Historical, Current, and Future Prospects for Food Safety in Poultry Product Processing Systems

Blevins, Rachael E.; Kim, Sun Ae; Park, Si Hong; Rivera, Rafael; Ricke, Steven C.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811835-1.00018-x

Cited by 12 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Qualitatively, it appears that PeraClean reduced more quantifiable detection groups that the industry monitors, namely, coliforms, Salmonella , and Campylobacter. The importance of Salmonella and Campylobacter plate counts are obvious as their reduction ultimately reduces the food safety risk [9] However, coliforms are also used by the industry as a marker of sanitation. Therefore, the reduction of coliforms by PeraClean is extremely important as no other PAA tested on this study was able to accomplish that task, and this potentially indicates that PeraClean is a more effective sanitizing agent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Reduction of Pathogen Load on Ross 708 Broilers when Using Different Sources of Commercial Peracetic Acid Sanitizers in a Pilot Processing Plant

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peracetic acid (PAA) in poultry processing is not necessarily the same from company to company. Anecdotal evidence suggests that PeraClean may be more stable compared to the competition; however, it is not known what impact potential differences in chemical stability may have. In order to evaluate the antimicrobial effects of PAA, one PAA (PeraClean, P) was qualitatively compared against two competitor products (Competitors 1 and 2, C1 and C2) at the University of Arkansas Pilot Processing Plant. A total of 150 Ross 708 broilers (42 d) were used in the current study. Briefly, prior to treatment, 10 birds were sampled post-evisceration (C). Then, one of four treatment groups per PAA were applied (A1, A2, B1, and B2). The birds were dipped in either 400 ppm or 600 ppm PAA (A or B), chilled in either 25 ppm or 45 ppm PAA (1 or 2), and then manually agitated in 400 mL of nBPW for 1 min. There were 10 birds per treatment group in total. The resulting rinsates were transported to the Center for Food Safety and assessed for total microbiological load with total aerobic plate counts (Trypticase Soy Agar; APC), coliforms, (Eosin Methylene Blue Media; EMB), Salmonella (Xylose Lysine Deoxycholate agar, XLD), and Campylobacter (modified Charcoal Cefoperazone Deoxycholate Agar, mCCDA). The microbiological plates were incubated as per manufacturer’s directions. Statistical analyses were calculated in JMP 14.0, with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Data indicate that all three sources of PAA are effective sanitizers for poultry processing applications compared within treatment. Qualitatively, there were differences in efficacy between the treatments. However, additional studies will be required to determine if those differences are quantitatively distinctive and if they are attributable to differences in product stability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The change in stability was not assessed in this project. By evaluating the total change in APC, coliforms, Salmonella , and Campylobacter , data will be useable by the poultry industry to determine if the stability of PAA truly impacts food safety [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Reduction of Pathogen Load on Ross 708 Broilers when Using Different Sources of Commercial Peracetic Acid Sanitizers in a Pilot Processing Plant

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2017, over 41.6 billion pounds of chicken was produced in the U.S. and this is possible through a streamlined processing system operating at 140-175 birds/min (9 CFR 381.69) [Owens et al, 2000; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2018]. The conventional poultry processing system has been extensively described in reviews by Owens et al (2000), Sofos et al (2013), and Blevins et al (2018) and will only briefly be covered here. Birds that have been feed withdrawn are brought to the processing facility where they are hung on an automated line, stunned, and exsanguinated (Smith, 2014;Barbut, 2016).…”

Section: Poultry Processing Systems and Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scalder uses ∼1 L of water per bird (Barbut, 2016) and has been noted as a potential source of cross-contamination and investigated in Rothrock et al (2016a). After a chlorine or peracetic acid (PAA) wash, undesired body parts and internal organs are removed (Sukted et al, 2017;Blevins et al, 2018). The careful removal of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) during evisceration is important as rupturing of the organs, such as the ceca or crop, can introduce bacteria and potential pathogens to the product.…”

Section: Poultry Processing Systems and Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The careful removal of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) during evisceration is important as rupturing of the organs, such as the ceca or crop, can introduce bacteria and potential pathogens to the product. Following evisceration, birds are washed with an inside-outside bird washer and are typically placed in a pre-chiller for 10-15 min followed by immersion in the main chiller for 45-115 min at 4 • C (Sams and McKee, 2010;Blevins et al, 2018). Further processing and packaging may occur which depends on the desired product (Sofos et al, 2013).…”

Section: Poultry Processing Systems and Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Listeria Occurrence and Potential Control Strategies in Alternative and Conventional Poultry Processing and Retail

Rothrock

Micciche

Bodie

et al. 2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listeria monocytogenes is a psychrotrophic Gram positive organism that is considered one of the more critical foodborne pathogens of public health concern. To prevent illness the USDA and FDA enforce a zero-tolerance policy for Listeria on ready-to-eat foods such as delicatessen meats and poultry. Regardless, L. monocytogenes can still be isolated from food production facilities and retail products, indicating that current sanitation methods are not always sufficient. Both conventional and alternative poultry production and processing systems have also been identified as potential sources of Listeria spp. Concerns associated with alternative poultry production and processing can be further exacerbated by limitations on sanitation and available antimicrobials for usage in organic and natural poultry products. Furthermore, mobile poultry processing units often process organic and small-scale poultry farms that are not able to be processed by conventional standing facilities. These alternative production facilities and their products are often exempt from federal inspection, due to processing a relatively low number of carcasses. Due to these exemptions, it is unknown if sufficient sanitation is applied in these alternative processing facilities to prevent L. monocytogenes contamination. Organic processing restrictions may also impact which sanitizers and antimicrobials can be utilized. This review describes variations between conventional and mobile poultry processing units in conjunction with how L. monocytogenes may persist in the processing environment and on retail products. This review will also examine alternative antimicrobials proven to be effective against Listeria spp. and potentially be acceptable for use in alternative poultry production systems.

show abstract

A review of Eimeria antigen identification for the development of novel anticoccidial vaccines

Venkatas

Adeleke

2019

Parasitol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coccidiosis is a major poultry disease which compromises animal welfare and costs the global chicken industry a huge economic loss. As a result, research entailing coccidial control measures is crucial. Coccidiosis is caused by Eimeria parasites that are highly immunogenic. Consequently, a low dosage of the Eimeria parasite supplied by a vaccine will enable the host organism to develop an innate immune response towards the pathogen. The production of traditional live anticoccidial vaccines is limited by their low reproductive index and high production costs, among other factors. Recombinant vaccines overcome these limitations by eliciting undesired contaminants and prevent the reversal of toxoids back to their original toxigenic form. Recombinant vaccines are produced using defined Eimeria antigens and harmless adjuvants. Thus, studies regarding the identification of potent novel Eimeria antigens which stimulate both cell-mediated and humoral immune responses in chickens are essential. Although the prevalence and risk posed by Eimeria have been well established, there is a dearth of information on genetic and antigenic diversity within the field. Therefore, this paper discusses the potential and efficiency of recombinant vaccines as an anticoccidial control measure. Novel protective Eimeria antigens and their antigenic diversity for the production of cheap, easily accessible recombinant vaccines are also reviewed.

show abstract

Historical, Current, and Future Prospects for Food Safety in Poultry Product Processing Systems

Cited by 12 publications

References 71 publications

The Reduction of Pathogen Load on Ross 708 Broilers when Using Different Sources of Commercial Peracetic Acid Sanitizers in a Pilot Processing Plant

The Reduction of Pathogen Load on Ross 708 Broilers when Using Different Sources of Commercial Peracetic Acid Sanitizers in a Pilot Processing Plant

Listeria Occurrence and Potential Control Strategies in Alternative and Conventional Poultry Processing and Retail

A review of Eimeria antigen identification for the development of novel anticoccidial vaccines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About