A Systematic Review on Preharvest Interventions Used to Control Salmonella in Poultry Rearing in the United States

IF 2.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Bashiru C. Bakin , Kathryn Stolte-Carroll , Jessica Sigman , Stephanie M. Ritchie , Glenn E. Tillman , Iva Bilanovic , Barbara B. Kowalcyk
{"title":"A Systematic Review on Preharvest Interventions Used to Control Salmonella in Poultry Rearing in the United States","authors":"Bashiru C. Bakin ,&nbsp;Kathryn Stolte-Carroll ,&nbsp;Jessica Sigman ,&nbsp;Stephanie M. Ritchie ,&nbsp;Glenn E. Tillman ,&nbsp;Iva Bilanovic ,&nbsp;Barbara B. Kowalcyk","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Preharvest interventions can play an important role in reducing <em>Salmonella</em> prevalence and levels entering poultry slaughter and processing establishments. Currently, there is no systematic literature review of preharvest interventions that control <em>Salmonella</em> in poultry in the United States (U.S.). The objective herein was to synthesize literature published on the effectiveness of preharvest interventions in U.S. poultry production. Utilizing the <em>Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews</em> guidelines, a literature search was conducted. Experimental studies published from 1995 to 2022 assessing preharvest interventions to control <em>Salmonella</em> in U.S. poultry farms were included in the review if they reported prevalence or levels of <em>Salmonella</em>. Data were extracted from each article by two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize key study parameters, (e.g., study design, study location, poultry type, <em>Salmonella</em> serotypes, type of intervention) and effectiveness of intervention. A total of 12,403 publications were identified, and 234 publications were included in the final review. The most evaluated interventions were feed/water additives (51.50%), competitive exclusion culture (10.30%), vaccination/immunization (7.88%), chemical treatments/compounds (5.45%), and probiotic culture (4.85%). Most studies focused on broiler chicken (78.20%) compared to turkey and investigated <em>Salmonella</em> Typhimurium (37.60%), <em>S.</em> Enteritidis (29.10%), and <em>S.</em> Heidelberg (8.48%). Overall, the effectiveness of evaluated interventions varied, though one should consider differences may be due to study design, sample sizes, and duration of interventions. This review improves our understanding of the breadth of preharvest interventions and their effectiveness against <em>Salmonella</em> in poultry and can be used to inform food safety policies and practices around poultry to protect public health.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":"88 4","pages":"Article 100474"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X25000262","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Preharvest interventions can play an important role in reducing Salmonella prevalence and levels entering poultry slaughter and processing establishments. Currently, there is no systematic literature review of preharvest interventions that control Salmonella in poultry in the United States (U.S.). The objective herein was to synthesize literature published on the effectiveness of preharvest interventions in U.S. poultry production. Utilizing the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews guidelines, a literature search was conducted. Experimental studies published from 1995 to 2022 assessing preharvest interventions to control Salmonella in U.S. poultry farms were included in the review if they reported prevalence or levels of Salmonella. Data were extracted from each article by two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize key study parameters, (e.g., study design, study location, poultry type, Salmonella serotypes, type of intervention) and effectiveness of intervention. A total of 12,403 publications were identified, and 234 publications were included in the final review. The most evaluated interventions were feed/water additives (51.50%), competitive exclusion culture (10.30%), vaccination/immunization (7.88%), chemical treatments/compounds (5.45%), and probiotic culture (4.85%). Most studies focused on broiler chicken (78.20%) compared to turkey and investigated Salmonella Typhimurium (37.60%), S. Enteritidis (29.10%), and S. Heidelberg (8.48%). Overall, the effectiveness of evaluated interventions varied, though one should consider differences may be due to study design, sample sizes, and duration of interventions. This review improves our understanding of the breadth of preharvest interventions and their effectiveness against Salmonella in poultry and can be used to inform food safety policies and practices around poultry to protect public health.
美国用于控制家禽饲养中沙门氏菌的收获前干预措施系统回顾。
收获前干预措施可在降低沙门氏菌流行率和进入家禽屠宰和加工场所的水平方面发挥重要作用。目前,没有一个系统的文献综述的收获前干预控制家禽沙门氏菌在美国(美国)。本文的目的是综合发表的关于美国家禽生产收获前干预的有效性的文献。利用Cochrane干预评价指南的方法学期望,进行文献检索。1995年至2022年期间发表的评估收获前干预措施以控制美国家禽养殖场沙门氏菌的实验研究,如果报告了沙门氏菌的流行或水平,则被纳入审查。数据由两名审稿人从每篇文章中提取。采用描述性统计方法总结关键研究参数(如研究设计、研究地点、家禽类型、沙门氏菌血清型、干预方式)和干预效果。共查明12 403份出版物,最后审查中列入234份出版物。评价最高的干预措施是饲料/水添加剂(51.50%)、竞争性排斥培养(10.30%)、疫苗接种/免疫(7.88%)、化学处理/复方(5.45%)和益生菌培养(4.85%)。以肉鸡为主(78.20%),调查鼠伤寒沙门氏菌(37.60%)、肠炎沙门氏菌(29.10%)和海德堡沙门氏菌(8.48%)。总体而言,评估干预措施的有效性各不相同,尽管人们应该考虑到差异可能是由于研究设计、样本量和干预措施的持续时间。这一综述提高了我们对收获前干预措施的广度及其对家禽沙门氏菌的有效性的理解,并可用于为围绕家禽的食品安全政策和实践提供信息,以保护公众健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of food protection
Journal of food protection 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Food Protection® (JFP) is an international, monthly scientific journal in the English language published by the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). JFP publishes research and review articles on all aspects of food protection and safety. Major emphases of JFP are placed on studies dealing with: Tracking, detecting (including traditional, molecular, and real-time), inactivating, and controlling food-related hazards, including microorganisms (including antibiotic resistance), microbial (mycotoxins, seafood toxins) and non-microbial toxins (heavy metals, pesticides, veterinary drug residues, migrants from food packaging, and processing contaminants), allergens and pests (insects, rodents) in human food, pet food and animal feed throughout the food chain; Microbiological food quality and traditional/novel methods to assay microbiological food quality; Prevention of food-related hazards and food spoilage through food preservatives and thermal/non-thermal processes, including process validation; Food fermentations and food-related probiotics; Safe food handling practices during pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest, distribution and consumption, including food safety education for retailers, foodservice, and consumers; Risk assessments for food-related hazards; Economic impact of food-related hazards, foodborne illness, food loss, food spoilage, and adulterated foods; Food fraud, food authentication, food defense, and foodborne disease outbreak investigations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信