IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i10p1849-1864.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Stochastic Model to Assess the Effect of Meat Inspection Practices on the Contamination of the Pig Carcasses

Author

Listed:
  • Eduardo de Freitas Costa
  • Luis Gustavo Corbellini
  • Ana Paula Serafini Poeta da Silva
  • Maarten Nauta

Abstract

The objective of meat inspection is to promote animal and public health by preventing, detecting, and controlling hazards originating from animals. With the improvements of sanitary level in pig herds, the hazards profile has shifted and the inspection procedures no longer target major foodborne pathogens (i.e., not risk based). Additionally, carcass manipulations performed when searching for macroscopic lesions can lead to cross‐contamination. We therefore developed a stochastic model to quantitatively describe cross‐contamination when consecutive carcasses are submitted to classic inspection procedures. The microbial hazard used to illustrate the model was Salmonella, the data set was obtained from Brazilian slaughterhouses, and some simplifying assumptions were made. The model predicted that due to cross‐contamination during inspection, the prevalence of contaminated carcass surfaces increased from 1.2% to 95.7%, whereas the mean contamination on contaminated surfaces decreased from 1 logCFU/cm² to −0.87 logCFU/cm², and the standard deviations decreased from 0.65 to 0.19. These results are explained by the fact that, due to carcass manipulations with hands, knives, and hooks, including the cutting of contaminated lymph nodes, Salmonella is transferred to previously uncontaminated carcasses, but in small quantities. These small quantities can easily go undetected during sampling. Sensitivity analyses gave insight into the model performance and showed that the touching and cutting of lymph nodes during inspection can be an important source of carcass contamination. The model can serve as a tool to support discussions on the modernization of pig carcass inspection.

Suggested Citation

  • Eduardo de Freitas Costa & Luis Gustavo Corbellini & Ana Paula Serafini Poeta da Silva & Maarten Nauta, 2017. "A Stochastic Model to Assess the Effect of Meat Inspection Practices on the Contamination of the Pig Carcasses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1849-1864, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:10:p:1849-1864
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12753
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12753?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emma L. Snary & Arno N. Swart & Robin R. L. Simons & Ana Rita Calado Domingues & Hakan Vigre & Eric G. Evers & Tine Hald & Andrew A. Hill, 2016. "A Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment for Salmonella in Pigs for the European Union," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 437-449, March.
    2. Joost Smid & Rob de Jonge & Arie H. Havelaar & Annemarie Pielaat, 2013. "Variability and Uncertainty Analysis of the Cross‐Contamination Ratios of Salmonella During Pork Cutting," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1100-1115, June.
    3. Maarten Nauta & Ine Van Der Fels‐Klerx & Arie Havelaar, 2005. "A Poultry‐Processing Model for Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 85-98, February.
    4. A. N. Swart & E. G. Evers & R. L. L. Simons & M. Swanenburg, 2016. "Modeling of Salmonella Contamination in the Pig Slaughterhouse," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 498-515, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joost Smid & Rob de Jonge & Arie H. Havelaar & Annemarie Pielaat, 2013. "Variability and Uncertainty Analysis of the Cross‐Contamination Ratios of Salmonella During Pork Cutting," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1100-1115, June.
    2. Arie H. Havelaar & Marie‐Josee J. Mangen & Aline A. De Koeijer & Marc‐Jeroen Bogaardt & Eric G. Evers & Wilma F. Jacobs‐Reitsma & Wilfrid Van Pelt & Jaap A. Wagenaar & G. Ardine De Wit & Henk Van Der , 2007. "Effectiveness and Efficiency of Controlling Campylobacter on Broiler Chicken Meat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 831-844, August.
    3. Elise Billoir & Jean‐Baptiste Denis & Natalie Commeau & Marie Cornu & Véronique Zuliani, 2011. "Probabilistic Modeling of the Fate of Listeria Monocytogenes in Diced Bacon During the Manufacturing Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 237-254, February.
    4. Håkan Vigre & Kristen Barfoed & Arno N. Swart & Robin R. L. Simons & Andrew A. Hill & Emma L Snary & Tine Hald, 2016. "Characterization of the Human Risk of Salmonellosis Related to Consumption of Pork Products in Different E.U. Countries Based on a QMRA," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 531-545, March.
    5. Sido D. Mylius & Maarten J. Nauta & Arie H. Havelaar, 2007. "Cross‐Contamination During Food Preparation: A Mechanistic Model Applied to Chicken‐Borne Campylobacter," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 803-813, August.
    6. Martijn Bouwknegt & Anne B. Knol & Jeroen P. van der Sluijs & Eric G. Evers, 2014. "Uncertainty of Population Risk Estimates for Pathogens Based on QMRA or Epidemiology: A Case Study of Campylobacter in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 847-864, May.
    7. Margaret Coleman & Christopher Elkins & Bradford Gutting & Emmanuel Mongodin & Gloria Solano‐Aguilar & Isabel Walls, 2018. "Microbiota and Dose Response: Evolving Paradigm of Health Triangle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2013-2028, October.
    8. H. J. Van der Fels‐Klerx & Roger M. Cooke & Maarten N. Nauta & Louis H. Goossens & Arie H. Havelaar, 2005. "A Structured Expert Judgment Study for a Model of Campylobacter Transmission During Broiler‐Chicken Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 109-124, February.
    9. A. N. Swart & F. van Leusden & M. J. Nauta, 2016. "A QMRA Model for Salmonella in Pork Products During Preparation and Consumption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 516-530, March.
    10. A. N. Swart & E. G. Evers & R. L. L. Simons & M. Swanenburg, 2016. "Modeling of Salmonella Contamination in the Pig Slaughterhouse," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 498-515, March.
    11. Maarten J. Nauta & Wilma F. Jacobs‐Reitsma & Arie H. Havelaar, 2007. "A Risk Assessment Model for Campylobacter in Broiler Meat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 845-861, August.
    12. Dorota Kurowicka & Maarten Nauta & Katarzyna Jozwiak & Roger Cooke, 2010. "Updating Parameters of the Chicken Processing Line Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 934-944, June.
    13. Håkan Vigre & Ana Rita Coutinho Calado Domingues & Ulrik Bo Pedersen & Tine Hald, 2016. "An Approach to Cluster EU Member States into Groups According to Pathways of Salmonella in the Farm‐to‐Consumption Chain for Pork Products," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 450-460, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:10:p:1849-1864. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.