Hygiene performance rating-An auditing scheme for evaluation of slaughter hygiene.

The Hygiene Performance Rating scheme is developed by Animalia in Norway. This unique auditing tool for assessment of slaughter hygiene has been used in Norwegian abattoirs for the last 10 years. The Hygiene Performance Rating scheme visually evaluates and documents each operation on the slaughter line, assessing the factors that can affect the slaughter hygiene. The protocol is based on a systematic evaluation of general hygienic practices of each operation, such as the operators' hygienic behavior and risk handling of the carcasses, along with routines and management. The scores are registered in a web-based application. The observations are given a score from 1 to 3, where 1 means "acceptable", 2 = "potential for improvement", and 3 = "not acceptable". Scores for each position is multiplied with a weight factor for hygienic impact and risk (1, 3, 6 or 12) and economic consequences (1 or 2) describing whether the necessary improvement depends on a significant investment (1) or if it is a cheap quick-fix (2) and calculated into a percentage where 100% is perfect hygiene. A presentation of results for the involved parties, including operators, is a crucial part of the implementation of the Hygiene Performance Rating scheme.•Systematic auditing tool for evaluating slaughter hygiene.•Investigate and improve slaughter techniques and routines.•Comprehensive approach to achieve satisfactory results for slaughter hygiene.

Reduction of Yersinia enterocolitica and Listeria spp. on pig carcasses by enclosure of the rectum during slaughter.

By sealing off the rectum with a plastic bag immediately after it had been freed, the spread of Y. enterocolitica O:3/biovar 4 to pig carcasses could be considerably reduced. The organism was recovered from only 0.8% of carcasses when the plastic bag technique was employed. Y. enterocolitica O:3/biovar 4 was recovered from 10% of pig carcasses when eviscerating procedures did not include the use of the plastic bag technique. There was thus an obvious risk of the bacteria further contaminating meat cuts and other meat products. The plastic bag technique was effective both in connection with manual excision of the rectum/low throughput (90 per h), and mechanical freeing of the rectum/high slaughter rate (240 per h). L. monocytogenes was not detected in any of the samples taken from 120 pig carcasses in Norway or from 120 pig carcasses in Sweden. The plastic bag technique was used on half of these pigs. L. innocua was tested for in 120 pigs slaughtered in Sweden. The bacterium was recovered from 33% of the carcasses eviscerated without using a plastic bag, and from 10% of the carcasses in which this technique was employed. The results suggested that there were other, non-faecal, sources of contamination. Other measures in addition to the plastic bag technique are therefore required to limit the spread of Listeria spp. By incorporating the plastic bag technique into the slaughtering procedures, the meat industry would contribute to preventing the dissemination of Y. enterocolitica and other pathogens which spread via the faeces.

Evaluation of ten commercial heterophile antibody tests for infectious mononucleosis.

Ten rapid slide agglutination tests for infectious mononucleosis were evaluated. The quality of the technical information included with the kits was found to differ considerably, as did the composition of the tests and the principles of test specificity. Furthermore, large variation was found in the shelf life and price of the different kits. Thirty-nine serum samples were selected according to titre in the Paul-Bunnell-Davidsohn differential absorption test, largely from the low titre area, since this is where most diagnostic problems can be expected. The sera were tested blindly using the ten rapid slide agglutination tests. Considerable differences were found in specificity and sensitivity. When compared with the results obtained from PBD, the tests could be divided into two groups. The first group consisted of three kits, all of which gave false negative, but no false positive results. The remaining seven tests gave false negative and false positive results, but were more sensitive than the tests in the first group. The large variation in the results obtained when using the different kits under controlled conditions indicates that such tests may give even less satisfactory results in practice.