Multiply Your Meat and Poultry Attack

Enviro Tech Corp. conducted an internal study in 2009 using PAA to control field strains of E. coli 0157:H7 in a series of well-designed studies comparing PAA with hypobromous acid with an oxidant biocide, DBDMH, a dried powder form of hypobromite from Albemarle Corp.⁹

Raw London broil beef strips or pork strips were inoculated with the E. coli 0157:H7 strain, and the three test intervention biocides were applied using either 10 or 70 psi pressure spray applied in a spray cabinet at 30 seconds with a 0.6 gpm test solution per nozzle.

Using a very short spray contact period of 30 seconds, both the PAA and the liquid hypobromous biocide interventions showed promise, with PAA performing the best; PAA achieved 1 log reduction and a 2 log10 reduction on beef and pork models.

A pork abattoir shelf-life study was conducted using 15% PAA. In a study for a former Rochester Midland Corp. customer in Southern Illinois, we utilized PAA to control microbial flora at a pork processing plant that was spraying a belt with 180 ppm available PAA to control microbial flora on tenderloin pork cuts, following standard practice. The study implemented a dip tank for the same level of PAA for 30 seconds.¹⁰

Total aerobic and coliform counts were measured on the actual tenderloin cuts, after the 180 ppm was applied on days 0, 7, 9, 14, 21, 24, and beyond. Some aerobic plate count results concluded that having a dip tank with the same concentration of 180 ppm with a 30-second dwell time outperformed the spray belt application.

Figure 2. Examples of delivery systems for PAA intervention applications.

Your Program

Most of these studies, as well as others not mentioned here, clearly demonstrated that even with the most effective modalities using synergistic biocidal chemistries or proper dip systems, the goal of attaining more than 5 log10 cycle reductions of pathogens is unachievable.

This is the rationale for using several different organic acid/microbial control/biocide-based intervention strategies in your pathogen reduction and control programs as part of your HACCP. By hitting your process from, say, the scalder in a poultry plant to the carcass washer in a beef or pork abattoir, followed by a different modality in the process water for poultry or on the carcass sides/quarters through the cuts or parts in beef/poultry, you can attack potential pathogens and spoilage microbes several times. Many beef, pork, and poultry processors are embracing this multi-intervention approach, using two or three systems. This is why not only beef cuts, but also comminuted and bagged products, are treated with an intervention measure and why some processors are treating poultry carcasses post-chiller as well.

This concept is consistent with the microbial ecological controls that work in nature to control microbial pathogen populations. These foodborne pathogens must overcome more than one obstacle in real field conditions, and you need to do the same in your processing plant. This way we all have a better chance at controlling the variety of foodborne pathogens that affect raw and RTE products.

Charles J. Giambrone, MS, is global technology and regulatory manager for the food safety division of Rochester Midland Corp.

References

1. Giambrone C. Pathogen can’t hide from biocides. Food Quality. February/March 2008. Available at: www.foodquality.com/ details/article/814573/Pathogen_Cant_Hide_From_Biocides.html. Accessed July 7, 2011.
2. Giambrone C. Be ready to beat Listeria. Food Quality. April/May 2008. Available at: www.foodquality.com/details/article/814473/Be_Ready_to_Beat_Listeria.html. Accessed July 8, 2011.
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food Safety Inspection Service. FSIS Directive 7120.1Revision 7. Safe and suitable ingredients used in the production of meat, poultry, and egg products. Available at: http://search.usda.gov/search?q=cache:QUdJLnDB-gwJ:http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISDirectives/7120.1.pdf+directive+7120.1+revision
   +6&output=xml_no_dtd&client=FSIS&access=p&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&num=10&site=FSIS&proxystylesheet=FSIS. Accessed July 8, 2011.
4. Bio-Cide International, Inc. Keeper red meat product bulletin. Available at: www.bio-cide.com. Accessed July 5, 2011.
5. Bio-Cide International, Inc. Bio-Gram Newsletter, 2011. Available at: www.bio-cide.com/press_releases_newsletter.htm. Accessed July 5, 2011.
6. Beverly RL. Acidified sodium chlorite treatment for the inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on the surface of ready-to-eat roast beef. In: The Control, Survival, and Growth of Listeria Monocytogenes on Food Products [dissertation]. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University; 2004:58-87.
7. Doan T, Cochran M, Khanna N. Use of acidified chlorite for sanitation of poultry carcasses. Presented at Poultry Science Association on Jan. 23, 2006.
8. Spillner W, Muriana P. Integral Antimicrobial Solution Application Systems on Ross Blade Tenderizers. OSU Intervention Study Topline, Phase 1, Oklahoma State University and Ross Corp. Presented at North American Meat Processors Association October 2010.
9. Rodrigues T, Mesrobian C, Harvey M, et al. Efficacy of several antimicrobial processing aids sprayed on meat and pork products against E. coli 0157:H7. Enviro Tech Chemical Services Inc. Sept. 25, 2009. Available at: www.envirotech.com/pdf/efficacyecoli.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2011.
10. Peracetic acid and pork shelf life at pork abattoir. FMC Corp & RMC Corp joint study, November 2005 to January 2006.