Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:43:24.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of time in lairage on caecal and carcass salmonella contamination of slaughter pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

I. R. Morgan ,
F. L. Krautil  and
J. A. Craven
I. R. Morgan
Affiliation:
Attwood Veterinary Research Laboratory, Mickleham Road, Westmeadows, Victoria, Australia3047
F. L. Krautil
Affiliation:
Attwood Veterinary Research Laboratory, Mickleham Road, Westmeadows, Victoria, Australia3047
J. A. Craven
Affiliation:
Attwood Veterinary Research Laboratory, Mickleham Road, Westmeadows, Victoria, Australia3047
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.

A longitudinal study of the effect of time spent in lairage on salmonellas in the caecum and on the skin surface of 450 slaughter pigs from a single producer was conducted. Pigs were tested in 6 groups at 2 abattoirs, with one-third of a group being slaughtered after 18 h, one-third after 42 h and one-third after 66 h spent in lairage. The salmonella isolation rate from caeca and carcass surfaces increased significantly with increasing time spent in lairage. Salmonellas were isolated from the caeca of 18·5% of pigs held less than 24 h in lairage, 24·1% of pigs held a further 24 h and 47·7% of pigs held for 66 h in lairage before slaughter. The salmonella isolation rates from carcasses were 9·3%, 12·8% and 27·3% for the same groups. Thirteen salmonella serotypes were isolated from the caecal contents and carcasses over the 6 weeks of the trial. One abattoir had a higher salmonella isolation rate from pigs than the other and this was probably related to lairage management. It appeared that lairage is an important factor in the manipulation of the salmonella contamination of pig carcasses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , June 1987 , pp. 323 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

REFERENCES

Childers, A. B., Keahey, E. E. & Kotula, A. W. (1977). Reduction of salmonella and fecal contamination of pork during swine slaughter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 171, 1161–1164.Google Scholar
Craven, J. A. & Hurst, D. B. (1982). The effect of time in lairage on the frequency of salmonella infection in slaughtered pigs. Journal of Hygiene 88, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallwey, W. J. & Tarrant, P. V. (1979). Influence of environmental and genetic factors on the ultimate pH in commercial and pure-bred pigs. Acta Agriculturae Seandinavica Supplement 21, 32–38.Google Scholar
Haddock, R. L. (1970). Efficacy of examining rectal swabs to detect swine salmonella carriers. American Journal of Veterinary Research 31, 1509–1512.Google ScholarPubMed
Hansen, R., Rogers, R., Emge, S. & Jacobs, N. (164). Incidence of salmonella in the hog colon as affected by handling practices prior to slaughter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 145, 139–140.Google Scholar
Schulz, V. (1983). Influence of delay between transport and slaughter on the prevalence of salmonella in slaughter pigs. Inaugural Dissertation, Justus-Liebig Universitat, Giessen. pp. 109 In Veterinary Bulletin (1984) 54, abstract no. 3967.Google Scholar
Shotts, E. B., Martin, W. T. & Galton, M. M. (1962). Further studies on salmonella in human and animal foods and in the environment of processing plants. Proceedings of the US Livestock Sanitary Association 65, 309–318.Google Scholar
Vassiliadis, P., Kalopathaki, V., Tricuopoulus, D., Marrommati, C. H. & Serie, C. H. (1981). Improved isolation of salmonella from naturally contaminated meat products by using Rappaport-Vassiliadis enrichment broth. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 42, 615–618.Google Scholar
Williams, L. P. & Newell, K. W. (1968). Sources of salmonellas in market swine. Journal of Hygiene 66, 281–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed