Shelly McKee. Poultry Products Safety & Quality Program Department of Poultry Science Auburn University

Transcription

1 Shelly McKee Poultry Products Safety & Quality Program Department of Poultry Science Auburn University

2 Pathogen HP2010* Baseline Case Baseline Case FoodNet Case Target Rate (all Rate Rate foods) ** Campylobacter E. coli O157:H *** 1 L. monocytogenes **** Salmonella

3 Effective July 2011 Salmonella < 7.5% Campylobacter < 10.4%

4 Growout & Transport Live hang Immobilization Bleed out Scalding *Major points of cross contamination *Picking *Evisceration *Immersion Chilling Packaging Further Processed Products Sorting & Aging

5 Considered to take care of most naturally occurring levels of Salmonella and/or Campylobacter that would be on carcasses post-chill

6 Site Tested Pre-scald 4.7 Post-scald 1.8 Post-pick 3.7 Pre-evisceration 3.4 Pre-chiller 2.3 Post-chill**** 1.5 Log 10 CFU/mL Adapted from Berrang and Dickens J. Appl. Poul. Res. 9:43-47 *****Best opportunity for reduction of pathogens

7 Table 2. Mean 1 number (log cfu/ml of rinse) of Campylobacter and prevalence of Salmonella on broiler carcass rinses collected before and after processing intervention steps Site Intervention/process Campylobacter Salmonella 2 Before Prescald brush 2.58 a ± /25 xy After Prescald brush 2.12 ab ± /25 x Before NYD spray wash 1.17 b ± /25 xyz After NYD spray wash 1.05 b ± /25 xyz Before I/O wash 1.93 ab ± /25 xyz After I/O wash ND Before Prechill spray washer 1.21 b ± /25 yz After Prechill spray washer 1.15 b ± /25 z Source Modified ; M. E. Berrang 2 and J. S. Bailey, J APPL POULT RES. 18:74-78.

8 Routinely inspect and replace worn picking fingers Clean (remove all feathers) and Sanitize Daily Use antimicrobial rinse after picking Table 1. Increase in Campylobacter during picking Modified from Treatment Before defeathering After defeathering Water control 0.53 A,X ± A,Y ± 0.23 Source: Modified Berrang et al J Appl. Poult. Research 15:

9 Soften water Better at rinsing Does not interfere with antimicrobials Measure ph, ph should be neutral to slightly acidic Minimize mineral content Know water source (well or city) Sample water and test it on a routine basis

10 Check spray nozzle function Check spray pressure Check spray coverage Check contact time Use antimicrobial and check antimicrobial concentration Validate the process and antimicrobial used Some bacterial reductions; however contact time and coverage limits antimicrobial effectiveness

11 Responses 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% *CPC= cetylpyridium chloride *Some indicate Brushes

12 Responses 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Peracetic Acid Chlorine Acids ph 2.0 ASC *ASC=acidified sodium chlorite *Most indicate ph control for Chlorine

13 Table 3. Reduction of Salmonella positive carcasses treated with PAA (peracetic acid) or chlorine during chilling Chill Water Treatment Carcass Sampling Point Salmonella % Positive % Reduction 85 ppm PAA 30 ppm Chlorine Pre-Chill Pre-Chill 30.5 a 25.5 a Post-Chill Post-Chill 2.5 c 11.0 b Source: Bauermeister et al., J Food Protection 71:

14 Table 4. Reduction of Campylobacter positive carcasses treated with PAA (peracetic acid) or chlorine during chilling Chill Water Treatment Carcass Sampling Point Campylobacter % Positive % Reduction 85 ppm PAA 30 ppm Chlorine Pre-Chill Pre-Chill 83.0 a 78.0 a Post-Chill Post-Chill 47.0 c 68.0 b Source: Bauermeister et al., J Food Protection 71:

15 Finishing Chillers and Pre & Post Chill Dip Tanks Advantages Small footprint Higher concentration of antimicrobial can be used Better kill than spray applications Good Coverage Short Dwell time Money Savings Antimicrobial mixed with clean water Morris and Associates

16 Responses 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% *ASC=acidified sodium chlorite *CPC=cetylpyridium chloride *Most indicate ph control for Chlorine

17 Log cfu/sample Finishing Chiller Research Trial 6.0 Salmonella Typhimurium Recovered from Inoculated Carcasses Treated with Varying Levels of Antimicrobials Water Chlorine 0.004% PAA 0.04% PAA 0.1%

18 Log cfu/sample Finishing Chiller Research Trial 4.5 Campylobacter jejuni Recovered from Inoculated Carcasses Treated with Varying Levels of Antimicrobials Water Chlorine 0.004% PAA 0.04% PAA 0.1%

19 Estimated Food Safety Cost Estimated plant costs (running 280 bpm; 265K bpd; 1.3 Million bpw): Initial equipment: $5K - $65K Annual maintenance: up to $15K Chemical cost (monthly): $15K - $30K Chemical cost (yearly): $180K - $360K

20 No bacteria gain at the picker (Neutral) 1 log reduction at OLR Little to no chemical use in the primary chiller Pre chill dip tank? Post-chill dip tank, finishing chiller, or drench combined with an effective antimicrobial treatment to adequately reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter

21 Create a food safety team with key individuals from all phases of production and processing Develop a biomapping program using microbial testing and data analysis to understand Salmonella and Campylobacter movement throughout the production continuum Determine where food safety hazard are introduced

22 Identify Food Safety Control Points throughout processing Use a multi-hurdle approach to improve food safety Validate antimicrobial efficacy at the step where it is used and overall bacteria reductions Share food safety policies and practices among all segments