Effect of Type of Defeathering System on Salmonella Cross-Contamination During Commercial Processing

Abstract

The cross-contamination effects of three commercial defeathering systems were compared using turkeys from a single Salmonella-positive flock (< or = 15% cloacal-positive). Single or "common" flocks were used to control flock-to-flock variability. Thirty birds were mechanically defeathered in each system as the first flock of the day and compared with 30 hand-defeathered (control) birds. Three trials, each using a different common flock, were completed. In Trial 1, the incidence of Salmonella-positive birds decreased following mechanical defeathering at all three processors. The incidence of Salmonella-positive carcasses in test flocks increased following steam-spray (approximately 100%) and kosher (approximately 50%) defeathering in Trials 2 and 3, whereas no increase in Salmonella-positive carcasses resulted from conventional defeathering. The decrease in the number of Salmonella-positive birds as a result of defeathering observed in Trial 1, as compared to increases observed in Trials 2 and 3, may be related to the selection of feather-contaminated (Trial 1) vs intestinal-colonized (Trials 2 and 3) turkeys. Surface temperature of the carcasses and length of time required to defeather were monitored within each system. It is hypothesized that the increases in the number of Salmonella-positive birds following steam-spray and kosher defeathering in Trials 2 and 3 were a result of skin surface changes occurring during the defeathering process, which allowed increased adherence or entrapment of Salmonella spp. on or within remaining skin layers.

SalmonellaContamination of Turkey from Processing to Final Product—A Process to Product Perspective

“…When data from all four visits of the study was combined, a significant increase was observed in the rate of Salmonella carcass contamination postdefeathering ( p < 0.05) ( Table 3). This study agrees with previous studies (Lillard et al 1989(Lillard et al , 1990Clouser et al 1995aClouser et al , 1995b.…”

“…Defeathering has always been considered a significant source of carcass contamination which can occur through series of processes including, direct contact between contaminated and uncontaminated carcasses (Mulder et al 1978), compression of the carcass, which results in expulsion of internal feces to the carcass surface (Berrang et al, 2001), aerosol contamination generated during spraying, and from the picker fingers (Allen et al, 2003a(Allen et al, , 2003bClouser et al 1995aClouser et al , 1995bBerrang et al, 2001) which contribute to cross-contamination between carcasses. Nde et al (2007) evaluated the feathers as a contamination source for carcasses during defeathering.…”

The transcriptional programme of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium reveals a key role for tryptophan metabolism in biofilms

“…Typhimurium to grow as a biofilm on foods and processing surfaces represents an important survival strategy [2,3,13,69,70]. We found that both nutrients and temperature had a profound effect on the attachment of S .…”

Sampling by Sponge Wipe or Skin Excision for Recovery of Inoculated Salmonella and Campylobacter from Defeathered Broiler Carcasses

“…Several points along the processing continuum have been show n to be problem atic from a cross-contam ination standpoint. These include, but are not lim ited to, transport in dum p coops (6), feather rem oval (1,4,5,9), and evisceration or crop rem oval (8). Processors com m only apply treatm ents designed specifically to m inim ize contam ination w ith feces, ingesta, and associated bacteria.…”