The 2011 Food Processing Suppliers Association
(FPSA) 2011 Process Expo.
Salmonella and Campylobacter Reduction Conference
Risk Management
&
Intervention
Issue:
Salmonella in Not-Ready-To-Eat (NRTE) Poultry Products That
Appear Ready-to-Eat (RTE)
Objective:
Share with Industry, Barber Foods salmonella intervention
research associated with lowering the risk of salmonella in NRTE
poultry products
2
Barber Foods History
• Family owned for 55 years, Portland, Maine
• Employ 650 associates
• Associates represent more than 56 languages and
countries
• Introduced Stuffed Breasts in 1970’s
• Stuffed Breast share leader
• Acquired by AdvancePierre Foods in June 2011
3
Multi - Hurdle Approach
(A)
Consumer Raw
Recognition
(B)
Raw Materials
(C)
Salmonella Survival &
Growth
 Packaging - Consumer awareness “RAW”
•2008 – 55% Comprehension
•2009 - 82% Comprehension
•2010 - 96% Comprehension
 Category 1 supplier requirement
 Salmonella testing of all raw materials
 Minimal number of suppliers to maximize interaction
 Growth & Distribution
• Temp Controls • Sanitation
• Traffic patterns • Scheduling
-
Storage, Process, Shipping
Environmental sampling
OI’s, training
Prevent cross contamination
 Survival - Intervention treatment (discovery)
• Supplier
• Barber Foods
•
(D)
Processor/Supplier
Collaboration




Supplier Approval
Performance monitoring and reporting
Open lines of communication
Shared learning
Multi-Hurdle Approach
(B)
Raw Materials -
Critical path to the management of risk associated with
Salmonella in NRTE, Prebrowned Stuffed Chicken Breasts
1.
Category 1 supplier requirement
2.
Salmonella sampling of all deliveries




5
Testing of raw materials to understand supplier control capability
APC, EC, Listeria, E.coli, Coliform, Staph, Salmonella
Data driven decision making with respect to Salmonella
Results indicate that Salmonella rates on skin-off poultry is typically much greater than
what the Whole Carcass Rinse Test indicates
Multi-Hurdle Approach
(C)
Salmonella Survival & Growth- Intervention Phase I
•
•
Samples spiked to an appx. 8 log Salmonella level, using a cocktail mix of S. enteritidis, S. typhimurium, S. choleraesuis
Samples tested before inoculation, after inoculation, and following treatment
• Starting load subtracted from inoculated load to calculate inoculation level
• Enumeration using a manual aerobic plate count method
Peroxyacetic Acid,
Hydrogen Peroxide,
Acetic Acid, HEDP
Acetic Acid, Peracetic
Acid, Hydrogen Peroxide,
& Octanoic Acid
Hydrochloric Acid/Citric
Acid
30 Second Dip Application
•Avg. 0.62 log Salmonella reduction
•Normal product color results
 30 Second Dip Application Inoculated
•Avg. 0.575 log Salmonella reduction
•Normal product color results
30 Second Dip Application: Inoculated
•Avg. 0.93 log Salmonella reduction
•Product turned white; chemical taste
Key Discovery –
pH levels of 1-2 consistently had a noticeable impact on color and taste of product
Ideal pH for minimizing risk to key product features is pH 2.5 – 3.5
Multi-Hurdle Approach
(C)
Salmonella Survival & Growth- Intervention Phase II

Sample inoculation mixture composed of multiple strains of Salmonella grown to ~8 log in Buffered Peptone
Water

1ml of inoculum applied to each of 30 sample pieces in individual bags
 24hr attachment time given at refrigeration (<40°)

Sample pieces cut in half, aseptically, after 24hr attachment time
 1st half tested to determine starting count
 2nd half treated with intervention method, then tested to determine “after” count

Intervention treatments consist of fully immersing sample (rocking gently) for specified time.
 Samples allowed to drip dry before being placed in
 sampling bag

All counts converted to log scale for comparisons
7
Test Procedure
Total Plate Count
24hr Attachment time
Salmonella grown
up to 8log level
Test samples inoculated
in sample bag
Half of sample tested
to determine starting load
Total Plate Count
Remaining sample tested to determine
log reduction
8
Remaining sample treated
with selected intervention
Salmonella Survival & Growth- Intervention Phase II Cont.
•
•
•
•
Sample spiked to an appx. 8 log Salmonella level, using a cocktail mix of S. enteritidis, S. typhimurium, S. choleraesuis
Sample set up consisted of 2 samples – 1 control to measure inoculation level, 1 treatment
Samples were evaluated using automated total plate counts for enumeration
Treatments were performed in individual specimen containers to remove risk of residual bacteria carryover between
samples
Chlorine
Hot Water – 150°F
Lauric Arginate
PAA
9
30 Second Application: Inoculated
•50 ppm concentration
•Avg. 0.99 log reduction
30 Second Application: Inoculated (bench top)
•Avg. 1.51 log reduction
•Individual meat strips tested
 In Plant testing – non-inoculated samples
•150°F water bath for 30 seconds
•Whole breast treatment
•Treatment product then run through
production
•Product passes sensory testing
30 Second Application: Inoculated
•200 ppm concentration
•Avg. 1.61 log reduction
30 Second Application: Inoculated
•2 Chemical suppliers tested
•210 ppm concentration
•Avg. 0.52 log reduction
Salmonella Survival & Growth- Intervention Phase II, cont.
Hot Water – 180°F
Hot Water/Lauric
Arginate
10
5 Second Application: Inoculated (bench top)
•Avg. 1.22 log reduction
•Individual meat strips tested
 Results not statistically different from 150deg at 30 seconds
 Smaller variation in results
2 Stage Test - Inoculated
•1- 150 deg water at 30 seconds
•2 - 200 ppm concentration LAE at room temperature
•Avg. 1.98 log reduction
Salmonella Survival & Growth- Intervention Phase II,
Cont.
11
Multi-Hurdle Approach
(C)
Salmonella Survival & Growth- Intervention
Next Steps –
 Investigate 2 phase intervention methods
 Test for significant interaction between treatments with >1 log reduction when tested
individually
 Optimize point(s) of implementation in production process to have greatest impact and least
chance of downstream recontamination
 Investigate different application methods
 Dip vs. spray applications
 Applications vs. incorporation into marinade
 Continue to work towards efficient, consistent means of Salmonella enumeration through use of
MPN, Phage technology, and manipulation of existing techniques for other organisms
12
Multi-Hurdle Approach
(D)
(Supplier/Processor) Collaboration
13

Open door policy – Enhances an organizations problem solving capability

Promotes opportunity for “Farm to Fork” research across all aspects of the poultry supply chain

Rapid response to special cause events

Maximize interaction by minimizing the number of suppliers
 Cutlet: 7 - 2008 to 1 - 2010
 Skin:
6 - 2009 to 1 - 2010
 Trim : 8 - 2009 to 4 - 2010
Barriers
Organoleptic
 Chemical concentrations required to achieve at least a 1 log reduction, negatively impacted the quality of
the finished product
 Discoloring of meat
 Change in flavor profile
Raw materials
 Producers of NRTE poultry products remain heavily dependant on a suppliers ability to minimize and
control final pack salmonella rates
 Whole Carcass Rinse test does not account for the impact that further processing may have on
Salmonella growth and distribution
 Secondary processors such as Barber Foods have limited opportunity to apply an effective treatment
 Treatment prior to grind process limited to the outside surface area of a frozen 40 lb block
 Treatment for post grind appears to be ineffective based on Barber Foods testing
Measurement system
 Enumeration capability is crucial to understanding the risk associated within a given sample population
(All positives are not created equal)
Validation
 Unable to conduct “real world” inoculated testing within process – This limits the speed
to which laboratory theories can be validated
 Unable to enumerate Salmonella to establish a baseline
14
Conclusions

Sampling of various Category One rated plants revealed that final pack salmonella rates
commonly exceed 20%

Raw material management via an incoming sampling program, is critical path to minimizing the
risk of Salmonella in NRTE poultry products

Extreme caution must be taken when altering any aspect of a proven intervention program

An attempt to comply with the Chlorine Ban aspect of the Russian trade agreement,
directly impacted Barber Foods raw material supply chain

Secondary processors such as Barber Foods are constrained by the effectiveness of a suppliers
intervention program. Suppliers and Producers must share sampling data if improvements are
to occur

World class performance from one skin supplier, indicates that “Further Processing“
intervention is an important part of the salmonella mitigation puzzle

Enumeration capability is key to enhancing our knowledge of Salmonella distribution and
concentration in both raw material and finished goods

Testing raw materials at point of pack, is critical to monitoring the effectiveness of an
intervention program. Whole Carcass Rinse Test, does not tell the whole story!!!
15
Thank you
Questions and/or Feedback
Jeff_Shaw@barberfoods.com
16