Meta-analysis of the efficacy of cattle hide interventions to reduce microbiological contamination in beef



Antic, Dragan ORCID: 0000-0003-1301-2732, McCarthy, Catherine, Houf, Kurt, Blagojevic, Bojan and Tulloch, John ORCID: 0000-0003-2150-0090
(2020) Meta-analysis of the efficacy of cattle hide interventions to reduce microbiological contamination in beef. [Poster]

[img] Text
RIBMINS-Conference-2020-Book-of-Abstracts.pdf - Unspecified

Download (573kB) | Preview

Abstract

Interventions at abattoir level are considered necessary to control microbiological hazards and therefore, constitute an essential and integral part of meat safety assurance systems. Cattle hide interventions can be seen as a ‘proactive’ approach in dealing with the sources of beef carcass contamination. A systematic review and meta-analysis of literature investigating the efficacy of processing interventions to control microbiological contamination in beef was performed. A total of 266 relevant studies were identified, with 113 (42.5%) judged to be at ‘low’ risk of bias, including four on hide cleanliness assessment and seven on hide interventions where extractable data were available for meta-analysis. The summary effects from a random-effect meta-analysis model show a consistent reduction for all indicator microorganisms (aerobic colony counts (ACC), Enterobacteriaceae counts (EBC) and generic E. coli) on hides and resulting carcasses, when clean cattle are compared with dirty cattle. Least-squares mean reductions (log CFU/cm2) on carcass surfaces were 0.9 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54-1.26) for ACC, 0.71 (0.36-1.05) for EBC and 0.75 (0.65-0.85, only one study) for E. coli. There was an insufficient number of hide intervention studies on hide clipping, bacteriophage treatment and some chemical washes to draw firm conclusions on their efficacy. The meta-regression effect revealed that hide water wash may have some limited protective effect in reducing STEC prevalence on hides, although the high heterogeneity found in the summary effects indicates that the intervention results differ substantially (relative risk (RR) 0.85; 95% CI: 0.66-1.09). The mean reduction effect in reducing levels of aerobic bacteria on hides was also low, 0.6 log CFU/100 cm2, questioning the usefulness of hide water wash as a stand-alone intervention. Studies investigating microbial immobilisation treatment of cattle hides (shellac spray coating) showed the mean reduction effect (log CFU/cm2) on resulting beef carcasses (reduction-in-transfer) was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.29-2.43) for ACC and 0.59 (1.05-2.22) for EBC. When six controlled trials (conducted under commercial abattoir conditions), investigating shellac spray hide coating and chemical spray washes with cetylpyridinium chloride, sanitiser and sodium hydroxide, were plotted together, they showed the reduction effect on beef carcasses (log CFU/cm2) of 1.09 (95% CI: 0.65-1.53) for ACC and 0.81 (0.28-1.35) for EBC. The results indicate that cattle hide interventions are efficacious in controlling microbial contamination on beef carcasses. However, the high heterogeneity found in the summary effects indicates that the intervention results differ substantially and more research is needed.

Item Type: Poster
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 20 Jan 2021 08:57
Last Modified: 16 Apr 2021 07:12
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3114194