Monitoring-Report-Feed-Sector-2018-Gesamt

Monitoring- Report 2017 Futtermittel Monitoring- Report 2018 Feed Salmonella: Analysis, decontamination, prevention A discussion with experts from AGES Which analysis methods currently exist for the detection of salmonella and how much time do they each require? A variety of methods are available for the detection of sal- monella. These follow very different analytical principles, such as ELISA, PCR or cultural processes. The duration of analysis is influenced by the type and duration of the accu- mulation stages and lies between at least one day with the PCR and four days with cultural methods. How can a negative result of reanalysis of the same sam- ple material be explained? Salmonellae are usually unevenly distributed in the material to be examined. Using the random sample method, it is im- possible to determine the absence of salmonellae in feeds with absolute certainty. You have to be satisfied with the statement that a certain number of salmonella are not ex- ceeded in a certain quantity of a feed batch with a defined degree of probability. Just because reanalysis produces a negative result does not in any way mean that the positive result previously achieved during initial analysis can be “cor- rected”, nor can it be interpreted as an indication of a non- contaminated feed batch. Acid can be added to feed material to deactivate the salmonella. What should be observed here? Reliable decontamination of salmonella-containing feeds by means of organic acids is only possible with relatively high dosage rates, but not with all of the preparations available on the market here either. Studies show that the reliable elimination of salmonella contamination with acidic prepa- rations can only be recommended for feed materials (raw material) with high additive doses, i.e. 7% with an applica- tion time of one day or 6% with seven days. What decontamination options are there apart from the addition of acid? Feed can be sanitised with an appropriate amount of ex- pense and effort, above all using thermal methods. Accor- ding to the latest available knowledge, pelletisation in combination with long-term conditioning (temperature > 85° C, application time > 4 min) and pressure conditioning (ex- pansion/extrusion with process temperatures of > 110° C for several seconds and a pressure of > 25 bar) reliably kills the salmonella in feeds. What role does dust play in salmonella contamination? Due to their large surface area, dust particles constitute an excellent medium for salmonella so that positive findings are more likely in dust samples than in the feeds themsel- ves. The examination of dust along the entire production chain best reflects the hygiene status of a feed. Can a connection be made between salmonella in feeds, animals and humans? As the pathogens of salmonellosis, salmonellae are one of the most significant causes of bacterial infection in the world. Salmonellosis in humans is attributed primarily to the intake of contaminated foods and in some cases, it has been possible to trace contamination of foods of animal ori- gin containing these disease pathogens back to feed con- taminated with salmonella. Salmonella can lead to infections in humans through products of animal origin, such as eggs and poultry meat. Pathogenic microorganisms like salmonella can be carried over to feed material pro- duction via the basic products used in the feed and can find their way into the food chain via the infection of agricultural livestock. What measures can be taken in a farming business to prevent recontamination? It should be ensured above all that clean areas are separa- ted from unclean areas. The process stages should be set up in such a way that “sanitised” or thermally treated feeds do not come in contact with untreated raw materials. The formation of condensation can be prevented or at least re- duced through the insulation of the relevant plant/equip- ment and parts of the building and an adequate exchange of air. The examination of dust samples and/or swabs along the entire raw materials and product chain facilitates the es- timation of the risk and the identification of critical points for possible salmonella contamination. ■ In order to guarantee food safety and minimise the spread of salmonella through the slaughter of pigs and poultry, strict regulations are in place for the handling and storage of feeds. Only animals that are given unobjectionable feed can provide safe food. Franz Doppelreiter and Dr. Andreas Adler, experts from AGES (Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety), explain the analysis methods that exist, the available decontamination methods and how recontamination can be prevented. Whereas the proportion of positive findings was as low as 0.07 percent in 2016 (2015: 0.13 percent), it lay at 0.23 percent in 2017 and at 0.35 percent in the first half of 2018. Rise in salmonella findings in the feed sector SALMONELLA FINDINGS 2017/2018 Year Number of Analyses 2017 10,472 24 0.23 % 2018 3,948 14 0.35 % Period: 01.01.2017 until 30.06.2018 of which positives findings Precentage of positive findings The increase in positive findings is particularly conspicuous in incident and crisis management. They are the cause of most incidents, with the proportion of salmonella cases reported to QS rising from a good 30 percent of all incidents in 2016 to al- most 67 percent in 2017. The majority of all positive findings were detected in feeds containing proteins, such as soya and rapeseed meal, which are an ideal medium for the propagation of salmonella. SALMONELLA CASES WITHIN INCIDENT AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT Total Feed Cases 2017 48 32 66.67 % 2018 22 18 81.82 % Period: 01.01.2017 until 30.06.2018 of which cases with Salmonella Percentage of Salmonella cases Year SALMONELLA MONITORING IN AGRICULTURE QS also conducts comprehensive salmonella monitoring in pig farms in order to identify farms with an increased salmonella risk. Unlike feed monitoring, meat juice or blood samples from the animals are tested for antibodies against salmonella. If the result is positive, this means that the animal has had contact with salmonella at least once in its life and has formed antibo- dies. Farms are classified into categories (I to III), depending on the result (many or few positive findings). Category I stands for farms with a low risk of introducing salmonella to the meat production chain. Farms in Categories II and III must introduce measures to reduce salmonella contamination. Extensive salmonella monitoring is done in poultry fattening businesses too by taking samples of every delivery of chicks or reared turkeys, while every herd is tested for salmonella be- fore slaughter. ■ Federal states (excerpt) Number of farms (in %) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Baden-Württemberg (N=1,364) Bavaria (N=3,499) Brandenburg (N=125) Hesse (N=414) Mecklenburg Western Pomerania (N=138) Lower Saxony (N=8,662) Northrhine-Westphalia (N=6,525) Rhineland Palatinate (N=161) Saxony (N=108) Saxony-Anhalt (N=163) Schleswig-Holstein (N=971) Thuringia (N=108) Category III Category II Category I without categorisation N: Number of farms 7.5 5.3 9.6 6.5 11.6 5.3 4.6 5.6 9.3 9.8 2.5 8.3 72.8 85.0 64.0 65.7 72.5 67.0 67.1 72.0 73.1 62.0 71.9 79.6 17.2 8.3 20.8 22.5 14.5 24.3 23.9 18.6 13.0 24.5 22.8 6.5 2.5 1.4 5.6 5.3 1.4 3.4 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.7 2.9 5.6 SALMONELLA CATEGORISATION OF PIG FARMS – FEDERAL STATES IN COMPARISON Status: 01.05.2018