Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:24:22.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of changes in processing to improve hygiene control on contamination of poultry carcasses with campylobacter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. C. Mead ,
W. R. Hudson  and
M. H. Hinton
G. C. Mead
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, Boltons Park, Hawkshead Road, Potters Bar, Herts EN6 1NB
W. R. Hudson
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Avon BS18 7DU
M. H. Hinton
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Avon BS18 7DU
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Examination of neck skin and caecal samples taken at a commercial processing plant from 15 randomly chosen poultry flocks showed that all flocks were contaminated initially with thermophilic Campylobacter spp., even in the apparent absence of caecal carriage. During processing, numbers of campylobacter on skin samples were reduced by between 10 and 1000-fold.

To improve hygiene control generally, chlorinated-water sprays were used to limit microbial contamination on equipment and working surfaces. In addition, chlorine concentrations in process water were increased and any unnecessary carcass contact surfaces in the processing plant were removed. When comparing flocks before and after the changes, it was found that numbers of campylobacter on packaged carcasses were significantly lower after the changes had been made (P 0·001). In practice, however, the reduction would be likely to have little impact on consumer exposure to campylobacter infection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 115 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 495 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

1.Report. Interim Report on Campylobacter. Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
2.Skirrow, MB, Fidoe, RG, Jones, DM. An outbreak of presumptive foodborne Campylobacter enteritis. J Infect 1981; 3: 234–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Blaser, MJ, Taylor, DN, Feldman, RA. Epidemiology of Campylobacter jejuni infections. Epidemiol Rev 1983; 5: 157–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Harris, NV, Weiss, NS, Nolan, CM. The role of poultry and meats in the etiology of Campylobacter jejuni/coli enteritis. Am J Publ Hlth 1986; 76: 407–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Harris, NV, Thompson, D, Martin, DC, Nolan, CM. A survey of Campylobacter and other bacterial contaminants of pre-market chicken and retail poultry and meats, King County. Washington. Am J Publ Hlth 1986; 76: 401–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Hopkins, RS, Scott, AS. Handling raw chicken as a source for sporadic Campylobacter jejuni infections. J Infect Dis 1983; 148: 770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Oosterom, J, Notermans, S, Karman, H, Engels, GB. Origin and prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni in poultry processing. J Food Protect 1983; 46: 339–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Wempe, JM, Genigeorgis, CA, Farver, TB, Yusufu, HI. Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni in two California chicken processing plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 1983; 45: 355–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Baker, RC, Paredes, MDC, Qureshi, RA. Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni in eggs and poultry meat in New York State. Poult Sci 1987; 66: 1766–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Berndtson, E, Tivemo, M, Engvall, A. Distribution and numbers of Campylobacter in newly slaughtered broiler chickens and hens. Int J Food Microbiol 1992; 15: 45–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Mead, GC, Hudson, WR, Hinton, MH. Use of a marker organism in poultry processing to identify sites of cross-contamination and evaluate possible control measures. Br Poult Sci 1994; 35: 345–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Mead, GC, Hudson, WR, Hinton, MH. Microbiological survey of five poultry processing plants in the UK. Br Poult Sci 1993; 34: 497–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Bailey, JS, Thomson, JE, Cox, NA, Shackelford, AD. Chlorine spray washing to reduce bacterial contamination of poultry processing equipment. Poult Sci 1986; 65: 1120–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.van de Giessen, A, Mazurier, S-I, Jacobs-Reitsma, W et al. , Study on the epidemiology and control of Campylobacter jejuni in poultry broiler flocks. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992; 58: 1913–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Humphrey, TJ, Henley, A, Lanning, DG. The colonization of broiler chickens with Campylobacter jejuni: some epidemiological investigations. Epidemiol Infect 1993; 110: 601–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Kapperud, G, Skjerve, E, Vik, L et al. , Epidemiological investigation of risk factors for Campylobacter colonization in Norwegian broiler flocks. Epidemiol Infect 1993; 111: 245–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed