Food Safety
search
cart
facebook twitter linkedin
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Food Safety
  • NEWS
    • Latest News
    • White Papers
  • PRODUCTS
  • TOPICS
    • Contamination Control
    • Food Types
    • Management
    • Process Control
    • Regulatory
    • Sanitation
    • Supply Chain
    • Testing and Analysis
  • PODCAST
  • EXCLUSIVES
    • Food Safety Five Newsreel
    • eBooks
    • FSM Distinguished Service Award
    • Interactive Product Spotlights
    • Videos
  • BUYER'S GUIDE
  • MORE
    • ENEWSLETTER >
      • Archive Issues
      • Subscribe to eNews
    • Store
    • Sponsor Insights
  • WEBINARS
  • FOOD SAFETY SUMMIT
  • EMAG
    • eMagazine
    • Archive Issues
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Contact
    • Advertise
  • SIGN UP!
White Papers

Carcass Washing: First Line of Defense on Beef Pathogen Intervention Strategies

June 27, 2013

To ensure the highest food safety and enhance quality, food processors must work on both preventing and controlling the entrance and presence of pathogenic microorganisms into their products and facilities. A large source of pathogenic microorganisms entering a meat processing plant is the fecal matter present in the animal’s hide. HOCW Edge is a mild alkaline detergent effective in removing debris from the hide and thus decreasing the hide’s microbial load by at least 99%.

Background
Food safety and the prevention of food related outbreaks are a priority for food producers, public health officials and consumers. The economic burden of foodborne illnesses in the U.S. has been estimated to be $14 billion per year.[1] As food processing operations become larger, the need for consistent and reliable hygienic measures increases. To that extent, food production facilities focus on both preventing and controlling the presence of foodborne pathogens in their products. The Institute of Medicine has made recommendations on microbiological criteria specific for each phase of production[2] as guidance to manufacturers on improving the safety of the food they produce.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) maintains oversight of safe food production. In addition, products for intrastate production and consumption can be inspected by state agencies and audited by USDA.[3] FSIS began Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)-based inspections of beef plants in 1997. This program sets performance standards and requires the processors to follow them. Food processing facilities are thus required to conduct hazard analysis related to microbial contamination as a part of their HACCP plan (9 CFR 417.2). The criteria for process control verification is defined as the absence of generic Escherichia coli in fresh meat (with a method sensitivity of 5 cfu/cm2 of carcass surface) as a means to evaluate processing controls efficacy in preventing or removing fecal contamination from the carcass. Similarly, the standard for pathogen reduction is based on a qualitative assay for the presence or absence of Salmonella spp. (9 CFR 310.25). More recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law on January 2011. It takes HACCP prerequisite programs and concepts a step ahead by focusing on preventing contamination instead of simply responding to it or controlling it.

Bacteria present on hides, hooves and other external surfaces of the cattle at the time of slaughter are potential sources of contamination of the carcass and subsequently of all derived beef products. The Code of Federal regulations acknowledges under 9 CFR 310.25 that “fecal contamination of carcasses is the primary avenue for contamination by pathogens.”[3] Thus, in alignment with FSMA vision, an intervention step to reduce microbial contamination in hides is paramount. Several formal in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that reducing microbial load in the hide, improves the efficacy of other pathogen interventions during the processing stage[4] and reduces the probability of cross-contamination of carcasses and primal during processing. Fecal matter and other soils found in hides are a hazard that needs, and can be, controlled by the beef processing establishment and must be addressed in the facility’s HACCP plan. This concept covers not only contamination of the meat but also cross-contamination within the processing facility. Although current research suggests that pre-harvest interventions such as vaccines, probiotics or diet can reduce pre-harvest fecal shedding in cattle,[5] neither intervention would completely eliminate this shedding or eliminate other microbial sources present on hides.

The beef industry and the associated chemical industry have devoted time and resources on defining sanitary processing practices by chemically or physically treating the carcass during slaughter, dressing, and processing. These practices help eliminate the presence of microorganisms such as E. coli O157:H7 (considered an adulterant by FSIS, and thus having a zero tolerance policy), reduce the overall microbial load in beef products and prevent cross-contamination. Microbial control strategies range from facility design and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) to direct treatment (physical or chemical) of the food. Although several technologies exist that are capable of effectively inactivating microorganisms at different stages of the beef production process, many of these technologies also affect the sensory properties of the beef product, reducing its quality. An effective treatment should demonstrate a measurable reduction in microbial load without presenting any residue concerns, organoleptic effects or negatively impacting worker safety or the environment. The efficacy of a cleaning or sanitizing step is impacted by the use conditions (i.e., concentration, time, temperature, etc.). Excessive chemical or physical treatment of products can result in lower quality and undue economic burden to the manufacturer without an increase in product safety.

HOCW Edge is recommended as hide wash to be used immediately after slaughtering for the removal of debris from hides. As noted before, debris is a potential carrier of biological, chemical and physical hazards. Although interventions such as water washes are economical and remove some of the debris present on the hide and hooves, the objective of this study was to demonstrate how the usage of HOCW Edge increased the efficacy of the hide wash step. HOCW Edge reduces the dirt and pathogen load of each carcass, and minimizes the possibility of cross contamination to other carcasses. In addition, it facilitates the job for subsequent intervention steps during the dressing and further processing by providing a lower bioburden to be controlled.

In Vitro Cleaning Studies
E. coli is a Gram-negative bacterium that is ubiquitous in the intestines of healthy cattle. As such, it is an excellent indicator of fecal contamination. It persists for days in several environments such as soil, water and manure.[3] Several strains of E. coli, including O157:H7, are associated with disease in humans. A low dose is capable of causing severe health problems in humans.

For the present study, fresh beef hides were collected from a slaughtering facility and cut into 12 × 12-in pieces. Each piece was individually packaged and frozen for transportation to the laboratory. Prior to the test, the hides were thawed and cut into 4 × 4-inch pieces.

Individual colonies of E. coli ATCC 10536 were grown in tryptic soy broth (TSB) for 48 h at 37 °C, prior to subculturing in TSB for 18 h at the same temperature. The cell density of the subculture was adjusted to ca. 1.0+06 cfu/ml. Each piece was inoculated with 1 ml of cell suspension in 1 g of pre-sterilized manure resulting in a measured cell density of 8.0 × 105 cfu E. coli ATCC 10536 per hide piece. Each hide was allowed to rest for 20 min at room temperature (22 °C), to allow for absorbance of the slurry, prior to being sprayed for 30 sec at 40 psi from a distance of 4 inches from the nozzles (Figure 1). The treatment solutions were either HOCW Edge at a dose of 0.5 or 1 ounces per gallon tap water. Treatments were applied at 25 °C or 50 °C in either tap water or hard water (300 ppm CaCO4). Additional exposure times, pressures, temperatures and distances from the nozzles were evaluated (data not shown).

After the spray application, the entire surface of the hide was swabbed with a sterile sample collector. Swabs were placed in a neutralizing solution to halt the activity of the chemical, maintain bacterial cell integrity and prevent further cell damage. Bacterial recovery through the swabbing technique was validated on inoculated hides not subject to chemical treatment.

Cell recovery from each of the treatments was calculated using the most probable number (MPN) technique. The values obtained from each treatment were compared to that obtained from inoculated hides that had not received either water or chemical treatment.

Results
Microbial counts from the treated hides clearly indicate that E. coli removal from hides was more effective when water was dosed with 1 ounce/gallon HOCW Edge (Figure 2). Removal was 1.5-log higher increasing from 87.7% to 99.5%.

Higher microbial removal is also achieved independent of the water temperature. While the experiment presented in Figure 2 was performed at 25 °C, at temperatures twice as high (50 °C), HOCW Edge is able to remove approximately 1-log more microorganisms from the hide (Figure 3). Similarly, in the presence of hard water at 600 ppm as CaCO4, HOCW Edge performs better than water alone, even at lower active doses (Figure 4). Thus within a variety of dosage, temperature and water hardness conditions, HOCW Edge provides more efficient microbial removal from hides.

Such efficient removal was achieved without affecting the integrity of the hide. As seen in Figure 5, visible debris removal after treatment with either water or HOCW Edge is equivalent in extent. In neither case does the treatment result in hair loss, discoloration or other perceivable damage to the hide. This is due to the mildness of the HOCW Edge formulation, which at the dose tested provides 0.25% total alkalinity. However, as discussed before, bacterial removal with HOCW Edge is more efficient than with water alone.

The conditions shown above are optimal for the test set up and similar to those found in the field. Increases in pressure, exposure time, or proximity to the spray nozzles, did not result in significantly higher microbial removal (data not shown). Nonetheless, none of the other conditions tested, including exposure times of up to 1 min and spray pressures up to 80 psi, negatively affected hide integrity.

Conclusions
While intact skin presents a barrier against pathogen contamination of the meat, it is practically impossible to avoid transfer of pathogens from the hide to interior surfaces during slaughtering and dressing. Although testing of carcass for microbial burden is not mandatory, its implementation brings awareness of gaps in the control processes. It also provides important information on the microbiological quality of each cattle lot and generates a baseline of the potential microbial burden entering the plant. All these factors provide opportunities for the generation of continuous improvement measures, resulting in a higher quality product and improved public safety. As an example, since the implementation of the HACCP rule in meat processing plants there has been a 40% decline in foodborne illnesses as documented by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2001 to 2010.[6]

The in vitro testing results presented here demonstrate the benefits of an effective intervention on carcasses prior to dressing that does not affect hide quality. This laboratory data has been confirmed by reports from current users of HOCW Edge confirming in average 99% lower microbial counts on hides washed immediately following exsanguinations. Additionally, the efficacy of microbial removal by HOCW Edge was not affected by the temperature of the treating solution, suggesting potential energy savings when using this product.

The sources of microbial contamination in a food processing plant are varied and abundant. Deficient process control practices or procedures result in uncontrolled risk. High manure load is one of those risks that can and should be controlled. Pathogen control in food processing plants cannot be achieved in a single intervention step or with a single intervention strategy. A comprehensive pathogen control plan must include a combination of best practices both over the meat product but also in combination with the SSOPs. This plan can yield cumulative effects that are more than additive as each step in controlling or reducing the presence of pathogens reduces the challenge for subsequent steps, thus incrementally reducing risk and increasing the likelihood of success.

Carolina Mateus, Ph.D., is with DeLaval Cleaning Solutions, a division of DeLaval Manufacturing. For more information, please visit delavalcleaningsolutions.com/.

References
1. Batz, M.B., Hoffmann, S. and Morris, J.G., Jr. 2011. Ranking the risks: The 10 pathogen-food combinations with the greatest burden on public health. Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida.
2. Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2003. Scientific criteria to ensure safe food. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
3. National Research Council. Committee on the Review of the use of Scientific Criteria and Performance Standards for Safe Food. 2003. Scientific criteria to ensure safe food. National Academy of Sciences.
4. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 2007. Special report: Beef safety research focuses on pre-harvest opportunities. Issues update.
5. FSIS. (2010). Pre-harvest management controls and intervention options for reducing Escherichia coli O157:H7 shedding in cattle. USDA.
6. Center for Science in the Public Interest. 2013. Outbreak alert! 2001–2010. CSPI.
 


Author(s): Carolina Mateus, Ph.D.

Share This Story

Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!

Recommended Content

JOIN TODAY
to unlock your recommendations.

Already have an account? Sign In

  • people holding baby chicks

    Serovar Differences Matter: Utility of Deep Serotyping in Broiler Production and Processing

    This article discusses the significance of Salmonella in...
    Food Type
    By: Nikki Shariat Ph.D.
  • woman washing hands

    Building a Culture of Hygiene in the Food Processing Plant

    Everyone entering a food processing facility needs to...
    Training
    By: Richard F. Stier, M.S.
  • graphical representation of earth over dirt

    Climate Change and Emerging Risks to Food Safety: Building Climate Resilience

    This article examines the multifaceted threats to food...
    Risk Assessment
    By: Maria Cristina Tirado Ph.D., D.V.M. and Shamini Albert Raj M.A.
Manage My Account
  • eMagazine Subscription
  • Subscribe to eNewsletter
  • Manage My Preferences
  • Website Registration
  • Subscription Customer Service

More Videos

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content is a special paid section where industry companies provide high quality, objective, non-commercial content around topics of interest to the Food Safety Magazine audience. All Sponsored Content is supplied by the advertising company and any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily reflect the views of Food Safety Magazine or its parent company, BNP Media. Interested in participating in our Sponsored Content section? Contact your local rep!

close
  • mold
    Sponsored byIFC

    Tackling Mold Remediation in Food Processing Plants

  • a worker in a food processing plant
    Sponsored byLPS® DETEX®

    How a Beverage Facility Improved Food Safety and Compliance with Detectable Packaging Solutions

  • Two men standing in a produce storage facility having a discussion.
    Sponsored byOrkin Commercial

    Staying Compliant With FSMA

Popular Stories

carton of dozen brown eggs

Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Eggs Ends With One Dead, 38 Hospitalized

close-up shot of nickel metal

New EU Maximum Levels for Nickel Now Apply to Dozens of Foods

blue iced donuts next to pie of sugar with blue written in it

FDA Authorizes Use of Fourth ‘Natural’ Food Dye, Gardenia Blue

Events

July 22, 2025

Beyond the Binder: Digital Management of Food Safety

Live: July 22, 2025 at 3:00 pm EDT: During this webinar, attendees will learn best practices for the use of digital food safety management systems across industry and regulatory agencies.

August 7, 2025

Achieve Active Managerial Control of Major Risk Factors Using a Food Safety Management System

Live: August 7, 2025 at 2:00 pm EDT: From this webinar, attendees will learn about changes to the FDA Food Code, which now includes a requirement for FSMS. 

May 11, 2026

The Food Safety Summit

Stay informed on the latest food safety trends, innovations, emerging challenges, and expert analysis. Leave the Summit with actionable insights ready to drive measurable improvements in your organization. Do not miss this opportunity to learn from experts about contamination control, food safety culture, regulations, sanitation, supply chain traceability, and so much more.

View All

Products

Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

Global Food Safety Microbial Interventions and Molecular Advancements

See More Products
Environmental Monitoring Excellence eBook

Related Articles

  • Employees FIRST: Food Defense Awareness for the Front Line

    See More
  • FSIS Launches National Survey on Beef, Veal Carcass Bacteria Counts

    See More
  • Genetic Marking

    Can genomics advance pre-harvest intervention strategies?

    See More

Related Products

See More Products
  • 9781498721776.jpg

    Handbook of Food Processing: Food Safety, Quality, and Manufacturing Processes

  • 1444333348.jpg

    Handbook of Food Safety Engineering

  • 1119237963.jpg

    Food Safety in China: Science, Technology, Management and Regulation

See More Products

Events

View AllSubmit An Event
  • March 11, 2025

    Change Management of Food Safety Culture: Effective Strategies for Achieving Greatness

    On Demand: During this webinar, attendees will gain practical knowledge on successful food safety culture change programs and transformation journeys from real-world experiences, enabling attendees to navigate challenges and achieve lasting improvements in their FSC initiatives.
View AllSubmit An Event

Related Directories

  • Fortrex

    Fortrex is your one trusted partner for total food safety, committed to protecting your people, products, and brand. With sanitation and chemistry solutions from one provider, you gain cross-functional coverage, clear communication, and deep industry expertise. That’s what makes Fortrex your first line of defense—and the last word in food safety.
×

Never miss the latest news and trends driving the food safety industry

eNewsletter | Website | eMagazine

JOIN TODAY!
  • RESOURCES
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Directories
    • Store
    • Want More
  • SIGN UP TODAY
    • Create Account
    • eMagazine
    • eNewsletter
    • Customer Service
    • Manage Preferences
  • SERVICES
    • Marketing Services
    • Reprints
    • Market Research
    • List Rental
    • Survey/Respondent Access
  • STAY CONNECTED
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X (Twitter)
  • PRIVACY
    • PRIVACY POLICY
    • TERMS & CONDITIONS
    • DO NOT SELL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
    • PRIVACY REQUEST
    • ACCESSIBILITY

Copyright ©2025. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing