Guide Haccp Systems Vol2

Guidance Document
A guide to HACCP systems

in the Meat Industry
Volume 2
23 March 2017
This version contains no change in technical content from the version issued in August 2004,
but is issued with MPI branding, and formatting.
A guidance document issued by the Ministry for Primary Industries

Guidance Document: A guide to HACCP systems in the Meat Industry
23 March 2017
Title
About this document

This guidance document provides information to assist meat processors in the development of their Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems.
Related Requirements
Animal Products Notice: Specification for Products Intended for Human Consumption
Animal Products Notice: Specification for Products Intended for Animal Consumption
Document history
No. Current Section Changed Change(s) Description

Version Date
1 August 2004
2 23 March 2017 All New format and branding only.
Content not reviewed
Contact Details
Contact for further information:
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

Regulation & Assurance Branch
Animal Products
PO Box 2526
Wellington 6140
Email: [email protected]
Disclaimer
This guidance does not constitute, and should not be regarded as, legal advice. While every effort has been
made to ensure the information in this guidance is accurate, the Ministry for Primary Industries does not accept
any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any error of fact, omission, interpretation or opinion that may be
present, however it may have occurred.
Copyright
Crown copyright ©. This copyright work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand
licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Ministry for Primary
Industries and abide by the other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/.
Please note that no governmental emblem, logo or Coat of Arms may be used in any way which infringes any provision of the Flags,
Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 or would infringe such provision if the relevant use occurred within New Zealand.
Attribution to the Ministry for Primary Industries should be in written form and not by reproduction of any such emblem, logo or Coat of
Arms.
Ministry for Primary Industries Page 1 of 233

23 March 2017
Contents Page
1 Purpose 6
2 Background 6
3 Definitions 6
4 Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing 7

4.1 Prerequisite Requirements 7
4.2 Scope of HACCP Plan 7
4.3 Product Description and Intended Use 7
4.4 Setting Initial Food Safety Objectives for the Process 8
4.5 Constructing a Process Flow Diagram 8
4.6 Job Descriptions 10
4.7 Raw Material Hazard Identification 11
4.8 Process Step Hazard Identification 12
4.9 Hazard Responsibilities 13
4.10 Confirmed Food Safety Objectives (FSOs) 13
4.11 Critical Control Point (CCP) Determination 13
4.12 Establishing Critical Limits 16
4.13 Monitoring CCPs 16
4.14 Setting Corrective Actions 16
4.15 Verification of the HACCP Plan 16
4.16 Documentation and Recordkeeping 17
5 Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Further Processing of Meat and Meat
Products 18
5.4 Setting Initial Food Safety Objectives for the Process 19
5.5 Constructing a Process Flow Diagram 19
5.7 Hazard Analysis and CCP Determination 22
5.9 Establishing Critical Limits 23
5.10 Monitoring CCPs 23
5.11 Setting Corrective Actions 25
5.13 Documentation and Recordkeeping 25
6 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle 27

6.4 Initial Food Safety Objectives 28
6.5 Process Flow Diagram 28

23 March 2017
6.11 Critical Control Point (CCP) Determination 35

6.12 Completion of the HACCP Plan 37
6.14 Background Information 42
6.15 References 49
7 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and Boning of Beef 52

7.12 References 76
8 Generic HACCP Plan for the Manufacture of Raw Beef Patties 79

8.12 References 99
9 Generic HACCP Plan for the Manufacture of Beef Jerky 102

9.12 References 123
10 Generic HACCP Plan for Canning (Corned Beef) 126


23 March 2017

10.11 References 136
11 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Sheep and Lambs 139
12 Generic HACCP Plan for the Processing of Edible Sheep and Lamb Casings 140
13 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter, Dressing, Portioning and Deboning of Chicken
(Broilers) 155
13.1 Supporting Systems 155
14 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Traditional Dressing of Farmed Deer 202
15 Generic Model for Potable Water 229


23 March 2017

15.4 Food Safety Objectives 229
15.9 Confirmation of food safety objectives 231
15.10 Completion of the HACCP plan 232
15.11 Validation of the HACCP plan 232

23 March 2017
1 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to assist meat processors in the development of their Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems.
2 Background
The Guide to HACCP Systems in the Meat Industry was produced by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)
in association with the HACCP Steering Group (MPI, a number of food producing industries and the Ministry
of Health) to:
 Volume 1 explains the concepts and principles of HACCP and provides guidance on HACCP
development and implementation, auditing HACCP plans, and HACCP training.
 Volume 2 (this document) provides templates and generic HACCP plans for a range of meat
processing systems.
HACCP will continuously evolve, and the contents of this document will be updated as new information from
both national and international sources becomes available.
3 Definitions
Refer Guide to HACCP Systems in the Meat Industry Volume 1, Section 3.

23 March 2017
4 Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Slaughter and

Dressing
Previously Appendix VIII.1
4.1 Prerequisite Requirements

List all documented prerequisite programmes/sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs) which are
relevant to the HACCP plan.
Prior to starting the HACCP plan, the HACCP team should ensure that all relevant prerequisite programmes
are covered by separate documented systems and that they are substantially in compliance with regulatory
requirements/specifications for good manufacturing practice (GMP). Development of documented systems for
prerequisite programmes may benefit from the application of HACCP principles.
For slaughter and dressing, examples of prerequisite programmes are:
 sanitary design;
 potable water quality;
 sanitation and clean-up procedures for edible areas and food contact surfaces (preoperational and
operational);
 hygiene of personnel (protective clothing requirements, personal equipment and use of amenities);
 training;
 hygienic dressing (dressing techniques and procedures, personnel, equipment, dropped meat);
 food contact materials (specifications, handling and storage);
 repairs and maintenance of equipment;
 control of chemicals;
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;
 condition of stock (cleanliness of animals).
4.2 Scope of HACCP Plan

Establish the scope of the HACCP plan
HACCP application: Food safety

Product: Enter species
Process: Enter process, including segment of food chain
4.3 Product Description and Intended Use

Describe the final product and its intended use. Note any particular food safety requirements for this final
product.
Table 1 provides a template for this purpose. Note any sections that are not applicable. This can be used for
the overall product description, i.e. it is not necessarily restricted to food safety aspects.

23 March 2017
Table 1: Product description and intended use
Product Intended Use

1 Product name(s)
2 Important product characteristics
3 How is it to be used:
(a) By a further processor or retailer
(b) By the consumer
4 Intended consumer
5 Packaging
6 Shelf life and storage requirements
7 Where it will be sold
(a) Export market
(b) Local market
8 Labelling instructions
9 Special distribution controls required
4.4 Setting Initial Food Safety Objectives for the Process

List the initial food safety objectives (FSOs) for the process.
Food safety objectives describe the expectations of hygiene measures that are applied during a particular
segment of a food production process. These objectives should include measurable outcomes expected for
the final product and may relate specifically to a HACCP plan, to activities outside the scope of a HACCP plan
(i.e. prerequisite programmes), or to both.
The processor should initially formulate food safety objectives when discussing and documenting the
desired/expected levels of control of hazards in the final product, considering its intended use. These
objectives should be confirmed as appropriate in Section 4.10, after the hazard identification and
determination of hazard responsibilities are completed. This ensures that control of all identified hazards
which are the responsibility of the processor are properly addressed, either directly or by association with
other measures (e.g. indicator organisms, on-line physical parameters). The appropriate level of control may
be achieved by the implementation of a HACCP plan and/or by prerequisite (GMP) programmes.
4.5 Constructing a Process Flow Diagram

Construct and confirm the process flow diagram. Show the relevant inputs and edible outputs for each
process step.
Inputs are defined as materials, such as consumable or non-consumable items, added to the product during
the process. These inputs and their hazards must be addressed by a prerequisite programme/SSOP, or
carried through to hazard identification within the HACCP plan.
Tables 2 and 3 provide templates for information on raw materials, other inputs and the process flow diagram.

23 March 2017
Table 2: Raw materials / other inputs
Product names
Raw material / other inputs Description/specification
 
 
Table 3: Process flow diagram
Process
Inputs Process steps Edible outputs

23 March 2017
4.6 Job Descriptions

Write a job description for each process step.
Table 4 can be used as a template for this information and provides for a summary of food safety
responsibilities.
There is flexibility as to when job descriptions are confirmed. This may be left until after the hazard analysis
and critical control point determination is completed.
Table 4: Example template for job description
Job description
Process step no:
Summary list of food safety responsibilities of operator: (confirm after HACCP plan completed)
Reference:

23 March 2017
4.7 Raw Material Hazard Identification

Identify biological, chemical and physical hazards relating to raw material and other inputs at each process
step.
Hazards may be specifically defined where appropriate (e.g. Cysticercus bovis) or presented as a class (e.g.
microbiological hazards associated with faeces and ingesta).
4.7.1 Raw material hazards
Raw material consists of the following components:
 carcass/head/offals;
 gastrointestinal tract (GIT);
 fleece/hide/pelt.
Identify the hazards associated with each raw material component. These are summarised in a generic table
in Table 5A.
4.7.2 Other input hazards
Identify any hazards associated with inputs other than the raw material, for each process step. Generally,
these hazards are addressed by appropriate prerequisite programmes/SSOPs. If not, these hazards should
be shown in Table 5B.
Table 5A: Hazard identification for raw materials
Raw material Biological hazard Chemical hazard Physical hazard
The example below shows the range of hazards associated with livestock as a raw material.
Table 5A: Hazard identification for raw material (delete those hazards not applicable to the species
selected)

Carcass/head/offals B1 – Microbiological hazards C1 – Chemical hazards P1 – (As applicable to
associated with grossly- associated with identified species)
detectable abnormalities, i.e. chemical residues, e.g.
fever, abscesses suspect lines, injection site
lesions (ISLs)
B2 – Microbiological hazards
not grossly detectable, e.g. C2 – Chemical hazards
Toxoplasma gondii within the associated with unidentified
musculature; bacteraemia chemical residues, e.g.
anthelmintics, antibiotics,
B3 – Visible parasites environmental contaminants.

23 March 2017

Gastrointestinal tract B4 – Microbiological Not applicable Not applicable
hazards1 associated with
faeces and ingesta, e.g.
Salmonella spp., E. coli
O157:H7
Fleece/hide/pelt B5 – Microbiological Not applicable Not applicable
hazards associated with
1
contamination of fleece/ hide

/pelt, with faeces, dirt, e.g.
Salmonella spp., E. coli
O157:H7
1
Hazard may be transferred from one raw material component to another as either unseen or grossly detectable
contamination.
Hazard may be redistributed on a raw material component as either unseen or grossly-detectable contamination.
4.8 Process Step Hazard Identification

Identify hazards that can be reasonably expected to occur for each process step shown in the process flow
diagram, considering raw material and other input hazards. Note any transfer or redistribution of raw material
hazards at a particular step. Record the findings in Table 5B.
Table 5B: Hazard identification information for slaughter and dressing
Process Raw material Transfer2 of Redistribution2 Other inputs

step hazards to of hazards on
product product
Components Hazards1 Components Hazards
1
The following codes have been used in the generic HACCP plans:
B - Biological B1 to B5 apply to raw material

B1 – Microbiological hazards associated with grossly-detectable abnormalities
B2 – Microbiological hazards not grossly detectable
B3 – Visible parasites
B4 – Microbiological hazards associated with faeces and ingesta from GIT
B5 – Microbiological hazards associated with fleece/hide/pelt
B6 – Microbiological hazards associated with other inputs
C - Chemical C1 to C2 apply to raw material
C1 – Chemical hazards associated with identified chemical residues

23 March 2017
C2 – Chemical hazards associated with unidentified chemical residues

C3 – Chemical hazards associated with other inputs
P - Physical P1 – Physical hazards associated with raw material
P2 – Physical hazards associated with other inputs
2
This is an additive effect through the process.
4.9 Hazard Responsibilities

Identify the processor’s and regulator’s responsibilities relating to control of identified hazards associated with
the carcass in Table 5C. Indicate the process step/s at which the identified hazard is expected to be
controlled.
Some hazards will remain unaddressed at the end of the process and they should be highlighted for
consideration elsewhere in the food chain, e.g. at the farm (pre-harvest segment).
Table 5C: Processor and regulator responsibilities for control of hazards associated with the carcass
Identified Hazard Processor responsibility Regulator responsibility Unaddressed hazard
4.10 Confirmed Food Safety Objectives (FSOs)

List the confirmed food safety objectives.
Food safety objectives that reflect the processor’s responsibilities should be confirmed as appropriate for the
product. These objectives should cover all the identified hazards to be controlled by the processor.
4.11 Critical Control Point (CCP) Determination

Determine the CCPs using the decision tree (see Figure 1 and Table 6), considering only those identified
hazards that the processor is primarily responsible for controlling. Apply the decision tree to each identified
hazard at each step.
The rationale for the answers given to the questions in the decision tree should be documented as
part of the HACCP plan. For Question 1 (i.e. whether the hazard could be present in or on the product
at unacceptable levels), reference to the scientific literature, surveys, company experience and/or
historical data would be helpful as supporting information.

23 March 2017
Figure 1. CCP Decision tree
Answer each question in sequence at each process step for each identified hazard
Q1. Could the hazard be present in or on the product1 at unacceptable2 levels at this step?
 
Yes – give reasons and go to Q2 No – not a CCP. Proceed to next identified hazard

Q2. Is there a control measure available at this step that would prevent unacceptable 2 levels of the
hazard?
 
Yes – this step is a CCP. Answer Q3 No – not a CCP. Answer Q3
 
Q3. Is there a control measure available at a previous step which would significantly contribute to
preventing unacceptable2 levels of the hazard at this step?
 
Yes – retrospectively assign the previous step as a No – If the answer to Q2 was also "no", consider the
CCP previous step as a CCP whether any subsequent
steps can control the hazard or whether redesign of
the process/product is necessary to ensure a control
measure is available
 
Proceed to next identified hazard
1
Product is defined as the edible component of final product.
2
Unacceptable — as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience, National
Microbiological Database) associated with achieving the food safety objectives established for the process. In the
determination of unacceptability, hazards should be considered in terms of:
– level;
– frequency;
– transfer and redistribution;
– severity of effect on consumer.

23 March 2017
Table 6: CCP determination for a slaughter and dressing process
Process Identified Q1. Could the hazard Q2. Is there a control Q3. Is there a control CCP
step hazard be present in or on measure available at measure available at a no:
the product1 at this step that would previous step which
unacceptable2 levels prevent unacceptable2 would significantly
at this step? levels of the hazard? contribute to preventing
If Yes – give reasons and If Yes – this step is a CCP. unacceptable levels of
2
go to Q2 Go to Q3 the hazard at this step?

If No – not a CCP. If No – not a CCP. Go to If Yes – retrospectively
Proceed to next identified Q3. assign that step as a CCP
hazard If No and if the answer to Q2
was No, consider whether
any subsequent steps can
control the hazard or whether
redesign of the process /
product is necessary to
ensure a control measure is
available
Proceed to next identified
hazard
1
2
Unacceptable — as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience, National
Microbiological Database) associated with achieving the FSOs established for the process. In the determination of
unacceptability, hazards should be considered in terms of:
– level;
– frequency;

23 March 2017
4.12 Establishing Critical Limits

Determine clearly defined and measurable critical limits for each hazard at each CCP. Visual observations will
provide the most useful critical limits for slaughter and dressing.
The rationale for the critical limits should be fully documented as part of the HACCP plan.
Summarise the critical limits in Table 7.
4.13 Monitoring CCPs

Establish monitoring parameters for each CCP.
Monitoring will rarely be continuous for slaughter and dressing systems. Statistically based sampling plans are
useful for providing a meaningful basis for a monitoring programme.
Monitoring procedures should be fully documented as part of the HACCP plan. Monitoring parameters
should include information on what method is to be used, who is responsible for monitoring, where
monitoring is done and how frequently it should be performed.
Summarise the monitoring parameters in Table 7.
4.14 Setting Corrective Actions

Establish specific corrective actions for each CCP to be used when the critical limits are exceeded.
These corrective actions must be designed to rapidly regain control at the CCP and should also have the
objective of preventing re-occurrence. In addition, corrective action may mean retaining product on the
slaughter line and, if necessary, altering its disposition.
Corrective action responsibilities and procedures should be fully documented as part of the HACCP
plan.
Summarise the corrective action responsibilities and procedures in Table 7.
4.15 Verification of the HACCP Plan

Establish verification activities that will confirm whether the HACCP plan is operating effectively and according
to documented procedures. Verification procedures should include the following:
 Validation of the HACCP plan. This involves the initial confirmation that the HACCP plan is complete
and will achieve each of the food safety objectives. Validation should demonstrate that the HACCP
plan is at least equivalent to GMP-based controls at the premises, for all food safety objectives.
Identified CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control measure applied at that particular
process step will achieve or contribute to the achievement of the relevant food safety objective (FSO).
Validation should use standard techniques that allow in-house comparisons and also comparison with
national performance, e.g. the National Microbiological Database and national “targets” that are
obtained according to standard techniques.
 Ongoing independent review of all components of the HACCP system, its documentation and records,
including corrective actions taken. This includes extrinsic review by customers and regulators. All
reviews (both internal and extrinsic) should be done under a formal audit procedure with appropriate
follow up for non-conformances to the HACCP plan.

23 March 2017
 Product tests where appropriate, e.g. microbiological, visual.

 Revalidation of the HACCP plan whenever changes are made (e.g. changes to premises product,
process, intended use of the product).
Verification responsibilities and procedures should be fully documented as part of the HACCP plan.
Summarise verification activities in Table 7.
4.16 Documentation and Recordkeeping

The need for appropriate documentation for the HACCP plan has been emphasised throughout this template.
Records also need to be kept for monitoring, corrective actions and verification results.
Summarise the types of records required to support the HACCP plan in Table 7.
Table 7: HACCP plan summary spreadsheet
Process Hazard CCP Critical limits Monitoring Corrective Verification HACCP

step ID no. procedures/tools actions procedures records
(consider Who, What,
When and How)

23 March 2017
5 Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Further

Processing of Meat and Meat Products
Previously Appendix VIII.2

List all documented prerequisite programmes/sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs) which are
relevant to the HACCP plan.
Prior to starting the HACCP plan, the HACCP team should ensure that all relevant prerequisite programmes
are covered by separate documented systems and that they are substantially in compliance with regulatory
requirements/specifications for good manufacturing practice (GMP). Development of documented systems for
prerequisite programmes may benefit from the application of HACCP principles.
For slaughter and dressing, examples of prerequisite programmes are:
operational);
 hygiene of personnel (protective clothing requirements, personal equipment and use of amenities);
 training;
 hygienic processing (processing techniques and procedures, dropped meat);
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;
 refrigeration management;
 handling and disposition of detained and nonconforming products.

Establish the scope of the HACCP plan

Product: Enter species
Process: Enter process, including segment of food chain

Describe the final product and its intended use. Note any particular food safety requirements for this final
product.
Table 1 provides a template for this purpose. Note any sections that are not applicable. This can be used for
the overall product description, i.e. it is not necessarily restricted to food safety aspects.

23 March 2017

1 Product name(s)
2 Important product characteristics
(a) By a further processor or retailer
(b) By the consumer
4 Intended consumer
5 Packaging
6 Shelf life and storage requirements
7 Where it will be sold
(a) Export market
(b) Local market
8 Labelling instructions
9 Special distribution controls required
5.4 Setting Initial Food Safety Objectives for the Process

List the initial food safety objectives (FSOs) for the process.
Food safety objectives represent a relatively new concept that is continuing to evolve. An FSO describes the
expected outcomes of hygiene measures that are applied during a particular segment of a food production
process and can be defined by a working definition as: "A statement, in the ideal situation based on a risk
analysis process, which expresses the level of a hazard in a food that is tolerable in relation to an appropriate
level of consumer protection. When justified by either a qualitative or quantitative risk assessment, the FSO
should express the level of the hazard as its maximum tolerable frequency and/or concentration".
Thus an FSO should wherever possible include measurable levels of hazards in the final product that are
tolerable in terms of the validated outcome of a HACCP plan, prerequisite programmes, or both. This provides
an effective "target" for validation of the HACCP plan and/or prerequisite programmes, and ongoing hygiene
performance. In some cases, the "target" may already be specified in an industry-agreed standard, e.g. the
National Microbiological Database, or as a particular market access requirement, e.g. zero Listeria
monocytogenes tolerance in ready-to-eat foods.
The processor should initially formulate FSOs for the product relative to its intended end-use when discussing
the expected outcome of the particular food control programme. These FSOs should be confirmed as
appropriate in Section 5.8, after the hazard analysis has been completed. This allows due consideration to be
given to those hazards found to be unacceptable during the analysis process and additional FSOs to be set
where necessary.
5.5 Constructing a Process Flow Diagram

Construct and confirm the process flow diagram. Show the relevant inputs and edible outputs for each
process step. These inputs and their hazards must be addressed by a prerequisite programme/SSOP, or
specifically considered during hazard identification in the HACCP plan.
Tables 2 and 3 provide templates for information on raw materials, other inputs and the process flow diagram.

23 March 2017
Product names
Raw material / other inputs Description/specification
Process

23 March 2017

Write a job description for each process step.
Table 4 can be used as a template for this information and provides for a summary of food safety
responsibilities.
There is flexibility as to when job descriptions are confirmed. This may be left until after the hazard analysis
and critical control point determination is completed.
Table 4: Job description
Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

23 March 2017
5.7 Hazard Analysis and CCP Determination

5.7.1 Raw material hazard identification
Identify biological, chemical and physical hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in the raw material. Raw
material may include meat (e.g. chilled beef carcass, trimmings) and non-meat ingredients (e.g. spices,
vegetables, food additives).
Hazards need to be specifically defined (e.g. Taenia saginata, Clostridium botulinum, shotgun pellets) or may
be identified as a class, based on their characteristics, when this is appropriate (e.g. enteric pathogens, spore
forming organisms, metal objects).
To avoid repetition and simplify hazard identification and analysis, codes may be assigned to the different
hazard categories. For example, hazards may be categorised by source (e.g. microbiological hazards from
non-meat ingredients) as well as by type (i.e. biological, chemical, physical). Codes may be carried forward
from a previous plan, particularly when this helps demonstrate continuity of the process and carry over of the
relevant hazards (e.g. slaughter and dressing to cooling and boning). Codes must be clearly defined in the
plan when used.
Identified raw material hazards are summarised in a generic table in Table 5A.
Table 5A: Hazard identification for raw materials
5.7.2 Hazard analysis and CCP determination (raw material, other inputs and process steps)
Record the identified raw material hazards from Section 5.7.1 in the appropriate column in Table 5B.
Identify any biological, chemical or physical hazards resulting from a process step requirement not being met
(e.g. metal from equipment). Process step hazards are expected to be a sporadic occurrence. Frequent
occurrence could indicate that a prerequisite programme is ineffective and needs to be improved. Process
step hazards may be controlled under effective prerequisite programmes and/or dealt with at CCPs in the
HACCP plan. Note that once these hazards are identified, they may become part of the raw material hazards
at subsequent steps if immediate control is unavailable.
Identify any biological, chemical or physical hazards that are reasonably likely to occur in association with
other inputs at each process step (e.g. packaging, processing aids). Generally, these hazards will be
addressed by appropriate prerequisite programmes (e.g. Supplier Quality Assurance (SQA) programme, food
contact materials). For more complex processes, such as those with multiple ingredients, a separate hazard
identification for each input may be essential.
Hazards must be analysed for each process step. Record comments on the potential impact of a process step
on hazards that are reasonably likely to occur (e.g. transfer or redistribution of raw material hazards, pathogen
growth). These comments can be recorded in the same column as process step hazards (see Table 5B
for the presentation). Careful consideration should be given to the effectiveness of the prerequisite
programmes when evaluating the impact of a process step.

23 March 2017
Hazard analysis may result in changes to the initial food safety objectives set in Section 5.4. See
Section 5.8 for confirmed objectives.
Consider whether each hazard could be present at an unacceptable level in relation to achieving the FSOs for
the process (Question 1, Table 5B) and provide justification. Reference to the scientific literature, surveys,
company experience and/or historical data will be helpful as supporting information. Record the outcomes of
the hazard analysis.
When Question 1 is answered “yes” (i.e. a hazard could be present at an unacceptable level), then answer
both questions 2 and 3 relating to control measures.
Even when there are control measures available at the step at which the hazard(s) is being analysed,
previous process steps should also be considered for control of the hazard. The absence of adequate control
measures at any step in the process means that redesign of the process/product should be undertaken so
that the FSO can be achieved. If redesign is impossible, the hazard must be identified as unaddressed within
the HACCP plan (or under GMP where it is the only identified hazard) for this product and process.

List the confirmed FSOs.
FSOs relating to hazards identified as reasonably likely to occur may be controlled by both the HACCP plan
and/or prerequisite programmes. The confirmed FSOs may differ from those initially recorded, as a result of
the hazard analysis and CCP determination process.
5.9 Establishing Critical Limits

Determine clearly defined and measurable critical limits for control of unacceptable hazard(s) at each CCP.
The critical limits may be parameters that are indirectly related to these hazards, e.g. job descriptions.
The rationale for the critical limits should be fully documented as part of the HACCP plan
5.10 Monitoring CCPs

Establish monitoring parameters for each CCP.
Monitoring may be continuous (e.g. CATR monitoring) or intermittent (e.g. teardown procedure) for further
processing. Statistically based sampling plans are useful for providing a meaningful basis for a monitoring
programme.
Monitoring procedures should be fully documented as part of the HACCP plan. Monitoring procedures
shall include information on who is responsible for monitoring, what method is to be used, where
monitoring is to be done and how frequently it is to be performed.

23 March 2017
Table 5B: Hazard analysis and CCP determination (raw material, other inputs and process steps)
Process Inputs i) Process step Q1. Could the hazard be present in or on Q2. Is there a control Q3. Is there a control CCP
steps raw materials and other inputs hazards the product1 at unacceptable levels2 at this measure at this step that measure available at a No.
ii) Potential step? would prevent previous step that would
impact of If yes, answer Q2 and Q3. unacceptable levels of prevent unacceptable
process step the hazard? levels of the hazard?
on existing If yes, this step is a CCP. If yes, retrospectively assign
Component Hazards hazards Yes/No Justification If no, not a CCP. the previous step as a CCP.
1
2
Unacceptable — as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience) associated with achieving the FSOs established for the process. In the determination of
– level;
– frequency;

23 March 2017
5.11 Setting Corrective Actions

For each CCP, establish corrective actions to be used when the critical limits are exceeded.
These corrective actions must be designed to rapidly regain control at the CCP and shall also have the
objective of preventing re-occurrence wherever possible. Disposition of affected product is an important
component of corrective action procedures.
Corrective action responsibilities and procedures should be fully documented as part of the HACCP
plan.

Establish verification activities that will confirm whether the HACCP plan is operating effectively and according
to documented procedures. Verification procedures shall include the following:
 Validation of the HACCP plan. This involves the initial confirmation that the HACCP plan is complete
and will achieve each of the FSOs. Identified CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control
measure applied at that particular process step will achieve or contribute to the achievement of the
relevant FSO.
Validation should use standard techniques (where appropriate) that allow in-house comparisons and
also comparison with national performance, e.g. the National Microbiological Database and national
"targets".
 Ongoing independent review of all components of the HACCP system, its documentation and records,
including corrective actions taken. This includes extrinsic review by customers and regulators. All
reviews (both internal and extrinsic) should be done under a formal audit procedure with appropriate
follow up for non-conformances to the HACCP plan.
 Product tests where appropriate, e.g. microbiological, visual.
 Revalidation of the HACCP plan whenever changes are made (e.g. changes to premises, product,
process, intended use of the product) or when process failure that may compromise product safety,
has been identified.
Verification responsibilities and procedures should be fully documented as part of the HACCP plan.
Summarise verification activities in Table 6.
5.13 Documentation and Recordkeeping

The need for appropriate documentation for the HACCP plan has been emphasised throughout this template.
Records also need to be kept for monitoring, corrective actions and verification results.
Summarise the types of records required to support the HACCP plan in Table 6.

23 March 2017
Process Hazard CCP Critical limits Monitoring Corrective Verification HACCP

step ID no. procedures/tools actions procedures records
When and How)

23 March 2017
6 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle

Previously Appendix IX.1

The following are documented prerequisite programmes:
operational);
 personnel hygiene (protective clothing requirements, personal equipment and use of amenities);
 training;
 hygienic dressing (dressing techniques and procedures, personnel, equipment, dropped meat);
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;
 condition of stock (cleanliness of animals).

Product: Bovine (excluding bobby calf)
Process: Slaughter and dressing of cattle, from receipt of livestock through to carcass
leaving slaughter floor.


1 Product name(s) Beef carcass
2 Important product characteristics  Passed ante- and post-mortem inspection
 Product meeting microbiological targets set by company
(a) By a further processor or retailer (a) Chilled/hot boned
(b) By the consumer (b) Raw or cooked
4 Intended consumer General public ("high-risk" groups not specified for this plan)
5 Packaging Not applicable
6 Shelf life and storage requirements Not applicable
7 Where it will be sold List countries, if applicable
(a) Export market

23 March 2017
(b) Local market

8 Labelling instructions  Branded
 Carcass ticket
9 Special distribution controls required Immediate dispatch to chiller or boning room
6.4 Initial Food Safety Objectives

(To be confirmed after hazard identification and determination of hazard responsibilities. See Section 6.10 for
confirmed objectives).
 To minimise transfer and redistribution of microbiological hazards from the gastrointestinal tract and
the hide to the carcass, including control of grossly-detectable contaminants, to within specified
microbiological targets.
 To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are retained at post mortem
inspection.
 To identify all chemical "suspect" lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter, for subsequent
regulatory action.
6.5 Process Flow Diagram

Product names Beef carcass

Inputs Description/specification
Raw Material
 Live animals  Components
 carcass/head/offals
 gastrointestinal tract (GIT)
 hide
Other Inputs1
 Carcass tickets  Suitable for use as food contact materials.
 Branding ink  Suitable for use as food contact materials.
1
Inputs are defined as incoming materials, such as consumable or non-consumable items, added to the product during
the process. These inputs and their hazards must be addressed by a prerequisite programme/SSOP, or carried through
to hazard identification within the HACCP plan.
2
Specifications and hygienic handling of these materials are covered by specific premises prerequisite programmes for
food contact materials.

23 March 2017
Process Slaughter and dressing of cattle

Livestock  1. Receive

2. Wash

3. Pen

4. Ante-mortem

Suspects

5. Pre-stun shower

6. Stun

7. Anal wash / shackle

8. a Thoracic stick1

8. b Halal stick1,2

9. Rod

10. Head removal  Head

11. Hind leg

12. Ring

13. Hide removal

14. Brisket cut

15. Evisceration  Offals

16. Carcass split

17. Post-mortem inspection

18 a Retain

18 b Reinspect

19. Trim

Carcass ticket / ink  20. Grade

21. Final wash  Beef carcass
1
Process options.

23 March 2017
2.
For halal slaughter, regulations to ensure humane slaughter require that sticking of the animal is done before
shackling.

Table 4 should be completed and confirmed for each step in the particular process.
Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

Table 5A: Hazard identification for cattle

Carcass/head/ B1 - Microbiological hazards C1 - Chemical hazards P1 - Shotgun pellets
offals associated with grossly- associated with identified
detectable abnormalities, i.e. chemical residues, e.g. suspect
fever, abscesses lines, injection site lesions
(ISLs)
B2 - Microbiological hazards
not grossly detectable, e.g. C2 - Chemical hazards
bacteraemia, Toxoplasma associated with unidentified
gondii chemical residues, e.g.

23 March 2017

B3 - Visible parasites, e.g. anthelmintics, antibiotics,
Taenia saginata (Cysticercus environmental contaminants.
bovis)
Gastrointestinal B4 - Microbiological hazards1 Not applicable Not applicable
tract associated with faeces and
ingesta, e.g. Salmonella spp.,
E. coli O157:H7, Clostridium
spp., Campylobacter jejuni
Hide B5 - Microbiological hazards1 Not applicable Not applicable
associated with contamination
of hide with faeces and dirt,
e.g. Salmonella spp., E. coli
O157:H7, Clostridium spp.,
Campylobacter jejuni
Udder (for cows) B72 - Microbiological hazards Not applicable Not applicable
from mastitic milk, e.g.
Staphylococcus aureus
1
Hazards may be transferred from one raw material component to another as either unseen or gross contamination.
Hazards may be redistributed on a raw material component as either unseen or gross contamination.
2
B6 has already been allocated in Section 6.8 for slaughter and dressing as: "biological hazards associated with other
inputs"; hence B7 refers to contamination with mastitic milk

Table 5B: Process step hazard identification for slaughter and dressing of cattle
Process Raw material Transfer of Redistribution Other inputs

Step hazards to of hazards on
Components Hazards1 product 2,3 product2 Components Hazards
1. Receive  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,

offals P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
 Udder (for cows)  B7
2. Wash  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
offals P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
3. Pen  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
offals P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
4. Ante-  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
mortem offals P1
 GIT  B4

23 March 2017

 Hide  B5
5. Prestun  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
shower offals P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
6. Stun  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
offals P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
7. Anal  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, B5
wash/ offals P1
shackle  GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
8a.  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, B5, C1, B5
Thoracic offals C2, P1
stick  GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
8b. Halal  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, B5, C1, B4, B5
stick offals C2, P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
9. Rod  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B4
offals C1, C2, P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
10. Head  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B4, B5
removal offals C1, C2, P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
11. Hind  Carcass/head/  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B5, B74
leg offals C1, C2, P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
12. Ring  Carcass/offals  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B4, B5
C1, C2, P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5

23 March 2017

13. Hide  Carcass/offals  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B5

removal C1, C2, P1
 GIT  B4
 Hide  B5
14. Brisket  Carcass/offals  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,
cut C1, C2, P1
 GIT  B4
15. Evis--  Carcass/offals  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B4, B15
ceration C1, C2, P1
 GIT  B4
16. C/C  Carcass  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B4, B5
split C1, C2, P1
17. Post-  Carcass  B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B4, B5

mortem C1, C2, P1
18a. Retain  Carcass  B1, B2, B4, B5, B4, B5

C16, C2, P1
18b.  Carcass  B2, B4, B5, C1, C2, B4, B5

Reinspect P1
Carcasses able to contact each other after step 17 on main chain and after step 18b if
retained
19. Trim  Carcass  B2, B4, B5, C1, C2, B4, B5 B4, B5
P1
20. Grade  Carcass  B2, B4, B5, C1, C2, B4, B5 Tickets Nil
P1 Ink Nil
21. Final  Carcass  B2, B4, B5, C1, C2, B4, B5

wash P1
1
The following codes have been used in the generic HACCP plan:
B - Biological B1 – Microbiological hazards associated with grossly-detectable abnormalities

B2 – Microbiological hazards not grossly detectable
B4 – Microbiological hazards associated with faeces and ingesta from the GIT
B5 – Microbiological hazards associated with the hide
B7 – Microbiological hazards associated with mastitic milk
C - Chemical C1 – Chemical hazards associated with identified chemical residues
P - Physical P1 – Physical hazards associated with shotgun pellets
2
There is an additive effect through the process.
3
Product is defined as the edible component of the final product.
4
With certain cows, B7 may be transferred during removal of the udder. If this hazard is relevant to the company’s
process, then its transfer and redistribution at subsequent steps should be considered. However, for the purpose of this
generic model, this hazard will not be considered any further through succeeding sections of the HACCP plan.

23 March 2017
5
With certain classes of cattle, B1 may be transferred at evisceration. If this hazard is relevant to the company’s
process, then its transfer and redistribution at subsequent steps should be considered. However, for the purpose of this
generic model, this hazard will not be considered any further through succeeding sections of the HACCP plan.
6
Carcasses associated with chemical suspect lines are sampled and retained according to MPI specification. The
carcasses may progress through the remainder of the process as retained product.

Table 5C: Processor and regulator responsibilities for control of hazards associated with the carcass
Identified Hazard Processor’s Regulator’s Unaddressed hazard

responsibility responsibility
B1 – Microbiological hazards Yes (Retain rail trim Yes (Antemortem
associated with grossly- only) inspection / postmortem
detectable abnormalities inspection / re-inspection)
B2 – Microbiological hazards No No Yes
not grossly detectable
B3 – Visible parasites No Yes (Post-mortem
inspection)
B4 – Micro hazards
transferred / redistributed
from gut
 Unseen  Yes (Key process  Yes (Audit, NMD)
steps)
 associated with gross  Yes (Key process  Yes (Inspection / re-
contamination with steps) inspection / audit)
faeces/ingesta
from hide
 Unseen  Yes (Key process  Yes (Audit, NMD)
steps)
 associated with gross  Yes (Key process  Yes (Inspection / re-
contamination from hide steps) inspection / audit)
C1 – Chemical hazards – Yes (Receiving only) Yes (Retain / sample /
suspect lines audit)
C2 – Chemical hazards – No Random sampling as per Yes (unaddressed by
unknown national programme processor)
P1 – Shotgun pellets No Yes (Inspection1) Yes (unaddressed by
processor)
1
Carcasses are inspected for shotgun pellets but detection rate is low due to low sensitivity of the inspection method.

FSO1: To minimise transfer and redistribution of microbiological hazards from the gastrointestinal tract and
the hide to the carcass, including control of grossly-detectable contaminants, to within specified
microbiological targets.

23 March 2017
FSO2: To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are retained at post mortem
inspection.
FSO3: To identify all chemical "suspect" lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter, for subsequent
regulatory action.
6.11 Critical Control Point (CCP) Determination

Table 6: CCP determination for slaughter and dressing of cattle
Process step Identified hazard Q1. Could the Q2. Is there a Q3. Is there a control measure CCP
hazard be present control measure available at a previous step no
in or on the available at this step which would significantly
product1 at that would prevent contribute to preventing
unacceptable2 unacceptable2 levels unacceptable2 levels of the
levels at this step? of the hazard? hazard at this step?
If Yes, give reasons If Yes, this step is a If Yes, retrospectively assign that
and go to Q2 CCP. Go to Q3 step as a CCP
If No, not a CCP If No, not a CCP. Go If No, and if the answer to Q2
Proceed to next to Q3 was No, consider whether any
identified hazard subsequent steps can control the
hazard or whether redesign of
the process / product is
necessary to ensure a control
measure is available.
1. Receive B4. Micro – GIT No
B5. Micro – Hide No
C1. Chem Yes – reported Yes – identification of No 1
suspects incidences of non- suspect lines at this
compliance. Refer step
to Section 6.14.3.
2. Wash B4. Micro – GIT No
3. Pen B4. Micro – GIT No
4. A/M Refer to regulator
5. Prestun B4. Micro – GIT No
shower
6. Stun B4. Micro – GIT No
7. Anal B4. Micro – GIT No
wash/shackle
8a. Thoracic B4. Micro – GIT No
stick
8b. Halal B4. Micro – GIT No
stick

23 March 2017
9. Rod B4. Micro – GIT No
10. Head B4. Micro – GIT No
removal
11. Hind leg B4. Micro – GIT No
B5. Micro – Hide Yes – incorrect Yes – prevent No 2
procedures for unacceptable
opening cuts and contamination from
flaying will exceed the hide to the
acceptable micro carcass by correct
counts over a operator technique
significant surface
area on the hind
quarter. Refer to
Section 6.14.5.
12. Ring B4. Micro – GIT Yes - incorrect Yes – prevent faecal No 3
ringing will exceed contamination from
acceptable micro the bung by correct
counts over a operator technique
significant surface
area on the hind
section. Refer to
Section 6.14.5.
13. Hide B4. Micro – GIT No
removal
14. Brisket B4. Micro – GIT No
cut
15. Evisc B4. Micro – GIT No
16. Carcass B4. Micro – GIT No
split
17. PM Refer to regulator
inspection
18a.Retain B1. Micro – Yes – failure to trim Yes – hygienic No 4
grossly- / unhygienic trimming
detectable removal of grossly-
abnormalities detectable
abnormalities.
Refer to IS 5.

23 March 2017
B4. Micro – GIT Yes – failure to trim Yes – hygienic
/ unhygienic trimming
removal of gross
contamination.
Refer to IS 5.
B5. Micro – Hide Yes – failure to trim Yes – hygienic
/ unhygienic trimming
removal of gross
contamination.
Refer to IS 5.
18b. Re- Refer to regulator
inspect
Note: Carcasses may contact each other after step 17 on main chain and after 18a if retained.
19. Trim B4. Micro – GIT No
20. Grade B4. Micro – GIT No
21. Final B4. Micro – GIT No
wash
1
2
Unacceptable & as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience, National
Microbiological Database) associated with achieving the FSOs established for the process. In the determination of
unacceptability, hazards should be considered in terms of: level, frequency, transfer and redistribution, and severity of
effect on consumer.
6.12 Completion of the HACCP Plan

Information on the critical limits applied for each of the CCPs, monitoring, corrective action and
verification procedures, and HACCP records should be fully documented as part of the HACCP plan.
Refer to Sections 4.12 to 4.16 of the Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing for
detailed requirements.
Table 7 provides a summary of the plan. References to documented procedures should be shown in this table

6.13.1 Validation of the HACCP plan
Validation of the HACCP plan involves the initial confirmation that the HACCP plan is complete and will
achieve each of the food safety objectives. Validation should also demonstrate that the HACCP plan is at
least equivalent to GMP-based controls at the premises, for all food safety objectives. Identified CCPs should

23 March 2017
be evaluated to ensure that the control measure applied at that particular process step, will achieve or
contribute to the achievement of the relevant food safety objective (FSO).
An example of how this generic HACCP plan may be validated is given below:
FSO1: To minimise transfer and redistribution of microbiological hazards from the gastrointestinal
tract and hide to the carcass.
The first FSO is expected to be achieved by providing adequate control measures at CCP2 (hind legging) and
at CCP3 (ringing). Therefore CCP2 and CCP3 should be evaluated as they relate to the achievement of
FSO1.
CCP2 (Hind legging)
 For this CCP, the use of microbiological observations is appropriate for validation. Historical data
based on a standardised microbiological sampling programme (e.g. NMD) may be used for evaluating
this CCP. Companies that do not have a database should implement an appropriate standardised
microbiological sampling programme. Data obtained before the HACCP plan implementation (i.e.
historical data) should be compared to data obtained after HACCP implementation to ensure that the
HACCP plan is at least equivalent to GMP-based controls at the premises.
 It should be noted that NMD data provides an on-going verification of the microbiological performance
of the whole process plan. However, NMD data may be used for evaluating CCP2 because the
microbiological consequence of this process step is reflected in data obtained from the NMD
programme.
 When historical data is not available or is inadequate, microbiological validation will involve the
collection of new data from when the HACCP plan is implemented.
The following is an example of an appropriate design for microbiological validation in the absence of
benchmark or historical data:
Sample size: 25 carcasses or alternative number as determined by statistical techniques.

(Under most New Zealand situations, a sample size of 25 carcasses will provide
a basis for statistical comparison.)
Sample time frame: Two week period. Random selection of five sampling days, random selection of
five carcasses per day.
Methodology: MIRINZ 873 standard or as described in NMD, Manual 15. Enumerate mean
APCs and E. coli counts. Duplicate spread plates. Carcasses to be sampled
while temporarily railed on to the detain rail, or another suitable position that does
not mask the microbiological consequences of slaughter and dressing.
CCP3 (Ringing)
The use of NMD data for evaluating this CCP is of limited value because the NMD does not include a
sampling site that could be routinely affected by the ringing operation. However, sporadic occurrence of gross
contamination and redistribution due to failure at this step may be reflected in NMD data. Microbiological
validation using relevant sampling sites may need to be done for this CCP. However, it is suggested that the
use of visual observation of sporadic faecal leakage and/or observation of operator technique may be a more
practical means for evaluating the adequacy of procedures at this process step. In this context, it would be
expected that any premises that does not use bagging should validate operator performance as meeting
appropriate food safety objectives according to visual parameters defining process control.
An appropriate design for microbiological validation is given above. Guidance on establishing sampling
regimes for validation using visual observation may be obtained from publications on statistical process
control.

23 March 2017
FSO2: To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are retained at post-
mortem inspection.
The second objective is addressed at CCP4 (retain rail trim). Regulations require that all carcasses which go
to the retain rail are re-inspected by the regulator. Historical data on visual observations of removal of gross
abnormalities and contaminants at this process step may be used to confirm that the procedures in place will
achieve FSO2. Data obtained before the HACCP plan implementation (i.e. historical data) should be
compared to data obtained after HACCP implementation to ensure that the HACCP plan is at least equivalent
to GMP-based controls at the premises.
FSO3: To identify all chemical "suspect" lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter, for
subsequent regulatory action.
The third objective is addressed at CCP1 (receiving). The control measure at CCP1 is a regulatory
requirement. It is therefore expected that premises will have historical data or documentation which may be
used to show that procedures in-place are adequate and will achieve the FSO.
6.13.2 Ongoing verification
Ongoing verification activities confirm whether the HACCP plan is operating effectively and according to
documented procedures. Examples of these activities are internal and extrinsic audits, HACCP review, and a
product testing programme. The NMD is an example of a microbiological sampling programme which provides
an ongoing verification of the microbiological performance of the whole process plan.
6.13.3 Revalidation
A revalidation of the HACCP plan is required whenever changes are made (e.g. changes to premises,
product, process, intended use of the product).

23 March 2017
Process Hazard ID CCP Critical limits Monitoring Corrective actions Verification procedures HACCP records
step no. procedures/tools (consider
Who, What, When and How)
1. Receive C1. Chemical 1  Identify all suspect lines  100% check of incoming  ID after receiving but  FSO validation  Validation record
known for regulator lines against current before slaughter. Notify  Internal audit  Daily CCP monitoring
suspect lines chemical suspect list. Production Manager and  Extrinsic audit (e.g. worksheet
 Note on pen card for Regulator. regulator, client)  Corrective action report
regulator.  If already slaughtered,  HACCP review  Internal audit report
notify Production Manager  Extrinsic audit report
and Regulator.  HACCP review record
11. Hind leg B5. Micro – 2  Operator technique –  Random observation of  Talk to operator  FSO validation  Validation record
hide 100% compliance with operator technique being  Increase supervision  Internal audit  Daily CCP monitoring
food safety components of applied to a pre- and/or monitoring level  Extrinsic audit (e.g. worksheet
job description determined number of  Retrain or remove regulator, client)  Corrective action report
carcasses per 2 hour run3 operator  HACCP review  Internal audit report
 Microbiological sampling  Extrinsic audit report
programme (e.g. NMD)  HACCP review record
12. Ring B4. Micro – 3  Operator technique –  Random observation of  Talk to operator  FSO validation  Validation record
GIT 100% compliance with operator technique being  Increase supervision  Internal audit  Daily CCP monitoring
food safety components of applied to a pre- and/or monitoring level  Extrinsic audit (e.g. worksheet
job description determined number of  Retrain or remove regulator, client)  Corrective action report
carcasses per 2 hour run3 operator  HACCP review  Internal audit report
 Microbiological sampling  Extrinsic audit report
programme (e.g. NMD)  HACCP review record

23 March 2017
step no. procedures/tools (consider
18a. Retain B1. Micro – 4  Removal of all grossly-  100% re-inspection by  Retain product until  FSO validation  Validation record
grossly detectable abnormalities. regulator will identify non- correctly trimmed  Internal audit  Daily CCP monitoring
detectable  Removal of all visible removal of gross  Talk to operator  Extrinsic audit (e.g. worksheet
abnormalities faeces and ingesta. abnormalities and  Increase supervision regulator, client)  Corrective action report
B4. Micro –  Removal of all skin contaminants. Note: This and/or monitoring level  HACCP review  Internal audit report
GIT pieces. is not a processor activity.  Retrain or remove  Extrinsic audit report
B5. Micro –  Operator technique –  Random observation of operator  HACCP review record
Hide 100% compliance with operator technique being
food safety components of applied to a pre-
job description determined number of
carcasses per 2 hour run3
1
Corrective actions should reflect an escalating response when ongoing non-compliance occurs.
2
Validation of the FSO relating to microbiological outcomes relates to the performance of the whole HACCP plan, e.g. NMD.
3
Sampling regime should be established by the company.

23 March 2017
6.14 Background Information

6.14.1 Foodborne Illness Associated With Beef
Beef products accounted for 9% of outbreaks and 10% of the cases of foodborne disease reported in the USA
between 1973 and 1987 (Bean and Griffin, 1990), and in Canada in 1982 and 1983 (Todd, 1989). Bacterial
pathogens accounted for 92% of the beef associated outbreaks in the USA in which an aetiological agent was
identified (Bean and Griffin, 1990). The primary bacterial pathogens responsible for beef-related outbreaks
were Salmonella spp. (48%), Clostridium perfringens (32%), and Staphylococcus aureus (14%). Bacteria not
previously recognised as important foodborne pathogens that emerged during the study period (1973-1987)
included Campylobacter jejuni, E. coli O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes.
In New Zealand, nearly 10,000 cases of food or waterborne illness were notified in 1995 (Gilbert et al., 1996).
The highest incidences were for campylobacteriosis (7525 cases) and salmonellosis (1363 cases). Fifteen
cases were notified for listeriosis and six cases for verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli. Sources of foodborne
illness were not identified in the report. Over recent years, the incidence of campylobacteriosis and yersiniosis
has been increasing in New Zealand. In addition, other foodborne diseases have been recently diagnosed, for
example, verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli infection was first identified in New Zealand in 1993 (ESR,
1997).
6.14.2 Biological Hazards
Biological hazards associated with the consumption of beef and beef products are briefly discussed in the
following sections.
Pathogenic bacteria
Salmonella spp.
Salmonella spp. are the primary bacterial aetiological agents responsible for beef-related outbreaks in the
USA and Canada (Bryan, 1980; Todd, 1989; Bean and Griffin, 1990). Examples of beef products that have
been implicated in outbreaks are roast beef, jerky and ground beef. Contamination of raw beef combined with
improper food handling practices were found to be important factors in a substantial proportion of the
Salmonella cases (Bryan, 1980).
Salmonella and other enteric pathogens are typically associated with faecal material and can be commonly
isolated from the hooves and hides of cattle (Stolle, 1981). They can be spread on to the carcass during
slaughter and dressing through contact with the hide, ingesta, hands and various equipment.
In a survey of New Zealand beef slaughter premises from 1993 to 1995, Salmonella was detected in 0.09%
(n=2/2221) of beef samples of boning room products but was not detected in 754 samples of beef carcasses
(Armitage, 1995). In a more recent survey, 996 carcasses were tested for the presence of Salmonella (Cook
et al., 1997) and all were found negative for the organism. This translates to a prevalence of not more than
0.1%, which compares very favourably with the published prevalence for Salmonella in United States heifers
and steers of 1% (USDA, 1994), in US cows and bulls of 2.7% (USDA, 1996), and in Australian cattle of 0.4%
(Vanderlinde and Murray, 1995).
E. coli O157:H7
E. coli O157:H7 was first recognised as a foodborne pathogen after two outbreaks of haemorrhagic colitis in
the USA in 1982, attributed to the consumption of undercooked hamburgers from a fast-food restaurant chain.
Since then, several outbreaks caused by E. coli O157:H7 involving beef have been reported in other
countries, including the USA (Bean et al., 1990; Tarr, 1994), Canada and the UK (Chapman et al., 1993). The

23 March 2017
principal vehicle implicated in outbreaks has been ground beef, and evidence suggests that in most instances
the meat was undercooked (Doyle, 1991). The most recent outbreak, affecting 16 people, occurred in the
USA in July 1997 and resulted in the recall of 25 million pounds of hamburger meat. Evidence suggests that
the pathogen came from any one of 10 slaughterhouses that supplied the raw material to the manufacturing
plant.
E. coli O157 infection was first identified in New Zealand in 1993. To date, there have been a total of 22 cases
of infections by the pathogen in New Zealand (ESR, 1997). No source of infection has been identified for any
of these cases.
Studies have shown that healthy cattle can be carriers of E. coli O157:H7 (Chapman et al., 1993). Dairy cattle,
particularly young animals, are considered to be an important reservoir of E. coli O157:H7 (Doyle, 1991).
Buncic and Avery (1997) found a low prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 (0.54%) in healthy dairy cows in New
Zealand.
Raw meat and milk can become contaminated with the pathogen during slaughter and milking due to faecal
contamination. In a recent New Zealand survey, E. coli O157:H7 was not detected from any of the 2000
bovine carcasses sampled, translating to a prevalence of contaminated carcasses of less than 0.05% (Cook
et al., 1997). E. coli O157:H7 was also not detected in a separate microbiological survey of 600 carcasses
randomly selected from meat export slaughter houses sourcing cattle from within New Zealand’s primary dairy
farming region (cited by Cook et al., 1997 from unpublished data). Failure to detect a single E. coli O157:H7 in
2600 carcasses gives a prevalence of contaminated carcasses of less than 0.04%. This compares very
favourably with the published prevalence for E. coli O157:H7 in US heifers and steers of 0.2% (USDA, 1994),
in US cows and bulls of < 0.05% (USDA, 1996), and Australian cattle of 0.4% (Vanderlinde and Murray,
1995).
Surveys of retail products in North America have found E. coli O157:H7 in 3.7% of beef samples, 1.5% of
pork, 1.5% of poultry and 2% of lamb (McNamara, 1995).
Campylobacter
Campylobacter can be isolated from the faeces of all animals, often without signs of clinical disease
(Johnston, 1990). In New Zealand, there is a seasonal prevalence of Campylobacter infection in dairy cattle
(Meanger and Marshall, 1989), with infections peaking at summertime. Isolation rates of C. jejuni from New
Zealand dairy cows ranged from 12% to 31%, depending on the season.
As healthy cattle may be carriers of Campylobacter spp., the faecal contamination of meat represents a
potential route leading to human infection. In New Zealand, the most significant factors associated with cases
of campylobacteriosis were the consumption of raw or undercooked foods (notably poultry but also
unpasteurised dairy products) and the consumption of untreated drinking water (ESR, 1996). Campylobacter
is less frequently associated with red meat consumption. This appears to be due to the lower carriage rate of
mammals compared to birds and the fact that the bacteria appear to die off on the dry carcass surface (ESR,
1994). Freezing also significantly reduces the number of viable organisms (ESR, 1994). There has been one
reported outbreak associated with undercooked hamburger meat in the Netherlands (Blaser et al., 1983).
Campylobacter has been recovered from 4.0% of 2064 carcasses from US steers and heifers (McNamara,
1995). The isolation rate from beef ranged from 0% to 4.2% and from lamb from 0% to 8% (Harris et al., 1986;
Wallace, 1997).
Listeria
L. monocytogenes can be endemic in cattle, but no outbreaks of listeriosis have been attributed to raw beef
products (Ryser and Marth, 1991). Documented cases of listeriosis linked to consumption of muscle foods
have involved poultry (Johnson et al. 1990).

23 March 2017
The presence of Listeria on carcasses has long been attributed to contamination by faecal matter (Johnson et
al., 1990). Faecal carriage of Listeria spp. has been estimated at 67% for dairy cows (Skovgard and Morgen,
1988). In a New Zealand study, however, Lowry and Tiong (1988) failed to isolate Listeria from the faecal
contents of 33 cattle and lambs. These authors suggested that animal hides and pelts are a more important
source of Listeria than faecal contamination, as 17% of beef hides and 43% of lamb pelts were found to be
positive for L. monocytogenes.
Several studies have shown that further processing of carcasses into boned cuts and ground meat
significantly increases the level of Listeria contamination (Fenlon et al., 1996). For example, Lowry and Tiong
(1988) observed an increased incidence of L. monocytogenes on boneless lamb compared with lamb
carcasses, and a much greater incidence of L. monocytogenes in minced beef (92%) compared with beef cuts
(20%).
L. monocytogenes has been recovered from 4.1% of 2089 carcasses of US steers and heifers (McNamara,
1995). A number of studies have examined raw beef products for L. monocytogenes worldwide, with reported
incidence rates ranging from 0% to 50% (Ryser and Marth, 1991).
Staphylococcus aureus was one of the primary bacterial aetiological agents for beef-related outbreaks
reported in the USA in 1973-1987 (Bean and Griffin, 1990). Food handling personnel was the primary source
of S. aureus, and outbreaks were generally associated with temperature abuse after contamination of the
cooked products (Bryan, 1980).
S. aureus has been recovered from 4.2% of 2089 carcasses of US steers and heifers (McNamara, 1995).
S. aureus is also associated with mastitic cows (Johnson, 1990).
Clostridium perfringens
Clostridium perfringens Type A is one of the most widely spread pathogenic bacteria in the environment. It is
part of the microflora of the soil and can therefore be found in the hide and hooves of cattle. It has also been
found in the intestinal contents of animals. Due to the organism’s ubiquitous nature, most commercially
available meats and poultry are contaminated with C. perfringens (Bates, 1997).
Clostridium perfringens outbreaks are generally associated with cooked products that are held at inadequate
holding temperatures in institutional and food service settings (Bryan, 1980; Bates, 1997). Outbreaks in
Australia are typically associated with the ingestion of meat meals, usually beef dishes, although poultry may
be involved, which have been allowed to either cool slowly or maintained at a warm temperature for long
periods of time. The poor heat penetration and inadequate aeration of the meal provide ideal anaerobic
conditions for the growth of this organism. Dishes such as rolled cuts, where the contamination on the outside
is rolled into the middle, where heat penetration and cooling are low and anaerobic conditions exist, are
particularly favourable for the growth of C. perfringens (Bates, 1997).
Yersinia spp.
Yersiniosis is an emerging foodborne problem worldwide. Y. enterocolitica has been identified as an important
cause of gastrointestinal illness in New Zealand (Wright, 1995). Yersinia spp. occur frequently in the intestinal
tract of a wide variety of animals and also in the environment. Intestinal prevalence rates of up to 30% have
been demonstrated in clinically normal cattle, lambs and deer in New Zealand (Blackmore and Humble,
1987).
Y. enterocolitica is often present in foods, particularly those of animal origin. However, there has been no
reports of beef-related cases of yersiniosis. Pork is frequently incriminated in cases of infection and data
indicate that healthy pigs are significant carriers of pathogenic strains of Y. enterocolitica (Barton et al., 1997).
A survey in New Zealand found Y. enterocolitica in 3.4% of 203 ready-to-eat flesh foods, including processed

23 March 2017
meats, poultry and sea food, but the organism was not isolated in the 18 samples of beef products tested
(Hudson et al., 1992).
Parasites
Taenia saginata
Taenia saginata, the beef tapeworm, is found in most parts of the world where beef is eaten. Humans are the
only definitive hosts of this species of tapeworm and cattle serve as intermediate hosts, harbouring the
cysticercus larval stage of the worm, known as Cysticercus bovis, the ingestion of which can result in human
infection with the adult tapeworm (Goldsmid and Speare, 1997). Foods associated with illness include raw or
undercooked beef.
New Zealand has an extremely low prevalence of T. saginata infection in cattle (about 5-30 animals reported
per year). The mean number of human infections with T. saginata per year resulting from consumption of New
Zealand beef in export and domestic markets is estimated to be 0.50 and 1.10, respectively (van der Logt et
al., 1997). These risk estimates, for a foodborne disease that has generally mild symptoms and is readily
treatable, were considered to be extremely low.
From a practical point of view (i.e. excluding serology), the presence of T. saginata can only be identified
during post-mortem inspection. However, existing inspection methods have a low sensitivity to low grade
infection of cattle.
Toxoplasma gondii
Toxoplasma gondii is a protozoan parasite that encysts in the tissues of a variety of mammalian hosts,
including cattle and pigs. Foods associated with illness include raw or undercooked meat.
Surveillance data in the USA from 1968 to 1977 indicated two outbreaks of toxoplasmosis attributed to the
consumption of raw beef and undercooked hamburgers (Bryan, 1980).
6.14.3 Chemical Hazards
Chemical hazards which could be present in slaughter cattle include agricultural chemicals (e.g. pesticides,
herbicides, veterinary drugs) and environmental contaminants (e.g. heavy metals, organochlorines).
MPI maintains a National Residue Testing Programme which monitors the residue status of animals
slaughtered for human consumption. All carcasses from animals from farms on the chemical suspect list are
sampled and retained until results indicate acceptable levels of chemical residue in the product. Random
sampling is done on carcasses from animals from farms not on the suspect list.
A quarterly report on the results of national residue monitoring is published by MPI. Any non-compliance with
established maximum residue levels is indicated in this report.
6.14.4 Physical Hazards
Physical hazards which could be present in slaughter cattle include broken injection needles and shotgun
pellets. There have been reported instances of shotgun pellets being found in beef exported from New
Zealand.
6.14.5 Process Step Hazards
1. Presentation status of livestock for slaughter
The New Zealand Meat Regulations 1969 state that stock in an unreasonably dirty condition (Reg. 89) shall
not be sent to an establishment for slaughter. There is also a requirement that stock in an unreasonably dirty

23 March 2017
condition, already in the abattoir, shall not be slaughtered until they have been rendered clean (MQM Manual
4).
A study in Finland (Ridell and Korkeala, 1993) further confirmed the necessity to exclude excessively dirty
cattle from the slaughterhouse. The authors investigated the slaughter of cattle carrying an excessive load of
dung. An animal was considered to be "excessively dungy" when at least its ventral and lateral areas were
covered with a solid layer of dung. The excessively dirty animals were slaughtered with extra care using a
slower line speed. For controls "normal" cattle were chosen at random. The results of the study showed that a
solid layer of dung on cattle hide led to a considerably greater microbial contamination of the carcass. This
occurred despite the slowing of the line speed which allowed greater care in slaughtering procedures. For
both sampling sites, the APC counts from carcasses from excessively dungy cattle were about 0.7 log units
higher than for the control carcasses.
Some investigators (Roberts, 1980) suggest that cleaning animals before slaughter is unlikely to affect
dressing hygiene, unless a heavy layer of hardened filth adhering to the skin over much of the area that must
be incised interferes with the clean removal of the hide. This view is supported by a recent Canadian study
(Van Donkersgoed et al., 1997) which found no consistent association between the quantity of tag [dag] (mud,
bedding and manure) attached to hides of beef cattle at slaughter, and bacterial contamination of carcasses.
Changes in bacterial counts when associated with tag quantity, surface wetness of hides, line speed, or
shaving off of tag were generally less than 0.5 log units per cm2. Thus, the authors considered that
preslaughter hide status of cattle was not a critical control point in the HACCP plan for the beef slaughter
processes studied.
A trial was recently undertaken in a New Zealand export plant to determine whether the microbiological status
of a beef carcass was significantly influenced by: the cleanliness of cattle in the yards; the presence/absence
of post-stun defaecation and its subsequent removal; and by evisceration and postmortem inspection of the
carcass. Dirty cattle (i.e. with visible faeces, mud and/or soiling around the tail base and in areas of knife
opening cuts from tail base to hocks, along the ventral midline of the belly and brisket) were washed
immediately before slaughter to a "visibly clean" status. These were compared to clean, dry stock which were
visibly clean animals (i.e. visibly clean on the above-mentioned areas of the animal) and remained unwashed.
Microbiological samples were taken on the neck, shoulder, flank and inside hindleg of carcasses immediately
after hide pulling and while on the detain rail. Samples were analysed for APC and E. coli. Preliminary
evaluation of both APC and E. coli counts show no significant differences between the two treatments for all
carcass sites tested (unpublished data). This suggests that not washing visibly clean cattle in the yards, and
at post-stun (when no defaecation occurs), results in similar carcass microbiological levels to those obtained
by current washing practices for cattle. More work may be needed to clarify the effect of dirty livestock on
subsequent carcass bioloads under New Zealand conditions.
2. Hind legging (skinning)
The major safety hazard associated with the dressing of beef carcasses is the contamination of meat with
enteric pathogens (e.g. Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7) originating from faecal material or ingesta (Gill et
al., 1995). Faecal contamination of dressed carcasses can occur as a consequence of either direct contact
with faecal material or contact with surfaces that have themselves been in contact with faecal material, e.g.
hides and operators’ hands (Bell et al., 1996). Even brief contact with faecal material can produce
contamination of up to 106 bacteria /cm2, enough to cross-contaminate 10 or more successive carcasses
(Roberts, 1980). Kriaa et al. (1985) have reported that the attachment of bacteria is both instantaneous (within
1 min) and resistant to rinsing.
The general bacterial contamination carried on operators’ hands after making hind leg opening cuts, a
dressing procedure that necessitates direct hand contact with the hide, is very similar to that carried by the
hide in that region (Bell et al.,1996). Therefore, contact between carcass and unrinsed operators’ hands would
introduce comparable contamination to hide-carcass contact for those operations in which hide-hand contact
is unavoidable.

23 March 2017
Gill et al. (1995) investigated the effects of skinning and other slaughter operations on the microbial quality of
beef carcasses. Swab samples were obtained from the surfaces of randomly selected beef carcasses passing
through a high speed dressing process in Canada. A single sample was obtained from each selected carcass
from one of 10 sites to identify the effects of likely high and likely lower risk operations.
The results of their study (Gill et al., 1995) showed that after skinning, or freeing and tying of the bung in the
case of the anal area site, the hock, anal area and rump sites were relatively heavily contaminated with E.
coli, at mean log numbers > 2/100 cm2. These sites encompass areas usually traversed by the opening cut in
the hide. In comparison, the butt, neck, and both brisket sites were moderately contaminated with E. coli, at
mean log numbers about 1/100 cm2. After evisceration and carcass splitting, the butt, anal area and rump
sites were heavily contaminated, and the hock, cranial back, neck and both brisket sites were moderately
contaminated, although the numbers were higher at the cranial brisket site than after skinning.
A later investigation by Gill et al. (1996a) confirmed that during skinning the rump site becomes heavily
contaminated with faecal organisms. The log10 values of the E. coli counts on the rump site were distributed
between 0.3 and > 4/100 cm2, with a mean log10 value of 2.59/100 cm2.
A study undertaken by Bell et al. (1996) to evaluate New Zealand beef processing supports the findings of the
Canadian study. High contamination (measured as APC counts) was found at those carcass sites associated
with opening cuts and/or exposed to hide contact during hide removal. E. coli data identified the hock, inside
leg, bung and perhaps the flank as probable sites of direct or indirect faecal contamination. However, it should
be noted that when detected on these carcass sites, E. coli was generally in very low levels (log10 values<
1/100 cm2).
Stolle (1981) also found that the highest incidences of salmonellae in beef carcasses were associated with
freeing the skin round the lower parts of the legs and from the sternum region.
3. Ringing (freeing and tying of the bung)
Gill et al. (1995) observed that after freeing and tying of the bung, the anal area and butt site became heavily
contaminated with E. coli, indicating faecal contamination. The butt site was sporadically heavily contaminated
during skinning but was consistently heavily contaminated after the bung-freeing operation. These confirmed
the findings of earlier Australian studies which reported that the highest contamination with salmonellae
occurred during freeing of the rectum and anal sphincter (Grau, 1979). To prevent such contamination, some
workers recommend that the anal end of the intestine be enclosed in a plastic bag (Mackey and Roberts,
1993).
Five New Zealand meat companies were interviewed recently, regarding the effectiveness of using bags for
enclosing the bung to control faecal contamination during the ringing operation. There was general agreement
that contamination at this process step is largely due to operator error (e.g. nicking the bung), and sporadic
faecal leakage during ringing. Minor nicks into the bung do not always result in faecal contamination at the
ringing step, but it is likely to result to faecal spillage on to the carcass and offals when the viscera is pulled
and the bung dropped during evisceration. Using a highly skilled operator greatly reduces the incidence of
faecal contamination, but, this does not address contamination due to sporadic faecal leakage.
The four premises interviewed that used bags considered that the advantage in using a bag is that it is able to
contain faecal contamination due to both operator error and sporadic faecal leakage. Faecal contamination of
the carcass and offals at evisceration is also prevented. Bagging also minimises contamination of the
operator’s hand because the hand is covered with the bag during the operation.
4. Evisceration
The intestinal tract is the second major source of enteric pathogens during the slaughtering process
(NACMCF, 1993). Intact viscera present little hazard but leakage from the gastrointestinal tract could cause
widespread contamination (ICMSF, 1988). The preventive measures for reducing hazards during evisceration

23 March 2017
are tying the oesophagus to prevent escape of ingesta, enclosing the bung to prevent escape of faeces, and
the intact removal of viscera (Bell et al., 1996; USDA, 1997).
Results of several studies indicate that although viscera remains intact during its removal, the evisceration
process appeared to increase the level of contamination on carcass sites (Stolle, 1981; Gill et al., 1995;
1996b; Cook et al., 1997). Gill et al. (1996b) found that mean log number of E. coli for beef carcasses were
higher after evisceration and splitting than after skinning. The beef carcass undergoes much handling during
the evisceration process and it is possible that this increase is due to redistribution of microorganisms from
contaminated sites rather than "new" transfer of contamination on the carcass.
Gill et al. (1995) reported sporadic heavy contamination of the cranial brisket site after evisceration and
carcass splitting. It was unclear what actions or operations led to the contamination. The authors suggested
that E. coli were redistributed between skinning and splitting the carcass, from heavily contaminated to the
lightly contaminated back sites, particularly the cranial back site, to the cranial brisket. Data indicated that this
contamination was unlikely to derive from the posterior sites on the carcass and suggested the possibility of
an unsampled, heavily contaminated site which occurs in the anterior part of the carcass.
The results of a recent New Zealand survey (Cook et al., 1997) showed that the counts on the flank site were
on average higher than those on the outside leg and brisket sites. Similarly, the prevalence of E. coli at the
flank site was higher than that of the other sites. The authors attributed this to the greater level of handling on
the flank site during evisceration.
Stolle (1981) found that after legging, the next highest incidence of salmonellae contamination was found at
the stage when the abdominal cavity was opened, but, because the intestinal carriage rates of salmonellae
were low, Grau (1987) argued that the abdominal tissue was probably contaminated during hide removal
rather than during evisceration.
5. Removal of the udder (milk spillage)
Pathogens that affect the udder are of concern because they may get into the milk, which may in turn
contaminate carcasses when milk spillage occurs during the removal of the udder. Organisms which
commonly cause mastitis in cattle and which are important with respect to foodborne illness include
Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli spp., with the latter becoming increasingly important with housed cattle
(Johnston, 1990). Other organisms relevant to foodborne illness that have been occasionally recorded as a
cause of mastitis are Salmonella, C. jejuni and L. monocytogenes (Lowry and Tiong, 1988).
The implication of these results for contamination on beef carcasses due to milk spillage is unclear at present
and requires further investigation.
6. Trimming
Traditional indicators of dressing hygiene have, in the past, relied on visible defects such as the presence of
hair and faecal stains. However, recent studies suggest that visible defects are not reliable indicators of
overall microbial contamination (Biss and Hathaway, 1994, 1995). There is a weak correlation between visible
and bacterial contamination on commercial beef carcasses (Jericho et al., 1993). It is therefore not surprising
that studies have found that trimming has negligible effect on the overall microbiological condition of beef
carcasses (Miller et al., 1995; Gill et al., 1966b). Redistribution of contamination from one carcass area to
another can also occur during fat trimming (Prasai et al., 1995a).
7. Cold water washing
Cold water carcass washes, although effective in removing macro contamination, are ineffective in removing
microbial contamination (Bell et al., 1996). Gross contamination at heavily and moderately contaminated sites
can be reduced by trimming and washing (Gill et al., 1966b), but they have no decontaminating effect on the
carcass as a whole. Carcass washing brings about posterior to anterior redistribution of microbial

23 March 2017
contamination, resulting in increased counts at forequarter sites. Other studies support this conclusion (Prasai
et al., 1995b; Gill et al., 1996b).
6.15 References
Armitage, N.H. (1995) Microbiological quality of New Zealand beef and lamb. In New Zealand Comment to the
USDA, FSIS proposed rule on Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
Systems, June 1995.
Barton, M.D., Kolega, V. & Fenwick, S.G. (1997) Chapter 17: Yersinia enterocolitica. In Foodborne
Microorganisms of Public Health Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton, K. &
Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) Food Microbiology
Group. NSW, Australia.
Bates, J.R. (1997) Chapter 13: Clostridium perfringens. In Foodborne Microorganisms of
Public Health Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton, K. & Sutherland, P.) Australian
Institute of Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) Food Microbiology Group. NSW, Australia.
Bean, N.H. & Griffin, P.M. (1990) Foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States, 19731987: pathogens,
vehicles, and trends. J. Food Prot. 53: 804-817.
Bean, N.H., Griffin, P.M., Goulding, J.S. & Ivey, C.B. (1990) Foodborne disease outbreaks, 5year summary,
1983-1987. J. Food Prot. 53: 711-728.
Bell, R.G., Harrison, J.C.L., Rogers, A.R. & le Roux, G.J. (1996) Distribution and sources of microbial
contamination on beef carcasses. Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 963.
Biss, M.E. & Hathaway, S.C. (1994) Microbiological and visible contamination of ovine carcasses subsequent
to different on-line dressing practices. Proc. 28th Meat Ind. Res. Conf. Auckland, New Zealand. pp. 445-453.
Biss, M.E. & Hathaway, S.C. (1995) Microbiological and visible contamination of lamb carcasses according to
preslaughter presentation status: implications for HACCP. J. Food Prot. 58: 776-783.
Blackmore, D.K. & Humble, M.W. (1987) Zoonoses in New Zealand. Publ. No. 112. Veterinary Continuing
Education, Massey University. Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Blaser, M.J., Taylor, D.N. & Feldman, R.A. (1983) Epidemiology of Campylobacter jejuni infections. Epidemiol.
Rev. 5: 157-176.
Bryan, F.L. (1980) Foodborne diseases in the United States associated with meat and poultry. J. Food Prot.
43: 140-150.
Buncic, S. & Avery, S.M. (1997) Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in healthy dairy cows. N. Z. Vet. J. 45: 45-48.
Cook, R.L., Hathaway, S.C., Harrison, J.C.L. & Armitage, N.H. (1997) Microbiological baseline survey of New
Zealand bovine carcasses: a preliminary report. Proc. 43rd Int. Cong. of Meat Sci. & Technol. Auckland, New
Zealand. pp. 732-733.
Chapman, P.A., Siddons, C.A., Wright, D.J., Norman, P., Fox, J., & Crick, E. (1993) Cattle as a possible
source of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli 0157 infections in man. Epidemiol. Infect. 111: 439-447.
Doyle, M.P. (1991) Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and its significance in foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 12: 289-301.
ESR, Health (1994) Campylobacteriosis: a report for the Ministry of Health. 30 June 1994.
ESR, Health (1996) Surveillance and control notes: risk factors for campylobacteriosis identified in the study.
N.Z. Public Health Rep. 3: 20.
ESR, Health (1997) Surveillance and control notes: first recorded death from verotoxigenic Escherichia coli
(VTEC). N.Z. Public Health Rep. 4: 45.
Gilbert, S., Freshwater, A. & Allman, R. (1996) Improving food safety in New Zealand. N.Z. Public Health Rep.
3: 65-67.

23 March 2017
Gill, C.O., McGinnis, J.C. & Badoni, M. (1995) Assessment of the hygienic characteristics of a beef carcass
dressing process. J. Food Prot. 59: 136-140.
Gill, C.O., McGinnis, J.C. & Badoni, M. (1996a) Use of total or Escherichia coli counts to assess the hygienic
characteristics of a beef carcass dressing process. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 31: 181-196.
Gill, C.O., Badoni, M. & Jones, T. (1996b) Hygienic effects of trimming and washing operations in a beef-
carcass-dressing process. J. Food Prot. 59: 666-669.
Goldsmid, J.M. & Speare, R. (1997) Chapter 22: The parasitology of foods. In Foodborne
Microorganisms of Public Health Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton, K. &
Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) Food Microbiology
Group. NSW, Australia.
Grau, F.H. (1979) Fresh meats: bacteria association. Arch. Lebensmitten. 30: 87-92.
Grau, F.H. (1987) Prevention of microbial contamination in the export beef abattoir. In: Elimination of
Pathogenic Microorganisms from Meat and Poultry. (ed. Smulders, F.J.M.). Elsevier Science Publishers.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 221-233.
Fenlon, D.R., Wilson, J. & Donachie, W. (1996) The incidence and level of Listeria monocytogenes
contamination of food sources at primary production and initial processing. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 81: 641-650.
Harris, N.V., Kimball, T., Weiss, N.S. and Nolan, C. (1986) Dairy products, produce and other non-meat foods
as possible sources of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli enteritis. J. Food Prot. 49: 347-351.
Hudson, J.A., Mott, S.J., Delacy, K.M. and Edridge, A.L. (1992) Incidence and coincidence of Listeria spp.,
motile aeromonads and Yersinia enterocolitica on ready-to-eat flesh foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 16: 99-108.
ICMSF (1988) Chapter 10: Production - animal foods. In Microorganisms in Foods, vol. 4: Application of the
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) System to Ensure Microbiological Safety and Quality. The
International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) of the International Union of
Microbiological Societies. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford, England.
Jericho, K.W.F, Bradley, J.A., Gannen, V.P. & Itozub, G.C. (1993) Visual demerit and microbiological
evaluation of beef carcasses: methodology. J. Food Prot. 56:114-119.
Johnston, A.M. (1990) Foodborne illness: veterinary sources of foodborne illness. The Lancet 336: 856-858.
Johnson, J.L., Doyle, M.P. & Cassens, R.G. (1990) Listeria monocytogenes and other Listeria spp. in meat
and meat products: a review. J. Food Prot. 53 (1): 81-91.
Kriaa, H., Arthaud, J.F., & Fournaud, J. (1985) Contamination and bacterial retention capacity of beef
carcasses at the abattoir. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 59: 23-28.
Lowry, P.D. & Tiong, I. (1988) The incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in meat and meat products: factors
affecting distribution. Proc. 34th Int. Cong. Meat Sci. & Technol. New Zealand. Part B: pp.528-530.
Mackey, B.M. & Roberts, T.A. (1993) Improving slaughter hygiene using HACCP and monitoring.
Fleischwirtsch. Int. 2: 40-45.
McNamara, A.M. (1995) Establishment of baseline data on the microdata of meats. J. Food Saf. 15: 113-119.
Meanger, J.D. & Marshall, R.B. (1989) Seasonal prevalence of thermophilic Campylobacter infections in dairy
cattle and a study of infection of sheep. N. Z. Vet. J. 37:18-20.
Miller, M.F., Bawcom, D.B., Wu, C.K., Meade, M.K. & Ramsey,C.B. (1995) Microbiology of hot-fat trimmed
beef. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 1368-1371.
MQM Manual 4 - Pre-slaughter requirements. (1986) Ministry of Agriculture. Wellington, New Zealand.
NACMCF (1993) Generic HACCP for raw beef. National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for
Foods. United States.
Prasai, R.K., Campbell, R.E., Vogt, L.R., Kastner, C.L. & Fung, D.Y.C. (1995a) Hot-fat trimming effects on the
microbial quality of beef carcasses and subprimals. J. Food Prot. 58: 990-992.

23 March 2017
Prasai, R.K., Phebus, R.K., Zepeda, C.M., Kastner, C.L., Boyle, A.E. & Fung, D.Y.C. (1995b) Effectiveness of
trimming and/or washing on microbiological quality of beef carcasses. J. Food Prot. 58: 1114-1117.
Ridell, J. & Korkeala, H. (1993) Special treatment during slaughtering in Finland of cattle carrying an
excessive load of dung; meat hygiene aspects. Meat Sci. 35: 223-228.
Roberts, T.A. (1980) The effects of slaughter practices on the bacteriology of the red meat carcass. Royal
Soc. Health J. 80: 3-9.
Ryser, E.T. & Marth, E.H. (1991) "Listeria, Listeriosis, and Food Safety." Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. pp.
405-462.
Skovgaard, N. & Morgen, C.A. (1988) Detection of Listeria spp. in faeces from animals, in feeds, and in raw
foods of animal origin. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 6: 229-242.
Stolle, A. (1981) Spreading of salmonellas during cattle slaughtering. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 50: 239-245.
Tarr, P.I. (1994) Review of 1993 Escherichia coli 0157:H7 outbreak: Western United States. Dairy, Food &
Environ. Sanit. 14: 372-373.
Todd, E.C.D. (1989) Food and water borne disease in Canada - 1983 annual summary. J. Food Prot. 52: 436-
442.
USDA (1994) Nationwide Beef Microbiological Baseline Data Collection Program: Steers and Heifers. United
States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.
USDA (1996) Nationwide Beef Microbiological Baseline Data Collection Program: Cows and Bulls. United
States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.
USDA (1997) Meat and Poultry Products Hazards and Control Guide. United States Department of
Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Vanderlinde, P.B. & Murray, J. (1995) Microbiological quality of Australian meat: beef carcass survey. Proc.
Ind. Semin. (9 November 1995). CSIRO, Brisbane, Australia.
Van der Logt, P.B., Hathaway, S.C & Vose, D.J. (1997) Risk assessment model for human infection with the
cestode Taenia saginata. J. Food Prot. 60: 1110-1119.
Van Donkersgoed, J. Jericho, K.W.F., Grogan, H. & Thorlakson, B. (1997) Preslaughter hide status of cattle
and the microbiology of carcasses. J. Food Prot. 60: 1502.
Wallace, R.B. (1997) Chapter 8: Campylobacter. In Foodborne Microorganisms of Public Health Significance.
(ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton, K. & Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of Food Science
and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) Food Microbiology Group. NSW, Australia.
Wright, J. (1995) Yersiniosis: an emerging problem in New Zealand. N.Z. Public Health Rep. 2:65-66.

23 March 2017
7 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and Boning of Beef

Previously Appendix X.1.

The following are documented prerequisite programmes/sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs):
operational);
 training;
 hygienic processing (processing techniques and procedures, dropped meat);
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;

Product: Bovine (excluding bobby calf)
Process: Cooling, boning, packaging, and storage of beef; from receipt of the beef
carcass from the slaughter floor through to loadout of quarter beef and
packaged beef cuts. Processes included are primary cooling of carcasses and
packaged beef (ex-slaughter to 7°C), cold boning, warm and hot boning, and
aging.


1 Product name(s) Quarter beef
Boneless beef
Bone-in beef
Aged beef cuts
Trimmings
2 Important product characteristics  Passed ante- and post-mortem inspection
 Product meeting company and regulatory specifications
for microbiological quality, foreign objects, temperature
and packaging

23 March 2017
(a) By a further processor or retailer (a) Further processing into manufactured products, retail
products, food service items
(b) By the consumer (b) Raw or cooked
5 Packaging Company/regulatory specification
6 Shelf life and storage requirements Company/regulatory specification
(a) Export market
(b) Local market
8 Labelling instructions Company/regulatory specification
9 Special distribution controls required Refrigerated distribution as per company/regulatory
specification for each type of product

 To minimise the transfer of microbiological hazards to the product, and their redistribution, to within
specified microbiological targets.
 To minimise the growth of pathogenic bacteria on the product, to within specified microbiological
targets, by the use of an effective refrigeration system.
 To minimise the presence of bone pieces in boneless products to specified targets.
 To remove metal from the product by the use of a metal detection system that achieves specified
targets for metal objects.
 To remove all deep-seated injection site lesions (ISLs).

Product names Quarter beef / boneless beef / bone-in beef / aged beef cuts / trimmings
Raw Material
 Beef carcass  Slaughtered and dressed under a HACCP plan
Other Inputs1
 food contact packaging materials2  Suitable for use as food contact materials.
1
These inputs and their hazards must be addressed by a prerequisite programme/SSOP, or carried through to hazard
identification within the HACCP plan.
2

23 March 2017
Process Cooling and boning of beef

Beef carcass  1. Receiving beef carcass

2. a. Loading of chiller1

2. b. Conveying of carcass for hot boning to
boning room1

3. a. Chilling of carcass to 7°C for cold
boning1,2

3. b. Chilling of carcass for warm boning1,2

4. Quartering

5. Pretrim

6. Cutting and boning  Quarter beef to step 7

7. Trimming Bones for mechanical
 separated meat and other
Packaging  8. Packing edible products

9. Labelling and weighing

10. Metal detection

11. Blast chilling of warm and hot boned
meat to 7°C

12. a. Blast chilling to below 7°C

12. b. Blast freezing to -12°C

13. a. Aging of chilled product

13. b. Storage of frozen product

14. a Loadout of chilled product

14. b Loadout of frozen product  Quarter beef / packaged
beef
1
Process options.
2
Primary cooling refers to the cooling of carcasses and products immediately after slaughter, dressing and/or boning
until the temperature of the surface of microbiological concern has been reduced to 7°C or less.

23 March 2017

Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

Table 5A: Hazard identification for beef carcasses1

Carcass B3 - Visible parasites, e.g. C14 - Chemical hazards P1 - Shotgun pellets6
Taenia saginata associated with identified
chemical residues, e.g. suspect
B4/52 - Microbiological hazards lines, injection site lesions (ISLs)
from faeces, ingesta, hide, e.g. C25 - Chemical hazards
Salmonella spp., E. coli associated with unidentified
O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, chemical residues, e.g.
Clostridium spp. anthelmintics, antibiotics,
environmental contaminants.

23 March 2017
1
Hazards listed are those that have been identified in Section 6.7 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of
Cattle as food safety hazards that may be reasonably associated with the carcass. Further information on hazards
associated with the beef carcass are discussed in Sections 6.14.1 to 6.14.4 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and
Dressing of Cattle.
The following codes have been used in the generic HACCP plan:
B - Biological B1 – Microbiological hazards associated with grossly-detectable abnormalities, i.e. fever,

abscesses
B2 – Microbiological hazards not grossly detectable (not applicable for this plan(
B4 – Microbiological hazards associated with faeces and ingesta from the GIT
B5 – Microbiological hazards associated with the hide
B8 – Microbiological hazards associated with contamination due to a process step requirement not
being met (sporadic occurrence)
P - Physical P1 – Physical hazards associated with raw materials
P2 – Physical hazards associated with a process step requirement not being met (sporadic
occurrence)
2
The carcass is inspected for T. saginata during post mortem, but existing inspection methods have low sensitivity to
low grade infection of cattle. In certain circumstances, T. saginata may still be present in the inspected and passed
carcass. In these cases, a HACCP-based programme for further detection and removal of T. saginata may be applicable
during boning. However, for the purposes of this generic model, considering the rare occurrence of this hazard, B3 will
not be considered any further in this plan.
3
B4 and B5 have been combined because the enteric pathogens of concern, which initially can be transferred from the
hide or the gastrointestinal tract, come from only one raw material component, i.e. the carcass.
4
Animals from chemical suspect lines are identified at receiving before slaughter (i.e. CCP1 for slaughter and dressing).
Carcasses and products from these animals are sampled and detained according to MPI specification. If hazard control
is assigned to a prerequisite programme (i.e. detained product) then C1 hazards (suspect lines) do not have to be
considered further in the next section (Table 5B). Chemical hazards associated with visible ISLs are usually addressed at
post mortem inspection. However, deep-seated ISLs may remain undetected in the inspected and passed carcass.
5
If a premises has controls for C2 hazards in their HACCP plan for slaughter and dressing (e.g. producer guarantees
accompanying livestock receipt), then C2 would not appear in this raw material hazard identification (Table 5A).
6
The carcass is inspected for shotgun pellets during post mortem but the detection rate is low due to low sensitivity of
the inspection method. Therefore, shotgun pellets may still be present in the raw material.
Hazard analysis may result in changes to the initial food safety objectives set in Section 7.4. See Section 7.8
for confirmed objectives.

23 March 2017
steps raw materials and other inputs hazards1 the product2 at unacceptable levels3 at measure at this step that measure available at a No.
ii) Potential impact this step? would prevent previous step that would
of process step If yes, answer Q2 and Q3. unacceptable levels of prevent unacceptable
on existing the hazard? levels of the hazard?
hazards If yes, this step is a CCP. If yes, retrospectively assign
Component Hazards Yes/No Justification If no, not a CCP. the previous step as a CCP.
1. Receipt Carcass B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No

pathogens redistribution
C1. ISLs Yes Deep-seated ISLs may remain No No
undetected in the carcass.
C2. Unidentified No
chemical residues
P1. Shotgun pellets Yes Reported incidences of non- No No
compliance. Refer Section 7.11.3.
2a. Loading Carcass B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No
of chiller with pathogens redistribution
carcasses for
cold & warm
boning
2b. Carcass B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No
Conveying of pathogens redistribution
carcasses for
hot boning to
boning room
Carcass B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Mesophilic Yes Reported incidences of process Yes – proper refrigeration No 1a
pathogens pathogen growth failures. Refer Section 7.11.4.

23 March 2017
3a. Chilling of C1. ISLs Yes Deep-seated ISLs may remain No No

carcasses for undetected in the carcass.
cold boning
3b. Chilling of Carcass B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Mesophilic Yes Reported incidences of process Yes – proper refrigeration No 1b
carcasses for pathogens pathogen growth failures. Refer Section 7.11.4.
warm boning
4. Quartering Carcass B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No
compliance Refer Section 7.11.3.
5. Pretrim Quarters B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No
6. Cutting & Quarters B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No
boning pathogens redistribution

23 March 2017
C1. ISLs Yes Deep-seated ISLs may remain Yes – but control measure No
undetected in the carcass. relates to a prerequisite
programme (hygienic
processing)
(i) P2. Bone, for Yes Reported incidences of non- Yes – correct boning No 2
boneless product compliance. Refer Section 7.11.3. techniques
only
(i) P2. Metal Yes Reported incidences of non- No No
7. Trimming Boneless and B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No
bone-in cuts pathogens redistribution
P2. Bone Yes Reported incidences of non- Yes – correct trimming No 3
compliance. Refer Section 7.11.3. techniques
P2. Metal Yes Reported incidences of non- No No
8. Packing Boneless & B4/B5. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No
bone-in cuts pathogens redistribution
& trimmings

23 March 2017
(i) P2. Metal Yes Reported incidences of non- No No

Packaging None
materials
9. Labelling Packed beef B4/B5. Enteric No
and weighing pathogens
10. Metal Packed beef B4/B5. Enteric No
detection pathogens
P1. Shotgun pellets Yes Reported incidences of non- Yes – metal detector No 4
P2. Metal Yes Reported incidences of non- Yes – metal detector No 4
11. Blast Packed beef B4/B5. Enteric No
chilling of pathogens
warm & hot-
boned meat
to 7°C
12a. Blast Packed beef B4/B5. Enteric ii) Cold-tolerant No
chilling to pathogens pathogen growth
below 7°C

23 March 2017
12b. Blast Packed beef B4/B5. Enteric No

freezing to pathogens
below -12°C
13a. Aging of Vacuum B4/B5. Enteric ii) Cold-tolerant No
chilled packed cuts pathogens pathogen growth
product
13b Storage Frozen B4/B5. Enteric No
of frozen packed beef pathogens
product
14a. Loadout Chilled B4/B5. Enteric No
of chilled packed beef pathogens
product
14b. Loadout Frozen B4/B5. Enteric No
of frozen packed beef pathogens
product
1
2
Unacceptable & as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience, National Microbiological Database) associated with achieving the FSOs established for
the process. In the determination of unacceptability, hazards should be considered in terms of:
– level,
– frequency,
– transfer and redistribution,
3
Sporadic chemical residues at some level will always occur. However, results from the National Residue Monitoring Programme indicate that residue levels are in compliance with national
requirements. The level of this hazard will not change during processing (i.e. no growth or increase in the hazard level). Therefore, it will not be considered at subsequent steps.
4
Occasionally, some abnormalities (e.g. abscesses) and visible contamination may not be detected and removed at retain. There is an opportunity for their removal at pretrim. Generally, this is
expected to be an infrequent occurrence and should be controlled by GMP and the slaughter and dressing HACCP plan

23 March 2017

FSO1: To minimise the transfer of microbiological hazards to the product, and their redistribution, to within
specified microbiological targets.
FSO2: To minimise the growth of pathogens on the product to within specified microbiological targets.
FSO3: To minimise the presence of bone in boneless products to specified targets.
FSO4: To remove metal from the product by the use of a metal detection system that achieves specified
targets for metal objects.
FSO5: To remove all deep-seated injection site lesions (ISLs) that are detected during boning and trimming.

Full documentation is required for the remaining elements of the HACCP plan:
 critical limit setting;

 monitoring procedures;
 corrective action procedures;
 verification procedures including validation;
 documentation and recordkeeping procedures.
Refer to Sections 5.9 to 5.13 of the Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Further Processing of Meat
and Meat Products for detailed requirements.
Table 6 provides a summary of the plan. References to documented procedures located elsewhere should be
shown on this table.

achieve each of the food safety objectives. Identified CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control
measure applied at that particular process step will achieve or contribute to the achievement of the relevant
food safety objective (FSO). Some food safety objectives may be dependent on prerequisite programmes
rather than the HACCP plan itself.
FSO1:To minimise the transfer of microbiological hazards to the product, and their redistribution, to
within specified microbiological targets.
FSO1 is expected to be achieved by effective prequisite programmes (e.g. sanitation and cleanup procedures,
personal hygiene, hygienic processing). Prerequisite programmes are to be validated in accordance with the
requirements in IS 8. National Microbiological Database (NMD) data for primal cuts and bulk-packed meat
may also be used for evaluating the effectiveness of relevant prerequisite programmes.
FSO2: To minimise the growth of pathogens on the product to within specified microbiological
targets.

23 March 2017
FSO2 is expected to be primarily addressed for cold-boned products at CCP1a (carcass chilling); for warm-
boned products at CCP1b (carcass chilling) and CCP5 (post-boning cooling); and for hot boned products at
CCP5 (post-boning cooling).
The use of microbiological observations is appropriate for validation of FSO2. Historical data based on a
standardised microbiological sampling programme (e.g. NMD) may be used for evaluating these CCPs. Data
obtained before the HACCP plan implementation (i.e. historical data) should be compared to data obtained
after HACCP implementation to ensure that the HACCP plan is at least equivalent to GMP-based controls at
the premises.
National Microbiological Database data for carcasses (post-chilling) may be used for evaluating cold boned
products at CCP1a because the microbiological consequence of this process step is reflected in data obtained
from the NMD programme. However, NMD data is not available for warm- and hot-boned products that have
undergone primary cooling (i.e. completely passed through the "mesophile window") during post-boning
cooling. Consequently, microbiological validation for warm and hot boned products may require the collection
of new data after postboning cooling or freezing, from the time that the HACCP plan is implemented.
Sample size: 25 or alternative number, as determined by statistical techniques, of primal cuts or

cartons of boneless bulk-packed meat. (Under most New Zealand situations, a
sample size of 25 will provide an initial basis for statistical comparison.)
Sample time frame: Two week period. Random selection of five sampling days, random selection of five
samples per day.
Methodology: As described in Microbiological Methods for the Meat Industry (MIRINZ Publication
873) or in Manual 15: National Microbiological Database. Enumerate mean aerobic
plate count (APC) and E. coli counts. Duplicate spread plates.
FSO3: To minimise the presence of bone in boneless products to specified targets.
FSO3 is expected to be addressed at CCP2 (boning) and CCP3 (trimming). Visual observation of operator
technique and/or inspection of boneless cuts after boning and trimming (e.g. CUSUM inspection for defects)
may be used to evaluate the adequacy of procedures at these process steps to control the hazard to within
specified targets. When developing verification procedures, the process must be carefully studied to
determine those boning steps that are likely to contribute to the introduction of the hazard, and the cuts that
are likely to be affected by it. Observation and/or inspection should be targeted at boning steps and cuts that
are identified as being closely associated with the occurrence of bone hazards.
Guidance on establishing sampling regimes for validation using visual observation may be obtained from
publications on statistical process control.
FSO4: To remove metal from the product by the use of a metal detection system that achieves
specified targets for metal objects.
FSO4 is expected to be achieved at CCP4 (metal detection). The performance of the metal detector to
consistently detect and reject specified metal objects should be evaluated against the target set for the FSO. It
is important to take into consideration the types of metal likely to occur in the product, the capability of the
machine, and the characteristics of the product. The processor will need to adopt a detailed test methodology
for checking the performance of the detector. This should include specifying how the test piece is mounted
and passed through the search head with or without product being present, examination procedure for reject
material, frequency and interval for testing.

23 March 2017
FSO5: To remove all deep-seated injection site lesions (ISLs) that are detected during boning and
trimming.
FSO5 is expected to be achieved by effective prerequisite programmes on hygienic processing (e.g. boning
and trimming techniques). Prerequisite programmes are to be validated in accordance with requirements in IS
8.
documented procedures. Examples of these activities are internal and extrinsic audits, HACCP review, and
product testing programme. The NMD is an example of a microbiological sampling programme which provides
an on-going verification of the microbiological performance of the whole process plan.
7.10.3 Revalidation
product, process, intended use of the product) or process failure which may compromise product safety
occurs.

23 March 2017
step no. procedures/tools
(consider Who, What, When
and How)
1. Receive
2a. Loading
chiller
2b. Conveying
to boning
room – hot
boning
3a. Chilling Growth of 1a Refrigeration parameters that  Monitor relevant  Correct noncomplying  FSO validation  Validation record
carcasses – mesophilic will achieve: refrigeration parameters refrigeration parameter  Validation of chiller  Daily monitoring record
cold boning enteric  reduction of deepmeat at regular intervals (e.g  Increase monitoring/ performance. Refer to IS  Calibration record
pathogens temp to 7°C within 48 hours air temperature, air supervision. 6 Section 3.3.  Corrective action report
of carcass leaving slaughter velocity, carcass loading,  Retain affected product  Calibration of measuring  Microbiological
floor. Shoulder temp carcass temperature) for regulatory action. devices. Refer to IS 8 programme record
reduced as per schedule Section 7.  Internal audit report
given in IS 6 Section Refer to IS 6 Section 3.4. Refer to IS 6 Section 2.9.  Standardised  Extrinsic audit report
3.6.4.2, or microbiological  HACCP review record
 maximum PHI criteria4 of: programme (e.g. NMD)
 mean - 7  Internal audit
 80% of values - 10  Extrinsic audit (e.g.
 maximum - 14 regulator, client)
 HACCP review
Refer to IS 6 Sections 3.2 and
3.6.4, and Section 7.11.4.
3b. Chilling Growth of 1b Refrigeration parameters that  Monitor relevant  Correct noncomplying  FSO validation  Validation record
carcasses – mesophilic will achieve: refrigeration parameters refrigeration parameter  Validation of chiller  Daily monitoring record
warm boning enteric  reduction of deepmeat at regular intervals (e.g  Increase monitoring/ performance. Refer to IS  Calibration record
pathogens temp to 7°C within 48 hours air temperature, air supervision. 6 Section 3.3.  Corrective action report
of carcass leaving slaughter

23 March 2017
and How)
floor. Shoulder temp velocity, carcass loading,  Retain affected product  Calibration of measuring  Microbiological
reduced as per schedule carcass temperature) for regulatory action. devices. Refer to IS 8 programme record
given in IS 6 Section Section 7.  Internal audit report
3.6.4.2, or Refer to IS 6 Section 3.4. Refer to IS 6 Section 2.9.  Standardised  Extrinsic audit report
 maximum PHI criteria4 of: microbiological  HACCP review record
 mean - 7 programme (e.g. NMD)
 80% of values - 10  Internal audit
 maximum - 14  Extrinsic audit (e.g.
regulator, client)
Refer to IS 6 Sections 3.2 and  HACCP review
3.6.4
4. Quartering
5. Pretrim
6. Cutting and Bone pieces 2 Operator technique – 100%  Random observation of  Talk to operator  FSO validation  Validation record
boning compliance with food safety operator’s technique  Increase supervision  Random inspection of  Daily monitoring record
components of job description every 2 hour run. and/or monitoring boned products at pre-  Corrective action report
 Retrain or remove determined frequency  Internal audit report
operator  Internal audit  Extrinsic audit report
 Extrinsic audit (e.g.  HACCP review record
regulator, client)
 HACCP review
7. Trimming Bone pieces 3  Operator technique – 100%  Random observation of  Talk to operator  FSO validation  Validation record
compliance with food safety operator’s technique  Increase supervision  Random inspection of  Daily monitoring record
components of job every 2 hour run. and/or monitoring boned products at pre-  Corrective action report
description  Retrain or remove determined frequency  Internal audit report
operator  Internal audit  Extrinsic audit report
 Extrinsic audit (e.g.  HACCP review record
regulator, client)
 HACCP review

23 March 2017
and How)
8. Packing
9. Labelling &
weighing
10. Metal Metal 4  Metal detector functioning  Daily calibration checks of  Hold products produced  FSO validation  Validation record
detection as per specifications detector against test since last satisfactory  Machine calibration  Daily monitoring record
 Product characteristics (e.g. pieces at pre-determined check of the metal  Examination of rejected  Calibration and
temperature) as per frequency detector products maintenance records
specifications for which  Correct metal detector or  Internal audit  Corrective action report
detector sensitivity has product characteristics  Extrinsic audit (e.g.  Internal audit report
been adjusted affecting machine regulator, client)  Extrinsic audit report
sensitivity.  Customer complaints  Customer complaints file
 Repass the product  HACCP review  HACCP review record
through functioning
detector
11. Blast Growth of 5 For hot boned meat:  Monitor relevant  Correct noncomplying  FSO validation  Validation record
chilling of mesophilic  Product to enter chiller or refrigeration parameters refrigeration parameter  Validation of chiller  Daily monitoring record
warm- and enteric freezer within 90 min of at regular intervals (e.g  Increase monitoring/ performance. Refer to IS  Calibration record
hot-boned pathogens the carcass leaving the air temperature, air supervision. 6 Section 3.3.  Corrective action report
meat to 7°C for warm slaughter floor. velocity, carcass loading,  Retain affected product  Calibration of measuring  Microbiological
and hot  Refrigeration parameters carcass temperature) for regulatory action. devices. Refer to IS 8 programme record
boned that will achieve reduction Section 7.  Internal audit report
products of thermal centre of Refer to IS 6 Section 3.4. Refer to IS 6 Section 2.9.  Standardised  Extrinsic audit report
cartoned products to microbiological  HACCP review record
≤7°C within 24 hr of programme (e.g. NMD)
carcass leaving slaughter  Internal audit
floor, or  Extrinsic audit (e.g.
 Refrigeration parameters regulator, client)
that will achieve maximum  HACCP review
PHI criteria4 of:
 Mean – 7
 80% of values – 10

23 March 2017
and How)
 maximum – 14

3.6.3.
For warm boned meat:

 Refrigeration parameters
that will achieve a post-
boning cooling schedule
given in IS 6 Section
3.6.4.4, or
 Refrigeration parameters
that will achieve maximum
PHI criteria4 of:
 Mean – 7
 80% of values – 10
 maximum – 14

3.6.4.
12a. Blast
chilling to
below 7°C
12b. Blast
freezing to -
12°C
13a. Aging of
chilled
product

23 March 2017
and How)
13b. Storage
of frozen
product
14a. Loadout
of chilled
product
14b. Loadout
of frozen
product
1
Corrective actions should reflect an escalating response when ongoing noncompliance occurs.
2
Verification procedures apply to all aspects of the HACCP plan
3
HACCP records apply to all aspects of the HACCP plan. Refer to IS 8 Section 4 regarding requirements for documentation and record keeping.
4
The cumulative process hygiene index (PHI) commences immediately after slaughter and dressing, and includes all activities during cooling until the surfaces of concern have been reduced to
7°C or less.

23 March 2017

The processes covered by the Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and Boning of Beef (Section 6) continue from
where slaughter and dressing of cattle ends. The raw material hazard identification for this plan is based on
the assumption that the beef carcass was processed under a HACCP plan for slaughter and dressing.
Hazards identified in Section 6 as reasonably associated with the beef carcass are carried through to cooling
and boning.
A more detailed discussion of hazards and foodborne illness associated with the consumption of beef is given
in Section 6.14.
Pathogenic bacteria
Enteric pathogens, such as Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, and Clostridium spp., are
the biological hazards of major food safety concern that may be present on the carcass after slaughter.
Salmonella spp. is generally considered as the pathogen which poses the greatest risk to public health (Gill,
1993). In recent years, E. coli O157:H7 has been implicated in a number of beef-related outbreaks in several
countries (Doyle, 1991). Both Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 are mesophilic enteric pathogens that prefer
moderate temperatures for growth, with a growth range of around 7-45°C and an optimum growth
temperature of around 37°C.
Pathogens associated with meat that can grow at chiller temperatures, such as Listeria and Yersinia, have
also been identified in recent years. Although these cold-tolerant pathogens may pose some health risk, this
has not been quantified and is considered by Gill (1993) to be insignificant. To date, there have been no
reports of beef-related cases of yersiniosis or listeriosis.
Control measures applied during post-slaughter processing are therefore primarily aimed at preventing the
redistribution and uncontrolled growth of mesophilic pathogens on the carcass or product.
Parasites
Toxoplasma gondii
Toxoplasma gondii is a protozoan parasite that can cause human infection through the ingestion of
Toxoplasma cysts in undercooked meat, or oocysts originating from cats (Wilks and Humble, 1997). The
parasite is generally not detectable during post mortem inspection and remains an unaddressed hazard
during slaughter and dressing and, therefore, may be present in the inspected and passed carcass and its
products.
In sheep, toxoplasmosis is a common cause of placentitis, abortion and perinatal mortality. A high proportion
of meat, especially sheep meat, will contain viable tissue cysts (Blackmore and Humble, 1987). Fresh pork
appears to be the main source of T. gondii infection in the United States (Speer, 1997). However, the role of
beef in the transmission of T. gondii is unclear. It appears that cattle are not an important source of infection
because they have a high resistance to the parasite and T. gondii has not been isolated from the edible
muscle tissues of cattle (Jacobs, 1973; Dubey, 1993; Speer, 1997).
Chilling temperatures have no effect on the viability of the parasite (Goldsmid and Speare, 1997). A study on
the infectivity of T. gondii tissue cysts in pork showed that in most cases, freezing to -9.4°C for at least one
second rendered tissue cysts noninfective (Kotula et al., 1991). Extrapolation from a freeze-death curve for
the inactivation of T. gondii shows that freezing to -12.4°C will instantaneously render tissue cysts nonviable
(Kotula et al., 1991). Cooking temperatures of 61°C or higher for 3.6 minutes will also inactivate cysts in meat
(Dubey et al., 1990).

23 March 2017
Taenia saginata
Human infection with the beef tapeworm, Taenia saginata, is associated with the ingestion of the cysticercus
larval stage of the parasite known as Cysticercus bovis (Goldsmid and Speare, 1997). The infection can be
contracted by the consumption of infected raw or undercooked beef that has not been adequately frozen
(Wilks and Humble, 1997).
New Zealand has an extremely low prevalence of T. saginata infection in cattle (about 5-30 animals reported
per year). Risk estimates for T. saginata infection, which generally has mild symptoms and is readily treatable,
are considered to be extremely low (van der Logt et al., 1997).
From a practical point of view (i.e. excluding serology), the presence of T. saginata can only be identified
during post mortem inspection. However, existing inspection methods have a low sensitivity to low grade
infection of cattle. Thus, in certain circumstances, T. saginata may still be present in the inspected and passed
carcass. In these cases, a HACCP-based programme for further detection and removal of T. saginata may be
applicable during boning.
Chilling temperatures have no effect on the viability of T. saginata in meat (Goldsmid and Speare, 1997). The
cysticerci in meat are inactivated by freezing at -10°C for at least 9 days or -18°C for 5 days (Hilwig et al.,
1978; Kim, 1997).
Chemical hazards that could be present in beef carcasses and meat products include agricultural chemicals
(i.e. pesticides, herbicides, veterinary drugs) and environmental contaminants (i.e. heavy metals,
organochlorines). MPI maintains a National Residue Testing Programme that monitors the residue status of
animals slaughtered for human consumption.
Chemical hazards associated with identified chemical residues (e.g. suspect lines) are addressed under
Section 6. Animals from chemical suspect lines are identified at receipt before slaughter (i.e. CCP1 for
slaughter and dressing). Carcasses and products from chemically suspect animals are sampled and detained
according to MPI specifications. Although this hazard is expected to be addressed before slaughter, its
possible presence is still shown in the process step hazard identification section of this generic HACCP plan
because the detained products are allowed to progress through the remainder of the same processing chain.
Suspect products are stored separately until their disposition is determined by the regulator.
Chemical hazards associated with unidentified chemical residues (e.g. antibiotics, environmental
contaminants) are unaddressed by the processor. Chemical hazards associated with visible ISLs are usually
addressed at post mortem inspection. However, deep-seated ISLs may remain undetected in the carcass.
7.11.3 Physical Hazards & Foreign Objects
An extensive survey undertaken by Archibald et al. (1993, 1995), involving 20 companies in New Zealand and
124 food manufacturers and organisations in Japan, the United States and Europe, identified that the
presence of foreign objects was of major concern to meat manufacturers. The physical contaminants that
pose the biggest problem in terms of food safety are metal and bone pieces which can cause injury such as
cuts, broken teeth, choking (Rhodehamel, 1992) and intestinal perforation (Gunn, 1966).
Several companies in Japan and the United States have reported finding metal objects in manufacturing meat
imported from New Zealand. These objects included shotgun pellets, a MPI stamp, knives, hooks, bolts and
nuts. There is agreement among overseas manufacturers that meat exporters should install a preventive
programme for physical contamination and a metal detection system to address the metal hazards.
Recent interviews with three New Zealand manufacturers who export further processed meat products
support the claims made by the foreign companies regarding the problem with metal and bone pieces. One of

23 March 2017
the major manufacturers now insist that their meat suppliers have an effective metal detection system in
place. Their problem with metal contaminants has been greatly reduced since they instituted this policy.
When installing a metal detection system, it is important to take into consideration the types of metal likely to
occur in the product, the capability of the machine and the characteristics of the product. The limitations of the
detector should be clearly understood and reflected in the food safety objective set for metal objects. The
detection capability of metal detectors is generally influenced by the type, size and shape, and orientation of
the metal; and the characteristic of the product (e.g. moisture content, temperature) (Shapton and Shapton,
1991). Some processors set their critical limits for metal based on the limit of detection of the machine (e.g. 3
mm for nonferrous metals and 2 mm for ferrous metals).
The processor will need to establish a detailed test methodology for checking the performance of the metal
detector. This should include specifying how the test piece is mounted and passed through the search head
with or without product being present, the examination procedure for reject material, and the frequency and
interval for testing.
The setting of critical limits for bone may initially be based on customer feedback, detectability of the hazard
considering the process steps and the critical levels given in reference documents such as the USDA defect
classification list. When developing monitoring and verification procedures, the process must be carefully
studied to determine those boning steps that are likely to contribute to the introduction of the hazard, and the
cuts that are likely to be affected by it. Observation and/or inspection should be targeted at the boning steps
and cuts that are identified as being closely associated with the occurrence of bone hazards.
7.11.4 Key Process Steps: Effects on Microbiological Hazards
1. Cooling
Growth of mesophilic pathogens
Immediately after slaughter, the animal’s body temperature rises slightly from the normal 37°C to about 40°C,
then falls at a rate which depends on the characteristic of the animal (e.g. size and fat cover) and the chilling
parameters (e.g. air temperature, air velocity, carcass loading pattern) (MIRINZ Bulletin, 1973). All pathogenic
bacteria associated with meat are capable of growth at these temperatures. The minimum growth temperature
for E. coli and/or Salmonella on meat has been determined to be ≥ 7°C (Shaw et al., 1971; Mackey et al.,
1980; Smith, 1985). Thus, 7°C is the endpoint generally accepted by the Commission of the European
Communities (E.C.) as an appropriate temperature for minimal mesophilic pathogen growth.
In the studies that reported Salmonella growth at temperatures below 7°C (i.e. at 5.3°C), either the growth
was not associated with meat or a normal meat microflora, or the organism was not a meat-related strain
(Mitchener and Elliot, 1964; Palumbo, 1986).
The temperature range from 40°C to around 7°C is referred to as the "mesophile window" or the temperature
range where there is an opportunity for mesophiles, in particular enteric organisms such as E. coli and
Salmonella, to grow to unacceptable numbers. A rapid and controlled reduction in carcass and product
temperature to 7°C is required to prevent or at least maintain pathogen proliferation within acceptable limits.
Boning during cooling
A significant proportion of beef processed in New Zealand is boned during cooling (i.e. warm and hot boning).
Based on New Zealand annual bovine kill figures for the 1995-96 season, an estimated 47% was cold boned,
15% was warm boned and 39% was hot boned. It is therefore very important for the New Zealand meat
industry to ensure that warm and hot boned meat are processed under conditions that will produce
microbiologically safe products.

23 March 2017
Studies at the Meat Industry Research Institute of New Zealand (MIRINZ) (Gilbert and Davey, 1976; Gilbert et
al., 1976) showed that electrical stimulation and hot boning were not detrimental to the microbiological
integrity of beef, as long as correct chilling and effective sanitation techniques were practised. This conclusion
is supported in the reviews of Kotula (1981) and Oblinger (1983), and confirmed in later studies by Lee et al.
(1985) and Kotula et al. (1987).
Oblinger (1983) suggests that it is the temperature profile or history of products that is of primary importance
to producing a microbiologically acceptable product rather than the boning method (i.e. cold boning v. hot
boning). Adequate and prompt chilling of hot boned meat is considered to be a critical point in the overall
process. The initial chilling rate is a major factor in determining the bacteriological condition of hot boned beef
(Fung et al., 1981; Lee et al., 1985) and significantly affects the number and kinds of organisms that develop
on the meat surface.
Refrigeration criteria
The New Zealand meat industry has consistently placed a high priority on management of the physical
environment of carcasses and meat during the period that they are within the "mesophile window". To ensure
that meat processors adequately control bacterial growth during meat processing, MPI has imposed
requirements for specific operations such as carcass and product cooling. Current regulations require that
refrigeration systems achieve standard time/temperature regimes for the different post-slaughter processes
(IS 6, Sections 3.5-3.7), or that they achieve the Process Hygiene Index (PHI) criteria (IS 6, Section 3.2.2).
The standard time/temperature regimes were derived from traditional Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP),
which have been shown to result in microbiologically safe products. During the mid-1980s, MIRINZ developed
a practical method for determining the potential of E. coli proliferation that might occur during the cooling of
meat, by integrating the temperature history with the growth characteristics of the bacteria (Gill et al., 1985).
The method, Temperature Function Integration (TFI), was used in 1988 by MAF, MIRINZ and industry to
develop a set criteria for the hot boning of carcasses (Armitage, 1997a). To serve as reference points, MIRINZ
determined the hygienic quality of beef cold boned under processes operating to GMP standards. Based on
this, a commercially workable hot boning process was developed that was at least equivalent in
microbiological outcome to the cold boned standard. Studies have shown that compliance with the standard
hot boning time/temperature regime (i.e. meat reduced to ≤ 7°C within 24 hours) should be able to limit E. coli
growth at the slowest cooling sites on a carcass to about 10 generations or an increase of 3 logs (Reichel et
al., 1991). This microbiological outcome is also consistent with what can be achieved under time/temperature
regimes set by the E.C. for cold boned beef.
The MIRINZ method was used again later to develop criteria for the warm boning of beef (Armitage, 1997a).
The E.C. cooling standard for cold boned meat (i.e. 7°C deep meat temperature within 48 hours of slaughter)
was used as the accepted GMP reference when developing the criteria. The PHI criteria are discussed in
more detail in the next section.
The assessment of cooling processes and the Process Hygiene Index (PHI)
Temperature function integration is a technique for calculating bacterial growth from product histories and
data relating bacterial growth rate to the temperature. The method of assessment involves the collection of
temperature histories that show the worst possible temperature conditions for product moving through a
process, identification of the type of bacterial growth that will occur at each stage of the process, and
calculation of the extent to which an indicator organism could, in the worst possible case, grow during the
process (Gill et al., 1985).
E. coli has been proposed as the process hygiene indicator for the meat industry in New Zealand because of
its specific association with intestinal environments, its inevitable presence in high numbers in faeces, and its
similarity in growth characteristics to Salmonella (Bell and Armitage, 1995). Salmonella spp. are not
recommended as an indicator because of their relatively low prevalence in healthy slaughter stock and,
hence, in faeces.

23 March 2017
The temperature-related growth kinetics of E. coli and Salmonella spp. have been shown to be sufficiently
similar (Herbert and Smith, 1980; Smith, 1985) to permit the hygienic adequacy of cooling processes to be
reliably assessed or monitored using E. coli indicator systems. In addition, where E. coli and/or Salmonella
have been studied in conjunction with either staphylococci or Clostridium perfringens, results have indicated
that the former organisms have the greater ability for growth in meat (Angelotti et al., 1961; Goepfert and Kim,
1975; Farrell and Upton, 1978). Thus, action taken to control the growth of E. coli and/or Salmonella using
7°C as an endpoint appears to be sufficient to also control staphylococci and strains of Clostridia relevant to
meat (Jones, 1995).
Temperature function integration has been used to effectively characterise the hygienic adequacy of cooling
processes for beef and lamb carcasses (Gill et al., 1991a; 1991b, Jones, 1993, 1996; Armitage, 1997), hot
boned beef (Reichel et al., 1991) and beef offals (Gill and Jones, 1992). The method is discussed in more
detail by Gill (1993) and Armitage (1997a).
New Zealand has used the method to determine the criteria for the different cooling processes after slaughter
that would give equivalent outcomes in terms of microbial proliferation (Armitage, 1997a). The objective
standard for the cooling of carcasses or product is expressed as a dimensionless PHI. One index unit
represents a potential for the microbial growth equivalent to one generation of E. coli. The standard states
that, based on 20 samples, cooling processes are not to exceed the following cumulative PHI criteria at the
surfaces of microbiological concern (Reichel et al., 1991; Gill and Jones, 1992; Gill, 1993):
 mean 7
 80% of values 10
 maximum 14.
Measurement of the cumulative PHI commences immediately after slaughter and dressing and includes all
activities during cooling until the surfaces of concern have been reduced to 7°C or less. The maximum value
is the limit that should not be exceeded in order to avoid unacceptable microbiological levels, whereas the
mean, which is the target value, represents GMP. Processing according to these criteria is expected to give
equivalent results to those from well controlled traditional GMP.
It should be noted that it is the cooling process that is being assessed, not the absolute hygienic status
of individual products leaving the process (Gill, 1993). The assessment of hygienic adequacy will ensure
that the time and temperature conditions that the product experiences during cooling do not cause
unacceptable proliferation of mesophilic pathogens. Such assessment does not assure that product entering
the process is hygienically adequate, or that a source of extraneous contamination does not exist in the
process. It is therefore important that carcasses entering the cooling process have been slaughtered and
dressed under a HACCP plan that achieves specified microbiological targets.
Cases of process failure in New Zealand
Armitage (1997b) studied six cases of process failure in New Zealand premises over a 2-year period. The
study showed that noncompliance with standard time/temperature requirements could potentially compromise
the microbiological safety of products.
In all cases, process failure was caused by inadequate refrigeration or refrigeration malfunction. Process
failure for three of the cases occurred during post-boning cooling of cartons of hot boned meat, and for one
case it occurred during post-slaughter cooling of lamb carcasses. These case studies showed that when
failure to maintain adequate control occurred during the initial cooling of products down to 7°C, significant
increases in both aerobic plate counts and mesophile growth (as measured by E. coli) were observed.
For the other two cases, loss of temperature control occurred during secondary cooling of chilled lamb and
bobby veal. The chilled lamb products (6.5-6.9°C) were transferred to a cold-store for freezing. The
refrigeration failed to activate and the air temperature in the blast freezer remained at ≥ 10.7°C for 16 hours
before the non-conformance was identified and the freezer activated. The aerobic plate counts for the chilled

23 March 2017
lamb samples increased without any significant change in E. coli counts. This suggested that microbial
proliferation in this instance was most probably due to psychrotrophic spoilage organisms. In the bobby veal
case, carcasses were cold boned after slaughter, with meat temperatures at about 3°C. The refrigeration
failed soon after the cartons were placed in the freezer allowing the product temperature to rise to 25°C over
70 hours. Microbiological tests showed that mesophile growth to unacceptable levels had occurred.
2. Cutting, boning, and trimming
The biological hazard associated with cutting and boning relates to the redistribution of pathogenic bacteria
that are present on the incoming carcasses and the transfer of microorganisms from the work environment.
Cutting boards, boning tables, conveyors, knives, hands and clothing of personnel have all been implicated as
vehicles for the transfer of bacteria (West et al., 1972; Newton et al., 1975, 1978; Widders et al. 1995).
Sheridan et al. (1992) reported that the level of contamination on the beef cuts as a result of boning was
related to the amount of trimming and work-up the cuts received. Those cuts that were handled and trimmed
most had the highest levels of contamination (i.e. the fillet and striploin). The method of boning has also been
shown to have a significant influence on the level of microbial contamination on beef cuts. Table boning
resulted in a significantly higher microbial contamination than rail boning for cold boned (Moorhead et al.
1997) and hot boned beef (Smulders and Eikelenboom, 1987). Moorhead et al. (1997) also observed that
contamination introduced by trimming and conveying unwrapped and bagged primals is similar and of minor
importance, compared to that introduced during the boning operation.
Transfer and redistribution of bacteria during the cutting and boning operations are expected to be adequately
controlled by prerequisite programmes (i.e. effective cleaning procedures for equipment, good boning
techniques and personnel hygiene).
3. Chill storage and aging of vacuum packed cuts
A rapidly increasing practice in New Zealand is to store and distribute chilled, vacuum packed primal cuts.
After primary cooling, vacuum packed primal cuts are further cooled and held at lower temperatures (-1.5 to
+1°C). Vacuum packaging and low temperature storage results in a longer storage life due to a change in the
microflora on the meat. Primal cuts that are to be aged are generally held at these low temperatures for at
least 14 days. None of the organisms pathogenic to humans will grow at -1.5 to +1°C, but Yersinia enterolitica
can proliferate at a slightly higher temperature of +2.5°C (Petersen et al., 1991).
No special hazards are associated with vacuum packaging. The lactic acid bacteria that normally develop are
harmless, and the conditions of relatively low pH and low temperature are unfavourable to recognised
pathogens (ICMSF, 1980).
4. Freezing
The extensive research carried out by MIRINZ on microbial growth at sub-freezing temperatures clearly
indicates that meat or meat products stored at product temperatures below -8°C will not support any microbial
growth (Winger, 1984). However, if present, some pathogens will survive freezing temperatures.
The different pathogens that could be present on meat and meat products prior to freezing show different
sensitivities to freeze damage. Freezing causes damage to Salmonella, but it does not guarantee its
destruction in food. Salmonella have been detected in products that have been stored frozen for years
(ICMSF, 1996). Staphylococci are relatively resistant to freezing temperatures. Vegetative cells of C.
perfringens are very sensitive to freezing, but its spores are highly resistant to cold. E. coli survives well in
frozen food. Little change was observed in number of E. coli O157:H7 in beef patties during 9 months storage
at -20°C (Doyle and Schoeni, 1984). It is therefore important that meat and meat products are within
acceptable microbiological levels prior to freezing.

23 March 2017
7.12 References
Angelotti, R., Foter, M.J. & Lewis, K.H. (1961) Time-temperature effects on salmonellae and staphylococci in
foods. Amer. J. Public Health 51: 76-88.
Archibald, R.D., Mahoney, T., Swan, J.E., List, D.J., Hayton, S., Sanders, M. & Dingwall, B.C. (1993)
Opportunities for New Zealand manufacturing meat in the USA. Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 909.
Archibald, R.D., Swan, J.E., Mahoney, T. & List, D.J. (1995) Intermediate meat products concept: final report.
Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 946.
Armitage, N.H. (1997) Use of predictive microbiology in meat hygiene regulatory activity. Int. J. Food
Microbiol. 36: 103-109
Armitage, N.H. (1997) Comments relating to the proposed regulations prepared on behalf of the New Zealand
Government and the New Zealand Meat Industry. Ministry of Agriculture, Wellington, New Zealand.
Bell, R.G. & Armitage, N.H. (1995) Slaughter hygiene assessment - the selection of a microbial indicator. In
Pathogen reduction; hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems. NZ Comment on USDA
Food Safety and Inspection Service Proposed Rule, 28 June 1995. Ministry of Agriculture, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Blackmore, D.K. & Humble, M.W. (1987) Zoonoses in New Zealand. Publication No. 112. Veterinary
Continuing Education, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Doyle, M.P. (1991) Escherichia coli O157:H7 and its significance in foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 12: 289-301.
Doyle, M.P. & Schoeni, J.L. (1984) Survival and growth characteristics of Escherichia coli associated with
hemorrhagic colitis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 48: 855-856.
Dubey, J.P., Kotula, A.W., Sharar, A., Andrews, C.D., & Lindsay, D.S. (1990) Effect of high temperature on
infectivity of Toxoplasma gondii cysts in pork. J. Parasitol. 76: 201-204.
Dubey, J.P. & Thulliez, P. (1993) Persistence of tissue cysts in edible tissues of cattle fed Toxoplasma gondii
oocysts. Am. J. Vet. Res. 54: 270- 273.
Farrell, G.M. and Upton, M.E. (1978) The effect of low temperature on the growth and survival of
Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium when inoculated onto bacon. J. Food Technol. 13: 15-
23.
Fung, D.Y.C., Kastner, C.L., Lee, C.Y., Hunt, M.C., Dikeman, M.E., and Kropf, D.H. (1981) Initial chilling rate
effects on bacterial growth on hot boned beef. J. Food Prot. 44: 539-544.
Gilbert, K.V. & Davey, C.L. (1976) Carcass electrical stimulation and early boning of beef. N.Z. J. Agric. Res.
19: 429-434.
Gilbert, K.V., Davey, C.L. & Newton, K.G. (1976) Electrical stimulation and the hot boning of beef. N.Z. J.
Agric. Res. 20: 139-143.
Gill, C.O. (1993) Assessment of the hygienic efficiencies of processes for cooling meat at slaughtering plants.
Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Tech. Bull. 1993-10E.
Gill, C.O., Phillips, D.M., Loeffen, M.P.F. & Bishop, C. (1985) A computer program for evaluating the hygienic
efficiency of meat processing procedures from product temperature history data. Proc. 34th International
Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Pp. 531-532.
Gill, C.O., Harrison, J.C.L. & Phillips, D.M. (1991a) Use of a temperature function integration technique to
assess the hygienic adequacy of a beef carcass cooling process. Food Microbiol. 8: 83-94.
Gill, C.O., Jones, S.D.M. & Tong, A.K.W. (1991b) Application of a temperature function integration technique
to assess the hygienic adequacy of a process for spray chilling beef carcasses. J. Food Prot. 54: 731-736.
Gill, C.O. and Jones, S.D.M. (1992) Evaluation of a commercial process for collection and cooling of beef
offals by a temperature function integration technique. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 15: 131-143.

23 March 2017
Goepfert, J.M. & Kim, H.U. (1975) Behaviour of selected food-borne pathogens in raw ground beef. J. Milk
Food Technol. 38: 449-452.
Goldsmid, J.M. & Speare, R. (1997) Chapter 22: The parasitology of foods. In Foodborne Microorganisms of
Gunn, A. (1966) Intestinal perforation due to swallowed fish or meat bone. Lancet ii: 125-128.
Herbert, L.S. & Smith, M.G. (1980) Hot boning of meat: refrigeration requirements to meet microbiological
demands. CSIRO Food Research Group 40: 65-70.
Hilwig, R.W., Cramer, J.D. & Forsyth, K.S. (1978) Freezing times and temperatures required to kill cysticerci
of Taenia saginata in beef. Vet. Parasitol. 4: 215-219.
ICMSF (1980) Chapter 15: Meats and meat products. In Microbial Ecology of Foods. Vol. II:
Food Commodities. The International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) of the
International Union of Biological Societies. Academic Press, New York.
ICMSF (1996) Chapter 14: Salmonellae. In Microorganisms in Foods 5: Characteristics of
Microbial Pathogens. The International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) of
the International Union of Biological Societies. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
IS No.6. (1997) Industry Standard No. 6: Processing of Edible Product. The New Zealand Meat Industry
Hygiene Council, Wellington, New Zealand.
Jacob, L. (1973) New knowledge of Toxoplasma and toxoplasmosis. Adv. Parasitol. 11: 631669.
Jones, R.J. (1993) The establishment of provisional quality assurance guidelines for assessing the hygienic
adequacy of the lamb carcass cooling process. N.Z. Vet. J. 41: 105-110.
Jones, R. (1995) Growth of mesophilic pathogens at 4.4EC and 7EC and way point temperatures. In
Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems. Comment on USDA Food
Safety and Inspection Service Proposed Rule, 28 June 1995. Ministry of Agriculture, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Jones, R.J. (1996) Establishment of provisional quality assurance guidelines for assessing the hygienic
adequacy of beef side cooling regimes. Meat Sci. 43: 345-349.
Kim, C.W. (1997) Chapter 25: Helminths in meat. In Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers. (ed.
Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press, Washington D.C.
Kotula, A.W. (1981) Microbiology of hot boned and electrostimulated meat. J. Food Prot. 44: 545-549.
Kotula, A.W., Emswiller-Rose, B.S. & Berry, B.W. (1987) Microbial counts of selected hot boned primals and
ground beef. J. Food Prot. 50: 915-919.
Kotula, A.W., Dubey, J.P., Skarar, A.K., Andrews, C.D., Shen, S.K. & Lindsay, D.S. (1991) Effect of freezing
on infectivity of Toxoplasma gondii tissue cysts in pork. J. Food Prot. 54: 687690.
Lee, C.Y., Fung, D.Y.C. & Kastner, C.L. (1985) Computer-assisted identification of microflora on hot boned
and conventionally processed beef: effect of moderate and slow chilling rate. J. Food Sci. 50: 553-567.
Mackey, B.M., Roberts, T.A., Mansfield, J. & Farkas, G. (1980) Growth of Salmonella on chilled meat. J.
Hygiene, Cambridge 85:115-124.
Michener, H.D. and Elliott, R.P. (1964) Minimum growth temperatures for food-poisoning, faecal-indicator, and
psychrophilic microorganisms. Adv. Food Res. 13, 349-401.
MIRINZ Bulletin (1973) Bone-taint: cause and prevention. Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 335.
Moorhead, S.M., Bell, R.G. & Chrystall, B.B. (1997) Influence of boning procedures on the microbial
contamination of beef primal cuts. Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 975.
Newton, K.G., Nottingham, P.M. & Harrison, J.C.L. (1975) Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 452.

23 March 2017
Newton, K.G., Harrison, J.C.L. & Wauters, A.M. (1978) Sources of psychrotrophic bacteria on meat at the
abattoir. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 45: 75-82.
Oblinger, J.L. (1983) Microbiology of hot boned beef. Food Technol. May: 86-94.
Palumbo, S.A. (1986) Is refrigeration enough to restrain food borne pathogens? J. Food Prot. 49: 1003-1009.
Petersen, G.V., Madie, P, & Blackmore, D.K. (1991) Preservation of meat. In Veterinary Aspects of Meat
Quality. Veterinary Continuing Education, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. pp. 175-217.
Reichel, M.P., Phillips, D.M., Jones, R. & Gill, C.O. (1991) Assessment of the hygienic adequacy of a
commercial hot boning process for beef by a temperature function integartion technique. Int. J. Food
Microbiol. 14: 27-42.
Rhodehamel, E.J. (1992) Chapter 3: Overview of biological, chemical, and physical hazards. In HACCP
Principles and Applications. (ed. Pierson, M.D. & Corlett, D.A.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Shaw, M.K., Marr, A.G. & Ingraham, J.L. (1971) Determination of the minimal temperature for growth of
Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 105: 683-684.
Sheridan, J.J., Lynch, B. & Harrington, D. (1992) The effect of boning and plant cleaning on the contamination
of beef cuts in a commercial boning hall. Meat Sci. 32: 185-194.
Smith, M.G. (1985) The generation time, lag time, and minimum temperature of growth of coliform organisms
on meat, and the implications for codes of practice in abattoirs. J. Hygiene, Cambridge 94: 289-300.
Smulders, F.J.M. & Eikelenboom, G. (1987) Accelerated meat processing: microbiological aspects. In
Accelerated Processing of Meat. (ed. Romita, A., Valin, C. & Taylor, A.A.) Elsevier, London. pp. 79-93.
Speer, C.A. Chapter 27: Protozoan parasites acquired from food and water. In Food Microbiology:
Fundamentals and Frontiers. (ed. Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press, Washington D.C.
Van der Logt, P.B., Hathaway, S.C & Vose, D.J. (1997) Risk assessment model for human infection with the
cestode Taenia saginata. J. Food Prot. 60: 1110-1119.
West, R.L., Berry, B.W., Smith, G.C., Carpenter, Z.L. & Hoke, K.E. (1972) Microbial studies in a beef
distribution centre. J. Anim. Sci. 35: 209-210.
Widders, P.R., Coates, K.J., Warner, S., Beattie, J.C., Morgan, I.R. & Kickey, M.W. (1995) Controlling
microbial contamination on beef and lamb meat during processing. Aus. Vet. J. 72: 208-211.
Wilks, C.R. & Humble, M.W. (1997) Zoonoses in New Zealand: A Combined Veterinary and Medical
Perspective. Publication No. 178. Veterinary Continuing Education, Massey University, Palmerston North,
New Zealand.
Winger, R.J. (1984) Storage life and eating-related quality of New Zealand frozen lamb: A compendium of
irrepressible longevity. In Thermal Processing and Quality of Foods. (ed. Zeuthen, P., Cheftel, J.C., Eriksson,
C., Jul, M., Leniger, H., Linko, P., Varela, G. & Vos, G. ). Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London. pp.
541-552.

23 March 2017
8 Generic HACCP Plan for the Manufacture of Raw Beef

Patties
Previously Appendix X.4

 sanitation and cleanup procedures for edible areas and food contact surfaces (preoperational and
operational);
 hygienic processing (processing techniques and procedures, damaged carton procedure, dropped
meat);
 rework procedures;
 supplier quality assurance (ingredient specifications, supplier audits, certifications, product testing);
 product testing procedures;
 training;
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;
 handling and disposition of detained and nonconforming products;
 recall procedures.

Product: Raw beef patties
Process: Processing of raw beef patties from receiving raw materials and other inputs to
loadout of packaged frozen products


1 Product name(s) Frozen raw beef patties
2 Important product characteristics Product meeting company and regulatory specifications for
sensory and microbiological quality, foreign objects,
temperature and packaging

23 March 2017

(a) By a further processor or retailer (a) Cooked in food service outlets
(b) By the consumer (b) Cooked
(a) Export market
(b) Local market
9 Special distribution controls required Refrigerated distribution as per company/regulatory
specification

 To ensure that meat and non-meat ingredients are in compliance with agreed specifications, and that
meat is sourced from suppliers that have an effective HACCP plan which achieves specified
microbiological and chemical residue targets.
 To minimise the transfer of microbiological hazards to the product, and their redistribution, so specific
microbiological targets are met.
 To minimise the growth of pathogens on the product, by the use of an effective refrigeration system, so
specific microbiological targets are met.
 To remove foreign objects so specific targets are met.

Product names Frozen beef patties

Raw Material
 Beef cuts/trimmings 1  Slaughtered, dressed and processed under a HACCP
plan.
Other Inputs
 Non-meat ingredients, e.g. salt, spices1  As per written company specifications and Australia
New Zealand Food Standards Code requirements
 Food contact packaging materials 2  Suitable for use as food contact materials.
1
These inputs and possible hazards must be addressed by a prerequisite programme/SSOP, or be specifically
considered during hazard identification in this HACCP plan.

23 March 2017
2
Premises that allow rework of products must clearly reflect this practice in the process flow.
The impact of rework at the relevant steps must be considered during hazard analysis and CCP
determination. Strict compliance to documented rework procedures must be observed.
Process Manufacture of raw beef patties

Frozen and chilled  15. Receiving meat
beef cuts/trimmings, 
and non-meat 16. Chilled or frozen
ingredients storage of meat

17. Tempering

18. Weighing 1a. Receiving non-meat
 ingredients
19. Decartoning 
 2a. Storage
20. Pre-grinding 
 3a. Weighing
21. Mixing 

22. Final grinding

23. Forming

24. Perforation

25. Freezing

26. Metal detection

Packaging materials  27. Packaging

28. Labelling and
weighing

29. Storage of frozen
products

30. Loadout  Frozen meat
patties

23 March 2017

Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

23 March 2017

Table 5A: Hazard identification for meat and non-meat ingredients1
Raw material Biological hazard Chemical hazard Physical hazard3
Meat ingredients2
Packed beef (frozen B1 – Enteric pathogens C13 – Unidentified chemical P1 – Bone
and tempered) associated with contamination residues, e.g. anthelmintics, P1 – Metal
from faeces, ingesta, hides, antibiotics, environmental
e.g. Salmonella spp., E. coli contaminants.
O157:H7, Campylobacter
jejuni, Clostridium spp.
Non-meat ingredients
Food grade salt None None None
Spices B2 – Spore forming Organisms C23 – Chemical residues, e.g. None
(decontaminated)4 e.g. Bacillus cereus, herbicides, pesticides,
Clostridium spp. fumigant
1
The following codes have been used in this generic HACCP plan:
B - Biological B1 – Microbiological hazards associated with meat ingredients

B2 – Microbiological hazards associated with non-meat ingredients
B4 – Microbiological hazards associated with contamination due to a process step requirement
not being met (sporadic occurrence)
C - Chemical C1 – Chemical hazards associated with meat ingredients
C2 – Chemical hazards associated with non-meat ingredients
C4 – Chemical hazards associated with contamination due to a process step requirement not
P - Physical P1 – Physical hazards associated with meat ingredients
P2 – Physical hazards associated with non-meat ingredients
occurrence)
2
Hazards listed for meat are those that have been identified in the Section 7 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and
Boning of Beef as food safety hazards that may be reasonably associated with beef cuts and trimmings. Note that new
codes have been used in this generic plan. Biological hazards associated with beef are discussed in Sections 6.14.1 and
6.14.2 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle.
3
If a supplier can give an assurance that there are adequate controls for chemical hazards in their HACCP plan (e.g. by
providing producers’ or manufacturers’ guarantees whereby compliance can be verified under the SQA programme),
then these hazards need not appear in this raw material hazard identification.
4
Powdered spices used in commercial processing of beef patties are generally decontaminated to reduce
microbiological contaminants. Included in their specifications is that they are free from foreign objects. Compliance to
these specifications should be verified under the SQA programme.

23 March 2017
Process Inputs iii) Process step Q1. Could the hazard be present in or on Q2. Is there a control Q3. Is there a control CCP
iv) Potential step? would prevent previous step that would
1a. Receiving Salt None

non-meat
Spices B2. Spore forming No
ingredients
organisms
C2. Chemical No
residues
2a. Storage Salt None
of non-meat
ingredients
organisms
C2. Chemical No
residues
3a. Weighing Salt None
of non-meat
ingredients
organisms
(To step 7) C2. Chemical No
residues
1. Receiving Beef cuts/ B1. Enteric No
meat trimmings pathogens
C1. Chemical No
residues
P1. Bone Yes Refer to Section 8.11.4 No No
2. Chilled/ Beef cuts/ B1. Enteric No
frozen trimmings pathogens

23 March 2017
storage of C1. Chemical No

meat residues
P1. Metal Yes Refer to Section 8.11.4 No No
3. Tempering Beef cuts/ B1. Enteric No
C1. Chemical No
residues
4. Weighing Beef cuts/ B1. Enteric No
C1. Chemical No
residues
5. Beef cuts/ B1. Enteric No
Decartoning trimmings pathogens
C1. Chemical No
residues

23 March 2017
6. Beef cuts/ B1. Enteric (ii) Transfer and No

Pregrinding trimmings pathogens redistribution
of meat
C1. Chemical No
residues
(i) P4. Metal Yes Refer to Section 8.11.6 No No
7. Mixing Ground beef B1. Enteric No
and non-meat pathogens
ingredients
B2. Spore forming No
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
P1/P4. Metal Yes Refer to Section 8.11.4 and 8.11.6 No No
8. Final Mixture B1. Enteric No
grinding pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
P1. Bone Yes Refer to Section 8.11.4 Yes – bone eliminator. No 1
Refer to Section 8.11.6

23 March 2017

(i) P4. Metal Yes Refer to Section 8.11.6 No No
9. Forming Mixture B1. Enteric No
pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
10. Patties B1. Enteric No
Perforation pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
11. Freezing Patties B1. Enteric No
pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues

23 March 2017
12. Metal Frozen B1. Enteric No

detection patties pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
P1/P4. Metal Yes Refer to Section 8.11.4 and 8.11.6 Yes – metal detector. Refer No 2
to Section 8.11.6
13. Frozen B1. Enteric No
Packaging patties pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
Packaging None
material
14. Labelling Packed B1. Enteric No
and weighing frozen patties pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
Packed B1. Enteric No
frozen patties pathogens

23 March 2017
15. Storage B2. Spore forming No

of frozen organisms
product
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
16. Loadout Packed B1. Enteric No
frozen patties pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
1
2
Unacceptable – as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience) associated with achieving the FSOs established for the process. In the determination of
unacceptability, hazards should be considered in terms
– level
– frequency

23 March 2017

FSO1: To ensure that meat and non-meat ingredients are in compliance with agreed specifications, and that
meat is sourced from suppliers that have an effective HACCP plan that achieves specified microbiological and
chemical residue targets.
FSO2: To minimise the transfer of microbiological hazards to the product, and their redistribution, so specific
microbiological targets are met.
FSO3: To minimise the growth of pathogens in the product so specific microbiological targets are met.
FSO4: To prevent and/or remove foreign objects from the product (e.g. bone pieces, metal) so specific targets
are met.


Refer to Sections 5.9 to 5.13 Template for Further Processing of Meat and Meat Products for detailed
requirements.
shown in this table.

achieve identified food safety objectives (FSO). Identified CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control
FSO. Some FSOs may be partially or wholly dependent on prerequisite programmes rather than the HACCP
plan itself.
FSO1: To ensure that meat and non-meat ingredients are in compliance with agreed specifications,
and that meat is sourced from suppliers that have an effective HACCP plan that achieves specified
microbiological and chemical residue targets.
FSO1 is expected to be primarily achieved by implementing an effective Supplier Quality Assurance

programme. Supplier compliance to agreed specifications may be verified by testing meat/non-meat
ingredients (e.g. microbiological analysis), reviewing suppliers’ processing data and inspection of ingredients
at receiving. Reviews of incoming material records and supplier HACCP plan audits could be used to validate
that meat is sourced from preferred suppliers that have an effective HACCP plan.

23 March 2017
FSO2: To minimise the transfer of microbiological hazards to the product, and their redistribution, so
specific microbiological targets are met.
FSO2 is expected to be achieved by effective prerequisite programmes (e.g. sanitation and cleanup
procedures, personal hygiene, hygienic processing, rework procedures). Prerequisite programmes should be
validated in accordance with the requirements in IS 8. Microbiological testing of products may also be used to
validate this FSO.
FSO3: To minimise the growth of pathogens in the product so specific microbiological targets are
met.
FSO3 is expected to be addressed by an effective prerequisite programme on refrigeration management

which should be validated in accordance with the requirements in IS 6 and IS 8. Microbiological testing of
products may also be used to validate this FSO.
FSO4: To prevent and/or remove foreign objects from the product (i.e. bone pieces, metal) so specific
targets are met.
FSO4 is expected to be achieved by the removal of bone chips at CCP1 (final grinding), the removal of metal
objects at CCP2 (metal detection), and effective prerequisite programmes (e.g. the SQA programme, repairs
and maintenance, personal hygiene and hygienic processing).
The performance of the metal detector to consistently detect and reject specified metal objects should be
evaluated against the target set for the FSO. It is important to take into consideration the types of metal likely
to occur in the product, the capability of the machine, and the characteristics of the product. The processor will
need to establish a detailed test methodology for checking the performance of the detector. This should
include specifying how the test piece is mounted and passed through the search head with or without product
being present, examination procedure for reject material, frequency and interval for testing.
The effectiveness of the bone eliminator should be evaluated against the target set for the FSO.
A method for the analysis of bone chips in meat mixtures is mentioned in Section 8.11.6.
Prerequisite programmes should be validated in accordance with the requirements in IS 8.
product testing programmes.
8.10.3 Revalidation
A revalidation of the HACCP plan is required, whenever changes are made (e.g. changes to premises,
product, process, intended use of the product) or process failure that may compromise product safety occurs

23 March 2017
Table 6: HACCP plan summary spreadsheet for the manufacture of raw beef patties
Process step Hazard ID CCP Critical limits Monitoring Corrective actions1 Verification HACCP records3
no. procedures/tools (consider procedures2
1. Final Bone pieces 1 Bone eliminator functioning as Operator to visually check (a) Stop grinding and notify  FSO validation  Validation record
grinding per specifications performance of bone supervisor.  Product testing for  Daily monitoring record
eliminator at predetermined (b) Retain affected ground bone chips  Product testing records
Refer to Section 8.11.6 frequency. meat until cleared by  Calibration of bone  Corrective action report
Supervisor. eliminator  Calibration report
(c) Disassemble and clean  Internal audit  Internal audit report
bone eliminator and/or  Extrinsic audit (eg  Extrinsic audit report
correct setting of bone regulator, client)  Customer complaints
eliminator  Customer file
complaints  HACCP review record
 HACCP review
12. Metal Metal 2 Metal detector functioning as Daily calibration checks of (a) Hold products produced  FSO validation  Validation record
detection per specifications. detector against test pieces since last satisfactory  Calibration of metal  Daily monitoring record
at predetermined frequency. check of the metal detector  Calibration report
Product characteristics (e.g. detector.  Internal audit  Corrective action report
temperature) as per Examination of all rejected (a) Correct metal detector or  Extrinsic audit (eg  Internal audit report
specifications for which products product characteristics regulator, client)  Extrinsic audit report
detector sensitivity has been affecting machine  Customer  Customer complaints
adjusted. sensitivity. complaints file
(b) Repass the product  HACCP review  HACCP review record
Refer to Section 8.11.6 through functioning
detector.
(c) Hold any noncomplying
product for further analysis.
(d) Identify source of metal
and take preventive action.
1
2
Verification procedures apply to all aspects of the HACCP plan.
3
HACCP records apply to all aspects of the HACCP plan. Refer to IS 8, Section 4 regarding requirements for documentation and record keeping.

23 March 2017

The processes covered by the Generic HACCP Plan for the Manufacture of Raw Beef Patties continue on
from where cooling and boning end. The raw material hazard identification for this plan is based on the
assumption that the beef was processed under a HACCP plan which covers slaughter and dressing, and
cooling and boning. Hazards identified in Section 7 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and Boning of Beef as
those that may be reasonably associated with beef cuts and trimmings are carried through to the manufacture
of beef patties.
8.11.1 Foodborne Illness Associated With Ground Beef Products
Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium perfringens are the main aetiological agents associated
with foodborne illness attributed to ground meat, including hamburger meat (Varnam and Sutherland, 1995).
In recent years, E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef products, hamburger in particular, have been implicated in a
number of outbreaks of human illness in several countries (Doyle et al., 1997).
Twenty-five percent of beef-related foodborne outbreaks in the USA, from 1968 to 1977, were attributed to
ground beef products (Bryan, 1980), whereas 21% of beef-related incidents of foodborne illness in Canada in
1983 were attributed to hamburger (Todd, 1989). In New Zealand, there is no evidence that ground beef or
beef patties is a common cause of illness.
Beef patties are usually cooked at, or shortly before, the point of consumption. Foodborne illness associated
with beef patty consumption is therefore only likely to occur as a result of conscious raw consumption,
undercooking or contamination of the cooked product.
Meat
Enteric pathogens, such as Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni and Clostridium spp. are
the biological hazards of major food safety concern that may be present on beef cuts and trimmings, the raw
material commonly used in the manufacture of beef patties.
has not been quantified and is considered by Gill (1993) to be insignificant.
Biological hazards associated with the consumption of beef patties are briefly discussed below. Refer to
Section 6.14.2 Generic HACCP Plan for the Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle for more details on these
biological hazards.
Salmonella spp.
Salmonella spp. is the primary bacterial aetiological agent responsible for beef-related foodborne outbreaks in
the USA and Canada (Bryan, 1980; Todd, 1989; Bean and Griffin, 1990). Examples of beef products that
have been implicated in outbreaks are roast beef, jerky and ground beef. Raw hamburger meat has been
identified as a vehicle for outbreaks of human salmonellosis in the United States (Fontaine et al., 1978; Bryan,
1980). Contamination of the raw beef combined with improper food handling practices were found to be
important factors in a substantial proportion of the Salmonella cases (Bryan, 1980).
E. coli O157:H7

23 March 2017
Since then, several beef-related outbreaks caused by E. coli O157:H7 have been reported in other countries,
including the USA (Bean et al., 1990; Tarr, 1994), Canada and the UK (Chapman et al., 1993). The principal
vehicle implicated in outbreaks has been ground beef and evidence suggests that in most instances the meat
was undercooked (Doyle, 1991; Doyle et al., 1997). One of the notable outbreaks, affecting 16 people in the
USA in July 1997, resulted in the recall of 25 million pounds of hamburger meat. Evidence suggests that the
pathogen came from any one of 10 slaughterhouses that supplied the raw material to the manufacturing plant.
E. coli O157:H7 infection was first identified in New Zealand in 1993. Between then to the end of June 1998,
there have been a total of 61 reported cases of infection by the pathogen (ESR, 1998). A source of infection
has not been reported for any of these cases.
Campylobacter
In New Zealand, the most significant factors associated with cases of campylobacteriosis are the consumption
of raw or undercooked foods (notably poultry, but also unpasteurised dairy products) and the consumption of
untreated drinking water (ESR, 1996). Campylobacter is far less frequently associated with red meat. This
appears to be due to the lower carriage rate of mammals compared to birds and the fact that the bacteria
appear to die off on the dry carcass surface (Hasell, 1994). Freezing also significantly reduces the number of
viable organisms (Hasell, 1994). There has been one reported outbreak associated with undercooked
hamburger meat in the Netherlands (Blaser et al., 1983).
A survey of 27 retail outlets in New Zealand showed that campylobacter was not detected in 50 samples of
commercially ground beef obtained over a period of two months (Gill and Harris, 1984). Failure to detect C.
jejuni in commercial ground meat was expected based on the low incidence and degree of Campylobacter
contamination of red meat carcasses. Freezing to -18°C for 7 days reduced numbers of C. jejuni in artificially
contaminated hamburgers by one log cycle. Minimal cooking, even when meat at the centre of hamburgers
remained raw, rapidly eliminated the organism. The absence of campylobacter in retail samples of ground
beef and the minimal cooking requirements for the destruction of the organism led Gill and Harris (1984) to
conclude that under New Zealand conditions, ground meat dishes are unlikely vectors for human
Campylobacter enteritis.
Staphylococcal food poisoning results from the ingestion of food containing the enterotoxin produced by
certain strains of Staphylococcus aureus. The organism competes poorly with other bacteria and thus seldom
causes food poisoning in raw meat products (ICMSF, 1996). Foodborne illness due to S. aureus enterotoxin is
primarily a result of contamination by food handling personnel and is generally associated with temperature
abuse of cooked products (Bryan, 1980; Bergdoll, 1989). Animal strains of S. aureus have rarely been
associated with outbreaks of staphylococcal food poisoning in man (Wilks and Humble, 1997).
There is little manual handling of product during semi-automated, large scale production of beef patties.
Product is also kept at low temperatures (< 3°C) during the whole process. The presence of unacceptable
levels of S. aureus in frozen raw beef patties is therefore likely to be due to contaminated incoming raw
material rather than from contamination during the manufacturing process.
Spices
Spices are not major contributors to foodborne disease; however, they occasionally contain bacteria that can
cause foodborne infections (ICMSF, 1998).
Spore-forming organisms that are capable of causing gastroenteritis when ingested in large populations are
found in spices, but usually in small populations. Out of 110 of various spices tested for prevalence and levels
of Bacillus cereus, the organism was found in 53% of the samples (Powers et al., 1976). A recent survey on
several spices found B. cereus in all samples at levels of 1 × 102 to 1 × 106 cfu/g (Giffel et al., 1996). A

23 March 2017
relatively high incidence of Clostridium perfringens has also been found in several spices (Powers et al.,
1975).
Spices have also been implicated in several outbreaks of salmonellosis (ICMSF, 1998). The New Zealand
microbiological reference criteria for Salmonella in herbs and spices (Ministry of Health, 1995) is zero in 25g.
Commercial suppliers of treated spices in New Zealand normally provide a guarantee that their products meet
this criteria.
As bacterial spores may survive cooking temperatures and will grow in many foods at temperatures of 3-
50°C, spices harbouring these spores must be considered as a potential health hazard if the foods in which
the spices are added are not properly prepared and handled (ICMSF, 1998). Under normal operations of beef
patty manufacture and GMP, where the temperature of the product is unlikely to rise above 3°C, bacterial
spores are unable to grow and form toxins.
If the introduction of pathogens from spices is of concern, then the use of spices that have been treated to
reduce microbiological levels may be advisable. The effectiveness of decontamination methods such as
fumigation or irradiation is dependent on the initial microbial load of the spices and the treatment parameters.
Alternatively, the use of essential oils and oleoresin can avoid spices being a source of microbial
contamination.
The above points stress the importance of sourcing spices from preferred suppliers, setting of correct quality
specifications and managing the procurement of spices under an effective Supplier Quality Assurance (SQA)
programme.
Meat
Chemical hazards that could be present in beef and meat products include agricultural chemicals (i.e.
pesticides, herbicides, veterinary drugs) and environmental contaminants (i.e. heavy metals,
organochlorines). MPI maintains a National Residue Testing programme that monitors the residue status of
Chemical hazards associated with identified chemical residues (e.g. suspect lines) are addressed in Section 6
Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing for Cattle. Carcasses and products from chemically suspect
animals are sampled and detained according to MPI Specifications. Suspect products are stored separately
until their disposition is determined by the regulator.
contaminants) are addressed outside the HACCP plan, under the National Residue Testing programme.
Sporadic chemical residues at some level will always occur, but recent results from the programme indicate
that residue levels in meat are generally in compliance with national requirements.
Chemical hazards associated with visible injection site lesions (ISLs) are usually addressed at post mortem
inspection and at cutting and boning. Deep-seated ISLs may remain undetected in some cuts, but this is
expected to be a rare occurrence.
Spices
Chemical residues of pesticides, herbicides and fumigants may be present in herbs and spices. Of particular
concern are residues of methyl bromide, a fumigant used to control insect infestation in spices, and ethylene
oxide, a chemical used for reducing microbial contamination. The SQA programme should ensure that
chemical residue levels in non-meat ingredients are below the maximum permissible levels specified in New
Zealand and importing country regulations

23 March 2017
8.11.4 Physical Hazards & Foreign Objects
Meat
The presence of foreign objects, such as metal and bone pieces, is of major concern to meat manufacturers
(Archibald et al., 1993; 1995) because of their potential for causing injury such as cuts, broken teeth, choking
(Rhodehamel, 1992), and intestinal perforation (Gunn, 1966).
Manufacturers in Japan, the United States and New Zealand have reported finding metal objects in
manufacturing meat produced in New Zealand. These objects included shotgun pellets, a MPI stamp, knives,
hooks, bolts and nuts. There is agreement among manufacturers that meat suppliers should install a
preventive programme for physical contamination, and a metal detection system to address the metal
hazards.
One major New Zealand manufacturer now insists that their meat suppliers have an effective metal detection
system in place. They claim that their problem with metal contaminants has been greatly reduced since they
instituted this policy.
Although the use of metal detectors in boning premises may greatly reduce metal contaminants in beef cuts
and trimmings, it probably will not completely remove metal objects that would be of concern to patty
manufacturers. This is because metal detectors used in cutting and boning premises are generally set at limits
higher than those used in patty manufacturing plants. Therefore, metal pieces with sizes smaller than the
detection limit of the machine can still be present in beef cuts and trimmings.
Bone chips are a frequent problem in ground beef. According to Sebranek et al. (1989), about 0.1% of raw
meat ingredient weight is likely to be bone or hard particles. These result from normal deboning operations
where knives occasionally scrape or knick bone surfaces and result in bone particles in the meat.
Unfortunately these bone chips are unlikely to be picked up by controls available under a cooling and boning
HACCP plan because of their size, and they are frequently carried through to the finished product. Legal
litigation by consumers concerning dental damage from hard particles in meat is not an unusual event in the
US (Sebranek et al., 1989)
Salt and spices
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code requires that salt shall be free of dirt, and that spices shall
not contain foreign organic and inorganic matter, or any other unsuitable or inferior material. Specifications for
commercially available spices normally include a requirement that they be free from foreign objects.
Powdered spices are generally sieved and sometimes undergo metal detection to remove foreign objects. The
SQA programme should ensure that non-meat ingredients are free from foreign objects which may pose a
food safety hazard.
8.11.5 Supplier Quality Assurance (SQA) Programme
The microbiological quality of patties is largely affected, if not wholly determined, by the microbiological levels
of the manufacturing beef from which the patties have been prepared (Gill et al., 1997). When patties are
manufactured from raw material from multiple suppliers, the microbiological level of the product is probably
determined by the raw material from the supplier having the poorest hygienic performance, i.e. raw material
with satisfactory microbiological levels will not adequately dilute out raw material with unsatisfactory
microbiological levels.
In order to make safe products, it is important that the hazards associated with raw materials are clearly
understood and controlled to acceptable levels. The raw materials should either contain no hazards at
unacceptable levels, or any hazards must be controllable by the process. In the case of raw patty manufacture
where there is no destruction step for microorganisms, manufacturers should place special focus on receiving
raw materials and ingredients from preferred suppliers and having an effective SQA programme in place.

23 March 2017
Some of the elements which form part of an effective SQA programme include having agreed specifications,
auditing suppliers and certificates of analysis (Mortimer and Wallace, 1994). Manufacturing plants should also
have procedures in place for the verification of compliance to agreed specifications, such as physical
inspection and microbiological testing of incoming materials based on statistically valid sampling plans.
8.11.6 Key Process Steps: Hazards and Potential Impact on Existing Hazards
It is assumed that the quality of incoming materials are adequately addressed under the SQA programme.
Therefore, control measures applied during the manufacture of patties are primarily aimed at preventing the
redistribution and uncontrolled growth of mesophilic pathogens in the product; and the prevention and/or
removal of foreign objects to specified targets.
1. Receiving
Beef used for patty manufacture may be chilled, frozen or a combination of both. Large scale patty
manufacture commonly involves the grinding of manufacturing beef from two or more sources for each batch.
Chilled product is usually obtained in bulk bins from premises which are geographically convenient to the
manufacturing plant. Frozen product is usually obtained in New Zealand in 27 kg boxes.
Meat temperature is commonly measured as part of incoming material inspection. A slight increase in
temperature of frozen products during transport and handling prior to receiving, although undesirable, is not
expected to compromise product safety. However, temperature increases in chilled products above 7°C for a
sufficient amount of time may allow mesophilic pathogen growth. Measuring the temperature of chilled beef at
receiving may not be sufficient on its own to indicate whether temperature abuse occurs during transport.
Transit time may also need to be considered. The use of temperature recorders may help in verifying
temperature profiles during transport and this could be made part of the SQA programme.
Aside from temperature measurements, most manufacturing plants also inspect incoming raw materials for
compliance with other agreed specifications such as package integrity, odour and appearance of chilled meat,
age of product, and the presence of foreign objects.
2. Mincing, mixing and forming
Potential impact on existing microorganisms
Grinding is the most common and traditional comminution method for patty making. Meat is usually ground
through a coarse plate (about 8-12 mm), followed by a fine plate (about 2.5-6 mm). Mixing may take place
after grinding or alternatively grinding can be carried out in two stages, with an intermediate mixing stage.
During the grinding process, the temperature of the product tends to rise. For tempered meat, the latent heat
of melting limits temperature rise (Varnam and Sutherland, 1995). Any temperature increase in chilled meat
should not pose a problem because the temperature is immediately brought down during mixing.
Mixing temperature is very important for proper forming and is generally kept at about -3 to 0oC (Mikkelsen,
1993). The required low mixture temperatures are achieved by using frozen meat in the formulations, or
adding ice or CO2 snow to the mixture. Mixing times for patties are very short; just sufficient for the
mechanical action during mixing, sometimes together with NaCl, to bind the product before and after cooking.
Beef patties are quick-frozen immediately after forming and perforation.
Therefore, normal temperature conditions during the manufacture of beef patties do not favour microbial
growth.
Bone chips
Bone chips are a potential problem with all methods of comminuting meat, and some mincers are fitted with
bone removal systems (Varnam and Sutherland, 1995). These exploit differences in the density of bone and

23 March 2017
meat to force the bone into separate channels at the exit plate. Meat temperature should be adequately
controlled to within the range that will allow the bone removal system to function effectively. Several systems
are currently available with varying effectiveness. Consequently, it is useful to be able to determine hard
particle content in a particular mixture. Sebranek et al. (1989) provides a method for the analysis of bone
chips and connective tissue in meat mixtures.
Metal
The presence of metal fragments in meat patties is not an unusual occurrence. These can come from
incoming raw material or can be produced as a result of metal-to-metal contact, especially during grinding or
mixing. Metal parts that can break loose from equipment, such as moving wire mesh belts, can also contribute
to metal contaminants in the finished product.
Preventive measures, such as regular repair and maintenance of equipment and periodic checking of
equipment for damage and missing parts, can help reduce the occurrence of metal objects in the product.
3. Metal detection
Most patty manufacturers, if not all, have metal detectors for 100% inspection of finished products prior to
packaging.
When installing a metal detection system, it is important to take into consideration the types of metal likely to
occur in the product, the capability of the machine, and the characteristics of the product. The limitations of
the detector should be clearly understood and reflected in the food safety objective set for metal objects. The
detection capability of metal detectors is generally influenced by the type, size and shape, and orientation of
the metal, and the characteristics of the product (e.g. moisture content, temperature) (Shapton and Shapton,
1991). Some processors set their critical limits for metal based on the limit of detection of the machine.
The processor will need to establish a detailed test methodology for checking the performance of the metal
detector. This should include specifying how the test piece is mounted and passed through the search head
with or without product being present, examination procedure for reject material, frequency and interval for
calibration and testing.
4. Freezing
The extensive research carried out by MIRINZ on microbial growth at sub-freezing temperatures, clearly
destruction in food. Salmonella has been detected in products that have been stored frozen for years (ICMSF,
1996). Staphylococci are relatively resistant to freezing temperatures. Vegetative cells of C. perfringens are
very sensitive to freezing, but its spores are highly resistant to cold. E. coli survives well in frozen food. Little
change was observed in the numbers of E. coli O157:H7 in beef patties during 9 months storage at -20°C
(Doyle and Schoeni, 1984). It is therefore important that meat products are within acceptable microbiological
levels prior to freezing.
5. Cooking Beef Patties
Although the cooking step is outside the scope of this HACCP plan, a brief discussion is given because of the
major importance of proper cooking in the destruction of pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7, in beef patties.
In the case of any meat product that is not marketed as a ready-to eat product, the food preparer has to use
responsible precautions to ensure that the food is properly and safely prepared.

23 March 2017
The primary method for destroying pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7, in hamburger patties is by cooking
them to a proper internal temperature (Singh et al., 1997). A number of recommendations for cooking beef
patties have been made after disease outbreaks were caused by E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef. During a
large outbreak in 1992-93 in the US, the FDA issued interim advice to cook all parts of hamburgers to 68.3°C.
Later in 1993, the USDA-FSIS issued an order requiring specified cooking times and temperatures for
uncured meat patties (e.g. 66.1°C for 41 s, 68.2°C for 16 s, 69.4°C for 10 s). Advice in the UK is to cook to a
minimum internal temperature of 70°C for 2 minutes, or equivalent (Desmarchelier and Grau, 1997). Factors
which should be considered when establishing cooking time and temperatures include composition of patties
(e.g. amount of fat), cooking method (i.e. equipment, procedure), and patty shape and thickness.
Consumers have been advised that the absence of internal pink colour can be an indicator of thorough
cooking. However, studies have shown that this is not reliable (Van Laack et al., 1996; Warren et al., 1996).
Expressible juice colour is considered to be a more reliable visual indicator of thorough cooking than internal
colour (Warren et al., 1996).
8.12 References
Archibald, R.D., Swan, J.E., Mahoney, T. & List, D.J. (1995) Intermediate meat products concept: final report.
1983-1987. J. Food Prot. 53: 711-728.
Bergdoll, M.S. (1989) Chapter 11: Staphylocccus aureus. In Foodborne Bacterial Pathogens. (ed. Doyle,
M.P.) Marcel Dekker Inc, New York.
Rev. 5: 157-176.
43: 140-150.
source of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 infections in man. Epidemiol. Infect. 111: 439-447.
ESR [Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd., Health] (1996) Surveillance and control notes:
Risk factors for campylobacteriosis identified in the study. N.Z. Public Health Rep. 3: 20.
Verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) infections increasing. N.Z. Public Health Rep. 5: 61.
Desmarchelier, P.M. and Grau, F.H. (1997) Chapter 7: Escherichia coli. In Foodborne Microorganisms of
Doyle, M.P., Zhao, T., Meng, J. & Zhao, S. (1997) Chapter 10: Escherichia coli O157:H7. In Food
Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers (ed. Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press,
Washington D.C.

23 March 2017
Fontaine, R.E., Arnon, S., Martin, W.T., Vernon, T.M., Gangarosa, E.J., Farmer, J.J., Moran, A.B., Silliker,
J.H., & decker, D.L. (1978) Raw hamburger: an interstate common source of human salmonellosis. American
J. Epidemiol. 107: 36- 45.
Food Regulations 1984. Wellington, New Zealand.
Gill, C.O. & Harris, L.M. (1984) Hamburgers and broiler chickens as potential sources of human
Campylobacter Enteritis. J. Food Prot. 47: 96-99.
Gill, C.O., Rahn, K., Sloan, K. & McMullen, L.M. (1997) Assessment of the hygienic performances of
hambuger patty production processes. International J. Food Microbiology 36: 171-178.
Hasell, S.K. (1994) Campylobacteriosis: A Report for the Ministry of Health. Institute of Environmental Science
and Research Ltd., Christchurch, New Zealand.
ICMSF (1996) Chapter 14: Salmonellae. In Microorganisms in Foods 5: Characteristics of Microbial
Pathogens. The International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) of the
International Union of Biological Societies. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
ICMSF (1998) Chapter 7: Spices, dry soups and oriental flavourings. In Microorganisms in Foods 6: Microbial
Ecology of Food Commodities. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods of the
Ministry of Health (1995) Microbiological Reference Criteria for Food. Ministry of Health, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Mortimer, S. & Wallace, C. (1994) Chapter 5: Designing safety into products and processes. In HACCP: A
Practical Approach. Chapman and Hall, London.
Mikkelsen, V.L. (1993) Hamburger patty technology: a literature review. Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No.
932.
Powers, E.M., Lawyer, R. & Masouka, Y. (1975) Microbiology of processed spices. J. Milk Food Technol. 38:
683-687.
Powers, E.M., Latt, T.G. & Brown, T. (1976) Incidence and levels of Bacillus cereus in processed spices. J.
Milk Food Technol. 39: 668-670.
Sebranek, J.G., Beerman, D.H. & Axe, J.B. (1989) Chapter 14: Analysis of meat mixtures for bone chips and
connective tissue. In Meat Science and Processing. Peerage Press, Wisconsin.
Singh, R.P., Pan, Z. & Vijayan, J. (1997) Use of predictive modelling in hamburger cooking. Food Australia 49:
526-531.
Tarr, P.I. (1994) Review of 1993 Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak: Western United States. Dairy, Food &
te Giffel, M.C., Beumer, R.R., Bonestroo, M.M. & Rombouts, F.M. (1996) Incidence of Bacillus cereus and
Bacillus subtilis in foods in the Netherlands.
Todd, E.C.D. (1989) Food and water borne disease in Canada & 1983 annual summary. J. Food Prot. 52:
436-442.
USDA-FSIS. (1993) Heat processing, cooking, cooling, handling and storage requirements for uncured meat
patties. Fed. Reg. 58: 41138-41152.
Van Laack, R.L.J.M., Berry, B.W. & Solomon, M.B. (1996) Variations in internal color of cooked beef patties.
J. Food Sci. 61: 410-414.

23 March 2017
Varnam, A.H. & Sutherland, J.P. (1995) Chapter 3: Uncooked comminuted and re-formed meat products.
Meat and Meat Products: Technology, Chemistry and Microbiology. Chapman and Hall, London.
Warren, K.E., Hunt, M.C. & Kroph, D.H. (1996) Myoglobin oxidative state affects internal cooked color
development in ground beef patties. J. Food Sci. 61: 513-519.
Winger, R.J. (1984) Storage life and eating-related quality of New Zealand frozen lamb: a compendium of
irrepressible longevity. In Thermal Processing and Quality of Foods. (ed. Zeuthen, P., Cheftel, J.C., Eriksson,
C., Jul, M., Leniger, H., Linko, P., Varela, G. & Vos, G. ). Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London. pp.
541-552.

23 March 2017
9 Generic HACCP Plan for the Manufacture of Beef Jerky


operational);
 training;
 hygienic processing (processing techniques and procedures, damaged carton procedure, dropped
meat);
 rework procedures;
 recall procedures;
 supplier quality assurance (ingredient specifications, supplier audits, certifications, product testing);
 handling and storage of incoming raw materials and finished product (food additives/ ingredients,
refrigeration management);
 product testing procedures;
 calibration, installation and maintenance of heat processing equipment and instruments;
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;

Species Bovine
Product: Beef jerky
Process: Processing of beef jerky from receipt of raw materials (meat and non-meat) to
loadout of packed product

23 March 2017


1 Product name(s) Beef jerky
2 Important product characteristics  Shelf stable, packaged, flavoured beef jerky produced
from intact muscle cuts.
 Product meeting company and regulatory specifications for
water activity, sensory and microbiological quality, foreign
objects and packaging.
(a) By a further processor or retailer (a) Not applicable
(b) By the consumer (b) Ready to ear
(a) Export market
(b) Local market
9 Special distribution controls required Handle packages with care

 To minimise microbiological hazards in the product to levels not exceeding specified targets.
 To ensure that chemical hazards in the product do not exceed specified targets.
 To ensure that the product does not contain any food additives at a level that may represent a hazard
to human health.
 To prevent the occurrence of foreign objects in the product to levels not exceeding specific targets

Product names Beef jerky

Raw Material
 Frozen boneless beef cuts  Complies with company, industry and
regulatory requirements

23 March 2017
Other Inputs
 Non-meat ingredients: salt, spices, flavourings (e.g.  As per written company specifications and
soy sauce) and additives (e.g. sodium nitrate)1 Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code
requirements
 Food contact packaging materials 2 (e.g. plastic bags,  Suitable for use as food contact materials.
oxygen scavengers, etc.)
1
2
Processes that allow reuse or recycling of marinade must clearly reflect this practice in the process
flow. The impact of recycling at the relevant steps must be considered during hazard analysis and
CCP determination. Strict compliance to documented recycling or rework procedures must be
observed.
Process Manufacture of beef jerky1

Frozen beef and non-  1. Receipt of meat
meat ingredients 
2. Frozen storage

3. Tempering

4. Weighing 1a. Receipt of non-
 meat ingredients
5. Decartoning 
 2a. Storage
6. Slicing 
 3a. Weighing
7. Marinating & tumbling 

8. Drying

9. Cooling

Packaging materials  10. Packing

11. Storage

12. Dispatch  Beef jerky
1
Various processes may differ as to when the meat is reduced in size, marinated/tumbled, or whether there is an initial
drying or cooking step. Thus, individual premises must customise this generic plan to suit their own product and process

23 March 2017

Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

Table 5A: Hazard identification for meat and non-meat ingredients1
Meat ingredients2
Frozen boneless B1 – Enteric pathogens C13 – Unidentified chemical None
beef associated with contamination residues, e.g. anthelmintics,
from faeces, ingesta, hides, e.g. antibiotics, environmental
Salmonella spp., E. coli contaminants.
O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni,
Clostridium spp.

23 March 2017

Food grade salt None None None
Sugar None None None
Soy sauce None None None
Spices B2 – Spore forming Organisms C23 – Chemical residues, e.g. None
(decontaminated)4 e.g. Bacillus cereus, Clostridium herbicides, pesticides,
spp. fumigant
Sodium nitrite None C2 – Nitrite5 None
1
The following codes have been used in this generic HACCP plan:
B - Biological B1 – Microbiological hazards associated with meat ingredients

B2 – Microbiological hazards associated with non-meat ingredients
C - Chemical C1 – Chemical hazards associated with meat ingredients
C2 – Chemical hazards associated with non-meat ingredients
C4 – Chemical hazards associated with contamination due to a process step requirement not
P – Physical P1 – Physical hazards associated with meat ingredients
P2 – Physical hazards associated with non-meat ingredients
occurrence)
2
Hazards listed for meat are those that have been identified in the Section 7 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and
Boning of Beef as food safety hazards that may be reasonably associated with beef cuts and trimmings. Note that new
codes have been used in this generic plan. Biological hazards associated with beef are discussed in Sections 6.14.1 and
6.14.2 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle.
3
If a supplier can give an assurance that there are adequate controls for chemical hazards in their HACCP plan (e.g. by
providing producers’ or manufacturers’ guarantees whereby compliance can be verified under the SQA programme),
then these hazards need not appear in this raw material hazard identification.
4
Powdered spices used in commercial processing of beef patties are generally decontaminated to reduce
microbiological contaminants. Included in their specifications is that they are free from foreign objects. Compliance to
these specifications should be verified under the SQA programme.
5
This hazard can occur at unacceptable levels when sodium nitrite is used to excess, i.e. the incorrect amount is
weighed out and added to a particular batch of jerky.

23 March 2017
1a. Receipt Salt None

of non-meat
Sugar None
ingredients
Soy sauce None
organisms
C2. Chemical No
residues
Sodium C2. Nitrite No
nitrate
2a. Storage Salt None
of non-meat
Sugar None
ingredients
Soy sauce None
organisms
C2. Chem residues No
Sodium C2. Nitrite No
nitrate
3a. Weighing Salt None
of non-meat
ingredients Sugar None
Soy sauce None

23 March 2017
(To step 7) Spices B2. Spore forming No

organisms
Sodium C2. Nitrite Yes Incorrect amount may cause nitrite Yes – weighing of correct No 1
nitrate poisoning. Refer Section 9.11.3 amount of nitrite per batch
1. Receiving Beef cuts B1. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
meat pathogens organisms in relation to FSO 1 are
likely to be present. Refer Sections
9.11.2 and 9.11.6.
2. Frozen Beef cuts B1. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
storage of pathogens organisms in relation to FSO 1 are
meat likely to be present. Refer Section
9.11.2.
3. Tempering Beef cuts B1. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
9.11.2 and 9.11.6.
4. Weighing Beef cuts B1. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
likely to be present. Refer Section
9.11.2.

23 March 2017
5. De- Beef cuts B1. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No

cartoning pathogens organisms in relation to FSO 1 are
likely to be present. Refer Section
9.11.2.
6. Slicing of Beef cuts B1. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
9.11.2 and 9.11.6.
(ii) Cross No
contamination
7. Marinating Sliced beef & B1. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
& tumbling marinade pathogens organisms in relation to FSO 1 are
9.11.2 and 9.11.6.
(ii) Cross No
contamination;
growth of vegetative
micro-organisms4
B2. Spore forming ii) Cross No
organisms contamination
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
C2. Nitrite No

23 March 2017
8. Drying Sliced B1. Enteric (ii) Destruction of Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- Yes - correct drying No 2
marinated pathogens some vegetative organisms in relation to FSO 1 are schedule
beef pathogens likely to be present. Refer Sections
9.11.2 and 9.11.6.
B2. Spore forming (ii) Growth of some No
organisms pathogens
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
C2. Nitrite No
9. Cooling Beef jerky B1. Enteric No
pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
10. Packing Beef jerky B1. Enteric No
pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
C2. Nitrite No
Packing None
materials

23 March 2017
11. Storage Beef jerky B1. Enteric No

pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
C2. Nitrite No
12. Dispatch Beef jerky B1. Enteric No
pathogens
organisms
C1/C2. Chemical No
residues
C2. Nitrite No
1
Once these hazards have been identified, they may become part of the product hazards at subsequent steps if immediate and complete control of the hazard is not possible.
2
3
Unacceptable – as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience) associated with achieving the FSOs established for the process. In the determination of
– level
– frequency
4
Consideration should be given to the growth of environmental hazards on product at this step, and whether the levels are unacceptable.
5
The C1 and C2 hazards are combined at this step because it is not possible to distinguish whether residues are from the meat or the spices.

23 March 2017

FSO1: To minimise microbiological hazards in the product to levels not exceeding specified targets.
FSO2: To ensure that chemical hazards in the product do not exceed specified targets.
FSO3: To ensure that the product does not contain sodium nitrite at levels exceeding specified targets.


 documentation and record keeping procedures.
Refer to Sections 5.9 to 5.13 Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Further Processing of Meat and
Meat Products for detailed requirements.

achieve each of the identified food safety objectives (FSOs). Critical control points (CCPs) should be
evaluated to ensure that the control measure applied at that particular process step will achieve or contribute
to the achievement of the relevant FSO. Some FSOs may be partially or wholly dependent on prerequisite
programmes rather than the HACCP plan itself.
FSO1 is primarily achieved by adequate control measures at CCP2 (drying). Effective prerequisite
programmes (e.g. sanitation and cleanup procedures, personal hygiene, hygienic processing) will contribute
to the achievement of this FSO. The microbial quality of the raw meat and other ingredients can have a
significant impact on the final microbial level of the product, therefore an effective supplier quality assurance
programme will also contribute to the achievement of this FSO.
Supplier compliance to agreed specifications (e.g. microbiological, chemical, etc) may be verified by testing
meat and non-meat ingredients, reviewing suppliers’ processing data and inspection of ingredients at
receiving. Reviews of incoming material records and suppliers’ HACCP plans or food safety programme
audits could be used to validate that meat and other ingredients are sourced from suppliers that have an
effective HACCP plan (or an equivalent programme).

23 March 2017
The use of microbiological observations is appropriate for evaluating the adequacy of the CCP to achieve the
FSO. This information may be obtained from relevant published scientific literature, in-house historical data,
and/or by gathering new data.
However, measuring water activity could be a more practical and cost-effective means of routinely verifying
the process than microbiological testing if a premises has a water activity meter available.
Scientific evidence from published literature may be used to justify the effectiveness of a control measure
applied at a specific step or steps. The use of this type of scientific information will be a sufficient basis for
validation only if it can clearly be shown that the conditions or variables considered in the scientific study are
applicable to those existing in the process being validated. Considering the variability of commercial drying
processes and parameters (e.g. time, temperature, air velocity, relative humidity, loading, product size and
composition, etc.), it is unlikely that information solely from published literature will be sufficient to fully validate
the process.
The relationship between water activity and the growth and survival of microorganisms is well established
(refer Section 9.11.6 Drying). It is therefore acceptable to use water activity measurements in addition to
initial microbiological testing for evaluating the adequacy of the process to achieve the FSO. The water
activity target should be set at a level that is appropriate for the type of microorganism that is intended to be
controlled. The effectiveness of the drying process can be validated by measuring the water activity of jerky
samples using standardised testing methods. Water activity measurements can also be used for ongoing
verification of the process.
Premises that have previously collected microbiological data may use this historical information for evaluating
CCP2 in relation to the achievement of the FSO. Historical data may be used provided there has been no
significant change in the product and process from the time the data were collected, sampling and the
analytical tests are based on standardised methods and the amount of data available is adequate for
validation.
When published scientific information or historical data is not available or is inadequate, microbiological
validation will involve the collection of new data from the time that the HACCP plan is implemented.
Prerequisite programmes
Prerequisite programmes should be validated in accordance with the requirements in IS 8.
FSO2: To ensure that chemical hazards in the product do not exceed specified targets.
FSO2 is expected to be achieved by an effective supplier quality assurance programme that specifies
chemical residue levels for both meat and non-meat ingredients.
Compliance with agreed specifications may be verified by testing ingredients, and reviewing suppliers’
processing data. Reviews of incoming material records and suppliers’ HACCP plans or food safety
programme audits could be used to validate that meat and other ingredients are sourced from suppliers that
have a HACCP plan (or an equivalent programme) that effectively controls chemical residues.
FSO3: To ensure that the product does not contain sodium nitrite at levels exceeding specified
targets.
FSO3 is expected to be achieved by CCP1 at step 3a (weighing of non-meat ingredients). The control
measure reflects a regulatory requirement in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. It is therefore
expected that the premises will already have historical data to show that procedures in place are adequate to
achieve the regulatory standard and therefore the FSO. Product test results for nitrite content should also be
available to validate this FSO.

23 March 2017
Importing country regulations may have maximum permissible levels for sodium nitrite that differ from the New
Zealand requirement. This should also be taken into account when setting the critical limits for CCP1 and
validating the FSO.
documented procedures. Examples of these activities are internal and extrinsic audits, HACCP review,
calibration and product testing programmes.
9.10.3 Revalidation
product, process, intended use of the product) that could have a significant impact on hazards and their
controls, or when process failure that may compromise product safety occurs

23 March 2017
Table 6: HACCP plan summary spreadsheet for the manufacture of raw beef patties
Process step Hazard ID CCP Critical limits Monitoring Corrective actions1 Verification HACCP records3
no. procedures/tools (consider procedures2
3a. Weighing C2. Nitrite 1  Predetermined amount  Visual check of  Detain product and test  FSO validation  Validation record
of non-meat per batch size that will weighing operation at a for nitrite  Final product  Nitrite monitoring
ingredients result in ≤ 125 ppm of predetermined  Dispose of non- testing for nitrite record
nitrite in final product. frequency conforming product  Internal audit  Corrective action
 Correctly identified batch  Visual check for  Correct procedures  Extrinsic audit report
lots correct identification of and/or train operator to  HACCP review  Product evaluation
batch lots at a prevent reoccurrence records
predetermined  Internal audit report
frequency  Extrinsic audit report
 HACCP review
record
8. Drying B1. Enteric 2  Drying parameters that  Operator to monitor  Correct drying parameter  FSO validation  Validation record
pathogens will achieve a specified relevant drying  Extend drying process  Product testing  Daily monitoring
water activity and/or: parameters (e.g. time, until required water (e.g. micro- record
 A specified water activity temperature, humidity, activity reached biological, water  Product testing
air velocity, dryer  Dispose of non- activity) record
loading, etc) for each conforming product  Calibration of  Calibration report
batch at pre- time/temp/ water  Corrective action
determined frequency activity devices report
and/or:  Internal audit  Internal audit report
 Operator to measure  Extrinsic audit (eg  Extrinsic audit report
water activity for each regulator, client)  HACCP review
batch at pre-  HACCP review record
determined frequency
 Refer to IS 6, Sections
8&9
1
2

23 March 2017
3
HACCP records apply to all aspects of the HACCP plan. Refer to IS 8, Section 4 regarding requirements for documentation and record keeping
Ensure that detailed documentation (and evidence where relevant) exists for the following:
 rationale for critical limits;

 monitoring procedures, including who’s responsible, what monitoring will take place, when or at what frequency it will take place, how it will be done;
 corrective action procedures, including who’s responsible, how control will be restored, what happens to affected product, how prevention of re-occurrence
might be achieved;
 verification procedures, including who’s responsible, what verification consists of, how verification will be done, when and at what frequency ongoing
verification activities will occur, when revalidation is necessary;
 documentation and record keeping.

23 March 2017

The processes covered by the Generic HACCP Plan for the Manufacture of Beef Jerky continue on from the
cooling and boning of beef. The raw material hazard identification for this plan is based on the assumption
that the beef was processed under a HACCP plan which covers slaughter and dressing, and cooling and
boning. Hazards identified in the Section 7 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and Boning of Beef as those that
may be reasonably associated with beef cuts, are carried through to the manufacture of beef jerky.
Jerky is a dried product which is also known as biltong (South Africa), carne seca (Mexico), charqui (South
America), and rou gan (China). It may be produced in a number of forms. The simplest and most basic is
where primal cuts are cut into strips and dried. Variations include salting the meat, producing a type of cured
product, and marinating. The drying process may also include smoking. Jerky is normally dried to a water
activity (aw) of 0.75 to 0.8, or a final water content of 15 to 20%. The USDA has established a
moisture:protein ratio requirement of 0.75 for jerky (USDA, 1983). Some processes use comminuted meat,
but this generic plan is limited to the use of intact muscle cuts.
9.11.1 Foodborne Illness Associated With Dried Meat Products
Dried meats such as jerky are microbiologically stable at ambient temperature because of their low water
activity. However, clostridia, bacilli, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella and other pathogenic bacteria,
originally present on the raw meat or as contaminants during preparation, may survive the drying process
(ICMSF, 1998a). Biltong (van der Riet, 1982) and commercially prepared beef jerky have caused
salmonellosis (CDC, 1967, 1985, 1995). Home-made venison jerky has caused type F botulism (Midura et al.,
1972). Home-prepared venison jerky has also been implicated in an infection of Escherichia coli O157:H7
(Keene et al., 1997).
9.11.2 Biological Hazards Associated with Raw Materials
Meat
Enteric pathogens, such as Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, and Clostridium spp., are
the biological hazards of major food safety concern that may be present on beef cuts, the raw material
commonly used in the manufacture of beef jerky.
has not been quantified and is considered by Gill (1993) to be insignificant.
Biological hazards associated with raw beef are briefly discussed below. Refer to Section 6.14.2 Generic
HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle for more details on these biological hazards.
Salmonella spp.
Salmonella spp. is the primary bacterial aetiological agent responsible for beef-related foodborne outbreaks in
the USA and Canada (Bryan, 1980; Todd, 1989; Bean and Griffin, 1990). Examples of beef products that
have been implicated in outbreaks are roast beef, jerky and ground beef. There have been several outbreaks
of salmonellosis in the USA associated with beef jerky or similar products (CDC, 1967, 1985, 1995).
E. coli O157:H7
Since then, several beef-related outbreaks caused by E. coli O157:H7 have been reported in other countries,
including the USA (Bean et al., 1990; Tarr, 1994), Canada and the UK (Chapman et al., 1993). The principal

23 March 2017
vehicle implicated in outbreaks has been ground beef and evidence suggests that in most instances the meat
was undercooked (Doyle, 1991; Doyle et al., 1997).
No published reports have implicated beef jerky as the source of an outbreak. However, an outbreak of E. coli
O157:H7 infections was traced to home-prepared venison jerky in the USA (Keene et al., 1997).
E. coli O157:H7 infection was first identified in New Zealand in 1993. From 1993 to the end of June 1998,
there have been a total of 61 reported cases of infection by the pathogen (ESR, 1998). A source of infection
has not been reported for any of these cases.
Campylobacter
In New Zealand, the most significant factors associated with cases of campylobacteriosis are the consumption
of raw or undercooked foods (notably poultry, but also unpasteurised dairy products) and the consumption of
untreated drinking water (ESR, 1996). Campylobacter is far less frequently associated with red meat. This
appears to be due to the lower carriage rate of mammals compared to birds and the fact that the bacteria
appear to die off on the dry carcass surface (Hasell, 1994). Freezing also significantly reduces the number of
viable organisms (Hasell, 1994).
There are no reports available that indicate Campylobacter has been associated with beef jerky, and it is also
unlikely to survive the drying process (ICMSF, 1996).
certain strains of Staphylococcus aureus. The organism competes poorly with other bacteria and thus seldom
causes food poisoning in raw meat products (ICMSF, 1996). Foodborne illness due to S. aureus enterotoxin is
primarily a result of contamination by food-handling personnel and is generally associated with temperature
abuse of cooked products (Bryan, 1980; Bergdoll, 1989). Animal strains of S. aureus have rarely been
associated with outbreaks of staphylococcal food poisoning in man (Wilks and Humble, 1997).
Spices
Spices are not major contributors to foodborne disease; however, they occasionally contain bacteria that can
cause foodborne infections (ICMSF, 1998b).
Spore-forming organisms that are capable of causing gastroenteritis when ingested in large populations are
found in spices, but usually in small populations. Bacillus cereus was found in
53% of 110 various spices tested for prevalence and levels of the organism (Powers et al., 1976). A relatively
high incidence of Clostridium perfringens has also been found in several spices (Powers et al., 1975).
Spices have also been implicated in several outbreaks of salmonellosis (ICMSF, 1998b). The New Zealand
microbiological reference criteria for Salmonella in herbs and spices (Ministry of Health, 1995) is zero in 25 g.
Commercial suppliers of treated spices in New Zealand normally provide a guarantee that their products meet
this criteria.
As bacterial spores may survive drying conditions and will grow in many foods at temperatures between 3°C
and 50°C, spices harbouring these spores must be considered as a potential health hazard if the foods in
which the spices are added are not properly prepared and handled (ICMSF, 1998b). Surviving pathogens will
grow in rehydrated product if held at temperatures permitting their development (ICMSF, 1998a).
If the introduction of pathogens from spices is of concern, then the use of spices that have been treated to
reduce microbiological levels may be advisable. The effectiveness of decontamination methods such as

23 March 2017
fumigation or irradiation (currently being discussed for New Zealand) is dependent on the initial microbial load
of the spices and the treatment parameters. Alternatively, the use of essential oils and oleoresin can avoid
spices being a source of microbial contamination.
The above points stress the importance of sourcing spices from preferred suppliers, setting of correct quality
specifications and managing the procurement of spices under an effective supplier quality assurance (SQA)
programme.
Soy sauce
Soy sauce and other similar derivatives are commonly used as flavouring agents for beef jerky in New
Zealand. There have been no reports of illnesses due to enteropathogenic microorganisms associated with
soy sauces (ICMSF, 1998b). Under normal circumstances, pH, water activity (salt content) and the presence
of competing harmless and desirable microorganisms prevent growth of undesirable microbes during and
after the fermentation of soy sauces and thereby ensure preservation during the primary storage in closed
containers. The main control factor is high salt content. Pasteurisation is becoming more widely accepted as a
means of prolonging microbiological stability (ICMSF, 1998b).
Sugar
The refining of sugar destroys pathogenic organisms, if they are present in the raw material (ICMSF, 1998c).
Meat
Chemical hazards that could be present in beef and meat products include agricultural chemicals (e.g.
pesticides, herbicides, veterinary drugs) and environmental contaminants (e.g. heavy metals,
organochlorines). MPI maintains a National Residue Testing programme that monitors the residue status of
Chemical hazards associated with identified chemical residues (e.g. suspect lines) are addressed in Section 6
Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing for Cattle. Carcasses and products from chemically suspect
animals are sampled and detained according to MPI specifications. Suspect products are stored separately
until their disposition is determined by the regulator.
contaminants) are addressed outside the HACCP plan, under the National Residue Testing programme.
Sporadic chemical residues at some level will always occur, but recent results from the programme indicate
that residue levels in meat are generally in compliance with national requirements.
Chemical hazards associated with visible injection site lesions (ISLs) are usually addressed at post mortem
inspection and at cutting and boning. Deep-seated ISLs may remain undetected in some cuts, but this is
expected to be a rare occurrence.
Spices
Chemical residues of pesticides, herbicides and fumigants may be present in herbs and spices. Of particular
concern are residues of methyl bromide, a fumigant used to control insect infestation in spices, and ethylene
oxide, a chemical used for reducing microbial contamination. The SQA programme should ensure that
chemical residue levels in non-meat ingredients are below the maximum permissible levels specified in New
Zealand and importing country regulations.
Nitrite

23 March 2017
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code requires that meat products do not contain more than 125
ppm total nitrite and nitrate. Excessive levels of nitrites can cause difficulty in breathing, and dizziness or
headaches (Hanssen et al., 1994).
Other additives (e.g. sodium erythorbate, MSG) may also be used instead of or in addition to sodium nitrite. It
is important that the presence of hazards is also considered for these additives, and that the levels in the final
product are below the maximum permissible levels specified in New Zealand and importing country
regulations. Some countries also have other specific requirements in relation to additives, e.g. labelling for
MSG.
9.11.4 Physical Hazards — Foreign Objects
Meat
The presence of foreign objects, such as metal and bone pieces, is of major concern to meat manufacturers
(Archibald et al., 1993; 1995) because of their potential for causing injury such as cuts, broken teeth, choking
(Rhodehamel, 1992), and intestinal perforation (Gunn, 1966).
Intact muscle cuts tend to have a very low occurrence of bone chips, metal or other foreign objects, and any
such items can be removed from the meat surface when the meat is sliced. An effective SQA programme
should include specifications for metal and bone.
Salt, sugar and spices
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code requires that salt, sugar and spices are free from foreign
matter. The SQA programme should ensure that non-meat ingredients are free from foreign objects which
may pose a food safety hazard.
9.11.5 Supplier Quality Assurance Programme
In order to make safe products, it is important that the hazards associated with raw materials are clearly
understood and controlled to acceptable levels. Obviously, the microbiological quality of dried foods depends
on the microbiological quality of the raw materials and their handling prior to drying (Farkas, 1997; van der
Riet, 1982).
Some of the elements which form part of an effective SQA programme include having agreed specifications,
auditing suppliers and certificates of analysis (Mortimer and Wallace, 1994).
Manufacturing plants should also have procedures in place for the verification of compliance to agreed
specifications, such as physical inspection and microbiological testing of incoming materials based on
statistically valid sampling plans.
9.11.6 Key Process Steps: Hazards and Potential Impact on Existing Hazards
1. Receipt of meat
Frozen beef muscle cuts used for jerky manufacture a usually obtained in New Zealand in 27 kg cartons. Meat
temperature is commonly measured as part of incoming material inspection. A slight increase in temperature
of frozen products during transport and handling prior to receipt, although undesirable, is not expected to
compromise product safety.
Aside from temperature measurements, most processors also inspect incoming raw materials for compliance
with other agreed specifications such as packaging integrity, age of product and the presence of foreign
objects. The microbial quality of the raw meat, and other ingredients, will have a significant impact on the final

23 March 2017
microbial loading of the jerky (ICMSF, 1998a); thus it is important to source from suppliers that have an
effective HACCP plan (or an equivalent programme).
2. Tempering
In New Zealand, frozen meat is generally tempered to a maximum of –2°C so as to maintain a firm texture for
slicing. Microbial growth is unlikely at such low temperatures. The tempering process should meet the
requirements of IS 6 and be validated accordingly.
Some processes require that meat is thawed (e.g. when meat is injected or tumbled before slicing). The
potential for growth of microorganisms during the thawing process should be carefully assessed, taking time
and product temperature into consideration.
3. Slicing
The tempered meat is usually sliced into 1.5 to 5 mm thick slices. Normal time-temperature conditions during
slicing do not favour microbial growth, but there is potential for pathogen growth if the meat temperature is not
controlled after slicing. Batch size and the type of process and product will have an impact on how long the
slicing takes, and how long the meat can be kept in a sliced form before continuing to the next process step.
To prevent mesophilic pathogen growth the temperature should be kept below 7°C. There is also potential for
cross contamination between the meat and the slicer during this process, but it is expected to be adequately
addressed by GMP.
4. Marinating/Massaging/Injecting/Tumbling
There are many variations on how flavouring is applied to meat prior to drying, such as passive marination,
injection, marination and tumbling. Injecting and/or massaging is more commonly used for intact muscle cuts
that are sliced afterwards. On the other hand, marination and tumbling tend to be more common for meat that
is already sliced. Marination and tumbling times can vary from 1 to 12 hours. During this time, the temperature
of the meat can rise, and to prevent growth of mesophilic pathogens, care should be taken to ensure that the
meat temperature does not rise above 7°C.
High concentrations of salt or sugar products in the marinade may have an effect on the water activity (a w) of
the product, and consequently slow microbial growth at this stage of the process. For example, traditional
biltong is left to cure in salt overnight prior to drying (van der Riet, 1982). However, most New Zealand
processes use marinades for flavour reasons, rather than for any possible effect on water activity.
Some processors recycle or reuse their marinades. This may have a significant effect on the microbiological
loading of subsequent batches, and must be considered carefully when conducting the hazard analysis. Any
reuse or recycling of marinade must have documented procedures, and these must be implemented correctly
at all times. Factors that may impact on the reuse of marinade include (but are not limited to): the formulation;
the number of times a batch (or part of a batch) of marinade may be reused; whether any processing affecting
the marinade occurs (e.g. pasteurisation or cooking); how long, and under what conditions the prepared
marinade may be stored before being reused; etc. Hazards associated with the production and use of a
marinade may be better controlled by a separate HACCP plan.
5. Drying
During drying, microorganisms on the raw materials are affected by both the drying temperature and changes
in water activity (aw). Microbiological consequences of the drying technology are influenced by a number of
other factors (e.g. size and composition of food pieces, time/temperature combinations, relative humidity, air
velocity, loading, etc.) (Farkas, 1997). The formulation of the marinade may also have an effect on aw (e.g.
use of humectants). In New Zealand, jerky is generally dried in mechanical air dryers with control of
temperature and relative humidity.

23 March 2017
During the warming-up period of drying, the temperature is still low and the relative humidity high. The length
of this phase depends mainly on the size of the food particles. If this phase is long, microorganisms may even
grow during the slow increase of temperature in the range 20 to 40°C under the existing high aw (Farkas,
1997). Holley (1985) has shown that if Staphylococcus aureus is present in large numbers, this organism can
nearly double in number during the first 2 hours of the drying period. Traditional jerkies are sometimes dried
over 2 to 3 days at close to ambient temperature, which certainly has the potential to allow growth of
microorganisms before aw is suitably lowered. This traditional type of drying is not common in New Zealand.
During the later phases of heated-drying, the temperature may exceed 50 to 70°C. At such temperatures
there is no opportunity for growth, but heat destruction is not significant either, because the higher
temperature develops parallel to decreased moisture content. Pathogens such as Salmonella and Escherichia
coli have been reported to survive drying conditions. If the drying lasts long enough (at least 30 min) at these
high temperatures (50 to 70°C), time-temperature combinations that irreversibly damage microbial cells occur.
The major microbicidal effect is due to high temperature-low humidity conditions that last for a long time. Loss
of viability continues during storage because irreversibly damaged cells, being unable to regenerate at low a w,
gradually die (Farkas, 1997).
Most commercially produced jerky in New Zealand has an a w of 0.75 to 0.80. This aw is lower than the critical
value for microbial growth. In general, foodborne pathogenic bacteria are inhibited by a water activity of 0.92
or less. The exception to this is Staphylococcus aureus, which has a minimum water activity for growth of
0.83-0.86, but has a higher minimum water activity for enterotoxin production of 0.88. As the enterotoxins
produced by S. aureus are key to food intoxications caused by this organism, it is notable that 10 5
organisms/g are required before enterotoxin production can be observed (Holley, 1985). Production of
staphylococcal enterotoxin in food slurries has not been observed below aw 0.93. Most spore-forming bacteria
do not grow below a w 0.93. Germination and outgrowth of spores from food poisoning strains of Bacillus
cereus are prevented at aw 0.97 to 0.93, depending on the nature of the bulk solute. The minimum aw for the
growth and spore germination of Clostridium perfringens is usually between 0.97 and 0.95 (Farkas, 1997), but
other research reports that C. perfringens may grow at aw as low as 0.93 (McClane, 1997). Salmonella die
slowly at water activity levels below those allowing growth (Jay et al., 1997).
Holley (1985) recommends initial heated-drying of meat at or above 55°C to establish a significant margin of
safety for the elimination of low numbers of naturally occurring pathogens. The drying rate (and hence the
reduction of aw, and any consequent microbial effect) will vary depending on the temperature, the product size
and composition, the loading of the dryer (total amount of product and separation of slices), the air velocity (if
forced air drying is used) and the relative humidity, with all variables interacting in different ways during
various stages of the drying process. Temperature variations within the dryer (e.g. hot or cold spots) should
be considered, as well as the effect that dryer loading may have on these hot spots. If the drying temperature
is high enough to actually cook the product, then thermal death times of various bacteria may need to be
considered. Smoking of the product (in addition to drying) may introduce some effect on the microbial
population. If the product is of a reasonable size or thickness, then case hardening may occur (Beever, 1999)
whereby the surface of the product is dry, but the centre is still moist, and hence capable of supporting
microbial growth. This can occur if the drying parameters fluctuate either due to some uncontrolled or
improperly controlled external parameter, e.g. humidity or temperature, or the slice thickness is incorrect for
the given drying procedure. Often it is best controlled by skilled operators paying attention to process detail
(e.g. colour variation through a cross section of slice). Additional drying of case-hardened product can be of
little value as the moisture is sealed into the product by the surface hardening.
These factors and their effect on each other will have to be considered when validating the process, and in
particular the drying CCP. If a number of different jerky products are produced, then the drying conditions will
have to be validated for each product type.
6. Cooling, packaging and storage
Although the product is dried to a point where microbial growth cannot occur, minimising post-processing
contamination is still important. In the main this is achieved by good cleaning and sanitation programmes and
good personal hygiene practices (including separation of raw and cooked product). Dried products are stable

23 March 2017
microbiologically, provided the relative humidity of the storage atmosphere is less than 70% (Farkas, 1997).
Surviving pathogens (or spores), or pathogens transferred by post-processing contamination, will grow in
rehydrated product if held at temperatures permitting their development. Poor storage conditions (allowing
moisture reabsorption from the atmosphere) may also allow pathogen growth.
Provided the product has been properly dried to the correct aw, cooling of the product should not be a critical
process step. However, good manufacturing practice indicates that cooling should still occur as rapidly as
possible. At this stage it may be possible to do some sorting of the jerky, for possibly both quality and food
safety reasons, e.g. variable product thickness may result in some product being too dry and hard to suit
customer requirements, while thicker sliced product may result in jerky that is too soft, and may not be dried to
the appropriate aw. Hard dried product may also go through greater deformation during the drying process,
making it difficult to pack, and possibly prone to piercing the packaging.
It is important to maintain packaging integrity so that the product does not rehydrate, which may allow the
growth of surviving pathogens. The type of packaging used will be dependent on the type of jerky produced.
The type of packaging, the construction, the thickness and the oxygen permeability of the packaging all need
to be considered, particularly if the product is to be stored or sold in humid conditions. Traditional strap jerky
produced from intact muscle is a very hard product, and therefore has a high potential for bag damage. Hence
vacuum packaging may not be appropriate for this type of product. Gas flushing or packing with oxygen
absorbers is recommended (Beever, 1999), and appears to be the common practice in New Zealand. There
are usually strict requirements associated with the use of gas flushing.
The microbial stability depends on the a w of the product. Moulds and yeast may grow during storage,
particularly when moisture is absorbed from the environment. This can be prevented by drying to an aw < 0.80
and vacuum packing, or by drying and maintaining the aw at 0.70 or lower (ICMSF, 1998). Holley (1985) found
that during refrigerated storage of jerky, surviving organisms were stabilised. When storage took place at
20°C and high relative humidity, the surviving pathogens were eliminated within 28 days. Thus, from a
microbiological viewpoint, it appears that refrigerator storage of beef jerky is less desirable than storage under
cool ambient conditions.
9.12 References
Archibald, R.D., Swan, J.E., Mahoney, T. & List, D.J. (1995) Intermediate meat products concept: Final report.
Bean, N.H. & Griffin, P.M. (1990) Foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States, 1973-1987: pathogens,
1983-1987. J. Food Prot. 53: 711-728.
Beever, M. (1999) Personal communication. Universal Beef Packers Ltd, New Zealand.
Bergdoll, M.S. (1989) Chapter 11: Staphylococcus aureus. In Foodborne Bacterial Pathogens. (ed. Doyle,
M.P.) Marcel Dekker Inc, New York
Rev. 5: 157-176.
43: 140-150.
source of verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 infections in man. Epidemiol. Infect. 111: 439-447.
CDC [Centres for Disease Control] (1967) Salmonellosis - New Mexico. MMWR 16: 70.

23 March 2017
CDC [Centres for Disease Control] (1985) Salmonellosis associated with carne seca - New Mexico. MMWR
34: 645-6.
CDC [Centres for Disease Control] (1995) Outbreak of salmonellosis associated with beef jerky - New Mexico,
1995. MMWR 44: 785-8.
Desmarchelier, P.M. and Grau, F.H. (1997) Chapter 7: Escherichia coli. In Foodborne Microorganisms of
Doyle, M.P., Zhao, T., Meng, J. & Zhao, S. (1997) Chapter 10: Escherichia coli O157:H7. In
Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers (ed. Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press,
Washington D.C.
Risk factors for campylobacteriosis identified in the study. N.Z. Public Health Rep. 3: 20.
Verotoxigenic E.coli (VTEC) infections increasing. N.Z. Public Health Rep. 5: 61.
Farkas, J. (1997) Chapter 28: Physical methods of food preservation. In Food Microbiology: Fundamentals
and Frontiers. (ed. Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press, Washington D.C.
Food Regulations 1984. Wellington, New Zealand.
Hanssen, M., Marsden, J., Norris, B., and Heyhoe, T. (1994) The new additive code breaker. Lothian,
Melbourne.
Holley, R.A. (1985) Beef jerky: viability of food-poisoning microorganisms on jerky during its manufacture and
storage. J. Food Prot. 48: 100-6.
ICMSF (1996) Chapter 4: Campylobacter. In Microorganisms in Foods 5: Characteristics of Microbial
ICMSF (1998a) Chapter 1: Meat and Meat Products. In Microorganisms in Foods 6: Microbial Ecology of Food
Commodities. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods of the International Union
of Biological Societies. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
ICMSF (1998b) Chapter 7: Spices, dry soups and oriental flavourings. In Microorganisms in Foods 6:
Microbial Ecology of Food Commodities. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods
of the International Union of Biological Societies. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
ICMSF (1998c) Chapter 12: Sugar, syrups and honey. In Microorganisms in Foods 6: Microbial Ecology of
Food Commodities. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods of the International
Union of Biological Societies. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
Jay, L.S., Grau, F.H., Smith, K., Lightfoot, D., Murray, C. & Davey, G.R. (1997) Chapter 6: Salmonella. In
Foodborne Microorganisms of Public Health Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton,

23 March 2017
K. & Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) Food
Microbiology Group. NSW, Australia.
Keene, W.E., Sazie, E., Kok, J., Rice, D.H., Hancock, D.D., Balan, V.K., Zhao, T. & Doyle, M.P. (1997) An
outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections traced to jerky made from deer meat. J. American Med.
Assoc. 277(15): 1229-1231.
McClane, B.A. (1997) Chapter 16: Clostridium perfringens. In Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and
Frontiers. (ed. Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press, Washington D.C.
Midura, T.F., Nygaard, G.S., Wood, R.M., & Bodily, H.J. (1972) Clostridium botulinum type F: isolation from
venison jerky. Appl. Microbiol. 24:165-7.
Ministry of Health (1995) Microbiological Reference Criteria for Food. Ministry of Health, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Mortimer, S. & Wallace, C. (1994) Chapter 5: Designing safety into products and processes. In HACCP: A
Practical Approach. Chapman and Hall, London.
Powers, E.M., Lawyer, R. & Masouka, Y. (1975) Microbiology of processed spices. J. Milk Food Technol. 38:
683-687.
Powers, E.M., Latt, T.G. & Brown, T. (1976) Incidence and levels of Bacillus cereus in processed spices. J.
Milk Food Technol. 39: 668-670.
Tarr, P.I. (1994) Review of 1993 Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak: Western United States. Dairy, Food &
Todd, E.C.D. (1989) Food and water borne disease in Canada - 1983 annual summary. J. Food Prot. 52: 436-
442.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (1983) Production requirements for cooked beef, roast beef
and cooked corn beef. Federal Register 48 (106): 24314-18.
Van der Riet, W.B. (1982) Biltong: a South African dried meat product. Fleischwirtschaft, 62: 1000-1.

23 March 2017
10 Generic HACCP Plan for Canning (Corned Beef)


 potable water quality (including cooling water requirements);
 sanitation and cleanup procedures for edible areas and food contact surfaces
 (preoperational and operational);
 personnel hygiene (protective clothing requirements, personal equipment and use of
 amenities);
 training (including specific requirements as per IS 6, Section 8.6.2)
 hygienic processing (processing techniques and procedures, damaged carton procedures, dropped
meat, post-retort can handling);
 food contact materials (specifications, handling and storage, including can receipt and maintenance,
can sterilisation);
 food additives/ingredients (specifications, handling and storage);
 calibration, installation and maintenance of heat processing equipment and instruments;
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;
 refrigeration management (raw material);
 recall procedures;
 heat penetration trials/F0 value determination/deviation trials.

Product: Canned corned beef
Process: Canning of corned beef from decartoning of tempered beef, heat processing in a
non-agitating retort, through to dispatch of canned product.


1 Product name(s) Canned corned beef
2 Important product characteristics Commercially sterile product in a can produced in accordance
with Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Meat
Regulations and IS 6
(a) By a further processor or retailer (a) Not applicable

23 March 2017

(b) By the consumer (b) Ready-to-eat
6 Shelf life and storage requirements Indefinite when stored at ambient temperatures
(a) Export market
(b) Local market
9 Special distribution controls required Handle cans with care (GMP)

 To ensure commercial sterility of product by destruction of all viable microorganisms of public health
significance as well as those capable of reproducing under non-refrigerated conditions of storage and
distribution.
 To ensure that no post-processing contamination occurs.
 To ensure that the sodium nitrite content of the product is within acceptable safety limits.
 To ensure that the product is free from container integrity defects which compromise the hermetic seal.
 To ensure that the product is free from any physical hazards that pose a food safety risk to the
consumer

Product names Canned corned beef

Raw Material
 Packed beef, frozen (polylined in cartons)  Slaughtered, dressed and processed under a HACCP
and tempered plan.
Other Inputs
 Water/cooling water  Potable as per MPI specifications (including cooling
water requirements given in IS 6 Section 8.6.4)
 Flaked frozen beef  As per raw material.
 May be subject to a separate hazard analysis.
 Allowable limit: < 5%, as per written company
specifications and Australia New Zealand Food
Standards Code requirements
 Salt (sodium chloride)1  Food grade salt (as per written company specifications
and Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code
requirements)

23 March 2017
 Sodium nitrite2  Prepared as per written company specification.

 Maximum of 50 ppm in finished product, as per
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code
requirements
 Cans and ends2  As per written company specification and in
accordance with IS 6
1
2
Specifications and hygienic handling of these materials are covered by specific premises prerequisite programmes.
Process Canning of corned beef

Packed beef, frozen &  1. Decartoning
tempered 
2. Slicing
Potable water  
Flaked frozen beef  3. Parboiling  Broth
  Fat
Additives  4. Mixing with additives
(water, salt, sodium nitrite) 
5. Mincing

Sterilised cans  6. Can filling

7. Weight checking

Can ends  8. Seaming under vacuum

9. Washing cans

10. Basket stacking cans

Cooling water with 5 ppm  11. Heat processing and
free residual chlorine (FRC)1 cooling

12. Drying

13. Labelling

14. Packing

15. Storage

16. Dispatch  Canned corned beef
1
Note exemptions to this requirement in IS 6, Section 8.6.4.

23 March 2017

Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

Table 5A: Hazard identification for packed beef

Packed beef (frozen B4/B5 Microbiological hazards C2 Chemical hazards None
and tempered) associated with contamination associated with unidentified
from faeces, ingesta, hide, e.g. chemical residues, e.g.
Salmonella spp., E. coli anthelmintics, antibiotics,
O157:H7, Campylobacter environmental
jejuni, Clostridium spp.
1
Hazards listed are those that have been identified in Section 7 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and Boning of Beef as
food safety hazards that may reasonably be associated with frozen packed beef. Further information on hazards
associated with beef are discussed in Section 6.14 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle, and
Section 7.11 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and Boning of Beef.

23 March 2017
The following codes have been used in the generic HACCP plans:
B - Biological B1 – Microbiological hazards associated with grossly-detectable abnormalities i.e. fever,

abscesses
B2 – Microbiological hazards not grossly detectable, (not applicable foe this plan)
B4 – Microbiological hazards associated with faeces and ingesta from the gastrointestinal tract
B5 – Microbiological hazards associated with the hide (not applicable for this plan)
P - Physical P1 – Physical hazards associated with raw materials
occurrence)
2
If a supplier has controls for these hazards (e.g. producer guarantees accompanying livestock receipt) in their HACCP
plan, then C2 will not appear in this raw material hazard identification.
3
When customising this HACCP plan, individual premises may wish to include metal and bone fragments if these
hazards are reasonably likely to occur in their raw material
Hazard analysis may result in changes to the initial food safety objectives set in Section 10.4. See Section
10.8 for confirmed objectives.

FSO 1: To ensure commercial sterility of product by destruction of all viable microorganisms of public health
significance as well as those capable of reproducing under non-refrigerated conditions of storage and
distribution.
FSO 2: To ensure that no post-processing contamination occurs.
FSO 3: To ensure that the product shall not contain sodium nitrite at a level which may represent a hazard to
human health.
FSO 4: To ensure that the product is free from container integrity defects which compromise the hermetic
seal.
FSO 5: To ensure that the product is free from any physical hazards that pose a food safety risk to the
consumer

23 March 2017
Process steps Inputs iii) Process step Q1. Could the hazard be present in or on Q2. Is there a control Q3. Is there a control CCP
raw materials and other inputs hazards the product1 at unacceptable levels2 at this measure at this step that measure available at a No.
process step on the hazard? levels of the hazard?
existing hazards If yes, this step is a CCP. If yes, retrospectively assign
1. Decartoning Boneless B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No

beef pathogens unacceptable in relation to FSO 1.
Refer to IS 6 Section 8.6
C2 Unidentified No3
chemical
residues
(i) P2. Plastic Yes Reported incidences of unacceptable Yes. Removal of entrapped No 1
plastic found entrapped in frozen plastic (e.g. by airgun
blocks. Customer complaints application)
2. Slicing Boneless B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
3. Parboiling Beef slices B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
pathogens unacceptable in relation to FSO 1.
Water None
Flaked frozen B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
C2 Unidentified No
chemical
residues

23 March 2017
4. Mixing Beef slices B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No

Nitrite C3. Excess Yes Incorrect amount may cause nitrite Yes – addition of defined No
Nitrate poisoning. amount of nitrite per mix.
Salt None
5. Mincing Corned beef B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
6. Can filling Corned beef B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
Sterilised None
cans
7. Weight Corned beef B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
checking pathogens unacceptable in relation to FSO 1.
8. Seaming Corned beef B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
under vacuum pathogens unacceptable in relation to FSO 1.
(i) B8. Pathogen Yes Seam inadequacies reported as Yes – can seam check No 3 R1
contamination due to cause of sterilisation failures. Refer
seam failure to Canned Foods: Principles of
Thermal Process Control,
Acidification and Container Closure
Evaluation.

23 March 2017
Can ends None

9. Washing Canned B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
cans corned beef pathogens unacceptable in relation to FSO 1.
10. Basket Canned B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be No No
stacking cans corned beef pathogens unacceptable in relation to FSO 1.
11. Heat Canned B4/B5. Enteric Yes Any microorganism will be Yes – heat processing as Yes – IT can selection at step 4
processing and corned beef pathogens unacceptable in relation to FSO 1. per defined schedule. 8 (CCP R1).
cooling Refer to IS 6 Section 8.6 Refer to IS 6 Section 8.6.3. Yes – seam check at step 8
(CCP 3).
(ii) B4/B5. Growth of Yes Potential growth of thermophilic Yes – cooling as per No 4
thermophilic bacteria organisms due to inadequate defined schedule. Refer to
due to inadequate cooling. Refer to IS 6 Section 8.6. IS 6 Section 8.6.4.5.
cooling
Cooling water None
12. Drying Sterilised,
canned
corned beef
13. Labelling Sterilised,
canned
corned beef
14. Packing Sterilised,
canned
corned beef

23 March 2017
15. Storage Sterilised,

canned
corned beef
16. Dispatch Sterilised,
canned
corned beef
1
2
– level;
– frequency;
3
Sporadic chemical residues at some level will always occur. However, results from the National Residue Monitoring Programme indicate that residue levels are in compliance with national
requirements. The level of this hazard will not change during processing (i.e. no growth or increase in the hazard level). Therefore, it will not be considered at subsequent steps.

23 March 2017


requirements.

achieve identified food safety objectives (FSO). Identified CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control
plan itself.
Validation of a HACCP plan for canning may include validation of the associated process schedule or,
alternatively, the use of an already-validated process schedule. In this latter case, further validation would only
be needed for chemical and physical hazards.
FSO 1: To ensure commercial sterility of product by eliminating microorganisms capable of growth

under normal conditions of product storage and distribution.
The first FSO is expected to be achieved by providing adequate control measures at CCP3, CCP R1
(seaming under vacuum) and CCP4 (heat processing and cooling), in conjunction with effective prerequisite
programmes (e.g. sanitation and cleanup procedures, personal hygiene, hygienic processing). Prerequisite
programmes are to be validated in accordance with requirements in IS 8.
a) CCP3 (seaming under vacuum)
The use of visual inspection and physical measurements (tear downs) are appropriate for validation of
this CCP. Historical data in conjunction with the can manufacturer’s specification may be used. The
measurement components and frequency of measurement may be influenced by market access
requirements.
b) CCP R1 (seaming under vacuum)
Collection of the coldest can is an integral part of the heat processing schedule. Validation of this
procedure will occur when the processing schedule is established.
c) CCP4 (heat processing and cooling)

23 March 2017
The use of historical data from the heat penetration tests/establishment of F0, and the establishment of
the process schedule, will provide validation for this CCP. Refer to information in IS 6, Section 8.6.3.
Can incubation tests are included in this validation process (IS 6 Section 8.6.5).
FSO2: To ensure that no post processing contamination occurs
FSO2 is expected to be achieved by providing adequate control measures as per FSO1, in conjunction with
effective prerequisite programmes, e.g. can handling and hygienic processing. Prerequisite programmes are
to be validated in accordance with requirements in IS 8.
FSO3: To ensure that the product shall not contain sodium nitrite at a level which may represent a
hazard to human health.
FSO3 is expected to be achieved by providing adequate control measures at CCP2 (mixing). The control
measure reflects a regulatory requirement in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. It is therefore
expected that premises will already have historical data under GMP to show that procedures in place are
adequate to achieve the regulatory standard and therefore the FSO. Initial product trial results also should be
available to validate this FSO.
FSO4: To ensure that the product is free from container integrity defects which compromise the
hermetic seal.
FSO4 is expected to be achieved by effective application of controls at CCP 3 (see also FSO1) and some key
prerequisite programmes such as can specifications, receipt and storage, can handling and processing
hygiene. The prerequisite programmes are expected to be validated according to IS 8.
FSO5: To ensure that the product is free from any physical hazards (i.e. plastic) that pose a food
safety risk to the consumer.
FSO5 is expected to be achieved by visual inspection at CCP1 (decartoning). Guidance on establishing

sampling regimes for validation using visual observations at this step may be obtained from publications on
statistical process control.
On-going verification activities confirm whether the HACCP plan is operating effectively and according to
product testing programme.
10.10.3 Revalidation
A revalidation of the HACCP plan is required, whenever changes are made (e.g. changes to premises,
product, process, intended use of the product) or process failure which may compromise product safety,
occurs.
10.11 References
IS No. 6. (1997) Industry Standard No. 6: Processing of Edible Product. The New Zealand Meat Industry
Hygiene Council, Wellington.
National Food Processors Association. (1995) Principles of Thermal Process Control, Acidification and
Container Closure Evaluation. The Food Processors Institute, Washington D.C.

23 March 2017
Table 6: HACCP plan summary spreadsheet for canning (corned beef)
Process step Hazard ID CCP Critical limits Monitoring procedures/tools Corrective actions1 Verification HACCP records3
no. (consider Who, What, When and procedures2
How)
1. Decartoning Plastic 1  Operator technique – 100%  Observation every 2 hours of (a) Talk to operator  FSO validation  Validation record
compliance with food operator removing entrapped (b) Increase  Internal audit  Daily monitoring record
safety component of job plastic and inspecting meat block supervision and/or  Extrinsic audit  Corrective action report
description  Visual check of random selection monitoring  Customer  Analytical test report
 All meat blocks free of of blocks for entrapped plastic (c) Retrain or remove complaints  Internal audit report
plastic operator  HACCP review  Extrinsic audit report
 Customer complaints
file
 HACCP review record
4. Mixing Excess sodium 2  Predetermined and  Individual batch lots identified (a) Detain product and  FSO validation  Validation record
nitrite prepared amount to be  Visual check on amount per test for nitrite  Finished product  Nitrite monitoring
added per batch size. batch evaluation resulting record
 Amount to result in 50 ppm in 50 ppm nitrite in  Corrective action report
nitrite in final product final product  Product evaluation
 Internal audit reports
 Extrinsic audit  Internal audit report
 HACCP review  Extrinsic audit report
 HACCP review record
8. Seaming Pathogen 3  As per manufacturer’s  Visual examination for double (a) Stop production  FSO validation  Validation record
under vacuum contamination specifications for particular seam and other container defects (b) Adjust seamer  Check on vacuum  Daily monitoring record
due to seam can at least every 30 minutes of Isolate defective headspace after  Visual examination and
failure  Select, mark and set aside continuous operation stock and detain cooking teardown records
coldest can for each retort  Double seam teardown (c) Isolate defective  Calibration of  Calibration and
load examination at intervals of stock and detain vacuum gauge maintenance records
sufficient frequency to ensure (d) Talk to operator every 12 months  Corrective action report
proper closure. Interval not to (e) Advise retort  Internal audit  Internal audit report
exceed 4 operating hours (e.g. operator to take  Extrinsic audit  Extrinsic audit report
every 2 hours) appropriate action  HACCP review  HACCP review record
 Additional visual and teardown associated with
examinations to be made at the

23 March 2017
Process step Hazard ID CCP Critical limits Monitoring procedures/tools Corrective actions1 Verification HACCP records3
no. (consider Who, What, When and procedures2
How)
start of production, immediately deviation from
after a seamer jam, machine process schedule
adjustment or a prolonged
shutdown
R1  Select, mark and set aside  Regular supervisor checks of (a) Talk to operator
coldest can for each retort operator performance (b) Advise retort
load operator to take
appropriate action
associated with
deviation from
process schedule
11. Heat Enteric 4  All cans heat processed  Monitor and record critical Refer to IS 6 Section  FSO validation  Validation record
Processing and pathogens and using a validated process parameters as per requirements 8.6.9.5  Internal audit  Retort log
cooling thermophiles schedule that will achieve a given in the process schedule  Extrinsic audit  Calibration and
12D reduction in  HACCP review maintenance records
Clostridium botulinum  Calibration of  Corrective action report
spores. time/temp devices  Internal audit report
 Thermal process every 6 months  Extrinsic audit report
parameters (e.g. product  Incubation results  HACCP review record
initial temperature, process
time /temperature) and  Product evaluation
other critical factors that records
may affect the attainment
of commercial sterility to be
established for each
process schedule.
 Refer to IS 6 Section 8.6.3
1
2
3

23 March 2017
11 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Sheep

and Lambs
Content under development.

23 March 2017
12 Generic HACCP Plan for the Processing of Edible Sheep

and Lamb Casings

operational);
 training;
 hygienic processing (processing techniques and procedures, dropped product);
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;

Species: Ovine
Product: Edible casings from sheep and lamb intestines
Process: Processing, packaging, and storage of sheep and lamb casings; from receipt of
gut sets from the slaughter floor to dispatch of packed cured casings.


1 Product name(s) Edible sheep and lamb casings
2 Important product characteristics Obtained from animals that have passed ante mortem and post
mortem inspection and meet regulatory requirements for edible
products.
Product meeting company and regulatory specifications for
physical and microbiological quality, and packaging.
(a) By a further processor or retailer (a) Manufacture of sausage products
(b) By the consumer (b) Consumed as cooked, smoked or dried sausage products

23 March 2017

(a) Export market
(b) Local market
9 Special distribution controls required Company/regulatory specification

(To be confirmed after hazard analysis and CCP determination. See Section 12.8 for confirmed objectives.)

Product names Edible sheep and lamb casings

Raw material/other inputs Description/specification
 Sheep and lamb gut sets  Obtained from animals that have passed ante
 Salt (sodium chloride)1 mortem and post mortem inspection and meet
 Food contact packaging materials1 regulatory requirements for edible products.
 As per written company specifications and Australia
New Zealand Food Standards Code requirements
 Suitable for use as food contact materials.
1

23 March 2017
Process Processing of sheep and lamb casings

Sheep and lamb gut sets  1. Receiving gut sets from
slaughter floor

2. Pulling of intestines

3. Removal of intestinal contents1

4. Cutting

5. Conditioning

6. Loosening of threads (i.e. outer
membrane)

7. Cleaning / mucosa stripping

8. Soaking

9. Sorting / classing

Salt  10. Salting & curing2

11. Selection

12. Desalting

13. Tubing/grading

Salt  14. Re-salting

Packaging materials  15. Packing

16. Storage

17. Dispatch  Packed cured casings
1
Some companies are only involved in the production of green runners. After the removal of intestinal contents, the
green runners are packed in casks with chilled water, with or without metabisulphite, and then transported to other
premises for further processing into cured casings. A HACCP plan for this type of operation should evaluate the process
for any potential hazards associated with the use of metabisulphite and other processing steps.
2
In some premises, selected casings go to a tubing department for added-value processing (Steps 11-14).

23 March 2017

Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

Table 5A: Hazard identification for sheep and lamb intestines1

Sheep and lamb gut set B2 — Microbiological hazards not Not applicable None
grossly detectable, e.g.
Toxoplasma gondii 2
B4 — Microbiological hazards
from the gastrointestinal tract
(GIT), e.g. Salmonella spp.,
Clostridium spp.

23 March 2017
1
The codes given below have been used by MPI. Premises have the option of assigning their own codes in their
HACCP plans.
B - Biological B1 — Microbiological hazards associated with grossly-detectable abnormalities, i.e. abscesses

(not applicable for this plan)
B2 — Microbiological hazards not grossly detectable, e.g. Toxoplasma gondii
B3 — Visible parasites (not applicable for this plan)
B4 — Microbiological hazards associated with faeces and ingesta from the gastrointestinal tract
B5 — Microbiological hazards associated with the hide (not applicable for this plan)
B6 — Microbiological hazards associated with other inputs
C - Chemical C1 — Chemical hazards associated with identified chemical residues
C2 — Chemical hazards associated with unidentified chemical residues
P - Physical
2
Toxoplasma gondii is likely to be present in the small intestines of sheep and lambs. However, there are no published
reports on the prevalence and levels of T. gondii in sheep intestines, or on the effects of processing on the parasite.
There are also no reported cases of human infection associated with the consumption of natural casings products. In the
absence of such information, it can only be assumed that certain steps in the process (e.g. stripping and salting)
contribute to the removal or destruction of the organism to a level such that the parasite is likely to present minimal
health risks to consumers in the final product. Hence, B2 hazards will not be considered any further in this plan.
3
Foreign objects such as sand, pebbles and small sticks are occasionally found in green runners from certain classes of
stock (i.e. cull sheep and those that have been exposed to drought conditions). Premises should consider the relevance
of these potential physical hazards to their product/process and address them in the HACCP plan, as appropriate.
12.8 for confirmed objectives

FSO: To minimise microbiological hazards in the product to levels not exceeding specified targets.


requirements.

23 March 2017
Process steps Inputs i) Process step Q1. Could the hazard be present in or on Q2. Is there a control Q3. Is there a control CCP
raw materials and other hazards the product1 at unacceptable levels2 at measure at this step that measure available at a No.
inputs ii) Potential impact of this step? would prevent previous step that would
process step on If yes, answer Q2 and Q3. unacceptable levels of the prevent unacceptable
existing hazards hazard? levels of the hazard?
If yes, this step is a CCP. If yes, retrospectively assign
1. Receiving Gut set B4. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No

gut sets from pathogens organisms in the GIT in relation to
slaughter floor the FSO. Refer to Section 12.11.1
2. Pulling Gut set B4. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
pathogens organisms in the GIT in relation to
the FSO. Refer to Section 12.11.1
3. Removal of Intestines B4. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
intestinal pathogens organisms in the GIT in relation to
contents the FSO. Refer to Section 12.11.1
4. Cutting Runners B4. Enteric (ii) Cross contamination Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
pathogens biological contamination from the
GIT is likely. Refer to Sections
12.11.1 and 12.11.4
5. Conditioning Runners B4. Enteric (ii) Cross Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
pathogens contamination; growth biological contamination from the
of microorganisms GIT is likely. Refer to Sections
12.11.1 and 12.11.4
6. Loosening of Runners B4. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
threads pathogens biological contamination from the
12.11.1 and 12.11.4
7. Cleaning Runners B4. Enteric (ii) Cross Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
pathogens contamination; biological contamination from the
reduction of GIT is likely. Refer to Sections
microbiological 12.11.1 and 12.11.4

23 March 2017
load
8. Soaking Casings B4. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
pathogens biological contamination from the
12.11.1 and 12.11.4
9. Sorting/ Casings B4. Enteric Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- No No
classing pathogens biological contamination from the
12.11.1 and 12.11.4
10. Salting & Casings B4. Enteric (ii) Destruction of Yes Unacceptable levels of micro- Yes - proper salting & curing No 1
curing pathogens vegetative forms of biological contamination from the will destroy vegetative forms
(certain classes pathogens GIT is likely. Refer to Sections of pathogens. Refer to
of casings go 12.11.1 and 12.11.4 Section 12.11.4
straight to step
Salt None
15 after salting
& curing)
11. Selection Casings B4. Enteric No
pathogens
12. Desalting Casings B4. Enteric No
pathogens
13. Tubing Casings B4. Enteric No
pathogens
14. Re-salting Tubed B4. Enteric No
casings pathogens
Salt None

23 March 2017
15. Packing Cured B4. Enteric No

casings pathogens
Packaging None
materials
Salt None
16. Storage Packed cured B4. Enteric No
casings pathogens
17. Dispatch Packed cured B4. Enteric No
casings pathogens
1
2
 level;
 frequency;
 transfer and redistribution;
 severity of effect on consumer.

23 March 2017
Table 6: HACCP plan summary spreadsheet for processing of edible sheep and lamb casings
Process step Hazard ID CCP Critical limits Monitoring Corrective actions1 Verification procedures2 HACCP records3
no. procedures/tools
When and How)
10. Salting & B4. Enteric 1 Visible salt crystals on Visual inspection of a Re-inspect casings from the FSO validation Validation records
curing pathogens casings after validated specified number of same lot. Random visual inspection of Daily monitoring records
curing period. Properly cured casings per lot. Repeat salting and curing. products at predetermined Corrective action reports
cured appearance and Determine cause of frequency Analytical test reports
texture throughout noncompliance and Product testing (e.g. micro- Internal audit reports
casings (i.e. bleached, correct procedure. biological, water activity) Extrinsic audit reports
shrunken; not smooth, Internal audit Customer complaints file
wet and shiny). Extrinsic audit (e.g. regulator, HACCP review records
client)
Customer complaints
HACCP review
1
Corrective actions should reflect an escalating response when ongoing noncompliance occurs.
2
3
Ensure that detailed documentation (and evidence where relevant) exists for the following:
 rationale for critical limits;

 monitoring procedures, including who’s responsible, what monitoring will take place, when or at what frequency it will take place, how it will be done;
 corrective action procedures, including who’s responsible, how control will be restored, what happens to affected product, how prevention of re-occurrence
might be achieved;
 verification procedures, including who’s responsible, what verification consists of, how verification will be done, when and at what frequency ongoing
verification activities will occur, when revalidation is necessary;
 documentation and record keeping

23 March 2017

achieve identified food safety objectives (FSO). CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control measure
applied at that particular process step will achieve or contribute to the achievement of the relevant FSO. Some
FSOs may be partially or wholly dependent on prerequisite programmes rather than the HACCP plan itself.
This FSO is expected to be achieved by providing adequate control measures during salting and curing
(CCP1) together with effective prerequisite programmes (e.g. cleaning and sanitation, hygienic processing,
refrigeration management).
Microbiological observations
The use of microbiological observations is appropriate for evaluating the adequacy of the process to achieve
the FSO. This information may be obtained from relevant published scientific literature, in-house historical
data, and/or by gathering new data.
applied at a specific step or steps. The use of this type of scientific information will be a sufficient basis for
validation only if it can clearly be shown that the conditions or variables considered in the scientific study are
applicable to those existing in the process being validated. Therefore, there may be instances when it may not
be necessary for premises to gather new data for validation. However, microbiological testing of products as
an on-going verification activity may still be required.
CCP1 in relation to the achievement of the FSO. Historical data may be used provided there has been no
change in the product and process from the time the data were collected, sampling and the analytical tests
are based on standardised methods, and the amount of data available is adequate for validation.
validation will involve the collection of new data from the time that the HACCP plan is implemented. The
following is an example of an appropriate design for microbiological validation in the absence of benchmark or
historical data:
Sample size: Number determined by statistical techniques.

Sample time frame: Random selection of samples taken over a specified processing period.
Methodology: Samples to be taken after the specified curing period.
Visible salt adhering to the casings should be removed, without using water, prior to
analysis. A suggested procedure for salt removal is to carefully shake the casings
and/or scrape the visible salt away with a sterile spatula (Houben, pers. comm.).
Samples to be tested for Enterobacteriaceae and E. coli counts (standard petri film
E. coli test gives results for both).
Note: The European Natural Sausage Casings Association (ENSCA) recommendations include criteria for aerobic plate
count (APC), Staphylococcus aureus and clostridia spores (refer to Section 12.11.4). There is insufficient information, at

23 March 2017
present, to clearly justify the need to establish FSOs which include targets for these microorganisms. This will be
reviewed after the completion of the MIRINZ study.
Water activity measurements
The relationship between water activity and the growth and survival of microorganisms is well established
(Refer to Section 12.11.4). It is, therefore, acceptable to use water activity measurements instead of or in
addition to microbiological testing for evaluating the adequacy of the process to achieve the FSO. The
water activity target should be set at a level that is appropriate for the type of microorganism that is intended
to be controlled. The effectiveness of the salting and curing process can be validated by measuring the water
activity of casing samples using standardised testing methods. A similar sampling regime to that suggested
for microbiological observations could be used for validation. Water activity measurements can also be used
for ongoing verification of the process.
Measuring water activity could be a more practical and cost-effective means of verifying the process than
microbiological testing if a premises has easy access to a water activity meter.
Prerequisite programmes
Prerequisite programmes are to be validated in accordance with requirements in IS 8.
documented procedures. Examples of these activities are internal and extrinsic audits, HACCP review and
product, process, intended use of the product) or when process failure that may compromise product safety
occurs.

Natural sheep casings are made from the small intestines of sheep and lambs. The small intestines comprise
five distinct layers. From the inner to the outside layer, these are: mucosa, submucosa, circular muscle layer,
longitudinal muscle layer and serosa. The submucosa forms the main base for natural casings. It consists
mainly of collagenous and elastic fibres.
There are three types of companies involved in the processing of casings in New Zealand:
 Some companies are involved in the whole process, from the receipt of the gut set from the slaughter
floor to further processing of cleaned and salted casings and subsequent dispatch of packed cured
casings. The process flow given in this generic plan reflects this type of operation.
 Other companies are only involved in the production of green runners. After the removal of intestinal
contents, the green runners are packed in casks with chilled water, with or without metabisulphite, and
then transported to other premises for further processing into cured casings.
 The scope of the operation of the third type of company is limited to the further processing of casings
from green runners received from slaughterhouses.
Pathogenic bacteria

23 March 2017
Bacterial contamination of intestinal material is expected to be very high, with enteric pathogens frequently
present in substantial numbers (Gill, 1988; Fischer and Krol, 1997). Enteric pathogens that are associated
with contamination from the gastrointestinal tract include Salmonella, Clostridium spp., E. coli O157:H7 and
Campylobacter spp. The submucosa layer of the intestines is expected to be sterile before and immediately
after hygienic removal from carcasses of healthy animals (Gill, 1988). During stripping and cleaning of the
runners, the submucosa layer is exposed to microbiological contamination from intestinal contents. Studies
show that microorganisms isolated and identified in natural casings are those that are found in the
gastrointestinal tract of animals (Riha and Solberg, 1970).
Toxoplasma gondii is a protozoan parasite that can cause human infection through the ingestion of
Toxoplasma cysts in undercooked meat (Wilks and Humble, 1997). The parasite encysts in the skeletal
muscles, cardiac muscles and other organs of mammalian hosts (Speer, 1997).
Parasites
Estimated prevalence rates of T. gondii in sheep in New Zealand are in the region of 60-70% (Wilks and
Humble, 1997). Toxoplasmosis is a common cause of placentitis, abortion and perinatal mortality in sheep.
Considering the high prevalence of T. gondii in sheep, it is reasonable to assume that the parasite may be
present in the tissues of the small intestines of sheep and lambs (Pomeroy, pers. comm.). However, there are
no published reports on the prevalence and levels of T. gondii in sheep intestines, or on the effects of
processing on the parasite. There are also no reported cases of human infection associated with the
consumption of natural casing products. In the absence of such information, it can only be assumed that
certain steps in the process (e.g. stripping and salting) contribute to the removal or destruction of the
organism to a level such that the parasite is likely to present minimal health risks to consumers in the final
product.
There is no information available on possible levels of chemical residues in the small intestines of slaughter
animals. Considering its end use as sausage casings, it is likely that if residues are present, the levels in the
final product would pose minimal health risk to consumers. It should be noted that it is a requirement for
carcasses and products from animals from chemical suspect lines to be sampled and detained according to
MPI specifications. If found to contain a chemical residue above the maximum residue limit, then all products
from these animals, including intestines, are condemned.
Anecdotal evidence from casings premises suggest that foreign objects such as sand, pebbles and small
sticks are occasionally found in green runners from certain classes of stock (i.e. cull sheep and those that
have been exposed to drought conditions). Premises should consider the relevance of these potential physical
hazards to their product/process and address them in the HACCP plan, as appropriate.
12.11.4 Key Process Steps: Effects on Microbiological Hazards
1. Pre-salting steps
The first step in the processing of casings is to separate the intestines from other intestinal tissue. Next they
are passed through a set of rollers for partial cleaning and removal of the intestinal contents. As the intestines
from a sheep differ in diameter from one end to the other and a uniform product is needed, the intestines are
cut into three approximately equal lengths. The runners are then held for around 24 hours in tanks with
running water for washing and conditioning to soften the casings and for easier removal of the mucosa. The
casings are then passed through a cleaning machine which crushes them through rollers, stripping the outer
membrane and all the mucosal layer. During these pre-salting steps, contamination of the casings with
microorganisms from the intestinal contents is inevitable.

23 March 2017
There is potential for microbial growth during the conditioning period, particularly during the summer months,
as the water used for conditioning is not controlled at low temperatures (i.e. water generally comes straight
from the tap). Results of preliminary trials obtained by MIRINZ Food Technology and Research from three
New Zealand premises show that overnight conditioning results in a one log increase in microbiological levels
in sheep casings, as determined by average aerobic plate count, E. coli, Enterobacteriaciae and anaerobic
counts. Therefore, the temperature for fresh unsalted runners/casings should be kept as low as possible to
minimise the growth of microorganisms.
Proper removal of the mucosa or slime during stripping can reduce microbial contamination of the casings
(Fischer and Krol, 1997). When removal of slime has not been as good as possible, the salting preservation
will take more time. A very high bacterial count at the beginning of salting can limit the efficiency of the step to
eliminate or reduce the microorganisms present within the specified curing period (Fischer and Krol, 1997).
2. Salting and curing
The microbiological load of natural casings is reduced in two ways during the whole process. The first is the
physical removal of bacteria through washing and cleaning, and the second is the destruction of bacteria by a
high concentration of salt (Gabis and Silliker, 1974). The salting and curing step is the most important
preservation step in the process, and if correctly performed eliminates microbial hazards to health almost
completely (Fischer and Krol, 1997). No subsequent step will reduce or eliminate any hazards that may
remain (Fischer and Krol, 1997).
The majority of sheep casings in New Zealand are dry salt packed. These casings are adaptable to long
distance shipment and long-term storage (Rust, 1988). Casings are salted with medium fine salt by hand or
with a machine. During salting, extra attention should be given to the area of the casing where the string or
knot is located (Ockerman and Hansen, 1988). Each bundle may go directly to the packing barrel or hang in
trolleys overnight. After the specified curing period, visible salt crystals should be present on the casings to
ensure saturation has been imposed (Fischer and Krol, 1997). Casings should also have the appearance and
texture associated with properly cured casings (i.e. bleached, shrunken or wrinkled, with no area appearing
“wet”, shiny and smooth).
Prolonged storage in saturated salt solutions results in the destruction of most pathogens (Gill, 1988).
Preliminary data obtained by MIRINZ from three New Zealand premises show the following microbiological
levels for casings prior to salting: 107-108 cfu/g aerobic plate count, 106-107 cfu/g Enterobacteriaciae and 105-
106 cfu/g E. coli. Twenty-four hours after salting, average aerobic plate counts decreased by about one to two
log counts (105-106 cfu/g), and Enterobacteriaciae and E. coli were reduced to a “not detectable” level
(detection limit of log 1.69 cfu/g). Aerobic plate counts decreased further during storage with levels down to
103-104 cfu/g after seven days and after three months storage. These results are within the range reported by
Riha and Solberg (1970), who found that microflora surviving in salted natural casings stored at chiller
temperatures for 1-4 weeks varied in aerobic plate counts from 104 to 107 organisms per gram, but the flora
was invariably dominated by bacilli and clostridia, the spores of which can withstand the salting process.
Salting results in the reduction of water activity which influences microbiological activity in the product. In
general, foodborne pathogenic bacteria are inhibited by a water activity of 0.92 or less (equivalent to a salt
solution with a sodium chloride concentration of 13% w/v) (Davidson, 1997). The exception to this is
Staphylococcus aureus, which has a minimum water activity for growth of 0.83-0.86, but has a higher
minimum water activity for enterotoxin production of 0.95 (Jay, 1978). Salmonella die slowly at water activity
levels below those allowing growth (Jay et al., 1997). Preliminary data obtained by MIRINZ from three New
Zealand premises show that water activity of sheep casings is reduced to 0.75 twenty four hours after salting.
Therefore, correct salting and storage in saturated salt should be sufficient to eliminate bacterial pathogens in
casings.
High levels of salting, particularly when there is some fluid, such as that applied to natural casings, are usually
lethal to Salmonella (Jay et al., 1997). A study of the effect of various salt treatments on Salmonella in
naturally contaminated casings shows that Salmonella in sheep casings were eliminated after 7 days in salt

23 March 2017
packs (sampling was only done on days 0, 7, 14 and 21) (Gabis and Silliker, 1974). Salmonella in hog
casings, which were more heavily contaminated, were eliminated after 21 days of storage at 6°C. The natural
level of contamination and efficiency of the washing procedure as well as the temperature of storage in salt
influences the length of time required to rid the casings of Salmonella. Sanitation in handling of unsalted
casings also has an effect on the numbers of salmonellae that contaminate the unsalted material (Gabis and
Silliker, 1974).
Gabis and Silliker (1974) concluded that there would be essentially no Salmonella risk with natural casings
moving in international trade because of the lengthy exposure of the casings to saturated brine solutions.
There may be some risk entailed in using casings fresh from the cleaning and finishing process, as no salting
or other kill treatment is employed. These authors suggest that for rapid treatment of casings, the use of
acetic acid brine would render naturally contaminated casings virtually free of Salmonella within 24 hours.
3. Packing and storage
Cured casings are usually packed in polyethylene-lined casks. Covering salt is added over the top layer of
casings before sealing the casks. Packed casings in New Zealand premises are generally stored in chillers
while awaiting dispatch. Provided salted casings are stored in cool temperatures, all microbial growth is
inhibited (Gill, 1988). However, preserved casings are often transported overseas at ambient conditions. At
warm temperatures, spoilage may occur; this is indicated by red discoloration on the product and is caused by
the growth of halophilic bacteria, which are not pathogenic organisms (Wilkinson, 1992).
The European Natural Sausage Casings Association (ENSCA) has made the following microbiological
recommendations for salted natural casings as incoming product at meat manufacturing plants, i.e. sausage
manufacturers (Fischer and Krol, 1997):
Acceptable (m), cfu/g Maximum (M), cfu/g

Aerobic plate count Enterobacteriaceae < 1.0 × 105 5.0 × 106
< 1.0 × 102 1.0 × 104
Staphylococcus aureus < 1.0 × 102 1.0 × 103
Sulphite-reducing Clostridia - spores < 1.0 × 102 1.0 × 103
It is worth noting that these levels are similar to those given by the NZ Ministry of Health as a microbiological
reference criteria for raw meat (MOH, 1995). At present, there is very limited data from industry to confirm the
relevance of these values to casings produced under New Zealand conditions and practices. However, results
of preliminary trials from three premises appear to indicate that lower levels than the m values given above for
aerobic plate count and Enterobacteriaceae are readily achievable for commercially processed sheep and
lamb casings. More information should become available after the completion of the microbiological study on
natural casings presently being undertaken by MIRINZ.
12.12 References
Davidson, P.M. (1997) Chapter 29: Chemical preservatives and natural antimicrobial compounds. In Food
Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers (ed. Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press,
Washington D.C.
Fischer, A. & Krol, B. (1997) HACCP Manual for Processing Natural Sausage Casings. Utrecht, The
Netherlands. June 1997.
Gabis, D. A. & Silliker, J.H. (1974) Salmonella in natural animal casings. Appl. Microbio. 27: 66-71.
Gill, C.O. (1988) Chapter 3: Microbiology of edible meat by-products. In Edible Meat By-Products. Advances
in Meat Research Vol. 5. (ed. Pearson, A.M. & Dutson, T.R.) Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, London.

23 March 2017
Houben, J.H. (1998) Personal communication. University Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Jay, J.M. (1978) Chapter 16: Food poisoning caused by gram positive cocci. In Modern Food Microbiology. D.
Van Nostrand Co., New York.
Jay, L.S., Grau, F.H., Smith, K., Lightfoot, D., Murray, C. & Davey, G.R. (1997) Chapter 6: Salmonella. In
Foodborne Microorganisms of Public Health Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton,
K. & Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) Food
Microbiology Group. NSW, Australia.
MOH (1995) Microbiological Reference Criteria for Food, October 1995. Ministry of Health, Wellington, NZ
Ockerman, H.W. & Hansen, C.L. (1988) Chapter 8: Sausage containers. In Animal By-Product Processing.
Ellis Horwood Ltd., England.
Pomeroy, W. (1998) Personal communication. Veterinary Public Health, Massey University, New Zealand.
Riha, W.E. & Solberg, M. (1970) Microflora of fresh pork sausage casings. 2. Natural casings. J. Food Sci. 35:
860-863.
Rust, R.E. (1988) Chapter 11: Production of edible casings. In Edible Meat By-Products. Advances in Meat
Research Vol. 5. (ed. Pearson, A.M. & Dutson, T.R.). Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, London.
Speer, C.A. (1997) Chapter 27: Protozoan parasites acquired from food and water. In Food Microbiology:
Fundamentals and Frontiers. (ed. Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press, Washington D.C
Wilkinson, J.F. (1992) Physical conditions required for growth. In Medical Microbiology. A Guide to Microbial
Infections: Pathogenesis, Immunity, Laboratory Diagnosis and Control. (ed. Greenwood, D., Slack, R.C.B. &
Peutherer, J.F.) Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. p.41.
Perspective. Publication No. 178. Veterinary Continuing Education, Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ.

23 March 2017
13 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter, Dressing, Portioning

and Deboning of Chicken (Broilers)
This generic HACCP plan is intended to serve as guide to assist poultry processing premises in the
development of their own HACCP plans. It is very important that individual premises customise their HACCP
plan to their specific product, process and premises.
13.1 Supporting Systems

Prior to starting the HACCP plan, the HACCP team should ensure that all relevant supporting systems (also
known as prerequisite programmes, good hygienic practices) are documented and that they are in compliance
with regulatory requirements and/or specifications for good manufacturing practice (GMP). The Poultry
Industry Processing Standard 5 (PIPS 5) and Meat Industry Standards provide guidance on relevant
supporting systems.
The following is a list of recommended supporting systems:
 potable water and ice quality;
 sanitation and cleanup procedures for edible areas and food contact surfaces (pre-operational and
operational);
 training;
 hygienic processing (processing techniques and procedures, dropped meat, maintenance of product
temperatures);
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;
 handling and disposition of detained and non-conforming products;
 programmes and/or contract specifications agreed with producers covering on-farm and pre-slaughter
practices (e.g. Whole Flock Health Scheme, chemical residue monitoring programme, specifications
for transport and handling including cleaning of crates and vehicles, feed withdrawal periods, vendor
declarations).

Species: Ovine
Product: Whole chicken, chicken portions and edible offal (i.e. giblets)
Process: Slaughter, dressing, cooling, portioning, deboning (excluding mechanically
deboned meat), processing of edible offal and packing of products from receipt
of live birds to dispatch of chilled and frozen products.

23 March 2017


1 Product name(s) Raw whole chicken
Raw chicken portions (bone-in and deboned)
Edible offal (giblets)
2 Important product Product meeting company and regulatory specifications for
characteristics microbiological and sensory quality, foreign objects, temperature and
packaging.
(a) By a further processor or (a) Further processing into manufactured products, retail products, food
retailer service items
(b) By the consumer (b) Cooked
4 Intended consumer General public
6 Shelf life and storage Company/regulatory specification
requirements
(a) Export market
(b) Local market
9 Special distribution controls Refrigerated distribution as per company/regulatory specification for
required each type of product.

(To be confirmed after hazard analysis and CCP determination. See Section 13.8 for confirmed objectives).
 To ensure that chemical residues in the product do not exceed specified targets as monitored by the
MPI Broiler Chemical Residue Monitoring Programme.
 To minimise the presence of foreign material on products to levels not exceeding specified targets.

Product names Whole chicken, chicken portions, edible offal

 Raw material - live birds  Sourced from producers that comply with a whole
 Permitted bactericidal agent (e.g. chlorine1) flock health scheme.
 Other inputs2 - food contact packaging materials

23 March 2017
 As per written company specifications and

requirements
 Suitable for use as food contact materials
1
Chlorinated water as used in this HACCP plan refers to water with added chlorine at levels higher than that present in
tap water or municipal water.
2
These inputs and possible hazards must be addressed by a supporting system (i.e prerequisite programme, good
hygienic practices), or be specifically considered during hazard identification in this HACCP plan.
Table 3a: Process flow diagram
Process Slaughter and dressing of chicken (broilers)

Live Birds  1. Receipt of live birds

2. Hanging

3. Stunning

4. Killing

5. Bleeding

6. Scalding

7. Defeathering

Water with bactericidal  8. Washing1
agent1 
9. Head pulling Head2

10. Hock cutting Feet2

11. Venting
  Edible offal (liver, gizzard,
12. Evisceration heard)
 To Table 3b
Water with bactericidal  13. Washing1
agent1 
14. Crop removal

15. Neck cracking / cutting of neck  Necks2
flap

Water with bactericidal  16. Washing (inside / outside wash)
agent1 
Water with bactericidal  17. Immersion chilling or
agent1 / ice combination chilling3


23 March 2017
18. Rehanging4

19. Conveying to secondary
processing area

20. Portioning

21. a Storage5, or
b Deboning5

Packaging materials  22. Packaging

23. Chilling / freezing

24. Storage
  Packed whole chicken or
25. Dispatch portions
1
The number and location of washing steps in the process and the use of permitted bactericidal agents (e.g.chlorine)
will vary from premises to premises. Individual premises should consider the impact of any washing step during hazard
analysis.
2
Premises that collect heads, feet and necks as edible products must do a hazard analysis for these products and
establish control measures to address any identified hazards. These products will not be considered further in this
generic plan.
3
Combination chilling consists of immersion chilling followed by holding in a freezer or chiller to complete the chilling
process prior to secondary processing.
4
Rehanging often involves grading (sending defective product to cut-up so that the quality defects can be removed).
5
Process option.
Table 3b: Process flow diagram
Process Processing of edible offal

Edible offal  1. Separation of liver/heart &
(from evisceration step) gizzard

2. Peeling of gizzard

Water with bactericidal  3. Washing or immersion chilling
agent1 
4. Weighing and packing

5. a Chilling or
b Freezing

6. Storage

7. Dispatch  Packed chilled or frozen edible
offal
1
The use of a permitted bactericidal agent (e.g. chlorine) varies from premises to premises.

23 March 2017

23 March 2017

Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

The hazards and CCPs identified by individual premises may differ from those identified in this generic plan
due to variations in a number of factors such as: adequacy of whole flock health scheme, products,
processing procedures and parameters, equipment, premises design, and effectiveness of supporting
systems. Thus, it is very important that individual premises customise their hazard analysis.

23 March 2017
Table 5A: Hazard identification for live birds
Raw material Biological hazard1,2 Chemical hazard Physical hazard3

Carcass excluding internal B1 - Microbiological hazards C1 - Chemical residues, None
organs associated with contamination e.g. anthelmintics,
from feathers and skin, e.g. antibiotics, heavy
Salmonella spp., metals, environmental
Campylobacter jejuni, contaminants
Clostridium spp.
Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) B2 - Microbiological hazards None None
from the GIT, e.g. Salmonella
spp., Campylobacter jejuni,
Clostridium spp., Listeria
monocytogenes
Internal organs excluding None1,3 C1 - Chemical residues, None
GIT e.g. anthelmintics,
antibiotics, heavy
metals, environmental
contaminants
1
Live birds affected with systemic bacterial infection or septicaemia generally exhibit obvious clinical signs of the
disease. Diseased birds are likely to be culled while still on the farm.
2
At present, there is insufficient information on Salmonella, C. jejuni and L. monocytogenes on raw poultry to serve as
basis for establishing food safety objectives for raw poultry. The implementation of the National Microbiological Database
(NMD) programme for broilers is expected to provide information for establishing microbiological targets for Salmonella.
However, for C. jejuni and L. monocytogenes, it is unlikely that adequate information will be available in the near future
due to uncertainties in microbiological methodology and controls.
3
Localised pathological abnormalities may occur sporadically in internal organs of chicken. Currently there is no national
data available on the pathology of broilers in New Zealand. Anecdotal evidence from industry suggests that pathological
abnormalities are rarely observed on internal organs of broilers grown under a whole flock health scheme. An inspection
system, and disease and defects surveys, are currently being developed by MPI and industry which will provide
information on the levels of pathology on carcasses and offal.
13.8 for confirmed objectives

23 March 2017
Table 5B: Hazard analysis and CCP determination (raw material, other inputs and process steps) for whole chickens and chicken portions
Process steps Inputs Process step Q1. Could the hazard be present in or on Q2. Is there a control Q3. Is there a control CCP
raw materials and other inputs hazards and the product1 at unacceptable levels2 at this measure at this step measure available at a No.
potential impact of step? that would prevent previous step that would
process step on If yes, answer Q2 and Q3. unacceptable levels of prevent unacceptable
existing hazards the hazard? levels of the hazard?
1. Receipt of Carcass/head/ B1. Enteric Yes External surface of birds is likely to No No

live birds feet/feathers pathogens be contaminated with unacceptable
levels of microorganisms. Refer to
Sections 13.11.2 and 13.11.5
C1. Chemical No3
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens
Internal organs C1. Chemical No3
residues
2. Hanging Carcass/head/ B1. Enteric Yes External surface of birds is likely to No No
feet/feathers pathogens be contaminated with unacceptable
levels of microorganisms.
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens
Internal organs C1. Chemical No
residues
3. Stunning Carcass/head/ B1. Enteric Yes External surface of birds is likely to No No
levels of microorganisms.

23 March 2017
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens
residues
4. Killing Carcass/head/ B1. Enteric Yes External surface of birds is likely to No No
levels microorganisms.
Contamination of the No
cut area
C1. Chemical
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens
residues
5. Bleeding Carcass/head/ B4. Enteric Yes External surface of birds is likely to No No
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens

23 March 2017
Edible offal C1. Chemical No

residues
6. Scalding Carcass/head/ B1. Enteric Yes External surface of birds is likely to No No
Cross contamination No
from scald water
C1. Chemical
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens
Edible offal C1. Chemical No
residues
from scald water
7. Defrathering Carcass/head/ B1. Enteric Yes External surface of birds is likely to No No
Cross contamination Yes Potential increase in incidence of No No
pathogens on carcasses. Refer to
Section 13.11.5 Defeathering
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens

23 March 2017

residues
8. Washing Carcass/head/ B1. Enteric Yes External surface of carcasses is Yes - effective washing No 1a
feet pathogens likely to be contaminated with will reduce
unacceptable levels of microbiological
microorganisms. contamination from
previous step (part of
system CCP1). Refer to
Section 13.11.5 Washing
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens
residues
9. Head pulling Carcass/head/ B1. Enteric Yes External surface of carcasses is No No
feet pathogens likely to be contaminated with
unacceptable levels of
microorganisms.
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens
residues

23 March 2017
10. Hock Carcass/feet B1. Enteric Yes External surface of carcasses is No No

cutting pathogens likely to be contaminated with
microorganisms.
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric No
pathogens
residues
11. Venting Carcass B1. Enteric Yes External surface of carcasses is No No
pathogens likely to be contaminated with
microorganisms.
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric Contamination from Yes Faecal contamination due to gut No No
pathogens the GIT breakage is likely to result in an
unacceptable increase in the
incidence and levels of pathogens
on carcasses and edible offal.
Refer to Section 13.11.5
Evisceration
residues

23 March 2017
12. Carcass B1/B24. Enteric Yes Carcasses are likely to be No No

Evisceration pathogens contaminated with unacceptable
levels of microorganisms
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT B2. Enteric Contamination from Yes Faecal contamination due to gut No No
pathogens the GIT breakage is likely to result in an
Refer to 13.11.5 Evisceration
Edible offal B2. Enteric Contamination from the GIT Yes No
Continued in pathogens from
Table 5C GIT
C1. Chemical No
residues
13. Washing Carcass B1/B2. Enteric Yes Carcasses are likely to be Yes - effective washing No 1b
pathogens contaminated with unacceptable will reduce micro-
levels of microorganisms. biological contamination
from previous steps (part
of system CCP1). Refer
to 13.11.5 Washing
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT (crop) B2. Enteric No
pathogens

23 March 2017
14. Crop Carcass B1/B2. Enteric Yes Carcasses are likely to be No No

removal pathogens contaminated with unacceptable
levels of microorganisms. Refer to
13.11.2 and 13.11.5.
C1. Chemical No
residues
GIT (crop) B2. Enteric Contamination from Yes Contamination due to crop No No
pathogens the crop breakage is likely to result in an
Refer to Section 13.11.5.
15. Neck Carcass B1/B2. Enteric Yes Carcasses are likely to be No No
cracking/ pathogens contaminated with unacceptable
cutting of neck levels of microorganisms.
flap
C1. Chemical No
residues
16. Washing Carcass B1/B2. Enteric Yes Carcasses are likely to be Yes - effective No 1c
(inside/outside pathogens contaminated with unacceptable inside/outside washing
wash) levels of microorganisms. will reduce micro-
biological contamination
from previous steps (part
of system CCP1). Refer
to 13.11.5 Washing
C1. Chemical No
residues

23 March 2017
17. Immersion Carcass B1/B2. Enteric Yes Carcasses are likely to be Yes - effective chilling Yes - washing at previous 2
chilling/ pathogens contaminated with unacceptable and use of a permitted steps particularly at step 16
combination levels of microorganisms. bactericidal agent can
chilling reduce overall micro-
biological counts on
carcasses. Refer to
Section 13.11.5 Chilling
Cross contamination Yes Immersion chilling can result in an Yes - effective chilling Yes - washing at previous 2
unacceptable increase in the and use of a permitted steps particularly at step 16
incidence of pathogens on bactericidal agent (e.g.
carcasses. Refer to Section chlorine) can minimise
13.11.5 Washing cross-contamination.
Refer to 13.11.5 Chilling
C1. Chemical No
residues
18. Rehanging Carcass B1/B2. Enteric No
pathogens from
skin, feathers,
GIT
C1. Chemical No
residues
19, Conveying Carcass B1/B2. Enteric No
to secondary pathogens from
processing skin, feathers,
area GIT
C1. Chemical No
residues

23 March 2017
20. Portioning Carcass B1/B2. Enteric No

pathogens
Growth of No
microorganisms
C1. Chemical No
residues
21a. Storage Portions B1/B2. Enteric No
pathogens
Growth of No
microorganisms
C1. Chemical No
residues
21b. Deboning Portions B1/B2. Enteric No
pathogens
Growth of No
microorganisms
C1. Chemical No
residues
P1. Bone No for
manual
boning

23 March 2017
Yes for Reported incidences of Correct machine settings. No 3

automatic noncompliance. Refer to Section
boning 13.11.5 Portioning and deboning
22. Packaging Whole carcass/ B1/B2. Enteric No
portions/ pathogens
deboned meat
C1. Chemical No
residues
23. Chilling / Whole carcass/ B1/B2. Enteric No
Freezing portions/ pathogens from
deboned meat skin, feathers,
GIT
Growth of No
microorganisms for
chilled products
C1. Chemical No
residues
24. Frozen/ Whole carcass/ B1/B2. Enteric No
chilled storage portions/ pathogens from
GIT
Growth of No
microorganisms for
chilled products

23 March 2017
C1. Chemical No
residues
25. Dispatch Whole carcass/ B1/B2. Enteric No
portions/ pathogens from
GIT
C1. Chemical No
residues
1
2
 level;
 frequency;
3
Most control measures for addressing potential hazards associated with chemical residues are applied in the livestock production system under a Whole Flock Health Scheme. New Zealand
MPI maintains a Broiler Chemical Residue Monitoring Programme that monitors the residue status of birds slaughtered for human consumption.
4
B1 and B2 have been combined because the hazards of concern, which initially come from the surface of the carcass and the GIT, are the same type of microorganisms and are now found on
the same raw material component (i.e. the carcass). In addition, the source of the contamination cannot be differentiated at this stage of the process and at succeeding steps.

23 March 2017
Table 5C: Hazard analysis and CCP determination (raw material, other inputs and process steps) for processing of edible offal.
Process steps Inputs Process step hazards Q1. Could the hazard be present in or on Q2. Is there a control Q3. Is there a control CCP
raw materials and other inputs and potential impact the product1 at unacceptable levels2 at measure at this step that measure available at a No.
of process step on this step? would prevent previous step that would
existing hazards If yes, answer Q2 and Q3. unacceptable levels of prevent unacceptable
the hazard? levels of the hazard?
1. Separation Edible offal B2. Enteric Yes Faecal contamination from the No No
of liver/heart pathogens from evisceration steps is likely to
and gizzard GIT result in unacceptable levels of
microorganisms. Refer to Section
From 13.11.2 Edible Offal
evisceration
C1. Chemical No
step in Table
residues
5B
2. Peeling of Edible offal B2. Enteric Yes Faecal contamination from the No No
gizzard pathogens from evisceration steps is likely to
GIT result in unacceptable levels of
microorganisms.
C1. Chemical No
residues
3. Washing or Edible offal B2. Enteric Yes Edible offal are likely to be Yes - effective chilling and No
immersion pathogens from contaminated with unacceptable use of permitted
chilling GIT levels of microorganisms. Refer bactericidal agent (e.g.
to 13.11.2 and 13.11.5 Chilling chlorine) can reduce
overall micro-biological
counts3. Refer to Section
13.11.5 Chilling
Cross contamination Yes Immersion chilling can result in Yes - effective chilling and 4
from chiller water an unacceptable increase in the use of permitted
incidence of pathogens. Refer to bactericidal agent (e.g.
Section 13.11.5. chlorine) can minimise

23 March 2017
cross contamination. Refer

to Section 13.11.5 Chilling
C1. Chemical No
residues
4. Weighing Edible offal B2. Enteric No
and packing pathogens from
GIT
C1. Chemical No
residues
5. Chilling / Edible offal B2. Enteric No
Freezing pathogens from
GIT
Growth of No
microorganisms for
chilled products
C1. Chemical No
residues
6. Storage Edible offal B2. Enteric No
pathogens from
GIT
Growth of No
microorganisms
C1. Chemical No
residues

23 March 2017
7. Dispatch Edible offal B2. Enteric No

pathogens from
GIT
C1. Chemical No
residues
1
2
 level;
 frequency;
3
Washing without the use of a permitted bactericidal agent (e.g. chlorine) may not be an adequate control measure for reducing microbiological levels and minimising cross-contamination to
acceptable levels. Premises should take this into consideration during hazard analysis.

23 March 2017

FSO2: To ensure that chemical residues in the product do not exceed specified targets as monitored by the
MPI Broiler Chemical Residue Monitoring Programme.
FSO3: To minimise the presence of bone in automatically deboned products to levels not exceeding specified
targets.


requirements.
Tables 6 and 7 provides a summary of the plan. References to documented procedures located elsewhere
should be shown in this table.

achieve identified food safety objectives (FSOs). CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control
plan itself.
This FSO is expected to be achieved by providing adequate control measures at the washing steps (CCP1a,
1b & 1c) and at immersion chilling (CCP2 for carcasses and CCP4 for edible offal) together with effective
prerequisite programmes (e.g. cleaning and sanitation, hygienic processing, refrigeration management).
The use of microbiological observations is appropriate for evaluating the adequacy of the process to achieve
FSO1. Microbiological data may be obtained from relevant published scientific literature, in-house historical
data, and/or by gathering new data.
applied at a specific step or steps. The use of published information will be a sufficient basis for validation only
if it can clearly be shown that the conditions or variables considered in the scientific study are applicable to

23 March 2017
those existing in the process being validated. However, microbiological testing of products as an on-going
verification activity may still be required.
the CCPs in relation to the achievement of the FSO. Historical data may be used provided there has been no
change in the product and process from the time the data were collected, sampling and the analytical tests
are based on standardised methods and the amount of data available is adequate for validation.
validation will involve the collection of new data from the time that the HACCP plan is implemented. The
following are factors which should be considered when developing an appropriate design for microbiological
validation in the absence of benchmark or historical data:
Sample size: Number determined by statistical techniques.

Sample time frame: Random selection of samples taken over a specified processing period.
Methodology: Samples to be taken and tested as per current NMD protocol
NMD data will provide information on microbiological levels that are achievable for carcasses after slaughter
and dressing. Individual premises are expected to assess their own NMD results when setting microbiological
targets within the framework of national guidelines, taking into consideration on-farm practices and seasonal
factors.
Supporting systems (i.e. prerequisite programmes) should be validated as complying with good hygienic
practice.
FSO2: To ensure that chemical residues in the product do not exceed specified targets as monitored
by the MPI Broiler Chemical Residue Monitoring Programme.
FSO2 is expected to be achieved by ensuring that live birds are sourced from producers that comply with the
whole flock health scheme which has been considered in this plan as a supporting system. Compliance with
the scheme, as it relates to chemical residues, is verified under the MPI Broiler Chemical Residue Monitoring
Programme.
FSO3: To minimise the presence of bone in automatically deboned products to levels not exceeding
specified targets.
FSO3 is expected to be addressed at CCP3 (deboning). Visual inspection of deboned products for the
presence of bone may be used to evaluate the adequacy of procedures at this process step to control the
hazard. Guidance on establishing sampling regimes for validation using visual observation may be obtained
from publications on statistical process control.
controls, or when process failure that may compromise product safety occurs.

23 March 2017
Table 6: HACCP plan summary spreadsheet for slaughter and dressing of chicken (broilers)
When and How)
8, 13 & 16. B1/B2. 1a Specified washing Person responsible to  Correct washing  FSO validation  Validation records
Washing steps Enteric 1b parameters that will achieve check and record washing parameters.  Product testing (e.g.  Daily monitoring records
pathogens 1c or contribute to the parameters at specified  Increase frequency of microbiological)  Corrective action reports
achievement of specified frequency4, i.e. monitoring.  Water testing  Analytical test reports
microbiological targets for  check carcass  Review adequacy of  Calibration of  Calibration records
carcasses, i.e. coverage operational and/or measuring equipment  Internal audit reports
 complete carcass  check presence of monitoring procedures.  Internal audit  Extrinsic audit reports
coverage by showers extraneous material on  Extrinsic audit (e.g.  Client feedback records
 water pressure adequate predetermined number regulator, client)  HACCP review records
to remove visible of washed carcasses  Client feedback
extraneous material  measure concentration  HACCP review
 specified concentration of of bactericidal agent, if
bactericidal agent (e.g. used
chlorine), if used
17. Immersion B1/B2. 2 Specified chilling parameters Person responsible to  Correct chilling  FSO validation  Validation records
chilling Enteric that will achieve specified check and record chilling parameters.  Product testing (e.g.  Daily monitoring records
pathogens microbiological targets for parameters at specified  Reduce temperature of microbiological)  Corrective action reports
carcasses, i.e. frequency4, , i.e. products to acceptable  Water testing  Analytical test reports
 minimum water flow rates  check or measure level (e.g. blast chill or  Calibration of  Calibration records
(e.g. as per water flow rates ice) measuring equipment  Internal audit reports
recommendation in PIPS  check or measure  Increase frequency of  Internal audit  Extrinsic audit reports
5) water temperature monitoring.  Extrinsic audit (e.g.  Client feedback records
 water temperature  measure deep muscle  Review adequacy of regulator, client)  HACCP review records
 exit temperature of temperature of a operational and/or  Client feedback
carcass predetermined number monitoring procedures.  HACCP review
 concentration of of chilled carcasses
bactericidal agent (e.g.  measure concentration
chlorine) in overflow of bactericidal agent in
water, if used over flow water, if used

23 March 2017
When and How)
 maximum carcass  check carcass loading

loading of tanks of tanks
20b. Deboning Bone in 3 Limits for presence of bone Person responsible to  Adjust deboning  FSO validation  Validation records
automatically to be specified by the inspect predetermined machine.  Product testing for  Daily monitoring records
deboned operator. Refer to Section sample size of deboned  Rework noncompliant presence of bone  Corrective action reports
products 13.11.5 7 Portioning and products at specified products.  Internal audit  Internal audit reports
Deboning for guidance. frequency  Increase monitoring of  Extrinsic audit (e.g.  Extrinsic audit reports
deboning process. regulator, client)  Customer complaints file
 Retrain personnel  Customer complaints  HACCP review records
 HACCP review
1
Corrective actions should reflect an escalating response when ongoing noncompliance occurs. Corrective actions must take three components into consideration when a critical limit is
exceeded. These are:
 quick restoration of control;
 disposition of affected product, if applicable; and
 prevention of recurrence of the problem.
2
3
4
Monitoring frequencies should be set so that time periods between monitoring results in minimal amount of product being affected when critical limits are not met during this period.

23 March 2017
Table 7: HACCP plan summary spreadsheet for slaughter and dressing of chicken edible offal
When and How)
3. Immersion B1/B2. 4 Specified washing Person responsible to  Correct washing  FSO validation  Validation records
chilling Enteric parameters that will check and record washing parameters.  Product testing (e.g.  Daily monitoring
pathogens achieve or contribute to the parameters at specified  Increase frequency of microbiological) records
achievement of specified frequency4, i.e. monitoring.  Water testing  Corrective action
microbiological targets for  check or measure  Review adequacy of  Calibration of reports
edible offal, i.e. water flow rates operational and/or measuring equipment  Analytical test reports
 minimum water  check or measure monitoring procedures.  Internal audit  Calibration records
flowrates water temperature  Extrinsic audit (e.g.  Internal audit reports
 water temperature  measure temperature regulator, client)  Extrinsic audit reports
 exit temperature of of a predetermined  Client feedback  Client feedback records
edible offal number of offal  HACCP review  HACCP review records
 time to reach specified  check time to reach
temperature from specified temperature
evisceration  measure concentration
 concentration of of bactericidal agent in
bactericidal agent (e.g. water, if used
chlorine) in water, if
used
1
exceeded. These are:
 quick restoration of control;
 disposition of affected product, if applicable; and
 prevention of recurrence of the problem.
2
3
4
Monitoring frequencies should be set so that time periods between monitoring results in minimal amount of product being affected when critical limits are not met during this period.

23 March 2017

The New Zealand poultry industry currently supplies all of the domestic chicken requirements of the country,
with negligible amounts of products being exported. The size of poultry processing operations ranges from
large fully integrated companies to small family-run processing premises. At present, three major processing
companies produce over 90% of chicken sold in the New Zealand market, with the rest produced by about 15
smaller processors.
An attempt has been made to include in this generic plan those food safety hazards and processes that are of
relevance to both large and small processors. However, due to the wide variation in systems and parameters
used in commercial poultry processing it has not been possible to consider all of these aspects in one generic
plan. Thus, it is very important that individual premises customise their HACCP plan to their specific product,
process and premises.
The scope of this generic plan is limited to slaughter and dressing of chicken, from the receipt of live birds to
dispatch of finished products. However, a complete food safety assurance programme for chicken processing
should include on-farm and pre-slaughter practices since major hazards associated with chicken
consumption, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter, are strongly linked to these aspects of the operation.
Literature reviews and hazard analysis indicate that microbiological contamination on chicken carcasses
during processing mainly occurs during scalding, defeathering, and evisceration. There is also potential for
cross-contamination to occur during immersion chilling. Controls for minimising contamination at the scalding,
defeathering and evisceration steps are presently achieved in New Zealand premises mainly through the
observance of good hygienic practices. There is general agreement from industry representatives that there is
very little that can be done, at present, to further reduce contamination at these steps without a change in
equipment. Changing to new equipment can be a very costly exercise and is viewed by industry as a long
term solution which may address some or all of the contamination issues. There is an opportunity to reduce
microbiological levels on carcasses during processing by using effective multiple washing steps and
immersion chilling.
Poultry processing operations cannot eliminate pathogenic bacteria. However, research and/or observations
indicate that observance of good hygienic practices (i.e. supporting systems) and the following procedures
can reduce the bacterial load (including pathogens) and/or prevent their proliferation on raw chicken
carcasses:
 adequate feed withdrawal;

 effective spray washing with water containing permitted bactericidal agent (e.g. chlorine) immediately
after contamination steps;
 effective chilling (i.e. rapid chilling, optimum washing effect and minimised cross contamination)
 maintenance of low carcass temperatures.
13.11.1 Foodborne Illness Associated with Chicken
Numerous cases and outbreaks of foodborne illness worldwide have been attributed to the consumption of
chicken products (Bremner and Johnston, 1996). Outbreaks involving large numbers of people are usually
due to Salmonella, Clostridium perfringens and Staphylococcus aureus (ICMSF, 1998). In the United States,
during the period of 1988-1992, chicken products accounted for around 3-4.5% of outbreaks and 1-8.5% of
cases reported for which the food vehicle was identified (Bean et al., 1997). The primary bacterial agent for
the outbreaks was Salmonella (72%). Campylobacter may be a more common cause of human diarrhoeal
disease than Salmonella, although it is rarely associated with outbreaks (NACMCF, 1997; ICMSF, 1998).
Improper storage or holding temperature and inadequate cooking were the contributing factors most often
reported for chicken-related outbreaks (Bean and Griffin, 1990).

23 March 2017
Undercooked chicken has also been identified as a possible vehicle of Listeria monocytogenes infection in the
United States based on a case-control study conducted in conjunction with an active surveillance programme
in several states. Two cases of listeriosis in England and one case in the United States have also been
positively linked to consumption of poultry products (Ryser and Marth, 1991). Two of the foods involved in the
cases were precooked (cooked-and-chilled chicken; turkey frankfurters). The source of infection for the other
case was identified as chicken nuggets of the “fast food” kind which was thought to be most likely
undercooked.
In New Zealand, there is very limited published information on cases or outbreaks of foodborne illness for
which food vehicles have been identified. Although there is little information directly implicating chicken
consumption with foodborne illness, the results of a New Zealand survey on poultry quality and a case control
study on campylobacteriosis show a strong and consistent association of the disease with the consumption of
poultry, specifically chicken (Ikram et al., 1994; Eberhart-Phillips et al., 1995). Factors identified as being
associated with increased risk include: eating raw or undercooked chicken, barbecued chicken, and chicken
prepared outside of the home, including at restaurants or takeaway establishments. However, chicken that is
thoroughly cooked appears to convey little or no risk of disease.
Live birds affected with systemic bacterial infection or septicaemia generally exhibit obvious clinical signs of
the disease. Severely infected birds are likely to be culled while still on the farm as part of the whole flock
health scheme. Localised pathological abnormalities may occur sporadically in chicken. There are, currently,
no national data available on the pathology of broilers in New Zealand. However, anecdotal evidence from
industry suggests that pathological abnormalities are rarely observed on broilers grown under a whole flock
health scheme. An inspection system and disease and defects surveys are currently being developed by MPI
and industry which will provide information on the levels of pathology on carcasses and offal.
A review of literature suggest that pathology in birds and associated disease is probably of minor importance
compared with enteric pathogens such as Salmonella and Campylobacter.
The two important zoonotic bacteria commonly implicated in foodborne illness associated with poultry meat
are Salmonella and Campylobacter (Bremner and Johnston, 1996). In order to control the incidence of these
organisms on poultry meat, measures must be taken at a number of stages of production and processing.
Salmonella and Campylobacter vary considerably in their epidemiology, such that different control measures
are appropriate for each. Generally, both organisms are carried in the intestines of poultry without causing
clinical disease.
Meat
Salmonella spp.
Salmonella species have long been associated with poultry products. Commercial poultry flocks are prone to
infection with Salmonella, especially during the early weeks of life. The presence of Salmonella in the gut, on
the skin and the feathers causes contamination of carcasses during subsequent slaughter and processing.
Prevalence of Salmonella in New Zealand broiler flocks has been observed to be around 10-15% positive
flocks on an annual basis (Diprose pers.comm., 1999). Care must be taken in interpreting this information due
to the numerous factors affecting prevalence (e.g. flock, on-farm practices, feed, transport and handling)
which results in a great variability in prevalence levels obtained.
A New Zealand survey on poultry quality found that 16% of 159 raw poultry samples tested were
contaminated with Salmonella spp. (Campbell and Gilbert, 1995). The pathogen was found in both fresh and
frozen raw samples. This level of contamination is consistent with previous New Zealand surveys. Fraser et
al. (1991) found a 12.5 to 15% annual contamination rate A recent survey conducted by the Consumers’
Institute detected Salmonella spp. in 17 out of 50 whole raw chickens bought from supermarkets and butchers

23 March 2017
in Christchurch and Auckland (Consumers’ Institute, 1999). Care must also be taken in interpreting this result
as reflecting the national flock due to the limitations of the sampling protocol followed.
Carcass contamination levels in New Zealand appear to be lower than that in the UK (45 to 80%) (Bremner
and Johnston, 1996) and the US (35%) (USDA as cited by Lillard, 1989a). However, recent reports claim that
the contamination level in the US has decreased from approximately 20% prior to mandatory HACCP
implementation (USDA FSIS, 1996a) to approximately 10.9% after one year of HACCP implementation
(Beers, 1999).
The results of the New Zealand survey also show that Salmonella was not detected in any of 1330 ready-to-
eat poultry products, confirming the effectiveness of proper cooking in destroying Salmonella in food products
(Campbell and Gilbert, 1995).
Campylobacter jejuni
The incidence of Campylobacter jejuni in broilers has been reported to range from 83% (Grant et al., 1980) to
88% (USDA FSIS, 1996a) in the United States, and 14% (Simmons and Gibbs, 1977) to 91% (Ribiero, 1978)
in the United Kingdom. An Australian study showed that three of four flocks examined carried C. jejuni with an
isolation rate of 52 to 100% in the positive flocks (Shanker et al., 1982). The variations may be due to
differences in sample size, isolation methodology, or variation in flocks from different localities, or all of these
factors. The prevalence of C. jejuni in New Zealand flocks is presently unknown.
C. jejuni has been isolated from raw poultry products worldwide, often at prevalence rates exceeding 50%
(Wempe et al., 1983; Berndtson et al., 1992; NACMCF, 1997). The level of C. jejuni are generally higher than
other enteric bacteria, and on occasion can be present at levels as high as 105 to 106 cfu/carcass (Shanker et
al., 1982; Gill and Harris, 1984).
A microbiological survey of 159 raw poultry samples collected at random from New Zealand poultry
processors, found that 82 samples (52%) were positive for Campylobacter (Campbell and Gilbert, 1995). This
rate is slightly lower that those earlier reported by Gill and Harris (1984) who detected C. jejuni in 68% of
chilled carcasses from retail outlets in New Zealand. A recent survey conducted by the Consumers’ Insitute
detected Campylobacter in 27 out of 50 whole raw chickens bought from supermarkets and butchers in
Christchurch and Auckland (Consumers’ Institute, 1999). Care must be taken in interpreting this result as
reflecting the national flock due to the limitations of the sampling protocol followed.
Despite the fact that raw poultry have been frequently found to be contaminated with Campylobacter, only one
sample (0.07%) of ready-to-eat poultry products tested positive for the organism in the New Zealand survey
(Campbell and Gilbert, 1995). This is as expected because Campylobacter is killed at normal cooking
temperatures. Contamination of cooked products could be a result of undercooking, but is more likely to be
due to cross-contamination between cooked and raw products or contaminated contact surfaces, or direct
contamination by an infected food handler.
C. jejuni on poultry carcasses appear to be highly susceptible to freezing. Investigations suggest that
commercial freezing substantially reduces Campylobacter contamination of chickens (Gill and Harris, 1984;
Hassell, 1994). A study on broiler carcasses obtained from 21 retail outlets in
New Zealand showed that C. jejuni was isolated in 68% of chilled carcasses and only 16% of frozen
carcasses, maximum numbers being 10 5 and 103 cfu/carcass, respectively (Gill and Harris,1984). A more
recent survey of poultry in the New Zealand retail market did not detect any positive isolates from frozen
poultry (Campbell and Gilbert, 1995).
Clostridium perfringens is a spore-forming anaerobe that commonly inhabits the lower intestinal tract of both
chickens and humans (NACMCF, 1997). Low levels of the microorganism are typically found on the surface of
a large percentage of broilers and other poultry (Lillard, 1971). Its spores are more resistant than vegetative

23 March 2017
cells and are unaffected by the processes associated with poultry slaughter, such as scalding. C. perfringens
has been found in high frequencies (3177%) on different parts of the carcass (i.e. feet, feathers, caecum, vent
area, and neck skin) and the scald tank (Lillard, 1971). Prevalence of the organism in broiler carcasses in the
United States has been reported to be approximately 43% (USDA FSIS, 1996a). The prevalence of C.
perfringens in New Zealand flocks is presently unknown.
Because C. perfringens gastroenteritis is only associated with consumption of high levels of vegetative cells
(≥ 106 cfu/g), raw poultry would require substantial temperature abuse (> 15°C) to result in spore germination
and outgrowth. C. perfringen outbreaks have been commonly associated with improper cooling, improper hot
holding, inadequate reheating of cooked products (Bryan, 1980; Bean et al., 1997), but not temperature abuse
of raw chicken (NACMCF, 1997). A US survey of cooked products found 2.6% of 118 samples positive for C.
perfringens (Lillard, 1971).
Staphylococcus aureus is part of the microflora of chickens, commonly associated with bruised or infected
tissue, nasal passages, skin surfaces, and arthritic joints (Mead and Dodd, 1990; NACMCF, 1997). Low levels
of S. aureus are commonly found on the surface of poultry and throughout poultry processing premises
(Thompson et al., 1980; Noterman et al., 1982; Mead and Dodd, 1990). Typically, these are poultry-
associated strains which can be differentiated from human isolates (Gibbs et al., 1978a, b). Poultry strains do
not seem to be important in the aetiology of poultry product-associated staphylococcal intoxications and may
be considered as unimportant in terms of food safety (Isigidi et al., 1992). Instead, most staphylococcal
outbreaks appear to be related to contamination of cooked products by infected food handlers followed by
improper holding temperatures (Bryan, 1980).
Prevalence of S. aureus in broiler carcasses in the United States was found to be 64% based on a nationwide
baseline survey (USDA FSIS, 1996a). The survey did not identify whether the isolates were poultry-
associated strains or human strains.
A New Zealand survey found S. aureus to be present in 3.6% of 48 ready-to-eat poultry product samples
tested with 7 samples (0.5%) found to contain excessive numbers (Campbell and Gilbert, 1995).
Listeria monocytogenes
Several studies indicate that that Listeria monocytogenes infrequently enters the processing plant on live
broilers (Genigeorgis et al. 1989; Hudson and Mead, 1989; Bolder et al., 1991a; Cox et al., 1997). The
slaughter and processing environments appear to be the primary source for L. monocytogenes (Hudson and
Mead, 1989; Bolder et al., 1991a) though it is likely that the original source of the microorganism is
contamination of the equipment or environment with faeces or ingesta (Hudson and Mead, 1989). The
organism appears to take up residence in the plant, leading to cross-contamination during processing.
Hudson and Mead (1989) did not detect L. monocytogenes on neck skin from freshly killed birds (i.e. before
scalding) or the caeca during evisceration, but the organism was isolated from 50% of carcasses prior to
packaging. Similarly, Bolder et al. (1991a) did not detect the organism from 120 samples of caecal contents
but found low levels of the organism on skin samples after chilling. Genigeorgis et al. (1989) did not isolate the
organism from feathers of the broilers at arrival at the slaughterplant. They reported that the prevalence of L.
monocytogenes increased from 10 to 36.4% and then to 45.5% as the chicken carcasses and parts moved
through hanging after chilling, cutting, and then packaging, respectively. A more recent study (Cox et al.,
1997) confirmed the findings of earlier investigations. L. monocytogenes was found on only 1 of 115 whole
bird rinses and none of the 115 caeca were contaminated upon entering the processing plant. After
processing, 27 of 105 carcasses (25.7%) were found to be positive for L. monocytogenes.
A high prevalence of L. monocytogenes has been found in poultry slaughter plants, not only on the product,
but also both on the tools and the workers (Genigeorgis et al., 1989). Hudson and Mead (1989) observed that
the processing equipment that was consistently contaminated with L. monocytogenes was the automatic

23 March 2017
venting machine. They suggested that the frequent contamination of the venting machine was likely due to the
presence of Listeria in the gut content of some birds, having originated from contaminated feed (Skovgaard
and Morgen, 1988).
The results of these studies indicate that the common occurrence of Listeria on finished carcasses could be
directly attributable to contamination of processing equipment and the inevitable problem of cross-
contamination.
L. monocytogenes is a common contaminant of poultry products worldwide, with isolation rates from raw
carcasses ranging from 15 to 60% (Bailey et al., 1989; Genigeorgis et al., 1989; Hudson and Mead, 1989;
Varabioff, 1990, Ryser and Marth, 1991, Rocourt and Cossart, 1997). However, the populations of L.
monocytogenes present in raw or processed meat products are usually low, with 80 to 90% of samples
containing < 10 to 100 CFU/g (Rocourt and Cossart, 1997). For example, the organism was recovered from
15% of the 1297 broiler carcasses analysed (samples collected at the drip line after chilling) in a US baseline
survey (USDA FSIS, 1996a). The organism was detected in very low numbers with all positive samples
having < 100 mpn/cm2 and 99% < 10 mpn/cm2. Currently, there are no data available on the prevalence of L.
monocytogenes on raw poultry products processed in New Zealand.
Bolder et al. (1991a) concluded from their findings that the level of L. monocytogenes contamination on the
skin of broiler carcasses immediately after chilling is very low and will be no direct threat to public heath. They
came to a similar conclusion for poultry products held at 4°C (Bolder et al., 1991b). There is no evidence that
multiplication of L. monocytogenes on raw poultry during storage is a factor in human listeriosis (ICMSF,
1998). Case control studies, however, suggest that undercooking raw poultry is involved in human listeriosis
among individuals susceptible to listeriosis (Schwartz et al., 1988).
Escherichia coli O157:H7
Escherichia coli O157:H7 is not commonly associated with chicken products. The organism was not
recovered from any of the 1297 broiler carcasses analysed in a US nationwide baseline survey (USDA FSIS,
1996a). Currently, there are no data available on the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 on raw poultry products
processed in New Zealand.
Yersinia spp.
Yersinia pseudotuberculosis is endemic in wild birds but is rare in New Zealand poultry (Black, 1997).
Edible offal
Localised pathological abnormalities may occur sporadically in internal organs of chicken. There are,
currently, no national data available on the pathology of broilers in New Zealand. However, anecdotal
evidence from industry suggests that pathological abnormalities are rarely observed on internal organs of
broilers grown under a whole flock health scheme.
The different processing operations during slaughter and dressing contaminate the internal organs such that
the same pathogens found on chicken carcasses and products are commonly isolated on chicken edible offal.
Studies show that edible offal which had been through standard processing, water flumed, and batch ice
chilled were found to be positive for Salmonella and S. aureus (Charoenpong and Chen, 1979; Cox et al.,
1983). Isolation rates of C. jejuni for hearts and livers were reported to be 57% and 69%, respectively
(Wempe et al., 1983). A later study found higher isolation rates for hearts and livers at 66.7% and 97%,
respectively (Genigeorgis et al., 1986). A case-control study on campylobacteriosis in New Zealand showed
that consumption of chicken liver one or more times a month was associated with the disease (Eberhart-
Phillips et al., 1995). A US study found L. monocytogenes to be present in 33% of packaged livers at the end
of the processing line (Genigeorgis et al., 1989).

23 March 2017
In New Zealand, there is a particular concern in relation to chicken livers, which may contain very high
numbers of bacteria, since common cooking practices involve minimal cooking (Hassell, 1994).
Chemical hazards that could be present in chicken carcasses and edible offal include agricultural chemicals
(i.e. pesticides, herbicides, veterinary drugs) and environmental contaminants (i.e. heavy metals,
organochlorine compounds). Most control measures for addressing potential hazards associated with
chemical residues are applied on-farm under the Whole Flock Health Scheme. MPI maintains a Broiler
Chemical Residue Monitoring Programme that monitors the residue status of birds slaughtered for human
consumption. The results of this monitoring programme are published in Surveillance. The monitoring results
for the two years that have been completed are summarised below.
In both 1998 and 1999, just over 6,000 analyses for various chemical residues were performed on samples of
randomly selected broilers taken from processing plants nationally. No hormonal growth promotants,
organophosphates, synthetic pyrethroids, or herbicides were found in either year. No mycotoxins were found
in 1998 and this was not tested for in 1999. Residues below the tolerance level were detected for insecticides
(2/600 samples in both years), heavy metals (25/25 samples in both years), fungicides (0/960 samples in
1998 and 2/960 samples in 1999), DDT and its metabolites (14/180 samples in 1998 and 57/180 samples in
1999) and nicarbazin (14/60 samples in both years). In 1998 there were also 4 nicarbazin samples over the
tolerance level and in 1999 this number had increased to 8 although the levels detected were at
approximately half the concentration found the previous year. 1 mercury sample was over the tolerance level
in 1999. A traceback found that the mercury problem was due to high mercury levels in some fish meal.
Tracebacks on the nicarbazin results found that the problems were mainly due to cross contamination of the
broiler feed, or birds having access to starter feed containing nicarbazin during the withdrawal period.
Acceptable corrective action was taken by the relevant companies to address these problems (MAF Food
Assurance Authority, 1999; MAF Food Assurance Authority, 2000).
Based on a survey of New Zealand poultry processors, foreign objects such as feathers, feed material, human
hair, packaging material (e.g. plastic), and metal have been found on raw poultry products at low frequencies
and levels. Bone in deboned products is a more common problem. Not all of these foreign objects can be
considered as physical hazards because some of them are not related to food safety. Metal and bone pose
the biggest food safety concern because they can cause injury such as cuts, broken teeth, choking
(Rhodehamel, 1992), and intestinal perforation (Gunn, 1966). Poultry processors should implement a
preventive programme for physical contamination and should consider installing a metal detection system, if
levels of metal hazards deem it necessary.
13.11.5 Key Process Steps: Hazards and Potential Impact on Existing Microbiological
Hazards
Several reviews have been published about the microbiological aspects of poultry processing (Bailey et al.,
1987; Bremner and Johnston, 1996; NACMCF, 1997; Bolder, 1998; ICMSF, 1998).
There are three main mechanisms that have been proposed to account for the attachment of bacteria on
poultry carcasses (NACMSF, 1997). “Retention” occurs when carcasses come into contact with water
containing bacteria. A film of water is retained on the carcass surface. Rinsing carcasses with water having a
lower microbial population will reduce the microbial population that is retained on the carcasses. Estimates
indicate that bacterial numbers on carcasses can be reduced by 90% through the use of water sprays at
several selected points in processing (Thomas et al., 1987). “Entrapment” occurs when exposed tissue
surfaces (e.g. skin, collagenous connective tissue layers of muscle) absorb water and begin to swell. Swelling
exposes deep channels and crevices into which bacteria can penetrate and become entrapped (Thomas and
McMeekin, 1980; 1984; Lillard, 1988, 1989b; Benedict et al., 1991). Entrapped bacteria cannot be removed by
carcass sprays and they would also be protected to some degree from chemicals used for decontamination.

23 March 2017
With the passage of time, bacteria that are initially retained in the surface film of water may eventually become
entrapped (Lillard, 1989b). “Adhesion” occurs when microorganisms adhere to surface tissues. Only certain
bacteria are capable of adhesion (e.g. some strains of salmonellae). Adhesion preferentially occurs on the
fascia or loose connective tissue that is under the skin and covers muscle. While all three mechanisms likely
occur, the relative significance of each is uncertain (Thomas et al., 1987). The efficacy of different
decontamination methods will be influenced by the proportion of the population which is retained, entrapped
or adhered.
Bacteria are firmly attached to carcasses before processing is initiated, i.e. broilers arrive at the premises with
aerobic bacteria and Enterobacteriaceae firmly attached to the skin (Lillard, 1989a). If incoming flocks are
surface contaminated with Salmonella before they are processed, it is unlikely that Salmonella-free carcasses
can be produced because once salmonellae attach to the broiler skin, it is extremely difficult to eliminate or
control these microorganisms in the processing premises. Therefore, in order to process a Salmonella-free
carcass, it seems essential to produce a Salmonella-free bird (Lillard, 1989b). The same can probably be said
for Campylobacter. Although complete elimination of these pathogens on poultry carcasses is unlikely under
normal processing conditions, it is possible to minimise cross-contamination in the premises, and therefore
Salmonella and Campylobacter incidence. Processing seems to improve the overall quality of the carcasses
with the levels of aerobes and Enterobacteriaceae lower at each progressive step in processing from the
bleed line to the chiller (Lillard, 1989a; 1990; Stals, 1996). However, cross-contamination may still occur
(Morris and Wells, 1970; Lillard, 1990).
1. Scalding
Scalding is a process by which the bird is subjected to moist heat for a short time to facilitate the removal of
feathers. Although there are a number of potential means for scalding, most broilers in New Zealand are
processed by immersion scalding using a single or two-stage scalder. Two types of scalding are differentiated
based on processing temperatures; soft scalds (≤55°C) and hard scalds (> 55°C). Broilers are primarily hard
scalded in New Zealand at temperatures of around 56 to 62°C for up to 3 minutes.
When the birds are immersed in the scalding tank, some of the dirt, faecal material, and other contaminants
on the surface of the bird are removed and contaminate the scald water. After an initial increase, bacterial
counts of scald water remain relatively constant throughout the processing day (Mulder and Veerkamp, 1974).
Bacterial loads of scald water at different temperatures can range from 104 to 106 cfu/ml (Mulder and
Dorresteijn, 1977). C. perfringen (Lillard,1971), C. jejuni (Wempe et al., 1983; Genigeorgis et al., 1986) and
low levels of S. aureus can be routinely isolated from scald water, but Salmonella is rarely isolated (Bailey et
al., 1987).
Scalding can serve as a means for cross-contamination. There is opportunity for bacteria to be transferred
from one carcass to another via the scald water but it is highly unlikely to result in significant differences in
either the nature or degree of contamination of the external surfaces among birds (Bailey et al., 1987).
Contamination of the skin, in particular, apparently does not increase during immersion scalding. Scalding
appears to have little significance relative to the incidence of level of C. jejuni contamination on the final
carcass (Wempe et al., 1983; Genigeorgis et al., 1986).
Some investigators report that the major objection to immersion scalding is the possible inspiration of
contaminated scald water by the birds, with subsequent contamination of air sacs, lungs, and possibly other
internal organs and edible tissues by pathogenic bacteria (Bailey et al., 1987; Lillard, 1971). The degree of
such contamination is less when slaughter is by the Kosher cut (trachea severed), if birds are electrically
stunned, and when bleeding time prior to scalding is 2 minutes or more (Thomson and Kotula, 1959; Tarver
and May, 1963a, b). Inspiration of contaminated water by birds is not considered to be a problem in New
Zealand premises since most processors electrically stun the birds and bleeding time prior to scalding is
generally greater than 2 minutes.
Hard scalding at about 58-60°C and above, followed by mechanical plucking, results in removal of the outer
epidermal layer (cuticle) of the bird’s skin, whereas scalding at 52-53°C does not (Bailey et al., 1987). The

23 March 2017
cuticle-free and slightly denatured skin of hard-scalded broilers apparently serves as a more suitable
substrate for bacterial attachment (Kim et al., 1993). Studies have shown that Salmonella counts (Kim et al.,
1993) and Campylobacter counts are 1.1 to 1.3 logs higher on carcasses scalded at 60°C than those scalded
at 52 or 56°C (Slavik et al., 1995).
There is theoretical and experimental evidence that temperatures of about 60°C are more effective in
reducing numbers of bacteria in scald water than lower temperatures. However, it has not been clearly
established that any difference in bacterial level at this point in the processing line results in a significantly
lower incidence of pathogen-contaminated carcasses at the end of the line. The bulk of the evidence suggests
that other processes, e.g. defeathering, evisceration, and chilling, are of greater importance than scalding in
cross-contamination of carcasses (Bailey et al., 1987).
Counter current scalders and multi-stage scalders generally have a greater impact on reducing levels of
microorganisms on the carcass (Bolder, 1998). Multi-tank systems have been shown to reduce both the total
aerobic and the enterobacterial counts (Stals, 1996). This is because each time a bird is dipped into the scald
water, some 70% of the bacteria attached to the feathers and skin are washed off. This results in lower
bacteria numbers both on the bird, and in the scald water, in each successive bath. Typical reductions in a
four bath system compared with a conventional scalder are approximately 0.9 log units for the total aerobic
count and 1.0 log units for enterobacteria per gram of breast skin (Stals, 1996).
2. Defeathering
Defeathering has been identified as a major site of cross-contamination for poultry carcasses including
pathogens, such as Campylobacter and Salmonella, and indicator organisms such as E. coli (Mulder et al.,
1978; Wempe et al., 1983; NACMCF, 1997). The process removes feathers, dirt and large numbers of
bacteria from individual carcasses but creates aerosols that spread bacteria, water and solid matter,
contaminating other carcasses and equipment (Tinker et al., 1996). In addition to this, carcasses may become
contaminated during defeathering with microorganisms which have colonised the machinery such as
Staphylococcus aureus (Mead and Dodd, 1990; Meat et al., 1993). This is associated with the rubber fingers
used to remove the feathers, because the microorganism becomes established in cracks in the rubber fingers.
Further, the extraction of the feather from the follicle can lead to deep entrapment of bacteria which are
difficult if not impossible to remove during later processing steps.
Defeathering can result in a reduction on carcass contamination by 1000-fold (Hinton et al., 1996). The extent
of cross-contamination is affected, in part, by the distance of the carcass sampled from the inoculated ‘seeder’
bird and the number of uninoculated carcasses between the two. Mead et al. (1975) found that mechanical
plucking led to cross-contamination of at least the 200th bird following two carcasses that had been inoculated
with the ‘marker’ organism.
More cross-contamination occurs during scalding and defeathering when lower scalding temperatures (52-
54°C) are used than when a higher scalding temperature (60°C) is used (Mulder et al, 1978).
Recent studies suggest that cross-contamination could be reduced considerably if carcasses were
defeathered in separate compartments, possibly on a carousel (Hinton et al., 1996). The effect of using
chlorinated water on the level of cross-contamination during defeathering is not clear. Hinton et al. (1996)
noted a reduction in cross-contamination with the use of cold, chlorinated water, however, Mead et al. (1975)
found that the addition of 20 mg/l chlorine in the spray water had no effect.
Although the defeathering process is generally regarded as a major cause of carcass contamination, it is not
usually considered as a critical control point because it is assumed that little can be done to improve the
situation. This is likely to be true for New Zealand processors considering existing defeathering systems.
3. Evisceration

23 March 2017
Evisceration can be a major source of faecal contamination on carcasses and edible offal, particularly if the
intestines are cut or broken (NACMCF, 1997). This is likely to result in an increase in contamination by
mesophilic bacteria, including intestinal pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium
perfringens, and Listeria.
In New Zealand, evisceration is carried out manually in the small processing premises, whereas large
premises use automatic equipment involving several different machines, each dealing with a specific
operation. Either approach can result in clean removal of parts, or may lead to extensive gut breakage and the
spread of faecal material.
Successful evisceration relies heavily on the accuracy of vent opening and cutting (Bremner and Johnston,
1996). Some of the machinery in current use cause a significant degree of damage to the intestines, because
the carcasses vary in size and the equipment is not automatically adjustable. Traditional venting techniques
can cause considerable damage to the intestines with incidences of 80-90% being typical (Stals, 1996).
Information from New Zealand processors indicate that incidence of gut breakage for mechanical evisceration
systems range from 5- 40%. This is largely due to venting machines not being automatically adjustable to
accommodate the varying sizes of the birds and partly due to inadequate feed withdrawal. Such high
incidence levels of faecal contamination is of major concern to processors but it is claimed that little can be
done to improve the situation without changing to new improved machines.
The new evisceration systems are reported to be capable of reducing faecal contamination of both carcasses
and organs and hence the spread of foodborne enteric pathogens (Bremner and Johnston, 1996; Stals,
1996). With the new systems, after carefully controlled opening of the abdomen, the viscera is removed and
transferred to a separate processing line, which runs parallel to that carrying the carcasses and at the same
speed, so that carcasses and organs can be correlated for inspection purposes. In this system, contact
between carcasses and exposed viscera is eliminated, while hearts, lungs and livers are removed
automatically, without the need for manual handling.
Operator skill is the major factor that influences the levels of gut breakage in smaller processing premises
where evisceration is carried out manually. Manual evisceration results in 1- 5% incidence of gut breakage
which is largely attributed to operator error and inadequate feed withdrawal.
Inadequate feed withdrawal is an important contributing factor to contamination during evisceration since full
crops and intestinal tracts greatly increase the risk of gut breakage. Significantly higher aerobic counts and
coliform counts on carcasses are observed when feed is not withdrawn prior to processing (Izat et al., 1989).
Some investigators recommend that feed be withdrawn eight to twelve hours before the planned slaughter
time processing (Rigby and Pettit, 1981; Stals, 1996). A recent study, however, suggests that shorter feed
withdrawal periods may be more advantageous in terms of reducing bacteria in the crop and the caeca.
Information from New Zealand processors indicate that 1- 5% of birds are presented for slaughter with full
crops.
The faecal contamination of broiler carcasses during evisceration results in an increase in contamination with
Enterobacteriaceae, including Salmonella present (Morris and Wells, 1970; Noterman et al., 1980). This
increase can be prevented by spray-cleaning carcasses during the various stages of evisceration (Noterman
et al., 1980). If the carcasses are cleaned only at the end of the evisceration process, the numbers of
Enterobacteriaceae are not reduced to initial levels and Salmonella contamination is less efficiently removed.
The evisceration equipment can be a major source of cross-contamination (Hudson and Mead, 1989).
Continuous rinsing of equipment with chlorinated water helps to minimise cross-contamination (NACMCF,
1997).
4. Crop removal
It is generally thought that Salmonella contamination of carcasses during processing originates from bacteria
that have colonised the bird’s caeca or intestinal tract. However, recent studies indicate that the crop is also a

23 March 2017
potential source of Salmonella (Ramirez et al., 1997; Hargis et al., 1995) and Campylobacter contamination
during processing (Byrd et al., 1998).
Hargis et al. (1995) found higher incidence of Salmonella-contaminated crops (52%) compared with the caeca
(15%) of commercially processed broilers. They also observed that crops were much more likely to rupture
during processing than were caeca, increasing the potential likelihood of carcass contamination. A field trial
later conducted by the same authors showed that the incidence of Salmonella-positive crops was 36%
following an eight hour feed withdrawal period as compared with 19% in samples obtained prior to withdrawal
at the broiler house.
Similar results were obtained for Campylobacter contamination of the crop (Byrd et al., 1998). The total
number of Campylobacter-positive crops increased significantly from 25% before feed withdrawal to 62.4%
after the feed withdrawal period of five to eight hours. Contamination of the caeca after the feed withdrawal
period was 3.8%.
The increase in contamination of the crop has been partly attributed to the birds consuming litter and faecal
droppings during the withdrawal period (Byrd et al., 1998). It has also been suggested that the change in the
chemical and microbiological properties of the gut during feed withdrawal contribute to a more suitable
environment for the potential survival and subsequent growth of Enterobacteriaceae such as Salmonella
(Hinton et al., 1998). After 6 hours of feed withdrawal, crop pH was observed to increase to 6.6, which is more
conducive for growth of pathogenic bacteria. Caeca from broilers held off feed 12 hours instead of 6 hours
had over 100 times more pathogenic bacteria (Hinton et al., 1998).
Although it appears that extended feed withdrawal times may contribute to an increased number of pathogens
in the digestive tract of the birds at time of processing, New Zealand industry representatives still consider it
important to impose a feed withdrawal period to reduce the incidence of gut breakage during evisceration. The
studies of Hargis et al. (1995) and Byrd et al. (1998) indicate that more focus is necessary in ensuring the
intact removal of the crop particularly when feed withdrawal of birds is practised.
5. Washing
In New Zealand, carcasses are spray washed after defeathering and after evisceration. Some premises also
have a final inside/outside wash before immersion chilling. Several premises use 20 to 100 ppm chlorinated
water for washing.
Spray washing or other forms of rinsing are used to remove organic material and some of the microorganism
that may have been acquired during defeathering and evisceration. This step helps reduce bacterial levels on
carcasses (Bremner and Johnston, 1996). Immediate spray washing has been demonstrated to be as
effective as trimming for removal of faecal contamination acquired during evisceration (Blankenship et al.,
1975; 1993). The sprays can decrease the aerobic plate count, Enterobacteriaceae and coliforms by 50 to
90% (Sanders and Blackshear, 1971; May 1974; Mulder and Veerkamp, 1974; Thomas et al., 1987; CFIA,
1997). The incidence of salmonellae can also be decreased by immediate spray washing (Morris and Wells,
1970; ICMSF, 1998). ). The Canadian standard requires that spray washing of carcasses occur within fifteen
seconds after defeathering and after carcass transfer (rehang) in order to reduce the attachment of
Salmonella and other bacteria to the skin (CFIA, 1999). Frequent multiple sprays from bleeding to chilling are
more effective in reducing bacterial levels than a single final wash (Noterman et al., 1980; Mulder, 1985).
The cleaning process before immersion chilling also ensures that high numbers of organisms are not
introduced into the chill water. A high organic load at the start of chilling reduces the activity of chlorine
against bacteria (Mead and Thomas, 1973).
Lower bacterial numbers on carcasses can be achieved when chlorine is added to the spray water (Sanders
and Blackshear, 1971). Chlorinated water sprays used to rinse chicken carcasses at the end of the
evisceration line do not reduce the number of Salmonella-positive carcasses, indicating that Salmonella
already on the carcass is not accessible to the chlorine (James et al., 1992). Studies show that once

23 March 2017
Salmonella becomes firmly attached to the muscle or carcass surface through entrapment or specific binding
mechanisms, they resist removal by normal processing methods such as rinsing or washing (Lillard, 1989a;
Benedict et al., 1991).
Immediate and effective washing after a contamination step provides an opportunity for the reduction of
microbiological contaminants on carcasses. Effectiveness of washing is dependent on water volume and
pressure, spray patterns and bactericide levels (NACMCF, 1997).
6. Chilling
PIPS 5 recommends that an internal carcass temperature of 4°C or lower should be reached within 24 hours
of dressing. This is achieved in New Zealand premises by immersion chilling or a combination of immersion
chilling and “wet” air chilling. “Wet” air chilling involves the chilling of wet birds in containers (i.e. not hanging)
using blast air chillers.
Immersion chilling of carcasses
Broilers are cooled by immersion in slush ice or chilled water in continuous mechanically agitated chillers.
Immersion chilling generally takes 25 to 50 minutes in New Zealand premises to achieve a carcass
temperature of 2 to 7°C. Chlorinated water is commonly used at concentrations of 20 to 90 ppm.
Studies show that properly maintained and operated immersion chillers can reduce the overall bacterial levels
on poultry carcasses. However, immersion chilling has been found to be a major area of cross-contamination
with C.jejuni (Wempe et al., 1983), Salmonella (Morris and Wells, 1970; Lillard, 1990) and C. perfringens
(Lillard, 1971).
Important factors that have an influence on microbial counts of immersion chilled poultry are (1) bacterial
contamination on carcasses before chilling, (2) the amount of water overflowed and replaced per carcass, (3)
the ratio of birds to water in the chiller and (4) and the use of bactericides such as chlorine (Bailey et al.,
1987). These factors contribute to differences found by various investigators.
The use of chlorine under optimal conditions can facilitate the hygienic operation of commercial water-chilling
systems. May (1974) observed that continuous immersion chilling with 18-25 ppm chlorine significantly
reduced both total and psychrophilic bacterial counts. Mead and Thomas (1973) found that majority of
bacteria present were destroyed by the use of 45 to 50 ppm of total chlorine in conjunction with 5 litres of
water per carcass. The use of 25 to 30 ppm of residual chlorine in the chill water gave comparable results
when the water usage was increased to 8 litres per carcass. Another study showed that total aerobic counts
for chiller water and chilled carcasses were significantly lower when chiller water was treated with chlorine and
chlorine dioxide than when chiller water was untreated (Lillard, 1980). Mead et al. (1996) also found that the
use of chlorine was effective in reducing cross-contamination with an E.coli marker organism. Morrison and
Fleet (1985) reported that Salmonella was eliminated from carcasses with a chlorine concentration of 300-400
ppm.
Although there seems to be general agreement that immersion chilling results in a reduction in total bacterial
counts on carcasses, the same effect on Salmonella levels on carcasses is not always observed. Several
studies show that when bactericides are used in processing water, Salmonellae are reduced to nondetectable
levels in the water, but only small (< 1 log) or no reductions are obtained on chicken carcasses (Lillard, 1980;
Lillard and Thomson, 1983; Lillard et al., 1987). This is probably due to bacteria being entrapped in the
crevices in the skin formed during water immersion (Lillard, 1988). These entrapped bacteria seem to be
protected from outside influences, such as bactericides and other chemicals in solution.
Lillard’s studies (Lillard, 1990) show that there is a significant improvement in the microbiological quality of
broiler carcass, as determined by aerobic bacteria and Enterobacteriaceae, as they advance through the
processing line. From the bleed line to the chiller, levels of aerobic bacteria are reduced by 3.3 logs, and
Enterobacteriaceae by 2.6 logs. However, a significant increase in Salmonella incidence for carcasses occurs

23 March 2017
only after immersion chilling (without chlorine), suggesting that this process is more conducive to cross
contamination than other processing points. The same author claims that it is possible to reduce Salmonella
incidence due to cross-contamination in immersion chillers (Lillard, 1980) by the use of 34 ppm chlorine or 5
ppm chlorine dioxide which results in reduced Salmonellae in chiller water to non-detectable levels, and in
significant reductions (10-13%) in incidence of Salmonella. Even at this chlorination level, 1 to 4.5% of
carcasses remained positive for Salmonella. These results may be due to salmonellae being firmly attached
and/or protected in skin crevices that are, therefore, inaccessible to bactericides.
A USDA study done in Puerto Rico investigated the effect of adding chlorine to chill water (25 ppm in intake
water which resulted in residual overflow of 4 to 9 ppm) (James et al., 1992). Carcasses were found to have
average aerobe plate counts of log10 3.20 before chilling and 2.51 after chilling; Enterobacteriaceae counts of
log10 2.57 before chilling and 1.75 after chilling; and E. coli counts of log10 2.04 before chilling and 1.20 after
chilling. Salmonella was found on 43% of the carcasses before chilling and on 46% after chilling (James et al.,
1992). Without chlorination Salmonella prevalence was observed to increase from 48% before chilling to 72%
after chilling.
The findings of most studies indicate that there is a potential for cross-contamination to occur during
immersion chilling, but with proper equipment, adequate water replacement, temperature control and the use
of bactericides it is commercially possible to reduce total bacterial counts on carcasses and reduce cross-
contamination of pathogens.
Immersion chilling of edible offal
A US study found that immersion chilling with chlorinated water resulted in reduction of overall microbiological
levels and Salmonella prevalence on edible offal packs (James et al., 1992). For edible offal chilled with no
chlorination, mean log10 cfu per pack was found to be 3.72, 2.90, and 1.14 for aerobes, Enterobacteriaceae,
and E. coli, respectively. Prevalence of Salmonella-positive packs was 69%. Packs chilled with chlorination
(25 ppm in inlet water), had lower mean log10 cfu per pack at 3.49, 2.57, and 1.06 for aerobes,
Enterobacteriaceae, and E. coli, respectively. Prevalence of Salmonella-positive packs was significantly lower
at 12%.
Dry air chilling of carcasses
Spray chilling and dry air chilling (i.e. birds are hanging) have been suggested as alternative methods to
immersion chilling to prevent cross-contamination. These methods of chilling poultry carcasses are not
currently practised in New Zealand.
Various combinations of time, temperature and humidity are used for air chilling. Dry air chilling dehydrates
skin. Although this might be expected to retard microbial growth, this benefit may not be realised due to
rehydration of carcass surfaces after packaging (Grey and Mead, 1986). Berner et al. (1969) found
significantly lower bacteria counts on air-chilled than on water immersion-chilled carcasses immediately after
chilling and during storage up to 32 days at -1°C. Other studies, however, show that bacterial numbers on
airchilled carcasses are sometimes higher than those on water chilled carcasses (Mead, 1975; Thomson et
al., 1975).
Country requirements for chilling
The minimum requirements for chilling recommended or mandated by some countries are summarised below.

23 March 2017
Country Standard Requirements

New Zealand Poultry Industry Immersion chilling of carcasses:
 Water flow should be counter to the flow of carcasses.
Processing Standard 5 (PIPS 5, 1998)  Recommended minimum make-up water for different carcass
weights are specified.
Chilling:
 Carcass internal temperature of 4°C should be reached within 24
hours of dressing.
 Giblets must be continuously chilled to 4°C or cooler after their
removal from the viscera.
Australian Standard 4465 (1997) Immersion chilling of carcasses:
 Water flow must be counter to the flow of carcasses
 Water temperature must not be more than 4°C
 Water must be chlorinated or contain a chemical sanitiser approved
for food contact.
Chilling:
 Whole carcasses shall be chilled to a surface temperature of not
more than 7°C within 6 hours of slaughter
 Whole carcasses and/or deboned meat must be further reduced to
a core temperature of not more than 5°C within 12 hours of
slaughter.
 Giblets must be chilled to 5°C or below within one hour of their
removal from the viscera.
EEC Council Directive 92/116/EEC Immersion chilling of carcasses
(amendment and update of Directive  Water flow must be counter to the flow of carcasses.
71/118/EEC)  Minimum make-up water for different carcass weights are specified.
 Water temperature in the tank or tanks measured at the points of
Available at entry and exit of the carcasses must not be more than 16°C and
www.europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/lif/reg
4°C, respectively.
(Under Legislation in Force)
 Carcasses must not remain in the first tank for more than half an
hour or in the other tank(s) for longer than is strictly necessary.
Chilling
 Carcasses must be chilled to 4°C as soon as possible.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Immersion chilling of carcasses
Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures  Temperature at the warmest section of the chilling system must not
(Sections 4.5.3 and 4.10.1) exceed 18°C.
 Minimum make-up water for different carcass weights are specified.
Available at:  20-50 ppm chlorine is suggested to be added to make-up water line
www.cfia-acia.agr.ca such that a total available chlorine residual of 1-5 ppm is
maintained in the chiller overflow water.
Chilling
 All poultry carcasses and portions must be chilled to an internal
temperature of 4°C or lower.
 Giblets should be chilled to 4°C or lower within two hours after
evisceration.

23 March 2017
Country Standard Requirements

US Code of Federal Regulations: Title Immersion chilling of carcasses
9 Part 381.  Temperature of the chilling media in the warmest part of the chilling
system must not exceed 65°F (approx. 18°C).
Available at:  Minimum make-up water of a half gallon (? L) per carcass.
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr
Chilling
 All poultry carcasses must be chilled immediately after processing
so that the internal temperature is reduced to 40 °F (approx. 4°C)
or less within specified times for different carcass weights (e.g. 4
hours for carcasses under 1.8 kg).
 Giblets must be chilled to 40°F (approx. 4°C) or lower within two
hours from the time they are removed from the inedible viscera.
7. Portioning and deboning
Microorganisms
The biological hazard associated with portioning and deboning relates to the redistribution of pathogenic
bacteria that are present on the incoming carcasses and the transfer of microorganisms from the work
environment.
Poultry boning operations have been shown to result in an increase in bacterial numbers (Brant and Guion,
1972; Denton and Gardner, 1981). Cutting boards, boning tables, conveyors, knives, hands and clothing of
personnel have all been implicated as vehicles for the transfer of bacteria (May, 1962; Brant and Guion, 1972;
Newton et al., 1975; 1978; Denton and Gardner, 1981; Holder et al., 1996).
Of particular concern is the potential for contamination of products with Listeria monocytogenes during
portioning and deboning. Hudson and Mead (1989) did not detect L. monocytogenes on neck skin from freshly
killed birds or the caeca during evisceration, but the organism was isolated from 50% of carcasses prior to
packaging. Genigeorgis et al. (1989) also reported that the prevalence of L. monocytogenes increased from
10 to 36.4% and then to 45.5% as the chicken carcasses and parts moved through hanging after chilling,
cutting, and then packaging, respectively. The authors attributed this increase to added handling of the
products during the steps.
Transfer and redistribution of bacteria during the portioning and boning operations are expected to be
adequately controlled by effective supporting systems (e.g. effective cleaning procedures for equipment, good
boning techniques and personnel hygiene). Food contact materials, including knives and gloves, should be
washed and sanitised prior to use and at regular intervals during processing.
It is a practice in some premises to hold deboned products in bins while accumulating enough material before
transferring to a chiller. Time and temperature conditions should be maintained such that microbiological
growth is prevented during this holding period. The minimum growth temperature for Salmonella and E.coli on
meat has been determined to be ≥ 7°C (Shaw et al., 1971; Foster and Mead as cited by Barnes, 1976;
Mackey et al., 1980; Smith, 1985). Therefore, holding periods should ideally be kept short, and product
temperature maintained below 7°C.
Bone
Higher incidence of bone in deboned products is generally associated with automatic deboning compared with
manual deboning. Highly skilled deboners are capable of producing products with minimal levels of bone.
Adequate training of deboners, therefore, plays a key role in controlling the levels of bone in manually
deboned products.

23 March 2017
The level of product inspection for automatically deboned products is largely dictated by customer
requirements. It is common practice in New Zealand premises to inspect products and rework those lots that
are found to exceed the set limits. In some cases, particularly for customers with strict requirements, 100%
inspection of deboned products is done as an extra step after deboning.
Information from the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA FSIS, 1996b) indicate that bone particles
less than 10 mm are unlikely to pose a food safety hazard. Bone particles from 10 to 20 mm may present a
discomfort, but would be a low risk for a food safety hazard, and bone particles greater than 20 mm have the
potential to be a food safety hazard and may cause injury to consumers.
8. Freezing
The extensive research carried out by MIRINZ on microbial growth at sub-freezing temperatures, clearly
destruction. Salmonella has been detected in products that have been stored frozen for years (ICMSF, 1996).
Staphylococci are relatively resistant to freezing temperatures. E. coli survives well in frozen food. Vegetative
cells of C. perfringens are very sensitive to freezing, but its spores are highly resistant to cold. It is therefore
important that products are within acceptable microbiological levels prior to freezing.
Campylobacter jejuni is sensitive to freezing. Several studies have shown that Campylobacter rapidly become
undetectable when poultry or other meat is frozen (Gill and Harris, 1984; Hassell, 1994; Campbell and Gilbert,
1995). A survey of poultry in the New Zealand retail market did not detect any positive isolates from frozen
poultry (Campbell and Gilbert, 1995). However, there is now widespread recognition in the scientific
community that the methods for detection for Campylobacter are inadequate, especially for detection of viable
non-culturable cells (e.g. sublethally damaged by refrigeration). Therefore, at this stage, conclusions
regarding the epidemiology of Campylobacter and possible control measures are questionable.
9. Cooking
Although the cooking step is outside the scope of this HACCP plan, a brief discussion is given because of the
major importance of proper cooking in the destruction of pathogens, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter,
in chicken products.
As discussed in the previous sections, at present, zero tolerance for Salmonella, Campylobacter and Listeria
monocytogenes in raw poultry products cannot realistically be achieved. Consequently, implementation of
good cooking techniques and good kitchen and personal hygiene during preparation are necessary. The food
handler has to use responsible precautions to ensure that the food is properly and safely prepared. The
manufacturer also has a role in ensuring that correct food safety information is effectively communicated to
users of their products. This may be achieved partly by providing proper handling and cooking instructions on
labels and promotional materials.
The primary method for destroying vegetative pathogens in poultry products is by cooking them to a proper
internal temperature. In the United States, regulations require that poultry products be heated to a minimum
internal temperature of 160 F (71.1°C) in order for the product to be considered as fully cooked (USDA FSIS
Code of Federal Regulations Title 9, Part 381.150). Cooking at this temperature will result in a 7-log10
reduction in Salmonella.
The UK Department of Health recommends that to ensure the destruction of L. monocytogenes, product must
be heated to a minimum of 70°C for 2 min (Gaze et al., 1989; UK Department of Health, 1989; Mackey et al.,
1990).

23 March 2017
13.12 References
Australian Standard 4465 (1997) Australian Standard for Hygienic Production of Poultry Meat for Human
Consumption. SCARM Report No. 58. CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, Australia.
Bailey, J.S., Fletcher, D.L. & Cox, N.A. (1989) Recovery and serotype distribution of Listeria monocytogenes
from broiler chickens in the Southeastern United States. J. Food Prot. 52: 148-150.
Bailey, J.S., Thomson, J.E. & Cox, N.A. (1987) Chapter 5: Contamination of poultry during processing. In The
Microbiology of Poultry Meat Products. (ed. Cunningham, F.E. & Cox, N.A.) Academic Press, Inc., Orlando,
Florida.
Barnes, E.M. (1976) Microbiological problems of poultry at refrigerator temperatures - a review. J. Sci. Food
Agric. 27: 777-782.
Bean, N.H., Goulding, J.S., Daniels, M.T. & Angulo, F.J. (1997) Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaks
- United States, 1988-1992. J. Food Prot. 60: 1265-1286.
Beers, A. (1999) Salmonella numbers under HACCP continue to rise over six-month low. World Food
Chemical News. March 17, 1999.
Benedict, R.C., Schultz, F.J. & Jones, S.B. (1991) Attachment and removal of Salmonella spp. on meat and
poultry tissues. J. Food Safety 11: 135-148.
Berndtson, E., Tivemo, M., & Engvall, A. (1992) Distribution and numbers of Campylobacter in newly
slaughtered broiler chickens and hens. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 15: 45-50.
Berner, H., Kluberger, A. & Bresse, M. (1969) Investigations into a new method of chilling poultry. III. Testing
aspects of hygiene for the new method. Fleischwirtsch. 49: 1617-1620, 1623.
Black, A. (1997) Bacterial and parasitic diseases of New Zealand poultry. Surveillance 24(4): 3-5.
Blankenship, L.C., Bailey, J.S., Cox, N.A., Musgrove, M.T., Berrang, M.E., Wilson, R.L., Rose, M.J. & Dua,
S.K. (1993) Broiler carcass reprocessing, a further evaluation. J. Food Prot. 56:983-985.
Blankenship, L.C., Cox, N.A., Craven, S.E., Mercuri, A.J., & Wilson, R.L. (1975) Comparison of the
microbiological quality of inspection-passed and fecal contamination-condemned broiler carcasses. J. Food
Sci. 40: 1236-1238.
Bolder, N.M. (1998) Chapter 5: The microbiology of the slaughter and processing of poultry. In The
Microbiology of Meat and Poultry. (ed. Davies, A. & Board, R.) Blackie Academic & Professional, London.
Bolder, N.M., van Lith L.A.J.T. & Putirulan, F.F. (1991a) Incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in live broilers
and broilers after processing. In Hygienic Aspects of Processed Poultry Meat. (ed. Mulder, R.W.A.W.) DLO
Centre for Poultry Research and Information Services, Spelderholt, The Netherlands. pp. 81-84.
Bolder, N.M., van Lith L.A.J.T. & Putirulan, F.F. (1991b) Influence of competitive psuedomonads microflora on
survival and growth of Listeria monocytogenes on fresh poultry thighs and breast meat. In Hygienic Aspects of
Processed Poultry Meat. (ed. Mulder, R.W.A.W.) DLO Centre for Poultry Research and Information Services,
Spelderholt, The Netherlands. pp. 11-14.
Brant, A.W. & Guion, C.W. (1972) Microbiology of commercial turkey deboning. Poult. Sci. 51: 423-427.
Bremner, A. & Johnston, M. (1996) Poultry Meat Hygiene and Inspection. W.B. Saunders Co. Ltd., London.
43: 140-150.
Byrd, J.A., Corrier, D.E., Hume, M.E., Bailey, R.H., Stanker, L.H. & Hargis, B.M. (1998) Effect of feed
withdrawal on Campylobacter in the crops of market-age broiler chickens. Avian Diseases 42: 802-806.

23 March 2017
Campbell, K.W. & Gilbert, S.A. (1995) National Food Project: Poultry Quality Assessment. Ministry of Health,
Wellington, New Zealand.
CFIA [Canadian Food Inspection Agency] (1997) HACCP Generic Model – Poultry Slaughter (Chilled Ready
to Cook Whole Chicken).
CFIA [Canadian Food Inspection Agency] (1999) Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures. Charoenpong, C. &
Chen, T.C. (1979) Microbiological quality of refrigerated chicken gizzard from different sources as related to
their shelf-lives. Poult. Sci. 58: 824-829.
Consumers’ Institute (1999) Chicken tonight? Consumer (May 1999), No. 381: 6-9.
Cox, N.A., Bailey, J.S. & Berrang, M.E. (1997) The presence of Listeria monocytogenes in the integrated
poultry industry. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 6: 116-119.
Cox, N.A., Bailey, J.S., Lyon, C.E., Thomson, J.E. & Hudspeth, J.P. (1983) Microbiological profile of chicken
patty products containing broiler giblets. Poult. Sci. 62: 960.
Denton, J.H. & Gardner, F.A. (1981) Effect of further processing systems on selected microbiological
attributes of turkey meat products. J. Food Sci. 47: 214- 217.
Diprose, R. (1999) Personal communication. Poultry Industry Association of New Zealand, Auckland.
Eberhart-Phillips, J., Walker, N., Garrett, N., Bell, D., Sinclair, D., Rainger, W., & Bates, M. (1995)
Campylobacteriosis in New Zealand: Results of the MAGIC Study. Ministry of Health, Wellington, NZ
EEC Council Directive 92/116/EEC (amendment and update of Directive 71/118/EEC). (Available at
http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/reg)
Fraser, D.M., Nicol, C.M. & Till, D.G. (1991) Salmonella hadar in New Zealand. Unpublished Report to the
New Zealand Communicable Disease Centre.
Gaze, J.E., Brown, G.D., Gaskell, D.E. & Banks, J.G. (1989) Heat resistance of Listeria monocytogenes in
homogenates of chicken, beef steak and carrot. Food Microbiol. 6: 251-259.
Genigeorgis, C., Hassuneh, M. And Collins, P. (1986) Campylobacter jejuni infection on poultry farms and its
effect on poultry meat contamination during slaughtering. J. Food Prot. 49: 895903.
Genigeorgis, C.A., Dutulescu, D. & Garayzabal, J.F. (1989) Prevalence of Listeria spp. in poultry meat at the
supermarket and slaughterhouse level. J. Food Prot. 52: 618-624.
Gibbs, P.A., Patterson, J.T. & Harvey, J. (1978a) Biochemical characteristics and enterotoxigenicity of
Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from poultry. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 44: 57-74.
Gibbs, P.A., Patterson, J.T. & Thompson, J.K. (1978b) Characterization of poultry isolates of Staphylococcus
aureus by a new set of poultry phages. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 44: 387-400.
Grant, I.H., Richardson, N.J. & Bokkenheuser (1980) Broiler chicken as potential source of Campylobacter
infections in humans. J. Clin. Microbiol. 11: 508-510.
Grey, T.C. & Mead, G.C. (1986) The effects of air and water chilling on the quality of poultry carcasses. Meat
Chilling. Bristol, 10-12 September, International Institute of Refrigeration, Paris. Pp. 95-99.
Hargis, B.M., Caldwell, D.J., Brewer, R.L., Corrier, e., & DeLoach J.R. (1995) Evaluation of the chicken crop
as a source of Salmonella contamination for broiler carcasses. Poult. Sci. 74: 1548-1552.
Hassell, S. (1994) Campylobacteriosis: A Report for the Ministry of Health. ESR:Health [Institute of
Environmental Science & Research Ltd], Christchurch, New Zealand.
Hinton, A., Buhr, R.J., & Ingram, K. (1998) Effect of feed withdrawal on carcass microbiology. Broiler Industry:
December: 60, 62.

23 March 2017
Hinton, M.H., Allen, V.M., Tinker, D.B., Gibson, C. & Wathes, C.M. (1996) The dispersal of bacteria during the
defeathering of poultry. In Factors Affecting the Microbial Quality of Meat. 2. Slaughter and Dressing. (ed.
Hinton, M.H. and Rowlings, C.) University of Bristol Press, Bristol, U.K. pp. 113-121.
Holder, J.S., Corry, J.E.L. & Hinton, M.H. (1996) The microbiology of poultry portions and portioning
equipment. In Factors Affecting the Microbial Quality of Meat. 2. Cutting and Further Processing (ed. Hinton,
M.H. and Rowlings, C.) University of Bristol Press, Bristol, U.K. pp. 11-21.
Hudson, W.R. & Mead, G.C. (1989) Listeria contamination at a poultry processing premises. Lett. Appl.
Microbiol. 9: 211-214.
ICMSF (1996) Chapter 14: Salmonellae. In Microorganisms in Foods 5: Characteristics of Microbial
ICMSF (1998) Chapter 2: Poultry and poultry products. In Microorganisms in Foods 6: Microbial Ecology of
Food Commodities. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods of the International
Union of Biological Societies. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
Ikram, R., Chambers, S., Mitchell, P., Brieseman, M.A. & Ikram, O.H. (1994) A case control study to
determine risk factors for Campylobacter infection in Christchurch in the summer of 1992-3. N.Z. Med. J.
October: 430-432.
Isigidi, B.K., Mathieu, A-M, Devriese, L.A., Godard, C. & Van Hoof, J. (1992) Enterotoxin production in
different Staphylococcus aureus biotypes isolated from food and meat premises. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 72: 16-20.
Izat, A.L., Colberg, M., Driggers, C.D. & Thomas, R.A. (1989) Effects of sampling method and feed withdrawal
period on recovery of microorganisms from poultry carcasses. J. Food Prot. 52: 480-483.
James, W.O., Brewer, R.L., Prucha, J.C., Williams, W.O., & Parham, D.R. (1992) Effects of chlorination of
chill water on the bacteriologic profile of raw chicken carcasses & giblets. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 200: 60-63.
Kim, J.W., Slavik, M.F., Griffis, C.L. & Walker, J.T. (1993) Attachment of Salmonella typhimurium to skins of
chicken scalded at various temperatures. J. Food Prot. 56:661-665, 671.
Lillard, H.S. (1971) Occurrence of Clostridium perfringens in broiler processing and further processing
operations. J. Food Sci. 36: 1008-1010.
Lillard, H.S. (1980) Effect on broiler carcasses and water of treating chiller water with chlorine or chlorine
dioxide. Poult. Sci. 59: 1761-1766.
Lillard, H.S. (1988) Effect of surfactant or changes in ionic strength on the attachment of Salmonella
typhimurium to poultry skin and muscle. J. Food Sci. 53: 727-730.
Lillard, H.S. (1989a) Incidence and recovery of salmonellae and other bacteria from commercially processed
poultry carcasses at selected pre- and post-evisceration steps. J. Food Prot. 52: 88-91.
Lillard, H.S. (1989b) Factors affecting the persistence of Salmonella during the processing of poultry. J. Food
Prot. 52: 829-832.
Lillard, H.S. (1990) The impact of commercial processing procedures on the bacterial contamination and
cross-contamination of broiler carcasses. J. Food Prot. 53: 202-204.
Lillard, H.S. and Thomson, J.E. (1983) Efficacy of hydrogen peroxide as a bactericide in poultry chiller water.
J. Food Sci. 48: 125-.
Lillard, H.S., Blakenship, L.C., Dickens, J.A., Craven, S.E. & Shackelford, A.D. (1987) Effect of acetic acid on
the microbiological quality of scalded picked and unpicked broiler carcasses. J. Food Prot. 50: 112.
Mackey, B.M., Pritchet, C., Norris, A. & Mead, G.C. (1990) Heat resistance of Listeria: strain differences and
effects of meat type and curing salts. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 10: 251-255.
Mackey, B.M., Roberts, T.A., Mansfield, J. & Farkas, G. (1980) Growth of Salmonella on chilled meat. J.
Hygiene, Cambridge 85:115-124.

23 March 2017
MAF Food Assurance Authority. (1999) Broiler residue monitoring report: 1998. Surveillance Vol 26, No. 2.
MAF Food Assurance Authority. (2000) In house communication: Results for the 1999 chemical residue
programme (for Broilers).
May, K.N. (1962) Bacterial contamination during cutting and packaging chicken in processing plants and retail
stores. Food Technol. 16: 89-91.
May, K.N. (1974) Changes in microbial numbers during final washing and chilling of commercially slaughtered
broilers. Poult. Sci. 53: 1282-1285.
Mead, G.C. (1975) Hygiene aspects of the chilling process. Quality of Poultry Meats, In Proceedings
European Symposium on Poultry Meat, 2nd, Oosterbeck, The Netherlands pp. (35) 1-8.
Mead, G.C. & Dodd, C.E.R. (1990) Incidence, origin and significance of staplylococci on processed poultry. J.
Appl. Bacteriol. Symp. Suppl. 81S-91S.
Mead, G.C. & Thomas, N.L. (1973) Factors affecting the use of chlorine in the spin chilling of eviscerated
poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 14: 99-117.
Mead, G.C., Adams, B.W. & Parry, R.T. (1975) The effectiveness of in-plant chlorination in poultry processing.
Br. Poult. Sci. 16: 517-526.
Mead, G.C., Hudson, W.R. & Hinton, M.H. (1993) Microbiological survey of four poultry processing plants in
the UK. Br. Poult. Sci. 34: 497-503.
Mead, G.C., Hudson, W.R. & Hinton, M.H. (1996) Use of ‘marker’ organisms for hygiene assessment and
control in poultry processing. In Factors Affecting the Microbial Quality of Meat. 2. Slaughter and Dressing.
(Ed. Hinton, M.H. and Rowlings, C.) University of Bristol Press, Bristol, U.K. pp. 13-18.
Morris, G.K. & Wells, J.G. (1970) Salmonella contamination in a poultry-processing premises. Appl. Microbiol.
19: 795-799.
Morrison, G.J. & Fleet, G.H. (1985) Reduction of Salmonella on chicken carcasses by immersion treatments.
J. Food Prot. 48: 939-943.
Mulder, R.W. A.W. & Veerkamp, C.H. (1974) Improvements in poultry slaughterhouse hygiene as a result of
cleaning before cooling. Poult. Sci. 53: 1690-1694.
Mulder, R.W.A.W. (1985) Decrease microbial contamination during poultry processing. Poultry, March: 52-55.
Mulder, R.W.A.W. & Dorresteijn, L.W.J. (1977) Hygiene during the scalding of broilers. Fleischwirtsc. 57:
2220-2222.
Mulder, R.W.A.W., Dorresteijn, L.W.J. & Van Der Broek. (1978) Cross-contamination during the scalding and
plucking of broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 19:61-70.
NACMCF [National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods] (1997) Generic HACCP
Application in Broiler Slaughter and Processing. J. Food Prot. 60: 579-604.
Newton, K.G., Harrison, J.C.L. & Wauters, A.M. (1978) Sources of psychrotrophic bacteria on meat at the
abattoir. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 45: 75-82.
Newton, K.G., Nottingham, P.M. & Harrison, J.C.L. (1975) Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 452.
Noterman, J.S., Dufrenne, J. & Leeuwen, W.J. (1982) Contamination of broiler chickens by Staphylococcus
aureus during processing; incidence and origin. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 52: 275-280.
Noterman, S., Terbijhe, R.J. & Van Schothorst, M. (1980) Removing faecal contamination of broilers by spray-
cleaning during evisceration. Br. Poult. Sci. 21:115-121.
Poultry Industry Processing Standard 5 [PIPS 5] Poultry Industry Standards Council. Auckland, New Zealand.
Ramirez et al. (1997) Effect of feed withdrawal on the incidence of Salmonella in the crops and ceac of market
age broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 76: 654-656.

23 March 2017
Ribiero, C.D. (1978) Campylobacter enteritis. Lancet ii: 270-271.
Rigby, C.E. & Pettit, J.R. (1981) Effects of feed withdrawal on the weight, fecale xcretion and Salmonella
status of market age broiler chickens. Can. J. Comp. Med. 45: 363-365.
Rocourt, J. & Cossart, P. (1997) Chapter 18: Listeria monocytogenes. In:Food Microbiology: Fundamentals
and Frontiers. (ed. Doyle, M.P., Beuchat, L.R. & Montville, T.J.) ASM Press, Washington D.C.
Ryser, E.T. & Marth, E.H. (1991) Listeria, Listeriosis, and Food Safety. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Sanders, D.H. & Blackshear, C.D. (1971) Effect of chlorination in the final washer on bacterial counts. Poult.
Sci. 50: 215-219.
Schwartz, B., Broome, C.V., Brown, G.R., Hightower, Ciesielski, C.A., Gaventa, S., Gellin, B.G., Mascola, L.
and the Listeriosis Study Group. (1988) Association of sporadic listeriosis with consumption of uncooked
hotdogs and undercooked chicken. Lancet ii: 779-782.
Shanker, S., Rosenfield, J.A., Davey, G.R. and Sorrell, T.C. (1982) Campylobacter jejuni: Incidence in
processed broilers and biotype distribution in human and broiler isolates. Appl. Environ. Mircobiol. 43: 1219-
1220.
Shaw, M.K., Marr, A.G. & Ingraham, J.L. (1971) Determination of the minimal temperature for growth of
Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 105: 683-684.
Simmons, N.A. & Gibbs, F.J. (1977) Campylobacter enteritis. Br. Med. J. 2: 264.
Skovgaard, N. & Morgan, C.A. (1988) Detection of Listeria spp. in feces from animals in feeds and in raw
foods of animal origin. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 6: 229-242.
Slavik, M.F., Kim, J.W. & Walker, J.T. (1995) Reduction of Salmonella and Campylobacter on chicken
carcasses by changing scalding temperature. J. Food Prot. 58: 689-691.
Smith, M.G. (1985) The generation time, lag time, and minimum temperature of growth of coliform organisms
on meat, and the implications for codes of practice in abattoirs. J. Hygiene, Cambridge 94: 289-300.
Stals, P. (1996) Slaughter and dressing of poultry. In Factors Affecting the Microbial Quality of Meat. 2.
Slaughter and Dressing. (ed. Hinton, M.H. & Rowlings, C.) University of Bristol Press, Bristol, U.K. pp. 99-
105.
Tarver, F.R. & May, K.N. (1963a) Effect of bleed time prior to scald and refrigerated storage upon bacterial
counts in the auxillary diverticula of the interclavicular air sac of chickens. Food Technol. 17: 198.
Tarver, F.R. & May, K.N. (1963b) Effect of slaughter technique, immersion scald, and refrigerated storage on
bacterial counts of poultry air sacs. Poult. Sci. 42: 297.
Thomas, C.J. & McMeekin, T.A. (1980) Contamination of broiler carcass skin during commercial processing
procedures: an electron microscopic study. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 5: 21-25.
Thomas, C.J. & McMeekin, T.A. (1984) Effect of water uptake by poultry tissues on contamination by bacteria
during immersion in bacterial suspensions. J. Food Prot. 47: 398-402.
Thomas, C.J., McMeekin, T.A., & Patterson, J.T. (1987) Prevention of microbial contamination in the poultry
processing plant. In: Elimination of Pathogenic Organisms from Meat and Poultry. (ed. Smulders, F.J.M.)
Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
Thompson, J.K., Gibbs, P.A. & Patterson, J.T. (1980) Staphylococcus aureus in commercial laying flocks:
incidence and characteristics of strains isolated from chicks, pullets and hens in an integrated commercial
enterprise. Br. Poult. Sci. 21: 315-330.
Thomson, J.E. & Kotula, A.W. (1959) Contamination of the air sac areas of chicken carcasses and its
relationship to scalding and method of killing. Poult. Sci. 38: 1433.

23 March 2017
Thomson, J.E., Cox, N.A., Whitehead, W.K., Mercuri, A.J. & Juven, B.J. (1975) Bacterial counts and weight
changes of broiler carcasses chilled commercially by water immersion and airblast. Poult. Sci. 54: 1452-1460.
Tinker, D.B., Gibson, C., Hinton, M.H., Wathes, C.M. and Allen, V.M. (1996) Defeathering engineering
developments. In Factors Affecting the Microbial Quality of Meat. 2. Slaughter and Dressing. (ed. Hinton, M.H.
and Rowlings, C.) University of Bristol Press, Bristol, U.K. pp. 123-131.
UK Department of Health (1989) Chilled and Frozen Guidelines on Cook-Chill and CookFreeze Catering
Systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.
USDA FSIS (1996a) Nationwide Broiler Chicken Microbiological Baseline Data Collection Program. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC.
USDA FSIS (1996b) FSIS 07/05/96 N 61 FR 35157-Public Health Hazard Analysis Board Report; Availability.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC.
USDA FSIS (1999) Code of Federal Regulations Title 9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, Washington, DC.
Varabioff, Y. (1990) Incidence and recovery of Listeria from chicken with a pre-enrichment technique. J. Food
Prot. 53: 555-557.
Wempe, J.M., Genigeorgis, C.A., Farver, T.B. & Yusufu H.I. (1983) Prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni in two
California chicken processing premises. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 45: 355-359.
Winger, R.J. (1984) Storage life and eating-related quality of NZ frozen lamb: a compendium of irrepressible
longevity. In Thermal Processing and Quality of Foods. (ed. Zeuthen, P., Cheftel, J.C., Eriksson, C., Jul, M.,
Leniger, H., Linko, P., Varela, G. & Vos, G. ). Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London. pp. 541-552.

23 March 2017
14 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Traditional

Dressing of Farmed Deer

Prior to starting the HACCP plan, the HACCP team should ensure that all relevant supporting systems (also
known as prerequisite programmes, good hygienic practices) are documented and that they are in compliance
with regulatory requirements and/or specifications for good manufacturing practice (GMP). The Industry
Agreed Standards provide guidance on relevant supporting systems.
The following are documented prerequisite programmes:
operational);
 training;
 hygienic dressing (dressing techniques and procedures, cleaning and sterilisation of equipment,
dropped meat);
 vermin control;
 waste disposal;
 condition of stock (cleanliness of animals)

Product: Cervine
Process: Slaughter and traditional dressing of farmed deer, from receipt of livestock
through to the carcass leaving the slaughter floor
Premises operating an inverted dressing process should consider this generic plan and the Generic
HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Inverted Dressing of Sheep and Lambs when developing their own
HACCP plan


1 Product name(s) Venison carcass

23 March 2017

2 Important product characteristics  Passed as fit for human consumption
 Product meeting microbiological targets set by company
(a) By a further processor or retailer (a) Chilled/frozen
(b) By the consumer (b) Cooked (traditionally eaten medium rare)
5 Packaging Company and regulatory specifications
6 Shelf life and storage requirements Company and regulatory specifications
(a) Export market
(b) Local market
8 Labelling instructions  Branded
 Carcass ticket
9 Special distribution controls required Immediate dispatch to cooling floor or chiller for accelerated
conditioning or chilling

 To minimise transfer of microbiological hazards from the gastrointestinal tract and the hide to the
carcass, and their redistribution, to levels not exceeding specified microbiological targets.
 To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are identified at post-mortem
inspection.
 To identify all chemical “suspect” lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter, for subsequent
regulatory action.

Product names Venison carcass

Raw Material
 Live animals  Complies with regulatory requirements for animals
presented for slaughter.
Other Inputs1
 Carcass tickets  Suitable for use as food contact materials.
 Branding ink  Suitable for use as food contact materials.
1
Inputs are defined as incoming materials, such as consumable or non-consumable items, added to the product during
the process. These inputs and their hazards must be addressed by a prerequisite programme/SSOP, or carried through
to hazard identification within the HACCP plan.

23 March 2017
Process Slaughter and traditional dressing of farmed deer

Livestock  1. Receive

2. Holding in pens

3. Antemortem inspection

Suspects

4. Conveying to stunning area

5. Stunning

6. Electrical stimulation

7. Shackling

8. Sticking

9. Rodding & clipping of weasand

10. Tail removal  Tail

11. First legging  Sinew

12. Second legging

13. Ringing & tying of bung

Carcass ticket / ink  14. Hide removal

15. Neck trim & head removal  Head

16. Evisceration  Offal, pizzle

17. Postmortem inspection

18 a Retain rail trimming1

18 b Reinspect

19.Grading / standard carcass trimming  Venison carcass
1
Two types of trimming are done during the dressing of venison carcasses. One deals with the removal of visible defects
such as faecal stains and hair. The other type of trimming is the standard carcass trim, specified in Industry Agreed
Standards for venison, which relates to quality and market requirements.
Minor visible defects are generally trimmed off immediately after they occur. Any remaining visible contamination,
including major faecal and ingesta, on the carcass (e.g. due to evisceration) is generally trimmed off at the retain rail.
Location of the trimming steps varies according to customised practices at each premises.

23 March 2017

Job description
Process step no:
Reference:

14.7.1 Raw Material Hazard Identification
Table 5A: Hazard identification for farmed deer

Carcass/head/ B1 - Microbiological hazards C1 - Chemical hazards None
offals associated with grossly- associated with identified
detectable abnormalities, i.e. chemical residues, e.g. suspect
fever, abscesses lines, injection site lesions
(ISLs)
B2 - Microbiological hazards
not grossly detectable, e.g. C2 - Chemical hazards
bacteraemia, Toxoplasma associated with unidentified
gondii chemical residues, e.g.
antibiotics.

23 March 2017

B3 - Visible parasites - none
Gastrointestinal B4 - Microbiological hazards1 Not applicable Not applicable
tract associated with faeces and
ingesta2, e.g. Salmonella
spp., Yersina spp
Hide B5 - Microbiological hazards1 Not applicable Not applicable
of hide with faeces and dirt2,
e.g. Salmonella spp., Yersina
spp
1
Toxoplasma gondii cannot be adequately addressed by any control measure applied during the slaughter and dressing
process, including post-mortem inspection. Therefore, this hazard will not be considered any further in this generic plan.
2
Hazards may be transferred from one raw material component to another, or redistributed on a raw material component
as either unseen or gross contamination
14.9 for confirmed objectives.

23 March 2017
Table 5B: Hazard analysis and CCP determination (raw material, other inputs and process steps).
i) Potential impact this step? would prevent previous step that would
1. Receipt Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No

/offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
abnormalities FSO
C1. Chem Yes Reported incidences of Yes - identification of No 1
Suspects noncompliance. Refer to Section suspect lines at this step.
14.12.3
C1. Chem ISLs Yes Reported incidences of ISLs. Refer No No
to Section 14.12.3.
C2. Chem No4
Unidentified
residues
GIT B4. Micro GIT No
Hide B5. Micro Hide No
2. Holding in Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
pens /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
abnormalities FSO
C1. Chem ISLs Yes Reported incidences of ISLs. No No
3. Ante- Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
mortem /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
inspection abnormalities FSO

23 March 2017
Regulator’s C1. Chem ISLs Yes Reported incidences of ISLs. No No

responsibility
4. Conveying Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
to stunning /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
area abnormalities FSO
5. Stunning Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
abnormalities FSO
6. Electric Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
stimulation /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
abnormalities FSO

23 March 2017
7. Shackling Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No

abnormalities FSO
8. Sticking Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
abnormalities FSO
GIT B4. Micro GIT Transfer of B4 to No
carcass5
Hide B5. Micro Hide Transfer of B5 to No
carcass
9. Rodding & Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
clipping of /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
weasand abnormalities FSO
B4 / B56. Micro GIT No
/ Hide
carcass
carcass

23 March 2017
10. Tail Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
removal /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
abnormalities FSO
B4 / B5. Micro GIT / No
Hide
carcass
11. First Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
legging /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
abnormalities FSO
Hide
carcass
12. Second Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
legging /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
abnormalities FSO
Hide

23 March 2017

carcass
13. Ringing Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
abnormalities FSO
Hide
GIT B4. Micro GIT Transfer of B4 to Yes Sporadic faecal leakage is likely to No No
carcass cause visible contamination and
result in unacceptable micro counts
on the anal and rump areas. Refer
to Section 14.12.5 Ringing
carcass
14. Hide Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
removal /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
abnormalities FSO
B4 / B5. Micro GIT / Yes Any visible faecal contamination No No
Hide and unacceptable micro over a
significant area of the carcass due
to Step 13 are unacceptable in
relation to the FSO.

23 March 2017

carcass
15. Neck trim Carcass/head B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
& head /offal detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
removal abnormalities FSO
B4 / B5. Micro GIT / Yes Trimming of the neck will result in No No
Hide removal of contamination on the
neck area. Any visible faecal
contamination and unacceptable
micro over other areas of the
carcass due to Step 13 are
unacceptable in relation to the
FSO.
carcass
16. Carcass/offal B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality No No
Evisceration detectable is unacceptable in relation to the
abnormalities FSO
B4 / B5. Micro GIT / Redistribution of Yes Any visible faecal contamination No No
Hide B4/B5 on the carcass and unacceptable micro over a
significant area of the carcass due
to Step 13 are unacceptable in
relation to the FSO.

23 March 2017
GIT B4. Micro GIT Transfer of B4 to Yes Sporadic faecal contamination is

carcass likely to cause visible
contamination and to result in
unacceptable micro counts over
the brisket and foreleg areas. Refer
to Section 14.12.5 Evisceration
17. Post Carcass B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality Regulator’s responsibility
mortem detectable is unacceptable in relation to the (identification of grossly
Regulator’s abnormalities FSO detectable abnormalities)
responsibility
B4 / B5. Micro GIT / Redistribution of Yes Any visible faecal contamination Regulator’s responsibility
Hide B4/B5 on the carcass and unacceptable micro over a (identification of visible
significant area of the carcass due contamination)
to Steps 13 &16 are unacceptable
in relation to the FSO.
C1. Chem ISLs Yes Reported incidences of ISLs. Regulator’s responsibility
(identification and hygienic
removal of ISLs)
18a. Retain Carcass B1. Micro Grossly Yes Any grossly-detectable abnormality Yes – hygienic trimming of No 2
rail trimming detectable is unacceptable in relation to the grossly-detectable
abnormalities FSO. abnormalities
B4 / B5. Micro GIT / Yes Any visible faecal or ingesta Yes – hygienic trimming No
Hide contamination is unacceptable in of visible faecal or ingesta
relation to the FSO. contamination
18b. Re- Carcass B4 / B5. Micro GIT / Redistribution of No
inspection Hide B4/B5 on the carcass
Regulator’s
responsibility Transfer from No
carcass to carcass

23 March 2017
19. Grading/ Carcass B4 / B5. Micro GIT / No

standard Hide
Transfer from No
carcass
carcass to carcass
trimming
C2. Chem No4
Unidentified
residues
Ink, carcass tickets None
1
2
Unacceptable I as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience, National Microbiological Database) associated with achieving the FSOs established for
the process. In the determination of unacceptability, hazards should be considered in terms of: level, frequency, transfer and redistribution, and severity of effect on consumer.
3
Animals and carcasses associated with chemical suspect lines are sampled and detained according to MPI Specification. The carcasses may progress through the remainder of the process
as detained product.
4
Sporadic chemical residues at some level will always occur. However, results from the National Residue Monitoring Programme indicate that residue levels are generally in compliance with
national requirements. The level of this hazard will not change during processing (i.e. no growth or increase in the hazard level). Therefore, it will not be considered at subsequent steps, except
at the final step to reflect its presence in the final product.
5
Some ingesta contamination is likely to occur at certain steps of the process. Premises should identify the relevant steps and apply appropriate control measures to address possible hazards
associated with ingesta contamination. Refer to TD 99/41 and MISC Circular 99/MISC/4 for guidance on visible faecal and ingesta contamination.
6
B4 and B5 have been combined because the hazards of concern, which initially can be transferred from the GIT and hide, are the same type of microbiological hazard (i.e. enteric pathogens)
and are now found on the same raw material component (i.e. carcass). In addition, the source of the contamination cannot be differentiated at this stage of the process and at succeeding steps.
7
Premises may include Asure NZ inspection activities in their HACCP plans and have these as CCPs or part of a system CCP (e.g. post-mortem inspection and retain). In such cases, Asure
NZ must be involved with and agree to the developmental process. Refer to Guide to HACCP Systems in the Meat Industry, Volume 1 Chapter 11 Frequently Asked Questions, General section
Q3 for details.

23 March 2017

Note that the hazard responsibilities focus on the control of B4 (microbiological hazards from the GIT) and B5
(microbiological hazards from the hide). This reflects the results of hazard identification and analysis shown in
Tables 5A and 5B. B4 and B5 are the most important hazards that should be addressed when establishing
process control during slaughter and dressing.
Table 5C: Processor and regulator responsibilities for control of hazards
Identified Hazard Processor’s Regulator’s Unaddressed hazard

responsibility responsibility
B1 – Microbiological Yes (Retain rail trim Yes (Antemortem
hazards associated with only) inspection / postmortem
grossly-detectable inspection / re-inspection)
abnormalities
B2 – Microbiological No No Yes
hazards not grossly
detectable, eg T. gondii
from gut
 unseen  Yes (Key process  Yes (Audit)
 associated with visible steps)  Yes (Inspection / re-
faeces/ingesta  Yes (Key process inspection / audit)
contamination steps)
from hide
 unseen  Yes (Key process  Yes (Audit)
 associated with gross steps)  Yes (Inspection / re-
contamination from hide  Yes (Key process inspection / audit)
steps)
C1 – Chemical hazards
 suspect lines  Yes (Receiving only)  Yes (Detain / sample /
audit)
 ISLs  No  Yes (Post-mortem)
C2 – Chemical hazards – No Sampling as per national Yes (unaddressed by
unknown programme processor)

FSO1: To minimise transfer of microbiological hazards from the gastrointestinal tract and the hide to the
carcass, and their redistribution, to levels not exceeding specified microbiological targets.
FSO2: To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are identified at postmortem
inspection.

23 March 2017
FSO3: To ensure that chemical residues do not exceed specified targets by identifying all chemical “suspect”
lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter, for subsequent regulatory action.


 documentation and record keeping procedures.
Refer to Sections 4.12 to 4.16 Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing for
detailed requirements.
Table 6 provides a summary of the plan. References to documented procedures should be shown in this
table.

23 March 2017
Table 6: HACCP plan summary spreadsheet for slaughter and traditional dressing of deer
Process Hazard ID CCP Critical limits Monitoring Corrective actions1 Verification HACCP records
step no. procedures/tools (consider procedures2
1. Receive C1. Chemical 1  Identify all suspect lines  100% check of incoming  ID after receiving but  FSO validation  Validation record
known suspect for regulator lines against current before slaughter. Notify  Internal audit  Daily CCP monitoring
lines chemical suspect list. Production Manager and  Extrinsic audit (e.g. worksheet
 Note on pen card for Regulator. regulator, client)  Corrective action report
regulator.  If already slaughtered,  HACCP review  Internal audit report
notify Production  Extrinsic audit report
Manager and Regulator.  HACCP review record
18a. Retain B1. Micro – 2  Removal of all grossly-  100% re-inspection by  Retain product until  FSO validation  Validation record
grossly detectable abnormalities. regulator will identify non- correctly trimmed  Internal audit  Daily CCP monitoring
detectable  Removal of all visible removal of gross  Talk to worker  Extrinsic audit (e.g. worksheet
abnormalities faeces and ingesta. abnormalities and  Increase supervision regulator, client)  Corrective action report
 Removal of all major hair contaminants. Note: This is and/or monitoring level  HACCP review  Internal audit report
B4 / B5. Micro – pieces. not a processor activity.  Retrain or remove worker  Extrinsic audit report
visible  Worker technique –100%  Random observation of  HACCP review record
contamination compliance with food operator technique being
from the GIT / safety components of job applied to a pre-determined
Hide description number of carcasses per 2
hour run3
1
exceeded. These are: quick restoration of control, disposition of affected product, and prevention of recurrence of the problem.
2
Validation of the FSO relating to microbiological outcomes relates to the performance of the whole HACCP plan, e.g. NMD.
3
Sampling regime should be established by the company.

23 March 2017

achieve each of the food safety objectives. Identified CCPs should be evaluated to ensure that the control
measure applied at that particular process step, will achieve or contribute to the achievement of the relevant
food safety objective (FSO).
FSO1: To minimise transfer of microbiological hazards from the gastrointestinal tract and the hide to
the carcass, and their redistribution, to levels not exceeding specified microbiological targets.
The first objective is expected to be achieved by providing adequate control measures at CCP2 (retain rail
trim) together with effective supporting systems (e.g. hygienic dressing). The CCP should be evaluated in
relation to the achievement of FSO1.
The use of microbiological observations is appropriate for validation of FSO1. Historical data that is based on
a standardised microbiological sampling programme and that reflects the performance outcomes at the CCP
(e.g. National Microbiological Database [NMD]), may be used for evaluation. Data obtained before the
HACCP plan implementation (i.e. historical data) should be compared to data obtained after HACCP
implementation to ensure that the HACCP plan is at least equivalent to GMP-based controls at the premises.
It should be noted that NMD data also provides an ongoing verification of the microbiological performance of
the whole process.
When historical data is not available or is inadequate, microbiological validation will involve the collection of
new data from the time that the HACCP plan implementation is started.
Sample size: 25 carcasses or alternative number as determined by statistical techniques.

(Under most New Zealand situations, a sample size of 25 carcasses will provide
a basis for statistical comparison.)
Sample time frame: Two week period. Random selection of five sampling days, random selection of
five carcasses per day.
Methodology: Samples to be taken and tested as per NMD protocol
Once the NMD programme is implemented, results gathered over a specified period (e.g. a season) will
provide a national profile for venison carcasses and products. This will assist the industry and individual
premises in setting microbiological targets for carcasses post-slaughter.
FSO2: To remove all grossly-detectable abnormalities from carcasses that are identified at post-
mortem inspection.
This objective is addressed at system CCP2 (retain rail trim). Regulations require that all carcasses that go to
the retain rail are re-inspected by the regulator. Historical data on visual observations of removal of gross
abnormalities at this process step may be used to confirm that procedures in place will achieve FSO2.

23 March 2017
FSO3: To ensure that chemical residues do not exceed specified targets by identifying all chemical
“suspect” lines of livestock that are presented for slaughter, for subsequent regulatory action.
The third objective is addressed at CCP1 (receiving). The control measure at CCP1 is a regulatory
requirement and is linked to the National Residue Monitoring and Surveillance programme. It is, therefore,
expected that premises will have historical data or documentation that may be used to show that procedures
in place are effective and will achieve the FSO.
product testing programme (e.g. NMD). The frequency and type of internal verification procedures are up to
the individual premises.
controls, or when process failure occurs that may compromise product safety.

New Zealand is the major world supplier of venison with approximately 15,200 tonnes exported in 1999
(NZGIB, 1999). Exports to Europe currently account for 90% of sale value, Germany being the largest market
(43%). About 420,000 animals were processed in the year to September 1999. Stags represented 58.5% of
the total animals processed.
There are currently 15 Deer Slaughter Premises (DSPs) operating in New Zealand. The majority of these
DSPs follow a traditional slaughter and dressing process similar to that used for beef. A few, however, operate
an inverted dressing process similar to that used for sheep. The food safety hazards are expected to be the
same under both traditional and inverted processing methods for venison. However, the impact of certain
steps may differ (e.g. contamination sites may differ). This generic HACCP plan is based on the process flow
for a traditional slaughter and dressing process for farmed deer.
Premises that operate an inverted dressing process should consider this generic plan and the Generic
HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Inverted Dressing of Sheep and Lambs when developing their HACCP plans.
It is very important that individual premises customise their HACCP plan to their specific product, process and
premises.
14.12.1 Foodborne Illness Associated with Venison
Foodborne illness attributed to the consumption of venison and venison products is not common in
comparison to other types of meat. This is probably partly due to the lower consumption of venison compared
with other meats such as beef and pork. There have been isolations of important food pathogens, including
Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Yersinia spp., from venison and venison products (Sumner et al.,
1977; Keene et al., 1997) indicating venison as a potential source of infection.
In 1995, an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections in the United States was traced to jerky made from deer
meat (Keene et al., 1997). Evidence linked the source of infection to the wild deer used for producing the
jerky.
There has been no reported case or outbreak of foodborne illness attributed to the consumption of venison
and venison products in New Zealand.

23 March 2017
Biological hazards associated with venison and venison products are briefly discussed in the following
sections.
Pathogenic bacteria
Salmonella spp.
Salmonella and other enteric pathogens are typically associated with faecal material and can be commonly
isolated from the hooves and hides of animals (Stolle, 1981). They can be spread onto the carcass during
slaughter and dressing through contact with the hide, ingesta, hands and various equipment.
Several serovars of Salmonella have been isolated from New Zealand farmed deer (Sumner et al., 1977;
Belton, 1993). The prevalence of Salmonella in New Zealand farmed deer is currently unknown.
E. coli O157:H7
E.coli O157:H7 is an enteric pathogen, which in recent years, has increasingly been implicated in a number of
foodborne outbreaks in several countries. Meat related outbreaks of E.coli O157:H7 infection have been
attributed largely to ground beef (Padhye and Doyle, 1992).
E.coli O157:H7 infection in humans was first identified in New Zealand in 1993. Between then to the end of
December 1998, there have been a total of 79 reported cases of human infection by the pathogen (Baker et
al., 1999). The reservoirs and sources of infection in New Zealand remain uncertain. Cases to date have been
sporadic and risk factor information for them is incomplete.
US investigations have established that deer are a source of E. coli O157:H7 and that transmission of the
pathogen may occur between deer and cattle (Rice et al., 1995; Keene et al., 1997; Buchanan and Doyle,
1997). For example, the source of a recent outbreak involving contaminated venison jerky was traced to the
wild deer used as raw material (Keene et al., 1997). Deer and cattle faecal samples obtained from a ranch in
Texas had the same Shiga toxinproducing E. coli O157:H7 isolate (Rice et al., 1995).
The prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in New Zealand deer is currently unknown. However, the National
Microbiological Database (NMD) results for beef indicate that if New Zealand farmed deer are in fact carriers
of the pathogen, it is likely that its prevalence would be very low. The 1999 NMD results for beef shows that E.
coli O157:H7 was not detected in 40,918 samples of bulk beef from manufacturing grade meat and trimmings.
Attempts to minimise meat contamination with E.coli O157:H7 currently rely almost exclusively on the
prevention of direct and indirect faecal contamination of the carcasses (Buncic and Avery, 1997) since
animals that are asymptomatic carriers of E.coli O157:H7 cannot be identified during ante-mortem inspection.
Yersinia spp.
Yersinia enterocolitica is often present in foods, particularly those of animal origin (Hudson et al., 1992).
Yersinia spp. are frequently isolated from the intestinal tract of a wide range of clinically normal animals and
birds, including both domesticated and wild species (Wilks and Humble, 1997). Intestinal prevalence rates of
up to 30% have been demonstrated in clinically normal cattle, lambs and deer in New Zealand (Wilks and
Humble, 1997).
Yersiniosis is one of the most common causes of death in young farmed red deer in New Zealand (McKenzie,
1990). The disease is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pseudotuberculosis serotypes I, II and III (Henderson,
1983a; Hodges et al., 1984; Mackintosh, 1993). However, New Zealand surveys indicate that the prevalence
of Y. pseudotuberculosis in healthy animals is less than 1% (Henderson, 1983b).

23 March 2017
A related organism, Y. enterocolitica, does not appear to be a common cause of yersiniosis in deer in New
Zealand although it may be isolated from 30-80% of normal deer faeces in any given herd (Henderson,
1983a, b). It is considered to be part of the normal intestinal flora of deer. Therefore, any contamination of the
venison carcass with intestinal material during slaughter and dressing could result in contamination of the
product with the pathogen. The public health significance of this is currently unknown.
Clostridium perfringens Type A is one of the most widely spread pathogenic bacteria in the environment. It is
part of the microflora of the soil and can therefore be found on the hide and hooves of livestock. It has also
been found in the intestinal contents of animals. Most commercially available meats are contaminated at
some level with C. perfringens because of the organism’s ubiquitous nature (Bates, 1997).
C. perfringens outbreaks are generally associated with cooked products that have been kept at inadequate
holding temperatures in institutional and food service settings (Bryan, 1980; Bates, 1997).
certain strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Staphylococci are widespread in the environment with major
reservoirs being humans and animals. Raw meat products can frequently be contaminated with these
organisms, primarily by human handlers. Animal strains of S. aureus have rarely been associated with
outbreaks of staphylococcal food poisoning in man (Wilks and Humble, 1997).
S. aureus competes poorly with other bacteria and thus seldom causes food poisoning in raw meat products
(ICMSF, 1996). Foodborne illness due to S. aureus enterotoxin is primarily a result of contamination by food
handling personnel and is generally associated with temperature abuse of cooked products (Bryan, 1980;
Bergdoll, 1989).
Campylobacter
Campylobacter can be isolated from the faeces of all animals, often without signs of clinical disease
(Johnston, 1990). Since healthy animals may be carriers of Campylobacter spp., faecal contamination of meat
represents a potential route leading to human infection.
The most significant factors associated with cases of campylobacteriosis in New Zealand are the consumption
of raw or undercooked foods (notably poultry, but also unpasteurized dairy products) and the consumption of
untreated drinking water (ESR, 1996). Campylobacter is far less frequently associated with red meat
consumption. This appears to be due to its lower prevalence in mammals compared to birds and the fact that
the bacteria appear to die off on the dry carcass surface (Hasell, 1994). Freezing also significantly reduces
the number of viable organisms (Hasell, 1994).
Listeria monocytogenes
The presence of Listeria monocytogenes on carcasses has long been attributed to contamination by faecal
matter (Johnson et al., 1990). However, a New Zealand study by Lowry and Tiong (1988) failed to isolate
Listeria from the faecal contents of 33 cattle and lambs. These authors suggested that animal hides and pelts
are a more important source of Listeria than faecal contamination, since 17% of beef hides and 43% of lamb
pelts were found to be positive for L. monocytogenes.
Several studies have shown that further processing of carcasses into boned cuts and ground meat
significantly increases the level of Listeria contamination (Fenlon et al., 1996). For example, Lowry and Tiong
(1988) observed an increased incidence of L. monocytogenes on boneless lamb (60%) compared with lamb
carcasses (30%).
Parasites

23 March 2017
Toxoplasma gondii
Toxoplasma gondii is a protozoan parasite that encysts in the tissues of a variety of mammalian hosts. In New
Zealand, 60-70% of animals have serological evidence of infection, either past or current (Wilks and Humble,
1997).
T. gondii has been isolated in game animals, including several species of deer, in several countries (Dreesen,
1990). The organism has been found in muscles of naturally infected deer in the United States (Lindsay et al.,
1991). T. gondii was first detected in red deer in New Zealand in 1981 (Collins, 1981).
Foodborne illness due to Toxoplasma has been linked to the consumption of raw or inadequately cooked
infected meat (Cook et al., 2000). Sacks et al. (1983) reported three cases of human infection in the United
States that they believed were acquired by consumption of raw or rare deer meat.
Venison steaks and roasts are traditionally eaten medium rare in New Zealand and internationally. This raises
some concern since minimal cooking may not be adequate to destroy T. gondii, if present in the meat.
International marketing materials promoting the consumption of New Zealand venison, also note this potential
(Cervena, 200
Chemical hazards which could be present in slaughter deer include agricultural chemicals (e.g. pesticides,
herbicides, veterinary drugs) and environmental contaminants (e.g. heavy metals, organochlorines).
MPI maintains a National Residue Monitoring and Surveillance programme which monitors the residue status
of randomly selected animals slaughtered for human consumption. Animals from chemical suspect lines are
identified at receiving before slaughter. Carcasses and products from chemically suspect animals are sampled
and detained, as appropriate, until residue test results are available. Disposition of the products is then
determined by the regulator.
A quarterly report on the results of national residue monitoring is published by MPI in the publication
Surveillance. Incidences of noncompliance with established maximum residue levels are indicated in this
report.
Some animal remedies injected into farmed deer may result in injection site lesions (ISLs). ISLs tend to
contain residues of the active ingredient of the animal remedy with which an animal was treated at much
higher concentrations than other tissues, and which persist for a longer period of time. Diseases and defects
data for farmed deer collated by MPI indicate that ISLs are likely to found in venison carcasses at low
frequencies (< 1%). When present, ISLs are generally found on the neck and shoulder areas. ISLs are usually
removed at post-mortem inspection and/or the retain rail. Procedures for addressing ISLs are given in TD
98/199 and MPI Manual 160).
Information from New Zealand deer slaughter premises suggests that physical hazards (e.g. injection needles,
shotgun pellets, bullets) are rarely found in farmed deer.
14.12.5 Presentation Status and Key Process Steps: Effects on Microbiological Hazards
Information on foodborne illness and the analysis of available disease and defect data for deer carcasses
inspected in New Zealand indicate that pathogens of enteric origin pose the principal hazards associated with
venison. Hence, control measures during slaughter and dressing of deer are focused on preventing and/or
minimising contamination from the hide and the gastrointestinal tract to the carcass.

23 March 2017
Very limited data is currently available on the effects of key slaughter and dressing steps on the
microbiological quality of deer carcasses slaughtered under New Zealand practices. For this draft generic
plan, hazard analysis has been largely based on visual observation of the process and on relevant information
on the slaughter and dressing of beef, sheep and lambs. Implementation of the National Microbiological
Database (NMD) programme for venison is expected to provide more information. This generic plan will be
revised, as necessary, when sufficient NMD data become available.
1. Presentation status of livestock for slaughter
Farmed deer presented for slaughter during summer are generally clean and dry. A survey of deer slaughter
premises indicates that 90-99% of deer are received in a visibly clean condition (i.e. no or very little adhering
dirt, mud and/or faeces). However, during winter, only 5-20% of stock are received in a visibly clean condition.
Depending on the weather, stock can come in wet and with adhering dirt and/or faeces, particularly on the
belly area. The majority of premises wash all animals before slaughter regardless of their cleanliness. As an
additional step, a few premises also assign excessively dirty stock for last kill of the day.
Studies on adult cattle indicate that cleanliness of the animal has no consistent association with bacterial
contamination on carcasses (Roberts, 1980; Van Donkersgoed et al., 1997). Roberts (1980) suggests that
cleaning animals before slaughter is unlikely to affect dressing hygiene, unless a heavy layer of hardened filth
adhering to the skin over much of the area that must be incised interferes with the clean removal of the hide
(Ridell and Korkeala, 1993). In the absence of data specific to deer, it is assumed that the same observations
made on adult cattle could apply to traditionally slaughtered and dressed deer.
2. Hind legging (skinning)
The major food safety hazard associated with the dressing of carcasses is the contamination of meat with
enteric pathogens (e.g. Salmonella spp., E.coli 0157:H7) originating from faecal material or ingesta (Gill et al.,
1995). Faecal contamination of dressed carcasses can occur as a consequence of either direct contact with
faecal material or contact with surfaces that have themselves been in contact with faecal material, e.g. hides
and workers’ hands (Bell et al., 1996). Even brief contact with faecal material can produce contamination of up
to 106 bacteria /cm2, enough to cross-contaminate 10 or more successive carcasses (Roberts, 1980).
Contamination of the carcass during legging of deer mainly occurs due to rollback of the hide when making
the opening cuts and flaying around the hind legs. Contact between the hide and the carcass can also occur
on the inside leg area during the change over from the first to the second leg. Most processors agree that
contact between the hide and the carcass at this step can be prevented by using skilled workers and by strict
adherence to correct skinning techniques.
Contamination can also occur during legging due to contact between the carcass and unwashed workers’
hands. The general bacterial contamination carried on workers’ hands after making hind leg opening cuts, a
dressing procedure that necessitates direct hand contact with the hide, is very similar to that carried by the
hide in that region (Bell et al., 1996). Therefore, contact between the carcass and unwashed hands would
introduce comparable contamination as hide/carcass contact for those operations in which hide/hand contact
is unavoidable. Processors should, therefore, ensure that procedures for washing of hands and sanitising of
knives are adequate and are strictly adhered to by workers to minimise contamination on the hind leg areas.
Studies on the slaughter and dressing of adult cattle indicate that high contamination occur at those carcass
sites associated with opening cuts and/or exposed to hide contact during hide removal (Stolle, 1981; Gill et
al., 1995; Bell et al., 1996; Gill et al., 1996a). The carcass sites commonly identified as probable sites of direct
or indirect faecal contamination are the hock, inside leg, anal area and rump sites. Based on visual
observation of the deer slaughter and dressing process, it is likely that similar contamination sites on the deer
carcass would be affected at the legging step. It should be noted, however, that a wide area of the inside leg
of the venison carcass is trimmed off at a later step, as part of the standard carcass trim, consequently
removing most contamination on this area. The standard trim of the inside leg involves the removal of the thin

23 March 2017
membrane overlying the fell on the inside of both legs, generally starting at the point of the knee and
extending down to the junction of the belly.
3. Ringing (freeing and tying of the bung)
Gill et al. (1995) observed that after freeing and tying of the bung during the dressing of beef carcasses, the
anal area and butt site became heavily contaminated with E. coli, indicating faecal contamination. The butt
site was sporadically heavily contaminated during skinning but was consistently heavily contaminated after the
bung-freeing operation. This confirmed the findings of earlier Australian studies which reported that the
highest contamination with salmonellae occurred during freeing of the rectum and anal sphincter (Grau,
1979). To prevent such contamination, it has been recommended that the anal end of the intestine be
enclosed in a plastic bag (Mackey and Roberts, 1993).
A survey of deer processors indicates that the majority of those operating a traditional dressing system (six
out of seven processors who responded to the survey) seal the bung by either bagging or using a rubber ring.
Incidences of contamination during ringing are largely due to operator error (e.g. nicking of the bung), and
sporadic faecal leakage. Minor nicks into the bung do not always result in faecal contamination at the ringing
step, but they are likely to result in faecal spillage on the carcass and offal when the viscera is pulled and the
bung dropped during evisceration. Using a highly skilled worker greatly reduces the incidence of faecal
contamination, however, this does not address contamination due to sporadic faecal leakage. The advantage
in using a bag is that it is able to contain faecal contamination due to both worker error and sporadic faecal
leakage. Faecal contamination of the carcass and offal at evisceration is also prevented. Bagging also
minimises contamination of the worker’s hand because the hand is covered with the bag during the operation.
4. Hide removal
The hide of deer carcasses is generally removed using a downward puller. A ventral belly cut is made on the
hide but no opening cuts are made on the forelegs. Loose hair released during hide removal can contaminate
the foreleg and the neck areas of the carcass. The neck may also contact the forelegs during pulling of the
hide, resulting in ingesta contamination on the forelegs. This is a particular problem when processing large
animals with long neck hair (e.g. old stags). Processors claim that this can be controlled with the right
technique.
After hide removal, the neck is trimmed, as part of the standard carcass trim, and the head is removed. Blood
from the stick wound, ingesta contamination, and hair on the neck are trimmed off at this step.
5. Evisceration
The intestinal tract is the second major source of enteric pathogens during the slaughtering process
(NACMCF, 1993). Intact viscera presents little hazard but leakage from the gastrointestinal tract could cause
widespread contamination (ICMSF, 1988). The preventive measures for reducing hazards during evisceration
are: tying of the oesophagus to prevent escape of ingesta, enclosing of the bung to prevent escape of faeces,
and the intact removal of viscera (Bell et al., 1996; USDA, 1997).
Results of several studies indicate that although viscera remains intact during its removal, the evisceration
process appears to increase the level of contamination on beef carcass sites (Stolle, 1981; Gill et al., 1995;
1996b; Cook et al., 1997). Gill et al. (1996b) found that mean log numbers of E.coli for beef carcasses were
higher after evisceration and splitting than after skinning. Carcasses undergo much handling during the
evisceration process and it is possible that this increase is due to redistribution of microorganisms from
contaminated sites rather than ‘new’ transfer of contamination on the carcass.
NMD results for beef and lamb carcasses show that the aerobic plate counts on the flank site are on average
higher than those on the outside leg and brisket sites. Similarly, the prevalence of E.coli at the flank site is
higher than that of the other sites. These results have been attributed to the greater level of handling of the
carcass during evisceration. It is likely that evisceration will have a similar impact on the flank site of deer

23 March 2017
carcasses. However, in a later step, the fascia of the abdominal muscle from either side of the midline
opening down to the bottom of the flank steaks are removed as part of the standard trim. Therefore, any
contamination on the flank site due to evisceration may not be reflected on the final carcass.
The navel end brisket (xyphoid) is the carcass site identified by most deer processors surveyed, as likely to be
contaminated during evisceration. Generally, the brisket of deer carcasses is not split prior to evisceration.
Therefore, rather than the viscera dropping onto the conveyor by its own weight, as it is with beef, the
abdominal viscera of deer is dropped down to the mid-section of the carcass and then the thoracic viscera is
pulled up and out of the cavity. The viscera “hangs” out of the cavity and inevitably contacts the brisket.
Because the viscera is pulled up, there is potential for the weasand clip to slip causing ingesta contamination
on to the carcass. This is more likely to occur when the weasand clip doesn’t fit well due to variation in size of
the animals or when the gut is full (i.e. when tail-gating). Strain on the gut, particularly when full, can also
result in burst guts. Burst guts and weasand clip failures have been attributed by processors to result in
around <1-3% of visible faecal/ingesta contamination on the brisket area.
6. Trimming
Two types of trimming are done during the dressing of venison carcasses. One deals with the removal of
visible defects such as faecal stains and hair. The other type of trimming is the standard carcass trim specified
in Industry Agreed Standards for venison that relates to quality and market requirements.
Animal hair may be contaminated with pathogens [Patterson and Gibbs (1978) found up to 4 x 106
Salmonella/g of cattle hair]. New Zealand studies on ovine carcasses also show that microbiological
contamination is significantly increased in areas directly affected by wool and faecal material (Biss and
Hathaway, 1996a). It is likely that major hair and faecal contamination on venison carcasses would have a
similar impact on the microbiological load on carcasses.
Hair contamination on traditionally dressed venison carcasses mainly occurs on the hind leg, foreleg and
brisket areas. Visible faecal and ingesta contamination are mainly found on the brisket area.
Application of HACCP principles to slaughter and dressing suggests that visible faecal contamination and
major hair contamination should be removed by trimming. It is common practice in New Zealand premises to
trim off minor defects immediately after they occur, when practical for the worker to do so. Any remaining
visible contamination, including major faecal and ingesta, on the carcass (e.g. due to evisceration) are
generally trimmed off at the retain rail. Guidance on the options available to companies for the identification
and removal of visible faecal and ingesta contamination is given in TD 99/41 and in MISC Circular 99/MISC/4.
Although the intent of the standard carcass trim is to meet market requirements, it contributes to the removal
of contaminants particularly on the neck, belly and inside leg areas due to the relatively extensive trimming
done on these sites.
Although trimming results in the removal of visible contaminants, it is expected to have a negligible effect on
the overall microbiological condition of carcasses (Gill et al., 1996b). New Zealand studies suggest that visible
defects are not reliable indicators of overall microbial contamination and therefore should be used with caution
when used as monitoring tools for overall carcass hygiene (Biss and Hathaway, 1995; 1996b).
14.13 References
Baker, M, Eyles, R., Bennett, J., Nicol, C., Wong, W. & Garrett, N. (1999) Emergence of verotoxigenic
Escherichia coli (VTEC) in New Zealand. N.Z. Public Health Rep. 6: 1-4.
Bates, J.R. (1997) Chapter 13: Clostridium perfringens. In Foodborne Microorganisms of Public Health
Significance. (ed. Hocking, A.D., Arnold, G., Jenson, I., Newton, K. & Sutherland, P.) Australian Institute of
Food Science and Technology Inc. (NSW Branch) Food Microbiology Group. NSW, Australia.

23 March 2017
Bell, R.G., Harrison, J.C.L., Rogers, A.R. & le Roux, G.J. (1996) Distribution and sources of microbial
contamination on beef carcasses. Meat Ind. Res. Inst. N.Z. Publ. No. 963.
Belton, D. (1993) Salmonellosis in New Zealand livestock. Surveillance 20(1): 13-14.
Bergdoll, M.S. (1989) Chapter 11: Staphylocccus aureus. In Foodborne Bacterial Pathogens. (ed. Doyle,
M.P.) Marcel Dekker Inc, New York.
Biss, M.E. & Hathaway, S.C. (1995) Microbiological and visible contamination of lamb carcasses according to
preslaughter presentation status: implications for HACCP. J. Food Prot. 58: 776-783.
Biss, M.E. & Hathaway, S.C. (1996a) Microbiological contamination of ovine carcasses associated with the
presence of wool and faecal material. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 81: 594-600.
Biss, M.E. & Hathaway, S.C. (1996b) The effect of different on-line dressing practices on microbiological and
visible contamination of lamb carcasses. N.Z. Vet. J. 44: 55-60.
43: 140-150.
Buchanan, R.L. & Doyle, M.P. (1997) Foodborne disease significance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and other
enterohemorrhagic E. coli. Food Technol. 51: 69-76.
Buncic, S. & Avery, S.M. (1997) Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in healthy dairy cows. N. Z. Vet. J. 45: 45-48.
Cervena. (2000):Guide to cooking cervena. (Available at http://www.cervena.com)
Collins, G.H. (1981) Studies in Sarcosystis species VIII: Sarcocystis and Toxoplasma in red deer (Cervus
elaphus). N.Z. Vet J. 29: 126-127.
Cook, A.J.C., Gilbert, R.E., Buffolano, W., Zufferey, J., Petersen, E., Jenum, P.A., Foulon, W., Semprini, A.E.,
Dunn, D.T. (2000) Sources of toxoplasma infection in pregnant women: European multicentre case-control
study. BMJ. 321: 142-147.
Cook, R.L., Hathaway, S.C., Harrison, J.C.L. & Armitage, N.H. (1997) Microbiological baseline survey of New
Zealand bovine carcasses: a preliminary report. Proc. 43rd Int. Cong. of Meat Sci. & Technol. Auckland, New
Zealand. pp. 732-733.
Dreesen, D.W. (1990) Toxoplasma gondii infections in wildlife. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 196: 274-276.
risk factors for campylobacteriosis identified in the study. N.Z. Public Health Rep. 3: 20.
Fenlon, D.R., Wilson, J. & Donachie, W. (1996) The incidence and level of Listeria monocytogenes
contamination of food sources at primary production and initial processing. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 81: 641-650.
Gill, C.O., McGinnis, J.C. & Badoni, M. (1995) Assessment of the hygienic characteristics of a beef carcass
dressing process. J. Food Prot. 59: 136-140.
Gill, C.O., McGinnis, J.C. & Badoni, M. (1996a) Use of total or Escherichia coli counts to assess the hygienic
characteristics of a beef carcass dressing process. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 31: 181-196.
Gill, C.O., Badoni, M. & Jones, T. (1996b) Hygienic effects of trimming and washing operations in a beef-
carcass-dressing process. J. Food Prot. 59: 666-669.
Grau, F.H. (1979) Fresh meats: bacteria association. Arch. Lebensmitten. 30: 87-92.
Henderson, T.G. (1983a) Yersiniosis in deer from the Otago-Southland region of New Zealand. N.Z. Vet. J.
31: 221-224.
Henderson, T. (1983b) Types of yersiniosis isolated from deer. Surveillance 10: 7-8.
Hodges, R.T., Carman, M.G. & Mortimer, W.J. (1984) Serotypes of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis recovered
from domestic livestock. N.Z. Vet. J. 32: 11-13.

23 March 2017
Hudson, J.A., Mott, S.J., Delacy, K.M. & Edridge, A.L. (1992) Incidence and coincidence of Listeria spp.,
motile aeromonads and Yersinia enterocolitica on ready-to-eat flesh foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 16:99-108.
ICMSF (1988) Chapter 10: Production - animal foods. In Microorganisms in Foods, vol. 4: Application of the
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) System to Ensure Microbiological Safety and Quality. The
International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) of the International Union of
Microbiological Societies. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford, England.
ICMSF (1996) Chapter 17: Staphylococcus aureus. In Microorganisms in Food 5: Characteristics of Microbial
Pathogens. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods of the International Union of
Biological Societies. Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
Johnson, J.L., Doyle, M.P. & Cassens, R.G. (1990) Listeria monocytogenes and other Listeria spp. in meat
and meat products: a review. J. Food Prot. 53: 81-91.
Johnston, A.M. (1990) Foodborne illness: veterinary sources of foodborne illness. Lancet 336: 856-858.
Keene, W.E., Sazie, E., Kok, J., Rice, D.H., Hancock, D.D., Balan, V.K., Zhao, T., Doyle, M.P. (1997) An
outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections traced to jerky made from deer meat. J. Am. Med. Assoc.
277: 1229-1231.
Lindsay, D.S., Blagburn, B.L., Dubey, J.P. & Mason, W.H. (1991) Prevalence and isolation of Toxoplasma
gondii from white-tailed deer in Alabama. J. Parasitol. 77: 62-64.
Lowry, P.D. & Tiong, I. (1988) The incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in meat and meat products: factors
affecting distribution. Proc. 34th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. part B. pp.528-530.
Mackey, B.M. & Roberts, T.A. (1993) Improving slaughter hygiene using HACCP and monitoring.
Fleischwirtsch. Int. 2: 40-45.
Mackintosh, C. (1993) Importance of infectious diseases of NZ farmed deer. Surveillance 20(1): 24-26.
McKenzie, J. (1990) Disease status of farmed deer in New Zealand. Surveillance: 17(1) 1718.
MAF Manual 16 - Post-mortem inspection. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Wellington, New Zealand.
NACMCF (1993) Generic HACCP for raw beef. National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for
Foods. United States.
NZGIB [New Zealand Game Industry Board] (1999) Annual Report 1998-1999. Wellington, New Zealand.
Padhye, N.V. & Doyle, M.P. (1992) Escherichia coli O157:H7: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and methods for
detection in food. J. Food Prot. 55: 555-565.
Patterson, J.T. & Gibbs, P.A. (1978) Sources and properties of some organisms isolated in two abattoirs.
Meat Sci. 2: 263-273.
Rice, D.H., Hancock, D.D. & Besser, T.E. (1995) Verotoxigenic E. coli O157:H7 colonisation of wild deer and
range cattle. Vet. Rec. 137: 524.
Ridell, J. & Korkeala, H. (1993) Special treatment during slaughtering in Finland of cattle carrying an
excessive load of dung; meat hygiene aspects. Meat Sci. 35: 223-228.
Roberts, T.A. (1980) The effects of slaughter practices on the bacteriology of the red meat carcass. R. Soc.
Health J. 80: 3-9.
Sacks, J.J., Delgado, D.G., Lobel, H.O., Parker, R.L. (1983) Toxoplasmosis infection associated with eating
undercooked venison. Am. J. Epidemiol. 118:832-837.
Stolle, A. (1981) Spreading of salmonellas during cattle slaughtering. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 50: 239-245.
Sumner, J.L., Perry, I.R., & Reay, C.A. (1977) Microbiology of New Zealand farmed venison. J. Sci. Food
Agric. 28: 1105-1108.
USDA (1997) Meat and Poultry Products Hazards and Control Guide. United States Department of
Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.

23 March 2017
Van Donkersgoed, J. Jericho, K.W.F., Grogan, H. & Thorlakson, B. (1997) Preslaughter hide status of cattle
and the microbiology of carcasses. J. Food Prot. 60: 1502.
Perspective. Publication No. 178. Veterinary Continuing Education, Massey University, Palmerston North,
New Zealand.

23 March 2017
15 Generic Model for Potable Water

Previously Appendix 10

 appropriate standards, regulations and permits;

 history of the raw water quality/commissioning report;
 hygiene of water tanks, new pipes;
 repair and maintenance programme for filters, tanks, pipes and valves;
 reticulation plan;
 training for water plant operators.

Product: Potable water at all points of use
Process: From well source to point of use

The end product is potable water at all points of use. Template Table 1 is not considered relevant for use
here.
15.4 Food Safety Objectives

The food safety objective associated with this product is:
 to ensure that water used in the preparation of food contains no microorganisms pathogenic for
humans and meets guideline values for physicochemical constituents so that there is no significant risk
to the consumer*
* relates to World Health Organisation guidelines for drinking water.

Product names Potable water

 Water  Commissioned
 Aluminium sulphate  Approved chemical (refer Approved Maintenance
 Sodium hypochlorite Compounds (Non-Dairy) Manual)
 Approved chemical (refer Approved Maintenance
Compounds (Non-Dairy) Manual)

23 March 2017
Table 3: Process flow diagram for water
Process Production of potable water

Well water  1. Wellhead pump

Aluminium sulphate  2. Flocculation  Sediment

Sodium hypochlorite  3. Filtration  Backwash water to waste

4. Disinfection

5. Storage

6. Reticulation

7. Point of use  Potable water

Fill out job descriptions for each specific process step.

Hazards reasonably expected to occur in the raw material are identified in Table 5A
Table 5A: Hazard identification for well water at source

Well water B1 – Intrinsic microbiological No physicochemical hazards of public health
hazards e.g., Faecal coliforms, concern associated with well water
sulphite-reducing Clostridium

Further hazard identification considering each process step and associated inputs are shown in Table 5B.
Table 5B: Process step hazard identification
Process Step Raw material hazards Other input hazards

1. Wellhead pump B1
2. Flocculation B1 Nil
3. Filtration B1 Nil
4. Disinfection B1 Nil
5. Storage

23 March 2017
Process Step Raw material hazards Other input hazards

6. Reticulation
7. Point of use
B1 – Intrinsic microbiological hazards
15.9 Confirmation of food safety objectives

Control measures available to the processor for the above hazards focus on disinfection of the water.
Template Table 5C has not been used here.
The food safety objective is confirmed as the following:
 to ensure that water used in the preparation of food contains no microorganisms pathogenic for
humans and meets guideline values for physicochemical constituents so that there is no significant risk
to the consumer*
* relates to World Health Organisation guidelines for drinking water.
Table 6: CCP determination for a slaughter and dressing process
Process Identified Q1. Could the hazard Q2. Is there a control Q3. Is there a control measure CCP
step hazard be present in or on the measure available at available at a previous step no:
product1 at this step that would which would significantly
unacceptable2 levels at prevent contribute to preventing
this step? unacceptable2 levels unacceptable2 levels of the
If Yes – give reasons and of the hazard? hazard at this step?
go to Q2 If Yes – this step is a If Yes – retrospectively assign
If No – not a CCP. CCP. Go to Q3 that step as a CCP
Proceed to next identified If No – not a CCP. Go If No and if the answer to Q2 was
hazard to Q3. No, consider whether any
subsequent steps can control the
hazard or whether redesign of
the process / product is
necessary to ensure a control
measure is available
Wellhead B1 Yes — contaminated raw No Not applicable
pump water unacceptable in
relation to FSO
Flocculation B1 Yes — contaminated raw No No
water unacceptable in
relation to FSO
Filtration B1 Yes — contaminated raw No No
relation to FSO
Disinfection B1 Yes — contaminated raw Yes3
relation to FSO
Storage
Reticulation
Point of use

23 March 2017
1
2
Unacceptable — as demonstrated by data (scientific literature, applied research or on-site experience) associated with
achieving the FSOs established for the process. In the determination of unacceptability, hazards should be considered in
terms of:
– level;
– frequency;
3
In specific cases, the raw water source may be contaminated at such a level that disinfection is inadequate as a control
measure by itself. Historical evidence is an important factor in this case and other CCPs within the system will have to be
considered.
15.10 Completion of the HACCP plan

See Table 7 for information on the critical limits applied for each of the CCPs determined above, monitoring
procedures, corrective action procedures, verification procedures and HACCP records to be kept. Table 7 is
the summary spreadsheet for the HACCP plan.
15.11 Validation of the HACCP plan

Validation should demonstrate that the HACCP plan meets all the required documentation and can deliver the
expected food safety outcomes, i.e., can achieve the food safety objectives on an ongoing basis.

23 March 2017
Process step Hazard ID CCP Critical limits Monitoring Corrective actions Verification procedures HACCP records
When and How)
Wellhead pump
Flocculation
Filtration
Disinfection Microbiological 1  30 min contact time  Automatic monitoring of  Alarm and restrict outflow  FSO validation  Validation records
 0.3 ppm free reservoir level  Alarm at <0.5ppm.  DPD 1 > 0.3ppm,  Daily worksheet
available chlorine  Automatic monitoring of  Adjust flow rate of checked daily at point of  Automatic recorder
FAC in water line chemical use printout
 Level probe in  Check concentrate  Calibration of gauges,  Internal audit reports
concentrate solution solution meters, and alarms as  Extrinsic audit reports
 Take water samples for per manufacturers  Water microbiological
microbiology if warranted instructions and physicochemical test
 Shut down water supply  Internal audit by records
 Retain affected product company  Calibration records
until water tests known  External audit by  HACCP review records
regulatory agency
 HACCP review
Storage
Reticulation
Point of use

Guide Haccp Systems Vol2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide Haccp Systems Vol2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide Haccp Systems Vol2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of this guidance document?

What is the purpose of this guidance document?

What are the main sections covered in the document?

What are the main sections covered in the document?

Guidance Document

A guide to HACCP systems

A guidance document issued by the Ministry for Primary Industries

About this document

No. Current Section Changed Change(s) Description

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 1 of 233

4 Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing 7

6 Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle 27

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 2 of 233

6.11 Critical Control Point (CCP) Determination 35

7 Generic HACCP Plan for Cooling and Boning of Beef 52

8 Generic HACCP Plan for the Manufacture of Raw Beef Patties 79

9 Generic HACCP Plan for the Manufacture of Beef Jerky 102

10 Generic HACCP Plan for Canning (Corned Beef) 126

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 3 of 233

10.7 Hazard Analysis and CCP Determination 129

15 Generic Model for Potable Water 229

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 4 of 233

15.3 Product Description and Intended Use 229

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 5 of 233

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 6 of 233

4 Template for Establishing a HACCP Plan for Slaughter and

4.1 Prerequisite Requirements

For slaughter and dressing, examples of prerequisite programmes are:

4.2 Scope of HACCP Plan

HACCP application: Food safety

4.3 Product Description and Intended Use

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 7 of 233

Table 1: Product description and intended use

Product Intended Use

4.4 Setting Initial Food Safety Objectives for the Process

4.5 Constructing a Process Flow Diagram

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 8 of 233

Table 2: Raw materials / other inputs

Table 3: Process flow diagram

Inputs Process steps Edible outputs

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 9 of 233

4.6 Job Descriptions

Table 4: Example template for job description

Process step no:

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 10 of 233

4.7 Raw Material Hazard Identification

4.7.1 Raw material hazards

Raw material consists of the following components:

4.7.2 Other input hazards

Table 5A: Hazard identification for raw materials

Raw material Biological hazard Chemical hazard Physical hazard

Raw material Biological hazard Chemical hazard Physical hazard

Ministry for Primary Industries Page 11 of 233

Raw material Biological hazard Chemical hazard Physical hazard

contamination of fleece/ hide

4.8 Process Step Hazard Identification

Table 5B: Hazard identification information for slaughter and dressing

Process Raw material Transfer2 of Redistribution2 Other inputs

Components Hazards1 Components Hazards