4.5 Review

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Bacterial Food-Borne Zoonotic Hazards in Slaughter Pigs: A Review

期刊

ZOONOSES AND PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 56, 期 8, 页码 429-454

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01185.x

关键词

Pork; food-borne zoonoses; pre-harvest hazard control

资金

  1. Directorate of Food Safety of the French Ministry of Agriculture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>The Hygiene Package and Regulation EC-2160/2003 require information flow from farm to slaughterhouse to enhance European consumers protection in a 'farm to fork' approach. This obligation especially concerns food-borne zoonotic hazards transmitted to humans through pork consumption, such as thermophilic Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica and Yersinia enterocolitica. Prevalence estimates of these four hazards are affected by the sampling strategy and diagnostic procedure. Individual prevalence estimates for pig carriage (from digestive contents or lymph nodes collected at slaughterhouse) were higher than individual prevalence estimates for pig shedding (from faeces). Among risk factors described in the literature, poor pen cleaning and disinfection after pig departure to slaughterhouse and poor bio-security measures are of major significance. Moreover, whereas wet feed increases the risk of pig infection by L. monocytogenes, dry feed is a risk factor for Salm. enterica. Mixing batches of pigs, notably in fattening herds, represents a risk for the transmission of Salm. enterica and Y. enterocolitica. Whereas small herds are more infected by thermophilic campylobacters and Y. enterocolitica, higher prevalence of Salmonella is observed in large herds due to a more frequent mixing of batches. Antibiotic treatment during the finishing period increases the risk of transmission of Salm. enterica. The forenamed elements should be taken into account to characterize farms in a risk assessment approach and to improve zoonotic hazard management in the pork food chain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据