Potential of a commercially available water acidification product for reducing Campylobacter in broilers prior to slaughter.

1. This study investigated the potential of a commercially available acidified water treatment (PWT) for reducing the number of Campylobacter in vitro and other bacteria in the gut of live broilers. 2. In vitro tests indicated that PWT was highly effective for reducing Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli at the recommended concentration in water, reducing populations by greater than 7 log10 CFU/ml after 24 h exposure. The decrease in the number of Salmonella serovar Enteritidis and Escherichia coli was not significant. 3. Addition of PWT to the broiler drinking water for the first 7 d, 2 d before and 2 d after each feed change and at feed withdrawal prior to slaughter or only after feed withdrawal had no effect on the number of Campylobacter in caecal samples on farm before thinning and depopulation compared to untreated controls. 4. Although PWT was effective for reducing Campylobacter in water, the results suggest that it does not reduce the number of Campylobacter in the caeca of broilers prior to slaughter under the conditions used in the study.

Efficacy of UV light treatment for the microbiological decontamination of chicken, associated packaging, and contact surfaces.

UV light was investigated for the decontamination of raw chicken, associated packaging, and contact surfaces. The UV susceptibilities of a number of Campylobacter isolates (seven Campylobacter jejuni isolates and three Campylobacter coli isolates), Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, and Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis ATCC 10376 in liquid media were also investigated. From an initial level of 7 log CFU/ml, no viable Campylobacter cells were detected following exposure to the most intense UV dose (0.192 J/cm(2)) in liquid media (skim milk subjected to ultrahigh-temperature treatment and diluted 1:4 with maximum recovery diluent). Maximum reductions of 4.8 and 6.2 log CFU/ml were achieved for E. coli and serovar Enteritidis, respectively, in liquid media. Considerable differences in susceptibilities were found between the Campylobacter isolates examined, with variations of up to 4 log CFU/ml being observed. UV treatment of raw chicken fillet (0.192 J/cm(2)) reduced C. jejuni, E. coli, serovar Enteritidis, total viable counts, and Enterobacteriaceae by 0.76, 0.98, 1.34, 1.76, and 1.29 log CFU/g, respectively. Following UV treatment of packaging and surface materials, reductions of up to 3.97, 4.50, and 4.20 log CFU/cm(2) were obtained for C. jejuni, E. coli, and serovar Enteritidis, respectively (P < 0.05). Overall, the color of UV-treated chicken was not significantly affected (P ≥ 0.05). The findings of this study indicate that Campylobacter is susceptible to UV technology and that differences in sensitivities exist between investigated isolates. Overall, UV could be used for improving the microbiological quality of raw chicken and for decontaminating associated packaging and surface materials.