SALMONELLA INTERVENTIONS€FOR€BEEF - Meat Science
Transcript of SALMONELLA INTERVENTIONS€FOR€BEEF - Meat Science
John N. SofosCatie A. Simpson, K. E. Belk, J. A. Scanga, and G. C. Smith
SALMONELLAINTERVENTIONS FOR BEEF
23 June 2006JNS 2
PATHOGEN SOURCESPATHOGEN SOURCES
SOURCES OF MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION
Food
People
Equipment
Pests
EnvironmentFeces, Soil,Water, Dust
Facilities
Animals
23 June 2006JNS 3
PATHOGEN RELATIONSHIPS
Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli vs. Salmonella ?Correlations/Interactions/Associations ?Presence/absence/levels relationships ?No available indicators or indicesSalmonella and E. coli O157:H7: fecalNo trends evidentData collected with one do not necessarily
reflect or predict the behavior of anotherCertain interventions may affect them similarlyData may be indicative of overall picture
6.1 7.2
1.1
28.8
0
17.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
SA EC CA
Prev
alen
ce (%
)
Lairage
Hide at salughter
SALMONELLA vs. OTHER PATHOGENS
No trends or associations evident
Small et al. 2002. J. Food Prot. 65:931936
23 June 2006JNS 5
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Field and Feedlot:Numerous environmental sources:
Cattle pensFeedWaterFecesHidesAny site, object or material
exposed to animal feces
23 June 2006JNS 6
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Variation in incidence and prevalence:Cattle ageFinishing programTime on feedAnimal sexAnimal healthAnimal body siteAnimal groupFeces vs. hideTransportation effectsLairage sourcesSeasonal variationRegional or geographic variation
510
18
21.6
54.6
24.3
34.8
0
20
40
60
Hide Feces Hide Feces
Prev
alnc
e (%
)
FeedyardPlant
Steer Heifer
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Animal sex variation: No clear trend
Barham et al. 2002. J.Food Prot. 65:280283
2.2 3.30
4.40
10
22.2
0
8.8
0
20
40
60
SA EC CA
Prev
alen
ce (%
) RumpFlankBRISKET
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Animal body site variation (hides)
Reid et al. 2002. FoodControl 13:411415
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4
Pre
vale
nce
(%)
Pen fecesFecesHidesRumenOral
Animal Group
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Animal group and animal site variation (Australia)
Fegan et al. 2002. J. FoodProt. 68:11471153
9887.6
95 99
77.9
49.5 45.7
26.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
April May July August
Prev
alen
ce (%
)
Plant A/SouthPlant B/North
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Hide seasonal and geographic variation
RiveraBetancourt et al. 2004. J. Food Prot. 67:296302
0
20
40
60
80
100
April May July August
Prev
alen
ce (%
)
SalmonellaE.coli O157:H7L. monocytogenes
SALMONELLA vs. OTHER PATHOGENSSeasonal variation on hides
RiveraBetancourt et al. 2004.J. Food Prot. 67:296302
52
91.8
23.30 0.8
25.3 26.850.3
020406080
100
Fenc
e/H
oldi
ngPe
ns Hid
es
Car
cass
at
Pre
evis
.
Car
cass
Pos
tIn
terv
.
Pre
vale
nce
(%) Plant A South
Plant B North
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Regional/Geographic variation
RiveraBetancourt et al. 2004.J. Food Prot. 67:296302
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fed Adult Fed Adult
Prev
alen
ce (%
)RectalHideVehicleKnock boxCarcass
Pretransit Posttransit
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Animal age and transportation stress effects:
Beach et al. 2002a. J.Food Prot. 65:16871693
1
35
8
22
55
10
24
5
0
20
40
60
80
Feedyard Plant Feedyard Plant
Prev
alen
ce (%
)
MinMax
Hide Feces
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Transportation stress effects
Barham et al. 2002. J.Food Prot. 65:280283
618.2 18
9.5
43.4
4.5 5.5
86.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Hide Feces Hide Feces
Prev
alen
ce (%
) FeedyardPlant
Salmonella EHEC
SALMONELLA vs. E. COLI O157:H7Transportation stress effects: Conflicting results
Barham et al. 2002. J.Food Prot. 65:280283
23 June 2006JNS 16
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
170Gates418Stunning box
55Crush05Funnel walls05Corner: lairage pens and race010Water trough
4010Pen floor00Pen walls05Corner: unloading area/lairage pens50Unloading rump
O157SalmonellaLairage site
Lairage sources
Small et al. 2002. J.Food Prot. 65:931936
23 June 2006JNS 17
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Beach et al. 2002a. J. Food Prot. 65:16871693
Additional sources of contaminationSlaughter plant environment and humans
Knock boxes:Facility A: 64.3 % positiveFacility B: 83.3 % positive
Aprons: 26 % positive for E. coli O157Knives: 29 % positive for E. coli O157
Tutenel et al. 2003. J. Food Prot. 66:15641469
0
20
40Sl
augh
ter
Floo
rD
rain
s
Lock
erR
oom
Dra
in
Prod
uct
Con
tact
Surf
ace
Bris
ket
Saw
Split
ting
Saw
Pre
vale
nce
(%) Before operation
During operation
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Slaughter plant and human sources of contamination
RiveraBetancourt et al. 2004. J. Food Prot. 67:296302
0
20
40
60
80
100
A B C D E
Prev
alen
ce (%
)FecalHideCarcass
Plant
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Plant variation
Ransom et al. 2002. J.Food Prot. 65:621626
0
20
40
60
80
100
Hide Feces Hide Feces
Prev
alen
ce (%
)
Day 1Day 2Day 3Day 4
EHEC Salmonella
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Slaughter day variation
Barham et al. 2002. J.Food Prot. 65:280283
2.5
8.5
3.630.80.6
0
20
40
Brisket Flank Rump
Pre
vale
nce
(%)
Preevisceration
Postevisceration
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Sofos et al. 1999. J. Food Prot. 62:467473
Carcass site variation
23 June 2006JNS 22
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sponge Excision Gauze Hair Clip Rinse
E. coli O157:H7Salmonella
Perc
ent P
ositi
ve S
ampl
es
Ransom et al. 2002. J.Food Prot. 65:621626Hide sampling method variation
23 June 2006JNS 23
SALMONELLA CONTAMINATIONDISTRIBUTION/SOURCES/PREVALENCE
Fegan et al. 2002. J. Food Prot. 68:11471153
ND<0.1ND9.2ND<3ND4.8ND933
ND0.31ND<3ND<3ND<0.18ND<32
ND3.6ND43<0.060.46
ND931
Chilledcarcass
Prechillcarcass
OralRumenHideFecesGroup
Counts (MPN/g or cm2) of SalmonellaLive animal to carcass (Australia)
23 June 2006JNS 24
FECALSCANNER
Visible Contamination: “Zero Tolerance”Ground Beef: “Adulterant”E. coli O157:H7Pathogen Reduction/HACCP Rule (1996):
SSOPHACCPMicrobiological Criteria:
Performance Criteria: E. coliPathogen Reduction Standard: Salmonella
Beef HACCP Revision (2002)Listeria Control in RTE Products Rule (2003)Directives and Guidances
USA REGULATIONS FOR PATHOGENCONTROL
23 June 2006JNS 25
STRATEGY FOR PATHOGEN CONTROLPreharvest or Field Control
Minimize sources and levelsMinimize access or transfer
Postharvest or Processing Factory ControlMinimize or reduce contaminationInactivate contaminationInhibit or retard growth
Foodservice controlInhibit growthInactivate contaminationPrevent crosscontamination
Education
23 June 2006JNS 26
PATHOGEN CONTROL IN THE FIELD
Reasons for preharvest pathogen controlReduce pathogen sources and levelsWater contaminationProduce contaminationAnimaltohuman transmission
Ideal preharvest interventions:Animal friendlyEnvironmentally compatibleEffective against various pathogensPractical to applyCost effective
23 June 2006JNS 27
PATHOGEN CONTROL IN THE FIELD
Interventions explored:Diet manipulationFeed additives/supplementsAntibioticsBacteriophagesVaccines/ImmunizationCompetitive exclusion/Prebiotics/ProbioticsManagement practices
23 June 2006JNS 28
PATHOGEN CONTROL IN THE FIELDManagement Practices:Pathogens may be ubiquitousPotential:
Clean feedPest controlPen conditionPen densityManure controlTransportation stressingChlorination/Ozonation/UV lightDust controlScreens/filters for solidsCombined efforts needed for control
23 June 2006JNS 29
PATHOGEN CONTROL IN THE FIELDDifficulties in preharvest pathogen control
Limited scientific informationUnknown reservoirsNumerous complicating variablesAsymptomatic animalsSporadic or low sheddingLow pathogen cell numbersLarge numbers of total contaminationInadequate detection methodologyUbiquitous presence of some pathogensEconomic issuesLack of proven interventions
23 June 2006JNS 30
INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCECARCASS CONTAMINATION
PreEviscerationWashing
PreEviscerationWashing
ThermalPasteurization
ThermalPasteurization
OrganicAcidRinsing
OrganicAcidRinsing
Sequential Hurdles
AnimalCleaning
Chemicaldehairing
Knifetrimming andSteamVacuumingKnifetrimming andSteamVacuuming
CarcasswashingCarcasswashing
23 June 2006JNS 31
Around TailheadAround Tailhead
Whole HideWhole Hide
CATTLE HIDE WASHING
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Untreated Water 0.5% CPC 1.0% CPC
E. coli O15:H7Salmonella TyphimrumListeria monocytogenesHosingHosing “Beauty Parlor”“Beauty Parlor”
5660Chlorine
Salmonella Positive (%)Treatment
5250Lactic acid
4036Double wash7258Single wash
PosttreatmentPretreatment
N=90; Mies et al. (J. Food Prot. 2004. 67:579582)
23 June 2006JNS 32
CATTLE HIDE WASHING
1.30.040.60.01Chlorine
Mean Log Reduction(%)Treatment0.7Control1.32Lactic acid3.345.16
5.270Ethanol
4.863.842.42Acetic acid
Inoculated: 6.1 Log Salmonella; Mies et al. (J. Food Prot. 2004. 67:579582)
23 June 2006JNS 33
Preharvest
Postprocessing
SLAUGHTER INTERVENTIONS
23 June 2006JNS 34
CATTLE CHEMICAL DEHAIRING
Graves Delmore et al. (1996)
1.10.7 0.9
7.7
4.84.4
E.coli Salmonella L. monocytogenesMicroorganism
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Inoculated DehairedBa
cter
ial C
ount
s(lo
g C
FU/c
m²)
Hide samples
23 June 2006JNS 35
KNIFETRIMMING, STEAMVACUUMING,SPRAYWASHING
KnifeTrimming
Steamvacuuming
Carcass sprayingwashing
23 June 2006JNS 36
CARCASS DECONTAMINATION
Percent Positive
Treatments Listeria Salmonella E. coliO157:H7
Control 44 30 0.7
Trimmed (T) 25 8 2.1
Washed (W) 27 9 0.7
T + W 13 1.4 1.4Reagan et al. 1996. J. Food Prot. 69:751756
Commercial Beef Decontamination in 6 Plants
23 June 2006JNS 37
CARCASS DECONTAMINATION
ThermalHot water (>74oC)Pressurized steam
*
Control
Trim/Wash
No Trim/Hot WaterRinse (77°C, 2.5 sec)
N = 96 carcasses per treatment
abcdeP < 0.05
Trim/Hot Water Rinse(77°C, 2.5 sec)
No Trim/Hot WaterRinse (77°C, 8 sec)
Trim/Hot Water Rinse(77°C, 8 sec)
1.9a
0.3d
0.5c
0.3de
0.6b
0.1e
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
TCC (log CFU/cm²)
±0.5
±0.4
±0.5
±0.4
±0.6
±0.1
Graves Delmore et al. (1997)
4.83.53.62.91.45.698.92.71.71.61.305.693.3
0.70.200.20.15.787.81512963InitialoC
Salmonella Reduction(log CFU/cm2)Following SteamPasteurization of Prerigor Beef for VariousTimes (sec)
Retzlaff et al. 2004. J. Food Prot. 67:16301633
23 June 2006JNS 38
CARCASS DECONTAMINATION
Chemical; Organic Acid RinsingLactic or Acetic (1.55%; 55oC)
*
E. coli O157 Reductions (log CFU)Treatments Carcass site variationTrimming 3.2 3.3Water (W) 2.0 3.0W/Lactic acid (2%; 55oC) 3.0 4.2W/Acetic acid (2%; 55oC) 2.4 3.0
Hardin et al. 1995. J. Food Prot. 58:368374
Salmonella Reductions (log CFU)Treatments Carcass site variationTrimming 2.9 3.9Water (W) 2.2 –2.5W/Lactic acid (2%; 55oC) 3.4 –5.0W/Acetic acid (2%; 55oC) 3.2 –5.1
23 June 2006JNS 39
MULTIPLE INTERVENTIONSSequential application of:
Animal cleaningChemical dehairingKnifetrimmingSteamvacuumingPreevisceration washingFinal carcass washingChemical and/or thermalCarcass chilling
Combinations of treatments:Warm acid solutionsSteam and vacuum
PEW PEW PEW PEW PEWAAR AAR AAR AAR AAR
FW FW FW FWHWR AAR HW R
0.0
0.7
0.1 0.2
0.6 0.5
1.0
0.5
1.3
1.7
1.2
2.2
1.8
2.3
2.9 2.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
5.4 7.9 (log CFU/cm²)2.8 3.7 (log CFU/cm²)
Initial Contamination:
Decontamination Treatments
Graves Delmore et al. (1998)
23 June 2006JNS 40
CARCASS DECONTAMINATIONContamination concerns following slaughter:
ChillingFabricationPostfabrication
New and additional contaminationCrosscontaminationSpreading and redistributionMicrobial growthSanitation and hygieneTemperature/TimePotential decontaminationProcessing / Packaging
23 June 2006JNS 41
7.9
25.7
19.1
15.6
7.9
0.7 0.9 0 0.9 0.8
Carcass Subprimals Subprimals Retail Retail0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% P
ositi
ve
Salmonella L. monocytogenes
Cuts (48h)
Packing Plant Retail Store(n=126)
Cuts (0h)(n=222)
(n=444)(n=576)(n=288)
Kain et al. (1996)
MEAT RECONTAMINATION (6 Plants)
23 June 2006JNS 42
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Control
Hot Water (75°C, 30 s)
Lactic Acid (2%; 55°C, 30 s)
Hot Water –Lactic Acid
Lactic Acid –Hot Water
Log
CFU
/cm
2
Log
CFU
/cm
2
Storage daysStorage days
Salmonella in Beef
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
E. coli O157:H7 in Beef
Geornaras et al. (2006)
Storage days
10°C
POSTFABRICATIONDECONTAMINATION
23 June 2006JNS 43
CARCASS DECONTAMINATION
Ideal carcass or meat decontamination:Environment friendlyPlant personnel friendlyConsumer friendlyNo residuesAchieve objectiveEffective against multiple pathogensPractical to applyMaintain product shelflifeDo not mask spoilageCost effective
23 June 2006JNS 44
CARCASS DECONTAMINATIONSUMMARY
Decontamination interventions are useful:Reduce carcass contamination (13 logs)Reduce pathogen prevalenceAssist plants meet regulatory/industry criteria
However, they should be:Evaluated for potential unpredictable risksOptimized for maximum benefits with no risks
Consider potential long term effects of interactingsublethal interventions on the microbial ecology ofplants and raw and readytoeat products
23 June 2006JNS 45
Select treatments, intensity and sequence tomaximize control and minimize selection
Alternate, or use simultaneouslyValidate technologies in the fieldMinimize variationsResearch new technologiesNot readytoeat until processed or cookedPotential benefits:
Reduce probability of illness when productintentionally or unintentionally undercooked
Reduce potential crosscontamination
PATHOGEN CONTROL STRATEGY
23 June 2006JNS 46
FOOD SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES
Integrated approachFarmtoTableProducer, packer, processor,
distributor, retailer, foodservice and consumer