www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Meat Science 77 (2007) 28–35

MEATSCIENCE

Managing safety and quality through the red meat chain

P. Desmarchelier a,*, N. Fegan a, N. Smale b, A. Small a

a Food Science Australia, P.O. Box 3312, Tingalpa DC, Qld 4173, Australiab Food Science Australia, P.O. Box 52, North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia

Received 21 March 2007; received in revised form 30 April 2007; accepted 30 April 2007

Abstract

To successfully manage food safety and quality risks in meat production, a holistic approach is required. The ideal would be a fullyintegrated assurance system, with effective controls applied at all stages. However, the red meat industry is by nature somewhat frag-mented, and a truly integrated system is not at present achievable in all but a few operations. This paper describes a variety of assuranceinitiatives, and explores how targeted research and development can be used to augment assurance programmes by providing underpin-ning knowledge, using the Australian beef and lamb industry as an example.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Meat safety; Quality assurance; Supply chain

1. The Australian beef, lamb and livestock industry

Australia is among the world’s largest and most success-ful producers of commercial livestock. Expansive range-lands, a variety of climatic and environmental conditionsand excellent animal health mean that many breeds of live-stock thrive in Australia. When the First Fleet landed atSydney Cove in 1788 it carried a handful of sheep, cattleand goats as a source of wool, milk and fresh meat forthe new colony. The Australian environment was relativelyhostile to these European animals and selection of animalsfor their resilience and ability to thrive under the difficultconditions was necessary.

Today, Australia is one of the world’s largest red meatand livestock exporters with stock in excess of 130 millionhead and the industry contributing $15 billion to the econ-omy. Each year, over 2 million cattle and 14 million sheepare sold in livestock markets (Table 1), and weekly slaugh-tering ranges from 133,000 cattle and 308,600 sheep (MLA,2007a). The national sheep flock of 100 million is down

0309-1740/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.027

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 32142000; fax: +61 7 33214 2150.E-mail address: Patricia.Desmarchelier@csiro.au (P. Desmarchelier).

from 117 million in 1960 due to changes in the fibre marketand land use and now drought. The beef cattle herd size isdown from 30 million in the 1970s to 27 million; dairy cat-tle and goats each approximately 3 million.

Australian red meat is sold around the world, mainly toJapan and the USA (Table 2). Significant quantities ofsheepmeat are exported to North America, Asia and theMiddle East (MLA, 2007a). Approximately AU$300 mil-lion worth of edible offal, known as ‘fancy meats’, wasexported during 1999/2000 and cattle hides and sheep skinsare valuable co-products.

The beef cattle feedlot industry is now an importantvalue-adding component of the Australian beef industryin response to demand for consistent beef quality. Feedlotsare concentrated in the major agricultural regions withaccess to adequate supplies of store cattle, grain and otherfeedstuffs. There are currently about 600 accredited feed-lots representing a total capacity of over a million cattle(Anon., 2007a). In the past 5 years, the composition of cat-tle fed for specific markets has moved from 20% domestic/80% export, to 40% domestic/60% export. Supermarketsare currently drawing 40–50% of their beef supplies fromfeedlots as feedlot animals provide a continuous supplyof consistent quality product (MLA, 2007a).

Table 2Australian red meat exports 2006 (tonnes)

Importingcountry

Beef andveal

Lamb Mutton

USA 319,800 39,800 27,319 (NorthAmerica)

Canada 9,600 NRa

Japan 405,800 11,900 32,268 (Asia)Korea 149,700 NRTaiwan 28,600 NROther Asia 23,882 11,800

(China)EU 8500 11,800 6700Middle East NR 17,700 43,100Africa NR 15,600 25,600Other 32,518 45,400 27,913

Total 953,900 146,700 162,900

a NR: Not individually reported.

Table 1Numbers of sheep and cattle sold at livestock markets in 2006 and averageweekly kill

Species Sold at saleyards Slaughtered per week

Cattle 2,434,000 133,000Lambs 9,003,000 179,000Older Sheep 5,299,000 201,600

P. Desmarchelier et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 28–35 29

Australia is a world leader in the export of commerciallivestock, exporting more than 4 million sheep, 570,000 cat-tle and up to 50,000 goats annually (MLA, 2007a). Leader-ship is attributed to Australian animal health status, worldleading export standards and ability to produce both tem-perate and tropical breeds.

2. Regulatory control of the Australian red meat industry

The Australian red meat industry operates under an out-comes-based food safety programme underpinned by the

Livestock Production Processing

Research and Development Inputs

Risk Mitigation Strategies

Assurance Programs: • Farm• Feedlot • Livestock Transport

• HACCP-based app• E. coli & Salmonell• Residues monitorin

Innovative technologies Process hygiene

Legislation

Pathogen surveys Risk Assessment

Fig. 1. Key research outcomes a

requirements of the Food Standards Australia and NewZealand (FSANZ) Food Standards Code (FSANZ, 2002)and in conjunction with the specific Australian Standardfor the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meatand Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS4696:2007) (Anon., 2007b). The prime objective is to ensurethat meat and meat products for human consumption com-ply with food safety requirements and are wholesome. Awhole of food chain approach is taken and incorporatesalso the need for accurate identification, traceability, effec-tive recall and animal welfare objectives.

The Standard reflects the shared responsibility betweenindustry and governments for food safety and quality sys-tems based on risk assessment. Meat processors arerequired to put into place approved HACCP-based processmanagement systems, with the processing practices vali-dated by underpinning scientific research. For export, theprocessors must also comply with the specific requirementsof the importing country. These processes are monitoredand certified by the Australian Quarantine and InspectionService (AQIS).

3. Managing food safety and quality

A number of industry strategies have been implementedto assure safety and quality throughout the productionchain, and targeted research and development (R&D) isused to maximise the industry benefit from science. R&Din the Australian red meat industry is funded through asystem of producer and processor levies and governmentexpenditure, managed by Meat and Livestock Australia(MLA). Outcomes of industry R&D are communicatedto the industry though a number of media, including tradejournals and some specific industry initiatives.

This paper reviews some particularly important initia-tives and recent research projects in food safety and qualitymanagement in the Australian red meat industry (Fig. 1).

Distribution Consumer

roved arrangements a monitoring g

• Advice and educationprograms

Cold Chain investigations

nd risk mitigation strategies.

30 P. Desmarchelier et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 28–35

4. Key research outcomes supporting red meat production

4.1. Through-chain risk profile

MLA completed a risk profiling exercise encompassingthe entire red meat production chain. The aim was toattach a risk rating to specific hazard-product pairingsand thus inform future research and development strategiesto mitigate the risks identified domestically or on interna-tional trade (Sumner, Ross, Jenson, & Pointon, 2005).Both qualitative and semi-quantitative risk rating tech-niques were used to analyse the information, and uncer-tainties encountered were used to identify data gaps thatrequired further research and development. Outcomes ofthis profiling are shown in Table 3. Some food safetyresearch priorities MLA has identified include the follow-ing (MLA, 2007b):

� Benchmarking the levels of contamination of retail andexport meat and meat products for microorganisms ofpublic health concern.� Determining the ecology and virulence of Enterohaem-

orrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) and Salmonella spp.in cattle and meat processing and the impact of controlstrategies; understanding the development of microbialantibiotic resistance.� Development of effective controls for Listeria monocyt-

ogenes in processed meats.

Table 3Hazard-product pairings identified as high, medium and low public healthrisk for the Australian red meat industry (adapted from Sumner et al.,2005)

Riskrating

Hazard Product Circumstance

High Clostridium

perfringens

Meals provided bycaterers

Salmonella Kebabs Cross-contaminationin drip trays

Salmonella Meals served in thehome

Cross-contamination

Medium Listeria

monocytogenes

Ready-to-eat meats Extendedshelf-life

Listeria

monocytogenes

Terrines

EnterohaemorrhagicEscherichia coli

(EHEC) andSalmonella

Uncookedcomminutedfermented meat(UCFM e.g. Salami)

EHEC Undercookedhamburgers

Low Salmonella Cooked SausageListeria

monocytogenes

UCFM

EHEC Hamburgers Well-cookedin Australia

4.2. Microbiology of Australian beef and lamb

National baseline surveys of the microbiology of Aus-tralian red meats were undertaken in 1993–94 (Vanderl-inde, Fegan, Mills, & Desmarchelier, 1999; Vanderlinde,Shay, & Murray, 1998, 1999), in 1998 (Phillips, Sumner,Alexander, & Dutton, 2001a, 2001b) and 2004 (Feganet al., 2005, Phillips et al., 2006; Phillips et al., 2005). Whendifferences in sampling and laboratory analysis were takeninto account, there were improvements in the microbiolog-ical criteria of beef carcasses, cartoned beef and cartonedsheep meat. Between 1993 and 2004, the mean total viablecount (TVC) in frozen boneless beef had fallen from2.77 log10 cfu/g to 1.18 log10 cfu/g, and sheepmeat from3.47 log10 cfu/g to 1.8 log10 cfu/g. Where comparisons arepossible, it appears that Australia’s meat products havepathogen levels equal to, or lower than, those in othercountries (Phillips, Jordan, Morris, Sumner, & Jenson,2005). For example, in 2003, 0.35% of samples from Aus-tralian beef carcasses yielded Salmonella spp., comparedwith 0.8% in the USA.

4.3. Surveys of the prevalence of specific pathogens

4.3.1. Shiga toxin producing E. coli (STEC)

The most notable group of human pathogenic STEC arethe enterohaemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC). Several EHECserotypes have been identified in human disease in Austra-lia including O157, O26 and O111, contrasting to thenorthern hemisphere and New Zealand, where E. coliO157:H7 is the major human EHEC serotype.

These infections are relatively rare in Australia withnotification rates for STEC regardless of serotype ataround 0.4/100,000 (OzFoodNet, 2006). In 2001, OzFood-Net recorded 39% (15/38) of STEC notifications were dueto the O157 serotype where serotype information was avail-able. Human and animal isolates of E. coli O157 have dis-tinct similarities, the majority containing all the virulencemarkers associated with human illness (Fegan & Desmar-chelier, 2002). Although the isolates appear phenotypicallysimilar, disease incidence is low and this may be associatedwith the evolution of different lineages globally (Kim et al.,2001). The importance of E. coli O157:H7, in the northernhemisphere, has led to the Australian industry having tomonitor this particular serotype over others to supportinternational trade. In recent surveys of beef cattle fromfarms and feedlots through to slaughter, E. coli O157 wasdetected in 13% of cattle faeces, with no significant differ-ences between cattle from feedlots or farms (grass-fed)(Fegan et al., 2004a; Fegan et al., 2005). The O157 concen-trations, however, were quite variable: 67% of positivesamples yielded less than 10 cfu/g, and 8% positive sampleshad levels between 103 and 105 cfu/g. High shedding or‘‘super shedders’’ were shown to be associated with highercontamination rates at slaughter. In a subsequent study,where one animal carried 7.5 · 105 E. coli O157 cfu/g offaeces, 15% of pen floor faecal samples, 24% of oral cavity

P. Desmarchelier et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 28–35 31

swabs, 44% of hide samples and 6% of pre-chill carcasseswere contaminated although no post-chill carcasses werecontaminated with E. coli O157. In general, the level ofthe organism on hides was less than 5 per cm2 (range 0–22), and on pre-chill carcasses less than 0.12 per cm2. Theresults indicated that the practices at the abattoir were ingeneral sufficient to control the risk of carcasscontamination.

In a survey of retail ground beef and lamb cuts forSTEC no O157, O111 or O26 (the common EHEC sero-types in Australia) were detected, although STEC weredetected in 16% of ground beef and 40% of lamb samples(Barlow, Gobius, & Desmarchelier, 2006). The most com-mon serotypes were O174 and O91 in ground beef, andO128 and O91 in lamb samples, but none of the isolatescarried the eae gene commonly found in EHEC. The pres-ence of these STEC, of which only O91 has been associatedwith illness, in retail meats highlights the need for a clearerunderstanding of STEC in order to interpret their publichealth significance.

4.3.2. Salmonella speciesSalmonella is one of the more common causes of bacte-

rial foodborne illness in Australia (Hall et al., 2005,OzFoodNet, 2003). There are approximately 92,000 casesof salmonellosis per annum, 81,000 of which (87%) are con-sidered foodborne. Recent work on Salmonella prevalencein beef cattle presented for slaughter in Australia has dem-onstrated 6.8% faecal carriage in cattle (Fegan, Vanderl-inde, Higgs, & Desmarchelier, 2004b). The majority ofsamples had less than 10 salmonellas/g, with a few samplesyielding up to 3,000 cfu/g, suggesting that there would be alow risk of carcass contamination. An ‘‘in herd’’ study wasconducted in which 68% of cattle hides were contaminatedwith Salmonella at levels of up to 4.2 cfu/cm2, althoughonly 2% of the subsequently produced carcasses were con-taminated (Fegan et al., 2005), demonstrating thatalthough the pathogen is present in cattle, routine process-ing in Australian plants effectively minimises the risk ofmeat contamination. On positive carcasses, a maximumconcentration of salmonellas was 0.31 per cm2. Similarstudies are underway in the Australian sheep processingindustry.

4.3.3. Staphylococcus aureus

Staphylococcus aureus in meat come from the skin of theanimal and from handling and environmental contamina-tion during processing. Transmission was studied at anabattoir. The incidence of coagulase positive staphylococcion cattle hides at slaughter was found to range from 20% to68% (Desmarchelier, Higgs, Mills, Sullivan, & Vanderl-inde, 1999). The subsequent carcass incidence was lowimmediately after evisceration (6.5–16.7%), although thiscould increase to between 46% and 83% following 72 hchilling at 10–12 �C post-slaughter. Likewise, the numbersof Staphylococcus increased from below 50 cfu/cm2 beforechilling to 64–112 cfu/cm2 post-chilling. The hands of the

workers and static boot dips at the evisceration point werefound to be contaminated. Further investigation of the iso-lates using Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis, PFGE, anal-ysis was used to demonstrate the isolates from the handsof workers on the evisceration platform were indistinguish-able to those on the carcasses prepared, and different fromthe isolates collected from cattle hides, non-eviscerationworkers or office personnel (Vanderlinde et al., 1999).However, in the Australian national baseline study over98% of frozen boneless beef samples tested had below thetarget maximum level of 50 cfu/g S. aureus (Phillipset al., 2005), demonstrating an overall high standard ofmeat hygiene. Interventions with the use of gloves andhand hygiene have been successful in reducing this bacte-rium on carcasses.

4.3.4. Process hygiene

Under the outcomes-based legislation in Australia, thered meat industry is permitted to implement ‘‘alternativeprocedures’’ to those traditionally used, as long as theycan be validated as having an equivalent food safety out-come. As such, there has been considerable interest indeveloping or adopting ‘‘alternative procedures’’ that willimprove market access, improve product safety, reducethe impact on the environment or achieve increased effi-ciency. Some examples of alternative procedures exploredby the Australian meat industry are outlined below.

4.3.5. Hot boning

Traditionally, Australian meat production has followedthe pattern of slaughter, dressing and chilling to a deepmuscle temperature of 7 �C prior to boning into wholesalecuts. Use of a short chilling period (warm-boning), or bon-ing immediately after dressing (hot-boning), increases theflow of product, reduces handling and the cost of chilling,due to the smaller portions and thus faster cooling. Usingpredictive microbiology techniques to demonstrate controlof microbial growth, many Australian processors havebeen able to implement hot-boning or warm-boning intheir plants. The application of predictive microbiologyhas resulted in the development of the Refrigeration Indexthat has become part of the approved arrangements underthe Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) Orders andallows companies to demonstrate whether their refrigera-tion process is effective (Anon., 2005). Other technologies,such as electrical stimulation to ensure a rapid fall of mus-cle pH, are needed to optimise the eating quality of theproduct. (Sumner & Krist, 2002, Toohey & Hopkins,2006).

4.3.6. Sanitation of knives

For many years meat processors worldwide have con-templated the necessity to dip hand tools such as knivesinto hot water at 82 �C (180 �F). While accepting toolsshould be kept clean and sanitised regularly, the relevanceof 82 �C as the ideal temperature is questioned in light ofthe modern risks to meat safety and there is substantial

Table 4Predicted durations of off-power events for a significant quantity of frozen manufacturing beef to reach �5 �C in a well insulated, fully loaded 12 mrefrigerated container (adapted from Smale et al., 2007)

Meat initial temperature (�C) Ambient temperature

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

�20 �C 310 h 227 h 175 h 140 h 115 h 97 h 83 h�18 �C 269 h 194 h 147 h 117 h 95 h 80 h 68 h�16 �C 226 h 159 h 119 h 93 h 75 h 63 h 53 h�14 �C 180 h 123 h 91 h 70 h 57 h 47 h 40 h�12 �C 132 h 87 h 63 h 48 h 39 h 32 h 27 h

32 P. Desmarchelier et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 28–35

environmental cost to maintaining the water-baths. A sur-vey of abattoirs in 2002 suggested that a medium-sizedplant utilises 300 kL water per day, but if the waterbathtemperature was reduced to 73 �C, this would halve (Midg-ley & Eustace, 2003). Rinsing of the knife under warm run-ning water led to a significant reduction in microbial countson the knife, subsequent dipping in 82 �C water gave littlefurther reduction, and immersing the knife blade in 72 �Cfor 15 s, or in 75 �C for 10 s gave an equivalent micro-bial reduction (3.2–3.5 log10 E. coli) to immersion in82 �C for 10 s. Alternating two knives, rinsing them inhand wash water, then immersing them in 60 �C waterbetween use has also been shown to be equivalent (Eustaceet al., 2007).

4.3.7. Carcass decontamination

The use of chemical decontamination for carcasses iscommon practice in certain parts of the world, for examplethe USA, while other countries also have approved the useof certain chemicals such as organic acids or acidifiedsodium chlorite. Carcass decontamination by chemicalmethods or hot water is not widely practised in Australia;however, processors exporting to markets with stringentport-of-entry requirements have shown interest in carcassdecontamination technologies, or ‘‘interventions’’, andMLA have responded by funding an internet-based infor-mation package for member companies about interven-tions for the red meat industry, and assisting processorsin conducting in-plant trials.

4.3.8. Maintenance of the cold chain during frozen meat

transport

Much of Australian red meat is exported, very often asfrozen boneless meat in cartons. Operations during trans-port of refrigerated containers mean that off power eventscan occur. With a product such as frozen meat where smallfluctuations in temperature are not critical and there is aconsiderable volume of cold product inside the container,substantial durations without power may not adverselyaffect the meat quality. The meat transport industry cur-rently takes advantage of this, often transporting contain-ers from abattoirs to ports without active refrigeration.Guidelines for maximum acceptable durations for suchtransport have previously been published (Anon., 1978;Middlehurst, Parker, & Coffey, 1969); but advances in con-tainer construction, temperature measurement and model-

ling techniques make revisiting these recommendationssensible.

Recently a series of full scale experiments were con-ducted in both fully loaded 12 m (40 0) and 6 m (20 0) con-tainers measuring meat temperature rises during offpower events (Smale, East, Eddy, & Kang, 2007). The con-tainers were held under controlled, constant temperatureconditions (10 �C, 25 �C and 40 �C) in an environmentalchamber, purpose built for testing of transport equipment.Heat transfer was modelled and validated through compar-ison with experimental data. The validated model was thenused to provide recommendations for maximum off-powerdurations as a function of ambient and initial temperaturesand container size and quality. For example, Table 4 givesthe estimated time it would take for containerised beef toreach a temperature of �5 �C from a specified initial prod-uct temperature (left axis) under a particular external ambi-ent temperature (top axis) (Smale et al., 2007).

5. Transferring research outcomes to industry

Research programmes can only achieve benefit if theoutcomes of the research are translated and delivered tothe target audience (in this case, the Australian red meatindustry) in a form that is understood and able to be used.Therefore, MLA and Food Science Australia have fundeda number of knowledge management and technology trans-fer initiatives.

MINTRAC is a company, owned by the Meat Industry,which represents the industry on training matters. In the1990’s it was realised that the Australian meat industrywould benefit from increasing the technical knowledge ofQA managers, and also the skill base of the workers.Now, MINTRAC, in conjunction with a number of train-ing providers, manage an Australia-wide accredited train-ing programme from entry level through to seniormanagement. Workers in the meat industry as in manyother industries can follow a structured career path. Thetraining packages are based on underpinning science andare updated regularly to keep abreast of current thinkingand international requirements.

Meat Industry Services (MIS) is a programme involvinga team of experienced meat scientists, based at Food Sci-ence Australia’s research laboratory in Queensland, withexpertise in a broad range of topics, including animal wel-fare, meat quality, refrigeration, meat safety and rendering.

P. Desmarchelier et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 28–35 33

The team manage an internet-based information service forthe Australian meat industry and produce six newsletterseach year, updating industry on scientific research thatcan be utilised in modern production. They are also avail-able to meat processors to help in problem solving, design-ing in-plant trials, and validating their HACCP plans.

6. Key risk mitigation strategies in red meat production

6.1. Farm and feedlot

The potential for contamination of meat with microbialand chemical contaminants begins on the farm, and thus atruly holistic meat safety programme involves risk mitiga-tion strategies involving the live animal from its concep-tion. Meat quality also is significantly influenced by thehealth and welfare of the live animal, and a good meatquality assurance program addresses the events leadingup to the point of slaughter as well as processing variables.Australia has a number of such assurance schemes for live-stock, such as Livestock Production Assurance and theNational Feedlot Accreditation Scheme. These programsrequire livestock producers to develop a QA system fortheir property, based on HACCP principles, and compliantwith current codes of practice on welfare, environment pro-tection and use of medicines or chemicals (Horchner, Brett,Gormley, Jenson, & Pointon, 2006).

When animals are traded, they are identified, andaccompanied by a National Vendor Declaration (NVD,2007), providing relevant ‘‘chain information’’ for safemeat production, such as medicines administered to themob, source, supplementary feeding and grazing history.Cattle are identified with a radio-frequency identificationdevice (RFID) which may be incorporated in the ear tag,or as a rumen bolus, registered on a central database(NLIS, 2007). This database is being extended to includesheep and goats.

6.2. Livestock transportation

Australian livestock can travel long distances betweenproperties and to slaughter. The welfare of these animalsis of prime importance to the Australian meat industry,and a quality assurance programme for livestock transport,TruckCare, has been developed in order to optimise animalwelfare and hence meat quality and safety (ARTA, 2007).

6.3. Chemical residues

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary MedicinesAuthority (APVMA) approves the use of medicationsand other chemicals (e.g. pesticides, weedkillers) in live-stock production, in order to minimise the risk of residuesbeing present in meat (APVMA, 2007). The National Res-idue Survey (NRS) has been in place since the 1960’s,although the range of foods and chemicals monitored hasincreased dramatically since inception (NRS, 2007; Row-

land, Evans, & Walcott, 1997). The NRS is focussed ontrade issues, and monitors livestock feeds as well as humanfoods for a range of substances determined following riskassessment. These may include antimicrobials, anthelmin-tics, hormonal growth promotants, acaricides, fungicides,herbicides, fumigants and metals. The NRS does not, forexample, undertake testing for antimicrobial resistance,which is a health rather than a trade concern at this time.

The NRS is supplemented by the National AntibacterialResidue Minimisation (NARM) and National Organo-chlorine Residue Minimisation (NORM) Programs, theobjectives of which are to raise the awareness of the riskto trade associated with antibiotic or organochlorine resi-dues above maximum residue limit (MRL) in meat andassist the red meat industry in minimising such residues.

Results of the surveillance programs demonstrate a highrate of compliance with the requirements and good practicein the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. In the2005–2006 period, only 5 incidences of any chemical aboveMRL were found in meat, a proportion of less than 0.003%of analyses (Anon., 2006).

7. Abattoir assurance programs

7.1. HACCP-based approved arrangements

Export registered abattoirs are required to develop aquality manual for their process, based on HACCP princi-ples. This manual includes detailed operating procedures,and each procedure must be validated by reference to pub-lished scientific literature and verified in plant. These proce-dures are then agreed with AQIS, and the plant is expectedto operate within the bounds of this Approved Arrange-ment (AFFA, 2006). Any change to the process requiresa full review, and approval of the updated arrangement.The aim is to have an integrated system to assure the safetyand integrity of meat and meat products produced forhuman consumption.

7.2. E. coli and salmonella monitoring program (ESAM)

To verify its performance-based monitoring systems,which are integral to food safety assurance, AQIS intro-duced the generic E. coli and Salmonella Monitoring pro-gram (ESAM) in 1998. This is a national program ofmicrobiological monitoring of carcass surfaces, compliantwith the requirements of the US Pathogen Reduction Rule.Under the program, carcass surfaces of all species of live-stock slaughtered in Australia are tested for generic E. coli

and Salmonella (Vanderlinde, Jenson, & Sumner, 2005).

7.3. Eating quality

The Australian meat industry uses a science-based grad-ing programme called Meat Standards Australia (MSA).MSA uses a palatability assurance programme, based onHACCP principles (PACCP) to label meat with a guaran-

34 P. Desmarchelier et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 28–35

teed grade and best cooking method to maintain premiumeating quality (Polkinghorne, 2006).

8. Future challenges

Market access requirements continue to be a challengefor industry, with recognition of Australian systems diffi-cult to negotiate with overseas countries. A significant chal-lenge affecting the Australian meat industry in currentyears is an ongoing drought situation, and much effort isbeing made to identify means of conserving water andminimising unnecessary use. In a benchmarking exercisein 2004, comparing data from meat processing plants withsimilar data from 1998, the key finding was an overallreduction in water usage, generation of less wastewaterand a reduction in noise and odour complaints (MLA,2007a). While average energy usage per tonne of meat pro-duced has remained steady, average raw water use hasdecreased by 11%, which equates to an additional 2.5 Bil-lion l of water being made available to the environmenteach year. The survey results also indicated a significantshift in management attitude towards environmental sus-tainability. It is now seen as a key aspect of competitiveadvantage for meat processors, and there is widespreadadoption of environmental reporting as a part of normalmanagement reporting on company performance.

9. Conclusion

The Australian red meat industry uses a number ofapproaches to manage food safety and quality, includingboth voluntary and mandatory assurance schemes. Theutilisation of outcomes-based legislation gives the industrythe opportunity to move forward as science and under-standing progress. Knowledge transfer programs help tomaximise the industry benefit of research outcomes, assist-ing Australian processors to maintain their position in theglobal marketplace.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. I. Jenson, MLA, and Mr. P.Vanderlinde, AQIS, for there critical comments in prepara-tion of the review.

References

AFFA (2006). Approved arrangement guideline. Australian GovernmentDepartment of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry.

Anon. (1978). Holding of frozen cartoned meat in insulated shippingcontainers. Meat Research News Letter, 78, 3.

Anon. (2005). Export control (meat and meat products) orders. AQISNotice Number: Meat 2005/04. <http://www.affa.gov.au/corpo-rate_docs/publications/pdf/quarantine/mid/2005_04.pdf>.

Anon. (2006). Report on results: National residue survey 2005–2006.Canberra: Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry.

Anon. (2007a). Australian lot feeders association, ALFA. <http://www.feedlots.com.au>.

Anon. (2007b). Australian standard for the hygienic production and

transportation of meat and meat products for human consumption.Primary Industries Report Series 80. Canberra: CSIRO Publishing.

APVMA (2007). Australian pesticides and veterinary medicines authority.<http://www.apvma.gov.au/index.asp>.

ARTA. (2007). Australian road train association. Truck care. <http://www.arta.org.au/info.asp>.

Barlow, R. S., Gobius, K. S., & Desmarchelier, P. (2006). Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in ground beef and lamb cuts: results of aone-year study. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 111, 1–5.

Desmarchelier, P. M., Higgs, G. M., Mills, L., Sullivan, A. M., &Vanderlinde, P. B. (1999). Incidence of coagulase positive Staphylo-

coccus on beef carcasses in three Australian abattoirs. International

Journal of Food Microbiology, 47, 221–229.Eustace, I., Midgley, J., Giarrusso, C., Laurent, C., Jenson, I., & Sumner, J.

(2007). An alternative process for cleaning knives used on meat slaughterfloors. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 113, 23–27.

Fegan, N., & Desmarchelier, P. P. (2002). Comparison between humanand animal isolates of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157from Australia. Epidemiology and Infection, 128, 357–362.

Fegan, N., Higgs, G., Vanderlinde, P., & Desmarchelier, P. (2005). Aninvestigation of Escherichia coli O157 contamination of cattle duringslaughter at an abattoir. Journal of Food Protection, 68, 451–457.

Fegan, N., Vanderlinde, P., Higgs, G., & Desmarchelier, P. (2004a). Theprevalence and concentration of Escherichia coli O157 in faeces ofcattle from different production systems at slaughter. Journal of

Applied Microbiology, 97, 362–370.Fegan, N., Vanderlinde, P., Higgs, G., & Desmarchelier, P. (2004b).

Quantification and prevalence of Salmonella in beef cattle presenting atslaughter. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 97, 892–898.

Fegan, N., Vanderlinde, P., Higgs, G., & Desmarchelier, P. (2005). Astudy of the prevalence and enumeration of Salmonella enterica incattle and on carcasses during processing. Journal of Food Protection,

68, 1147–1153.FSANZ (2002). Australian and New Zealand food standards

code. <http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/thecode/foodstandardscode.cfm>.

Hall, G., Kirk, M. D., Becker, N., Gregory, J. E., Unicomb, L., Millard,G., et al. (2005). Estimating foodborne gastroenteritis, Australia.Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11, 1257–1264.

Horchner, P. M., Brett, D., Gormley, B., Jenson, I., & Pointon, A. M. (2006).HACCP-based approach to the derivation of an on-farm food safetyprogram for the Australian red meat industry. Food Control, 17, 497–510.

Kim, J., Nietfeldt, J., Ju, J., Wise, J., Fegan, N., Desmarchelier, P., et al.(2001). Ancestral divergence, genome diversification, and phylogeo-graphic variation in subpopulations of sorbitol-negative, b-glucuron-idase-negative enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157. Journal of

Bacteriology, 183, 6885–6897.Middlehurst, J., Parker, N. S., & Coffey, M. (1969). The transport of food

in I.S.O. containers. CSIRO Food Preservation Quarterly, 29, 21–26.Midgley, J., & Eustace, I. (2003). Investigation of alternatives to 82 �C

water for knife and equipment sterilisation. North Sydney: Meat andLivestock Australia.

MLA (2007a). Meat and livestock Australia. Market information. <http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/MarketInformation/default.htm>.

MLA (2007b). Meat and livestock Australia. Food safety. <http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/InformationCentre/FoodQualitySafetyAndvalueadding/FoodSafety/default.htm>.

NLIS (2007). Meat and livestock Australia. National livestock identifica-tion system. <http://www.mla.com.au/NR/exeres/2EA7C6DB-F81A-412D-9A9D-DF4AB9E89EED.htm>.

NRS (2007). National residue survey. <http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0-A0 5746>.

NVD (2007). Meat and livestock Australia. National vendor declaration.<http://www.mla.com.au/topichierarchy/industryprograms/livestockqualitysystems/nationalvendordeclarations/nvd%2Binformation%2Brecording%2Bsystems%2B(nirs).htm>.

P. Desmarchelier et al. / Meat Science 77 (2007) 28–35 35

OzFoodNet (2003). Foodborne disease in Australia: incidence, notifica-tions and outbreaks. Annual report of the OzFoodNet network, 2002.Communicable Disease Intelligence, 27, 209–243.

OzFoodNet (2006). Burden and causes of foodborne disease in Australia:Annual report of the OzFoodNet network, 2005. Communicable

Disease Intelligence, 30, 300–378.Phillips, D., Jordan, D., Morris, S., Sumner, J., & Jenson, I. (2005).

Microbiological quality of Australian beef and sheepmeat – Results of

the industry’s third national abattoir survey. North Sydney: Meat andLivestock Australia.

Phillips, D., Jordan, D., Morris, S., Jenson, I., & Sumner, J. (2006).Microbiological quality of Australian sheep meat in 2004. Meat

Science, 74, 261–266.Phillips, D., Sumner, J., Alexander, J. F., & Dutton, K. M. (2001a).

Microbiological quality of Australian beef. Journal of Food Protection,

64, 692–696.Phillips, D., Sumner, J., Alexander, J. F., & Dutton, K. M. (2001b).

Microbiological quality of Australian sheep meat. Journal of Food

Protection, 64, 697–700.Polkinghorne, R. J. (2006). Implementing a palatability assured critical

control point (PACCP) approach to satisfy consumer demands. Meat

Science., 74, 180–187.Rowland, P., Evans, G., & Walcott, J. (1997). In The environment and food

quality. In L. Resources (Ed.). Australia: State of the environment

technical paper series. Central Queensland University Publishing Unit.

Smale, N., East, A., Eddy, A., & Kang, S. P. (2007). Modelling meat

temperatures during off-power events in refrigerated shipping containers.Beijing, China: International Congress of Refrigeration.

Sumner, J., & Krist, K. (2002). The use of predictive microbiology by theAustralian meat industry. International Journal of Food Microbiology,

73, 363–366.Sumner, J., Ross, T., Jenson, I., & Pointon, A. (2005). A risk microbi-

ological profile of the Australian red meat industry: Risk ratings ofhazard-product pairings. International Journal of Food Microbiology,

105, 221–232.Toohey, E. S., & Hopkins, D. L. (2006). Eating quality of commercially

processed hot boned sheep meat. Meat Science, 72, 660–665.Vanderlinde, P., Fegan, N., Mills, L., & Desmarchelier, P. (1999). Use of

pulse field gel electrophoresis for the epidemiological characterisationof coagulase positive Staphylococcus isolated from meat workers andbeef carcasses. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 48, 81–85.

Vanderlinde, P., Jenson, I., & Sumner, J. (2005). Using nationalmicrobiological data to set meaningful performance criteria forslaughter and dressing of animals at Australian export abattoirs.International Journal of Food Microbiology, 104, 155–159.

Vanderlinde, P. B., Shay, B., & Murray, J. (1998). Microbiological qualityof Australian beef carcass meat and frozen bulk packed beef. Journal

of Food Protection, 61, 437–443.Vanderlinde, P. B., Shay, B., & Murray, J. (1999). Microbiological status

of Australian sheep meat. Journal of Food Protection, 62, 380–385.