LITERATURE REVIEWS

Salmonella spp. in the pork supply chain: a risk approach^¤

Salmonella spp. en la cadena de producción porcícola: un enfoque de riesgo

Salmonella spp. na cadeia de produção de carne de porco: uma abordagem de risco

Diego M Rodríguez, MV, MSc; Martha C Suárez*, MV, MSc.

* Corresponding author: Martha C Suárez. Laboratorio de Microbiología, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y de Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Carrera 30 N° 45-03 edificio 503 Bogotá, D.C. Email: mcsuarezal@unal.edu.co

Grupo Genética Molecular de Patógenos GEMPA, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y de Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá.

(Received: November 19, 2012; accepted: December 11, 2013)

Summary

The genus Salmonella contains approximately 2,579 serovars, most of which are zoonotic and transmitted by foods of animal origin, such as fresh pork and further processed by-products. Non-typhoid salmonellosis in humans manifests as gastroenteritis, septicemia, or can be asymptomatic during the carrier state. Salmonella spp. has a considerable impact in the pork industry due to economic losses resulting from diagnosis, treatment, reduced production, and because this pathogen constitutes a non-tariff barrier to food trade and a serious public health problem. The microorganism is usually introduced to farms through incoming breeding stock or pig feed and is subsequently spread by sick animals or asymptomatic carriers. Infection and/or dissemination of the microorganism may increase particularly during pre-slaughtering due to contaminated trucks, long periods of time spent in transit, stress during handling and fasting, or high animal density or time spent in corrals. Contamination during slaughtering is commonly associated with carcass de-hairing and polishing, evisceration and rectum separation, or from Salmonella present in skin, oral cavity, feces or lymphatic nodes. Pork contamination may also occur through contact with equipment or tools, handling, storage, or improper preservation during slaughter, post-slaughter, marketing, sale, or consumption. For this reason, Salmonella control, with a focus on the supply chain and risk assessment is fundamental for guaranteeing quality and food safety of pork products in Colombia, thereby contributing to public health and improving competitiveness. Studies directed at establishing baselines for the disease and the microorganism in each of the stages of the supply chain should be conducted, including identification of differential risks and establishing measures for monitoring, prevention and control.

Key words: cross-contamination, farm, pigs, pork, slaughter.

Resumen

El género Salmonella agrupa alrededor de 2.579 serovariedades, en su mayoría zoonóticas, transmitidas por alimentos de origen animal, como la carne de cerdo y sus derivados. La salmonelosis no tifoidea en humanos puede manifestarse como gastroenteritis, septicemia o estado portador asintomático. La presencia de Salmonella spp. es de gran impacto para la industria porcícola, por las pérdidas económicas por diagnóstico, tratamiento y disminución de la producción, y por constituir una barrera no arancelaria para la comercialización de alimentos y un grave problema de salud pública. El microorganismo se introduce en las granjas a través del alimento, el pie de cría o los cerdos para levante, y se disemina a través de enfermos o portadores asintomáticos. En el prebeneficio la contaminación de camiones, el tiempo de transporte, el estrés por manipulación, el ayuno, la alta densidad animal, y la permanencia en corrales pueden incrementar la infección y/o diseminación del microorganismo. Durante el beneficio la contaminación se asocia al depilado, pulido de los animales, a la evisceración y corte de recto o a la presencia del microorganismo en piel, cavidad bucal, heces o ganglios linfáticos. La contaminación de la carne también puede ocurrir por contacto con equipos o utensilios, por manipulación, almacenamiento o conservación inapropiada de los productos en etapas del beneficio, posbeneficio, comercialización, venta o consumo. Por tal razón el control de Salmonella bajo un enfoque de cadena productiva y evaluación de riesgo es un aspecto fundamental para garantizar la calidad y la inocuidad de los alimentos de origen porcino en Colombia, contribuyendo a la salud pública y a mejorar la competitividad de la cadena. Se deben realizar estudios orientados a establecer las líneas base de la enfermedad y del microorganismo en cada una de las etapas, identificando el riesgo diferencial y estableciendo medidas de monitoreo, prevención y control.

Palabras clave: carne, cerdo, contaminación cruzada, faenado, granja.

Resumo

O gênero Salmonella agrupa ao redor de 2579 sorovariedades, a maioria delas zoonóticas, transmitidas por alimentos de origem animal, como a carne suína e seus derivados. Em humanos, a salmonelose não tifoide pode se manifestar como gastroenterite, septicemia ou pode ser assintomática. A presença de Salmonella spp. é de grande impacto na indústria produtora de carne suína pelas perdas econômicas por diagnóstico, tratamento e diminuição da produção. Esta doença constitui também uma barreira não alfandegária para a comercialização de alimentos, sendo também um grave problema de saúde pública. O microrganismo é introduzido nas granjas pelas matrizes e reprodutores, animais na fase de crescimento ou a través do alimento. Tanto os animais doentes quanto os portadores assintomáticos podem ser fontes de contaminação. Na fase prévia ao abate podem ser citados alguns fatores que podem favorecer a infecção e disseminação do microrganismo: contaminação dos caminhões somado ao tempo de transporte em veículos com alta densidade animal, jejum e estresse. Durante o processamento da carcaça, a contaminação está associada à depilação e polimento dos animais, assim como evisceração, presença de microrganismos na pele, cavidade oral, ampola retal, fezes ou linfonodos. A contaminação da carne pode acontecer pelo contato com equipamentos ou implementos, manuseio, armazenamento e conservação inadequada dos produtos nas etapas do abate e após do abate, comercialização, venda ou consumo. Diante do anteriormente exposto, na Colômbia é de fundamental importância direcionar o controle da Salmonella considerando um enfoque abrangente da cadeia produtiva, incluindo a avaliação do risco. Este enfoque permitirá garantir a qualidade e inocuidade dos alimentos de origem suíno, redundado em benefícios para a saúde pública e o aprimoramento da competitividade da cadeia. Devem ser realizados estudos orientados ao estabelecimento dos indicadores da presença e impacto da doença em cada uma das etapas produtivas, identificando o risco diferencial, para sentar as bases de medidas de monitoramento, prevenção e controle.

Palavras chave: abate, carne suína, contaminação cruzada, granjas.

Introduction

Foodborne disease can be caused by a wide variety of biological, chemical and physical hazards (CDC, 2007). The main cause of foodborne diseases of bacterial origin is Salmonella spp., E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter spp., among others (Swartz, 2002; CDC, 2005).

Prevention and control of pathogens that cause foodborne diseases should take place in each stage of the supply chain; that is, all actors should guarantee food safety according to the concept of ''stable-totable'' or ''farm-to-fork'', preventing or controlling infection and/or contamination to protect the health of the consumer.

Non-typhoid serovars of Salmonella spp. decrease pig production yield and increase production costs. Contaminated finished products (carcass, fresh pork and further processed by-products) are considered a public health risk and are restricted for international trade (non-tariff barrier), affecting the industry competitiveness. The negative impact of Salmonellosis in humans is related to diagnostic, treatment, cost of cases and outbreaks, and reduced productivity due to absence from work.

Salmonella control has a high impact in Colombia's pork industry, which has shown growth within the national economy (DANE, 2003). Productivity of this sector has significantly improved in the last fifteen years (DNP, 2007; MADR, 2005; FAOSTAT, 2010). Although Colombia's per capita pork consumption is low compared with the world's average (16 Kg), it increased from 2.9 Kg in 2002 to 5.9 Kg in 2012. The total slaughter for that year was 2,939,181 pigs, which is 6.6% higher than the previous year (Asoporcicultores, 2009 – 2013).

This review discusses Salmonella focusing on the supply chain. Colombian law regulated the supply chain in this country in 2003. It was stated that the primary production sector should set up monitoring, prevention and control programs. The harvest (slaughter) and postharvest (deboning and meat products) should implement specific control measures regarding quality concepts and food safety. In pre-slaughter, pigs may become infected during the lairage and the carcass may become contaminated in different stages of the slaughter process. Unsuitable manipulation and cross contamination are the main sources of contamination risk during deboning.

The genus Salmonella spp. comprises gramnegative coccobacilli of the Enterobacteriaceae family, which are flagellated, non-spore forming, and facultative anaerobes. The pathogen can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of homeothermic and poikilothermic animals. This microorganism grows at temperatures between 6 °C and 45 °C and can survive freezing and drying, and persists even for years in organic substrates. They are inactivated by heat, direct sunlight, and disinfectants such as phenols, chlorates and iodines (Schwartz, 1999; Grimont et al., 2000).

The genus Salmonella includes two species: S. enterica (pathogenic) and S. bongori, (considered non-pathogenic). The first of these species comprises six subspecies designated by Roman numerals or numbers where I. is Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica, II. S. enterica subsp. salamae, IIIa. S. enterica subsp. arizonae, IIIb. S. enterica subsp. diarizonae, IV. S. enterica subsp. houtenae and VI. S. enterica subsp. indica. For nomenclature purposes, serovars may be designated only by genus and serovar. For example, Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica serovar Typhimurium may be designated as Salmonella Typhimurium (Brenner et al., 2000; Heyndrickx et al., 2005).

The WHO Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on Salmonella's last report generated by the Pasteur Institute in 2007 includes 2,579 Salmonella spp. serovars in a broad range of hosts (Grimont and Weill, 2007). Certain serovars are better adapted to a single host, as in the case of typhoidal S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi in humans, and non-typhoidals, such as S. Dublin in cattle, S. Enteritidis in poultry, and S. Choleraesuis in swine. These serovars may be opportunistic in other species. In this regard, pigs may be infected by a broad range of non-typhoid serovars, constituting a source of contamination for pork (Schwartz, 1999).

Salmonellosis in humans

Non-typhoid salmonellosis in humans may manifest as gastroenteritis, bacteremia or a carrier state. The main signs are nausea, vomit, and light to moderate diarrhea. Among the non-typhoid serovars involved are S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, S. Newport, S. Hadar, S. Derby, S. Heidelberg, S. Agona, S. Infantis and, on rare occasions, S. Choleraesuis (Gebreyes et al., 2004; Boyle et al., 2007; Foley et al., 2008; Schwartz, 1999). Mortality is lower than 1%, and usually occurs in children younger than five years old, older adults or immuno-compromised people (CDC, 2006). For Salmonella Choleraesuis, mortality may exceed 20% (CFSPH, 2005), although there is little association with contamination of carcasses and pork products (Schwartz, 1999).

Greig and Ravel (2009) estimated a worldwide association of 41.3% of foodborne disease with pork products consumption. Association between 5% and 25% of human salmonellosis cases with pork consumption has been reported in Europe and the United States (Borch et al., 1996; Berends et al., 1998; Lo Fo Wong et al., 2002; Hald et al., 2003; Wegener et al., 2003; CDC, 2005). One study showed that an average of 80.3 million cases occur globally each year, with 155,000 deaths, and incidence is 1,140 cases per 100,000 people (Majowicz et al., 2010).

Studies performed in recent years have estimated salmonellosis rates (per 100,000 people) of up to 23 in European countries, 17.7 to 28.1 in the United States (Swartz, 2002), 12.7 in Asia, 17.2 in Brazil (Helms et al., 2005) and almost 200 in Mexico (Gutiérrez-Cogco, Montiel-Vázquez et al., 2000). In general, it is thought that 22% of patients with salmonellosis are hospitalized and per each reported case there may be 38 unreported cases (Mead et al., 1999).

In the United States, the annual economic impact of the disease is estimated to be US $365 million in direct medical costs (CDC, 2011) and in US $3.3 billion in illness costs (Batz et al., 2011).

Salmonellosis in pigs

In pigs, the disease generates economic losses represented by morbidity and mortality, increase in the time needed to reach slaughter weight (90 Kg to 95 Kg), non-uniform batches, diagnostic expenditures and medications. In addition, the microorganism may persist in the farm environment due to continuous transmission between animals of all age groups (Schwartz, 1999). Regarding international trade, the presence of the microorganism represents a nontariff barrier that restricts proper marketing and/or negotiation of pork products (Davies, 1997).

Salmonellosis is caused by numerous serovars, including Choleraesuis, Typhimurium, Derby, Saint Paul, Infantis, Heidelberg and Agona (Schwartz, 1999). The first serovar has been related primarily to septicemia in pigs (Gray et al., 1996; Chiu et al., 2004), while S. Typhimurium can cause enteritis, although it may also manifest in septicemia (Fedorka- Cray et al., 2000; Rostagno et al., 2003).

Most infected animals are asymptomatic carriers of various serovars (Giovannacci et al., 2001; Lo Fo Wong et al., 2002), meaning that the microorganisms may be transmitted constantly, thus making its control difficult and representing a potential source of indirect contamination of pork and pork products (Schwartz, 1999).

Between 30% and 60% of farms in the United States may be infected with at least one Salmonella serovar (Schwartz, 1999). In Canada, 83.3% of farms were reported positive, with 13.2% of pigs infected (Rajic et al., 2007).

Epidemiology focuses on microorganism introduction into the farm and transmission within the farm (Lo Fo Wong et al., 2002). The most important sources of infection are breeding stock and other pigs entering from other farms, followed by feed (Fedorka-Cray et al., 1997; Sauli et al., 2005; Österberg et al., 2010), water (Davies et al., 2004; Jensen et al., 2006), and other animals such as bovines, rodents, birds, insects, and pets (Fedorka-Cray et al., 2000; Hurd et al., 2002, Langvad et al., 2006; Fosse et al., 2009). The most important source of infection is the asymptomatic carrier pig (Schwartz, 1999), with fecal-oral route being the main form of transmission (Schwartz, 1999; Fedorka-Cray et al., 2000). S. Typhimurium has been isolated in feces up to 5 weeks after nose-nose contact with infected pigs (Proux et al., 2001).

Infection occurs rather quickly; Salmonella Typhimurium at a concentration of 1.5 x 10³ UFC in feces can invade the gastrointestinal tract and the lymphatic nodes associated with the intestine (GALT: gut-associated lymphoid tissue) of exposed pigs in as little as 2 hours (Boughton et al., 2007). Three hours after experimental nasal inoculation, S. Typhimurium was detected in the cecum, and it was detected in mesenteric lymph nodes and tonsils after 6 hours (Fedorka-Cray et al., 1995).

The main source of contamination in slaughterhouses is pigs from infected farms. However, the microorganism's ability to quickly infect animals allows for infection during transport and/or lairage.

Salmonella spp. can persist in the intestinal mucosa, mesenteric lymphatic nodes or tonsils (Berends et al., 1998; Vieira-Pinto et al., 2005, Methner et al., 2011). In studies of groups of pigs, researchers isolated S. Typhimurium daily from feces during the 10 days post-infection and frequently during the following 4 to 5 months. At 5 to 7 months, approximately 90% of pigs were positive for the microorganism in mesenteric lymph nodes, tonsils, cecum or feces (Dickson et al., 2002; Jensen et al., 2006). S. Newport was isolated from mesenteric lymph nodes for up to 28 weeks and S. Choleraesuis for at least 12 weeks (Gray et al., 1995). In moist feces, this microorganism survives for 3 months, and in dry feces between 6 and 13 months (Schwartz, 1999; Dickson et al., 2002). S. Typhimurium and S. Dublin were isolated after almost a year in a moist and warm environment (CFSPH, 2005).

Pigs can acquire the carrier state with 10⁴ CFU of S. Typhimurium (Dickson et al., 2002), and with 10⁸ CFU, pigs may develop persistent infection lasting 12 weeks (Fedorka-Cray et al., 1995). Ingestion of more than 10³ CFU of Salmonella per gram of feces may cause acute infection in pigs (Loynachan and Harris, 2005). Pigs can excrete 10⁶ S. Choleraesuis/g of feces or 10⁷ in the case of S. Typhimurium (Wood and Rose, 1992; Schwartz, 1999).

Transportation time, stress due to handling, fasting, high animal density, environmental contamination, social regrouping, and time spent in pre-slaughter pens (lairage) can increase infection and/or dissemination of the microorganism among pig batches (Lo Fo Wong et al., 2002, Bolton et al., 2013, Kich et al., 2011, Hernández et al., 2013).

Contamination of trucks and pens during and after pig transport increases the probability of infection (Hurd et al., 2002; Mannion et al., 2008 and 2011; Swanenburg et al., 2001, Lo Fo Wong et al., 2002, Oliveira et al., 2005). The longer the pigs remain in lairage, the greater the risk of infection. Accordingly, one strategy could be to reduce lairage time. However, it is necessary for the pigs to rest for at least 2 hours to avoid affecting the organoleptic quality of pork.

More than twenty years ago, it was shown that infection prevalence could increase by 50% for every 24 hours spent in the pen (Morgan et al., 1987). In recent studies, prevalence increased 3 to 10 times for slaughtering plant samples in comparison to those taken at the farm. Also, additional serovars were recovered from plant samples, suggesting the existence of infection sources external to the farm (Berends et al., 1996; Hurd et al., 2001; Hurd et al., 2002) whereby these findings have been linked to the lairage (Boyen et al., 2008). Beloeil et al. (2004) reported that risk was four times greater when the microorganism was isolated from the cecum of pigs that remained for more than 6 hours in the pens compared to those that remained less than 6 hours.

Contamination with S. enterica has been found in lairage and drinking water offered to pigs (Rostagno et al., 2003; Hurd et al., 2002; Arguello et al., 2012). In one study, among the sampled pens, there was at least one positive sample; all pig groups tested positive for S. enterica in ileocecal lymph nodes and cecal contents. From 586 pigs, truck, and pen isolations, 36 different Salmonella spp. serovars were isolated. From 353 isolations in pigs (109 of ileocecal lymph nodes and 244 of cecal nodes), 27% corresponded to the same serovars isolated in the trucks, and 19% were related to those from pens (Rostagno et al., 2003).

With regard to stress, when animals are transported in trucks for 2 to 4 hours, increased levels of circulating cortisol or beta-endorphins and neutrophils are found (McGlone et al., 1993; Geverink et al., 1998). Stress may influence the outcome of many bacterial infections. Exposure to various stressors increases fecal shedding of these pathogens. Theoretically, the relationship between animal welfare and food safety is an effect that should not be overlooked (Verbrugghe et al., 2012).

Pigs can carry the microorganism in their skin, oral cavity, feces or lymph nodes (Lo Fo Wong et al., 2002), meaning that cross-contamination of carcasses occurs mainly through bacteria redistribution originating from positive pigs during the various slaughter stages (Berends et al., 1997; Botteldoorn et al., 2004; Busser et al., 2011).

In the initial stage of the process, during scalding, water can enter the lungs and contaminate the oral cavity and the pharynx; later, during the removal of the lungs, this liquid can contaminate the carcass. The dehairing equipment can continuously become contaminated with feces due to the movement of the pigs by the equipment. After flaming and during polishing, knives may favor distribution of microorganisms that were not eliminated by flaming. Additionally, knives may become contaminated if left undisinfected between carcasses. Contact of gastric contents with abdominal and thoracic cavities should be avoided during evisceration. The highest risk of contamination occurs upon separating the rectum and removing the viscera which may be perforated, their contents being able to contaminate the carcass, utensils and/or gloves of the workers (Borch et al., 1996; Fedorka-Cray et al., 2000; van Hoek et al., 2012).

With regard to carcass contamination, 5 to 15% occur during polishing, 55 to 90% during removal of viscera and 5 to 35% during other processes, such as rectum separation, ventral opening of the carcass, and meat inspection (Hald et al., 2003; Botteldoorn et al., 2004).

During the slaughter process, Salmonella spp prevalence was 6.3% (Zerby et al., 1998), 10.5% (Bouvet et al., 2003), 12.9% (Vieira-Pinto et al., 2005), 30% (Berends et al., 1997), and even as much as 37% (Botteldoorn et al., 2003) in carcass samples, and 24% (Bouvet et al., 2003) and as much as 53% (Botteldoorn et al., 2003) in environmental samples. These values may have resulted from increased infected animals during extended lairage. It is thought that as much as 30% positivity for Salmonella spp. may be due to cross-contamination during slaughter (Berends et al., 1997) and meat cutting (Lo Fo Wong et al., 2002). A prevalence of 18.8% has been found in mesenteric lymph nodes and in ileum, 13.9% (Vieira- Pinto et al., 2005).

Pigs from farms with higher positivity in fecal samples become the most contaminated carcass in the slaughterhouse (Foley et al., 2008). Thus, an initial strategy that can be implemented in plants is slaughtering first the animals from sero-negative farms to reduce the cross-contamination risk (Swanenburg et al., 2001). It is also possible to improve carcass decontamination processes by using products based on organic acids (Buncic, 2011).

The safety of pigs entering the slaughter process will determine the presence of the organism in subsequent stages. However, carcass contamination during harvest can originate from facilities, equipment, tools, staff, or even from other carcasses.

The most influential factors in meat crosscontamination with human pathogens are handling, storage, and product preservation when sufficient precautions and correct hygiene (e.g. washing and disinfecting hands, clothes and utensils) have not been taken. It should be assumed that carcasses do not conclude the process with absolute food safety in the slaughterhouse; so one or more carcasses may have a higher load of pathogenic bacteria with respect to the others and thus increase the probability of crosscontamination occurring (Berends et al., 1997; Gomez et al., 2012).

A study of Belgian cutting plants, which process 48% of the pig production in the country, found presence of Salmonella in 0% to 50% of meat samples in a single plant (Delhalle et al., 2009). In Ireland, prevalence reached up to 2.6%, with S. Typhimurium being the most common serovar (Prendergast et al., 2009), and in a study from New Zealand, the prevalence was 3.6% (Wong et al., 2009).

Salmonella can remain in the submaxillary lymph nodes or tonsils of living animals; therefore, when the head is separated from the carcass, microorganisms can come into direct contact with utensils or gloves, which subsequently represent a contamination risk (Borch et al., 1996; Scherer et. al., 2008; Vieira- Pinto et al., 2005). European studies reported that microorganism prevalence in these tissues was 9.3% to 12.9% in nodes and 9.9% to 19.6% in tonsils (Swanenburg et al., 2001; Vieira-Pinto et al., 2005).

Ready-to-eat pork products commonly contain low price cuts such as meat of the arms and neck, and back fat. Such materials undergo considerable handling during transport and cutting, increasing the risk of crosscontamination. In spite of the fact that cutting plants and plants that elaborate ready-to-eat pork products depend to a certain degree on the microbial quality of the raw material, they also have responsibility for assuring the quality of their end-products.

The thermal process should eliminate the presence of Salmonella spp. during preparation of ready-toeat products; so, theoretically, such products would be free of the pathogen. In spite of this process, evidence of S. Typhimurium prevalence has been reported in sausages in Ireland (Boughton et al., 2004).

The proportion of wholesale market for pork in Colombia; that is, hypermarkets and supermarkets, is smaller than that of small pork distributors. Some wholesalers have their own cutting plants and distribute the meat directly to the sale points. Some large distributors supply smaller ones, and they cut or sell pieces to small butchers. In addition, not all slaughtered animals at a plant are destined for consumption in the same city or region, meaning that the product may be transported long distances, increasing the risk of contamination due to improper handling and preservation.

There is always a risk of contamination during food handling. Cross-contamination can occur when using contaminated kitchen implements in foods that do not require cooking before consumption, for example, when the meat is cut on a board with a knife and the knife is later used to cut vegetables that will be consumed as salad. In addition, proper cooking time and temperature should be used. The supply chain ends when the product is consumed.

The presence of non-typhoid Salmonella spp. serovars in food affects its safety and thus its international trade. The WTO (World Trade Organization) considers food safety a fundamental subject integrated into commerce to protect consumers in any part of the world where the product may be marketed. The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and the WHO (World Health Organization) establish directives through the Codex Alimentarius to guarantee the marketing of safe foods. Likewise, the WTO recognizes OIE (currently World Organization for Animal Health) guidelines as the international reference.

The SPS agreement (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) of the WTO establishes the guiding principles to protect the health and life of people and animals and to preserve plants for international trade. The CONPES 3458 framework of 2007 established the political guidelines on animal health and food safety for the pork supply chain in Colombia.

Although studies toward establishing a baseline for this microorganism have been conducted, health status regarding Salmonella spp. is still not known in Colombia. Therefore, future studies and projects should investigate non-typhoid Salmonella prevalence in each stage of the supply chain. In addition, further molecular and genomic studies are needed for epidemiological purposes to determine the current serovars present in the country and the clonal relationships among stages.

A productive approach would include inspection, surveillance, and control by official agencies in each stage of the chain, and voluntary programs should be established for monitoring, controlling, and implementing quality and safety systems (Good Practices, HACCP, ISO Standards) to ensure production of safe food under the concept of ''stable to table''. This way, consumer health would be protected, generating confidence in the product and improving market competitiveness.

In 2007 the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of Colombia issued Decree 1500 (normalized by resolution 4282 of the same year), which regulates inspection, monitoring and control of fresh pork and further processed by-products. Article 51 describes the performance standard for Salmonella spp.

As a part of the policy framework mentioned in the CONPES document, the College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia completed in 2011 the project entitled ''Isolation and molecular characterization of Salmonella strains, antimicrobial susceptibility and microbiological risk assessment of contamination in carcass, cuts and pork products, strategies for prevention and control in slaughterhouse and processing plants''. This project was funded by the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to establish the presence of the organism in pre-slaughter, slaughter and post-slaughter stages in Colombia. The results are currently in publication process.

Perspectives

Control of Salmonella with a focus on the supply chain and risk assessment is fundamental for guaranteeing the quality and food safety of pork products in Colombia, which, in turn, contributes to public health and increases competitiveness of the chain. This goal is attainable; it has already been achieved in Denmark, which began a Salmonella control program in 1993 with an emphasis on primary production. Initial investment for that year was $15.5 million and managed to reduce the incidence of human salmonellosis from 24 to fewer than 5 cases per 100,000 people in 2001. If the program had not been implemented, the estimated losses due to contamination would have been $41 million per year (Wegener et al., 2003).

Studies should be conducted to establish baselines for Salmonella contamination in each stage of the pork supply chain in Colombia, identifying the differential risks and establishing measures to monitor prevention and reduction in the relevant processes. Controlling the microorganism will require the coordinated actions of each actor in every stage of the supply chain. It also requires implementing quality and food safety systems, official and voluntary adoption, and also the integrated participation of industry with the official and academic sectors.

Salmonella results obtained in the pork supply chain could be related to isolates from human cases in our country, which would allow more targeted and specific strategies.

Achieving these goals should allow improving scientific, technical and operational capacity of official laboratories. It would also help improving diagnostic and university laboratories to develop research projects by implementing reference techniques.

Validation and transfer of research results will enable authorities to focus on national programs aimed at discussing food safety issues on international trade and public health.

Prevention and control of Salmonella in foods of animal origin requires participation and interaction of all actors in the production chain: the official, the production, and academic sectors. This will contribute to improved competitiveness of the chain and encourage the opening of new markets under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures framework agreement.

¤ To cite this article: Rodríguez DM, Suárez MC. Salmonella spp. in the pork supply chain: a risk approach. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu 2014; 27:65-75

References

Arguello H, Carvajal A, Collazos JA, García-Feliz C, Rubio P. Prevalence and serovars of Salmonella enterica on pig carcasses, slaughtered pigs and the environment of four Spanish slaughterhouses. Food Res Int 2012; 45:905-912.         [ Links ]

Asoporcicultores. Asociación Colombiana de Porcicultores, Área económica, Costos y estudios varios. Informes, 2009, 2010 y 2011. [Access date: January, 2014] URL: http://www.porcicol.org.co/economica/estudios.php.         [ Links ]

Batz MB, Hoffmann S, Glenn Morris J Jr. Ranking the Risks: The 10 Pathogen-Food combinations with the greatest burden on public health. University of Florida, Emerging Pathogens Institute; 2011.         [ Links ]

Beloeil PA, Chauvin C, Proux K, Madec F, Fravalo P, Alioum A. Impact of the Salmonella status of market-age pigs and the preslaughter process on Salmonella caecal contamination at slaughter. Vet Res 2004; 35:513-530.         [ Links ]

Berends BR, Urlings HAP, Snijders JMA, Van Knapen F. Identification and quantification of risk factors in animal management and transport regarding Salmonella spp. in pigs. Int J Food Microbiol 1996; 30:37-53.         [ Links ]

Berends BR, Van Knapen F, Snijders JMA, Mossel DAA. Identification and quantification of risk factors regarding Salmonella spp. on pork carcasses. Int J Food Microbiol 1997; 36:199-206.         [ Links ]

Berends BR, Van Knapen F, Mossel DAA, Burt SA, Snijders JMA. Impact on human health of Salmonella spp. on pork in The Netherlands and the anticipated effects of some currently proposed control strategies. Int J Food Microbiol 1998; 44:219-229.         [ Links ]

Bolton DJ, Ivory C, McDowell D. A study of Salmonella in pigs from birth to carcass: Serotypes, genotypes, antibiotic resistance and virulence profiles. Int J Food Microbiol 2013; 160:298-303.         [ Links ]

Borch E, Nesbakken T, Christensen H. Hazard identification in swine slaughter with respect to foodborne bacteria. Int J Food Microbiol 1996; 30:9-25.         [ Links ]

Botteldoorn N, Heyndrickx M, Rijpens N, Grijspeerdt K, Herman L. Salmonella on pig carcasses: positive pigs and cross contamination in the slaughterhouse. J Appl Microbiol 2003; 95:891-903.         [ Links ]

Botteldoorn N, Herman L, Rijpens N, Heyndrickx M. Phenotypic and molecular typing of Salmonella strains reveals different contamination sources in two commercial pig slaughterhouses. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004; 70:5305.         [ Links ]

Boughton C, Leonard FC, Egan J, Kelly G, O'Mahony P, Markey BK, Griffin M. Prevalence and number of Salmonella in Irish retail pork sausages. J Food Prot 2004; 67:1834-1839.         [ Links ]

Boughton C, Egan J, Kelly G, Markey B, Leonard N. Rapid infection of pigs following exposure to environments contaminated with different levels of Salmonella Typhimurium. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2007; 4:33-40.         [ Links ]

Bouvet J, Bavai C, Rossel R, Le Roux A, Montet MP, Mazuy C, Vernosy-Rozand C. Evolution of pig carcass and slaughterhouse environment contamination by Salmonella. Revue Méd Vét 2003; 154:775-779.         [ Links ]

Boyen F, Haesebrouck F, Maes D, Van Immerseel F, Ducatelle R, Pasmans F. Non-typhoidal Salmonella infections in pigs: A closer look at epidemiology, pathogenesis and control. Vet Microbiol 2008; 130:1-19.         [ Links ]

Boyle EC, Bishop JL, Grassl GA, Finlay BB. Salmonella: from pathogenesis to therapeutics. J Bacteriol 2007; 189:1489.         [ Links ]

Brenner F, Villar R, Angulo FJ, Tauxe R, Swaminathan B. Salmonella nomenclature. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38:2465.         [ Links ]

Buncic S, Sofos J. Interventions to control Salmonella contamination during poultry, cattle and pig slaughter. Food Res Int 2011; 45:641-655.         [ Links ]

CDC. Center for Disease Control, et al. Foodborne illness; 2005. Center for Disease Control. Salmonella Surveillance: Annual Summary. [Access date: January 3, 2014] URL: http://www.cdcgov/ncidod/dbmd/phlisdata [serial online]. 2006.         [ Links ]

Center for Disease Control. Foodborne infection. 2007. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: incidence and trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food — Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 U.S. Sites, 1996–2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report MMWR, 2011; 60:749-755.         [ Links ]

CFSPH. The Center for Food Security and Public Health. Animal Disease Factsheets: Salmonellosis. Iowa State University; 2005.         [ Links ]

Chiu CH, Su LH, Chu C. Salmonella enterica serovar Choleraesuis: epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical disease, and treatment. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004; 17:311.         [ Links ]

Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Encuestas. Censo de la actividad porcícola tecnificada en Colombia; 2003. [Access date: January 3, 2014] URL: http://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/agropecuario/ena/I-Censo_Porcicola_2003.pdf Departamento Nacional de Planeación. Conpes 3458; 2007.         [ Links ]

Davies P. Food safety and its impact on domestic and export markets. J Swine Health Prod 1997; 5:13-20.         [ Links ]

Davies PR, Scott Hurd H, Funk JA, Fedorka-Cray PJ, Jones FT. The role of contaminated feed in the epidemiology and control of Salmonella enterica in pork production. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2004; 1:202-215.         [ Links ]

Delhalle L, De Sadeleer L, Bollaerts K, Farnir F, Saegerman C, Korsak N, Dewulf J, De Zutter L, Daube G. Risk factors for Salmonella and hygiene indicators in the 10 largest Belgian pig slaughterhouses. J Food Prot 2008; 71:1320-1329.         [ Links ]

Delhalle L, Saegerman C, Farnir F, Korsak N, Maes D, Messens W, De Sadeleer L, De Zutter L, Daube G. Salmonella surveillance and control at post-harvest in the Belgian pork meat chain. Food Microbiol 2009; 26:265-271.         [ Links ]

De Busser EV, Maes D, Houf K, Dewulf J, Imberechts H, Bertrand S, De Zutter L. Detection and characterization of Salmonella in lairage, on pig carcasses and intestines in five slaughterhouses. Int J Food Microbiol 2011; 145:279-286.         [ Links ]

Dickson J, Hurd H, Rostagno MH. Salmonella in the Pork Production Chain. National Pork Board. Pork Information Gateway. 2002. FAOSTAT. Statistics. Food and Agricultural commodities production; 2010.         [ Links ]

Fedorka-Cray PJ, Kelley LC, Stabel TJ, Gray JT, Laufer JA. Alternate routes of invasion may affect pathogenesis of Salmonella typhimurium in swine. Infect Immun1995; 63:2658.         [ Links ]

Fedorka-Cray P, Hogg A, Gray JT, Lorenzen K, Velasquez J, Von Behren P. Feed and feed trucks as sources of Salmonella contamination in swine. J Swine Health Prod 1997; 5:189-194.         [ Links ]

Fedorka-Cray PJ, Gray JT, Wray C. Salmonella Infections in Pigs. In: Wray A, Wray C, editors. Salmonella in Domestic Animals. London: CABI; 2000. p. 191-208.         [ Links ]

Foley S, Lynne A, Nayak R. Salmonella challenges: prevalence in swine and poultry and potential pathogenicity of such isolates. J Anim Sci 2008; 86 Suppl:E149.         [ Links ]

Fosse J, Seegers H, Magras C. Prevalence and risk factors for bacterial food borne zoonotic hazards in slaughter pigs: a review. Zoonoses Public Health 2009; 56:429-454.         [ Links ]

García-Feliz C, Collazos JA, Carvajal A, Vidal AB, Aladueña A, Ramiro R, de la Fuente M, Echeita MA, Rubio P. Salmonella enterica infections in spanish swine fattening units. Zoonoses Public Health 2007; 54:294-300.         [ Links ]

Gebreyes W, Thakur S, Davies P, Funk J, Craig A. Trends in antimicrobial resistance, phage types and integrons among Salmonella serovars from pigs, 1997-2000. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 53:997.         [ Links ]

Geverink NA, Bradshaw RH, Lambooij E, Wiegant VM, Broom DM. Effects of simulated lairage conditions on the physiology and behaviour of pigs. Vet Rec 1998; 143:241.         [ Links ]

Giovannacci I, Queguiner S, Ragimbeau C, Salvat G, Vendeuvre JL, Carlier V, Ermel G. Tracing of Salmonella spp. in two pork slaughter and cutting plants using serotyping and macrorestriction genotyping. J Appl Microbiol 2001; 90:131-147.         [ Links ]

Gomez E, Antunes P, Tavares A, Themudo P, Fonseca M, Gärtner F, Costa JM, Peixe L. Salmonella cross-contamination in swine abattoirs in Portugal: Carcasses, meat and meat handlers. Int J Food Microbiol 2012; 157:82-87.         [ Links ]

Gray JT, Fedorka-Cray P, Stabel T, Kramer T. Natural transmission of Salmonella choleraesuis in swine. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62:141-146.         [ Links ]

Gray JT, Fedorka-Cray PJ, Stabel TJ, Ackermann MR. Influence of inoculation route on the carrier state of Salmonella choleraesuis in swine. Vet Microbiol 1995; 47:43-59.         [ Links ]

Greig J, Ravel A. Analysis of foodborne outbreak data reported internationally for source attribution. Int J Food Microbiol 2009; 130:77-87.         [ Links ]

Grimont P, Grimont F, Bouvet P. Taxonomy of the genus Salmonella. In: Wray C, Wray A, editors. Salmonella in Domestic Animals. London: CABI; 2000. p. 1-18.         [ Links ]

Grimont P, Weill F. ''Antigenic formulae of the Salmonella serovars''. WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Salmonella. 2007        [ Links ]

Gutiérrez-Cogco L, Montiel-Vázquez E, Aguilera P, Gonzalez M. Serotipos de Salmonella identificados en los servicios de salud de México. Salud Públ Méx 2000; 42:490-495.         [ Links ]

Hald T, Wingstrand A, Swanenburg M, von Altrock A, Thorberg BM. The occurrence and epidemiology of Salmonella in European pig slaughterhouses. Epidemiol Infect 2003; 131:1187-1203.         [ Links ]

Helms M, Ethelberg S, Molbak K. International Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 infections, 1992-2001. Emerg Infect Dis 2005; 11:859-867.         [ Links ]

Hernández M, Gómez J, Luque I, Herrera S, Maldonado A, Reguillo L, Astorga RJ. Salmonella prevalence and characterization in a free-range pig processing plant:Tracking in trucks, lairage, slaughter line and quartering. Int J Food Microbiol 2013; 162:48-54.         [ Links ]

Heyndrickx M, Pasmans F, Ducatelle R, Decostere A, Haesebrouck F. Recent changes in Salmonella nomenclature: the need for clarification. Vet J 2005; 170:275.         [ Links ]

Hohmann, E. Nontyphoidal salmonellosis. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 263-269.         [ Links ]

Hurd H, Gailey J, McKean J, Rostagno M. Rapid infection in market-weight swine following exposure to a Salmonella Typhimurium-contaminated environment. Am J Vet Res 2001; 62:1194-1197.         [ Links ]

Hurd H, McKean JD, Griffith RW, Wesley IV, Rostagno M. Salmonella enterica infections in market swine with and without transport and holding. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002; 68:2376.         [ Links ]

Jensen A, Dalsgaard A, Stockmarr A, Nielsen E, Baggesen DL. Survival and transmission of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in an outdoor organic pig farming environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006; 72:1833.         [ Links ]

Kich JD, Coldebella A, Morés N, Gomes M, Cardoso M, Fratamico PM, Call JE. Prevalence, distribution, and molecular characterization of Salmonella recovered from swine finishing herds and a slaughter facility in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Int J Food Microbiol 2011; 151:307-313.         [ Links ]

Langvad B, Skov M, Rattenborg E, Olsen JE, Baggesen DL. Transmission routes of Salmonella Typhimurium DT 104 between 14 cattle and pig herds in Denmark demonstrated by molecular fingerprinting. J Appl Microbiol 2006; 101:883-890.         [ Links ]

Lo Fo Wong D, Hald T, van der Wolf PJ, Swanemburg M. Epidemiology and control measures for Salmonella in pigs and pork. Livest Prod Sci 2002; 76:215-222.         [ Links ]

Loynachan A, Harris D. Dose determination for acute Salmonella infection in pigs. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005; 71:2753.         [ Links ]

Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Rural. La industria de carnes frescas en Colombia. Observatorio Agrocadenas, 2005.         [ Links ]

Majowicz S, Musto J, Scallan E, Angulo F, Kirk M, O'Brien S, Jones T, Fazil A, Hoekstra R. The Global Burden of Nontyphoidal Salmonella Gastroenteritis. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50:882-889.         [ Links ]

Mannion C, Egan J, Lynch BP, Fanning S, Leonard N. An investigation into the efficacy of washing trucks following the transportation of pigs--a Salmonella perspective. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2008; 5:261-71.         [ Links ]

Mannion C, Fanning J, McLernon J, Lendrum L, Gutierrez M, Duggan S, Egan J. The role of transport, lairage and slaughter processes in the dissemination of Salmonella spp. in pigs in Ireland. Food Res Int 2012; 45:871-879.         [ Links ]

McGlone J, Salak J, Lumpkin EA, Nicholson RI, Gibson M, Norman RL. Shipping stress and social status effects on pig performance, plasma cortisol, natural killer cell activity, and leukocyte numbers. J Anim Sci 1993; 71:888.         [ Links ]

Methner U, Rammler N, Fehlhaber K, Rösler U. Salmonella status of pigs at slaughter — Bacteriological and serological analysis. Int J Food Microbiol 2011; 151:15-20.         [ Links ]

Molla B, Sterman A, Mathews J, Artuso-Ponte V, Abley M, Farmer W, Rajala-Schultz P, Morrow WE, Gebreyes W. Salmonella enterica in commercial swine feed and subsequent isolation of phenotypically and genotypically related strains from fecal sample. Appl Environ Microbiol 2010; 76:7188-7193.         [ Links ]

Morgan I, Krautil F, Craven J. Effect of time in lairage on caecal and carcass Salmonella contamination of slaughter pigs. Epidemiol Infect 1987;98:323-330.         [ Links ]

Oliveira C, Carvalho L, Fernandes S, Tavechio A, Domingues Jr FJ. Prevalence of pigs infected by Salmonella Typhimurium at slaughter after an enterocolitis outbreak. Int J Food Microbiol 2005; 105:267-271.         [ Links ]

Österberg J, Wallgren P. Effects of a challenge dose of Salmonella Typhimurium or Salmonella Yoruba on the patterns of excretion and antibody responses of pigs. Vet Rec 2008; 162:580-5806.         [ Links ]

Österberg J, Lewerin S, Wallgren P. Direct and indirect transmission of four Salmonella enterica serovars in pigs. Acta Vet Scand 2010; 52:30-30.         [ Links ]

Prendergast DM, Duggan SJ, Gonzales-Barron U, Fanning S, Butler F, Cormican M, Duffy G. Prevalence, numbers and characteristics of Salmonella spp. on Irish retail pork. Int J Food Microbiol 2009; 131:233-239.         [ Links ]

Proux K, Cariolet R, Fravalo P, Houdayer C, Keranflech A, Madec F. Contamination of pigs by nose-to-nose contact or airborne transmission of Salmonella Typhimurium. Vet Res 2001; 32:591-600.         [ Links ]

Rajic A, Chow E, Wu J, Deckert A, Reid-Smith R, Manninen K, Dewey C, Fleury M, McEwen S. Salmonella infections in ninety Alberta swine finishing farms: serological prevalence, correlation between culture and serology, and risk factors for infection. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2007; 4:169-177.         [ Links ]

Rostagno M, Hurd H, McKean JD, Ziemer CJ, Gailey JK, Leite RC. Preslaughter holding environment in pork plants is highly contaminated with Salmonella enterica. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003; 69:4489.         [ Links ]

Sauli I, Danuser J, Geeraerd AH, Van Impe JF, Rufenacht J, Bissig- Choisat B, Wenk C, Stark KDC. Estimating the probability and level of contamination with Salmonella of feed for finishing pigs produced in Switzerland--the impact of the production pathway. Int J Food Microbiol 2005; 100:289-310.         [ Links ]

Scallan E, Hoekstra R, Angulo F, Tauxe R, Widdowson MA, Roy S, Jones J, Griffin P. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17:7-15.         [ Links ]

Scherer K, Szabó I, Rösler U, Appel B, Hensel A, Nöckler K. Time course of infection with Salmonella typhimurium and its influence on fecal shedding, distribution in inner organs, and antibody response in fattening pigs. J Food Prot 2008; 71:699-705.         [ Links ]

Schwartz K. Salmonellosis. In: Straw B, D'Allaire S, Mengeling W and Taylor D, editors. Diseases of Swine. 8^th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press; 1999. p. 535-551.         [ Links ]

Swanenburg M, Urlings H, Snijders J, Keuzenkamp D, van Knapen F. Salmonella in slaughter pigs: prevalence, serovars and critical control points during slaughter in two slaughterhouses. Int J Food Microbiol 2001; 70:243-254.         [ Links ]

Swanenburg M, Urlings HA, Keuzenkamp DA, Snijders JM. Salmonella in the lairage of pig slaughterhouses. J Food Prot 2001, 64:12-16.         [ Links ]

Swanenburg M, van der Wolf P, Urlings H, Snijders J, van Knapen F. Salmonella in slaughter pigs: the effect of logistic slaughter procedures of pigs on the prevalence of Salmonella in pork. Int J Food Microbiol 2001; 70: 231-242.         [ Links ]

Swartz M. Human diseases caused by foodborne pathogens of animal origin. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:111-122.         [ Links ]

Van Hoek A, de Jonge R, van Overbeek WM, Bouw E, Pielaat A, Smid JH, Malorny B. A quantitative approach towards a better understanding of the dynamics of Salmonella spp. in a pork slaughter-line. Int J Food Microbiol 2012; 153:45-52.         [ Links ]

Verbrugghe E, Boyen F, Gaastra W, Bekhuis L, Leyman B, Van Parys A, Haesebrouck F, Pasmans F. The complex interplay between stress and bacterial infections in animals. Vet Mic 2012; 155:115-127.         [ Links ]

Vieira-Pinto M, Temudo P, Maritns C. Occurrence of Salmonella in the ileum, ileocolic lymph nodes, tonsils, mandibular lymph nodes and carcasses of pigs slaughtered for consumption. J Vet Med B 2005; 52:476-481.         [ Links ]

Wegener H, Hald T, Lo Fo Wong D, Madsen M, Korsgaard H, Bager F, Gerner-Smidt P, Mølbak. Salmonella control programs in Denmark. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9:774-780.         [ Links ]

Wilkins W, Rajic A, Waldner C, McFall M, Chow E, Muckle A, Rosengren L. Distribution of Salmonella serovars in breeding, nursery, and grow-to-finish pigs, and risk factors for shedding in ten farrow-to-finish swine farms in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Can J Vet Res 2010; 74:81-90.         [ Links ]

Wong TL, MacDiarmid S, Cook R. Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157:H7 and E. coli biotype 1 in a pilot survey of imported and New Zealand pig meats. Food Microbiol 2009; 26:177-182.         [ Links ]

Wood R, Rose R. Populations of Salmonella typhimurium in internal organs of experimentally infected carrier swine. Am J Vet Res 1992; 53:653.         [ Links ]

Zerby HN, Belk KE, Sofos JN, Schmidt GR, Smith GC. Microbiological sampling of hog carcasses. Final Report. Fort Collins: Colorado State University, 1998.         [ Links ]