Validation of Additional Approaches and Applications for Using the Continuous and Manual Sampling Devices for Raw Beef Trim

Validation of a New Method of Sampling Beef Manufacturing Trimmings for Pathogen Testing Using a Manual Sampling Mitt Approach

The USDA Food Safety Inspection Service has declared Escherichia coli O157:H7, and six additional Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) are adulterants for nonintact raw beef products. The U. S. beef processing industry has implemented several antimicrobial intervention technologies throughout the carcass dressing process to remove or destroy foodborne pathogens present on beef carcasses. Despite these efforts, STEC have been shown to cause finished product contamination, albeit at prevalences typically <0.5%. Recent work described the development and validation of improved methods for collecting samples from raw beef trimmings. One of the methods, the Manual Sampling Device (MSD) method, uses the manual implementation of the MicroTally® Swab (MT-Swab) to vigorously scrub the surface of raw beef manufacturing trimmings for pathogen detection. The work described herein reports the data from an evaluation of a novel MSD method using the MicroTally® Mitt (MT-Mitt). The MT-Mitt provides a more user-friendly option for sample collection than the MT-Swab. A series of trials were conducted with a total of 360 matched samples comparing manual sampling of raw beef manufacturing trimmings using the MT-Swab, N60-excision, or N60-plus methods to a novel method using the MT-Mitt. The results of these trials collectively demonstrate that manual sampling of raw beef manufacturing trimmings using the MT-Mitt provides organism recovery that is not significantly different from that of the MT-Swab, N60-excision, and N60-plus methods. Thus, the MT-Mitt method provides an alternative sampling method with organism recovery that is not significantly different from previous methods for sampling beef manufacturing trimmings for pathogen detection and some implementation advantages pertaining to labor and ease of use.

Aggregative Soil Sampling Using Boot Covers Compared to Soil Grabs From Commercial Romaine Fields Shows Similar Indicator Organism and Microbial Community Recoveries

Aggregative boot cover sampling may be a more representative, practical, and powerful method for preharvest produce soil testing than grab sampling because boot covers aggregate soil from larger areas. Our study tests if boot cover sampling results reflect quality and safety indicator organisms and community diversity of grab sampling. We collected soil samples from commercial romaine lettuce fields spanning 5060 m2 using boot covers (n = 28, m = 1.1 ± 0.4 g; wearing boot covers and walking along the path), composite grabs (n = 28, m = 231 ± 24 g; consisting of 60 grabs of 3-5 g each), and high-resolution grabs (n = 72, m = 56 ± 4 g; taking one sample per stratum). Means and standard deviations of log-transformed aerobic plate counts (APCs) were 7.0 ± 0.3, 7.1 ± 0.2, and 7.3 ± 0.2 log(CFU/g) for boot covers, composite grabs, and high-resolution grabs, respectively. APCs did not show biologically meaningful differences between sample types. Boot covers recovered on average 0.6 log(CFU/g) more total coliforms than both grabs (p < 0.001) where means and standard deviations of log-transformed counts were 3.2 ± 1.0, 2.6 ± 0.6, and 2.6 ± 1.0 log(CFU/g) for boot covers, composite grabs, and high-resolution grabs, respectively. There were no generic E. coli detected in any sample by enumeration methods with LODs of 1.3-2.1 log(CFU/g) for boot covers and 0.5 log(CFU/g) for both grabs. By 16S rRNA sequencing, community species diversity (alpha diversity) was not significantly different within collection methods. While communities differed (p < 0.001) between soil sampling methods (beta diversity), variance in microbial communities was not significantly different. Of the 28 phyla and 297 genera detected, 25 phyla (89%) and 258 genera (87%) were found by all methods. Overall, aggregative boot cover sampling is similar to both grab methods for recovering quality and safety indicator organisms and representative microbiomes. This justifies future work testing aggregative soil sampling for foodborne pathogen detection.

Determination of Verification Parameters for Using the Manual Sampling Device for Fresh Raw Beef Trim

Multifaceted food safety systems are used by the beef processing industry to minimize risk of bacterial contamination of the finished product. These systems are comprised of several parts including the conditional release of product requiring a sample to produce a negative result on a pathogen test prior to sending the product into the food supply. The methods of sample collection require verification activities that ensure the sampling protocols are performed adequately. The research described herein was done to determine the parameters for use in verifying adequate beef trim sampling for the Manual Sampling Device (MSD) method. In addition, the efficacy of repeated sampling via multiple applications of the MSD procedure on a fresh raw beef trim combo was investigated. The results show that MSD sample collection thatcoversless than the entire combo surface, but at least one-halfof the combo surface and is collected for a minimum of 90 s, is adequate for the recovery of organisms and prevalence targets from fresh raw beef trim. In addition, the evidence that MSD sample collection thatoccurs forless than the recommended time, butnot less than 30 s per side of the swab, is adequate for the recovery of organisms and prevalence targets from raw beef trim. Finally, results show that in a scenario where an in-plant MSD sample and a regulatory MSD sample are required from the same combo, two MSD samples can be collected from the same combo bin with similar test results for both samples. While the recommended MSD protocol specifications will not be changed, the data presented herein provide support for some flexibility in accepting test results when verification activities indicate that sampling did not occur as specified in the recommended procedure.