Section 2.

6
Meat Safety:
Handling, Quality
Assurance & Processing

John A. Scanga
Department of Animal Sciences
Colorado State University
 Section Summary

• Meat handling and storage for fresh and frozen

product
• Wholesale and retail meat packaging
• USDA product certification
• Consumer perceptions of food safety
• FSIS (Food Safety Inspection Service)
legislative and regulatory roles
• Sources of pathogenic contamination and
control/reduction methods
• Identifying and selecting a processing facility
 Meat Handling Practices

• Quality control during harvest, processing, storage

& distribution affects:

f Safety (microbiological loads)

f Eating quality (product integrity, aging)
f Shelf life (microbiological loads, oxidation,
freezer burn)
Meat Handling
Practices

• Keep product:
f Cold
f Clean
f Moving (first in,
first out)
 Effects Of Freezing On
Certain Meat Attributes

• Freezing does not improve quality; thus, only high

quality meats should be frozen.
• Freezing does not kill bacteria, it only slows their
growth; hence, good handling practices are still
required.
• Because freezing stops the aging process that
tenderizes meat, aging should be allowed to
proceed to the desired level before freezing.
 Effects Of Freezing On
Certain Meat Attributes

• Freezing does little to influence human

nutritive value
• However, concentrations of some vitamins,
minerals, & water soluble proteins are
reduced as fat becomes oxidized (particularly
in pork and poultry where fat is less
saturated) or as purge is released
 Factors Affecting Quality of
Frozen Meat

In order of impact:
• Frozen storage conditions
• Thawing conditions
• Freezing rate
• Pre-freezing handling

• Minimizing temperature fluctuation, to prevent ice re-

crystallization, is of utmost importance to prevent
quality deterioration in frozen meats.
 Institutional Meat Purchaser
Specifications (IMPS) Definitions

• “Fresh” - product that has “not been canned, cured,

smoked or cooked.”
• “Chilled” - “meat product having an internal
temperature greater than -2.2oC and held under
refrigerated conditions.”
• “Fresh-Chilled” - product that has “never been
previously frozen.”
• “Frozen” - product that “has an internal temperature
less than -2.2oC and that is stored at less than -
17.8oC.”
Source: USDA-AMS, 1997.
 Freezing
Recommendations
• Fresh meat should be frozen at between -29o to
-40oC.
• Product that is frozen too slowly (or, conversely,
thawed/tempered too quickly) is subject to cell
lysing by large ice crystal formation, leading to
oxidative rancidity, dehydration (“freezer burn”),
excessive purge formation, & excessive cooking
losses.
• Packaging methodology should be considered in
conjunction with state of refrigeration.
 Meat Freezing Rate

• Freezing rate affects physical & chemical properties

of meat & is determined by:
f Temperature of freezing medium
f Type & movement of freezing medium
f Packaging materials
f Meat composition (fat freezes more quickly)

Source: Judge et al. 1989. Principles of Meat Science.

 Meat Freezing Rate

• Slow freezing:
f Freezing in air is relatively slow.
f Formation of larger pools of H2O at crystals &
concentrated solutes (eutectic formation) distort
muscle structure.
• Fast freezing (cryogenic):
f Uses condensed gases (e.g., liquid nitrogen,
carbon dioxide, liquefied nitric oxide).
f Little translocation of H2O, smaller ice crystals,
less structure distortion & less drip loss during
thawing.
Source: Judge et al. 1989. Principles of Meat Science.
 Meat Freezing Methods

• Still Air:
f Air is the heat transfer medium (-10o to -30o C).

• Plate Freezer:
f Product on trays is placed directly in contact with
metal freezer plates (-10o to -30o C).
• Blast Freezer:
f Most common is cold air, in rooms or tunnels,
equipped with fans to provide rapid air movement
(760 meter/min at -30oC).

Source: Judge et al. 1989. Principles of Meat Science.

 Meat Freezing Methods

• Liquid Immersion/Sprays (primarily poultry):

f Sodium chloride brine, glycerol & glycols
(e.g., propylene).
• Cryogenic Freezing:
f Condensed or liquefied gases (e.g., liquid
N2 = -195oC).
f Systems generally evaporate liquid N2 in
freezing chambers.

Source: Judge et al. 1989. Principles of Meat Science.

 Frozen Meat Storage

• Frozen storage conditions are more important

than freezing mechanism for maintained quality.

• All chemical changes in meat could be eliminated

by storing at -80oC, but this is not economical.

• Generally, storage temperatures of less than -

18oC are recommended.
 Frozen Meat Storage

• Fluctuation in temperature during storage

must be avoided (large ice crystals form
during H2O migration at greater than -10oC,
damaging muscle structure).
• Use of tear-resistant & vapor-proof packaging
material to keep moisture in & O2 out is a
must—if not, freezer burn & dehydration will
occur.
• Permissible storage time is largely dependent
on fat saturation levels.
 Recommended Frozen
Storage Times
Storage Period
(Months)
Item -12oC -24oC
Beef 4 12
Ground beef 3 8
Lamb 3 12
Veal 3 8
Pork (fresh) 2 6
Pork (cured) 0.5 2
Seasoned pork sausage 0.5 3
Variety meat 2 4
Poultry 2 8
Optimum quality is affected by freezing rate, length of freezer storage, & freezer storage
conditions (i.e., temperature, humidity, packaging).
Source: Judge et al. 1989. Principles of Meat Science.
 Meat Thawing & Refreezing

• Thawing elicits greater damage than does freezing.

• Thawing methods (packaging material intact):

f Refrigerated temperatures*
f In warm air
f In water
f During cooking
 Meat Thawing & Refreezing

• Refreezing:
f May be accomplished without serious
deterioration if microbiological loads are low.
f Practically, freezing & thawing several times
reduces quality.
• Bone darkening (after freezing & thawing):
f Leached hemoglobin oxidizes to
methemoglobin.
 Meat Thawing/Tempering
• Food safety experts recommend thawing foods in:
f Refrigerator (~14-20 hr/kg).
f Water-tight plastic bag submerged in cold water
(~60 min/kg) & changing the water every 30 min,
which ensures that it is kept cold—an important
factor for slowing bacteria growth.
f Microwave oven; follow package directions.
Leave about 5 cm between food & inside surface
of microwave to allow heat to circulate. Smaller
items will defrost more evenly than larger pieces.
Foods defrosted in microwave oven should be
cooked immediately after thawing.
 Meat Thawing/Tempering

DO NOT thaw meat, poultry & fish products on

the counter or in the sink without cold water;
bacteria can multiply rapidly at room
temperature.
 Causes Of Foodborne Disease
& Reduced Display Life

hImproper storage/holding temperature

hInadequate cooking
hPoor personal hygiene
hCross-contamination
hImproper reheating
hPoor storage practices (i.e., storing cooked
with raw product)
 Quality & Safety
Assurance Programs

hMethodology should be quantitative

hPrevent problems; don’t try to solve them once
they exist
hHazard Analysis, Critical Control Point
(HACCP) methods
hTotal Quality Management (TQM) principles
 Environmental Effects Of
Processing On Meat Hygiene
Carcass Belt Subprimals
6.0

5.5
Log
CFU/100 5.0
cm2 4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
6:45 AM 8:15 AM 9:45 AM
Time Of Day
Source: Bacon et al., 2000.
 Decontaminating
Working Areas
Interventions Mean Mean Mean
Week Turned On TPC TCC ECC
A None 5.5a 2.8b 2.4c
B Carcass OA 5.2a 3.7a 3.5a
C Fabrication Belt OA 4.6b 2.7b 2.1de
D Primal OA 5.5a 3.6a 3.2b
E Carcass/Belt OA 4.1c 2.1c 1.8e
F All Interventions 4.2bc 2.5b 2.3cd
a,b,c,d,eMeans
in the same column bearing different superscript letters differ (P<.05).
Note: OA=Organic Acids; TPC=Total Plate Count; TCC=Total Coliform Count; ECC=E.
coli Count.
 Chemistry Of Meat Color

Oxygenation

Deoxymyoglobin Oxymyoglobin
(Purplish red) Fe2+ (Bright Red) Fe2+
Deoxygenation

Oxidation
Re
Reduction and
O

du
Oxygenation
x id

ct
io
at

n
io
n
(N
itri
te
)

Metmyoglobin
(Brown) Fe3+
 Vitamin E
Supplementation

Vitamin E
(α-tocopheryl acetate)
supplemented to live fed
cattle at 500-1,000 IU/hd/d
improves display life
of retail beef by maintaining
the oxymyoglobin state for
longer periods
 Psychrotrophic APC: Strip
Steaks From VitE & Non-VitE
Supplemented Cattle
8 a a
b a

7 c
a
Inoculated Non-Vit. E
c
APC 6 c
d
(log CFU/cm2) de Vitamin E
5 de
e

4 f
Control
f
f
3 g
gh f
ghi ij ghi
hij
2
j j Decontaminated
1
Day 0 Day 2 Day 4 Day 6
a,b,c,d,ef,g,h,i, jLeast squares means bearing different superscript letters differ (P < .05)

Source: Zerby, Belk, Sofos, Mc Dowell and Smith, 1997.

 Consumer Acceptability: Strip
Steaks From VitE & Non-VitE
Supplemented Cattle
Extremely a a
Desirable 7
ab
bc Co [Link] E
6 cd nt
ro
bcd d De l
5 co Vitamin E
Consumer nta
m.
Acceptability e e
4 Co e
nt
ro
De l
3 co
nta
m. f
f
2
g Inoculate
d
g
Extremely 1 Inoculated g
Undesirable
Day 0 Day 2 Day 4 Day 6
a,b,c,d,e,f,g Least squares means bearing different superscript letters differ (P < .05) .

Source: Zerby, Belk, Sofos, Mc Dowell and Smith, 1997.

 Meat Packaging

• Packaging should provide

protection against:
fDamage to product
fPhysical & chemical
changes
fFurthermicrobial
contamination
• Packaging cannot improve
quality
• Packaging should appeal to
consumers
 Film Properties For Preserving
Fresh Meat Quality

• For subprimal cuts (wholesale):

f Deter growth of micro-organisms
f Preserve the color of fresh meat
f Prevent loss of moisture from the product
f Retain package integrity during shipment &
handling
 Film Properties For Preserving
Fresh Meat Quality

• For retail meats:

f Allow for development & retention of red,
“bloomed” (oxygenated) color of lean
f Prevent dehydration & moisture loss
f Possess excellent optical properties
(especially clarity)
f Retain package integrity upon handling
 Wholesale Meat
Packaging

• Most advanced equipment:

fMulti-chamber, heat-sealing
equipment, speed = 30
pieces/min

• Film bags can be heat-shrink

or non-heat-shrink
 Wholesale Meat
Packaging

• Most commercial bags are 3- or 4-ply laminates:

f Ethyl vinyl acetate, outer protection
f Saran, oxygen barrier
f Irradiated ethyl vinyl acetate, heat sealing
properties
 Retail Meat Packaging

• Tray-ready
• Case-ready
• Modified atmosphere
f Uses 80% oxygen or
nitrogen, 20% carbon dioxide
f Peelable or Master-Pak (with
O2 scavengers)
• Tray and overwrap
f Pre-formed styrofoam,
overwrapped with oxygen
permeable (e.g., PVC) film
New Packaging
Technologies
 New Packaging
Technologies

Vacuum-Packaged
Case-Ready, Peelable

Modified Atmosphere,
Case-Ready

Traditional Overwrap
 New Packaging
Technologies
CVP Master Pak Ossid Overwrap Packaging

Secure Fresh Master Pak

Reiser Tray-Lidded
Peelable
 USDA Product
Certification
Live Animal and Carcasses Specifications:

• Allow breed associations, distributors and other

industry organizations to group carcasses into
specific and uniform breed & quality ranges

• Certification may include quality attributes such

as maturity and marbling

• Live animals may be certified for hair coat color

and other characteristics
 Certified/Process Verified
Branded Beef Programs
Of 39 Total Programs (38 Certified, 2 PV or Brandname Beef):
• 26 name breed: 9 Black Angus; 13 Angus; 1 Red Angus; 3 Hereford
• 23 use phenotype description of 51% black; 4 also allow Red Angus
genotype
• 38 have minimum marbling score: 1 Slab00; 16 Mt00; 3 Sm50; 6 Sm00; 3 Sl50;
2 Sl40; 7 Sl00
• 38 allow only steer &/or steer & heifer carcasses
• 33 have maximum hump height requirement (≤ 2”)
• 27 specify “A” maturity only
• 2 specify YG ≤2.9 ; 10 specify YG ≤3.9; 1 specifies YG ≤3.5; 4 Specify YG
≤4.9
• 4 specify HCW: 2 = 6-950; 2 = 6-900
• 28 specify muscling ≥ moderately thick or thicker
Source: USDA-AMS, February 3, 2003.
 USDA Process
Verification Program

• Provides livestock & meat producers

opportunity to assure customers of their ability
to provide consistent quality products by having
their written manufacturing processes
confirmed through independent, third party
audits.

• USDA Process Verified suppliers can have

marketing claims such as breed, feeding
practices, or other raising and processing
claims verified by the USDA and marketed as
"USDA Process Verified."
 USDA Process
Verification Program

• Program uses International Organization for

Standardization's ISO 9000 series standards
for documented quality management systems
as format for evaluating documentation
• Ensures consistent auditing practices
• Promotes international recognition of audit
results
• 20 criteria ensuring product conformance and
customer satisfaction
 USDA Process Verification
Managed Supply-Chains
• Excel Corporation Verified Pork for Strategic Export Program
• Farmland Industries America’s Best Pork
([Link]/lsg/certprog/pork/[Link])
• PM Beef Group LLC
([Link]/lsg/certprog/beef/[Link])
• Pederson's Natural Farms
• Premium Standard Farms
([Link]/lsg/certprog/pork/[Link])
• Pro Pork Associates
• Red Angus Association of America
Red Angus Feeder Calf Certification Program
([Link]/lsg/certprog/beef/[Link])
 USDA Product
Specifications
Institutional Meat Purchaser Specifications (IMPS):
• Series 100 Beef; 1000 Beef Portion Cuts
• Series 200 Lamb; 1200 Lamb Portion Cuts
• Series 300 Veal and Calf; 1300 Veal and Calf Portion Cuts
• Series 400 Pork; 1400 Pork Portion Cuts
• Series 500 Cured, Smoked, Fully-Cooked Pork
• Series 600 Cured, Dried, Smoked, Fully-Cooked Beef
• Series 700 Variety Meats and Edible By-Products
• Series 800 Sausage
• Series 11 Goats
 North American Meat Processors
-The Meat Buyers Guide

• Reference standards
for meat purchasing
• Non-certified
• “Commonly-used”
foodservice and
institutional meat
products
 Institutional Meat Purchaser
Specifications

• Reference standards for

meat purchasing
• Certified by USDA-AMS-
LSD
• Used primarily for
government meat
purchases
f School lunch program
f Military

Source: [Link]
Quality Assurance
 Beef Quality Assurance

Mission:
Maximize consumer confidence in and
acceptance of beef by focusing the industry’s
attention on beef quality through the use of
science, research and educational initiatives.
 History Of Beef Quality
Assurance

• 1982: USDA-FSIS began work on Pre-Harvest

Beef Safety Production Program
• 1982-1985: Residue Avoidance Program (RAP)
• Today:
f QA Programs reach producers in all 50 states
f Today: 13 states have developed producer
certification and verification programs
 Where Is The Money Lost?

$13.82
$27.50

$27.50
Manage Monitor Market

Total Cost of Non-Conformance = $68.82

Source: National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit-1999.

 Where Is The Money Lost?

$18.23 $24.45

$6.46

$50.96
Taste Control Weight Meat Yield Management

Total Cost of Non-Conformance = $100.10

Source: National Beef Quality Audit - 2000 .

 Total Cost Of
Non-Conformance
2000 New Price & Logic
Waste $50.96
Taste 24.45
Management 18.23
Weight 6.46

TOTAL $100.10
National Beef Quality Audit – 2000 (NCBA, CSU, OSU, TAMU, WTAMU).
 TOP 10 QUALITY CHALLENGES
According to Strategy Workshop Participants

Challenge Severity Rank

• Low overall uniformity & consistency of -3.00 1
cattle, carcasses & cuts
• Inappropriate carcass size & weight -2.88 2
• Inadequate tenderness of beef -2.21 3
• Insufficient marbling -2.03 4
• Reduced grade/tenderness due to implants -2.03 T5
• Excess external fat cover -1.82 T5
• Inappropriate USDA QG mix -1.48 7
• Too much hide damage due to brands -1.82 8
• Too frequent & severe bruises -1.58 9
• Too frequent liver condemnations -1.64 T106
• Inadequate flavor of beef -1.06 T10

Source: National Beef Quality Audit, 2000.

 Injection-Site Lesion Slice-Audits:
Cow & Bull Rounds

60

50

% 40
Incidence Beef
30
Dairy
20 Combined

10

0
1998 1999 2000
Year
Source: Roeber et al., 2002.
 Injection-Site Lesion Audits
Steer & Heifer Top Sirloin Butts
25.0% Incidence of Lesions
21.6%

20.0%
19.3% Percent Active Fluid-Filled Lesions

15.0% 13.6%
12.5%
11.5%
10.5%
9.2%
10.0%
6.2%
5.1%
5.0% 4.0%
2.5%

0.0%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000*

Source: Roeber et al., 2002.

Food Safety
 Food Safety & Quality
Concerns

• Pathogens/foodborne illness

• Antibiotic/pesticide residues
fNew FSIS “surveillance” sampling protocols

• Physical hazards

• Use of hormones & growth promotants

 Food Safety & Quality
Concerns

• Injection site blemishes:

¡incidence in beef = ~2.5%
• Production related defects:
¡bruises, hide/pelt defects, offal
condemnation, etc.
• Eating quality:
¡tenderness, juiciness, flavor
 How Do Consumers
Perceive Meat Safety?

• FMI Trends reported that “product safety” is “very

important” (71%) or “somewhat important” (20%)
to consumers in food selection, ranking 3rd.
• Supermarket shoppers were “completely” (15%)
or “mostly” (59%) confident that food in the
supermarket is safe.
• Hart Research Associates (on behalf of NCBA)
reported that 75% of consumers are confident
that U.S. beef is safe.
Sources: Food Marketing Institute. 2000, FMI Trends;
Hart Research Associates. 1997. Food & Nutrition News.
 Consumer Perception Of
Food Safety
Consumer Grading Safety an A or B
100
90 Veggie
80
87 87 Fruits
70
74 Beef Steak
60 68 67 66 Seafood
50 58 54
Pork Chop
40
30 Chicken
20 G. Beef
10 G. Pork
0

Source: NCBA/IPSOS-Reid Sept. 2002.

Note: Survey has margin of error of 3.3 %.
 Consumer Perception Of
Ground Beef Safety
Percent of Consumers NOT Confident in Ground Beef Safety

SOURCE
Score of 3 or lower on a 10-point scale
Cattlemen
50
FSIS
40
36 Sit-Down Rest.
30
25 Grocery
20 24 23
19 Packer
10 17
Quick-Serve
0 Rest

Source: NCBA/IPSOS-Reid Sept. 2002.

Note: Survey has margin of error of 4.5 %.
 Consumer Perception Of
Ground Beef Safety
Percent of Consumers Confident in Ground Beef Safety
50
45 Score of 8 or higher on a 10-point scale SOURCE
40
35 Cattlemen
30 FSIS
34 Sit-Down Rest.
25
29 28 27
20 Grocery
15 21 Packer
19
10 Quick-Serve Rest
5
0
Source: NCBA/IPSOS-Reid Sept. 2002.
Note: Survey has margin of error of 4.5 %.
 USDA-FSIS Inspection

• Legislative: “Meat Inspection Act” of 1906 & 1967;

“Food & Drug Act & Cosmetic Act” of 1938.
• Regulatory: Pathogen Reduction, Hazard
Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP)
Systems Final Rule, 1996.
• Residues: FDA-CVM & EPA sets residue
tolerance limits for livestock, drugs & pesticides,
respectively; monitored & enforced for meat
products by USDA-FSIS.
 FSIS:
Areas Of Responsibility

• Antemortem inspection
• Postmortem inspection
• Product inspection
• Assurance that all plants adopt & use HACCP
• Assurance that SSOPs are practiced by
personnel
 FSIS:
Areas of Responsibility

• Verification of HACCP System effectiveness

(Salmonella performance standards).
• Oversight of plant protocols for generic E. coli
testing.
• Laboratory determinations & assays.
• Control & restriction of condemned products.
• Marking, labeling, & inspection insignia.
• Facilities construction & operational
sanitation.
 Origin Of HACCP Concept

• 1959, Dr. Howard Bauman for NASA/Pillsbury.

¡1st Concern: Food crumbs in zero gravity
¡2nd Concern: Microbiological safety

• “If we had to do a great deal of destructive testing,

there was absolutely no way we could be assured
that there wouldn’t be a problem.”
• “The only way we could succeed would be to
establish control over the entire process: the raw
materials, the processing environment, & the people
involved.”
Source: Stevenson & Bernard, 1995.
 Prerequisite Programs

• Facilities
• Production equipment
• Control of raw materials
• Sanitation (SSOPs)
• Chemical control
• Production & quality controls
• Glass control
 Prerequisite Programs

• Receiving, storage & distribution

• Traceability & recall
• Complaint investigations
• Labeling
• Training
 Help Consumers
Understand . . .

Source: Kain et al., 2002.

 Common Microbiological
Counts

• Standard Plate Count (SPC):

fAlsoreferred to as “Total Viable” (TPC) or Aerobic
(APC) Plate counts

fEstimates number of live, viable microorganisms

which form “colonies” if plated on a nutritive solid
substrate & provided with appropriate
environmental conditions

f“Pour” or “Spread” plating can be used

 Common Microbiological
Counts

• Total Coliform Count (TCC):

f Aerobic & facultative anaerobic, fermentative
gram-negative organisms found in the
intestinal tract of most animals
f Indicator organisms for fecal contamination

• Escherichia coli Count (ECC):

f Thermotolerant coliforms indicative of fecal
contamination
 Common Microbiological
Counts

• Psychrotrophic Count:
f Characterizes the number of bacteria able to
grow at refrigerated temperatures
• Lactic Acid Bacteria Count (LAB):
f Acid-producing facultative
anaerobes/microaerophilic counts
• Pathogens:
f Bacteria that can cause animal or human
illness
 Common Microbiological
Counts
• Air Samples:
f Total estimate of airborne microorganisms

• Yeast & Mold Count:

f Estimates numbers of yeasts & molds

• Mesophilic Spore Count (MSC):

f Estimates numbers of heat resistant,
sporeforming organisms
 Logarithmic Bacterial Growth

Colony Forming
Log10 10x Units (CFU)
1.0 101 10
2.0 102 100
3.0 103 1,000
4.0 104 10,000
5.0 105 100,000
6.0 106 1,000,000
7.0* 107 10,000,000

*Spoilage generally occurs at 7.0 log/CFU.

 HACCP Preliminary Tasks

• Assemble the HACCP Team

• Describe the food & its distribution

• Describe the intended use & consumers

• Develop a flow diagram that describes the

process

• Verify the flow diagram

 Seven Principles of
HACCP
Following full implementation of written
Prerequisite Programs (GMPs, SSOPs):
• Conduct Hazard Analysis;
• Identify Critical Control Points (CCPs);
• Establish Critical Limits (CLs);
• Monitor the Critical Control Points;
• Determine appropriate corrective actions;
• Establish verification procedures to ensure the
system works;
• Maintain accurate record-keeping.
 Principle No. 1:
Conduct A Hazard Analysis
• At each processing step, identify those hazards
(threats to public health) that could be introduced,
controlled or enhanced at that step
• For each identified physical, chemical or biological
hazard, determine whether or not the hazard is
“significant” (reasonably likely to occur; risk/threat
to public health)
• Justify the decision concerning level of
“significance” with valid scientific evidence
• Determine those control measures available to
prevent/eliminate/reduce to acceptable levels the
risk of the hazard occurring
 Principle No. 2:
Determine
Critical Control Points
• § 417.1 Definitions: A Critical Control Point (CCP) is
a “point, step, or procedure in a food process at
which control can be applied &, as a result, a food
safety hazard can be prevented, eliminated, or
reduced to acceptable levels.”

• FSIS considers an acceptable reduction for E. coli

O157:H7 to be a reduction to an undetectable level
 Beef Multiple Hurdles
Systems

Steam
Steam Vacuuming
Vacuuming Carcass Flow

Pre-Evisceration
Pre-Evisceration Wash
Wash

Acetic
Acetic Acid
Acid Rinse
Rinse Zero
Zero Tolerance
Tolerance

Thermal
Thermal Pasteurization
Pasteurization

Final
Final Wash
Wash

Acetic
Acetic Acid
Acid Rinse
Rinse
 Plate Counts By Process
Sampling Site
10.0
10.0 TPC
TPC TCC
TCC ECC
ECC
9.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
Log
Log 6.0
6.0
CFU/100
CFU/100
cm
cm22 5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
Hide On Hide Off Pre-Evis. Post-Chill
Source: Bacon et al., 2000.
 Multiple Hurdles

• Hide-off, only .3% of ECC were below the

detectable limit (DL; <.9 log CFU/100 cm2).
• At the post-intervention site, 52.2% of ECC were
below the DL.
• At the post-chilling site, 98.4% of ECC were below
the DL.
• Between hide-on and post-intervention sites,
incidence of Salmonella spp. declined by 14.1%
(15.4% to 1.3%).
Source: Bacon et al., 2000.
Control Of Human
Pathogens
 USDA-MARC Commercial
Cattle De-Hairing Study

• 240 samples per treatment.

• Incidence of E. coli O157:H7

on pre-treatment hides was:
f67% for controls;
f88% for cattle hides
subsequently treated.

Source: Koohmaraie et al., 2002.

 USDA-MARC Commercial
Cattle De-Hairing Study

• Incidence of E. coli O157:H7 on carcasses

following treatment was:
f 50% for controls (pre-intervention);
f 1.25% for chemically de-haired.

• “Hide intervention should be a priority as a part

of comprehensive program to reduce/eliminate
pathogens.”

Source: Koohmaraie et al., 2002.

 FDA Approved Irradiation
Levels For Meat
Food Purpose Dose
0.3 kGy min. to 1 kGy
Fresh pork Control Trichinella spiralis
max.

Dry spices/
Microbial disinfection 30 kGy max.
seasonings

Poultry Pathogen control 3 kGy max.

Frozen meats
Sterilization 44 kGy min.
(NASA)

Refrigerated meat Pathogen control 4.5 kGy max.

Frozen meat Pathogen control 7 kGy max.

 Irradiation Dose Needed To
Reduce Initial Populations Of
Selected Pathogens By 90%
Pathogen D-Value
Salmonella 0.4 to 0.8 kGy
E. coli O157:H7 0.2 to 0.4 kGy
Listeria monocytogenes 0.4 to 0.48 kGy
Staphylococcus aureus 0.4 to 0.48 kGy
Campylobacter jejuni 0.16 to 0.24 kGy
Toxoplasma gondii (parasite) 0.4 kGy
Lactobacillus spp. (spoilage bacteria) 1 to 2 kGy
Vegetative Clostridium perfringens 0.6 to 0.8 kGy
Clostridium perfringens spores 1.2 to 1.8 kGy
Clostridium botulinum spores 2 to 4 kGy
Source: FDA
 Pathogens Accounting For
Food-Related Deaths
Food-related
deaths
Pathogen (CDC, 1999)
Salmonella 31%
Listeria 28%
Toxoplasma 21%
Norwalk-like Viruses 7%
Campylobacter 5%
Fig
Fig 1.
1. E.
E. coli
coli biofilm
biofilm
E. coli O157:H7 3%

Source: Cherry. 1999. Food Tech. 53(11):56.

 Prevalence Of E. coli
O157:H7 On Live Cattle
• Hancock et al., 1997
f 1.6 % incidence in fecal samples (188 of 11,881)
f 61 % incidence in feedlots (61 of 100) in 13 states

• Smith et al., 2001

f 23 % incidence in fecal samples (719 of 3,162)
f 100 % incidence in pens (29) and feedlots (5)

• Elder et al., 2000

f 27.8 % incidence in fecal samples (91 of 327)-21 of 29 lots (72%)
f 10.7 incidence on hides (38 of 355)-11 of 29 lots (38%)
f 43.4 % incidence preevisceration (148 of 341)-26 of 30 lots (87%)
f 17.8 % incidence postevisceration (59 of 332)-17 of 30 lots (57%)
f 1.8 % incidence postprocessing (6 of 330)-5 of 30 lots (17%)
 Incidence Of
E. coli O157:H7 (2002)

• 54 positives from > 6,240 samples (0.865%)

• 24 recalls as of 11/26/02
f 19,142,073 total pounds
f 3 recalls over 100,000 pounds
¡ConAgra (~18.6 Million pounds)
¡Moyer Packing Co. (208,232 pounds)
¡Fairbank Farms (320,000 pounds)
 FSIS Rules And Regulations

E. coli O157:H7 contamination of beef products:

f All raw beef processors (intact and non-intact)
must reassess their HACCP plan

f Based on data from Elders 2000 and Smith 2001

(28 to 100 % incidence of E. coli O157:H7 in
feces of live cattle), E. coli O157:H7 IS
REASONABLE LIKELY TO OCCUR

f CCPs must address pathogen

Note: October 7, 2002.
 Antemortem
Interventions
• Vaccination
¡ Inhibits Intimin
• Competitive exclusion and probiotics
¡ Lactobacillus acidophilus
¡ Colicin producing E. coli
• Chlorate supplementation
¡ Targets Nitrate Reductase
• Terminal antibiotic treatment
¡ Neomycin
• Plant-derived feed additives
¡ Tasco™ (Seaweed)
¡ Swainsonine (Pigweed)
 Transformation of Live
Animals to Carcasses
Preharvest

Data Estimates
Before 2000!

4-10% Positive for

E. coli O157:H7

“Preharvest food safety is

currently one of the hottest 0.05 % Positive for
E. coli O157:H7
areas of research”
Source: Reagan, 2000.
Post-processing
 Site-Specific Prevalence
For E. coli O157
63% 73%
60%

75%

54% 41%
51%

Source: Keene and Elder, 2002. JAVMA.

 Percent Prevalence Of
Presumptive Positive
E. coli O157
Isolates from hides, feces or a combination of hides or feces collected from
cattle exposed to one of eight treatments:
Treatments % Presumptive Positive
E. coli O157 isolates
Hide Fecal Hide + Fecal
Control 40 46 57
Lactobacillus acidophilus (LAB) 23 13 32
Neomycin sulfate (Neo) 9 0 9
E. coli O157:H7 Vaccine (Vac) 20 15 32
Vac + LAB 16 33 48
Vac + Neo 7 27 31
Neo + LAB 7 1 9
Vac + LAB + Neo 7 3 8
Source: Ransom et al., 2003.
 Summary

• Due to microbiological sampling variability between the

pens, if the prevalence of E. coli O157 in control hide
samples was set at 40%, it would require 38 pens to
show a significant difference between the controls
• For treated cattle the prevalence of E. coli O157 on hide
samples were 17.6 to 33.6 % lower than the controls
• For treated cattle the prevalence of E. coli O157 in fecal
samples were 12.9 to 45.8% lower than the controls
• Neomycin sulfate as a single treatment or in combination
with other treatments appeared to be among the most
effective treatments tested in this study
Source: Ransom et al., 2003.
Facility Considerations
 Identifying A
Processing Facility
• To find a good processor:
f Talk to other direct marketers, extension
personnel or local trade associations in the
area and get recommendations
f Make appointments with processors who are
conveniently located and interview them

Source: University of Wisconsin Extension. 2003. Online at [Link]

 Selecting A
Processing Facility
• Are they operating under federal inspection?

f All meat products offered into commerce

must be produced in federally inspected or
state inspected (with federal equivalency)
facilities

f State inspected products are not approved

for interstate commerce

Source: Federal Meat Inspection Act, 1906.

 Selecting A
Processing Facility

• Do they process “Not For Sale” products?

• What is the core business of the operation?

f Plants that offer custom slaughter and wild

game processing often heavily rely on these
entities for cash-flow purposes
 Processing Capacity

• Does the facility have the volume capacity

necessary to meet you current and future
slaughter and fabrication needs?
f Consider carcass/cut aging parameters,
turn-around time and facility cold storage
space
 Processing Capacity

• Does the facility have the necessary equipment

to process and package your products
according to your specifications?
f Processing and packaging equipment can
be very costly and can occupy valuable
space in any facility
 Plant Sanitation

• Would you be comfortable consuming products

produced under the current sanitary conditions
of the facility?

f Ifyou are not comfortable, don’t expect your

customers to be comfortable.
 Plant Sanitation

• What food safety interventions are employed in

the facility?

f Food borne pathogens have dismantled

multi-billion dollar companies; don’t expect to
withstand a pathogen-related recall and don’t
think it can’t happen to you!