Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation

Abstracts - January, 2001

- Influence of Sampling Procedure, Handling and Storage on the Microbiological Status
of Fresh Beef
- HACCP Implementation and Validation in Small and Very Small Meat and Poultry Processing Plants in Nebraska

Influence of Sampling Procedure, Handling and Storage on the Microbiological Status
of Fresh Beef
Lorenzo M. Ware,1 Mindy L. Kain,1 John N. Sofos,1*Keith E. Belk,1 J.O. Reagan,2 and Gary C. Smith1
1*Center for Red Meat Safety, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA;

SUMMARY
This study evaluated sponging and excising as sampling procedures for microbiological analysis of 96 beef carcasses in a commercial plant. In addition, subprimal cuts (clod and top butt) were sampled by sponging the fat and lean surface (n=7 to 48 for each cut and tissue type) separately in the plant and when they reached their destination at the retail level, and retail cuts (steaks or roasts) were sampled by sponging the lean surface (n=14 to 18) immediately following cutting (0 h) and after 48 h of display at 4° to 5°C. The samples were analyzed for aerobic plate count (APC/25°C and APC/35°C), total coliform count (TCC) and Escherichia coli count (ECC), and for presence of Salmonella spp., Listeria spp., Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus (retail cuts only). Carcass samples obtained by sponging had higher (P < 0.05) APC/35oC (4.4 log CFU/300 cm2) than excised samples (3.9 log CFU/300 cm2), whereas carcass APC/25oC were similar (P > 0.05) in sponged and in excised samples. Recovery of TCC (2.5 log CFU/300 cm2) and ECC (2.5 log CFU/300 cm2) was higher (P < 0.05) in excised samples than in samples obtained by sponging (1.7 and 1.6 log CFU/300 cm2, respectively). The fat surface of the clod at the plant had higher (P < 0.05) APC/25°C than the lean, whereas differences between the two surfaces of the top butt were minor. At the plant, the lean top butt surface had higher APC/25°C, TCC and ECC than the lean clod surface. Although bacterial populations showed only minor changes during transportation of subprimals, retail cuts held for 48 h at 4° to 5°C had APC/25°C, TCC and ECC higher by 3.3 to 4.3, 0.7 to 1.4 and 1.1 log CFU/300 cm2, respectively, than counts of comparable clod and top butt retail samples immediately after cutting. No samples were positive for Salmonella spp. or S. aureus, whereas L. monocytogenes was found on clods and top butts at the plant (2.0 to 8.3%) and on subprimal top butts at retail (28.6%), but not on steaks/roasts at retail.

A peer-reviewed article.
1*Author for correspondence: Phone: 970.491.7703;
Fax: 970.491.0278; E-mail: John. Sofos@colostate.edu.

HACCP Implementation and Validation in Small and Very Small Meat and Poultry Processing Plants in Nebraska
M. M. Brashears,* D. E. Burson, E. S. Dormedy, L. Vavak, S. R. McKee, W. Fluckey, and M. Sanchez
*Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
236 Food Industry Complex, Lincoln, NE 68583-0919

SUMMARY
A team approach was developed to assist meat and poultry processors with HACCP implementation. Processors attended a 3-day workshop to learn principles of HACCP and how to implement them. Following training, the team consulted with the processors to assist them in writing and implementing HACCP plans. Because a number of challenges arose during this one-on-one assistance, we developed various methods to overcome those challenges. We collected microbial data in three beef processing facilities before and after the implementation to validate the overall effectiveness of HACCP implementation. Total aerobic bacteria decreased after HACCP implementation, but coliforms and generic E. coli counts did not. Following HACCP implementation, some processors needed to change critical limits on critical control points. Microbial data were collected to support changes in the pressure of a poultry carcass wash and were presented to the USDA inspector to support changes in the plan. The new plan was accepted and changed so as to enable the processors to process under the new conditions.

A peer-reviewed article.
Author for correspondence: Phone: 402.472.3403
Fax: 402.472.1693; E-mail: mbrashears1@unl.edu.