Appendix IX.1: Generic HACCP Plan For Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle 1. Prerequisite Requirements

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group
A Guide to HACCP Systems in the Meat Industry

Appendix IX.1: Cattle Slaughter and Dressing
Amendment 1: February 1998

Page: IX.1.1
Appendix IX.1: Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle
1. Prerequisite requirements
The following are documented prerequisite programmes:
sanitary design;
potable water quality;
sanitation and cleanup procedures for edible areas and food contact surfaces (pre-operational
and operational);
personnel hygiene (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).
2. Scope of HACCP plan

HACCP application:
Food safety
Species:
Bovine (excluding bobby calf)
Process:
Slaughter and dressing of cattle, from receipt of livestock through

to carcass leaving slaughter floor.


Page: IX.1.2
3. Product Description and Intended Use

Form 1: Product description and intended use
1.
Product name(s)
Beef carcass
2.
Important product characteristics
Passed ante- and post-mortem inspection

Product meeting microbiological targets set by company
3.
How is it to be used:
a.
By a further processor
b.
By the consumer
a.
b.
4.
Intended consumer
General public (i.e. no specified "high-risk" groups)
5.
Packaging
Not applicable
6.
Shelf life and storage requirements
Not applicable
7.
Where it will be sold

a.
Export market
b.
Local market
List countries, if applicable
Chilled/hot boned
Raw or cooked
8.
Labelling instructions
Branded
Carcass ticket
9.
Special distribution controls required
Immediate dispatch to chiller or boning room


Page: IX.1.3
4. Initial Food Safety Objectives

(To be confirmed after hazard identification and determination of hazard responsibilities. See
Section 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.
5. Process Flow Diagram

Form 2: Raw materials/other inputs
Product name:
Beef carcass
Raw material/Other inputs
Description/Specification
Raw material 8 live animal
Components:
carcass tickets 2
branding ink2
gastrointestinal tract (GIT)
Other inputs1 8
carcass/head/offals
hide
Suitable for use as food contact material

Suitable for use as food contact material
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 premises prerequisite programme for
food contact materials.


Page: IX.1.4
Form 3: Process flow diagram

Process: Slaughter and dressing of cattle
Inputs
Process steps
Livestock
<
Carcass ticket/ink <
1. Receive
?
2. Wash
?
3. Pen
?
4. Antemortem
?
?
?
Suspects
?
?
5. Prestun shower
?
6. Stun
?
7. Anal wash/shackle
?
8a. Thoracic stick 1
?
8b.Halal stick1,2
?
9. Rod
?
10. Head removal
?
11. Hind leg
?
12. Ring
?
13. Hide removal
?
14. Brisket cut
?
15. Evisceration
?
16. Carcass split
?
17. Postmortem inspection
?
?
18a. Retain
?
?
18b. Reinspect
?
?
19. Trim =
?
20. Grade
?
21. Final wash
Edible outputs
< Head
< Offals
< Beef carcass
1.
Process options.
2.
For halal slaughter, regulations to ensure humane slaughter require that sticking of the animal is done
before shackling.


Page: IX.1.5
6. Job Descriptions
Form 4 must be completed and confirmed for each step in the particular process.
Form 4: Template for job description
Job description
Process step no:
Example to be put in here .........
Summary list of food safety responsibilities of operator: (confirm after HACCP plan completed)
Reference:


Page: IX.1.6
7. Raw Material Hazard Identification

Form 5a: Hazard identification for cattle
Raw material component
Biological hazard
Chemical hazard
Physical hazard
Carcass/head/offals
B1 - Microbiological
hazards associated with
grossly-detectable
abnormalities, i.e. fever,
abscesses
C1 - Chemical hazards
associated with identified
chemical residues, e.g.
suspect lines, injection site
lesions (ISLs)
P1 - Shotgun pellets
hazards not grossly
detectable, e.g.
bacteraemia, Toxoplasma
gondii
C2 - Chemical hazards
associated with unidentified
chemical residues, e.g.
anthelmintics, antibiotics,
environmental
contaminants.
B3 - Visible parasites, e.g.

Taenia saginata
(Cysticercus bovis)
Gastrointestinal tract
Not applicable
Not applicable
Hide
hazards1 associated with
contamination of hide with
faeces and dirt, e.g.
Salmonella spp., E. coli
O157:H7, Clostridium spp.,
Campylobacter jejuni
Not applicable
Not applicable
Udder (for cows)
1.
hazards1 associated with
faeces and ingesta, e.g.
Salmonella spp.,
E. coli O157:H7,
Clostridium spp.,
Campylobacter jejuni
contamination from
mastitic milk, e.g.
Staphylococcus aureus
Not applicable
Not applicable
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 8 of the template for slaughter and dressing as:
"biological hazards associated with other inputs"; hence B7 refers to contamination with mastitic
milk.


Page: IX.1.7
8. Process Step Hazard Identification

Form 5b: Process step hazard identification for slaughter and dressing of cattle
Process Step
Raw material
Components
1. Receive
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
2. Wash
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
3. Pen
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
4. Antemortem
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
5. Prestun
shower
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
6. Stun
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
7. Anal
wash/shackle
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
8a. Thoracic
stick
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
8b. Halal
stick
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
9. Rod
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
Transfer of
hazards to
product 2,3
Hazards1
Redistribution
of hazards on
product2
Other inputs
Components
B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,

P1
B4
B5
B7
B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
P1
B4
B5
B7
B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
P1
B4
B5
B7
B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
P1
B4
B5
B7
B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
P1
B4
B5
B7
B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
P1
B4
B5
B7
B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,
P1
B4
B5
B7
B5
B1, B2, B3, B5, C1,

C2, P1
B4
B5
B7
B5
B1, B2, B3, B5, C1,

C2, P1
B4
B5
B7
B4, B5
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

C1, C2, P1
B4
B5
B7
B4
Hazards

Process Step
Raw material
Components
10. Head
removal
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
11. Hind leg
Carcass/head/offals
GIT
Hide
Udder (for cows)
12. Ring
Carcass/offals
GIT
Hide
13. Hide
removal
Carcass/offals
GIT
Hide
14. Brisket cut
Carcass/offals
GIT
15.
Evisceration
Carcass/offals
GIT
Transfer of
hazards to
product 2,3

Page: IX.1.8
Redistribution
of hazards on
product2
Hazards1
Other inputs
Components
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

C1, C2, P1
B4
B5
B7
B4, B5
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

C1, C2, P1
B4
B5
B7
B5, B74
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

C1, C2, P1
B4
B5
B4,B5
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

C1, C2, P1
B4
B5
Hazards
B5
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

C1, C2, P1
B4
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,
C1, C2, P1
B4
B4, B15
16. C/C split
Carcass
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

C1, C2, P1
B4, B5
17.
Postmortem
Carcass
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

C1, C2, P1
B4, B5
18a. Retain
Carcass
B1, B2, B4, B5, C16,

C2, P1
B4, B5
18b. Reinsp
Carcass
B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,

P1
B4, B5
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,

P1
B4, B5
20. Grade
Carcass
B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,

P1
B4, B5
21. Final wash
Carcass
B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,

P1
B4, B5
Tickets
Ink
B4, B5
Nil
Nil


Page: IX.1.9
B & Biological
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 hide
B6 & Biological hazards associated with other inputs
B7 & Microbiological hazards associated with mastitic milk
C & Chemical
C1 & Chemical hazards associated with identified chemical residues

C2 & Chemical hazards associated with unidentified chemical residues
P & Physical
1.
P1 & 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
companys 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.
5.
With certain classes of cattle, B1 may be transferred at evisceration. If this hazard is relevant to the
companys 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 MAF RA (M&S)
specification. The carcasses may progress through the remainder of the process as retained product.

9.

Page: IX.1.10
Hazard Responsibilities
Form 5c: Processor and regulator responsibilities for control of hazards associated with the
carcass
Identified Hazard
Processors responsibility
Regulators responsibility
B1 8 Microbiological
grossly-detectable
abnormalities
Yes (Retain rail trim only)
Yes (Antemortem insp /

postmortem insp/re-insp)
B2 8 Microbiological
hazards not grossly
detectable
No
No
B3 8 Visible parasites
No
Yes (Postmortem insp)
i) Yes (Key process steps)

ii) Yes (Key process steps)
i) Yes (Audit, NMD)

ii) Yes (Insp/reinsp/audit)
i) Yes (Key process steps)

ii) Yes (Key process steps)
i) Yes (Audit, NMD)

ii) Yes (Insp/reinsp/audit)
C1 8 Chemical hazards 8
suspect lines
Yes (Receiving only)
Yes (Retain/sample/audit)
C2 8 Chemical hazards 8
unknown
No
Random sampling as per

national programme
Yes (unaddressed by
processor)
P1 8 Shotgun pellets
No
Yes (Insp1)
Yes (unaddressed by
processor)
B4 8 Micro hazards
transferred /redistributed
from gut
i) unseen
ii) associated with gross
contamination with
faeces/ingesta
B5 8 Micro hazards
transferred /redistributed
from hide
i) unseen
ii) associated with gross
contamination from hide
Unaddressed hazard
Yes
1. Carcasses are inspected for shotgun pellets but detection rate is low due to low sensitivity of the inspection
method.
10.
Confirmed Food Safety Objectives (FSOs)

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.

11.

Page: IX.1.11
Critical Control Point (CCP) Determination
Form 6: CCP determination for slaughter and dressing of cattle

Process step
Identified hazard
Q1. Could the hazard

be present in or on
the product1 at
unacceptable2 levels
at this step?
Q2. Is there a control

measure available at
this step that would
prevent unacceptable2
levels of the hazard?
If yes & give reasons

and go to Q2
If yes & this step is a

CCP. Go to Q3
If no & not a CCP
If no & not a CCP. Go

to Q3

measure available at a
previous step which would
significantly contribute to
preventing unacceptable2
levels of the hazard at this
step?
CCP
no:
If yes & retrospectively

assign that step as a CCP
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
Proceed to next identified

hazard
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
1. Receive
No
C1. Chem
suspects
Yes & reported

incidences of noncompliance. Refer to
Annex 1 Section 3.
4. A/M
No
No
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
3. Pen
B4. Micro & GIT

B5. Micro & Hide
2. Wash
No
Refer to regulator
8a. Thoracic
stick
No
B4. Micro & GIT
No
No
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
7. Anal
wash/shackle
No
B5. Micro & Hide
6. Stun
B4. Micro & GIT

B5. Micro & Hide
5. Prestun
shower
No
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
No
Yes & identification of

suspect lines at this
step
No
CCP1

Process step
Identified hazard

be present in or on
the product1 at
at this step?


and go to Q2

CCP. Go to Q3
If no & not a CCP

to Q3

Page: IX.1.12

step?
CCP
no:

available
Proceed to next
identified hazard

hazard
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
8b. Halal
stick
No
11. Hind leg
No
No
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
10. Head
removal
B4. Micro & GIT

B5. Micro & Hide
9. Rod
No
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
12. Ring
B4. Micro & GIT
Yes & incorrect

procedures for
opening cuts and
flaying will exceed
acceptable micro
counts over a
significant surface
area on the hind
quarter. Refer to
Annex 1 Section 5.2.
Yes - incorrect ringing
will exceed acceptable
micro counts over a
significant surface
area on the hind
section. Refer to
Annex 1 Section 5.3.
B5. Micro & Hide

B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
13. Hide
removal
No
No
15. Evisc
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
14. Brisket cut
No
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
No
Yes & prevent

unacceptable
contamination from the
hide to the carcass by
correct operator
technique
Yes & prevent faecal

contamination from the
bung by correct
operator technique
No
CCP2
No
CCP3

Process step
Identified hazard

be present in or on
the product1 at
at this step?


and go to Q2

CCP. Go to Q3
If no & not a CCP

to Q3

Page: IX.1.13

step?
CCP
no:

available
Proceed to next
identified hazard

hazard
17. PM insp
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
16. Carcass split
No
Refer to regulator
Yes & failure to trim /
unhygienic removal of
grossly-detectable
abnormalities. Refer
to IS 5.
Yes & hygienic

trimming

Refer to IS 5.
Yes & hygienic

trimming
B5. Micro & Hide
18b. Reinspect
B1. Micro &

grossly-detectable
abnormalities
B4. Micro & GIT
18a.Retain

Refer to IS 5.
Yes & hygienic

trimming
No
CCP4
Refer to regulator
Note: Carcasses may contact each other after step 17 on main chain and after 18a if retained.
19. Trim
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
No
20. Grade
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
No
B4. Micro & GIT
No
B5. Micro & Hide
21. Final wash
No
1.
Product is defined as the edible component of the final product.
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.

12.

Page: IX.1.14
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 12-16 of the Template for Slaughter and
Dressing for the detailed requirements.
Form 7 provides a summary of the plan. References to documented procedures should be shown
in this form.
13. Verification of the HACCP Plan

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 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)
C
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.


Page: IX.1.15
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.
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 reinspected 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.


Page: IX.1.16
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
documention which may be used to show that procedures in-place are adequate and will achieve
the FSO.
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.
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).

Process step
Hazard ID
1. Receive
C1. Chemical known suspect lines
CCP
no:

Page: IX.1.17
Critical limits
Monitoring
procedures/tools
(consider Who, What,
When and How)
Corrective actions1
Verification procedures2
HACCP records
Identify all suspect lines for

regulator
100% check of incoming

lines against current chem
suspect list.
ID after receiving but

before slaughter.
Notify Production
Manager and
Regulator.
FSO validation
Validation record
Internal audit
Daily CCP monitoring worksheet
Extrinsic audit (e.g.

regulator, client)
Corrective action report
Note on pen card for

regulator.
If already
slaughtered, notify
Production Manager
and Regulator.
Internal audit report

HACCP review
Extrinsic audit report
HACCP review record
2. Wash
3. Pen
4. Antemortem
5. Prestun
shower
6. Stun
7. Anal wash/
shackle
8a. Thoracic
stick
8b. Halal stick
9. Rod
10. Head
removal

Process step
11. Hind leg
Hazard ID
B5. Micro & hide
CCP
no:
Critical limits
Operator technique & 100%

compliance with food safety
components of job description

Page: IX.1.18
Monitoring
procedures/tools
When and How)
Corrective actions1
HACCP records
Random observation of
operator technique being
applied to a predetermined
number of carcasses per
2 hour run. 3
(a) Talk to operator

(b) Increase
supervision and/or
monitoring level
(c) Retrain or remove
operator
FSO validation
Validation record
Internal audit

regulator, client)

HACCP review
Microbiological sampling
programme (e.g. NMD)
12. Ring
B4. Micro & GIT

2 hour run. 3
(a) Talk to operator

(b) Increase
supervision and/or
monitoring level
(c) Retrain or remove
operator
HACCP review record
FSO validation
Validation record
Internal audit

regulator, client)

HACCP review
Microbiological sampling
programme (e.g. NMD)
13. Hide removal
14. Brisket cut
15. Evisceration
16. C/C split
17. Postmortem
HACCP review record

Process step
18a. Retain
Hazard ID
B1. Micro & grosslydetectable

abnormalities
CCP
no:

Page: IX.1.19
Critical limits
Monitoring
procedures/tools
When and How)
Corrective actions1
HACCP records
Removal of all grossly-detectable

abnormalities.
100% reinspection by
regulator will identify nonremoval of gross
abnormalities and
contaminants. ( Note: This
is not a processor activity.)
(a) Retain product

until correctly
trimmed
(b) Talk to operator
(c) Increase
supervision and/or
monitoring level
(d) Retrain or remove
operator
FSO validation
Validation record
Internal audit

regulator, client)
B4. Micro & GIT
Removal of all visible faeces and

ingesta.
B5. Micro & Hide
Removal of all skin pieces.

2 hour run. 3

HACCP review
18b. Reinspect
19. Trim
20. Grade
21. Final wash
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.

HACCP review record

Annex to Appendix IX.1: Cattle Slaughter and Dressing

Page: IX.1.20
Annex to Appendix IX.1:

Background Information to the Generic HACCP Plan for Slaughter
and Dressing of Cattle
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, verotoxinproducing Escherichia coli infection was first identified in New Zealand in 1993 (ESR, 1997).
2.
Biological Hazards
Biological hazards associated with the consumption of beef and beef products are briefly
discussed in the following sections.
2.1
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.


Page: IX.1.21
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 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 Zealands 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).


Page: IX.1.22
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).
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).


Page: IX.1.23
Staphylococcus aureus
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
organisms 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 meats, poultry and sea food, but the organism
was not isolated in the 18 samples of beef products tested (Hudson et al., 1992).

2.2

Page: IX.1.24
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).
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).
New Zealand MAF 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 MAF RA in the
MAF publication Surveillance. Any non-compliance with established maximum residue levels
is indicated in this report.

4.

Page: IX.1.25
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.
5.
Process Step Hazards
5.1
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 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


Page: IX.1.26
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.
5.2
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.
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.


Page: IX.1.27
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.
5.3
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 operators hand because the hand is covered with the bag during
the operation.
5.4
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 are tying the oesophagus to prevent escape of ingesta,


Page: IX.1.28
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.
5.5
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.

5.6

Page: IX.1.29
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).
5.7
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 contamination, resulting in increased counts at
forequarter sites. Other studies support this conclusion (Prasai et al., 1995b; Gill et al., 1996b).


Page: IX.1.30
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.


Page: IX.1.31
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.
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.


Page: IX.1.32
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.


Page: IX.1.33
MQM Manual 4 - Pre-slaughter requirements. (1986) Ministry of Agriculture. Wellington, New

Zealand.
NACMCF (1993) Generic HACCP for raw beef.
Microbiological Criteria for Foods. United States.
National Advisory Committee on
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.
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 feces 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.


Page: IX.1.34
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.

Appendix IX.1: Generic HACCP Plan For Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle 1. Prerequisite Requirements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Appendix IX.1: Generic HACCP Plan For Slaughter and Dressing of Cattle 1. Prerequisite Requirements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group

A Guide to HACCP Systems in the Meat Industry

Amendment 1: February 1998

2. Scope of HACCP plan

Bovine (excluding bobby calf)

Slaughter and dressing of cattle, from receipt of livestock through

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group

Amendment 1: February 1998

3. Product Description and Intended Use

Important product characteristics

Passed ante- and post-mortem inspection

General public (i.e. no specified "high-risk" groups)

Shelf life and storage requirements

Where it will be sold

List countries, if applicable

Special distribution controls required

Immediate dispatch to chiller or boning room

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group

Amendment 1: February 1998

4. Initial Food Safety Objectives

5. Process Flow Diagram

Raw material/Other inputs

Raw material 8 live animal

gastrointestinal tract (GIT)

Suitable for use as food contact material

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group

Amendment 1: February 1998

Form 3: Process flow diagram

Carcass ticket/ink <

< Beef carcass

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group

Amendment 1: February 1998

Process step no:

Example to be put in here .........

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group

Amendment 1: February 1998

7. Raw Material Hazard Identification

B3 - Visible parasites, e.g.

Udder (for cows)

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group

Amendment 1: February 1998

8. Process Step Hazard Identification

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2,

B1, B2, B3, B5, C1,

B1, B2, B3, B5, C1,

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

MAF Regulatory Authority (Meat & Seafood) HACCP Steering Group

11. Hind leg

14. Brisket cut

Amendment 1: February 1998

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

16. C/C split

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,

B1, B2, B4, B5, C16,

B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,

B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,

B2, B4, B5, C1, C2,