haccp_v2_appvix-1

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group Amendment 1: February 1998A Guide to HACCP Systems in the Meat IndustryAppendix IX.1: Cattle Slaughter and Dressing Page: IX.1.1

Appendix IX.1: Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle

1. Prerequisite requirements

The following are documented prerequisite programmes:

� sanitary design;

� potable water quality;

� sanitation and cleanup procedures for edible areas and food contact surfaces (pre-operationaland operational);

� personnel hygiene (protective clothing requirements, personal equipment and use ofamenities);

� training;

� hygienic dressing (dressing techniques and procedures, personnel, equipment, dropped

meat);

� food contact materials (specifications, handling and storage);

� repairs and maintenance of equipment;

� control of chemicals;

� vermin control;

� waste disposal;

� condition of stock (cleanliness of animals).

2. Scope of HACCP plan

HACCP application: Food safety

Species: Bovine (excluding bobby calf)

Process: Slaughter and dressing of cattle, from receipt of livestock throughto carcass leaving slaughter floor.


3. Product Description and Intended Use

Form 1: Product description and intended use

1. Product name(s) Beef carcass

2. Important product characteristics Passed ante- and post-mortem inspection

Product meeting microbiological targets set by company

3. How is it to be used:a. By a further processorb. By the consumer

a. Chilled/hot bonedb. Raw or cooked

4. Intended consumer General public (i.e. no specified "high-risk" groups)

5. Packaging Not applicable

6. Shelf life and storage requirements Not applicable

7. Where it will be solda. Export marketb. Local market

List countries, if applicable

8. Labelling instructions Branded Carcass ticket

9. Special distribution controls required Immediate dispatch to chiller or boning room


4. Initial Food Safety Objectives

(To be confirmed after hazard identification and determination of hazard responsibilities. SeeSection 10 for confirmed objectives.)

To minimise transfer and redistribution of microbiological hazards from the gastrointestinal tractand the hide to the carcass, including control of grossly-detectable contaminants, to withinspecified microbiological targets.

To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are retained at post morteminspection.

To identify all chemical "suspect" lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter, forsubsequent regulatory action.

5. Process Flow Diagram

Form 2: Raw materials/other inputs

Product name: Beef carcass

Raw material/Other inputs Description/Specification

Raw material & live animal

Other inputs1 & carcass tickets2

branding ink2

Components:

� carcass/head/offals

� gastrointestinal tract (GIT)

� hide

Suitable for use as food contact material

Suitable for use as food contact material

1. Inputs are defined as incoming materials, such as consumable or non-consumable items, added to the productduring the process. These inputs and their hazards must be addressed by a prerequisite programme/SSOP,or carried through to hazard identification within the HACCP plan.

2. Specifications and hygienic handling of these materials are covered by premises’ prerequisite programme forfood contact materials.


Form 3: Process flow diagram

Process: Slaughter and dressing of cattle

Inputs Process steps Edible outputs

Livestock <

Carcass ticket/ink <

1. Receive?

2. Wash?

3. Pen?

4. Antemortem? ?

? Suspects? ?

5. Prestun shower?

6. Stun?

7. Anal wash/shackle?

8a. Thoracic stick1

?

8b.Halal stick1,2

?

9. Rod?

10. Head removal?

11. Hind leg ?

12. Ring?

13. Hide removal?

14. Brisket cut?

15. Evisceration?

16. Carcass split?

17. Postmortem inspection? ?

18a. Retain? ?

18b. Reinspect? ?

19. Trim =

?

20. Grade?

21. Final wash

< Head

< Offals

< Beef carcass

1. Process options.

2. For halal slaughter, regulations to ensure humane slaughter require that sticking of the animal is donebefore shackling.


6. Job Descriptions

Form 4 must be completed and confirmed for each step in the particular process.

Form 4: Template for job description

Job description

Process step no:

Example to be put in here .........

Summary list of food safety responsibilities of operator: (confirm after HACCP plan completed)

Reference:


7. Raw Material Hazard Identification

Form 5a: Hazard identification for cattle

Raw material component Biological hazard Chemical hazard Physical hazard

Carcass/head/offals B1 - Microbiologicalhazards associated withgrossly-detectableabnormalities, i.e. fever,abscesses

B2 - Microbiologicalhazards not grosslydetectable, e.g.bacteraemia, Toxoplasmagondii

B3 - Visible parasites, e.g.Taenia saginata(Cysticercus bovis)

C1 - Chemical hazardsassociated with identifiedchemical residues, e.g.suspect lines, injection sitelesions (ISLs)

C2 - Chemical hazardsassociated with unidentifiedchemical residues, e.g.anthelmintics, antibiotics,environmentalcontaminants.

P1 - Shotgun pellets

Gastrointestinal tract B4 - Microbiologicalhazards1 associated withfaeces and ingesta, e.g.Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7,Clostridium spp.,Campylobacter jejuni

Not applicable Not applicable

Hide B5 - Microbiologicalhazards1 associated withcontamination of hide withfaeces and dirt, e.g.Salmonella spp., E. coliO157:H7, Clostridium spp., Campylobacter jejuni


Udder (for cows) B72 - Microbiologicalhazards associated withcontamination from mastitic milk, e.g.Staphylococcus aureus


1. Hazards may be transferred from one raw material component to another as either unseen orgross contamination.

Hazards may be redistributed on a raw material component as either unseen or grosscontamination.

2. B6 has already been allocated in Section 8 of the template for slaughter and dressing as:"biological hazards associated with other inputs"; hence B7 refers to contamination with mastiticmilk.


8. Process Step Hazard Identification

Form 5b: Process step hazard identification for slaughter and dressing of cattle

Process Step Raw material Transfer ofhazards toproduct 2,3

Redistributionof hazards on

product2

Other inputs

Components Hazards1 Components Hazards

1. Receive Carcass/head/offals

GITHideUdder (for cows)

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,P1B4B5 B7

2. Wash Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,P1B4B5 B7

3. Pen Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,P1B4B5 B7

4. Antemortem Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,P1B4B5 B7

5. Prestunshower

Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,P1B4B5 B7

6. Stun Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,P1B4B5 B7

7. Analwash/shackle

Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,P1B4B5 B7

B5

8a. Thoracicstick

Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, B5, C1,C2, P1B4B5 B7

B5

8b. Halalstick

Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, B5, C1,C2, P1B4B5 B7

B4, B5

9. Rod Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1B4B5 B7

B4


Process Step Raw material Transfer ofhazards toproduct 2,3

Redistributionof hazards on

product2

Other inputs

Components Hazards1 Components Hazards

10. Headremoval

Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1B4B5 B7

B4, B5

11. Hind leg Carcass/head/offals


B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1B4B5 B7

B5, B74

12. Ring Carcass/offals

GITHide

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1B4B5

B4,B5

13. Hideremoval

Carcass/offals

GITHide

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1B4B5

B5

14. Brisket cut Carcass/offals

GIT

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1B4

15.Evisceration

Carcass/offals

GIT

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1B4

B4, B15

16. C/C split Carcass B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1

B4, B5

17.Postmortem

Carcass B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,C1, C2, P1

B4, B5

18a. Retain Carcass B1, B2, B4, B5, C16,C2, P1

B4, B5

18b. Reinsp Carcass B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,P1

B4, B5

Carcasses able to contact each other after step 17 on main chain and after step 18b if retained

19. Trim Carcass B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,P1

B4, B5 B4, B5

20. Grade Carcass B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,P1

B4, B5 TicketsInk

NilNil

21. Final wash Carcass B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,P1

B4, B5


1. B & Biological B1 & Microbiological hazards associated with grossly-detectable abnormalities B2 & Microbiological hazards not grossly-detectable B3 & Visible parasitesB4 & Microbiological hazards associated with faeces and ingesta from GIT B5 & Microbiological hazards associated with hideB6 & Biological hazards associated with other inputsB7 & Microbiological hazards associated with mastitic milk

C & Chemical C1 & Chemical hazards associated with identified chemical residues C2 & Chemical hazards associated with unidentified chemical residues

P & Physical P1 & Shotgun pellets

2. There is an additive effect through the process.

3. Product is defined as the edible component of the final product.

4. With certain cows, B7 may be transferred during removal of the udder. If this hazard is relevant to thecompany’s process, then its transfer and redistribution at subsequent steps should be considered. However,for the purpose of this generic model, this hazard will not be considered any further through succeedingsections of the HACCP plan.

5. With certain classes of cattle, B1 may be transferred at evisceration. If this hazard is relevant to thecompany’s process, then its transfer and redistribution at subsequent steps should be considered. However,for the purpose of this generic model, this hazard will not be considered any further through succeedingsections of the HACCP plan.

6. Carcasses associated with chemical suspect lines are sampled and retained according to MAF RA (M&S)specification. The carcasses may progress through the remainder of the process as retained product.


9. Hazard Responsibilities

Form 5c: Processor and regulator responsibilities for control of hazards associated with thecarcass

Identified Hazard Processor’s responsibility Regulator’s responsibility Unaddressed hazard

B1 & Microbiologicalhazards associated withgrossly-detectableabnormalities

Yes (Retain rail trim only) Yes (Antemortem insp /postmortem insp/re-insp)

B2 & Microbiologicalhazards not grosslydetectable

No No Yes

B3 & Visible parasites No Yes (Postmortem insp)

B4 & Micro hazardstransferred /redistributedfrom gut i) unseenii) associated with grosscontamination withfaeces/ingesta

i) Yes (Key process steps)ii) Yes (Key process steps)

i) Yes (Audit, NMD)ii) Yes (Insp/reinsp/audit)

B5 & Micro hazardstransferred /redistributedfrom hidei) unseenii) associated with grosscontamination from hide

i) Yes (Key process steps)ii) Yes (Key process steps)

i) Yes (Audit, NMD)ii) Yes (Insp/reinsp/audit)

C1 & Chemical hazards &suspect lines

Yes (Receiving only) Yes (Retain/sample/audit)

C2 & Chemical hazards &unknown

No Random sampling as pernational programme

Yes (unaddressed byprocessor)

P1 & Shotgun pellets No Yes (Insp1) Yes (unaddressed byprocessor)

1. Carcasses are inspected for shotgun pellets but detection rate is low due to low sensitivity of the inspectionmethod.

10. Confirmed Food Safety Objectives (FSOs)

� To minimise transfer and redistribution of microbiological hazards from the gastro-intestinal tract and the hide to the carcass, including control of grossly-detectablecontaminants, to within specified microbiological targets.

� To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are retained at postmortem inspection.

� To identify all chemical "suspect" lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter, forsubsequent regulatory action.


11. Critical Control Point (CCP) Determination

Form 6: CCP determination for slaughter and dressing of cattle

Process step Identified hazard Q1. Could the hazardbe present in or onthe product1 atunacceptable2 levelsat this step?

If yes & give reasonsand go to Q2

If no & not a CCP

Proceed to nextidentified hazard

Q2. Is there a controlmeasure available atthis step that wouldprevent unacceptable2

levels of the hazard?

If yes & this step is aCCP. Go to Q3

If no & not a CCP. Goto Q3

Q3. Is there a controlmeasure available at aprevious step which wouldsignificantly contribute topreventing unacceptable2

levels of the hazard at thisstep?

If yes & retrospectivelyassign that step as a CCP

If no and if the answer to Q2was no, consider whetherany subsequent steps cancontrol the hazard or whetherredesign of the process/product is necessary toensure a control measure isavailable

Proceed to next identifiedhazard

CCPno:

1. Receive B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

C1. Chemsuspects

Yes & reportedincidences of non-compliance. Refer toAnnex 1 Section 3.

Yes & identification ofsuspect lines at thisstep

No CCP1

2. Wash B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

3. Pen B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

4. A/M Refer to regulator

5. Prestunshower

B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

6. Stun B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

7. Analwash/shackle

B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

8a. Thoracicstick

B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No




If no & not a CCP











CCPno:

8b. Halalstick

B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

9. Rod B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

10. Headremoval

B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

11. Hind leg B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide Yes & incorrectprocedures foropening cuts andflaying will exceedacceptable microcounts over asignificant surfacearea on the hindquarter. Refer toAnnex 1 Section 5.2.

Yes & preventunacceptablecontamination from thehide to the carcass bycorrect operatortechnique

No CCP2

12. Ring B4. Micro & GIT Yes - incorrect ringingwill exceed acceptable micro counts over asignificant surfacearea on the hindsection. Refer toAnnex 1 Section 5.3.

Yes & prevent faecalcontamination from thebung by correctoperator technique

No CCP3

B5. Micro & Hide No

13. Hideremoval

B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

14. Brisket cut B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

15. Evisc B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No




If no & not a CCP











CCPno:

16. Carcass split B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

17. PM insp Refer to regulator

18a.Retain B1. Micro &grossly-detectableabnormalities

Yes & failure to trim /unhygienic removal ofgrossly-detectableabnormalities. Referto IS 5.

Yes & hygienictrimming

No CCP4

B4. Micro & GIT Yes & failure to trim /unhygienic removal ofgross contamination.Refer to IS 5.


B5. Micro & Hide Yes & failure to trim /unhygienic removal ofgross contamination.Refer to IS 5.


18b. Reinspect Refer to regulator

Note: Carcasses may contact each other after step 17 on main chain and after 18a if retained.

19. Trim B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

20. Grade B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

21. Final wash B4. Micro & GIT No

B5. Micro & Hide No

1. Product is defined as the edible component of the final product.

2. Unacceptable & as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience,National Microbiological Database) associated with achieving the FSOs established for the process. In thedetermination of unacceptability, hazards should be considered in terms of: level, frequency, transfer andredistribution, and severity of effect on consumer.


12. Completion of the HACCP Plan

Information on the critical limits applied for each of the CCPs, monitoring, correctiveaction and verification procedures, and HACCP records should be fully documented aspart of the HACCP plan. Refer to Sections 12-16 of the Template for Slaughter andDressing for the detailed requirements.

Form 7 provides a summary of the plan. References to documented procedures should be shownin this form.

13. Verification of the HACCP Plan

13.1 Validation of the HACCP plan

Validation of the HACCP plan involves the initial confirmation that the HACCP plan is completeand will achieve each of the food safety objectives. Validation should also demonstrate that theHACCP plan is at least equivalent to GMP-based controls at the premises, for all food safetyobjectives. Identified CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control measure applied atthat particular process step, will achieve or contribute to the achievement of the relevant foodsafety objective (FSO).

An example of how this generic HACCP plan may be validated is given below:

FSO1: To minimise transfer and redistribution of microbiological hazards from thegastrointestinal tract and hide to the carcass.

The first FSO is expected to be achieved by providing adequate control measures at CCP2 (hindlegging) and at CCP3 (ringing). Therefore CCP2 and CCP3 should be evaluated as they relateto the achievement of FSO1.

CCP2 (Hind legging)

C For this CCP, the use of microbiological observations is appropriate for validation.Historical data based on a standardised microbiological sampling programme (e.g. NMD)may be used for evaluating this CCP. Companies that do not have a database shouldimplement an appropriate standardised microbiological sampling programme. Dataobtained before the HACCP plan implementation (i.e. historical data) should be comparedto data obtained after HACCP implementation to ensure that the HACCP plan is at leastequivalent to GMP-based controls at the premises.

It should be noted that NMD data provides an on-going verification of the microbiologicalperformance of the whole process plan. However, NMD data may be used for evaluatingCCP2 because the microbiological consequence of this process step is reflected in dataobtained from the NMD programme.


C When historical data is not available or is inadequate, microbiological validation willinvolve the collection of new data from when the HACCP plan is implemented.

The following is an example of an appropriate design for microbiological validation in theabsence of benchmark or historical data:

Sample size: 25 carcasses or alternative number as determined by statistical techniques.(Under most New Zealand situations, a sample size of 25 carcasses willprovide a basis for statistical comparison.)

Sample time frame: Two week period. Random selection of five sampling days, randomselection of five carcasses per day.

Methodology: MIRINZ 873 standard or as described in NMD, Manual 15. Enumeratemean APCs and E. coli counts. Duplicate spread plates. Carcasses to besampled while temporarily railed on to the detain rail, or another suitableposition that does not mask the microbiological consequences of slaughterand dressing.

CCP3 (Ringing)

The use of NMD data for evaluating this CCP is of limited value because the NMD does notinclude a sampling site that could be routinely affected by the ringing operation. However,sporadic occurrence of gross contamination and redistribution due to failure at this step may bereflected in NMD data. Microbiological validation using relevant sampling sites may need tobe done for this CCP. However, it is suggested that the use of visual observation of sporadicfaecal leakage and/or observation of operator technique may be a more practical means forevaluating the adequacy of procedures at this process step. In this context, it would be expectedthat any premises that does not use bagging should validate operator performance as meetingappropriate food safety objectives according to visual parameters defining process control.

An appropriate design for microbiological validation is given above. Guidance on establishingsampling regimes for validation using visual observation may be obtained from publications onstatistical process control.

FSO2: To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are retained atpost-mortem inspection.

The second objective is addressed at CCP4 (retain rail trim). Regulations require that allcarcasses which go to the retain rail are reinspected by the regulator. Historical data on visualobservations of removal of gross abnormalities and contaminants at this process step may be usedto confirm that the procedures in place will achieve FSO2. Data obtained before the HACCPplan implementation (i.e. historical data) should be compared to data obtained after HACCPimplementation to ensure that the HACCP plan is at least equivalent to GMP-based controls atthe premises.


FSO3: To identify all chemical "suspect" lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter,for subsequent regulatory action.

The third objective is addressed at CCP1 (receiving). The control measure at CCP1 is aregulatory requirement. It is therefore expected that premises will have historical data ordocumention which may be used to show that procedures in-place are adequate and will achievethe FSO.

13.2 Ongoing verification

Ongoing verification activities confirm whether the HACCP plan is operating effectively andaccording to documented procedures. Examples of these activities are internal and extrinsicaudits, HACCP review, and a product testing programme. The NMD is an example of amicrobiological sampling programme which provides an ongoing verification of themicrobiological performance of the whole process plan.

13.3 Revalidation

A revalidation of the HACCP plan is required whenever changes are made (e.g. changes topremises, product, process, intended use of the product).


Process step Hazard ID CCPno:

Critical limits Monitoringprocedures/tools(consider Who, What,When and How)

Corrective actions1 Verification procedures2 HACCP records

1. Receive C1. Chemical -known suspect lines

1 Identify all suspect lines forregulator

100% check of incominglines against current chemsuspect list.

Note on pen card forregulator.

ID after receiving butbefore slaughter. Notify ProductionManager andRegulator.

If alreadyslaughtered, notifyProduction Managerand Regulator.

FSO validation

Internal audit

Extrinsic audit (e.g.regulator, client)

HACCP review

Validation record

Daily CCP monitoring worksheet

Corrective action report

Internal audit report

Extrinsic audit report

HACCP review record

2. Wash

3. Pen

4. Antemortem

5. Prestunshower

6. Stun

7. Anal wash/shackle

8a. Thoracicstick

8b. Halal stick

9. Rod

10. Headremoval





11. Hind leg B5. Micro & hide 2 Operator technique & 100%compliance with food safetycomponents of job description

Random observation ofoperator technique beingapplied to a predeterminednumber of carcasses per2 hour run. 3

(a) Talk to operator(b) Increasesupervision and/ormonitoring level(c) Retrain or removeoperator

FSO validation

Internal audit


HACCP review

Microbiological samplingprogramme (e.g. NMD)

Validation record





HACCP review record

12. Ring B4. Micro & GIT 3 Operator technique & 100%compliance with food safetycomponents of job description


(a) Talk to operator(b) Increasesupervision and/ormonitoring level(c) Retrain or removeoperator

FSO validation

Internal audit


HACCP review

Microbiological samplingprogramme (e.g. NMD)

Validation record





HACCP review record

13. Hide removal

14. Brisket cut

15. Evisceration

16. C/C split

17. Postmortem





18a. Retain B1. Micro & grossly-detectableabnormalities

B4. Micro & GIT

B5. Micro & Hide

4 Removal of all grossly-detectableabnormalities.

Removal of all visible faeces andingesta.

Removal of all skin pieces.

Operator technique & 100%compliance with food safetycomponents of job description

100% reinspection byregulator will identify non-removal of grossabnormalities andcontaminants. ( Note: Thisis not a processor activity.)


(a) Retain productuntil correctlytrimmed(b) Talk to operator(c) Increasesupervision and/ormonitoring level(d) Retrain or removeoperator

FSO validation

Internal audit


HACCP review

Validation record





HACCP review record

18b. Reinspect

19. Trim

20. Grade

21. Final wash

1. Corrective actions should reflect an escalating response when ongoing non-compliance occurs.

2. Validation of the FSO relating to microbiological outcomes relates to the performance of the whole HACCP plan, e.g. NMD.

3. Sampling regime should be established by the company.

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group Amendment 1: February 1998A Guide to HACCP Systems in the Meat IndustryAnnex to Appendix IX.1: Cattle Slaughter and Dressing Page: IX.1.20

Annex to Appendix IX.1: Background Information to the Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughterand Dressing of Cattle

1. Foodborne Illness Associated With Beef

Beef products accounted for 9% of outbreaks and 10% of the cases of foodborne disease reportedin the USA between 1973 and 1987 (Bean and Griffin, 1990), and in Canada in 1982 and 1983(Todd, 1989). Bacterial pathogens accounted for 92% of the beef associated outbreaks in theUSA in which an aetiological agent was identified (Bean and Griffin, 1990). The primarybacterial pathogens responsible for beef-related outbreaks were Salmonella spp. (48%),Clostridium perfringens (32%), and Staphylococcus aureus (14%). Bacteria not previouslyrecognised as important foodborne pathogens that emerged during the study period (1973-1987)included Campylobacter jejuni, E. coli O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes.

In New Zealand, nearly 10,000 cases of food or waterborne illness were notified in 1995 (Gilbertet al., 1996). The highest incidences were for campylobacteriosis (7525 cases) and salmonellosis(1363 cases). Fifteen cases were notified for listeriosis and six cases for verotoxin-producingEscherichia coli. Sources of foodborne illness were not identified in the report. Over recentyears, the incidence of campylobacteriosis and yersiniosis has been increasing in New Zealand.In addition, other foodborne diseases have been recently diagnosed, for example, verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli infection was first identified in New Zealand in 1993 (ESR, 1997).

2. Biological Hazards

Biological hazards associated with the consumption of beef and beef products are brieflydiscussed in the following sections.

2.1 Pathogenic bacteria

Salmonella spp.

Salmonella spp. are the primary bacterial aetiological agents responsible for beef-relatedoutbreaks in the USA and Canada (Bryan, 1980; Todd, 1989; Bean and Griffin, 1990).Examples of beef products that have been implicated in outbreaks are roast beef, jerky and groundbeef. Contamination of raw beef combined with improper food handling practices were foundto be important factors in a substantial proportion of the Salmonella cases (Bryan, 1980).

Salmonella and other enteric pathogens are typically associated with faecal material and can becommonly isolated from the hooves and hides of cattle (Stolle, 1981). They can be spread on tothe carcass during slaughter and dressing through contact with the hide, ingesta, hands andvarious equipment.


In a survey of New Zealand beef slaughter premises from 1993 to 1995, Salmonella was detectedin 0.09% (n=2/2221) of beef samples of boning room products but was not detected in 754samples of beef carcasses (Armitage, 1995). In a more recent survey, 996 carcasses were testedfor the presence of Salmonella (Cook et al., 1997) and all were found negative for the organism.This translates to a prevalence of not more than 0.1%, which compares very favourably with thepublished prevalence for Salmonella in United States heifers and steers of 1% (USDA, 1994), inUS cows and bulls of 2.7% (USDA, 1996), and in Australian cattle of 0.4% (Vanderlinde andMurray, 1995).

E. coli O157:H7

E. coli O157:H7 was first recognised as a foodborne pathogen after two outbreaks ofhaemorrhagic colitis in the USA in 1982, attributed to the consumption of undercookedhamburgers from a fast-food restaurant chain. Since then, several outbreaks caused by E. coliO157:H7 involving beef have been reported in other countries, including the USA (Bean et al.,1990; Tarr, 1994), Canada and the UK (Chapman et al., 1993). The principal vehicle implicatedin outbreaks has been ground beef, and evidence suggests that in most instances the meat wasundercooked (Doyle, 1991). The most recent outbreak, affecting 16 people, occurred in the USAin July 1997 and resulted in the recall of 25 million pounds of hamburger meat. Evidencesuggests that the pathogen came from any one of 10 slaughterhouses that supplied the rawmaterial to the manufacturing plant.

E. coli O157 infection was first identified in New Zealand in 1993. To date, there have been atotal of 22 cases of infections by the pathogen in New Zealand (ESR, 1997). No source ofinfection has been identified for any of these cases.

Studies have shown that healthy cattle can be carriers of E. coli O157:H7 (Chapman et al., 1993).Dairy cattle, particularly young animals, are considered to be an important reservoir of E. coliO157:H7 (Doyle,1991). Buncic and Avery (1997) found a low prevalence of E. coli O157:H7(0.54%) in healthy dairy cows in New Zealand.

Raw meat and milk can become contaminated with the pathogen during slaughter and milkingdue to faecal contamination. In a recent New Zealand survey, E. coli O157:H7 was not detectedfrom any of the 2000 bovine carcasses sampled, translating to a prevalence of contaminatedcarcasses of less than 0.05% (Cook et al., 1997). E. coli O157:H7 was also not detected in aseparate microbiological survey of 600 carcasses randomly selected from meat export slaughterhouses sourcing cattle from within New Zealand’s primary dairy farming region (cited by Cooket al., 1997 from unpublished data). Failure to detect a single E. coli O157:H7 in 2600 carcassesgives a prevalence of contaminated carcasses of less than 0.04%. This compares very favourablywith the published prevalence for E. coli O157:H7 in US heifers and steers of 0.2% (USDA,1994), in US cows and bulls of < 0.05% (USDA, 1996), and Australian cattle of 0.4%(Vanderlinde and Murray, 1995).

Surveys of retail products in North America have found E. coli O157:H7 in 3.7% of beefsamples, 1.5% of pork, 1.5% of poultry and 2% of lamb (McNamara, 1995).


Campylobacter

Campylobacter can be isolated from the faeces of all animals, often without signs of clinicaldisease (Johnston, 1990). In New Zealand, there is a seasonal prevalence of Campylobacterinfection in dairy cattle (Meanger and Marshall, 1989), with infections peaking at summertime.Isolation rates of C. jejuni from New Zealand dairy cows ranged from 12% to 31%, dependingon the season.

As healthy cattle may be carriers of Campylobacter spp., the faecal contamination of meatrepresents a potential route leading to human infection. In New Zealand, the most significantfactors associated with cases of campylobacteriosis were the consumption of raw or undercookedfoods (notably poultry but also unpasteurised dairy products) and the consumption of untreateddrinking water (ESR, 1996). Campylobacter is less frequently associated with red meatconsumption. This appears to be due to the lower carriage rate of mammals compared to birdsand the fact that the bacteria appear to die off on the dry carcass surface (ESR, 1994). Freezingalso significantly reduces the number of viable organisms (ESR, 1994). There has been onereported outbreak associated with undercooked hamburger meat in the Netherlands (Blaser et al.,1983).

Campylobacter has been recovered from 4.0% of 2064 carcasses from US steers and heifers(McNamara, 1995). The isolation rate from beef ranged from 0% to 4.2% and from lamb from0% to 8% (Harris et al., 1986; Wallace, 1997).

Listeria

L. monocytogenes can be endemic in cattle, but no outbreaks of listeriosis have been attributedto raw beef products (Ryser and Marth, 1991). Documented cases of listeriosis linked toconsumption of muscle foods have involved poultry (Johnson et al. , 1990).

The presence of Listeria on carcasses has long been attributed to contamination by faecal matter(Johnson et al., 1990). Faecal carriage of Listeria spp. has been estimated at 67% for dairy cows(Skovgard and Morgen, 1988). In a New Zealand study, however, Lowry and Tiong (1988) failedto isolate Listeria from the faecal contents of 33 cattle and lambs. These authors suggested thatanimal hides and pelts are a more important source of Listeria than faecal contamination, as 17%of beef hides and 43% of lamb pelts were found to be positive for L. monocytogenes.

Several studies have shown that further processing of carcasses into boned cuts and ground meatsignificantly increases the level of Listeria contamination (Fenlon et al., 1996). For example,Lowry and Tiong (1988) observed an increased incidence of L. monocytogenes on boneless lambcompared with lamb carcasses, and a much greater incidence of L. monocytogenes in minced beef(92%) compared with beef cuts (20%).

L. monocytogenes has been recovered from 4.1% of 2089 carcasses of US steers and heifers(McNamara, 1995). A number of studies have examined raw beef products for L. monocytogenesworldwide, with reported incidence rates ranging from 0% to 50% (Ryser and Marth, 1991).


Staphylococcus aureus

Staphylococcus aureus was one of the primary bacterial aetiological agents for beef-relatedoutbreaks reported in the USA in 1973-1987 (Bean and Griffin, 1990). Food handling personnelwas the primary source of S. aureus, and outbreaks were generally associated with temperatureabuse after contamination of the cooked products (Bryan, 1980).

S. aureus has been recovered from 4.2% of 2089 carcasses of US steers and heifers (McNamara,1995).

S. aureus is also associated with mastitic cows (Johnson, 1990).

Clostridium perfringens

Clostridium perfringens Type A is one of the most widely spread pathogenic bacteria in theenvironment. It is part of the microflora of the soil and can therefore be found in the hide andhooves of cattle. It has also been found in the intestinal contents of animals. Due to theorganism’s ubiquitous nature, most commercially available meats and poultry are contaminatedwith C. perfringens (Bates, 1997).

Clostridium perfringens outbreaks are generally associated with cooked products that are heldat inadequate holding temperatures in institutional and food service settings (Bryan, 1980; Bates,1997). Outbreaks in Australia are typically associated with the ingestion of meat meals, usuallybeef dishes, although poultry may be involved, which have been allowed to either cool slowlyor maintained at a warm temperature for long periods of time. The poor heat penetration andinadequate aeration of the meal provide ideal anaerobic conditions for the growth of thisorganism. Dishes such as rolled cuts, where the contamination on the outside is rolled into themiddle, where heat penetration and cooling are low and anaerobic conditions exist, areparticularly favourable for the growth of C. perfringens (Bates, 1997).

Yersinia spp.

Yersiniosis is an emerging foodborne problem worldwide. Y. enterocolitica has been identifiedas an important cause of gastrointestinal illness in New Zealand (Wright, 1995). Yersinia spp.occur frequently in the intestinal tract of a wide variety of animals and also in the environment.Intestinal prevalence rates of up to 30% have been demonstrated in clinically normal cattle, lambsand deer in New Zealand (Blackmore and Humble, 1987).

Y. enterocolitica is often present in foods, particularly those of animal origin. However, therehas been no reports of beef-related cases of yersiniosis. Pork is frequently incriminated in casesof infection and data indicate that healthy pigs are significant carriers of pathogenic strains of Y.enterocolitica (Barton et al., 1997). A survey in New Zealand found Y. enterocolitica in 3.4%of 203 ready-to-eat flesh foods, including processed meats, poultry and sea food, but the organismwas not isolated in the 18 samples of beef products tested (Hudson et al., 1992).


2.2 Parasites

Taenia saginata

Taenia saginata, the beef tapeworm, is found in most parts of the world where beef is eaten.Humans are the only definitive hosts of this species of tapeworm and cattle serve as intermediatehosts, harbouring the cysticercus larval stage of the worm, known as Cysticercus bovis, theingestion of which can result in human infection with the adult tapeworm (Goldsmid and Speare,1997). Foods associated with illness include raw or undercooked beef.

New Zealand has an extremely low prevalence of T. saginata infection in cattle (about 5-30animals reported per year). The mean number of human infections with T. saginata per yearresulting from consumption of New Zealand beef in export and domestic markets is estimated tobe 0.50 and 1.10, respectively (van der Logt et al., 1997). These risk estimates, for a foodbornedisease that has generally mild symptoms and is readily treatable, were considered to beextremely low.

From a practical point of view (i.e. excluding serology), the presence of T. saginata can only beidentified during post-mortem inspection. However, existing inspection methods have a lowsensitivity to low grade infection of cattle.

Toxoplasma gondii

Toxoplasma gondii is a protozoan parasite that encysts in the tissues of a variety of mammalianhosts, including cattle and pigs. Foods associated with illness include raw or undercooked meat.

Surveillance data in the USA from 1968 to 1977 indicated two outbreaks of toxoplasmosisattributed to the consumption of raw beef and undercooked hamburgers (Bryan, 1980).

3. Chemical Hazards

Chemical hazards which could be present in slaughter cattle include agricultural chemicals (e.g.pesticides, herbicides, veterinary drugs) and environmental contaminants (e.g. heavy metals,organochlorines).

New Zealand MAF maintains a National Residue Testing Programme which monitors the residuestatus of animals slaughtered for human consumption. All carcasses from animals from farmson the chemical suspect list are sampled and retained until results indicate acceptable levels ofchemical residue in the product. Random sampling is done on carcasses from animals from farmsnot on the suspect list.

A quarterly report on the results of national residue monitoring is published by MAF RA in theMAF publication Surveillance. Any non-compliance with established maximum residue levelsis indicated in this report.


4. Physical Hazards

Physical hazards which could be present in slaughter cattle include broken injection needles andshotgun pellets. There have been reported instances of shotgun pellets being found in beefexported from New Zealand.

5. Process Step Hazards

5.1 Presentation status of livestock for slaughter

The New Zealand Meat Regulations 1969 state that stock in an unreasonably dirty condition(Reg. 89) shall not be sent to an establishment for slaughter. There is also a requirement thatstock in an unreasonably dirty condition, already in the abattoir, shall not be slaughtered untilthey have been rendered clean (MQM Manual 4).

A study in Finland (Ridell and Korkeala, 1993) further confirmed the necessity to excludeexcessively dirty cattle from the slaughterhouse. The authors investigated the slaughter of cattlecarrying an excessive load of dung. An animal was considered to be "excessively dungy" whenat least its ventral and lateral areas were covered with a solid layer of dung. The excessively dirtyanimals were slaughtered with extra care using a slower line speed. For controls "normal" cattlewere chosen at random. The results of the study showed that a solid layer of dung on cattle hideled to a considerably greater microbial contamination of the carcass. This occurred despite theslowing of the line speed which allowed greater care in slaughtering procedures. For bothsampling sites, the APC counts from carcasses from excessively dungy cattle were about 0.7 logunits higher than for the control carcasses.

Some investigators (Roberts, 1980) suggest that cleaning animals before slaughter is unlikely toaffect dressing hygiene, unless a heavy layer of hardened filth adhering to the skin over much ofthe area that must be incised interferes with the clean removal of the hide. This view is supportedby a recent Canadian study (Van Donkersgoed et al., 1997) which found no consistentassociation between the quantity of tag [dag] (mud, bedding and manure) attached to hides of beefcattle at slaughter, and bacterial contamination of carcasses. Changes in bacterial counts whenassociated with tag quantity, surface wetness of hides, line speed, or shaving off of tag weregenerally less than 0.5 log units per cm2. Thus, the authors considered that preslaughter hidestatus of cattle was not a critical control point in the HACCP plan for the beef slaughter processesstudied.

A trial was recently undertaken in a New Zealand export plant to determine whether themicrobiological status of a beef carcass was significantly influenced by: the cleanliness of cattlein the yards; the presence/absence of post-stun defaecation and its subsequent removal; and byevisceration and postmortem inspection of the carcass. Dirty cattle (i.e. with visible faeces, mudand/or soiling around the tail base and in areas of knife opening cuts from tail base to hocks,along the ventral midline of the belly and brisket) were washed immediately before slaughter toa "visibly clean" status. These were compared to clean, dry stock which were visibly clean


animals (i.e. visibly clean on the above-mentioned areas of the animal) and remained unwashed.Microbiological samples were taken on the neck, shoulder, flank and inside hindleg of carcassesimmediately after hide pulling and while on the detain rail. Samples were analysed for APC andE. coli. Preliminary evaluation of both APC and E. coli counts show no significant differencesbetween the two treatments for all carcass sites tested (unpublished data). This suggests that notwashing visibly clean cattle in the yards, and at post-stun (when no defaecation occurs), resultsin similar carcass microbiological levels to those obtained by current washing practices for cattle.More work may be needed to clarify the effect of dirty livestock on subsequent carcass bioloadsunder New Zealand conditions.

5.2 Hind legging (skinning)

The major safety hazard associated with the dressing of beef carcasses is the contamination ofmeat with enteric pathogens (e.g. Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7) originating from faecalmaterial or ingesta (Gill et al., 1995). Faecal contamination of dressed carcasses can occur as aconsequence of either direct contact with faecal material or contact with surfaces that havethemselves been in contact with faecal material, e.g. hides and operators’ hands (Bell et al.,1996). Even brief contact with faecal material can produce contamination of up to 106 bacteria/cm2, enough to cross-contaminate 10 or more successive carcasses (Roberts, 1980). Kriaa et al.(1985) have reported that the attachment of bacteria is both instantaneous (within 1 min) andresistant to rinsing.

The general bacterial contamination carried on operators’ hands after making hind leg openingcuts, a dressing procedure that necessitates direct hand contact with the hide, is very similar tothat carried by the hide in that region (Bell et al.,1996). Therefore, contact between carcass andunrinsed operators’ hands would introduce comparable contamination to hide-carcass contact forthose operations in which hide-hand contact is unavoidable.

Gill et al. (1995) investigated the effects of skinning and other slaughter operations on themicrobial quality of beef carcasses. Swab samples were obtained from the surfaces of randomlyselected beef carcasses passing through a high speed dressing process in Canada. A single samplewas obtained from each selected carcass from one of 10 sites to identify the effects of likely highand likely lower risk operations.

The results of their study (Gill et al., 1995) showed that after skinning, or freeing and tying ofthe bung in the case of the anal area site, the hock, anal area and rump sites were relativelyheavily contaminated with E. coli, at mean log numbers > 2/100 cm2. These sites encompassareas usually traversed by the opening cut in the hide. In comparison, the butt, neck, and bothbrisket sites were moderately contaminated with E. coli, at mean log numbers about 1/100 cm2.After evisceration and carcass splitting, the butt, anal area and rump sites were heavilycontaminated, and the hock, cranial back, neck and both brisket sites were moderatelycontaminated, although the numbers were higher at the cranial brisket site than after skinning.


A later investigation by Gill et al. (1996a) confirmed that during skinning the rump site becomesheavily contaminated with faecal organisms. The log10 values of the E. coli counts on the rumpsite were distributed between 0.3 and > 4/100 cm2, with a mean log10 value of 2.59/100 cm2.

A study undertaken by Bell et al. (1996) to evaluate New Zealand beef processing supports thefindings of the Canadian study. High contamination (measured as APC counts) was found atthose carcass sites associated with opening cuts and/or exposed to hide contact during hideremoval. E. coli data identified the hock, inside leg, bung and perhaps the flank as probable sitesof direct or indirect faecal contamination. However, it should be noted that when detected onthese carcass sites, E. coli was generally in very low levels (log10 values< 1/100 cm2).

Stolle (1981) also found that the highest incidences of salmonellae in beef carcasses wereassociated with freeing the skin round the lower parts of the legs and from the sternum region.

5.3 Ringing (freeing and tying of the bung)

Gill et al. (1995) observed that after freeing and tying of the bung, the anal area and butt sitebecame heavily contaminated with E. coli, indicating faecal contamination. The butt site wassporadically heavily contaminated during skinning but was consistently heavily contaminatedafter the bung-freeing operation. These confirmed the findings of earlier Australian studies whichreported that the highest contamination with salmonellae occurred during freeing of the rectumand anal sphincter (Grau, 1979). To prevent such contamination, some workers recommend thatthe anal end of the intestine be enclosed in a plastic bag (Mackey and Roberts, 1993).

Five New Zealand meat companies were interviewed recently, regarding the effectiveness ofusing bags for enclosing the bung to control faecal contamination during the ringing operation.There was general agreement that contamination at this process step is largely due to operatorerror (e.g. nicking the bung ), and sporadic faecal leakage during ringing. Minor nicks into thebung do not always result in faecal contamination at the ringing step, but it is likely to result tofaecal spillage on to the carcass and offals when the viscera is pulled and the bung dropped duringevisceration. Using a highly skilled operator greatly reduces the incidence of faecalcontamination, but, this does not address contamination due to sporadic faecal leakage.

The four premises interviewed that used bags considered that the advantage in using a bag is thatit is able to contain faecal contamination due to both operator error and sporadic faecal leakage. Faecal contamination of the carcass and offals at evisceration is also prevented. Bagging alsominimises contamination of the operator’s hand because the hand is covered with the bag duringthe operation.

5.4 Evisceration

The intestinal tract is the second major source of enteric pathogens during the slaughteringprocess (NACMCF, 1993). Intact viscera present little hazard but leakage from the gastro-intestinal tract could cause widespread contamination (ICMSF, 1988). The preventive measuresfor reducing hazards during evisceration are tying the oesophagus to prevent escape of ingesta,


enclosing the bung to prevent escape of faeces, and the intact removal of viscera (Bell et al.,1996; USDA, 1997).

Results of several studies indicate that although viscera remains intact during its removal, theevisceration process appeared to increase the level of contamination on carcass sites (Stolle, 1981;Gill et al., 1995; 1996b; Cook et al., 1997). Gill et al. (1996b) found that mean log number ofE. coli for beef carcasses were higher after evisceration and splitting than after skinning. Thebeef carcass undergoes much handling during the evisceration process and it is possible that thisincrease is due to redistribution of microorganisms from contaminated sites rather than "new"transfer of contamination on the carcass.

Gill et al. (1995) reported sporadic heavy contamination of the cranial brisket site afterevisceration and carcass splitting. It was unclear what actions or operations led to thecontamination. The authors suggested that E. coli were redistributed between skinning andsplitting the carcass, from heavily contaminated to the lightly contaminated back sites,particularly the cranial back site, to the cranial brisket. Data indicated that this contamination wasunlikely to derive from the posterior sites on the carcass and suggested the possibility of anunsampled, heavily contaminated site which occurs in the anterior part of the carcass.

The results of a recent New Zealand survey (Cook et al., 1997) showed that the counts on theflank site were on average higher than those on the outside leg and brisket sites. Similarly, theprevalence of E. coli at the flank site was higher than that of the other sites. The authors attributedthis to the greater level of handling on the flank site during evisceration.

Stolle (1981) found that after legging, the next highest incidence of salmonellae contaminationwas found at the stage when the abdominal cavity was opened, but, because the intestinal carriagerates of salmonellae were low, Grau (1987) argued that the abdominal tissue was probablycontaminated during hide removal rather than during evisceration.

5.5 Removal of the udder (milk spillage)

Pathogens that affect the udder are of concern because they may get into the milk, which may inturn contaminate carcasses when milk spillage occurs during the removal of the udder.Organisms which commonly cause mastitis in cattle and which are important with respect tofoodborne illness include Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli spp., with the latter becomingincreasingly important with housed cattle (Johnston, 1990). Other organisms relevant tofoodborne illness that have been occasionally recorded as a cause of mastitis are Salmonella, C.jejuni and L. monocytogenes (Lowry and Tiong, 1988).

The implication of these results for contamination on beef carcasses due to milk spillage isunclear at present and requires further investigation.


5.6 Trimming

Traditional indicators of dressing hygiene have, in the past, relied on visible defects such as thepresence of hair and faecal stains. However, recent studies suggest that visible defects are notreliable indicators of overall microbial contamination (Biss and Hathaway, 1994, 1995). Thereis a weak correlation between visible and bacterial contamination on commercial beef carcasses(Jericho et al., 1993). It is therefore not surprising that studies have found that trimming hasnegligible effect on the overall microbiological condition of beef carcasses (Miller et al., 1995;Gill et al., 1966b). Redistribution of contamination from one carcass area to another can alsooccur during fat trimming (Prasai et al., 1995a).

5.7 Cold water washing

Cold water carcass washes, although effective in removing macro contamination, are ineffectivein removing microbial contamination (Bell et al., 1996). Gross contamination at heavily andmoderately contaminated sites can be reduced by trimming and washing (Gill et al., 1966b), butthey have no decontaminating effect on the carcass as a whole. Carcass washing brings aboutposterior to anterior redistribution of microbial contamination, resulting in increased counts atforequarter sites. Other studies support this conclusion (Prasai et al., 1995b; Gill et al., 1996b).


References

Armitage, N.H. (1995) Microbiological quality of New Zealand beef and lamb. In New ZealandComment to the USDA, FSIS proposed rule on Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis andCritical Control Point (HACCP) Systems, June 1995.

Barton, M.D., Kolega, V. & Fenwick, S.G. (1997) Chapter 17: Yersinia enterocolitica. InFoodborne Microorganisms of Public Health Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G.,Jenson, I., Newton, K. & Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of Food Science and TechnologyInc. (NSW Branch) Food Microbiology Group. NSW, Australia.

Bates, J.R. (1997) Chapter 13: Clostridium perfringens. In Foodborne Microorganisms ofPublic Health Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton, K. &Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) FoodMicrobiology Group. NSW, Australia.

Bean, N.H. & Griffin, P.M. (1990) Foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States, 1973-1987: pathogens, vehicles, and trends. J. Food Prot. 53: 804-817.

Bean, N.H., Griffin, P.M., Goulding, J.S. & Ivey, C.B. (1990) Foodborne disease outbreaks, 5-year summary, 1983-1987. J. Food Prot. 53: 711-728.

Bell, R.G., Harrison, J.C.L., Rogers, A.R. & le Roux, G.J. (1996) Distribution and sources ofmicrobial contamination on beef carcasses. Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 963.

Biss, M.E. & Hathaway, S.C. (1994) Microbiological and visible contamination of ovinecarcasses subsequent to different on-line dressing practices. Proc. 28th Meat Ind. Res. Conf.Auckland, New Zealand. pp. 445-453.

Biss, M.E. & Hathaway, S.C. (1995) Microbiological and visible contamination of lambcarcasses according to preslaughter presentation status: implications for HACCP. J. Food Prot.58: 776-783.

Blackmore, D.K. & Humble, M.W. (1987) Zoonoses in New Zealand. Publ. No. 112.Veterinary Continuing Education, Massey University. Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Blaser, M.J., Taylor, D.N. & Feldman, R.A. (1983) Epidemiology of Campylobacter jejuniinfections. Epidemiol. Rev. 5: 157-176.

Bryan, F.L. (1980) Foodborne diseases in the United States associated with meat and poultry.J. Food Prot. 43: 140-150.

Buncic, S. & Avery, S.M. (1997) Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in healthy dairy cows. N. Z. Vet.J. 45: 45-48.


Cook, R.L., Hathaway, S.C., Harrison, J.C.L. & Armitage, N.H. (1997) Microbiological baselinesurvey of New Zealand bovine carcasses: a preliminary report. Proc. 43rd Int. Cong. of Meat Sci.& Technol. Auckland, New Zealand. pp. 732-733.

Chapman, P.A., Siddons, C.A., Wright, D.J., Norman, P., Fox, J., & Crick, E. (1993) Cattle asa possible source of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli 0157 infections in man.Epidemiol. Infect. 111: 439-447.

Doyle, M.P. (1991) Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and its significance in foods. Int. J. FoodMicrobiol. 12: 289-301.

ESR, Health (1994) Campylobacteriosis: a report for the Ministry of Health. 30 June 1994.

ESR, Health (1996) Surveillance and control notes: risk factors for campylobacteriosis identifiedin the study. N.Z. Public Health Rep. 3: 20.

ESR, Health (1997) Surveillance and control notes: first recorded death from verotoxigenicEscherichia coli (VTEC). N.Z. Public Health Rep. 4: 45.

Gilbert, S., Freshwater, A. & Allman, R. (1996) Improving food safety in New Zealand. N.Z.Public Health Rep. 3: 65-67.

Gill, C.O., McGinnis, J.C. & Badoni, M. (1995) Assessment of the hygienic characteristics ofa beef carcass dressing process. J. Food Prot. 59: 136-140.

Gill, C.O., McGinnis, J.C. & Badoni, M. (1996a) Use of total or Escherichia coli counts toassess the hygienic characteristics of a beef carcass dressing process. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 31:181-196.

Gill, C.O., Badoni, M. & Jones, T. (1996b) Hygienic effects of trimming and washing operationsin a beef-carcass-dressing process. J. Food Prot. 59: 666-669.

Goldsmid, J.M. & Speare, R. (1997) Chapter 22: The parasitology of foods. In FoodborneMicroorganisms of Public Health Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I.,Newton, K. & Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSWBranch) Food Microbiology Group. NSW, Australia.

Grau, F.H. (1979) Fresh meats: bacteria association. Arch. Lebensmitten. 30: 87-92.

Grau, F.H. (1987) Prevention of microbial contamination in the export beef abattoir. In:Elimination of Pathogenic Microorganisms from Meat and Poultry. (ed. Smulders, F.J.M.).Elsevier Science Publishers. Amsterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 221-233.


Fenlon, D.R., Wilson, J. & Donachie, W. (1996) The incidence and level of Listeriamonocytogenes contamination of food sources at primary production and initial processing. J.Appl. Bacteriol. 81: 641-650.

Harris, N.V., Kimball, T., Weiss, N.S. and Nolan, C. (1986) Dairy products, produce and othernon-meat foods as possible sources of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli enteritis.J. Food Prot. 49: 347-351.

Hudson, J.A., Mott, S.J., Delacy, K.M. and Edridge, A.L. (1992) Incidence and coincidence ofListeria spp., motile aeromonads and Yersinia enterocolitica on ready-to-eat flesh foods. Int. J.Food Microbiol. 16: 99-108.

ICMSF (1988) Chapter 10: Production - animal foods. In Microorganisms in Foods, vol. 4:Application of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) System to EnsureMicrobiological Safety and Quality. The International Commission on MicrobiologicalSpecifications for Foods (ICMSF) of the International Union of Microbiological Societies.Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford, England.

Jericho, K.W.F, Bradley, J.A., Gannen, V.P. & Itozub, G.C. (1993) Visual demerit andmicrobiological evaluation of beef carcasses: methodology. J. Food Prot. 56:114-119.

Johnston, A.M. (1990) Foodborne illness: veterinary sources of foodborne illness. The Lancet336: 856-858.

Johnson, J.L., Doyle, M.P. & Cassens, R.G. (1990) Listeria monocytogenes and other Listeriaspp. in meat and meat products: a review. J. Food Prot. 53 (1): 81-91.

Kriaa, H., Arthaud, J.F., & Fournaud, J. (1985) Contamination and bacterial retention capacityof beef carcasses at the abattoir. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 59: 23-28.

Lowry, P.D. & Tiong, I. (1988) The incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in meat and meatproducts: factors affecting distribution. Proc. 34th Int. Cong. Meat Sci. & Technol. NewZealand. Part B: pp.528-530.

Mackey, B.M. & Roberts, T.A. (1993) Improving slaughter hygiene using HACCP andmonitoring. Fleischwirtsch. Int. 2: 40-45.

McNamara, A.M. (1995) Establishment of baseline data on the microdata of meats. J. Food Saf.15: 113-119.

Meanger, J.D. & Marshall, R.B. (1989) Seasonal prevalence of thermophilic Campylobacterinfections in dairy cattle and a study of infection of sheep. N. Z. Vet. J. 37:18-20.

Miller, M.F., Bawcom, D.B., Wu, C.K., Meade, M.K. & Ramsey,C.B. (1995) Microbiology ofhot-fat trimmed beef. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 1368-1371.


MQM Manual 4 - Pre-slaughter requirements. (1986) Ministry of Agriculture. Wellington, NewZealand.

NACMCF (1993) Generic HACCP for raw beef. National Advisory Committee onMicrobiological Criteria for Foods. United States.

Prasai, R.K., Campbell, R.E., Vogt, L.R., Kastner, C.L. & Fung, D.Y.C. (1995a) Hot-fattrimming effects on the microbial quality of beef carcasses and subprimals. J. Food Prot. 58:990-992.

Prasai, R.K., Phebus, R.K., Zepeda, C.M., Kastner, C.L., Boyle, A.E. & Fung, D.Y.C. (1995b)Effectiveness of trimming and/or washing on microbiological quality of beef carcasses. J. FoodProt. 58: 1114-1117.

Ridell, J. & Korkeala, H. (1993) Special treatment during slaughtering in Finland of cattlecarrying an excessive load of dung; meat hygiene aspects. Meat Sci. 35: 223-228.

Roberts, T.A. (1980) The effects of slaughter practices on the bacteriology of the red meatcarcass. Royal Soc. Health J. 80: 3-9.

Ryser, E.T. & Marth, E.H. (1991) "Listeria, Listeriosis, and Food Safety." Marcel Dekker, Inc.New York. pp. 405-462.

Skovgaard, N. & Morgen, C.A. (1988) Detection of Listeria spp. in feces from animals, in feeds,and in raw foods of animal origin. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 6: 229-242.

Stolle, A. (1981) Spreading of salmonellas during cattle slaughtering. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 50:239-245.

Tarr, P.I. (1994) Review of 1993 Escherichia coli 0157:H7 outbreak: Western United States.Dairy, Food & Environ. Sanit. 14: 372-373.

Todd, E.C.D. (1989) Food and water borne disease in Canada - 1983 annual summary. J. FoodProt. 52: 436-442.

USDA (1994) Nationwide Beef Microbiological Baseline Data Collection Program: Steers andHeifers. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.

USDA (1996) Nationwide Beef Microbiological Baseline Data Collection Program: Cows andBulls. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.

USDA (1997) Meat and Poultry Products Hazards and Control Guide. United States Departmentof Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.


Vanderlinde, P.B. & Murray, J. (1995) Microbiological quality of Australian meat: beef carcasssurvey. Proc. Ind. Semin. (9 November 1995). CSIRO, Brisbane, Australia.

Van der Logt, P.B., Hathaway, S.C & Vose, D.J. (1997) Risk assessment model for humaninfection with the cestode Taenia saginata. J. Food Prot. 60: 1110-1119.

Van Donkersgoed, J. Jericho, K.W.F., Grogan, H. & Thorlakson, B. (1997) Preslaughter hidestatus of cattle and the microbiology of carcasses. J. Food Prot. 60: 1502.

Wallace, R.B. (1997) Chapter 8: Campylobacter. In Foodborne Microorganisms of PublicHealth Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton, K. & Sutherland, P.)Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) Food MicrobiologyGroup. NSW, Australia.

Wright, J. (1995) Yersiniosis: an emerging problem in New Zealand. N.Z. Public Health Rep.2:65-66.

haccp_v2_appvix-1

Documents

haccp systems

cattle slaughter

dressing page

meat industryappendix

dressing of cattle1

food contact materialsuitable

food contact material1

food safetyspecies