell, ham, jowl 0.52
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 97 0.31After chilling Bell, ham, jowl -1
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 42 1.06After chilling Bell, ham, jowl -0.14
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 16 1.09After chilling Bell, ham, jowl 0.61
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 112 0.64After chilling Bell, ham, jowl -0.43
Before washing Bell, ham, jowl 69 1.08After chilling Bell, ham, jowl -0.4
Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 22% 2.30;2.92;2Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 22% 2.60;2.45;2Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 32% 2.20;NR;3.Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 44% 3.84;2.56;3Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 8% 3.17;2.38;1Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 14% 2.08;2.45;2Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 56% 3.15;2.51;3Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 14% 2.51;ND;NBefore/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 14% 1.90;1.60;1Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 26% 1.90;2.20;3Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 10% 2.38;1.60;2Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 22% 2.72;2.45;3Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 16% 2.30;2.38;2Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 56% 2.72;2.98;3Before/during chilling Neck, belly, back, ham 50 2% 1.60; ND; N
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
103
cing Enterobacteriaceae counts
nts Unit of enumeration
RF Effect
.28)
logCFU/cm2
0.95)
.01)
.08) X 7
logCFU/cm2
6 X 8 1 X 5 2 X 1
X 6 4 X 9 1 4 3 X 8 5 X
2.38;1.90
logCFU/cm2 (log Total Number
recovered)
2.80;2.45 3.1;3.56 .44;3.17 .90;2.08
2.20;1.60 .08;3.30
ND;1.60 .90;2.64 .09;2.51
2.45;1.60 .29;2.20
2.60;2.08 .45;3.20 ND; ND
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 18 (Continued): Swine - Counts at different counts (N: number of samples; D: decrease; I: increas
Reference Treatment/ Risk Factor Experimental group S
Trivedi et al. 2006 (US)
Steam decontamination 60 sec 82-85° on
3 anatomical areas
25 % of carcasses acid treated Befo
25 % of carcasses acid treated Aft
75% of carcasses acid treated 24h a
Rivas et al. 2000 (ES)
Washing and GMP (anal
plugging before evisceration)
Unwashed-non GMP Unwashed, GMP
Washed and GMP
Tomovic et al. 2011 (RS)
Chilling length (3 h at -31.1°
followed by 2-4° chill room (8 or
24h)
8 h
24 h
Blagojevic et al. 2011 (RS) Plant features
A
B
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
stages of the slaughterline reported in papers describing risk factors se)
Sampling points Sampled area on the carcass N % Counts
fore steam treatment
Ham 72 134 Belly 72 219 Jowl 72 212 All 72 61,6% 188
ter steam treatment
Ham 72 008 Belly 72 028 Jowl 72 026 All 72 33,8% 021
after steam treatment
Ham 72 032 Belly 72 053 Jowl 72 046 All 72 25,5% 044
Before chilling Neck, abdomen 36 121 (074) Before chilling Neck, abdomen 54 025 (045)
Before chilling Neck, abdomen 35 014 (032)
Before chilling Ham, back, belly, jowl 24 70% 053 After chilling Ham, back, belly, jowl 54% 039
Before chilling Ham, back, belly, jowl 24
58% 04
After chilling Ham, back, belly, jowl 25% 009
After stunning Ham, belly, jowl 50 778x103(162x105-537x10)
Before chilling Ham, belly, jowl 50 894x10(141x103-063x10)
After stunning Ham, belly, jowl 50 419x103(204x105-468x10)
Before chilling Ham, belly, jowl 50 097x10(955x102-009x10)
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
104
influencing Enterobacteriaceae
Unit of enumeration
RF effect
logCFU/cm2
X
logCFU/cm2
X
logCFU/cm2
X
-
CFU/cm2 geometric
mean
X
-
X
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 19: Small ruminants - Counts at different stagE. coli counts (N: number of samples; NR: not report
Reference (country)
Treatment/Risk Factor Experimental group
Gill et al., 2000a (CA) Dressing procedure
Conventional set 1 (carcasuspended by the rear le
Conventional set 2
Inverted dressing 1 (carcasuspended by the forele
Inverted 2
Duffy et al., 2001 (US) Season Spring
Fall or winter
Phillips et al., 2001 (AU) Plant throughput
All the slaughterhouseExport slaughterhouse
Domestic slaughterhousLow throughput plant
Sumner et al., 2003 (AU) Plant throughput
Medium throughput plan(4)
Low throughput plants (
Cohen et al., 2006 (MA) Seasonal effect
Hot season (April to September)
Cold season (NovemberMarch)
Kannan et al., 2007 (US)
Pre-slaughter spray washing
Control (no wash) Washed (1 min spray was
- potable water)
Feizullah and Daskalov, 2010 (BG)
Capacity and Season
Low throughput (15-2animals per day)/SprinLow throughput/Winte
High throughput (100-2animals per day)/Sprin
Sampling point High throughput Low throughput
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
ges of the slaughterline reported in papers describing factors related toted; M: mean; SD: standard deviation)
p Sampling point/s Sampled region/s N % Counts (M and SD)
asses egs)
After the final wash in the
dressing procedure
Pool (Two sites for each carcass selected
from a grid that specifies 43 areas on
one side of the carcass surface)
25 15/25 total number o
bacteria recover4.40
25 17/25 total number o
bacteria recover4.11
asses eg) 25 11/25
total number obacteria recover
2.58
25 15/25 total number o
bacteria recover2.60
post 24h carcass chilling Pool (flank, breast, leg) 1259 NR 0.63
1261 0.76 es
After chilling Pool (rump, flank and brisket)
921 29.2 0.17 (0.60)es 270 35.2 NR ses 306 32.7 NR ts 345 21.4 NR nts After chilling (8-
48 h) Pool (rump, flank and
brisket) 148 61.5 0.39
(11) 216 18.5 -0.01
NR Raw meat 26 44.2 (on the
total samples)
1.2 (0.6)
r to 26 1.3 (0.6)
After skinning/before
evisceration Pool (flank, brisket, leg)
10 NR
2.1 shed 10 2.1
0 ng
After washing/Before
chilling
Pool (leg, chest -outer and inner surface, neck)
15
NR
1.00
er 15 1.65 200 ng 15 2.00
Leg (lateral) 12 2.00 12 0.7
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
105
o the slaughterhouse influencing
Unit of enumeration
Treatment /RF effect
of red:
CFU/100 cm2
-
of red: -
of red:
Yes of red:
log CFU/cm2 No
log CFU/cm2
- - -
Yes
log cfu/cm2 No
log CFU/g No
log CFU/cm2 No
log CFU/cm2
Marginally effective
Yes
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 19 (Continued): Small ruminants - Counts at dand to the batch (one study) influencing E. coli countReference (country)
Treatment/Risk Factor Experimental group
Bass et al., 2011 (AU) Plant throughput
Plant A (goat) Plant C (sheep)
Plant D Plant E Plant F Plant G Plant H Plant I Plant J Plant K Plant L Plant M Plant N Plant O Plant P
Hauge et al., 2011a (NO)
Pasteurisation (82°C+-1 for
8 s): after dressing and
grading/ before chilling
Control A
Pasteurisation
A
Hauge et al., 2011b (NO) Shearing regime
Unshorn B
Shorn 0 days abattoir B
Shorn 3 days on farm B
Shorn 7 days on farm B
Jordan et al., 2012 (AU)
Inspection of lymph nodes
Pre-inspection
Post-inspection
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
different stages of the slaughterline reported in papers describing factts (N: number of samples; NR: not reported; M: mean; SD: standard d
Sampling point/s Sampled region/s N % Count
(M and
After chilling midloin, flank, brisket
29 29 -0.38
323
68.9 -0.2889.5 0.4126.8 -0.1641.4 0.0887.5 -0.2240 -0.20
57.9 -0.3360 -0.10
24.1 -0.3854.5 -0.0542.1 -0.3570 0.128.7 0.40
86.2 0.02After evisceration- dressing/before
chilling Outside (mid-
line of the abdomen, under
the forelegs, around rectum and hind legs) and inside the
carcass
90 66 (59/90) 2.39
24 h after chilling 90 43 (39/90) 0.98After evisceration-dressing/before
chilling 90 26 (23/90) 0.54
24 h after chilling 90 21 (19/90) 0.37
After removal of fleece (start of slaughter)
Brisket
35 80 2.79
Before chilling (End of slaughter) 35 2.99After removal of fleece (start of
slaughter) 35
62
1.78
Before chilling (End of slaughter) 35 2.71After removal of fleece (start of
slaughter) 35 1.49
Before chilling (End of slaughter) 35 2.68After removal of fleece (start of
slaughter) 35 1.73
Before chilling (End of slaughter) 35 2.69
NR Scapula 148 35 7 Rump 148 84 42
NR Scapula 148 67 22Rump 148 93 52
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
106
tors related to the slaughterhouse deviation). ts SD)
Unit of enumeration
Treatment /RF effect
8
log CFU/cm2
some differences
were detected among plants -
8
6
2 0 3 0 8 5 5
log CFU/carcass (4500 cm2)
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
log CFU/100 cm2
-
-
No
CFU/cm2 Yes
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 20: Small ruminants - Counts at different stagEnterobacteriaceae counts (N: number of samples; N
Reference (country) Treatment/Risk Factor Experimen
Whyte et al., 2002 (GB) Dressing procedure
Cradle dressing (the carrear legs before the p
manuaHybrid method (use of th
lamb while the pelt waforelegs and brisket; then
a vertical positioFrame method (carcass c
an optimum working popelt to hang down and aduring the pelt removal
Fisher et al., 2007 (GB) Skin on vs
conventionally dressed
No toast (singe, wasToa
Toast beforeToast after
Toast before Toast after i
Skin Conventional (s
Brown et al., 2009 (GB)
Vascular perfusion chilling
(very fine ice particles in a solution of
sodium chloride and water)
Cont
Treatment (4 mi
Feizullah and Daskalov, 2010 (BG)
Slaughterhouse throughput and
Season
Low throughpLow throughpHigh throughpHigh throughp
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
ges of the slaughterline reported in papers describing factors related toNR: not reported; M: mean; SD: standard deviation)
tal group Sampling point/s Sampled region/s N %
rcass was hung by the pelt was pulled off ally)
After skin removal
Pool (Shoulder,
abdomen and lateral surface of the rear leg)
48
NR
he cradle to support the as released from the n the carcass is lifted in on (inverted))
48
arcass manipulation at osition and encourage away from the carcass l - inverted dressing)
48
sh and eviscerate) Before evisceration
Pool (rump, belly, flank,
brisket, shoulder, neck)
60 24/60 ast After evisceration 60 3/60 e splitting Before splitting 60 10/60 splitting After splitting 60 7/60 inspection Toasted and then inspected 60 6/60
inspection Inspected and then toasted 60 4/60 on After singeing/pre chilling 60 2/60
skin removed) After dressing/pre-chilling 60 26/60
trol After dressing/Before chilling Pooled surface
samples (lateral thorax, flank, brisket,
breast)
10 1/10
ins perfusion) At 24 h after held in the chill-room 10 1/10
put/ Spring
After washing/Before chilling
Pool (leg, chest -outer and
inner surface, neck)
15
NR put/ Winter 15 put/ Winter 15 put/ Autumn 15
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
107
o the slaughterhouse influencing
Counts (M and SD)
Unit of enumeration
Treatment/ RF Effect
0.47
log CFU/cm2 Yes 0.14
0.03
0.964
log CFU/cm2
Yes 0.433 0.569
No 0.509 0.424
No 0.429 0.420
Yes 0.955
1.4
log CFU/cm2 No 2.0
1.30
log CFU/cm2
Yes 3.18 1.27 Yes 6.05
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 20 (Continued): Small ruminants - Counts at dinfluencing Enterobacteriaceae counts (N: number of
Reference (country) Treatment/Risk Factor Experimen
Hauge et al., 2011a (NO)
Pasteurisation (82°C+-1 for 8 s): after dressing and
grading/ before chilling
Cont
Pasteuri
Milios et al., 2011 (GR)
Steam application (8-10 passes of steam spraying
pistol at each side of the carcass)
Before Steam
After Steam A
Jordan et al., 2012 (AU)
Inspection of lymph nodes
Pre-insp
Post-insp
Rubio et al., 2013 (ES) Chilling
CT: Conventional trea
UT: Ultra rapid treatmen2°C until
ST: Slow treatment (12 °24h
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
different stages of the slaughterline reported in papers describing factf samples; NR: not reported; M: mean; SD: standard deviation)
tal group Sampling point/s Sampled region/s N %
trol After evisceration-
dressing/before chilling Outside (mid-
line of the abdomen, under the forelegs,
around rectum and hind legs) and inside the
carcass
90 100
24 h after chilling 90 NR
sation
After evisceration- dressing/before chilling 90 66
24 h after chilling 90 NR
Application After pluck removal/Before
chilling
Pool (rump, flank, brisket,
shoulder)
60
NR Application 60
pection NR Scapula 148 46 Rump 148 87
pection NR Scapula 148 77 Rump 148 96
atment (2°C for 24h) Before post -treatment (after
dressing)
Rump and brisket
20
NR
Post-mortem treatment 20
nt (-20°C for 3.5h then l 24 h)
Before post-mortem treatment (after dressing) 20
Post-mortem treatment 20
C for 7h then 2°C until h)
Before post-mortem treatment (after dressing) 20
Post-mortem treatment 20
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
108
tors related to the slaughterhouse
Counts (M and SD)
Unit of enumeration
Treatment/ RF
Effectiveness
3.78
log CFU/carcass (4500 cm2)
Yes
1.94
1.41
0.49
3.74 (0.51)
log CFU/cm2 Yes 2.67 (0.60)
11
CFU/cm2 Yes 66 26 57
3.24 (0.16)
log CFU/cm2
-
3.31 (0.16) -
3.04 (0.17) Yes
2.43 (0.17)
3.44 (0.17) -
3.22 (0.17) -
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Appendix F. Faecal contamination
Table 21: Beef - Relationship between visual faecal of samples; NR: not reported; O: observational; SD: C1: category 1 - C2: category 2 - C3: category 3 - C4
Indicator bacteria
Reference (country) Study Plants Decontaminants S
EB McCleery et al., 2008 (GB) O 1 NR
EB Blagojevic et al., 2012 (RS) O 2 No
EB
Serraino et al., 2012 (IT) O 1 No b
EC
EC Gill and Landers, 2004b (CA) O 4
plant A: washing with 200 ppm
peroxyacetic acid; plant B: steam + 2% lactic acid; plant C:
hot water + 2% lactic acid; plant D:
2% lactic acid
c
c
EC Hauge et al., 2012 (NO) O 2 No
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
contamination and E. coli (EC), Enterobacteriaceae (EB) counts alonstandard deviation) * min - max values obtained for the 4 sampled sl
4: category 4 - C5: category 5
Sampled area on the carcass Classification of faecal contamination N Unit of
enumeration
neck, brisket, flank, rump
1-2 clean animals - 3-4 animals classed as dirty and requiring special provisions to be
taken before being slaughtered (clipped ante-mortem or online) - 5 animal rejected
362 Log CFU/cm2
neck, brisket, flank, rump
1: clean and dry; 2: slightly dirty; 3: dirty; 4: very dirty 100 Log CFU/cm2
brisket, groin, flank, hock 1 (clean-dry) to 5 (filthy-wet)
75
Log CFU/cm2
75
contaminated area + adjacent to the
contaminated area + randomly selected
areas
NR 75 log/ 2500 cm2
A
brisket, belly 0:clean; 1: moderately dirty; 2: very dirty 324 Log CFU/100 cm2
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
109
ng the slaughterline. (N: number laughterhouses; C0: category 0 -
Sampling point Experimental group
Mean (SD)
NR No punctual data were available
before chilling
C1 0.81 (0.74) C2 0.78 (0.63) C3 0.83 (0.68) C4 1.49 (0.60)
before chilling
C1 0.3 (0.01) C2 0.3 (0.01) C3 1.8 (2.2) C4 1.0 (1) C5 1.4 (0.9) C1 0.3 (0.01) C2 0.3 (0.01) C3 1.1 (1.1) C4 0.9 (1.1) C5 1.1 (0.8)
CA - before trimming
plant A, B, C, D
2.67* - 6.32* CA - after trimming 1.54 * - 5* CA - after dressing none detected* - 2.8*
ACA -before trimming 1.4* - 3-94* ACA after trimming 1.23* - 3.63* ACA after dressing none detected* - 3.09*
RS - before trimming 1.65* - 4.46* RS - after trimming 1* - 2.54* RS - after dressing none detected* - 1.91*
after dehiding C0 0.97 end of slaughterline C0 0.28
after dehiding C1 1.38 end of slaughterline C1 0.33
after dehiding C2 1.67 end of slaughterline C2 0.51
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EN-634 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies ideFood Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender prconsidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Swithout prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 22: Small ruminants - Relationship between v(N: number of samples; M: mean; O: observational)
Indicator bacteria Reference (country) Study Plant D
EC Hauge et al., 2011b (NO) O 1
EB Byrne et al., 2007 (IE) O 1
EB Whyte et al., 2002 (GB) O 1
* mean gross contamination score
E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pi
entified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the rocedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to wh
Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the co
visual faecal contamination and E. coli (EC), Enterobacteriaceae (EB
Decontaminants Sampled region Classification of faecal contamination N Unit of
enumeration
No brisket
0: visually clean fleece; 1: small spots of dirt; 2: generally dirty fleece;
3: very dirty fleece
35
log CFU/100 cm2 35 35 35
No brisket, flank, rump, shoulder
(A) clean and dry; (B) clean and wet; (C) dirty and dry; (D) dirty and wet; (E) with visible
faecal dags
40
log CFU/4000cm2
40 40 40 40
No
Shoulder
Score between 0 (no visible contamination)
and 10 (maximum visible contamination)
9
log CFU/cm2
Flank 9 Hindquarters 9 Lower foreleg 9
Shoulder 9 Flank 9
Hindquarters 9 Lower foreleg 9
Shoulder 9 Flank 9
Hindquarters 9 Lower foreleg 9
ig and ruminant carcasses: a review
context of a contract between the European hich the Authority is subject. It may not be onclusions reached in the present document,
110
B) counts along the slaughterline
Sampling point
Experimental group M
At skinning
C0 1.65
C1 1.88 C2 2.16 C3 2.49
After skinning
A 2.7
B 2.9 C 4.4 D 3.9 E 4.4
After skinning
Cradle dressing 0.47
4.3* 2.7* 5.6* 9.0*
Hybrid dressing 0.14
3.4* 1.4* 0.8* 6.3*
Frame dressing 0.03
1.7* 1.6* 0.7* 4.4*
E.
EFSA supporting publication 2014:EThe present document has been produced andby the author(s) in the context of a contractprocedure. The present document is publisheconsidered as an output adopted by the Authissues addressed and the conclusions reached
ABBREVIATIONS
ACC: Aerobic colony count
AT: Austria
AU: Australia
BR: Brazil
BG: Bulgaria
CA: Canada
CZ: Czech Republic
ES: Spain
GB: United Kingdom
IE: Ireland
IN: India
LA: Lao People's Democratic Re
IT: Italy
MA: Morocco
NO: Norway
PHC: Process Hygiene Criteria
PHI: Process Hygiene Indicators
RS: Serbia
SE: Sweden
TR: Turkey
TW: Taiwan
US: United States
VE: Venezuela
ZA: South Africa
coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on pig and rumin
EN-634 d adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task hast between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),ed complying with the transparency principle to which the Autho
hority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, viewd in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the auth
epublic
nant carcasses: a review
s been carried out exclusively , awarded following a tender rity is subject. It may not be w and position as regards the
hors.
111