Managing Microbiological

Food Safety Risks in

Poultry Processing
Manpreet Singh, Ph.D.
Professor and Extension Food Safety Specialist
Department of Poultry Science, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences
University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Harshavardhan Thippareddi, Ph.D.

John Bekkers Professor of Poultry Science
Department of Poultry Science, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences
University of Georgia, Athens, GA

1
Introduction
The poultry industry has undergone extraordinary
expansion over the last several decades, growing
into the No. 1 meat consumed in the United
States.1 Poultry production has evolved from
primarily whole and cut-up chicken and eggs
sourced from family farms and sold through
traditional grocery stores into a multitude of
further-processed, convenient products available
through numerous points of purchase. U.S.
consumers today can find microwavable chicken
dinners, turkey deli meats, liquid-pasteurized
eggs and more from local, convenience retailers.
Meanwhile, chicken sandwiches and boneless
wings have become fast food sensations.
With the readily available resources, consumers
have become aware and interested in where
their food comes from. Consumers of poultry
meat products love the offerings but want
them to be safe for consumption, thus making
processors more accountable for the foods
manufactured. Food processors continue to
improve their processes to provide safe food as
regulations evolve over time. Regulators want
to assure consumers that the food is suitable
to eat as consumers’ main concern is pathogen
contamination.2
From a food safety perspective, the vertically
integrated nature of the poultry industry has
increased the responsibility of poultry companies
to manage the microbiological safety of their
products as they travel through the production
continuum. Vertical integration of poultry
production has enabled poultry companies
to reach economies of scale by owning and
operating their complete business lifecycle
(everything from the breeder flocks, hatcheries
and feed mills to the processing plants and
transportation methods to sales and marketing).
Known as “integrators”, large companies own
the majority of poultry produced, contracting
with independent farms to raise their birds to
meet processors’ defined criteria. The integrators
need to monitor food safety hazards – especially
Salmonella and Campylobacter prevalence –
from live bird holding to evisceration, processing,
packaging and shipping.
To verify process control in meat and poultry
slaughter and processing establishments, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and
Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) established its
Salmonella verification program and performance
standards in 1996 as part of the Pathogen
Reduction Program.3 The performance standards
were established based on national baseline
studies and applied only to carcasses.
As part of continuing advancements to the
monitoring program, USDA FSIS revised the
Salmonella and Campylobacter performance
standard program in 20164 and 2019.5 These
new standards constitute one component of
Healthy People 2020, a massive public health
and awareness initiative coordinated by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services’ Office
of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion that
aims to measurably improve nationwide health
and prevent disease.6 Significant attention has
been dedicated to efforts to reduce foodborne
illnesses in the population, particularly Salmonella,
Campylobacter, Listeria and E. coli O157.

1. Per Capita Consumption of Poultry and Livestock, 1960 to Forecast 2020, in Pounds. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://www.
nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/
2. US Chicken Consumption Report, July 2018. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from http://www.wattagnet.com/ext/resources/Images-by-month-year/18_07/
US-Chicken-Consumption_FINAL_Report_240718.pptx
3. Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems; USDA FSIS Final Rule, Fed. Reg. Vol. 61, No. 144 (July 25, 1996).
Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/e113b15a-837c-46af-8303-73f7c11fb666/93-016F.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
4. New Performance Standards for Salmonella and Campylobacter in Not- Ready-to-Eat Comminuted Chicken and Turkey Products and Raw Chicken
Parts and Changes to Related Agency Verification Procedures: Response to Comments and Announcement of Implementation Schedule; USDA
FSIS Notice, Fed. Reg. Vol. 81, No. 28 (February 11, 2016). Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-02-11/
pdf/2016-02586.pdf
5. Changes to the Campylobacter Verification Testing Program: Revised Performance Standards for Campylobacter in Not-Ready-To-Eat Comminuted
Chicken and Turkey and Related Agency Procedures; USDA FSIS Notice, Fed. Reg. Vol. 84, No. 151 (August 6, 2019). Retrieved May 1, 2020 from
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-08-06/pdf/2019-16765.pdf
6. Healthy People 2020 Topics & Objectives Food Safety. Retrieved May 9, 2020 from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/
food-safety

2
The revised performance standard replaced a
Salmonella-specific sampling set approach with
a routine sampling approach for all USDA FSIS
regulated products subject to Salmonella and
Campylobacter verification testing. This includes
broiler and turkey carcasses, chicken parts and
not-ready to eat (NRTE) comminuted poultry.
Current Salmonella and proposed Campylobacter
performance standard verification samples are
now taken as part of a “moving window” (reference
period of one completed 52-week moving
window) sampling approach, with the results
used to determine if an establishment meets the
performance standard on a continuous basis.
USDA estimates that the new standards will
prevent about 50,000 illnesses each year.7 This
program has created new limits on the number of
product samples that test positive for a pathogen.
For example, the new Salmonella standards
require contamination rates of no more than 25%
in comminuted chicken, 13.5% in comminuted
turkey, and 15.4% in chicken parts. Table 1 lists
USDA FSIS performance standards for Salmonella
and proposed performance standards for
Campylobacter within various types of poultry.
The final revised performance standards are
published in the U.S. Federal Register.

Table 1: Performance standard for Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry

Salmonella Campylobacter*

Minimum Minimum
Maximum number of Maximum number of
acceptable Performance samples acceptable Performance samples
Sample
percent standard** to assess percent standard to assess
positive process positive process
control control

Broiler Carcass 9.8 5 of 51 11 15.7 8 of 51 10

Turkey Carcass 7.1 4 of 56 14 5.4 3 of 56 19

NRTE
Comminuted
25.0 13 of 52 10 9.6 5 of 52 11
Chicken
(325 g sample)

NRTE
Comminuted
13.5 7 of 52 10 9.6 5 of 52 11
Turkey
(325 g sample)

Chicken Parts
15.4 8 of 52 10 7.7 4 of 52 13
(4 lb, 1.81 Kg)

*Campylobacter performance has not been implemented yet | **Number of samples allowed to be positive out of total number of samples analyzed

This whitepaper outlines the possible sources of Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination in poultry
processing establishments. It addresses where and how monitoring and control strategies can be enhanced
to help processors meet the current performance standards for Salmonella and proposed performance
standards for Campylobacter, and which meaningful data can be gathered to help processors continuously
improve their processes to reduce the risk of contamination.

7. USDA Finalizes New Food Safety Measures to Reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter in Poultry. Retrieved May 9, 2020 from https://www.usda.gov/
media/press-releases/2016/02/04/usda-finalizes-new-food-safety-measures-reduce-salmonella-and

3
Contamination sources
Microbial contamination of the broiler or
turkey carcasses can originate either from
(1) the external surfaces of the birds such as
the feathers and skin, or (2) the internal gut
contents during evisceration process, resulting
in cross-contamination of other carcasses.
Birds' exterior surfaces, including the skin can
bring Salmonella and Campylobacter, as well
as other microorganisms from the farm into
processing facilities. In both cases (external
or gastrointestinal sources of contamination),
Pathogen control and interventions
Proper management of the various steps of
processing with the addition of antimicrobial
intervention steps will help poultry companies
meet the performance standards and reduce the
contamination levels. Poultry processors need
to track and monitor the contamination sources
so that they can implement and assess effective
intervention strategies.
USDA FSIS stipulates that poultry companies
sample their whole-bird carcasses for Salmonella
and Campylobacter subsequent to chilling. The
cut-up products must be similarly sampled. The
test results from this late-stage sampling provide
information on the cumulative effectiveness of
the preceding intervention efforts. However, a
positive result does not give any insight into the
problem areas where intervention may not have
been effective.
In the absence of a single, definitive
microbiological kill step, processors of raw poultry
products rely on a combination of antimicrobial
8. Outbreak of Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella Infections Linked to Raw Turkey Products; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Final Update
(April 30, 2019). Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/reading-07-18/index.html.
9. Outbreak of Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella Infections Linked to Raw Chicken Products; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Final Update
(February 21, 2019). Retrieved May 9, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/infantis-10-18/index.html.
Salmonella and Campylobacter are an integral
part of the microbiota along with other
commensal microorganisms. Several Salmonella
outbreaks have been linked to poultry products.8
The outbreak of Salmonella Reading in turkey
products and Salmonella Infantis in raw chicken
products9 in 2018 resulted in hundreds of cases
across multiple states, leading to hospitalizations
and even one death related to each.
interventions and applications strategically
sequenced throughout the processing
environment to reduce the prevalence of
Salmonella and Campylobacter in their products.
These include, but are not limited to, acidifiers
in scald tanks, chlorine-based compounds or
other formulated sprays after feather-picking,
on-line reprocessing sprays or dips following
evisceration and, certainly, chilling at proper time
and temperatures with further use of antimicrobial
sprays.
Figure 1 (page 5) depicts the difficulty of this
“multi-hurdle” intervention approach to managing
microbial loads. The process involves numerous
steps, starting with hanging of the birds and
on to various chilling practices. Contamination
and/or cross-contamination of the carcasses or
parts can occur at any stage prior to or after the
antimicrobial intervention steps.
4
Figure 1:
Steps of poultry processing
Receiving and
Stunning
Holding
Venting and
Evisceration
Opening
Inspection Crop Removal
Parts Cut-up Rehang
 Main Chiller
Antimicrobial  Packaging &
Dip/Spray Distribution
Processors may also conduct further processing
in which the carcasses are cut up (potentially
used for ready-to-eat products) and packaged
before ultimately shipping to retailers. Further
complicating all of this is the fact that the
Contamination-prone processing steps
There are three processing steps where cross-
contamination risks are greater: scalding, picking
and evisceration.
Scalding is where hot water loosens follicles so that
the bird carcasses’ feathers can be subsequently
removed by picking machinery. At this critical
stage, cross-contamination of the carcass may
occur and open feather follicles can become filled
with dirty water containing pathogens and other
microorganisms from the scalder.
In picking, one carcass can become cross-
contaminated by another, as well as by workers
or equipment. Carcasses travel through a series
of defeathering machines consisting of rotating
Scrubbing/
Bleeding Scalding
Brushing
Hock Removal Rinsing Picking
Neck & Lung On-line Inside/Outside
Removal Reprocessing Bird Washer (IOBW)
Process control: E. coli
Performance Standards: Salmonella and Campylobacter
Post-Chill Dip Pre-Chiller
Performance Standards: Salmonella and Campylobacter
 Sites for regulatory testing
processing activities and technologies used can
vary greatly from one plant to another, even
when they’re owned and operated by the same
company.
disks or drums mounted with rubber fingers that
pluck the birds’ plumage. Not only can these
fingers massage dirty water remaining from
the scalder into the carcass, they can force the
cloacal contents (feces) out, resulting in transfer
of microorganisms to the skin or to the machinery.
Another high-risk step is evisceration. When
processors open birds’ GI contents, there is
heightened risk of cross-contamination due to gut
breakage and transfer of the contents to the skin
and other carcass surfaces. Processors must also
make sure any knives or implements used in this
process are constantly cleaned and sanitized to
prevent cross-contamination.
5
Tips for chilling
One more key consideration to keep
microorganism levels low involves immersing
the poultry into water with antimicrobials or
hanging and spraying them with antimicrobials.
In the case of the former, cross-contamination
in the chiller water poses a threat. While not
always practiced, processors are wise to
constantly manage the water’s temperature, pH
balance and softness as well as the kind and
concentration of the antimicrobial.
Verifying process control steps with indicator tests
Robust process control within poultry
production is critical and provides insights into
which specific processing steps need more
attention to better control and reduce pathogen
contamination. In addition to testing for the
pathogens directly, many processors utilize other
indicator organisms that can be predictive of
pathogen prevalence.
The USDA FSIS recommends testing for generic
E. coli as a method to verify process control.
Many processors also leverage aerobic plate
count and Enterobacteriaceae counts to predict
Table 2. Example indicator organism median values for chickens10
Sample Generic E. coli
Carcass - Rehang 540 28,000
Carcass - Post chill 20
Table 3. Example indicator organism median values for turkeys10
Sample Generic E. coli
Carcass - Rehang 22 1,800
Carcass - Post chill <1.2
* Rinse samples are tested for bacterial counts
10. FSIS Compliance Guideline: Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection. Microbiological Sampling of Raw Poultry, June 2015. Retrieved May
1, 2020 from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/a18d541e-77d2-40cf-a045-b2d2d13b070d/Microbiological-Testing-Raw-Poultry.
pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
For air chilling, processors should take precautions
to prevent drip contamination from poorly
designed processing lines. For example, the
processing lines (for carcasses chilling) physically
above of the poultry chiller(s) can result in drip
contamination. This becomes important because
FSIS uses the post-chill carcasses to determine
the prevalence of Salmonella and Campylobacter.
and control Salmonella and Campylobacter
prevalence. To enhance the effectiveness of
these efforts, USDA FSIS has issued a guidance
document10 on the use of these indicator
organisms as predictors of Salmonella and/
or Campylobacter contamination at various
processing steps. Tables 2 and 3 show the median
values for indicator organisms for chickens and
turkey, respectively. While these Tables provide
a guidance, the poultry processors should collect
their own data to develop these guidelines for
process control in their operations.
Median (CFU/mL)*
APC Enterobacteriaceae Total coliform
1,600 940
260 20 20
Median (CFU/mL)*
APC Enterobacteriaceae Total coliform
50 40
18 <1.2 <1.2
6
Process control indicator E. coli (or other indicator
microorganism) testing is typically conducted
subsequent to the chilling process. This satisfies
the HACCP requirement to perform monitoring-
based “verification” that control measures of
key hazards are continuously effective. Beyond
this requirement, as a best practice, poultry
companies should also conduct sporadic sampling
and testing – for E. coli, aerobic counts and
Enterobacteriaceae, or directly for Salmonella and
Campylobacter – more universally throughout
processing. This helps check control parameters,
trouble-shoot breakdowns and/or assess the
viability and comparability of new antimicrobial
interventions available from suppliers.
As a best practice, a combination of tests should
be leveraged to systematically “biomap” (Figure 2)
product contamination at selected processing steps
and determine the increase or decrease in the levels
of contamination at each point. This can also reveal
the efficacy of the antimicrobial interventions at
specific steps and the combined effects of all the
steps on the final product contamination levels,
using indicator testing. Sampling plans should
meet individual needs and adequately cover the
entire process. Ideally, sampling should be done at
different times and shifts within a given workday,
week or month with a strong consideration given
to randomized sampling.

Figure 2:
Biomap for poultry processing

Receiving and  Scrubbing/ 

Stunning Bleeding Scalding
Holding Brushing


 Venting and  
Evisceration Hock Removal Rinsing Picking
Opening

 Neck & Lung  On-line  Inside/Outside

Inspection Crop Removal
Removal Reprocessing Bird Washer (IOBW)

Process control: E. coli 

Performance Standards: Salmonella and Campylobacter

Parts Cut-up  Rehang

  Main Chiller

Post-Chill Dip Pre-Chiller


Performance Standards: Salmonella and Campylobacter
Antimicrobial  Packaging &
Dip/Spray Distribution
Sites for regulatory testing
Sites for additional microbial testing

7
Key Considerations for Designing Process-Specific Biomaps

1 How should the location(s) be selected?

Select sites for potential for contamination or reduction/elimination of contamination

2 How many samples should be collected?

Sufficient samples to get a picture of the process

3 When (time of day, work shift) should sampling occur?

Ideal to distribute sampling over the day, week and month

4 What specifically should we sample for?

Indicators (concentration) vs. pathogens (prevalence)

5 How will the data be leveraged?

Use data to develop actionable information tracking and trending over time to
improve process

Last but not least, processors should methodically
record and maintain the results, tracking trends
and implementing changes or corrective actions
where necessary. For example, a processor that is
able to regularly identify spikes in Campylobacter
prevalence as their products arrive to the main
chiller may choose to augment their processing
with incorporation of a pre-chiller or a post-chill
dip tank as an additional antimicrobial
intervention step. Once the new equipment is
installed, the processor needs to demonstrate
that this added processing step is achieving the
intent to help reduce levels of a microorganism of
concern at the specific production step as well as
the entire process.

8
 In conclusion

Poultry meat consumption is rapidly growing as distribution channels expand and

consumer demand intensifies. Poultry processors need to make sure they are meeting
regulatory performance standards and are providing safe food. The efforts will lead to
decreased outbreaks and help achieve the health goals set by government agencies.

Processors need to regularly check their control parameters, specifically as they

relate to levels of Salmonella and Campylobacter prevalence and levels of indicator
organisms. These can paint the overall microbiological picture of their multi-step
processing environments. Hygiene control must be optimized throughout the process,
and regular sampling, monitoring, record-keeping and data trending are all essential.

The key to process evaluation is to support sequenced antimicrobial interventions

throughout the production continuum with smart microbiological sample collection,
monitoring and detection in everything from live birds to carcasses to contact
surfaces. Many commercially available diagnostic tests exist to provide insight into
the failures of process controls, the nature of contamination and where corrective
actions should be implemented. However, just as processors must confirm the
suitability and efficacy of any antimicrobial solutions to their unique environment,
they’ll also want to ensure that the test methods they utilize fulfill their organizations’
needs and objectives. The validated test methods should be fit for intended purposes
and application.

Last but not least, poultry processors must always keep in mind that simply
possessing information about food safety hazards isn’t enough. They must convert
that knowledge into action, interpreting test results into the context of trends
over time, the potential for process improvements and the efficacy of any such
improvements made. In today’s rapidly growing marketplace of big data, connected
software and the Internet of Things, poultry processors are entering a new frontier of
possibility to ensure the safe production and fulfillment of their increasingly popular
poultry meat offerings.

Connect with an expert on 3M solutions

See more about poultry testing at:
for poultry processing at:
3M.com/PoultryProcessing
3M.com/PoultryDemo

This white paper is intended to provide general guidance only. The technical information, recommendations and other statements
contained in this document are based on experience and information that 3M believes to be reliable, but the accuracy or completeness
of such information is not guaranteed. Such information is intended for persons with knowledge and technical skills sufficient to assess
and apply their own informed judgement to the information, taking into consideration the nature of their business, existing policies and
particular laws and regulations that might apply.

3M Food Safety
3M Center, Building 275-5W-05
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 U.S.A.
Phone 1-800-328-6553
Web 3M.com/foodsafety
3M Canada 3M is a trademark of 3M.
Post Office Box 5757 Used under license in Canada.
London, Ontario N6A 4T1 Canada © 3M 2020. All rights reserved.
Please recycle. Printed in U.S.A.
Phone 1-800-364-3577 70-2011-5229-8