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, Kathryn Stolte-Carroll, Jessica Sigman, Stephanie M Ritchie, Glenn E Tillman, Iva Bilanovic, Barbara B Kowalcyk","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preharvest interventions can play an important role in reducing Salmonella prevalence and levels entering poultry slaughter and processing establishments. Currently, there is not a 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":" ","pages":"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100474","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 not a 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.

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