Scientific Opinion on the public health risks related to the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601
Suggested citation: EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2014. Scientific Opinion on the public health
risks related to the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat. Part 1 (meat of domestic ungulates).
EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601, 81 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3601
Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
© European Food Safety Authority, 2014
SCIENTIFIC OPINION
Scientific Opinion on the public health risks related to the maintenance of
the cold chain during storage and transport of meat. Part 1 (meat of
domestic ungulates)1
EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards2, 3
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
ABSTRACT
Salmonella spp., verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC), Listeria monocytogenes and Yersinia
enterocolitica are the most relevant microbial pathogens when assessing the effects of beef, pork and lamb
carcass chilling regimes on the potential risk to public health. Moreover, as most bacterial contamination occurs
on the surface of the carcass, only the surface temperature is an appropriate indicator of bacterial growth. The
growth of these four pathogens (using E. coli models for VTEC) during different time-temperature chilling
scenarios was estimated using commercial slaughterhouse data and published predictive microbiology models.
The outputs suggest it is possible to apply slaughterhouse carcass target temperatures higher than the currently
mandated 7 °C throughout the carcass (including the core) in combination with different transport durations
without obtaining additional bacterial growth. Combinations of maximum surface temperatures at carcass
loading and maximum chilling and transport times, that result in pathogen growth equivalent or less than that
obtained when carcasses are chilled to a core temperature of 7 °C in the slaughterhouse are provided.
© European Food Safety Authority, 2014
KEY WORDS
carcass chilling, Salmonella, Escherichia coli (VTEC), Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica, time-
temperature integration, transport
1
On request from the European Commission, Question No EFSA-Q-2013-00646, adopted on 6 March 2014.
2
Panel members: Olivier Andreoletti, Dorte Lau Baggesen, Declan Bolton, Patrick Butaye, Paul Cook, Robert Davies,
Pablo S. Fernandez Escamez, John Griffin, Tine Hald, Arie Havelaar, Kostas Koutsoumanis, Roland Lindqvist, James
McLauchlin, Truls Nesbakken, Miguel Prieto Maradona, Antonia Ricci, Giuseppe Ru, Moez Sanaa, Marion Simmons,
John Sofos and John Threlfall. Correspondence: biohaz@efsa.europa.eu
3
Acknowledgement: The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on public health risks related to the
transportation of meat: Declan Bolton, Kostas Koutsoumanis, Roland Lindqvist and Truls Nesbakken for the preparatory
work on this scientific opinion and the hearing expert: Laurent Guillier and EFSA staff: Michaela Hempen and Pablo
Romero Barrios for the support provided to this scientific opinion.

Transport of meat (Part 1)
EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 2
SUMMARY
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards
(BIOHAZ) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on whether or not it was possible to apply
alternative core temperatures (higher than the current requirement of 7 °C in Regulation 853/2004) in
combination with specific transport durations for meat (carcasses) of domestic ungulates after
slaughter without increasing the risk associated with the growth of pathogenic microorganisms. It was
also requested that the Panel recommend, if appropriate, combinations of maximum core temperatures
for the loading of carcasses and maximum transport times.
To fulfil this mandate, the first stage was to establish the key parameters that affect bacterial growth
on beef, pork and lamb carcasses and to identify the key pathogens that should be included in any
consideration of the effect of chilling temperature on microbial growth. From the scientific literature it
was established that the key determinants of growth on meat were temperature, pH and aw, although
other factors such as competition from other microorganisms might also be a factor. As viruses and
parasites do not grow on meat, the most relevant pathogens are bacterial. Salmonella spp. and
verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC) were identified as the most appropriate target organisms
based on their „high‟ priority ranking in the recently published EFSA opinions on meat inspection. L.
monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica were also included because of their ability to grow at chill
temperatures.
Current legislation, Regulation EC 853/2004, requires that carcasses be immediately chilled after post-
mortem inspection to ensure a temperature throughout of not more than 7 °C in the case of meat and
not more than 3 °C for offal. In practice therefore, the temperature in the deepest carcass tissue (core
temperature) must achieve a minimum of 7 °C. It is unclear as to why this target temperature was
selected as pathogens such as L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica will grow at 7 °C. The absence
of a time limit by which the 7 °C core temperature must be achieved also introduces the possibility
that carcasses could be held at temperatures that support the growth of pathogens such as Salmonella
spp. and VTEC for extended periods while still complying with the legislation. More important for the
mandated tasks was the focus on the temperature throughout the meat including the core, rather than
exclusively on the surface temperature. As the vast majority of bacterial contamination occurs on the
surface, the carcass surface temperature and not the core temperature is a key determinant of bacterial
growth. Salmonella spp. and Y. enterocolitica may also colonise lymph nodes but there is no evidence
to suggest that either multiply in lymphatic tissue during carcass chilling. It was therefore agreed that
the carcass surface temperature should be the focus of this mandate.
Beef, pork and lamb carcasses may be chilled using air or spray chilling methods. Blast chilling may
also be used for pork carcasses, where the rapid decrease in carcass temperature does not adversely
affect the quality of the meat. Regulation (EC) 853/2004 mandates that the target temperatures should
be achieved before transport and remain at that temperature during transport. However, in cutting
rooms attached to slaughterhouses, meat may be cut and boned before chilling or after a period in a
chilling room, following certain conditions. The statutory temperature limits must be maintained
during cutting, boning, slicing, dicing, wrapping and packaging the meat by means of an ambient
temperature of not more than 12 °C.
By modelling the growth of Salmonella spp., E. coli (E. coli models were used to predict the growth of
verocytotoxigenic E. coli, VTEC), L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica on the surface of beef and
pork carcasses using hypothetical chilling curves it was demonstrated that it was possible to apply
effective carcass chilling regimes in the slaughter plant other than those mandated by 853/2004.
Furthermore, it was not essential that the chilling occurred in the slaughter plant as bacterial growth
was related to the chilling along the continuum from slaughter to catering/domestic refrigeration.
Transportation could therefore occur before a carcass target temperature was reached in the
slaughterhouse chillers as long as the temperature continued to decrease towards that target during
transportation. In order to establish combinations of maximum surface temperatures for the loading of
carcasses and maximum transport times, two baseline scenarios that represent the current situation

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 3
were developed using temperature data from commercial slaughterhouses. The „mean‟ baseline
scenario represented a situation where carcasses remained in the slaughterhouse chill room until a core
temperature of 7 °C was achieved and were then transported at a constant surface temperature of 4 °C
for 48 hours. The „worst case scenario‟ baseline was developed based on worst case surface
temperature profiles (i.e. temperature profiles that would support most bacterial growth) obtained
during chilling to a core of 7 °C followed by transportation at 7 °C for 48 hours. The growth of
Salmonella spp., VTEC, L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica achieved with these baseline
scenarios was then compared with that which would be obtained if the carcass surface was chilled to
5-10 °C in combination with different transport times at surface temperatures of 5-10 °C.
The outputs of this modelling exercise suggest that for each of the four pathogens, less growth in the
slaughterhouse would be obtained with the time-temperature scenarios tested as compared to both the
„mean‟ and „worst case‟ baselines. Moreover, it is possible to develop different combinations of
carcass surface target temperatures with specific transport time-temperature conditions that ensure
pathogen growth is no greater than that achieved using the current chilling requirements (a core
temperature of 7 °C followed by no more than 48 hours of transport).
In conclusion, surface temperature is a more relevant indicator of the effect of chilling on bacterial
growth than core temperature as the majority of bacterial contamination occurs on the meat surface.
Salmonella spp., VTEC, L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica are the most relevant pathogens when
evaluating the effect of chilling of meat (carcasses) from domestic ungulates on microbial growth and
associated risk to the consumer. The potential public health risk increases with the growth of these
pathogens which is affected by the continuum of chilling along the chill chain. It is therefore possible
to apply alternative carcass chilling regimes, other than those mandated by current legislation
(Regulation (EC) 853/2004) without incurring increased comparative bacterial growth. Combinations
of maximum surface temperature-maximum transportation times that achieve equivalent or lower
bacterial growth are provided in this document.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Background as provided by the European Commission........................................................................... 5
Terms of reference as provided by the European Commission................................................................ 6
Assessment............................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1. The location of bacterial pathogens on beef, pork and lamb carcasses and the implications
for monitoring surface versus core temperatures................................................................................. 8
1.2. Change of pH and water activity (aw) of carcass during chilling............................................ 9
2. Approach to answering the terms of reference (TOR) .................................................................. 10
2.1. Approach to answering TOR 1 ............................................................................................. 10
2.2. Approach to answering TOR 2 ............................................................................................. 10
3. Hazard identification ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.1. Bacterial hazards that may be influenced by chilling time-temperature combinations ........ 11
3.1.1. Salmonella spp.................................................................................................................. 11
3.1.2. Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC) ................................................................... 12
3.1.3. Listeria monocytogenes .................................................................................................... 13
3.1.4. Yersinia enterocolitica...................................................................................................... 13
4. Red meat chilling, transportation and further processing.............................................................. 14
5. Review of chilling methods and effect on temperature profile...................................................... 15
5.1. Air chilling............................................................................................................................ 15
5.2. Spray chilling........................................................................................................................ 16
5.3. Rapid chilling........................................................................................................................ 16
5.4. Secondary chilling ................................................................................................................ 16
5.5. Chilling methods as applied to beef, pork and lamb............................................................. 16
5.6. Chilling capacity of transport vehicles.................................................................................. 18
6. Modelling....................................................................................................................................... 18
6.1. Pathogen growth ................................................................................................................... 18
6.2. Development of baseline scenarios....................................................................................... 19
6.2.1. General description........................................................................................................... 19
6.2.2. Description of data/limitations ......................................................................................... 20
6.2.3. Summary of baseline scenarios ........................................................................................ 21
6.3. Development of alternative scenarios................................................................................... 21
6.4. Results for answering TOR 1................................................................................................ 22
6.4.1. Concluding remarks TOR 1.............................................................................................. 26
6.5. Results for answering TOR 2................................................................................................ 26
6.5.1. Growth of pathogens during carcass chilling in the slaughterhouse................................. 26
6.5.2. Growth of pathogens during transportation...................................................................... 29
6.5.3. Comparison between baselines and alternatives scenarios............................................... 30
6.5.4. Concluding remarks TOR 2.............................................................................................. 35
Conclusions and recommendations........................................................................................................ 36
References.............................................................................................................................................. 38
Appendices............................................................................................................................................. 44
Appendix A. Baseline scenarios for chilling of beef, lamb and pork .............................................. 44
1. Beef................................................................................................................................................ 44
2. Lamb.............................................................................................................................................. 45
3. Pork................................................................................................................................................ 47
Appendix B. Chilling data for beef and lamb carcasses .................................................................. 49
1. Beef carcass chilling data .............................................................................................................. 49
2. Lamb carcass chilling data............................................................................................................. 70
Appendix C. Secondary models....................................................................................................... 73
Appendix D. Equivalent growth in beef, pork and lamb ................................................................. 75

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 5
BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1.1 Current requirements
The maintenance of the cold chain is one of the main principles and basic requirements of EU
legislation on food hygiene4
. Raw materials, ingredients, intermediate products and finished products
likely to support the growth of pathogenic micro-organisms are not to be kept at temperatures that
might result in a risk to health. The cold chain must not to be interrupted.
In the case of meat (including fresh meat, meat products, minced meat and meat preparations), EU
legislation lays down specific requirements for the storage and transport of meat regarding
temperatures and maximum times of storage. Such requirements are:
In the case of meat from animals other than poultry:
a. Post-mortem inspection must be followed immediately by chilling in the slaughterhouse to
ensure a temperature throughout the meat of not more than 3 °C for offal and 7 °C for other
meat along a chilling curve that ensures a continuous decrease of the temperature. However,
meat may be cut and boned during chilling in establishments attached to slaughterhouses.
b. Meat must reach the temperature specified before transport, and remain at that temperature
during transport. However, transport may also take place, if the competent authority so
authorises, to enable the production of specific products, provided that it takes place in
accordance with the requirements that the competent authority specifies in respect of transport
from one given establishment to another, and that the meat leaves the slaughterhouse, or a
cutting room on the same site as the slaughter premises, immediately and transport takes no
more than two hours.
c. The maximum storage time between slaughter and production of minced meat is no more than
six days and no more than fifteen days from the slaughter of the animals in the case of boned,
vacuum-packed beef and veal.
In the case of poultry meat:
a. After post mortem inspection slaughtered animals must be chilled to not more than 4 °C as
soon as possible, unless the meat is cut while warm.
b. Meat must reach a temperature of not more than 4 °C before transport, and be maintained at
that temperature during transport. However, if the competent authority so authorises, livers for
the production of foie-gras may be transported at a temperature of more than 4 °C, provided
that such transport takes place in accordance with the requirements that the competent
authority specifies in respect of transport from one given establishment to another, and that the
meat leaves the slaughterhouse, or a cutting room, immediately and transport takes no more
than two hours.
c. the maximum storage time between slaughter and production of minced meat is no more than
three days.
1.2 Available scientific advice and recent studies
The Belgian (AFSCA) and French (Anses) food safety agencies have issued in 2004, 2008 and 2009
opinions regarding the transport of meat that has not reached the required temperature upon leaving
the slaughterhouse:
4
Article 4(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the
hygiene of the foodstuffs

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 6
Avis 2004/01-“Problématique du transport de viande non complètement refroidie („transport à
chaud‟)”:
http://www.afsca.be/home/com-sci/doc/avis04/Avis_2004-01.pdf
Avis 31-2008-"Transport à chaud de carcasses de porcs (dossier Sci Com 2008/23)".
http://www.afsca.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS31-2008_FR_DOSSIER2008-23.pdf
Avis 19-2009 Projet d‟arrêté royal modifiant l‟arrêté royal du 30/12/1992 relatif au transport
des viandes fraîches, des produits à base de viande et des préparations de viandes (dossier Sci
Com 2009/17)
http://www.afsca.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS19-2009_FR_DOSSIER2009-
17_000.pdf
Opinion (2008-SA-0283) of the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) on the transport of pig
carcasses that have not reached the required temperature upon leaving the slaughterhouse.
http://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/documents/MIC2008sa0283.pdf
In addition:
A scientific study, enclosed with this request, carried out in France by IFIP (Institut du Porc),
was submitted for the opinion of the French Food Safety Agency (Anses). The study evaluates
the difference in bacterial growth induced by refrigerated transport of carcasses loaded at
more than 7 °C, compared to the same carcasses remaining in cold storage. The study
proposes combinations of time/temperature for the transport of such carcasses. The advice of
Anses is expected by end of 2013.
A scientific research was carried out in the UK on the public health risks of different time and
temperature regimes for the period between slaughter and production of minced meat. That
study (enclosed) concludes that, provided effective HACCP-based procedures are in place, the
age of meat at mincing does not require a prescribed limit in days as a control for food safety
and quality.
Before considering any derogation from the requirements described in 1.1, EFSA is requested to
provide an opinion in relation to the public health risks as a consequence of applying flexibility in the
maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat.
TERMS OF REFERENCE AS PROVIDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EFSA is asked to issue a scientific opinion on the public health risks as a consequence of applying
flexibility in the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat, taking into
account the above mentioned studies and any other relevant scientific data. In particular, EFSA is
requested:
In relation to transport of meat of domestic ungulates:
1. To assess if it is possible to apply alternative core temperatures, higher than 7 °C, in
combination with specific transport durations for the transport of meat (carcasses) after the
slaughter, without increasing significantly the risk linked to the microbiological growth of
potentially harmful microorganisms, and

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 7
2. To recommend, if appropriate, in relation to such risk, combinations of a maximum core
temperature for the loading of meat (carcasses) and a maximum time for transportation.
In relation to the production of minced meat from all species:
3. To assess the impact of the time of storage of fresh meat intended for the production of
minced meat on the risk linked to the microbiological growth of potentially harmful
microorganisms and
4. To recommend, if appropriate, in relation to such risk, maximum times of storage of fresh
meat intended for the production of minced meat.
EFSA is requested to deliver an opinion (part 1) on the terms of reference 1 and 2 not later than March
2014, and an opinion (part 2) on the terms of reference 3 and 4 not later than July 2014.
ASSESSMENT
1. Introduction
Fresh meat is highly perishable because of its composition, therefore carcasses are chilled immediately
after slaughter and dressing to limit bacterial growth and spoilage. This is achieved using advanced
refrigeration methods based on air, immersion or spray systems. Regardless of the methods used,
carcass refrigeration must satisfy several requirements including inhibiting microbial growth, meeting
regulatory and/or hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) requirements and minimising
weight loss while maintaining or improving eating quality. These requirements may be conflicting.
For example, rapid chilling of carcasses inhibits the growth of pathogenic and spoilage organisms and
reduces weight loss, which may be as high as 2% of the overall weight of the carcass (Jones and
Robertson, 1988). However, rapid chilling of beef and lamb carcasses during the development of rigor
mortis produces tougher meat that negatively impacts on eating quality. In contrast, rapid chilling of
pork carcasses is essential to reduce problems associated with temperature/pH relationships and the
development of pale, soft and exudative (PSE) meat (Savell et al., 2005).
Current legislation, Regulation (EC) 853/20045
, requires that carcasses be immediately chilled after
post-mortem inspection to ensure the temperature throughout the meat is not more than 7 °C in the
case of meat and not more than 3 °C for offal. A time limit by which this must be achieved is not
specified. It is unclear why 7 °C was selected as the maximum target temperature as pathogens such as
L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica will grow at this temperature. It is similarly unclear why the
core and not the surface, where the vast majority of bacterial contamination occurs, was selected as the
monitoring site. Moreover, the absence of a time limit by which this must be achieved introduces the
possibility that carcasses may be held at temperatures that support the growth of pathogens such as
VTEC and Salmonella spp. for extended periods while still complying with the legislation.
The current legislation is based on a process criterion, temperature, and mandates that this must reach
no more than 7 °C throughout the carcass through a process of continuous chilling. Adding a time
parameter would deliver a time-temperature process criterion which would better define the chilling
process. A further improvement would introduce flexibility or time-temperature combinations that are
equivalent in terms of bacterial or specific pathogen growth. Alternatively this approach could be
refined to set maximum microbial growth targets (performance criteria) and allow slaughter plant
operators to develop time-temperature combinations that consistently achieve these targets within the
slaughterhouse chillers or using a combination of in-plant and transport chilling.
Meat must reach the current target temperature before transport and remain at that temperature during
transportation. However, in cutting rooms attached to slaughterhouses meat may be cut and boned
5
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific
hygiene rules for food of animal origin OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55-205.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 8
before chilling or after a waiting period in a chilling or refrigerated room, following certain conditions.
The legislative temperature limits must be maintained during cutting, boning, slicing, dicing, wrapping
and packaging the meat by means of an ambient temperature of not more than 12 °C. Furthermore, the
transport of meat may take place for the production of specific products before reaching the
temperatures indicated above, if the competent authority so authorises, provided that meat leaves the
slaughterhouse immediately and the duration of transport is no more than two hours. The maximum
storage time between slaughter and production of minced meat must be no more than six days and no
more than fifteen days from the slaughter of the animals in the case of boned, vacuum-packed beef and
veal.
The temperature limits and the requirements regarding transportation and maximum storage time
between slaughter and the production of minced meat and boned, vacuum-packed beef and veal are
creating problems for the meat industry. For example, for logistical reasons it might be desirable to
transport carcasses before the core temperature has reached the required 7 °C. Moreover, maturation
(the delay between the meat reaching the desired temperature and cutting) is used to improve
tenderness and prevent muscle shortening. Although this typically takes 48 hours it may, at the request
of the retailer, be extended for up to 21 days to improve flavour and texture. Under the current
legislation, trimmings from these carcasses could not be used in minced meat or meat preparations as
Reg. (EC) 853/2004 requires that these be prepared within 15 days of the slaughter of the animals. To
satisfy these and other commercial requirements it may be possible to introduce greater flexibility into
the current legislation if such changes do not adversely affect the public health risk.
This opinion investigates the impact of different chilling time-temperatures combinations in the plant
and during transport on the growth of various pathogens on beef, pork and lamb as compared to the
chilling regimes adhering to the current legislative requirements.
1.1. The location of bacterial pathogens on beef, pork and lamb carcasses and the
implications for monitoring surface versus core temperatures
Cattle, pigs and sheep may carry a range of bacterial pathogens in their gastrointestinal tracts, which
are shed in the faeces and cross-contaminate the carcass during slaughter and processing. Thus the vast
majority of bacterial pathogens on carcasses occur on the surface (Buncic, 2006) and chilling
immediately after post-mortem inspection should be designed to prevent the growth and proliferation
of these bacteria. Indeed, Gill (1986) suggested that bacteria are only located on the surface of meat, a
point of view supported by (Greer et al., 1994), who suggested that only the surface temperature rather
than deep tissue temperature, is relevant to the safety of meat. While this concept forms the basis of
some EC legislation (e.g. Reg (EC) 852/20046
and 2073/20057
), current legislation covering carcass
chilling (Reg. (EC) 853/2004) focuses on the temperature throughout the meat including the core and
not just the surface temperatures, making it difficult to assess the impact of different chilling regimes
on bacterial growth as there is currently no practical mathematical formula that describes the
relationship between the core and surface temperatures of carcasses. It could therefore be argued that
future regulations should focus on carcass surface temperatures, provided pathogens either do not
occur or do not grow at internal locations within the carcass. Moreover, any new regulations could
introduce flexibility in terms of transportation after slaughter without incurring bacterial growth in
excess of that which is obtained under current legislation.
While the majority of bacterial pathogens are only found on the surface of the carcasses, others such as
Salmonella spp. and Y. enterocolitica may also be located in lymph nodes within the meat
(Koohmaraie et al., 2012). Lymph nodes are distributed widely throughout the body and serve as a
filter mechanism, trapping infectious agents before destruction by B-, T- and other immunity cells.
However, some Salmonella spp. and pathogenic Yersinia spp. may evade the host immune response
6
Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs
OJ L 139, 30/04/2004, p. 1-54.
7
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs OJ L 338,
22/12/2005, p. 1-26.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 9
and survive in the lymph nodes in immune cells such as macrophages. The implications of
contaminated lymph nodes for food safety is currently not yet assessed.
Although studies comparing microbial pathogen load on the surface versus the lymph nodes in a
carcass are limited, Koohmaraie et al. (2012) reported that 96% of hide samples, 47% of carcasses,
18% of lymph nodes, 7.1% of trim and 1.7% of ground beef samples were Salmonella-positive in a
study of 100 dairy cows. Other studies of Salmonella spp. in bovine lymph nodes have reported
prevalence rates of 30% (Moo et al., 1980), 2 to 54% (Samuel et al., 1980), 61% (Samuel et al., 1981)
and 0 to 88.2% (Haneklaus, 2013). One study, (Gragg et al., 2013) enumerated Salmonella spp. in
bovine lymph nodes and reported that 67% harboured the pathogen at concentrations ranging from 0.1
to 1.8 log10 CFU/g while 33% carried at levels ranging from 1.9 to 3.8 log10 CFU/g. Salmonella spp.
lymph node prevalence rates of 4 to 14% have been reported in sheep (Moo et al., 1980; Samuel et al.,
1981). The former study also found Salmonella spp. in 8% of porcine lymph nodes. A European
baseline study conducted in 2007 reported that 10.3% of lymph nodes from 19,071 pigs were
Salmonella-positive (EFSA, 2008). In pigs, the incidence of Salmonella spp. may be higher in
ileocaecal lymph nodes as compared to the surface of the carcass (Gomes-Neves et al., 2012). Pig
lymph nodes may also carry Y. enterocolitica. A study of slaughter pigs by Nesbakken et al. (2003)
showed that 12 of 97 submaxillary lymph nodes were positive for Y. enterocolitica. In the same study
different loci were studied in 24 pigs. Y. enterocolitica was detected in two of the mesenteric lymph
nodes, in three of the submaxillary lymph nodes and isolated from the surfaces of three carcasses.
However, these studies did not enumerate and the significance of Salmonella spp. and Y.
enterocolitica in lymphatic tissue for human illness has yet to be determined.
While these studies establish the importance of lymph nodes as a source of Salmonella spp. in cattle,
sheep and pigs and Y. enterocolitica in pigs there are no published studies that have investigated the
potential growth of these pathogens in lymph nodes post-mortem. It is therefore not possible to assess
the impact of changing the chilling temperature on pathogen growth in lymph nodes.
1.2. Change of pH and water activity (aw) of carcass during chilling
During chilling the temperature of the surface of the carcass changes as do other parameters such as
pH and aw. Temperature is the primary factor affecting bacterial survival and growth but pH and aw
may also influence the microflora. If pH and/or aw change sufficiently during carcass chilling they
should be considered when examining the effect of chilling on the carcass surface microflora (Beales,
2004).
Although specific data on the surface pH of red meat carcasses during chilling is limited, it is known
that the pH of muscle is about 7.0 at slaughter thereafter decreasing to approximately 5.3-5.8. In beef
carcasses, this usually occurs over an 18 to 40 hour period but the typical decline for pork is 6-12
hours (Smulders at al. 1992). McGeehin and Sheridan (1999) reported a decrease in the pH of lamb
carcasses from 6.7 to 5.5 after 24 hours in the slaughterhouse chiller. Dark Firm Dry (DFD) meat can
occur in all species but is most often described in beef. In cattle that are rested and not exposed to
stress, muscle glycogen levels will be 0.8% to 1.0% prior to death. However, an animal exposed to
various forms of long-term pre-slaughter stress significantly depletes its glycogen reserves. A depleted
state of glycogen, less than approximately 0.6%, will hinder normal post-mortem pH decline. DFD
meat will have a pH of 5.9-6.5, with some meat being as high as pH 6.8. DFD meat with a high pH
may promote both growth of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria. Measurement of pH and application of
meat on the basis of such measurements is important. Carcasses and meat with a high pH are not
suitable for vacuum packaging and/or long-distance transport.
The scarce available evidence suggests that changes in the surface aw of beef carcasses are limited
during commercial chilling and do not affect bacterial survival with the exception of Campylobacter,
which is particularly sensitive to drying (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013b). Fresh meat has an aw which is
frequently around 0.99 (ICMSF, 1998). Accordingly, a wide range of bacteria are able to survive and
grow on meat and carcass surfaces. During air chilling the surface aw of beef carcasses generally

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 10
decreases in the first 6 hours and increases between 6 and 24 hours before decreasing and reaching a
steady state at about 72 hours (Prendergast et al., 2007). The extent of drying is controlled by the
relative humidity (RH) of the chilling area (Prendergast and Sheridan, 2008) and carcass aw typically
ranges from 0.95 to 0.99 under commercial conditions. Although bacterial survival rates decrease with
decreasing aw (Shadbolt et al., 1999), studies by Kinsella et al. (2006) suggest the relatively minor
changes obtained on beef carcasses during chilling are not sufficient to influence the survival of most
bacteria on beef carcass surfaces. Although similar studies have not been undertaken with other meat
species, there is no reason to expect a different outcome.
2. Approach to answering the terms of reference (TOR)
To evaluate different chilling scenarios, growth of Salmonella spp., VTEC, L. monocytogenes and Y.
enterocolitica on the meat surface during chilling was estimated using published predictive
microbiology growth models. Fixed values for model variables, e.g. pH, aw, were used, and a lag phase
before growth commenced was assumed to be absent. An overview of the approach used is shown in
Figure 1 and details of the modelling are described in Chapter 6 and in Appendix A.
2.1. Approach to answering TOR 1
Bacterial contamination on carcasses is assumed to occur predominantly on the surface (see section
1.1). To address TOR 1, chilling data was obtained that measured the core and corresponding surface
temperatures of the carcasses during commercial chilling. The growth of Salmonella spp., VTEC, L.
monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica was predicted using the carcass surface temperature profiles
obtained when the carcasses were chilled to a core temperature of 7 °C.
2.2. Approach to answering TOR 2
As described in the introduction, growth and related risk is mainly related to carcass surface, not core,
temperatures. However, only core temperature is defined in the legislation and there is no simple
relationship between surface and core temperatures. While further investigation and access to more
chilling temperature profiles might yield a mathematical formula that goes some way to describing the
relationship between core and surface temperature, the development of such an equation was not
possible within the timeframe of this work and with the available data. Instead, an approach predicting
potential bacterial growth based only on surface temperatures was used. The approach taken was to
evaluate and compare different time-temperature surface chilling curves, representing current,
baseline, and alternative chilling scenarios, in terms of the estimated potential bacterial growth during
chilling. Specifically the growth of Salmonella spp., VTEC, and L. monocytogenes and/or Y.
enterocolitica, was estimated.
An additional complication is the existence of a vast number of chilling curves that achieve a
continuous decrease throughout the meat to a target core temperature of 7 °C as required by
Regulation (EC) 853/2004 for meat of domestic ungulates, each with associated bacterial growth. To
model the growth of Salmonella spp., VTEC, L. monocytogenes and/or Y. enterocolitica, a baseline
scenario had to be developed for each meat species that represents the current situation. Based on the
requirements in the current legislation, each baseline scenario consisted of two stages; chilling in the
slaughterhouse and chilling during transport (chapter 6 and Appendix A). The baseline scenario was
taken to represent a situation where carcasses remain in the chilling room until the core temperature
reaches 7 C and then transported with a constant surface temperature. The time needed to reach the
core temperature of 7 °C was estimated based on published data and compared with industry data. The
first stage of the baseline was described by an exponential decay function developed by fitting
parameters to simulated data representing the surface temperature over the estimated time required for
the core to reach 7 °C. In the second stage of the baseline scenario carcasses are assumed to be
transported with a surface temperature of either 7 C or 4 C. These temperatures are considered as
„worst-case‟ and „mean‟ compliant surface temperatures during transport that corresponds to the core
temperature regulation limit. The approaches taken to develop the baseline scenarios for the different
species were slightly different due to the type and amount of input data that was available. Much data

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 11
was available for chilling of pork, whereas data on carcass surface temperatures of beef and lamb
during chilling was scarce. The issue of a vast number of potential chilling curves that achieve a
continuous decrease to a 7 °C core temperature target mandated in Regulation (EC) 853/2004, each
associated with different amounts of bacterial growth, makes the selection of baseline scenarios
somewhat arbitrary. Therefore the existence of variation was acknowledged by describing both an
average and a worst-case baseline scenario. Recommendations on alternative time and temperature
combinations are made based on comparisons between baseline and relevant chilling scenarios.
Figure 1: Approach used to answering the terms of reference (TOR)
3. Hazard identification
3.1. Bacterial hazards that may be influenced by chilling time-temperature combinations
The first step in assessing the effect of different carcass chilling time-temperature combinations on the
risk to the consumer is the identification of pathogenic organisms that are meat-borne and capable of
growth within the range of temperatures encountered on the surface of a carcass as it cools in the
chilling room immediately after dressing. Parasitic and viral pathogens do not grow on the carcass and
may therefore be excluded from any consideration of the effects of different chilling regimes on
growth. Campylobacter spp. do not usually grow outside of their host and never at temperatures below
30˚C (Hazeleger et al., 1998). Pathogenic meat-borne bacteria such as L. monocytogenes and Y.
enterocolitica may grow at temperatures as low as -2 to 4 °C while Salmonella spp. and VTEC may
show limited growth at temperatures as low as 5 to 7 °C but rapid multiplication at 25 to 37 °C,
carcass temperatures encountered early in the chilling process. The temperature, pH and aw conditions
that support the growth of these four pathogens are summarised in Table 1. Other factors such as
competition from other bacteria, nutrient availability, gaseous environment, chemical composition,
etc. also affect bacterial growth. These four bacterial hazards will be discussed in this chapter.
3.1.1. Salmonella spp.
Salmonella spp. are one of the most common and widely distributed food-borne pathogens in the EU
and salmonellosis is a major cause of human bacterial enteric illness second only to
campylobacteriosis. In the EU, 91,034 confirmed salmonellosis cases in humans were reported in
2012, a notification rate of 22.2 per 100,000 of the population (EFSA and ECDC, 2014). However, it

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 12
is estimated that the true incidence is 6 million cases of illness annually in the EU-27 (EFSA Panel on
Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), 2011). The most commonly reported serovars in confirmed cases of
human infection in Europe are S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium. In 2012, these serovars accounted
for 41.3% and 22.1 % of salmonellosis cases, respectively, followed by monophasic S. Typhimurium
(7.2 %), S. Infantis (2.5 %), S. Stanley (1.4%), and S. Thompson (1.3%) (EFSA and ECDC, 2014).
Cattle, pigs and poultry are asymptomatic carriers of these Salmonella serovars and there is
considerable evidence that beef, pork and poultry products are major sources of human infection
(EFSA Panels on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM),
and on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), 2011, 2012; EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013b). In 2012, the
distribution of food vehicles in strong-evidence outbreaks caused by Salmonella spp. were: 5.6% pig
meat and products thereof, 2.0% bovine meat and products thereof, and 6.9% other or mixed meat and
products thereof (EFSA and ECDC, 2014)
Salmonella spp. has a reported minimum growth temperature of 5ºC and an optimum temperature of
35 °C to 43 °C (James and James, 2014), a pH growth range of 4.5 to 9.0 and a minimum aw for
growth of 0.94 (de Almeida Moller, 2012) (Table 1). The observed Salmonella spp. prevalence on pig
carcasses may decrease (Arguello et al., 2012; Botteldoorn et al., 2003; Bouvet et al., 2003; De Busser
et al., 2011; Duggan et al., 2010; Oosterom et al., 1985), remain unchanged (King et al., 2012) or
increase (Algino et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2003; Epling et al., 1993) during chilling and subsequent
chilled storage. This apparent inconsistency may be due to a range of factors including differences in
chilling performance, bacterial strains, sampling methods, etc. (Gonzales-Barron et al., 2013) but
where a reduced prevalence was observed, this was attributed to the combined effects of cold shock
and drying (Chang et al., 2003; Kuitche et al., 1996).
3.1.2. Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC)
VTEC8
are characterised by the production of verocytotoxins, so called because of their activity on
Vero cells, but also referred to as shiga toxins, because of their similarity with the toxin produced by
Shigella dysenteriae. Not all VTEC strains have been associated with human disease and there is no
single or combination of marker(s) that defines a „pathogenic‟ VTEC (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013a).
In Europe, approximately half of all confirmed VTEC cases are associated with serogroup O157. Of
the non-O157 cases, O26, O103, O145, O111, and O91 have also been commonly isolated from
patients. In 2011, E. coli O104:H4 caused a major outbreak which resulted in 4,321 confirmed cases,
including 852 cases of HUS, with 54 deaths reported in 14 EU MSs, the USA and Canada when the
epidemic was declared to be over at the end of July 2011 (Karch et al., 2012). In 2012, 5,671
confirmed VTEC cases were reported in the EU with a notification rate of VTEC of 1.15 cases per
100,000 population. The most commonly reported serogroup was O157 (41.1 %), followed by O26
(12.0 %) and O91 (3.6 %) (EFSA and ECDC, 2014).
There is considerable evidence, including epidemiological, surveillance and source attribution studies,
that beef is a major source of E. coli O157 and non-O157 VTEC (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013a).
Although cattle are considered to be the most important source of human infections, VTEC are also
routinely isolated from sheep and goats with reported flock prevalence of 11.6% and 13%,
respectively. This and other evidence that these small ruminants may be a source of VTEC infection in
humans is presented in the „Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by
inspection of meat from sheep and goats‟ (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel, 2013c).
Pathogenic E. coli, such as VTEC, have a reported minimum growth temperature of 6-7 ºC, an
optimum temperature of 35 to 42 °C (James and James, 2014), will grow between pH 4.4 and 10.0 and
at a minimum aw of 0.95 (Desmarchelier and Fegan, 2003). Inoculation studies with E. coli on beef
carcasses stored at 10 °C showed a 1.42 log reduction in the first 24 hours on the rump while growth
was observed on the neck (Prendergast and Sheridan, 2008). This was attributed to the rapid decline in
surface aw at the rump. In commercial chillers, E. coli counts on pig carcasses may remain unchanged
or decrease during chilling (Gill et al., 2000), while E. coli counts on lamb carcasses decrease by up to
8
VTEC and STEC are used synonymously

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 13
2 logs during the chilling phase (Gill and Jones, 1997). These reductions were also attributed to the
drying of the carcasses.
3.1.3. Listeria monocytogenes
In 2012, 26 MSs reported 1,642 confirmed human cases of listeriosis, which was a 10.5 % increase
compared with 2011. The EU notification rate was 0.41 cases per 100,000 population (EFSA and
ECDC, 2014). L. monocytogenes is ubiquitous in nature and in the abattoir environment (Borch et al.,
1996; Gobat and Jemmi, 1990). Listeriosis is not usually associated with fresh meat but with ready-to-
eat products, in which contamination has occurred before or during processing, followed by growth
during prolonged storage at refrigeration temperatures. L. monocytogenes has been reported on beef,
pork and lamb carcasses (Sheridan et al., 1994; Nicholas, 1995; McEvoy et al., 1998). This organism
grows optimally at 30 to 37 °C (James and James, 2014) and although capable of growth at -1 °C,
several studies have reported a reduction in Listeria on beef and pork carcasses during chilling
(Elmnasser et al., 2006; Moorhead and Dykes, 2004; Prendergast et al., 2007). The pH range for
growth is 4.4 to 9.4 and the minimum aw supporting growth is 0.92 (ICMSF, 1996).
3.1.4. Yersinia enterocolitica
In recent years, Y. enterocolitica has been the third most common cause of bacterial food-borne
disease in many European countries, with 7,017 confirmed cases in the EU in 2011 (EFSA and ECDC,
2013). The most common manifestation of Y. enterocolitica infection is gastroenteritis, which is
usually self-limiting, resulting in diarrhoea, mild fever and abdominal pain and sometimes also
reactive arthritis.
This organism infects a wide range of species, including ruminants, dogs and cats, but pigs are the
main reservoir of the most common human pathogenic serogroups O:3 and O:9, and case-control
studies of yersiniosis conducted in Belgium (Tauxe et al., 1987) and in Norway (Ostroff et al., 1994)
have identified consumption of pork as an important risk factor for infection in humans. In the USA,
case-control studies showed that household preparation of chitterlings (raw pork intestines) was
associated with Y. enterocolitica infection in children (Jones et al., 2003; Lee et al., 1990). Further
evidence of the link between pigs, pork carcasses and products is presented in the „Scientific Opinion
on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (swine) (EFSA Panels on Biological
Hazards (BIOHAZ), on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM), and on Animal Health and
Welfare (AHAW), 2011). Y. enterocolitica survives well on chilled carcasses including those subject
to blast chilling (Nesbakken et al., 2008). Although these bacteria have an optimum growth
temperature of 28-29 °C, they are also capable of growth at -2 ºC (James and James, 2014) and growth
on meat under chilled conditions has been reported (Bari et al., 2011). However, the literature is
contradictory regarding the multiplication of human pathogenic Y. enterocolitica in meat during
conventional cold storage. According to many reports, the ability of Y. enterocolitica to compete with
other psychrotrophic organisms normally present in food may be poor (Fukushima and Gomyoda,
1986; Schiemann, 1989; Kleinlein and Untermann, 1990). In contrast, a number of studies have shown
that human pathogenic Y. enterocolitica is able to multiply in foods kept chilled under storage, and
might even compete successfully with the micro-organisms usually found in food (Bredholt et al.,
1999; Gill and Reichel, 1989; Lee et al., 1981; Lindberg and Borch, 1994; Nissen et al., 2000; Nissen
et al., 2001; Stern et al., 1980). Regardless, the reported pH range for growth is 4.2 to 10.0 and the
minimum aw is 0.96 (ICMSF, 1996).

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 14
Table 1: The temperature, pH and aw conditions that support the growth of Salmonella spp., VTEC,
L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica.
Bacteria Minimum growth
temperature (˚C)
Optimal growth
temperature (˚C)
pH range for
growth
Minimum aw for
growth
Salmonella spp. 5 °Ca
35-43 °Ca
4.5-9.0b
0.94b
VTEC 6-7 °Ca
35-42 °Ca
4.4-10c
0.95c
L. monocytogenes -1 °Ca
30-37 °Ca
4.4-9.4d
0.92d
Y. enterocolitica -2 °Ca
28-29 °Ca
4.2-10d
0.96d
a: James and James, 2014
b: Oliveira de Almeida Møller, 2012
c: Desmarchelier and Fegan, 2003
d: ICMSF, 1996
4. Red meat chilling, transportation and further processing
Beef, pork, and lamb carcasses must be chilled immediately after slaughter and dressing to ensure
quality and safety. A summary flow diagram for chilling, transportation and further processing of red
meat carcasses is provided in Figure 2. The first 24 hours post-mortem are critical in determining the
quality and palatability of red meat. The biochemical processes and structural changes that occur in
this period are greatly influenced by the chilling regimes used. For beef and lamb, temperature profiles
that minimize cold shortening are employed that typically ensure the core temperature does not
decrease below 10 °C in the first 10 hours. For pork, a more rapid chilling process is used to prevent
the formation of pale, soft exudative (PSE) meat. A description of the different chilling methods is
provided in chapter 5.
In red meat commercial slaughter houses, carcasses are placed in the chilling unit immediately after
slaughter where they usually remain for 48-72 hours before being moved to the boning hall. Hot or
warm boning is allowed under certain conditions. Although it has many advantages including;
increased yield, reduced costs and less requirement for chiller space (Pisula and Tyburcy, 1996; Rees
et al, 2002; Seifert et al. 2004), it is rarely used in Europe. This has been attributed to concerns
regarding reduced shelf-life and the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria in subsequently vacuum
packaged meat (Yang et al., 2011). The surface of boned beef cuts from conventionally chilled
carcasses decreases to 8 °C or less within a few hours. In contrast, hot boned and vacuum packaged
meat may have a surface temperature of up to 25 °C for several hours, supporting the proliferation of
spoilage and pathogenic organisms (Sheridan and Sherington, 1982).
The duration of carcasses in the chilling units may be extended beyond 72 hours to improve the
quality of the meat, a process referred to as natural conditioning or aging. This is achieved through
changes in the proteins around the muscle fibres and connective tissue due to the action of natural
enzymes within the meat. For beef, ageing might require up to six weeks which may take place during
carcass chilling and/or when the vacuum packed primals (pieces of meat separated from the carcass
during deboning) are stored under refrigerated conditions. Electrical stimulation is used primarily to
avoid cold shortening in beef and lamb carcasses but also contributes to faster tenderisation. Electrical
stimulation is often performed by low voltage stimulation (40V – 100V lasting for more than 30
seconds) on the slaughter line or by high voltage stimulation (often up to 1000V and even higher
lasting for 30 – 90 seconds) (Nazli et al., 2010) in a separate section after the slaughter and dressing
(Aalhus et al., 1994; Nazli et al., 2010; Rashid et al., 1983). Tenderisation may also be achieved by
injection of salt and polyphosphates or massaging in a drum, as is used with pork (Warriss, 2010).

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 15
Slaughter &
dressing
Chilling /
aging
Boning
Primals-vacuum
packed & chilled
storage / ageing
Transport
Trimmings
Mince
Transport
Transport
Transport
Figure 2: Summary flow diagram for conventional chilling, transportation and further processing of
red meat carcasses
While the primary chillers are usually located at the end of the slaughter-line, in some instances the
carcasses may be transported to other chilling units where aging takes place. If the boning hall is not
attached to or located adjacent to the slaughterhouse, transportation may also take place between the
chilling and boning stages. In the boning hall, which operates at a maximum temperature of 12 °C, the
carcass is deboned, the different muscles are removed, cut into primals and usually vacuum packaged.
This process produces trimmings that may be minced immediately but are usually stored chilled or
frozen before transportation to another meat processing operation such as burger manufacture. The
vacuum packaged primals are stored at temperatures of 0 to 4 °C for periods of up to 6 weeks before
being transported to retail customers.
5. Review of chilling methods and effect on temperature profile
The principles of mechanical refrigeration date back to around 1750 and within 100 years commercial
scale equipment was in use in the food industry. After slaughter and dressing, red meat carcasses are at
the optimum temperature for the growth of pathogenic and spoilage organisms. It is therefore essential
that they be chilled to temperatures that retard growth. Chilling is also critical for appearance and
eating quality. Most carcasses are refrigerated using a system based on forced convection air chilling.
Reducing the temperature and/or increasing the air velocity increase the chilling rate and enhances
carcass drying both of which retard the growth or pathogenic and spoilage organisms (Ockerman and
Basu, 2004). However, if beef and lamb carcasses are chilled too quickly cold shortening and
toughening of the meat occurs. Super-chilling, is performed at -1 °C to -2 °C and in this process the
water content in the food is partially frozen before ice distribution equilibrates and a uniform
temperature is achieved throughout the product. This technology is almost exclusively used in the fish
industry in Europe although there is increasing interest in its application for prolonged meat storage
(Schubring, 2009).
5.1. Air chilling
Air chilling is commonly used in the meat and poultry industries (James and James, 2004).
Immediately after slaughter and dressing, carcasses are mechanically pulled or pushed into large
insulated chilling rooms on connecting rails. When the chilling room is full, the doors are closed and
the carcasses are chilled for a predetermined time. Cold refrigerated air is produced by evaporator
coils positioned above the chill rooms. Within each coil, a low pressure liquid evaporates using heat
extracted from the surrounding medium. The gas from this evaporator coil is then compressed and the
high pressure gas, often referred to as „hot gas‟, is passed through another coil referred to as a
„condenser coil‟ where it condenses releasing heat. It then passes through an expansion valve back into
the evaporator coil. In this system fans serve a dual function of pushing air over the evaporator coils
and distributing the subsequently chilled air throughout the chill room. As the chilled air comes in

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 16
contact with the surface of the carcasses the meat cools and the air increases in temperature. This
warmed air is then returned to the evaporator coil to be re-chilled.
5.2. Spray chilling
Spray chilling operates on the same principle as air chilling except potable water is chilled by passage
between the evaporator coils before being applied to the carcasses as a fine spray. It is primarily used
in the poultry industry where it is both hygienic and economical (James and James, 2004), but may
also be used in beef, pork and lamb plants (Brown et al., 1993; Brown and James, 1992). Chilling
using a spray system is faster than using air as applying water directly onto the carcasses improves
chilling rates through evaporative cooling. It also prevents carcass shrinkage as the water applied
replaces water lost through evaporation (Gigiel et al., 1989). In contrast, post-mortem shrinkage of up
to 2% has been reported during the initial 24 h of conventional air chilling of beef, pork and lamb
carcasses (Greer and Jones, 1997). This advantage may however be lost as there is some evidence of
increased purge loss in spray chilled beef sides after 15 days of vacuum pack storage (Allen et al.,
1987). Spray chilling systems do not operate on a continuous basis as this would require very large
volumes of chilled water (estimated to be 12 l per bird in the case of poultry chilling). They rely
instead on intermittent sprays typically at 5 and 15 minutes after the start of air chilling that is repeated
on four or five occasions for up to 3 to 8 h post-slaughter depending on the carcass type (Hoppe et al.,
1991).
5.3. Rapid chilling
Rapid chilling also referred to as „ultra-rapid‟, „fast/very fast‟, „extreme‟ „blast‟ and „accelerated air‟
chilling, occurs at temperature as low as -35 °C and may be used to achieve the regulatory requirement
of 7 °C or lower core temperature before moving the carcass to the boning hall. Very fast chilling may
be defined as achieving a carcass temperature of -1 °C within 5h post-mortem (Aalhus et al., 2002).
Rapid chilling offers many advantages including a reduction in labour as well as the costs associated
with materials, chilling and storage (Mallikarjunan and Mittal, 1996). It also facilitates increased
product turnover while overcoming peak load, drip and evaporative loss problems. In practice it may
be difficult to achieve because of the low thermal conductivity in carcasses.
There is conflicting evidence about the effect of rapid chilling on carcass quality. When used in beef,
research by Joseph (1996) suggested rapid chilling resulted in considerable toughening of the meat.
Similar observations have been reported with lamb (Watt and Herring, 1974) and pork (Reagan and
Honikel, 1985). In contrast, Bowling et al. (1987) used rapid chilling to produce beef that was more
tender and more juicy than conventionally chilled sides. Shrinkage was also reduced by 0.9% during
the first 24h post-mortem. Sheridan (1990) reported that ultra-rapid chilling of lamb at air
temperatures of -20 °C for 3-5 h with an air speed of 1.5 m/s produced tender loins after 7 days of
storage.
5.4. Secondary chilling
Red meat boning halls and poultry cutting rooms typically operate at temperatures of up to 12 °C.
During boning/cutting the surface temperature of the meat increases and secondary chilling is
required. This secondary chilling is usually achieved using air based refrigeration systems and is often
more efficient than primary chilling because the products start at a lower temperature and are much
smaller than the carcasses from which they were derived.
5.5. Chilling methods as applied to beef, pork and lamb
In general, immersion chilling is the fastest method for reducing the temperature of carcasses,
followed by spray (sometimes referred to as evaporative) chilling and air chilling but only air and
spray chilling are used in commercial red meat plants.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 17
Immersion chilling is not suitable for use in the red meat industry where air and to a lesser extent
spray systems are applied. With beef, pork and lamb carcasses other factors, in addition to chilling
method, influence the rate of temperature decline. These include size, shape, fat content, initial carcass
temperature, relative humidity and airflow (Smulders et al., 1992). Spray chilling has been used in the
initial stages of beef carcass refrigeration in the USA since the 1980s. Applying water to the carcasses
substantially increases the rate of carcass temperature decline as compared to air chilling as the rates
of heat transfer are increased due to the evaporation of the added water (James, 1996). Jones and
Robertson (1988) reported that M. semimembranosus and M. longissimus dorsi in beef carcasses had
consistently lower muscle temperatures (by 1-2 °C) when spray chilled as compared to conventional
air chilling. This effect was most enhanced in the former, as muscles in the round are closer to the
spray source. Lee et al. (1990) reported a similar observation while Jones and Robertson (1988)
suggested this effect was further enhanced when the muscle had a relatively thin fat cover. Similar
observations have been reported with lamb carcasses (Brown et al., 1993).
The bacterial load on carcasses may increase, decrease or remain the same as a result of air chilling
(Lenahan et al., 2010). The effect of other chilling systems is similarly unclear as there are conflicting
reports on the effect of air versus spray chilling on the microbial status of red meat carcasses. Greer
and Dilts (1988) observed increased bacterial growth with spray systems but Hamby et al. (1987) and
Kinsella et al., (2006) suggest water sprays do not affect total viable count (TVC), total
Enterobacteriaceae count (TEC) or total coliform count (TCC).
The rate of temperature reduction directly affects the quality and palatability of red meat. Beef and
lamb carcasses are usually subjected to controlled chilling where the pH, temperature and time are
monitored to ensure cold shortening does not occur. Thus beef carcasses are typically chilled in air at 2
°C to 4 °C with an air velocity of less that 1 m s-1
and a relative humidity greater than 80% and are
aged for 5-21 days. Alternatively the first 10 h chilling may be performed at higher temperatures if
required to prevent cold shortening. Data provided by a commercial export beef plant was reviewed by
the BIOHAZ Panel and considered representative of the chilling regimes used in the European beef
industry (see Appendix B). This showed the ambient temperature in the chillers was approximately 11
°C for the first 10 hours, thereafter decreasing to approximately 1.5 °C to 3 °C. Using this regime the
surface temperature decreased from 25.2 °C to 11.4 °C after 10 h; to 2.9 °C after 24h and to 1.6 °C
after 36 h, thereafter remaining at that temperature. The corresponding deep round temperatures were
39.2 °C upon entering the chiller, 21.7 °C after 10 h; 8.6 °C after 24 h; 4.57 °C after 36 h and 2.9 °C
after 48h. Nagy et al. (2008) reported that it took 15 to 17 h for beef carcasses (thigh muscle) to reach
7 °C at an average chill room temperature of 3.6 °C to 3.9 °C.
At an average air temperature of 1.3 °C the surface and thigh muscle temperatures of conventionally
chilled lamb reached 8.8 °C and 13.8 °C after 3 hours; 4.7 °C and 7 °C after 6 h and 1.9 °C and 2.2 °C
after 9 hours (data provided by commercial slaughterhouses and reviewed by the BIOHAZ Panel-see
Appendix B ).
In contrast, a more rapid chilling process is required for pork. To prevent the development of pale,
soft, exudative (PSE) meat, internal muscle temperatures of 10 °C at 12 hours and 2-4 °C at 24 h are
recommended. Nagy et al. (2008) reported that it took from 7 h and 55 min (average chill temperature
of 0.6 °C) to 16 h and 13 minutes (average chill temperature of 5.5 °C) for pork (thigh muscle) to
reach the same target of 7 °C. In some pork plants blast chilling is used at the start of the chilling cycle
for approximately 1 h. During this process the ambient temperature can be lower than -20 °C. Under
these conditions the surface temperature may reach 0 to 1 °C. However, as the air speed is reduced to
normal conventional chilling rates, the ambient temperature can increase to 5 °C with a concomitant
increase in the carcass surface to 10 °C or 12 °C (Nesbakken et al., 2008).
Although not generally used, very fast (-20 to -35 °C), ultra rapid (-20 °C with an air velocity of 1.5m
s-1) and accelerated (-32 °C for 100 minutes) chilling have been tested with beef, lamb and pork
carcasses, respectively (Ockerman and Basu, 2004). Very fast chilling improved the tenderness of beef
carcasses after 6 days with a significant reduction in chill loss, a slower rate of pH decline and an

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 18
increased perception of marbling. However, the meat was darker in colour and drip loss increased.
Ultra rapid chilling of lamb carcasses produced meat as tender as conventionally air chilled carcasses
while rapid chilling of pork carcasses reduced drip loss without affecting tenderness.
5.6. Chilling capacity of transport vehicles
There are major differences in the quality of transport vehicles for carcasses and meat in Europe,
especially in terms of cooling capacity regarding transport over short distances. However, vehicles
used for long distance transport in Europe usually have a good chilling capacity. Thus it is interesting
to compare the chilling effect of a chilling cell in the slaughterhouse with the chilling effect of a
modern vehicle used for long distance transport. One standard vehicle with a volume of 90 m3
is able
to transport approximately 75 beef carcasses or 300 pig carcasses (about 20 – 22 tons). These vehicles
are usually equipped with a refrigeration unit with a capacity of 15 kW providing airflow with about
60 changes per hour. A typical slaughterhouse chilling cell for 75 beef carcasses has a refrigeration
unit with an output of approximately 50 kW providing airflow with about 200 changes per hour. Based
on these data the chilling effect in a chilling cell in the slaughterhouse is about three times higher
compared to the effect of chilling in a modern transport vehicle, but there is usually enough capacity to
continue chilling during transport. A temperature decrease of approximately 1o
C decrease (core
temperature) per hour can be achieved during transportation. The chilling effect is lower in periods
when the vehicle is stationary and the system runs by electricity. If the vehicle is using the internal
battery the capacity is about 50 % of the capacity when the vehicle is on the road, and a core
temperature decrease of the carcass will not be achieved.
The effect of chilling during transport of carcasses was investigated in a study from the early nineties
(Frøystein et al., 1992). The study comprised a total of 165 transports divided into 61 shipments of
sheep and lambs, 36 shipments of cattle and 68 shipments of pigs. The range of the core temperature
of the carcasses before loading of the truck was 10 - 20o
C. The transportation was carried out by
vehicles designed for longer transportation and 13 different transport companies were represented. The
carcasses were transported from nine slaughterhouses to nine facilities with cutting operations. The
study showed that transport of all three animal species can be carried out in a way that ensures
efficient cooling of the carcasses, with a continuous temperature decrease during transport. The main
conclusion was that the core temperatures of the carcasses were 7 °C or lower 24 hours after slaughter
of sheep / pigs and 48 hours after slaughter of cattle even if the core temperature was approximately
20 °C during the loading of the vehicles. This finding confirms that the chilling capacity is high in
modern transport vehicles designed for long distance haulage (Appendix B). Modern transport
vehicles also have equipment for continuous measurement of temperature in the front and the back of
the vehicle. Accordingly the temperatures are often logged during transport and these data are used for
HACCP verification.
6. Modelling
6.1. Pathogen growth
Growth of pathogens during carcass chilling and transportation was estimated based on available
secondary models predicting the growth rate of Salmonella spp., VTEC, L. monocytogenes and Y.
enterocolitica. For VTEC, the model of Ross et al. (2003) for Escherichia coli was used assuming a
similar kinetic behaviour of this organism to VTEC. The selection of this model was based on the fact
The minimum temperatures for growth was assumed to be 7.0 °C for Salmonella spp. and VTEC,
1.0 °C for L. monocytogenes and -1.0 °C for Y. enterocolitica. Growth of the pathogens was calculated
by introducing the estimated growth rate from the secondary model to a primary model (Baranyi and
Roberts, 1994), assuming no lag phase, N0=0 log CFU/cm2
and Nmax=8 log CFU/cm2
. Growth rates
decline with temperature and based on the chilling curves, growth rates were estimated every 10
minutes using the secondary model. The mean growth rate in each time interval was used to estimate
the growth in that time interval and the total growth was the sum growth of all time intervals during
chilling. The models and the assumed environmental conditions used in the growth predictions for the
different pathogens are shown in Table 2. The assumption for the lag phase absence, together with the

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 19
assumed high aw, and pH as well as no competition from other meat bacterial flora represents
conditions that are favourable for the growth of the target pathogens and results in an over-estimation
of growth. Moreover, since the approach used is based on the comparison of temperature scenarios
this is not expected to affect the results and conclusions. The secondary models included in the
ComBase modelling toolbox were used for the rest of the pathogens.
Table 2: Models predicting the growth rate (secondary models) and the assumed environmental
conditions used in the growth predictions
Model Sourcea
Model type Temperature
Rangeb
(o
C)
pH
(meat)
aw
(meat)
Total lactic
acid mMc
Salmonella spp. ComBase Polynomial 7.0-40.0 6.5 0.993 Not included
Escherichia coli Ross et al.,
2003
Square root 7.63-47.43 6.5 0.993 51.7
Listeria
monocytogenes
ComBase Polynomial 1.0-40.0 6.5 0.993 51.7
Yersinia
enterocolitica
ComBase Polynomial -1.0-37.0 6.5 0.993 Not included
a: see details in Appendix C
b: Temperature range used for the development of the model
c: Naturally occurring
6.2. Development of baseline scenarios
In order to model the growth of Salmonella spp., E. coli (VTEC), L. monocytogenes and Y.
enterocolitica, a surface temperature-time baseline scenario that represents the current situation had to
be developed for each meat species. Based on the requirements in the current legislation, each baseline
scenario consisted of two stages; chilling in the slaughterhouse and chilling during transport. The
baseline scenarios were taken to represent a situation where carcasses remain in the chilling room until
the core temperature reaches 7 C and are then transported at a constant surface temperature for 48
hours. The mean baseline is the calculated mean surface temperature profile during chilling in the
slaughterhouse to a core temperature of 7 C and transportation at a constant surface temperature of
4 C for 48 hours. The worst case scenario baseline is the calculated “worst case surface temperature
profile” (see Appendix A) during chilling in the slaughterhouse to a core temperature of 7 C and
transportation at a surface temperature of 7 C for 48 hours. The „worst case scenario‟ baseline was
developed based on worst case surface temperature profiles, i.e. a subset of temperature profiles that
would support most bacterial growth (see Appendix A).
6.2.1. General description
Data on carcass surface temperatures during chilling was limited and the approaches taken to develop
the baseline scenarios were slightly different for the different species due to the type and amount of
input data that was available. In general, data on the distribution (or mean, minimum and maximum)
of initial surface temperatures, chilling times and final temperatures were extracted from scientific
articles and fitted to probability distributions using the @Risk Best fit function, version 6.1.2 (Palisade
Corporation, 2013). The distribution with best fit to the time temperature data was selected based on
the root mean squared error. Based on the resulting distributions of surface temperatures and times ,
surface temperatures at different times were simulated for each animal species to obtain data
representing surface temperature change during chilling.
For beef and lamb, data or subsets of the simulated data were used for fitting an exponential decay
equation to obtain mean and worst-case scenarios of current chilling in terms of surface temperatures.
T=T0*e-k*t
Where T=surface temperature, T0= surface temperature at time 0, i.e. when chilling starts, and
t=time.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 20
For pork data from 42 French slaughterhouses were fitted to a modified exponential decay function
(Anses, 2014):
T = Ta + (T0-Ta) * e-k*t
Where Ta is the asymptotic final temperature and the other parameters are as described above.
The models were fitted to the data using the nonlinear least squares (nls) method for non-linear curve
fitting included in the R statistical and modelling software (R Core Team, 2013). The time it takes to
reach a core temperature of 7 C was estimated based on the scientific literature and available
observations from slaughterhouses. During transport the baseline surface temperatures were assumed
to be 7 or 4 C during the whole of transportation. These temperatures are compliant with the
legislation regarding transport of red meat and were taken to represent worst case and mean
temperature scenarios.
A description of the data and limitations involved in developing baseline scenarios, and a summary of
the specific baseline-scenarios are provided below. A detailed description of the development, i.e.
input data, fitted distributions, simulated data and curve fitting, can be found in Appendix A.
6.2.2. Description of data/limitations
Current legislation is based on core temperatures and very few data are available on carcass surface
temperature decline during chilling. In addition, a number of different chilling curves are compliant
with the current legislation making the selection of baseline curves to some extent arbitrary.
Comparing a new scenario with a baseline reflecting a slow chilling process during which much
growth may occur will be less conservative than using a rapid chilling curve, with less growth, as the
baseline scenario.
To develop chilling curves representing chilling in the slaughterhouse, data on the chilling of beef and
lamb in Canadian slaughterhouses was used. For beef chilling, data from Gill and Landers (2003) was
used representing the results of chilling 25 carcasses from each of four different plants. Additional
data used was from Jericho et al. (1998), representing chilling of a total of 56 beef carcasses in two
different chillers. For lamb chilling, data from Gill and Jones (1997) was used representing results of
chilling 25 carcasses from one plant. The issue of how well Canadian data represent the current
situation in different EU member states introduces uncertainty into the assessment. However,
Canadian legislation stipulates immediate and continuous cooling of the carcass until it reaches a
surface temperature of 7 C or less within 24 hours of the end of carcass dressing (Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, 2013). In addition, to evaluate the realism of the chilling curves developed based
on these data, baseline scenarios were compared with individual observed carcass surface temperature
data from the meat industry in Europe, specifically Ireland and Norway (Appendix B), the Netherlands
(TNO, 2013) and France (Anses, 2014). For beef and lamb, both comparisons of observed chilling
curves with developed baseline chilling curves and estimated E. coli growth based on the baseline
curves suggested that the selected scenarios were realistic (Appendix A Figure 1). For instance,
estimated E. coli growth on a beef carcass based on data in the Dutch study (TNO, 2013) was 1.68 log
CFU/cm2
. This is intermediate between growth estimated in our mean (0.95 log CFU/cm2
) and worst
case (2.34 log CFU/cm2
) baseline chilling curves, respectively. Thus, it was concluded that, for the
purpose of the assessment, the chilling curves in the baseline scenarios were appropriate for use. For
pork, data was available on carcass surface temperatures representing 42 carcasses from five French
slaughterhouses (Anses, 2014). These data were used to develop a mean and worst-case pork chilling
baseline. The issues of uncertainty in the data were addressed by framing the range of baselines using
mean and worst-case baseline scenarios.
In the new scenarios, loading carcasses from the slaughterhouse before the core temperature is below
7 C, the capacity of chilling during transport is crucial for the safety of the whole process. Data
describing chilling rates during transport were not available. A report from 1992 indicated that, at least

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 21
in Norway, it was possible to perform adequate chilling during transport (Frøystein et al., 1992). Since
the rate of chilling during transport could not be estimated, the baseline scenarios assumed constant
temperatures and times of transport. As was done for the slaughterhouse stage, uncertainty was
addressed by assuming a mean and a worst-case surface temperature of 4 and 7 C, respectively. The
chilling capacity during transport is an important knowledge gap and may vary widely between
producers as well as between MS.
For modelling of surface temperature chilling curves in the baselines it was decided to use a constant
initial surface temperature, T0, which was estimated by fitting the model to all the data. This decision
was based on observations of results from trials where values were fixed at only the higher observed
initial temperatures. These trials resulted in estimated higher chilling rates than would have been
achieved if using all data. This would therefore result in more rapid chilling curves and a less
conservative baseline scenario. Another alternative was also evaluated, i.e. using the higher initial
observed temperatures together with the chilling rates, k, estimated based on all the data. However,
this would also result in more estimated growth during baseline chilling and thus, also to a less
conservative baseline scenario. In addition, uncertainties introduced by the data gaps presented above
were also addressed by using conservative assumptions for growth estimations, i.e. no lag-phase, and
favourable pH and aw and by not considering potential inactivation due to drying.
6.2.3. Summary of baseline scenarios
The resulting baseline scenarios consisted of two stages; chilling in the slaughterhouse and chilling
during transport. Two baseline scenarios were evaluated; a mean (average) scenario and a worst-case
baseline scenario, respectively. Comparisons of growth during new alternative scenarios would likely
over-estimate growth as favourable conditions of pH and aw for bacterial growth were assumed and
without an initial lag period or competition from other microflora. The equations describing the
carcass surface temperature over time in the slaughterhouse, the time it takes to reach a core
temperature of 7 C, and the carcass surface temperature during the 48 hour transport for the two
baseline scenarios are shown in table 3.
Table 3: Summary of the baseline scenarios for beef, lamb and pork in terms of the equations
describing surface temperature decline with time, and the time to reach a core temperature of 7 C
(time in slaughterhouse) and the temperature during the 48 hour transport.
Mean baseline scenario Worst case baseline scenario
Species Surface
Temperature
during chilling
( C)
Time to core
temperature of
7 C during
chilling in
slaughterhouse
(hours)
Surface
temperature
during 48
hour
transport
Surface
Temperature
during chilling
( C)
Time to core
temperature of
7 C during
chilling in
slaughterhouse
(hours)
Surface
temperature
during 48
hour
transport
Beef 26.3*e-0.173*t
26.6 4 25.8*e-0.069*t
27.3 7
Lamb ND ND ND 26.2*e-0.091*t
21.5 7
Pig 4.2 + (12.1-
4.2)*e-0.105*t
19.3 4 6.2 + (18.3-
6.2)*e-0.105*t
27.5 7
ND: not defined
6.3. Development of alternative scenarios
Growth is estimated for situations where carcasses are removed from the chilling room before a core
temperature of 7 C is reached and transported at various constant surface temperatures (between 5-
10 C) for different transportation times. The alternative scenarios evaluated are different
combinations of surface temperatures achieved at the end of slaughterhouse chilling and transportation

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 22
surface temperatures. A temperature range from 5 C to 10 C for both the surface temperature at the
end of chilling and during transportation describe a set of realistic scenarios.
6.4. Results for answering TOR 1
As microbial contamination occurs predominantly on the surface of the carcass, the surface
temperature and not the core temperature will influence bacterial growth. Figures 3-8 show the
predicted growth of the selected pathogens on pork and beef during chilling together with
representative profiles of surface and core temperatures. Early removal for transport loading of the
carcass at any core temperature above the limit of 7 C , i.e. at times before the core temperature
(green line) is below 7 C (in figures 3-8), will in all cases result in less growth (red line in figures 3-8)
during chilling in the slaughterhouse compared to the scenario where the carcasses are chilled to a core
temperature of 7 C . This bacterial growth differential, at the very least, introduces the possibility that
carcasses could be removed from the slaughterhouse chiller before the core temperature of 7 °C is
reached and transported without obtaining bacterial growth in excess of that which would have been
obtained if the carcasses were left in the slaughterhouse chillers until 7 °C core was achieved.
Total bacterial growth is time-temperature depended. By reducing the time or temperature less growth
is obtained. Removing the carcasses before the core temperature of 7 °C is reached reduces the time
component. Carcass loading and transportation under proper chilled conditions (at least as effective as
the slaughterhouse chiller) will maintain the temperature component. Thus, if transport temperature
and time is controlled so that the total bacterial growth on the carcass is less or equivalent to that
achieved with the baseline scenario based on Regulation (EC) 853/2004, it is possible to apply
alternative chilling regimes.
For example, for a beef carcass remaining in the chilling room for 30 hours to reach a core
temperature of 7 C, the estimated growth of E. coli during this period is 1.50 log CFU/cm2
(Figure 3).
In the case where the chilling period is reduced to 18 hours (to a core temperature of 15 C) the
estimated growth is 1.45 log CFU/cm2
. In this example, the potential growth during transport cannot
be greater than 0.05 (1.50 – 1.45) log CFU /cm2
to be equivalent to growth achieved with the baseline
scenario based on Regulation (EC) 853/2004. Similarly, for a beef carcass remaining in the chilling
room until the core temperature reaches 7 C (30h), the estimated growth of L. monocytogenes is 1.9
log CFU/cm2
(Figure 5). To reach 15 C (18h) the estimated growth is 1.7 log CFU/cm2
. In this
example, the maximum growth during transport can be 0.2 log CFU/cm2
to be equivalent to estimated
growth during chilling in the slaughterhouse according to current legislation.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 23
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hours)
E.coli(Log10CFU/cm2
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Temperature(o
C)
E. coli Growth
Surface Temp.
Core Temp.
Figure 3: Predicted growth of E. coli (VTEC) on beef carcasses kept in the chilling room until core
temperature reaches 7 C (commercial beef slaughterhouse data). Growth of E. coli was predicted
using the secondary model of Ross et al., 2003 (assuming pH=6.5, aw=0.993 and lactic acid
concentration=51.7mM) and the primary model of Baranyi and Roberts (1994) assuming no lag phase.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hours)
Salmonella(Log10CFU/cm
2
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Temperature(o
C)
Salmonella Growth
Surface Temperature
Core Temperature
Figure 4: Predicted growth of Salmonella spp. on beef carcasses kept in the chilling room until core
temperature reaches 7 C (commercial beef slaughterhouse data). Growth of Salmonella spp. was
predicted using Combase secondary model (assuming pH=6.5, aw=0.993) and the primary model of
Baranyi and Roberts (1994) assuming no lag phase.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 24
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hours)
L.monocytogenes(Log10CFU/cm
2
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Temperature(o
C)
L. monocytogenes Growth
Surface Temperature
Core Temperature
Figure 5: Predicted growth of L. monocytogenes on beef carcasses kept in the chilling room until
core temperature reaches 7 C (commercial beef slaughterhouse data). Growth of L. monocytogenes
was predicted using Combase secondary model (assuming pH=6.5, aw=0.993) and the primary model
of Baranyi and Roberts (1994) assuming no lag phase.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hours)
E.coli(Log10CFU/cm
2
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Temperature(o
C)
E. coli Growth
Surface Temperature
Core Temperature
Figure 6: Predicted growth of E. coli (VTEC) on pork carcasses kept in the chilling room until core
temperature reaches 7 C. Growth of E. coli was predicted using the secondary model of Ross et al.,
2003 (assuming pH=6.5, aw=0.993 and lactic acid concentration=51.7mM) and the primary model of
Baranyi and Roberts (1994) assuming no lag phase

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 25
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hours)
Salmonella(Log10CFU/cm2
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Temperature(o
C)
Salmonella Growth
Surface Temperature
Core Temperature
Figure 7: Predicted growth of Salmonella spp. on pork carcasses kept in the chilling room until core
temperature reaches 7 C. Growth of Salmonella spp. was predicted using the Combase secondary
model (assuming pH=6.5, aw=0.993 and lactic acid concentration=51.7mM) and the primary model of
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hours)
Y.enterocolitica(Log10CFU/cm
2
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Temperature(o
C)
Y. enterocolitica Growth
Core Temperature
Surface Temperature
Figure 8: Predicted growth of Y. enterocolitica on pork carcasses kept in the chilling room until core
temperature reaches 7 C. Growth of Y. enterocolitica was predicted using the Combase secondary
model (assuming pH=6.5, aw=0.993 and lactic acid concentration=51.7mM) and the primary model of

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 26
6.4.1. Concluding remarks TOR 1
As microbial contamination occurs at the surface of the carcass, the surface temperature was used to
assess the bacterial growth potential.
It is possible to apply alternative carcass chilling regimes in the slaughter plant and during
transportation, other than those required to achieve a target core temperature of 7 C in the slaughter
plant before transportation, without increasing the microbial growth of potentially harmful organisms.
This is possible because bacterial growth, and associated potential risk, is related not only to the
chilling time and temperature operated in the slaughterhouse but also to the chilling time and
temperatures during transport and storage. It is therefore possible to control transport temperature and
time to have equivalent or less growth to that obtained with the baseline scenario based on Regulation
(EC) 853/2004. If at this stage there is no additional growth, the final consumer exposure will not be
affected and accordingly the risk will remain equivalent to the practices described in the current
regulation.
6.5. Results for answering TOR 2
The growth of the selected pathogens at various alternative scenarios defined by different
combinations of chilling and transportation duration and temperatures was assessed and compared to
two baseline scenarios (mean and worst case) for each animal species. For comparison, growth was
expressed as Log10 CFU/cm2
.
6.5.1. Growth of pathogens during carcass chilling in the slaughterhouse
The predicted growth-expressed as the difference between the final concentration and a starting point
equal to 1 CFU/cm2
of selected pathogens during beef carcass chilling using the mean and the worst
case temperature chilling profiles is presented in Tables 4 and 5. The growth during the time required
for the carcass core temperature to reach 7 C (current regulation) ranged from 0.95 to 3.03 log
CFU/cm2
for the different pathogens. In general, the growth of L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica
was higher as compared to Salmonella spp. and E. coli (VTEC) due to their ability to grow at low
temperatures. The predicted growth for the worst case temperature profile was almost double
compared to the mean baseline scenario.
The current regulation referring to a core temperature target of 7 C before the carcasses leave the
chilling room was compared to alternative targets for surface temperature ranging from 5 to 10 C.
The results showed that the growth of the pathogens for the alternative surface temperature targets was
always equal to or lower than that predicted when the beef carcasses were chilled to a core
temperature of 7 °C. As above, this was due to reducing the time component. A similar outcome was
obtained with pork (Tables 6 and 7) and lamb (Table 8) carcasses.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 27
6.5.1.1. Results for beef carcasses
Table 4: Predicted growth (log10 CFU/cm2
) for selected pathogens during beef carcass chilling
based on the calculated mean temperature chilling profile. The time required for the carcass core
temperature to reach 7 C (current regulation) is compared to the time required for the surface to reach
temperatures from 5 to 10 C.
Growth (Log10 CFU/cm2
)
Chilling temperature limit Salmonella spp. E .coli (VTEC) L. monocytogenes Y. enterocolitica
Bacterial growth on the carcass when
chilled to a core temperature of 7 °C
(26.6 hours)
1.00 0.95 1.14 1.57
Surface T ( C) Time in chiller
(hours)
5 9.7 1.00 0.95 1.02 1.17
6 8.5 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.13
7 7.7 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.09
8 6.8 0.98 0.94 0.95 1.04
9 6.2 0.97 0.93 0.93 1.01
10 5.6 0.95 0.91 0.89 0.96
) for selected pathogens during beef carcass chilling
based on the calculated worst case temperature chilling profile. The time required for the carcass core
)
Chilling temperature limit Salmonella spp. E. coli (VTEC) L. monocytogenes Y. enterocolitica
(27.3 hours)
2.44 2.32 2.59 3.03
(hours)
5 24.9 2.44 2.32 2.53 2.90
6 21.2 2.44 2.32 2.47 2.80
7 19.0 2.44 2.32 2.41 2.69
8 17.0 2.41 2.31 2.34 2.58
9 15.2 2.37 2.28 2.27 2.47
10 13.8 2.33 2.24 2.19 2.36
Tables 6-8 present the predicted growth of the selected pathogens for pork and lamb carcasses. As
expected, the rate of temperature decrease for these species was faster compared to beef carcasses due
to their smaller size. As a result the predicted growth of the selected pathogens was in general lower.
The trends however, for both species were similar to beef carcasses.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 28
6.5.1.2. Results for pork carcasses
) for selected pathogens during pork carcass chilling
based on the calculated mean temperature chilling profile. The time required for the carcass core
)
(19.3 hours)
0.28 0.24 0.71 1.11
(hours)
5 21.2 0.28 0.24 0.71 1.11
6 14.2 0.28 0.24 0.59 0.90
7 9.8 0.28 0.24 0.47 0.69
8 8.0 0.23 0.21 0.37 0.53
9 4.8 0.18 0.17 0.28 0.39
10 3.0 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.26
) for selected pathogens during pork carcass chilling
temperatures from 5 to10 C.
)
(27.5 hours)
1.19 1.17 1.70 2.29
(hours)
5 >27.5 1.19 1.15 1.70 2.29
6 >27.5 1.19 1.15 1.70 2.29
7 26.2 1.18 1.15 1.66 2.22
8 18.0 1.05 1.07 1.39 1.79
9 14.0 0.96 1.00 1.21 1.52
10 11.0 0.87 0.92 1.06 1.30

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 29
6.5.1.3. Results for lamb carcasses
) for selected pathogens during lamb carcass chilling
)
chilled to a core temperature of 7 °C (21.5
hours)
1.93 1.84 2.03 2.36
Surface T ( C) Time in chiller (hours)
5 18.2 1.93 1.83 1.97 2.25
6 16.2 1.93 1.83 1.92 2.17
7 14.5 1.92 1.82 1.88 2.09
8 13.0 1.90 1.81 1.82 2.00
9 11.8 1.87 1.79 1.77 1.93
10 10.5 1.84 1.76 1.73 1.85
6.5.2. Growth of pathogens during transportation
The predicted growth of selected pathogens during carcass transportation with various surface
temperatures and for various transportation times is presented in Tables 9 (Salmonella spp.), 10 (E.
coli (VTEC)), 11 (L. monocytogenes) and 12 (Y. enterocolitica). For Salmonella spp. and VTEC, the
predicted growth at 10 °C after 48 hours was 1.61 and 1.54 log cfu/cm2
, respectively. The predicted
growth of L. monocytogenes using the same time-temperature combination was 2.61 log cfu/cm2
.
Table 9: Predicted growth of Salmonella spp. during carcass transportation with various surface
temperature and times.
Salmonella spp.
Time (h) Surface temperature (°C)
5 6 7 8 9 10
Log10 CFU/cm2
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03
2 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.07
3 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.10
6 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
12 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.31 0.40
24 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.49 0.63 0.81
48 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.97 1.26 1.61

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 30
Table 10: Predicted growth of E. coli (VTEC) during carcass transportation with various surface
temperatures and times.
E. coli (VTEC)
Time (h) Surface temperature ( °C)
5 6 7 8 9 10
Log10 CFU/cm2
1 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
2 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06
3 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.10
6 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.19
12 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.27 0.39
24 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.34 0.53 0.77
48 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.67 1.06 1.54
Table 11: Predicted growth of L. monocytogenes during carcass transportation with various surface
L. monocytogenes
Time (h)
Surface temperature (°C)
5 6 7 8 9 10
Log10 CFU/cm2
1 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05
2 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.11
3 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.16
6 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.33
12 0.25 0.31 0.38 0.46 0.55 0.65
24 0.51 0.62 0.75 0.91 1.09 1.31
48 1.01 1.24 1.51 1.82 2.19 2.61
Table 12: Predicted growth of Y. enterocolitica during carcass transportation with various surface
Y. enterocolitica
Time (h) Surface temperature (°C)
5 6 7 8 9 10
Log10 CFU/cm2
1 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
2 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
3 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.23
6 0.23 0.27 0.31 0.36 0.41 0.47
12 0.46 0.54 0.62 0.71 0.82 0.93
24 0.93 1.08 1.24 1.43 1.64 1.86
48 1.86 2.16 2.49 2.86 3.27 3.73
6.5.3. Comparison between baselines and alternatives scenarios
In order to assess if it is possible to apply alternative carcass chilling regimes, other than those
mandated by current legislation Reg. (EC) 853/2004 without incurring additional bacterial growth and
increasing the potential public health risk, a comparison between the baseline temperature scenarios
representing the current situation and alternative temperature scenarios was performed. In particular
the following scenarios were tested.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 31
Baseline scenarios
Mean: Chilling of carcass at the mean estimated chilling temperature profile until the core
temperature reaches 7 °C and subsequent transportation with a surface temperature of 4 °C.
Worst case: Chilling of carcass at the worst estimated chilling temperature profile until the
core temperature reaches 7 °C and subsequent transportation with a surface temperature of
7 °C.
Alternative scenarios
Chilling of carcass until the surface temperature reaches temperatures from 5 to 10 °C and
subsequent transportation with a surface temperature of 5 to 10 °C.
The comparison allowed the estimation of transportation time for alternative chilling scenarios
required to achieve an equivalent growth of the relevant pathogens as compared to the mean and worst
baseline scenarios for beef carcasses. Only the alternative scenarios with 1 °C difference between the
carcass surface temperature at the end of chilling and the ambient transportation temperature were
evaluated assuming an instantaneous adjustment of carcass surface temperature to the ambient
transportation temperature. The latter was applied because there no temperature rate data available for
the temperature equilibrium during transportation.
The transportation times for alternative chilling scenarios required to achieve an equivalent growth of
Salmonella spp. as compared to the mean and worst baseline scenario are presented for beef, pork and
lamb carcasses in Tables 13, 14 and 15, respectively. The transportation times for equivalent growth of
E. coli (for VTEC), L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica can be found in Appendix D.
To illustrate the alternative scenarios and how these tables may be used to predict transport time-
temperature combinations that may be used with a specific carcass surface temperature (achieved in
the slaughterhouse chiller) that give equivalent pathogen growth as compared to the baseline
scenarios, an alternative scenario was selected in which a beef carcass is removed from the chilling
room when its surface temperature is 5 °C and transported with ambient temperature of 6 °C, from
Table 13, the transportation time that would give an equivalent amount of growth for L.
monocytogenes to that which would be obtained with the mean baseline scenario (chilling to a core
temperature of 7 °C and transportation at 4 °C for 48 hours) is 36.4 hours. For the same alternative
scenario the transportation time that would give an equivalent amount of growth for L. monocytogenes
as compared to the worst baseline scenario (chilling to a core temperature of 7 °C and transportation at
7 °C for 48 hours) increases to 60.7 hours (also Table 13).
By combining the results for all tested pathogens it is possible to identify alternative carcass chilling
and transportation regimes, other than those mandated by current legislation (Reg. (EC) 853/2004)
without incurring additional bacterial growth and increasing the potential public health risk.
Combinations of surface temperature of beef and pork carcasses at the end of chilling process and
maximum transportation time at various temperatures required to achieve less or equivalent growth of
all tested pathogens as compared to the mean and worst baseline scenario are presented in Tables 16-
18 for beef and in Appendix D for pork.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 32
6.5.3.1. Equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. in beef
Table 13: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. as compared to the mean and worst case baseline scenario for
beef carcasses
Target surface temperature achieved during
carcass chilling
Surface temperature during transportation
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
Growth rate (log cfu/cm2/h)
0.000 0.000 0.015 0.020 0.026 0.034
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. to mean baseline scenario:
5 °C ng ng
6 °C ng ng 0.0
7 °C ng 0.0 0.0
8 °C 1.3 1.0 0.8
9 °C 1.5 1.1 0.9
10 °C 1.9 1.5
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. to worst baseline scenario
5 °C ng ng
6 °C ng ng 48.7
7 °C ng 48.7 36.1
8 °C 50.7 37.5 29.0
9 °C 39.5 30.5 23.8
10 °C 32.0 25.0
ng: no growth at this transportation temperature

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 33
6.5.3.2. Equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. in pork
Table 14: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. as compared to the mean and worst case baseline scenario for
pork carcasses
carcass chilling
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
0 0 0.015 0.020 0.026 0.034
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. to mean baseline scenario:
5 °C ng ng
6 °C ng ng 0.0
7 °C ng 0.0 0.0
8 °C 1.3 1.0 0.8
9 °C 1.5 1.1 0.9
10 °C 1.9 1.5
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. to worst baseline scenario
5 °C
6 °C
7 °C ng 48.7 36.1
8 °C 50.7 37.5 29.0
9 °C 39.5 30.5 23.8
10 °C 32.0 25.0

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 34
6.5.3.3. Equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. in lamb
Table 15: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. as compared to the worst case baseline scenario for lamb
carcasses
carcass chilling
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
0 0 0.015 0.020 0.026 0.034
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of Salmonella spp. to worst baseline scenario:
5 °C ng ng
6 °C ng ng 48.7
7 °C ng 49.3 36.6
8 °C 50.7 37.5 29.0
9 °C 39.0 30.1 23.5
10 °C 31.3 24.4

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 35
6.5.3.4. Combined results for all tested pathogens for beef
The combined results for all tested pathogens for pork are presented in Appendix D.
Table 16: Combinations of surface temperature of beef carcasses at the end of chilling process and
maximum transportation time at 5 °C that achieve less or equivalent growth of all tested pathogens as
compared to the mean and worst case baseline scenario.
Carcass surface temperature at
the end of chilling (°C)
Maximum transportation time
(hours)
Mean baseline scenario
4 43.2
5 44.6
6 45.6
Worst case baseline scenario
4 71.6
5 74.4
6 77.3
(hours)
5 36.4
6 37.2
7 38.0
5 60.7
6 63.1
7 65.4
(hours)
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 1.3
6 48.0
7 48.0
8 49.3
6.5.4. Concluding remarks TOR 2
Predictive models for the growth of Salmonella spp., VTEC, L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica
in beef, pork and lamb carcasses were used to assess if it is possible to apply alternative carcass
chilling regimes, other than those mandated by current legislation (Reg. (EC) 853/2004) without
incurring additional bacterial growth thereby increasing the potential public health risk.
Using the data generated by the modelling exercises it is possible to estimate alternative combinations
of carcass surface temperature targets (to be obtained before transportation) with transport time-
temperature combinations that result in pathogen growth less or equivalent to that which would be
obtained with the current chilling requirements.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 36
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
General conclusions
Bacterial contamination on red meat carcasses occurs primarily on the surface. Salmonella
spp. and Y. enterocolitica are also found in lymph nodes but due to a lack of studies it is
unknown if either bacteria multiply in lymphatic tissue during carcass chilling.
Carcass surface temperature is a more relevant indicator of the effect of chilling on bacterial
growth than core temperature.
The most relevant pathogens when considering the effects of red meat carcass chilling on
bacterial growth are Salmonella spp., VTEC, L. monocytogenes, and Y. enterocolitica, based
on source, prevalence and association with serious human illness and/or their ability to grow
under chill conditions.
If there is equivalent or less bacterial growth there is no additional risk for consumer. Total
bacterial growth is affected by the continuum of chilling in the slaughter plant, during
transport, deboning, storage, retail and catering/domestic refrigeration.
It is possible to have different combinations of slaughterhouse-transportation time-temperature
chilling scenarios that result in equivalent or less bacterial growth than that obtained using the
currently mandated chilling requirements (chilling to a core temperature of 7 °C in the
slaughterhouse chillers before transportation for a maximum of 48 hours).
Reply to the terms of reference
Term of reference 1:
To assess if it is possible to apply alternative core temperatures, higher than 7 °C, in
combination with specific transport durations for the transport of meat (carcasses) after the
slaughter, without increasing significantly the risk linked to the microbiological growth of
potentially harmful microorganisms.
It is possible to apply alternative carcass chilling regimes for all animal species, other than that
mandated by current legislation (Reg. (EC) 853/2004), without incurring additional surface
bacterial growth and increasing the potential public health risk.
Carcasses from all animal species could be transported before the core temperature reaches 7
°C in the slaughterhouse chiller without increasing any food safety risk associated with
additional growth of pathogenic bacteria so long as the bacterial growth is controlled by
efficient chilling during transportation.
Term of reference 2:
To recommend, if appropriate, in relation to such risk, combinations of a maximum core
temperature for the loading of meat (carcasses) and a maximum time for transportation.
It is possible to calculate surface temperature (for the loading of meat carcasses)-
transportation time combinations that would give the equivalent amount of bacterial growth to
that which would be obtained with current chilling regimes (as mandated by Reg. (EC)
853/2004). For example, beef carcass chilling to a core temperature of 7 °C and transportation
at 4 °C for 48 hours can be replaced with the following alternative time-temperature regimes
that provides less or equal growth of pathogens;

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 37
a. carcass chilling to a surface temperature of 5 °C (10 h) and transportation at 5 °C for 45
hours;
b. carcass chilling to a surface temperature of 6 °C (9 h) and transportation at 5 °C for 46
hours;
c. carcass chilling to a surface temperature of 6 °C (9 h) and transportation at 6 °C for 37
hours;
d. carcass chilling to a surface temperature of 7 °C (8 h) and transportation at 6 °C for 38
hours;
e. carcass chilling to a surface temperature of 8 °C (7 h) and transportation at 7 °C for 1
hour;
Other equivalent scenarios are also possible.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Legislative requirements for chilling meat carcasses could be based on an assessment of the
surface temperature on the growth of key pathogens such as Salmonella spp., VTEC, L.
monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica.
Legislation could be defined in terms of process criteria (time-temperature combinations)
and/or performance criteria (pathogen growth) and the requirement that these be achieved in
the slaughterhouse before carcass loading could be removed if a process of efficient chilling
can be demonstrated (including continuous monitoring, corrective actions, etc) during
transportation and operated as part of the HACCP or GMP systems at the different stages
along the chill chain.
Data on ambient and carcass surface temperatures in slaughterhouses and during
transportation in the European Union should be collected to evaluate current commercial
chilling conditions.
Research should be undertaken to investigate if Salmonella spp. can grow in bovine and
porcine lymph nodes after slaughter and whether or not Y. enterocolitica can multiply in the
latter.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 38
REFERENCES
Aalhus JL, Jones SDM, Lutz S, Best DR and Robertson WM, 1994. The efficacy of high and low-
voltage electrical stimulation under different chilling regimes. Canadian Journal of Animal
Science, 74, 433-442.
Aalhus JL, Robertson WM, Dugan MER and Best DR, 2002. Very fast chilling of beef carcasses.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 82, 59-67.
Algino RJ, Badtram GA, Ingham BH and Ingham SC, 2009. Factors Associated with Salmonella
Prevalence on Pork Carcasses in Very Small Abattoirs in Wisconsin. Journal of Food Protection,
72, 714-721.
Allen DM, Hunt MC, Filho AL, Danler RJ and Goll SJ, 1987. Effects of spray chilling and carcass
spacing on beef carcass cooler shrink and grade factors. Journal of Animal Science, 64, 165-170.
Anses (Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l‟alimentation, de l‟environnement et du travail) 2014
Avis relatif à la sécurité et la salubrité microbiologique des carcasses de porc réfrigérées en
chambre froide puis transportées en camion frigorifique. Available at www.anses.fr
Arguello H, Carvajal A, Collazos JA, Garcia-Feliz C and Rubio P, 2012. Prevalence and serovars of
Salmonella enterica on pig carcasses, slaughtered pigs and the environment of four Spanish
slaughterhouses. Food Research International, 45, 905-912.
Baranyi J and Roberts TA, 1994. A dynamic approach to predicting bacterial growth in food.
International Journal of Food Microbiology, 23, 277-294.
Bari ML, Hossain MA, Isshiki K and Ukuku D, 2011. Behavior of Yersinia enterocolitica in Foods.
Journal of pathogens, 2011, 420732-420732.
Beales N, 2004. Adaptation of microorganisms to cold temperatures, weak acid preservatives, low pH,
and osmotic stress: A review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 3, 1-20.
Borch E, Nesbakken T and Christensen H, 1996. Hazard identification in swine slaughter with respect
to foodborne bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 30, 9-25.
Botteldoorn N, Heyndrickx M, Rijpens N, Grijspeerdt K and Herman L, 2003. Salmonella on pig
carcasses: positive pigs and cross contamination in the slaughterhouse. Journal of Applied
Microbiology, 95, 891-903.
Bouvet J, Bavai C, Rossel R, Le Roux A, Montet MP, Mazuy C and Vernozy-Rozand C, 2003.
Evolution of pig carcass and slaughterhouse environment contamination by Salmonella. Revue De
Medecine Veterinaire, 154, 775-779.
Bowling RA, Dutson TR, Smith GC and Savell JW, 1987. Effects of cryogenic chilling on beef
carcass grade, shrinkage and palatability characteristics. Meat Science, 21, 67-72.
Bredholt S, Nesbakken T and Holck A, 1999. Protective cultures inhibit growth of Listeria
monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157 : H7 in cooked, sliced, vacuum- and gas-packaged meat.
Brown T, Chourouzidis KN and Gigiel AJ, 1993. Spray chilling of lamb carcasses. Meat Science, 34,
311-325.
Brown T and James SJ, 1992. Process design data for pork chilling. International Journal of
Refrigeration-Revue Internationale Du Froid, 15, 281-289.
Buncic S, 2006. Integrated Food Safety and Veterinary Public Health. CABI; First edition (May
2006), 416 pp. ISBN 978-0851999081.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 39
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2013. Chapter 17: Ante and Post-mortem Procedures,
Dispositions, Monitoring and Controls - Meat Species, Ostriches, Rheas and Emus. In: Meat
Hygiene Manual of procedures. Available at: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/meat-and-poultry-
products/manual-of-procedures/chapter-17/eng/1367723343665/1367723573062 (last accessed:
24/03/2014).
Chang VP, Mills EW and Cutter CN, 2003. Reduction of bacteria on pork carcasses associated with
chilling method. Journal of Food Protection, 66, 1019-1024.
De Busser EV, Maes D, Houf K, Dewulf J, Imberechts H, Bertrand S and De Zutter L, 2011.
Detection and characterization of Salmonella in lairage, on pig carcasses and intestines in five
slaughterhouses. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 145, 279-286.
Desmarchelier PM and Fegan N, 2003. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. In: Foodborne
microorganisms of public health significance. 6th edition. Ed Hocking AD. Australian Institute of
Food Science and Technology (NSW Branch), Sydney, 267–310.
Duggan SJ, Mannion C, Prendergast DM, Leonard N, Fanning S, Gonzales-Barron U, Egan J, Butler F
and Duffy G, 2010. Tracking the Salmonella Status of Pigs and Pork from Lairage through the
Slaughter Process in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Food Protection, 73, 2148-2160.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2008. Report of the Task Force on Zoonoses Data
Collection on the analysis of the baseline survey on the prevalence of Salmonella in slaughter pigs,
Part A. The EFSA Journal 2008, 135, 1-111.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and
Control), 2013. The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses,
Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2011. EFSA Journal 2013;11(4):3129, 250 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3129
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and
Control) 2014. The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses,
Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2012. EFSA Journal 2014;12(2):3547, 312 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3547
EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) 2011. Scientific Opinion on a quantitative estimation
of the public health impact of setting a new target for the reduction of Salmonella in broilers. EFSA
Journal 2011;9(7):2106, 94 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2106
EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards) 2013a. Scientific Opinion on VTEC-
seropathotype and scientific criteria regarding pathogenicity assessment. EFSA Journal
2013;11(4):3138, 106 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3138
EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2013b. Scientific Opinion on the public
health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (bovine animals). EFSA Journal
2013;11(6):3266, 261 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3266
EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards, 2013c. Scientific Opinion on the public
health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat from sheep and goats. EFSA Journal
2013;11(6):3265, 186 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3265
EFSA Panels on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM), and
on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), 2011. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to
be covered by inspection of meat (swine). EFSA Journal 2011;9(10):2351, 198 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2351
EFSA Panels on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ), on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM), and
on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), 2012. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to
be covered by inspection of meat (poultry). EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2741, 179 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2741

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 40
Elmnasser N, Ritz-Bricaud M, Guillou S, Leroi F, Orange N, Bakhrouf A and Federighi M, 2006.
Adaptative response of Listeria monocylogenes to osmotic and chill stress: consequences on food
safety. Revue De Medecine Veterinaire, 157, 92-101.
Epling LK, Carpenter JA and Blankenship LC, 1993. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. and
Salmonella spp. on pork carcasses and the reduction effected by spraying with lactic acid. Journal
of Food Protection, 56, 536-&.
Frøystein T, Stein AE, Lundsvoll A and Grøndalen T, 1992. Tidlegtransport av slakt (Transport of
carcasses early after slaughter). Norwegian Meat Reseach Centre, Oslo, 62 pp.
Fukushima H and Gomyoda M, 1986. inhibition of Yersinia-enterocolitica serotype O3 by natural
microflora of pork. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 51, 990-994.
Gill CO, Dussault F, Holley RA, Houde A, Jones T, Rheault N, Rosales A and Quessy S, 2000.
Evaluation of the hygienic performances of the processes for cleaning, dressing and cooling pig
carcasses at eight packing plants. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 58, 65-72.
Gill CO and Jones T, 1997. Assessment of the hygienic performances of an air-cooling process for
lamb carcasses and a spray-cooling process for pig carcasses. International Journal of Food
Gill CO and Landers C, 2003. Effects of spray-cooling processes on the microbiological conditions of
decontaminated beef carcasses. Journal of Food Protection, 66, 1247-1252.
Gill CO and Reichel MP, 1989. Growth of the cold-tolerant pathogens Yersinia enterocolitica,
Aeromonas hydrophila and Listeria monocytogenes on high-pH beef packaged under vacuum or
carbon dioxide. Food Microbiology, 6, 223-230.
Gobat PF and Jemmi T, 1990. Epidemiologic studies on Listeria spp. In slaughterhouses.
Fleischwirtschaft, 70, 1448-1450.
Gomes-Neves E, Antunes P, Tavares A, Themudo P, Cardoso MF, Gaertner F, Costa JM and Peixe L,
2012. Salmonella cross-contamination in swine abattoirs in Portugal: Carcasses, meat and meat
handlers. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 157, 82-87.
Gonzales-Barron U, Cadavez V, Sheridan JJ and Butler F, 2013. Modelling the effect of chilling on
the occurrence of Salmonella on pig carcasses at study, abattoir and batch levels by meta-analysis.
Gragg SE, Loneragan GH, Brashears MM, Arthur TM, Bosilevac JM, Kalchayanand N, Wang R,
Schmidt JW, Brooks JC, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Brown TR, Edrington TS and Brichta-
Harhay DM, 2013. Cross-sectional Study Examining Salmonella enterica Carriage in Subiliac
Lymph Nodes of Cull and Feedlot Cattle at Harvest. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 10, 368-
374.
Greer GG and Dilts BD, 1988. Bacteriology and retail case life of spray chilled pork. Canadian
Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal-Journal de l‟Institut Canadien de Science et
Technologie Alimentaires, 21, 295-299.
Greer GG, Gill CO and Dilts BD, 1994. Evaluation of the bacteriological consequences of the
temperature regimes experienced by fresh chilled meat during retail display. Food Research
International, 27, 371-377.
Greer GG and Jones SDM, 1997. Quality and bacteriological consequences of beef carcass spray-
chilling: Effects of spray duration and boxed beef storage temperature. Meat Science, 45, 61-73.
Haneklaus AN, 2013. Challenges of pathogen control in beef cattle production and processing in
South Texas, PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, 69 pp. Available at
http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/149246/HANEKLAUS-DISSERTATION-
2013.pdf?sequence=1 (last accessed 24/03/2014).

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 41
Hazeleger WC, Wouters JA, Rombouts FM and Abee T, 1998. Physiological activity of
Campylobacter jejuni far below the minimal growth temperature. Applied and Environmental
ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods), 1996.
Microorganisms in Foods. Vol. 5. Microbiological Specifications of Food Pathogens. Blackie
Academic &Professional, London, 513 pp.
ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods), 1998. Micro-
organisms in foods 6. Microbial ecology of food commodities. Blackie Academic and Professional,
London, 615 pp.
James S, 1996. The chill chain "from carcass to consumer". Meat Science, 43S1, 203-216.
Jericho KWF, O'Laney G and Kozub GC, 1998. Verification of the hygienic adequacy of beef carcass
cooling processes by microbiological culture and the temperature-function integration technique.
Journal of Food Protection, 61, 1347-1351.
Jones SDM and Robertson WM, 1988. The effects of spray-chilling carcasses on the shrinkage and
quality of beef. Meat Science, 24, 177-188.
Jones TF, Buckingham SC, Bopp CA, Ribot E and Schaffner W, 2003. From pig to pacifier:
Chitterling-associated yersiniosis outbreak among black infants. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9,
1007-1009.
Joseph RL, 1996. Very fast chilling of beef and tenderness-a report from an EU concerted action.
Meat Science, 43S1, 217-227.
Karch H, Denamur E, Dobrindt U, Finlay BB, Hengge R, Johannes L, Ron EZ, Tonjum T, Sansonetti
PJ and Vicente M, 2012. The enemy within us: lessons from the 2011 European Escherichia coli
O104:H4 outbreak. Embo Molecular Medicine, 4, 841-848.
King AM, Miller RK, Castillo A, Griffin DB and Hardin MD, 2012. Effects of Lactic Acid and
Commercial Chilling Processes on Survival of Salmonella, Yersinia enterocolitica, and
Campylobacter coli in Pork Variety Meats. Journal of Food Protection, 75, 1589-1594.
Kinsella KJ, Sheridan JJ, Rowe TA, Butler F, Delgado A, Quispe-Ramirez A, Blair IS and McDowell
DA, 2006. Impact of a novel spray-chilling system on surface microflora, water activity and weight
loss during beef carcass chilling. Food Microbiology, 23, 483-490.
Kleinlein N and Untermann F, 1990. Growth of pathogenic Yersinia enterocolitica strains in minced
meat with and without protective gas with consideration of the competitive background flora.
Koohmaraie M, Scanga JA, De la Zerda MJ, Koohmaraie B, Tapay L, Beskhlebnaya V, Mai T,
Greeson K and Samadpour M, 2012. Tracking the Sources of Salmonella in Ground Beef Produced
from Nonfed Cattle. Journal of Food Protection, 75, 1464-1468.
Kuitche A, Letang G and Daudin JD, 1996. Modelling of temperature and weight loss kinetics during
meat chilling for time-variable conditions using an analytical-based method. Calculations versus
measurements on wet plaster cylinders and cast. Journal of Food Engineering, 28, 85-107.
Lee LM, Hawrysh ZJ, Jeremiah LE and Hardin RT, 1990. Shrouding, spray-chilling and vacuum-
packed aging effects on processing and eating quality attributes of beef. Journal of Food Science,
55, 1270-1273.
Lee WH, Smith RE, Damare JM, Harris ME and Johnston RW, 1981. Evaluation of virulence test
procedure for Yersinia enterocolitica recovered from foods. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 50,
529-539.
Lenahan M, O'Brien SB, Kinsella K, Sweeney T and Sheridan JJ, 2010. Assessment of lamb carcass
hygiene before and after chilling at five Irish abattoirs. Food Control, 21, 313-318.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 42
Lindberg CW and Borch E, 1994. Predicting the aerobic growth of Y. enterocolitica O3 at different pH
values, temperatures and L-lactate concentrations using conductance measurements. International
Journal of Food Microbiology, 22, 141-153.
Mallikarjunan P and Mittal GS, 1996. Selection criteria for beef carcass chilling. Food Research
International, 29, 661-666.
McGeehin B and Sheridan JJ, 1999. The ultra-rapid chilling of lamb carcasses. Final Report for
project Armis No. 4191. Teagasc, Oar Park, Carlow. ISBN 1-84170-0029.
Moo D, Oboyle D, Mathers W and Frost AJ, 1980. The isolation of Salmonella from jejunal and cecal
lymph nodes of slaughtered animals. Australian Veterinary Journal, 56, 181-183.
Moorhead SM and Dykes GA, 2004. Influence of the sigB gene on the cold stress survival and
subsequent recovery of two Listeria monocytogenes serotypes. International Journal of Food
Nagy I, Csato L, Farkas J, Gyovai P, Radnoczi L and Komlosi I, 2008. Genetic parameters of direct
and ratio traits from field and station tests of pigs. Archiv Fur Tierzucht-Archives of Animal
Breeding, 51, 172-178.
Nazli B, Cetin O, Bingol EB, Kahraman T and Ergun O, 2010. Effects of High Voltage Electrical
Stimulation on Meat Quality of Beef Carcasses. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9,
556-560.
Nesbakken, T., Eckner, K., Høidal, H.K., Røtterud, OJ, 2003. Occurrence of Yersinia enterocolitica
and Campylobacter spp. in slaughter pigs and consequences for meat inspection, slaughtering and
dressing procedures. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 80, 231-240.
Nesbakken T, Eckner K and Rotterud O-J, 2008. The effect of blast chilling on occurrence of human
pathogenic Yersinia enterocolitica compared to Campylobacter spp. and numbers of hygienic
indicators on pig carcasses. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 123, 130-133.
Nissen H, Alvseike O, Bredholt S, Holck A and Nesbakken T, 2000. Comparison between the growth
of Yersinia enterocolitica, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157 : H7 and Salmonella
spp. in ground beef packed by three commercially used packaging techniques. International Journal
of Food Microbiology, 59, 211-220.
Nissen H, Maugesten T and Lea P, 2001. Survival and growth of Escherichia coli O157 : H7, Yersinia
enterocolitica and Salmonella enteritidis on decontaminated and untreated meat. Meat Science, 57,
291-298.
Oosterom J, Dekker R, Dewilde GJA, Vankempendetroye F and Engels GB, 1985. Prevalence of
Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella during pig slaughtering. Veterinary Quarterly, 7, 31-34.
Ostroff SM, Kapperud G, Hutwagner LC, Nesbakken T, Bean NH, Lassen J and Tauxe RV, 1994.
Sources of sporadic Yersinia enterocolitica infection sin Norway – a prospective case-control
study. Epidemiology and Infection, 112, 133-141.
Prendergast DM, Rowe TA and Sheridan JJ, 2007. Survival of Listeria innocua on hot and cold beef
carcass surfaces. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 103, 2721-2729.
Rashid NH, Henrickson RL, Asghar A and Claypool PL, 1983. Evaluation of certain electrical
parameters for stimulating lamb carcasses. Journal of Food Science, 48, 10-14.
Reagan JO and Honikel KO, 1985. Weight-loss and sensory attributes of temperature conditioned and
electrically stimulated hot processed pork. Journal of Food Science, 50, 1568-1570.
Samuel JL, Eccles JA and Francis J, 1981. Salmonella in the intestinal tract and associated lymph
nodes of sheep and cattle. Journal of Hygiene, 87, 225-232.
Samuel JL, Oboyle DA, Mathers WJ and Frost AJ, 1980. Isolation of Salmonella from mesenteric
lympg nodes of healthy cattle at slaughter. Research in Veterinary Science, 28, 238-241.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 43
Savell JW, Mueller SL and Baird BE, 2005. The chilling of carcasses. Meat Science, 70, 449-459.
Schiemann DA, 1989. Yersinia enterocolitica and Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. In: Foodborne
bacterial pathogens. Ed Doyle MP. 601-672. ISBN 0-8247-7866-9.
Schubring R, 2009. Possible effects on shelf life through special cooling method "Superchilling" - an
"old" variant to prolong shelf life of fresh fish and meat revived. Fleischwirtschaft, 89, 104-113.
Shadbolt CT, Ross T and McMeekin TA, 1999. Nonthermal death of Escherichia coli. International
Journal of Food Microbiology, 49, 129-138.
Sheridan JJ, 1990. The ultrarapid chilling of lamb carcasses. Meat Science, 28, 31-50.
Sheridan JJ, Duffy G, McDowell DA and Blair IS, 1994. The occurrence and initial numbers of
Listeria in Irish meat and fish products and the recovery of injured cells from frozen products.
Sheridan JJ and Sherington J, 1982. The microbiology of hot and conventionally deboned vacuum-
packed beef. Meat Science, 7, 245-258.
Stern NJ, Pierson MD and Kotula AW, 1980. Effects of pH and sodium chloride on Yersinia
enterocolitica growth at room and refrigeration temperatures. Journal of Food Science, 45, 64-67.
Tauxe RV, Wauters G, Goossens V, Vannoyen R, Vandepitte J, Martin SM, Demol P and Thiers G,
1987. Yersinia enterocolitica infection and pork – the missing link. Lancet, 1, 1129-1132.
TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research), 2013. Analysis of temperature
profiles of beef and veal carcasses in cooling cells and trucks. Report R11286. TNO innovation for
life, 54 pp.
Watt DB and Herring HK, 1974. Rapid chilling of beef carcasses utilizing ammonia and cryogenic
systems: effects on shrink and tenderness. Journal of Animal Science, 38, 928-934.
Yang X, Balamurugan S and Gill CO, 2011. Effects on the development of blown pack spoilage of the
initial numbers of Clostridium estertheticum spores and Leuconostoc mesenteroides on vacuum
packed beef. Meat Science, 88, 361-367.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 44
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Baseline scenarios for chilling of beef, lamb and pork
The approaches taken to develop the baseline scenarios are slightly different for the different species
due to the type and amount of input data that was available.
1. Beef
Data describing the distribution of initial and final carcass surface temperatures and chilling times
(Gill and Landers, 2003), or the frequency of temperatures at the start and after five hours of chilling
(Jericho et al., 1998) were used to simulate chilling of beef. Data reflecting maximum time and
temperatures during chilling in four slaughterhouses (Gill and Landers, 2003) were also used to
develop a “worst case” but still compliant baseline scenario. As described in the approach (Chapter 2),
simulated data was fitted to an exponential model to estimate the chilling rate and the initial surface
temperature.
The best fit of the exponential equation to simulated data are shown in Figure 1 and fitted parameters
and goodness of fit estimates are shown in Table 1. For a comparison with observed data, surface
temperatures during the chilling of beef carcasses (using data obtained from a commercial beef
slaughterhouse and reviewed by the BIOHAZ Panel) were fitted to the same equation (Figure 1). In
addition, observed beef carcass surface temperatures during chilling from a recent Dutch study is
included for comparison (TNO, 2013). Comparisons of all temperature profiles based on graphs and
fitted parameters shows that the observed data is between the worst case temperature profile based on
Gill and Landers (2003) and that based on data from Jericho et al. (Jericho et al., 1998). Thus, these
temperature profiles may be used as mean and worst-case scenarios (Figure 1). The fitted parameters
in Table 1 were used to develop the chilling temperature profiles for beef baseline scenarios.
Table 19: Parameter and goodness of fit estimates when the exponential decay function was fitted to
simulated or observed data. The fitted parameters were used to develop baseline scenarios for chilling
of beef. The scenario is defined in terms of, k, the rate of chilling (SE, standard error), and T0 (SE),
the initial carcass surface temperature. Five and 95-percentiles and the R2 of the fit are also shown.
K (SE) (hours-1
) 5-, 95-
percentiles
T0 (SE) 5-, 95-
percentiles
R2
Dataset/comment
0.173 (0.005) 0.181, 0.165 26.3 (0.3) 25.8, 26.7 0.823 (Gill and Landers, 2003) Worst
case – based on max time and
temperatures
0.069 (0.003) 0.076, 0.063 25.8 (0.3) 25.3, 26.2 0.872 (Gill and Landers, 2003) mean
times and temperatures
0.173 (0.018) 0.233, 0.147 18.7 (0.2) 18.4, 19.0 0.931 Jericho et al. average scenario
(Jericho et al., 1998)
0.066 (0.001) 0.068. 0.064 19.8 (0.2) 19.4, 20.2 0.900 Beef carcass chilling data
(Appendix B) w30/31 – for
comparison

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Surfacetemperature(C)
Time (hours)
Simulated, observed and fitted beef data
Jericho data
Gill and Landers-worst case
W30 - Ireland
W31 - Ireland
Fitted Jericho
Fitted Gill and Landers
Gill and Landers - mean
TNO data
Figure 9: Simulated beef carcass surface temperature data based on Jericho et al. (Jericho et al.,
1998), and Gill and Landers (2003), (using mean or maximum temperatures and times), and a
comparison with observed Irish (data supplied by the beef industry and reviewed by the BIOHAZ
Panel) and Dutch (TNO, 2013) data for carcass chilling. Lines show best fit to the exponential decay
function; T=T0*e-k*t, where T, T0 are temperatures at time t and time zero, and k is the rate
coefficient.
Beef baseline scenarios
Based on the comparison in Figure 1 two scenarios were defined; an “average” and a “worst case”
case scenario defined by the following equations:
Average: T= 26.3 * e-0.173*t
Worst case: T = 25.8*e-0.069*t
Time to 7 C in the core (Based on Irish beef industry data after review by the BIOHAZ Panel):
Mean: 26.6 hours
Median: 27.3 hours
95-percentile: 30.6 hours
2. Lamb
Data describing the distribution of initial and final carcass surface temperatures as well as distribution
of chilling times (Gill and Jones, 1997) were used to simulate chilling of lamb. As described in the
approach (Chapter 2) simulated data was then fitted to an exponential model to estimate the chilling
rate and the initial surface temperature.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 46
Table 20: Parameter and goodness of fit estimates, when the exponential decay function was fitted
to simulated or observed data, were developed. The fitted parameters were used to develop baseline
scenarios for the chilling of lamb. The scenario is defined in terms of, k, the rate of chilling (SE,
standard error), and T0 (SE), the initial carcass surface temperature. Five and 95-percentiles and the R2
of the fit are also shown.
K (SE) (hours-1
) 5, 95 T0 5, 95 R2
Dataset/comment
0.111 (0.006) 0.122,
0.102
23.0 (0.2) 22.6, 23.4 0.962 Simulated data based on
Gill and Jones (Gill and
Jones, 1997)
0.091 (0.003) 0.097,
0.086
26.2 (0.2) 25.9, 26.5 0.982 Simulated worst case
(upper quartile) data based
on Gill and Jones (Gill and
Jones, 1997)
0.192 (0.006) 0.201,
0.182
22.0 (0.4) 21.2, 22.7 0.964 Lamb – thigh (Appendix B)
0.238 (0.007) 0.253,
0.224
19.3 (0.4) 18.6, 20.1 0.962 Lamb – back (Appendix B)
Data reflecting the upper quartiles of simulated temperatures based on the data in Gill and Jones
(1997) were used to develop a “worst case” but still compliant baseline scenario. This scenario/model
was compared with the fitted model based on all data. There was only a very small difference in the
rate of temperature decrease (Table 2). A comparison of chilling based on simulated data with
observed data from Norway (Appendix B) also indicate that the rates based on simulated data may be
used to represent a worst case (Figure 2). However, the rate equations do not fit very well during
extended chilling (>24 hours) and therefore the mean temperature during the period between 24 and
67 hours was used for times greater than 24 hours.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Surfacetemperature(°C)
Time (hours)
Simulated, observed and fitted lamb data
Sim data
Fitted
Norway back
Norway thigh
Fitted worst case
Figure 10: Simulated beef carcass surface temperature data based on Gill and Jones (1997, using all
data or the upper quartiles of temperatures=worst case), and a comparison with observed Norwegian
data for pork carcass chilling (reviewed by the BIOHAZ Panel before application). Lines show best fit
to the exponential decay function; T=T0*e-k*t, where T, T0 are temperatures at time t and time zero,
and k is the rate coefficient.

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 47
Lamb baseline scenarios
Based on the comparison in Figure 2 one scenario was defined.
Baseline:
0-24 hours: T = 26.2*e-0.091*t
>24 hours: T= 2.3
Time to 7 C in the core (Assumption based in data in Gill and Jones, 1997): 21.5 hours
3. Pork
A total of 42 surface chilling curves from 5 French slaughterhouses were obtained from Anses (2014).
Observed surface temperatures showed a rapid decline followed by a small increase and then after
about 5 hours a gradual decline again with a long tail (Figure A3). Consequently, the simple
exponential equation could not be used to describe this chilling. The following equation was therefore
used to describe the pig baseline scenarios:
T = Ta + (T0-Ta) * e-k*t
Where Ta is the asymptotic final temperature and the other parameters are as described above.
From the 42 chilling curves the mean and the 95-percentile surface temperature was estimated for each
measured time interval. The modified exponential equation was fitted to these curves (Figure 3 and
table 3).
Table 21: Parameter and goodness of fit estimates when the modified exponential decay function
was fitted to the mean or the 95-percentile of the observed data. The fitted parameters were used to
develop baseline scenarios for chilling of pigs. The scenario is defined in terms of, k, the rate of
chilling (SE, standard error), T0 (SE), the initial carcass surface temperature, and Ta (SE) the
asymptotic final temperature. Five and 95-percentiles and the R2
of the fit are also shown.
K (SE)
(hours-1
)
K (5, 95-
percentile)
T0 T0 (5, 95-
percentile)
Ta Ta (5, 95-
percentile)
R2
Dataset/comment
0.105
(0.004)
0.112,
0.099
12.4
(0.2)
12.1, 12.7 4.2(0.1) 4.2, 4.3 0.820 Mean temperatures
0.105
(0.003)
0.110,
0.100
18.3
(0.2)
18.0, 18.6 6.2 (0.1) 6.1, 6.3 0.910 95-percentiles
temperatures

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 48
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Surfacetemperature(°C)
Time (hours)
Observed and fitted pig data
mean
fitted mean
95-percentile
Fitted worst case
Figure 11: Observed and fitted mean and 95-percentiles (worst case) pig carcass surface temperature
based on data from five slaughterhouses. Lines show best fit to the modified exponential decay
function; T=Ta + (T0-Ta)*e-k*t
, where T, T0, Ta are temperatures at time t, time zero, final asymptotic
temperature and k is the rate coefficient.
Pig baseline scenarios
Based on the results shown in Figure 3 and Table 3 two scenarios were defined; an “average” and a
“worst case” case but still compliant case scenario defined by the following equations:
Average: T = 4.2 + (12.1-4.2)*e-0.105*t
= 4.2 + 7.9*e-0.105*t
Worst case: T = 6.2 + (18.3-6.2)*e-0.105*t
= 6.2 + 12.1*e-0.105*t
Time to 7 C in the core (based on Anses (2014)):
Mean: 19.3 hours
Median: 17.8
95-Percentile: 27.5 hours

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 49
Appendix B. Chilling data for beef and lamb carcasses
1. Beef carcass chilling data
Week 30
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/23/2013 12:30 16.76 14.47 19.04 18.66
7/23/2013 12:40 10.99 10.99 14.85 11.77
7/23/2013 12:50 9.82 9.82 11.77 10.6
7/23/2013 13:00 39.22 38.32 25.56 9.42
7/23/2013 13:10 39.67 37.88 24.4 10.99
7/23/2013 13:20 39.67 37 23.63 9.82
7/23/2013 13:30 39.22 36.13 22.09 10.99
7/23/2013 13:40 39.22 35.27 21.71 9.42
7/23/2013 13:50 39.22 34.43 20.57 10.99
7/23/2013 14:00 39.22 33.59 20.19 9.42
7/23/2013 14:10 38.77 32.76 19.04 10.99
7/23/2013 14:20 38.77 31.93 19.04 9.42
7/23/2013 14:30 38.32 31.12 17.9 10.6
7/23/2013 14:40 37.88 30.31 17.9 9.42
7/23/2013 14:50 37.88 29.5 17.14 10.6
7/23/2013 15:00 37.44 28.7 16.76 9.03
7/23/2013 15:10 37 28.31 16.38 11.38
7/23/2013 15:20 37 27.52 16.38 9.42
7/23/2013 15:30 36.57 26.73 16 10.99
7/23/2013 15:40 36.13 26.34 16.76 13.32
7/23/2013 15:50 35.7 25.95 17.14 14.09
7/23/2013 16:00 35.27 25.17 17.52 14.47
7/23/2013 16:10 34.85 24.79 17.52 13.32
7/23/2013 16:20 34.85 24.4 16.76 12.55
7/23/2013 16:30 34.43 24.01 16.38 12.16
7/23/2013 16:40 34.01 24.01 16 12.55
7/23/2013 16:50 33.59 23.63 16 11.77
7/23/2013 17:00 33.17 23.24 15.62 12.16
7/23/2013 17:10 32.76 22.86 15.62 11.38
7/23/2013 17:20 32.76 22.48 15.23 11.38
7/23/2013 17:30 32.34 22.09 14.85 11.38
7/23/2013 17:40 31.93 21.71 14.85 11.38
7/23/2013 17:50 31.52 21.71 14.85 11.77
7/23/2013 18:00 31.12 21.33 14.47 11.38
7/23/2013 18:10 30.71 20.95 14.47 11.38
7/23/2013 18:20 30.71 20.57 14.09 10.99
7/23/2013 18:30 30.31 20.57 14.09 11.38
7/23/2013 18:40 29.9 20.19 14.09 12.16
7/23/2013 18:50 29.5 19.81 14.09 11.38
7/23/2013 19:00 29.1 19.42 13.7 10.99
7/23/2013 19:10 29.1 19.42 13.7 10.99
7/23/2013 19:20 28.7 19.04 13.7 11.77
7/23/2013 19:30 28.31 19.04 13.7 10.99
7/23/2013 19:40 27.91 18.66 13.7 11.38
7/23/2013 19:50 27.91 18.28 13.32 11.38

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 50
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/23/2013 20:00 27.52 18.28 13.32 10.6
7/23/2013 20:10 27.12 17.9 13.32 11.38
7/23/2013 20:20 26.73 17.9 13.32 11.38
7/23/2013 20:30 26.73 17.52 12.93 10.21
7/23/2013 20:40 26.34 17.52 12.93 11.38
7/23/2013 20:50 25.95 17.14 12.93 10.6
7/23/2013 21:00 25.56 17.14 12.93 11.38
7/23/2013 21:10 25.56 16.76 12.93 10.21
7/23/2013 21:20 25.17 16.76 12.55 10.99
7/23/2013 21:30 25.17 16.38 12.93 11.38
7/23/2013 21:40 24.79 16.38 12.55 10.6
7/23/2013 21:50 24.4 16 12.55 11.38
7/23/2013 22:00 24.4 16 12.55 10.99
7/23/2013 22:10 24.01 15.62 12.93 10.99
7/23/2013 22:20 24.01 15.62 12.93 11.38
7/23/2013 22:30 23.63 15.62 13.32 11.38
7/23/2013 22:40 23.24 15.62 12.93 10.6
7/23/2013 22:50 23.24 15.23 12.55 10.21
7/23/2013 23:00 22.86 15.23 12.55 11.38
7/23/2013 23:10 22.86 15.23 12.55 10.6
7/23/2013 23:20 22.48 14.85 12.55 10.21
7/23/2013 23:30 22.48 14.85 12.16 10.99
7/23/2013 23:40 22.48 14.85 12.55 11.38
7/23/2013 23:50 22.09 14.47 12.16 10.21
7/24/2013 00:00 22.09 14.47 12.16 10.21
7/24/2013 00:10 21.71 14.47 12.16 10.6
7/24/2013 00:20 21.71 14.47 12.16 10.99
7/24/2013 00:30 21.33 14.09 12.16 10.99
7/24/2013 00:40 21.33 14.09 12.16 11.38
7/24/2013 00:50 21.33 14.09 12.16 11.38
7/24/2013 01:00 20.95 14.09 12.16 10.6
7/24/2013 01:10 20.95 13.7 11.77 10.21
7/24/2013 01:20 20.57 13.7 11.77 10.21
7/24/2013 01:30 20.57 13.7 11.77 10.21
7/24/2013 01:40 20.57 13.7 11.77 9.03
7/24/2013 01:50 20.19 13.32 10.6 5.81
7/24/2013 02:00 20.19 13.32 10.21 4.57
7/24/2013 02:10 19.81 13.32 9.82 4.15
7/24/2013 02:20 19.81 12.93 9.03 4.15
7/24/2013 02:30 19.81 12.93 9.03 3.74
7/24/2013 02:40 19.42 12.93 8.63 3.74
7/24/2013 02:50 19.42 12.55 8.63 3.31
7/24/2013 03:00 19.04 12.55 8.23 2.89
7/24/2013 03:10 19.04 12.16 8.23 3.47
7/24/2013 03:20 19.04 11.77 7.83 2.89
7/24/2013 03:30 18.66 11.77 7.83 3.31
7/24/2013 03:40 18.66 11.38 7.43 2.89
7/24/2013 03:50 18.28 11.38 7.43 3.74
7/24/2013 04:00 18.28 10.99 7.03 2.89
7/24/2013 04:10 17.9 10.99 7.43 3.74

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 51
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/24/2013 04:20 17.9 10.6 7.43 4.99
7/24/2013 04:30 17.52 10.21 7.83 5.4
7/24/2013 04:40 17.52 10.21 7.43 3.74
7/24/2013 04:50 17.14 10.21 7.03 3.31
7/24/2013 05:00 17.14 9.82 6.62 2.46
7/24/2013 05:10 16.76 9.82 6.62 3.74
7/24/2013 05:20 16.76 9.42 6.22 2.89
7/24/2013 05:30 16.38 9.42 6.22 3.31
7/24/2013 05:40 16.38 9.42 6.22 2.89
7/24/2013 05:50 16 9.03 6.22 3.74
7/24/2013 06:00 16 9.03 5.81 2.89
7/24/2013 06:10 15.62 8.63 5.81 2.46
7/24/2013 06:20 15.62 8.63 5.81 3.31
7/24/2013 06:30 15.62 8.23 5.4 2.89
7/24/2013 06:40 15.23 8.23 5.4 2.89
7/24/2013 06:50 15.23 7.83 5.4 2.89
7/24/2013 07:00 14.85 7.83 5.4 3.31
7/24/2013 07:10 14.85 7.83 5.4 2.46
7/24/2013 07:20 14.47 7.43 4.99 2.89
7/24/2013 07:30 14.47 7.43 4.99 2.46
7/24/2013 07:40 14.09 7.03 4.99 2.46
7/24/2013 07:50 14.09 7.03 4.99 2.89
7/24/2013 08:00 14.09 7.03 4.99 3.31
7/24/2013 08:10 13.7 7.03 4.99 2.46
7/24/2013 08:20 13.7 6.62 4.57 2.89
7/24/2013 08:30 13.32 6.62 4.57 3.31
7/24/2013 08:40 13.32 6.62 4.57 2.89
7/24/2013 08:50 13.32 6.22 4.57 2.89
7/24/2013 09:00 12.93 6.22 4.57 2.89
7/24/2013 09:10 12.93 6.22 4.57 2.46
7/24/2013 09:20 12.55 6.22 4.57 2.89
7/24/2013 09:30 12.55 5.81 4.57 2.89
7/24/2013 09:40 12.55 5.81 4.15 2.89
7/24/2013 09:50 12.16 5.81 4.15 2.46
7/24/2013 10:00 12.16 5.81 4.15 2.89
7/24/2013 10:10 12.16 5.4 4.15 2.89
7/24/2013 10:20 11.77 5.4 4.57 3.74
7/24/2013 10:30 11.77 5.4 4.57 3.74
7/24/2013 10:40 11.77 5.4 4.57 2.46
7/24/2013 10:50 11.38 5.4 4.15 2.46
7/24/2013 11:00 11.38 5.4 4.15 2.89
7/24/2013 11:10 11.38 4.99 4.15 2.03
7/24/2013 11:20 10.99 4.99 3.74 2.03
7/24/2013 11:30 10.99 4.99 3.74 2.03
7/24/2013 11:40 10.99 4.99 3.74 2.03
7/24/2013 11:50 10.99 4.99 3.74 1.6
7/24/2013 12:00 10.6 4.99 3.74 1.6
7/24/2013 12:10 10.6 4.57 3.31 2.03
7/24/2013 12:20 10.6 4.57 3.31 2.03
7/24/2013 12:30 10.21 4.57 3.31 1.17

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 52
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/24/2013 12:40 10.21 4.57 3.31 2.03
7/24/2013 12:50 10.21 4.57 3.31 2.03
7/24/2013 13:00 10.21 4.15 3.31 1.6
7/24/2013 13:10 9.82 4.15 3.31 2.03
7/24/2013 13:20 9.82 4.15 3.31 2.03
7/24/2013 13:30 9.82 4.15 2.89 1.17
7/24/2013 13:40 9.82 4.15 2.89 1.6
7/24/2013 13:50 9.42 3.74 2.89 2.46
7/24/2013 14:00 9.42 3.74 2.89 1.6
7/24/2013 14:10 9.42 3.74 2.89 1.6
7/24/2013 14:20 9.42 3.74 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 14:30 9.03 3.74 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 14:40 9.03 3.74 2.89 1.6
7/24/2013 14:50 9.03 3.74 2.89 1.6
7/24/2013 15:00 9.03 3.31 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 15:10 8.63 3.31 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 15:20 8.63 3.31 2.89 1.17
7/24/2013 15:30 8.63 3.31 2.89 1.6
7/24/2013 15:40 8.63 3.31 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 15:50 8.23 3.31 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 16:00 8.23 3.31 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 16:10 8.23 3.31 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 16:20 8.23 2.89 2.89 2.46
7/24/2013 16:30 7.83 2.89 2.89 2.89
7/24/2013 16:40 7.83 2.89 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 16:50 7.83 2.89 2.89 2.46
7/24/2013 17:00 7.83 2.89 2.89 2.03
7/24/2013 17:10 7.83 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 17:20 7.83 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 17:30 7.43 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 17:40 7.43 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 17:50 7.43 2.89 2.46 1.17
7/24/2013 18:00 7.43 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 18:10 7.43 2.89 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 18:20 7.03 2.89 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 18:30 7.03 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 18:40 7.03 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 18:50 7.03 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 19:00 7.03 2.89 2.46 2.46
7/24/2013 19:10 7.03 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 19:20 6.62 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 19:30 6.62 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 19:40 6.62 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 19:50 6.62 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 20:00 6.62 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 20:10 6.62 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 20:20 6.22 2.46 2.46 1.17
7/24/2013 20:30 6.22 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 20:40 6.22 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 20:50 6.22 2.46 2.46 1.6

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 53
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/24/2013 21:00 6.22 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 21:10 6.22 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 21:20 6.22 2.46 2.03 1.6
7/24/2013 21:30 6.22 2.46 2.03 2.03
7/24/2013 21:40 5.81 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 21:50 5.81 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 22:00 5.81 2.46 2.46 2.46
7/24/2013 22:10 5.81 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 22:20 5.81 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/24/2013 22:30 5.81 2.46 2.03 1.6
7/24/2013 22:40 5.81 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/24/2013 22:50 5.4 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/24/2013 23:00 5.4 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/24/2013 23:10 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 23:20 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.03
7/24/2013 23:30 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/24/2013 23:40 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/24/2013 23:50 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/25/2013 00:00 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/25/2013 00:10 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/25/2013 00:20 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/25/2013 00:30 4.99 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/25/2013 00:40 4.99 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/25/2013 00:50 4.99 2.03 2.46 2.89
7/25/2013 01:00 4.99 2.03 2.46 2.89
7/25/2013 01:10 4.99 2.03 2.46 2.89
7/25/2013 01:20 4.99 2.03 2.46 2.89
7/25/2013 01:30 4.99 2.03 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 01:40 4.99 2.03 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 01:50 4.99 2.03 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 02:00 4.99 2.03 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 02:10 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 02:20 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 02:30 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 02:40 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 02:50 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 03:00 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 03:10 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 03:20 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 03:30 4.99 2.46 2.89 2.89
7/25/2013 03:40 4.99 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 03:50 4.99 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 04:00 4.99 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 04:10 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 04:20 4.99 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 04:30 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 04:40 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 04:50 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 05:00 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 05:10 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 54
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/25/2013 05:20 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 05:30 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 05:40 4.57 2.46 2.89 3.31
7/25/2013 05:50 4.57 2.46 3.31 3.31
7/25/2013 06:00 4.57 2.46 3.31 3.31
7/25/2013 06:10 4.57 2.46 3.31 3.31
7/25/2013 06:20 4.57 2.89 3.31 3.31
7/25/2013 06:30 4.57 2.89 3.31 2.89
7/25/2013 06:40 4.57 2.89 2.89 1.6
7/25/2013 06:50 4.57 2.89 2.89 1.6
7/25/2013 07:00 4.57 2.89 2.89 1.6
7/25/2013 07:10 4.57 2.89 2.89 1.6
7/25/2013 07:20 4.57 2.89 2.46 1.6
7/25/2013 07:30 4.57 2.89 2.46 2.03
7/25/2013 07:40 4.57 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/25/2013 07:50 4.57 2.46 2.46 1.17
7/25/2013 08:00 4.57 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/25/2013 08:10 4.57 2.46 2.46 2.03
7/25/2013 08:20 4.57 2.46 2.46 1.6
7/25/2013 08:30 4.57 2.46 2.46 1.17
7/25/2013 08:40 4.57 2.46 2.46 1.17
7/25/2013 08:50 4.57 2.46 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 09:00 4.57 2.46 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 09:10 4.57 2.46 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 09:20 4.57 2.46 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 09:30 4.57 2.46 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 09:40 4.57 2.46 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 09:50 4.57 2.46 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 10:00 4.15 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 10:10 4.15 2.03 2.46 2.03
7/25/2013 10:20 4.15 2.03 2.46 2.46
7/25/2013 10:30 4.15 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 10:40 4.15 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 10:50 4.15 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 11:00 4.15 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 11:10 4.15 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 11:20 4.15 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 11:30 4.15 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 11:40 4.15 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 11:50 4.15 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 12:00 4.15 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 12:10 3.74 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 12:20 3.74 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 12:30 3.74 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 12:40 3.74 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 12:50 3.74 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 13:00 3.74 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 13:10 3.74 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 13:20 3.74 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 13:30 3.74 2.03 2.03 2.03

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 55
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/25/2013 13:40 3.74 2.03 2.03 2.46
7/25/2013 13:50 3.74 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 14:00 3.74 2.03 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 14:10 3.74 2.03 1.6 1.17
7/25/2013 14:20 3.74 2.03 1.6 1.6
7/25/2013 14:30 3.74 2.03 1.6 1.6
7/25/2013 14:40 3.74 2.03 1.6 1.6
7/25/2013 14:50 3.74 2.03 1.6 1.17
7/25/2013 15:00 3.74 2.03 1.6 1.6
7/25/2013 15:10 3.31 1.6 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 15:20 3.31 1.6 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 15:30 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 15:40 3.31 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/25/2013 15:50 3.31 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/25/2013 16:00 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 16:10 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 16:20 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 16:30 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 16:40 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 16:50 3.31 1.6 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 17:00 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 17:10 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 17:20 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 17:30 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 17:40 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 17:50 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 18:00 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 18:10 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 18:20 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.46
7/25/2013 18:30 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.46
7/25/2013 18:40 3.31 1.6 2.03 2.46
7/25/2013 18:50 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.46
7/25/2013 19:00 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.46
7/25/2013 19:10 2.89 2.03 2.03 2.46
7/25/2013 19:20 2.89 2.03 2.46 2.89
7/25/2013 19:30 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 19:40 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 19:50 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 20:00 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 20:10 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 20:20 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 20:30 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 20:40 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 20:50 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 21:00 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 21:10 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.6
7/25/2013 21:20 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 21:30 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 21:40 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.17
7/25/2013 21:50 2.89 2.03 2.03 1.17

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 56
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/25/2013 22:00 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 22:10 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 22:20 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 22:30 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 22:40 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 22:50 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 23:00 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 23:10 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 23:20 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 23:30 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/25/2013 23:40 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/25/2013 23:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 00:00 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/26/2013 00:10 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/26/2013 00:20 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.03
7/26/2013 00:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 00:40 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 00:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 01:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 01:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 01:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 01:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 01:40 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 01:50 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 02:00 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 02:10 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 02:20 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 02:30 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 02:40 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 02:50 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 03:00 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 03:10 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 03:20 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 03:30 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 03:40 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 03:50 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 04:00 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 04:10 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 04:20 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 04:30 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 04:40 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 04:50 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 05:00 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 05:10 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 05:20 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 05:30 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 05:40 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 05:50 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 06:00 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 06:10 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 57
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
7/26/2013 06:20 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
7/26/2013 06:30 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 06:40 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 06:50 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 07:00 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 07:10 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 07:20 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 07:30 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 07:40 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 07:50 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 08:00 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 08:10 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 08:20 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 08:30 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 08:40 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 08:50 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 09:00 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 09:10 2.03 1.6 1.6 0.73
7/26/2013 09:20 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 09:30 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 09:40 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 09:50 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 10:00 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 10:10 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 10:20 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 10:30 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 10:40 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 10:50 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 11:00 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 11:10 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 11:20 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 11:30 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 11:40 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 11:50 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 12:00 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 12:10 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.17
7/26/2013 12:20 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 12:30 2.03 1.6 1.6 1.6
7/26/2013 12:40 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83
Week 31
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
07/30/2013 13:30 25.17 25.56 25.17 25.17
07/30/2013 13:40 39.22 31.52 19.42 9.82
07/30/2013 13:50 39.22 30.71 19.04 12.16
07/30/2013 14:00 39.22 30.31 18.66 12.55
07/30/2013 14:10 38.77 29.5 18.66 12.55
07/30/2013 14:20 38.32 28.7 18.28 10.21
07/30/2013 14:30 38.32 28.31 17.9 10.21

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 58
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
07/30/2013 14:40 37.88 27.52 17.14 9.82
07/30/2013 14:50 37.44 27.12 16.76 10.6
07/30/2013 15:00 37 26.34 16.38 10.6
07/30/2013 15:10 37 25.56 16 10.21
07/30/2013 15:20 36.57 25.17 15.62 10.21
07/30/2013 15:30 36.13 24.4 15.23 10.6
07/30/2013 15:40 35.7 24.01 15.23 11.38
07/30/2013 15:50 35.27 23.63 14.85 11.38
07/30/2013 16:00 34.85 22.86 14.85 11.38
07/30/2013 16:10 34.43 22.48 14.47 10.21
07/30/2013 16:20 34.01 22.09 14.47 10.6
07/30/2013 16:30 33.59 21.71 14.09 10.6
07/30/2013 16:40 33.17 21.33 14.09 9.82
07/30/2013 16:50 32.76 20.95 14.09 10.99
07/30/2013 17:00 32.34 20.57 13.7 9.42
07/30/2013 17:10 31.93 20.19 13.7 10.21
07/30/2013 17:20 31.52 20.19 13.7 10.99
07/30/2013 17:30 31.12 19.81 13.32 9.82
07/30/2013 17:40 30.71 19.42 13.32 9.42
07/30/2013 17:50 30.31 19.04 13.32 10.21
07/30/2013 18:00 29.9 19.04 12.93 10.21
07/30/2013 18:10 29.5 18.66 12.93 10.21
07/30/2013 18:20 29.1 18.28 12.93 10.6
07/30/2013 18:30 28.7 18.28 12.93 10.99
07/30/2013 18:40 28.31 17.9 12.93 10.99
07/30/2013 18:50 27.91 17.9 12.55 10.6
07/30/2013 19:00 27.52 17.52 12.55 10.6
07/30/2013 19:10 27.52 17.52 12.55 10.6
07/30/2013 19:20 27.12 17.14 12.55 10.6
07/30/2013 19:30 26.73 17.14 12.55 9.82
07/30/2013 19:40 26.34 16.76 12.16 10.99
07/30/2013 19:50 25.95 16.76 12.16 10.6
07/30/2013 20:00 25.56 16.38 12.16 11.38
07/30/2013 20:10 25.56 16.38 12.55 11.38
07/30/2013 20:20 25.17 16.38 12.55 10.21
07/30/2013 20:30 24.79 16 12.16 9.42
07/30/2013 20:40 24.79 16 12.16 10.21
07/30/2013 20:50 24.4 16 12.16 9.82
07/30/2013 21:00 24.01 15.62 12.16 10.6
07/30/2013 21:10 24.01 15.62 11.77 9.82
07/30/2013 21:20 23.63 15.62 11.77 10.21
07/30/2013 21:30 23.24 15.23 11.77 10.99
07/30/2013 21:40 23.24 15.23 11.77 10.99
07/30/2013 21:50 22.86 15.23 11.77 10.6
07/30/2013 22:00 22.86 14.85 11.77 10.6
07/30/2013 22:10 22.48 14.85 11.77 10.99
07/30/2013 22:20 22.48 14.85 11.38 10.99
07/30/2013 22:30 22.09 14.47 11.38 10.99
07/30/2013 22:40 21.71 14.47 11.38 9.82
07/30/2013 22:50 21.71 14.47 11.38 10.6

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 59
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
07/30/2013 23:00 21.33 14.09 11.38 10.99
07/30/2013 23:10 21.33 14.09 11.38 10.21
07/30/2013 23:20 20.95 14.09 11.38 9.42
07/30/2013 23:30 20.95 13.7 11.38 10.21
07/30/2013 23:40 20.57 13.7 11.38 8.63
07/30/2013 23:50 20.57 13.7 10.99 4.57
07/31/2013 00:00 20.19 13.32 10.21 3.74
07/31/2013 00:10 20.19 13.32 9.82 3.74
07/31/2013 00:20 20.19 12.93 9.42 2.46
07/31/2013 00:30 19.81 12.93 9.03 2.89
07/31/2013 00:40 19.81 12.55 8.63 2.46
07/31/2013 00:50 19.42 12.55 8.63 2.46
07/31/2013 01:00 19.42 12.16 8.23 2.89
07/31/2013 01:10 19.04 11.77 7.83 2.89
07/31/2013 01:20 19.04 11.77 7.43 2.03
07/31/2013 01:30 18.66 11.38 7.03 2.46
07/31/2013 01:40 18.66 11.38 7.03 2.46
07/31/2013 01:50 18.28 10.99 6.62 4.57
07/31/2013 02:00 18.28 10.99 6.62 5.81
07/31/2013 02:10 17.9 10.6 7.03 6.22
07/31/2013 02:20 17.52 10.6 7.03 3.31
07/31/2013 02:30 17.52 10.21 6.62 2.46
07/31/2013 02:40 17.14 10.21 6.22 2.03
07/31/2013 02:50 17.14 9.82 6.22 2.46
07/31/2013 03:00 16.76 9.82 5.81 2.46
07/31/2013 03:10 16.76 9.42 5.81 2.89
07/31/2013 03:20 16.38 9.42 5.4 2.46
07/31/2013 03:30 16.38 9.03 5.4 2.46
07/31/2013 03:40 16 9.03 4.99 2.03
07/31/2013 03:50 16 8.63 4.99 2.46
07/31/2013 04:00 15.62 8.63 4.99 2.89
07/31/2013 04:10 15.62 8.23 4.99 2.46
07/31/2013 04:20 15.23 8.23 4.57 2.89
07/31/2013 04:30 15.23 7.83 4.57 2.89
07/31/2013 04:40 14.85 7.83 4.57 2.46
07/31/2013 04:50 14.85 7.83 4.57 2.46
07/31/2013 05:00 14.47 7.43 4.15 2.46
07/31/2013 05:10 14.47 7.43 4.15 2.46
07/31/2013 05:20 14.09 7.03 4.15 2.46
07/31/2013 05:30 14.09 7.03 4.15 2.46
07/31/2013 05:40 14.09 7.03 4.15 2.46
07/31/2013 05:50 13.7 6.62 4.15 2.89
07/31/2013 06:00 13.7 6.62 3.74 2.46
07/31/2013 06:10 13.32 6.62 3.74 2.46
07/31/2013 06:20 13.32 6.22 3.74 2.03
07/31/2013 06:30 12.93 6.22 3.74 2.89
07/31/2013 06:40 12.93 6.22 3.74 2.89
07/31/2013 06:50 12.93 5.81 3.74 2.46
07/31/2013 07:00 12.55 5.81 3.74 2.46
07/31/2013 07:10 12.55 5.81 3.74 2.46

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 60
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
07/31/2013 07:20 12.16 5.81 3.74 2.89
07/31/2013 07:30 12.16 5.4 3.31 2.89
07/31/2013 07:40 11.77 5.4 3.31 2.89
07/31/2013 07:50 11.77 5.4 3.74 3.31
07/31/2013 08:00 11.77 5.4 3.74 4.15
07/31/2013 08:10 11.38 5.4 3.74 4.57
07/31/2013 08:20 11.38 4.99 3.74 2.03
07/31/2013 08:30 11.38 4.99 3.74 2.46
07/31/2013 08:40 10.99 4.99 3.74 2.03
07/31/2013 08:50 10.99 4.99 3.74 2.03
07/31/2013 09:00 10.99 4.99 3.74 1.6
07/31/2013 09:10 10.6 4.99 3.31 2.03
07/31/2013 09:20 10.6 4.99 3.31 2.03
07/31/2013 09:30 10.6 4.57 3.31 2.46
07/31/2013 09:40 10.21 4.57 3.31 2.03
07/31/2013 09:50 10.21 4.57 3.31 2.46
07/31/2013 10:00 10.21 4.57 3.31 2.03
07/31/2013 10:10 10.21 4.57 3.31 2.46
07/31/2013 10:20 9.82 4.57 3.31 2.03
07/31/2013 10:30 9.82 4.57 2.89 2.46
07/31/2013 10:40 9.82 4.15 2.89 1.6
07/31/2013 10:50 9.82 4.15 2.89 2.46
07/31/2013 11:00 9.42 4.15 2.89 2.46
07/31/2013 11:10 9.42 4.15 2.89 1.6
07/31/2013 11:20 9.42 4.15 2.89 2.03
07/31/2013 11:30 9.42 4.15 2.89 2.03
07/31/2013 11:40 9.03 3.74 2.89 2.03
07/31/2013 11:50 9.03 3.74 2.89 2.89
07/31/2013 12:00 9.03 3.74 2.89 1.6
07/31/2013 12:10 9.03 3.74 2.89 2.46
07/31/2013 12:20 8.63 3.74 2.89 2.03
07/31/2013 12:30 8.63 3.74 2.89 2.03
07/31/2013 12:40 8.63 3.74 2.89 2.46
07/31/2013 12:50 8.63 3.74 2.89 1.17
07/31/2013 13:00 8.63 3.74 2.89 0.73
07/31/2013 13:10 8.23 3.74 2.46 1.17
07/31/2013 13:20 8.23 3.31 2.46 1.17
07/31/2013 13:30 8.23 3.31 2.46 1.17
07/31/2013 13:40 8.23 3.31 2.46 0.73
07/31/2013 13:50 7.83 3.31 2.46 2.46
07/31/2013 14:00 7.83 3.31 2.46 2.89
07/31/2013 14:10 7.83 3.31 2.46 2.89
07/31/2013 14:20 7.83 3.31 2.46 0.73
07/31/2013 14:30 7.83 3.31 2.46 0.73
07/31/2013 14:40 7.83 3.31 2.46 1.6
07/31/2013 14:50 7.43 3.31 2.46 1.17
07/31/2013 15:00 7.43 2.89 2.46 1.6
07/31/2013 15:10 7.43 2.89 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 15:20 7.43 2.89 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 15:30 7.43 2.89 2.03 1.17

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 61
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
07/31/2013 15:40 7.03 2.89 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 15:50 7.03 2.89 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 16:00 7.03 2.89 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 16:10 7.03 2.89 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 16:20 7.03 2.89 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 16:30 7.03 2.89 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 16:40 7.03 2.89 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 16:50 6.62 2.46 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 17:00 6.62 2.46 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 17:10 6.62 2.46 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 17:20 6.62 2.46 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 17:30 6.62 2.46 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 17:40 6.22 2.46 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 17:50 6.22 2.46 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 18:00 6.22 2.46 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 18:10 6.22 2.46 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 18:20 6.22 2.46 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 18:30 6.22 2.46 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 18:40 6.22 2.46 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 18:50 6.22 2.46 2.03 2.03
07/31/2013 19:00 5.81 2.03 2.03 2.46
07/31/2013 19:10 5.81 2.03 2.03 2.46
07/31/2013 19:20 5.81 2.03 2.03 0.73
07/31/2013 19:30 5.81 2.03 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 19:40 5.81 2.03 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 19:50 5.81 2.03 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 20:00 5.81 2.03 2.03 1.6
07/31/2013 20:10 5.4 2.03 2.03 1.17
07/31/2013 20:20 5.4 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 20:30 5.4 2.03 1.6 1.17
07/31/2013 20:40 5.4 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 20:50 5.4 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 21:00 5.4 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 21:10 5.4 2.03 1.6 1.17
07/31/2013 21:20 5.4 2.03 1.6 1.17
07/31/2013 21:30 5.4 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 21:40 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.17
07/31/2013 21:50 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 22:00 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 22:10 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 22:20 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.17
07/31/2013 22:30 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.17
07/31/2013 22:40 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 22:50 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.17
07/31/2013 23:00 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 23:10 4.99 2.03 1.6 1.6
07/31/2013 23:20 4.57 1.6 1.6 0.73
07/31/2013 23:30 4.57 1.6 1.6 1.17
07/31/2013 23:40 4.57 1.6 1.6 0.73
07/31/2013 23:50 4.57 1.6 1.6 2.03

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 62
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/01/2013 00:00 4.57 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 00:10 4.57 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 00:20 4.57 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 00:30 4.57 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 00:40 4.57 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 00:50 4.57 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 01:00 4.57 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 01:10 4.15 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 01:20 4.15 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 01:30 4.15 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 01:40 4.15 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 01:50 4.15 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 02:00 4.15 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 02:10 4.15 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 02:20 4.15 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 02:30 4.15 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 02:40 4.15 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 02:50 4.15 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 03:00 4.15 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 03:10 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 03:20 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 03:30 3.74 1.6 1.6 0.29
08/01/2013 03:40 3.74 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 03:50 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 04:00 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 04:10 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 04:20 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 04:30 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 04:40 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 04:50 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 05:00 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 05:10 3.74 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 05:20 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 05:30 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 05:40 3.74 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 05:50 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 06:00 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 06:10 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 06:20 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 06:30 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 06:40 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 06:50 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 07:00 3.31 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 07:10 3.31 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 07:20 3.31 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 07:30 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 07:40 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 07:50 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 08:00 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 08:10 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.17

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 63
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/01/2013 08:20 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 08:30 3.31 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 08:40 3.31 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 08:50 3.31 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 09:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 09:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 09:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 09:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 09:40 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 09:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 10:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 10:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 10:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 10:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 10:40 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 10:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 11:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 11:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 11:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 11:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 11:40 2.89 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 11:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 12:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 12:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 12:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/01/2013 12:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/01/2013 12:40 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/01/2013 12:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/01/2013 13:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/01/2013 13:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/01/2013 13:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/01/2013 13:30 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.46
08/01/2013 13:40 2.89 1.6 2.03 2.46
08/01/2013 13:50 2.89 1.6 2.03 0.73
08/01/2013 14:00 2.89 1.6 2.03 1.6
08/01/2013 14:10 2.89 1.6 2.03 1.6
08/01/2013 14:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 14:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 14:40 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 14:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 15:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 15:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 15:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 15:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 15:40 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 15:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 16:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 16:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 16:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 16:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 64
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/01/2013 16:40 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 16:50 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 17:00 2.89 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 17:10 2.89 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 17:20 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 17:30 2.89 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 17:40 2.46 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 17:50 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 18:00 2.46 1.6 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 18:10 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 18:20 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 18:30 2.46 1.6 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 18:40 2.46 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 18:50 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 19:00 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 19:10 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 19:20 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 19:30 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 19:40 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 19:50 2.46 1.17 1.6 0.29
08/01/2013 20:00 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 20:10 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 20:20 2.46 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 20:30 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 20:40 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 20:50 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 21:00 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 21:10 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 21:20 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 21:30 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 21:40 2.46 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/01/2013 21:50 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/01/2013 22:00 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 22:10 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 22:20 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 22:30 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 22:40 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 22:50 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 23:00 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 23:10 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 23:20 2.46 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 23:30 2.46 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/01/2013 23:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/01/2013 23:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 00:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 00:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 00:20 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 00:30 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 00:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 00:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 65
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/02/2013 01:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 01:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 01:20 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 01:30 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 01:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 01:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/02/2013 02:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 02:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 02:20 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 02:30 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 02:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 02:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/02/2013 03:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 03:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 0.29
08/02/2013 03:20 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 03:30 2.03 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/02/2013 03:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 03:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 04:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 04:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 04:20 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 04:30 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 04:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 04:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 05:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/02/2013 05:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 05:20 2.03 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/02/2013 05:30 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 05:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/02/2013 05:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 06:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 0.73
08/02/2013 06:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 06:20 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 06:30 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.17
08/02/2013 06:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 06:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 07:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 07:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 1.6
08/02/2013 07:20 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 07:30 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 07:40 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 07:50 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 08:00 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 08:10 2.03 1.17 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 08:20 2.03 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 08:30 2.03 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 08:40 2.03 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 08:50 2.03 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 09:00 2.03 1.6 1.6 2.03
08/02/2013 09:10 2.03 1.6 1.6 2.03

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 66
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/02/2013 09:20 2.03 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/02/2013 09:30 2.03 1.6 1.6 2.46
08/02/2013 09:40 2.03 1.6 2.03 2.89
08/02/2013 09:50 2.03 1.6 2.03 2.89
08/02/2013 10:00 2.03 1.6 2.03 2.89
08/02/2013 10:10 2.03 1.6 2.03 2.89
08/02/2013 10:20 2.03 1.6 2.03 2.89
08/02/2013 10:30 2.03 1.6 2.46 3.31
08/02/2013 10:40 2.03 1.6 2.46 3.31
08/02/2013 10:50 2.03 2.03 2.46 3.31
08/02/2013 11:00 2.03 2.03 2.46 3.31
08/02/2013 11:10 2.03 2.03 2.89 3.31
08/02/2013 11:20 2.03 2.03 2.89 3.74
08/02/2013 11:30 2.03 2.03 2.89 3.74
08/02/2013 11:40 2.46 2.03 2.89 3.74
08/02/2013 11:50 2.46 2.03 2.89 3.74
08/02/2013 12:00 2.46 2.46 3.31 3.74
08/02/2013 12:10 2.46 2.46 3.31 4.15
08/02/2013 12:20 2.46 2.46 3.31 4.15
08/02/2013 12:30 2.46 2.46 3.74 4.57
08/02/2013 12:40 2.46 2.46 3.74 4.15
08/02/2013 12:50 2.46 2.89 3.74 4.15
08/02/2013 13:00 2.89 2.89 3.74 4.57
08/02/2013 13:10 2.89 2.89 4.15 4.57
08/02/2013 13:20 2.89 2.89 4.15 4.15
08/02/2013 13:30 2.89 2.89 4.15 4.57
Week 32
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/07/2013 18:10 10.99 11.38 10.99 11.38
08/07/2013 18:20 25.56 12.93 10.99 8.63
08/07/2013 18:30 25.56 12.93 10.21 7.83
08/07/2013 18:40 25.17 12.55 10.21 10.21
08/07/2013 18:50 25.17 12.55 10.6 11.38
08/07/2013 19:00 24.79 12.55 10.99 8.63
08/07/2013 19:10 24.4 12.16 10.21 9.03
08/07/2013 19:20 24.4 12.16 10.6 10.99
08/07/2013 19:30 24.01 12.16 10.6 11.77
08/07/2013 19:40 24.01 12.16 10.99 7.83
08/07/2013 19:50 23.63 12.16 10.21 9.42
08/07/2013 20:00 23.63 11.77 10.6 10.99
08/07/2013 20:10 23.24 11.77 10.6 11.77
08/07/2013 20:20 23.24 11.77 10.99 7.83
08/07/2013 20:30 22.86 11.77 10.21 9.42
08/07/2013 20:40 22.48 11.77 10.6 10.99
08/07/2013 20:50 22.48 11.38 10.99 11.77
08/07/2013 21:00 22.09 11.38 10.99 12.16
08/07/2013 21:10 22.09 11.38 10.6 8.23
08/07/2013 21:20 21.71 11.38 10.6 10.21

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 67
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/07/2013 21:30 21.71 11.38 10.6 11.38
08/07/2013 21:40 21.71 11.38 10.99 11.77
08/07/2013 21:50 21.33 11.38 10.99 7.83
08/07/2013 22:00 20.95 11.38 10.6 9.03
08/07/2013 22:10 20.95 11.38 10.21 10.6
08/07/2013 22:20 20.95 10.99 10.6 11.38
08/07/2013 22:30 20.57 10.99 10.99 11.77
08/07/2013 22:40 20.57 10.99 11.38 11.77
08/07/2013 22:50 20.19 10.99 10.6 7.83
08/07/2013 23:00 20.19 10.99 10.6 9.03
08/07/2013 23:10 20.19 10.99 10.6 9.42
08/07/2013 23:20 19.81 10.99 10.6 8.63
08/07/2013 23:30 19.81 10.99 9.42 6.22
08/07/2013 23:40 19.42 10.99 9.42 6.22
08/07/2013 23:50 19.42 10.6 8.23 2.46
08/08/2013 00:00 19.42 10.21 7.03 1.17
08/08/2013 00:10 19.04 10.21 6.22 2.03
08/08/2013 00:20 19.04 9.82 5.81 1.17
08/08/2013 00:30 18.66 9.42 5.4 2.46
08/08/2013 00:40 18.66 9.03 4.99 1.17
08/08/2013 00:50 18.66 8.63 4.57 2.89
08/08/2013 01:00 18.28 8.63 4.15 0.73
08/08/2013 01:10 18.28 8.23 4.15 2.89
08/08/2013 01:20 17.9 7.83 3.74 0.73
08/08/2013 01:30 17.9 7.43 3.74 2.46
08/08/2013 01:40 17.52 7.43 3.74 0.73
08/08/2013 01:50 17.52 7.03 3.31 1.6
08/08/2013 02:00 17.14 6.62 3.31 2.89
08/08/2013 02:10 17.14 6.62 2.89 0.73
08/08/2013 02:20 16.76 6.22 2.89 2.03
08/08/2013 02:30 16.76 6.22 2.89 1.6
08/08/2013 02:40 16.38 5.81 2.89 1.17
08/08/2013 02:50 16.38 5.81 2.89 2.03
08/08/2013 03:00 16.38 5.4 2.89 0.29
08/08/2013 03:10 16 5.4 2.46 1.17
08/08/2013 03:20 16 4.99 2.46 2.46
08/08/2013 03:30 15.62 4.99 2.89 0.73
08/08/2013 03:40 15.62 4.99 2.46 1.17
08/08/2013 03:50 15.23 4.57 2.46 2.03
08/08/2013 04:00 15.23 4.57 2.46 1.17
08/08/2013 04:10 14.85 4.57 2.03 1.17
08/08/2013 04:20 14.85 4.15 2.03 2.03
08/08/2013 04:30 14.47 4.15 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 04:40 14.47 4.15 2.46 0.29
08/08/2013 04:50 14.47 3.74 2.03 1.17
08/08/2013 05:00 14.09 3.74 2.46 2.46
08/08/2013 05:10 14.09 3.74 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 05:20 13.7 3.74 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 05:30 13.7 3.74 2.03 -0.16
08/08/2013 05:40 13.7 3.74 2.03 1.17

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 68
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/08/2013 05:50 13.32 3.31 2.03 2.03
08/08/2013 06:00 13.32 3.31 2.03 -0.61
08/08/2013 06:10 13.32 3.31 1.6 0.73
08/08/2013 06:20 12.93 3.31 2.03 2.03
08/08/2013 06:30 12.93 2.89 2.03 0.73
08/08/2013 06:40 12.55 2.89 1.6 0.29
08/08/2013 06:50 12.55 2.89 1.6 1.17
08/08/2013 07:00 12.55 2.89 1.6 2.46
08/08/2013 07:10 12.16 2.89 2.03 2.89
08/08/2013 07:20 12.16 2.89 2.03 1.17
08/08/2013 07:30 11.77 2.89 2.03 0.73
08/08/2013 07:40 11.77 2.46 2.03 2.03
08/08/2013 07:50 11.77 2.46 2.03 2.89
08/08/2013 08:00 11.38 2.46 2.03 -0.16
08/08/2013 08:10 11.38 2.46 1.6 0.73
08/08/2013 08:20 11.38 2.46 1.6 1.6
08/08/2013 08:30 10.99 2.46 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 08:40 10.99 2.46 2.03 3.31
08/08/2013 08:50 10.99 2.46 2.03 -0.16
08/08/2013 09:00 10.6 2.46 1.6 1.17
08/08/2013 09:10 10.6 2.46 1.6 2.03
08/08/2013 09:20 10.6 2.03 2.03 2.89
08/08/2013 09:30 10.21 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 09:40 10.21 2.03 2.03 0.29
08/08/2013 09:50 10.21 2.03 1.6 1.6
08/08/2013 10:00 9.82 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 10:10 9.82 2.03 2.03 2.89
08/08/2013 10:20 9.82 2.03 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 10:30 9.42 2.03 2.03 0.73
08/08/2013 10:40 9.42 2.03 2.03 1.6
08/08/2013 10:50 9.42 2.03 2.03 2.03
08/08/2013 11:00 9.42 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 11:10 9.03 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 11:20 9.03 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 11:30 9.03 2.03 2.03 0.73
08/08/2013 11:40 9.03 2.03 1.6 0.73
08/08/2013 11:50 8.63 2.03 1.6 1.6
08/08/2013 12:00 8.63 2.03 1.6 2.46
08/08/2013 12:10 8.63 2.03 2.03 3.31
08/08/2013 12:20 8.63 2.03 2.03 0.29
08/08/2013 12:30 8.23 2.03 1.6 0.73
08/08/2013 12:40 8.23 2.03 1.6 1.6
08/08/2013 12:50 8.23 2.03 1.6 2.46
08/08/2013 13:00 8.23 2.03 2.03 3.31
08/08/2013 13:10 7.83 2.03 2.46 3.31
08/08/2013 13:20 7.83 2.03 2.03 0.29
08/08/2013 13:30 7.83 2.03 2.03 1.6
08/08/2013 13:40 7.83 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 13:50 7.83 2.03 2.03 2.89
08/08/2013 14:00 7.43 2.03 2.46 3.74

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 69
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/08/2013 14:10 7.43 2.03 2.46 1.17
08/08/2013 14:20 7.43 2.03 2.03 0.73
08/08/2013 14:30 7.43 2.03 2.03 1.6
08/08/2013 14:40 7.03 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 14:50 7.03 2.03 2.03 2.89
08/08/2013 15:00 7.03 2.03 2.03 3.74
08/08/2013 15:10 7.03 2.03 2.46 1.17
08/08/2013 15:20 7.03 2.03 2.46 0.73
08/08/2013 15:30 7.03 2.03 2.03 1.6
08/08/2013 15:40 6.62 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 15:50 6.62 2.03 2.03 3.31
08/08/2013 16:00 6.62 2.03 2.03 3.74
08/08/2013 16:10 6.62 2.03 2.46 0.29
08/08/2013 16:20 6.62 2.03 2.03 1.6
08/08/2013 16:30 6.22 2.03 2.03 2.46
08/08/2013 16:40 6.22 2.03 2.03 3.31
08/08/2013 16:50 6.22 2.03 2.03 2.89
08/08/2013 17:00 6.22 2.03 2.46 2.46
08/08/2013 17:10 6.22 2.03 2.46 2.46
08/08/2013 17:20 6.22 2.03 2.46 3.31
08/08/2013 17:30 6.22 2.03 2.46 1.6
08/08/2013 17:40 6.22 2.03 2.46 1.6
08/08/2013 17:50 5.81 2.03 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 18:00 5.81 2.03 2.46 3.74
08/08/2013 18:10 5.81 2.03 2.89 4.15
08/08/2013 18:20 5.81 2.03 2.89 2.03
08/08/2013 18:30 5.81 2.03 2.46 1.17
08/08/2013 18:40 5.81 2.03 2.46 2.03
08/08/2013 18:50 5.81 2.03 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 19:00 5.81 2.03 2.89 3.74
08/08/2013 19:10 5.4 2.03 2.89 4.15
08/08/2013 19:20 5.4 2.46 2.89 1.17
08/08/2013 19:30 5.4 2.46 2.46 1.17
08/08/2013 19:40 5.4 2.46 2.46 2.03
08/08/2013 19:50 5.4 2.03 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 20:00 5.4 2.03 2.46 3.74
08/08/2013 20:10 5.4 2.03 2.89 4.57
08/08/2013 20:20 5.4 2.46 2.89 2.89
08/08/2013 20:30 5.4 2.46 2.89 1.17
08/08/2013 20:40 4.99 2.46 2.46 2.03
08/08/2013 20:50 4.99 2.46 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 21:00 4.99 2.46 2.89 3.74
08/08/2013 21:10 4.99 2.46 2.89 4.15
08/08/2013 21:20 4.99 2.46 3.31 1.6
08/08/2013 21:30 4.99 2.46 2.89 1.17
08/08/2013 21:40 4.99 2.46 2.46 1.6
08/08/2013 21:50 4.99 2.46 2.46 2.46
08/08/2013 22:00 4.99 2.46 2.46 2.89
08/08/2013 22:10 4.99 2.46 2.46 3.31
08/08/2013 22:20 4.99 2.46 2.46 1.17

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 70
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Time Temp (°C)
Deep Round
Temp (°C)
Loin/Sirloin
Temp (°C)
Surface
Temp (°C)
Air
08/08/2013 22:30 4.57 2.46 2.03 0.29
08/08/2013 22:40 4.57 2.46 2.03 1.17
08/08/2013 22:50 4.57 2.03 2.03 1.6
08/08/2013 23:00 4.57 2.03 2.03 1.6
08/08/2013 23:10 4.57 2.03 2.03 2.03
08/08/2013 23:20 4.57 2.03 2.03 2.03
08/08/2013 23:30 4.57 2.03 1.6 -0.16
08/08/2013 23:40 4.57 2.03 1.6 0.29
08/08/2013 23:50 4.57 2.03 1.17 1.17
08/09/2013 00:00 4.57 2.03 1.6 2.03
09/09/2013 00:10 4.57 2.03 1.6 2.46
09/09/2013 00:20 4.57 2.03 2.03 2.89
09/09/2013 00:30 4.15 2.03 2.03 1.17
09/09/2013 00:40 4.15 2.03 1.6 0.29
09/09/2013 00:50 4.15 2.03 1.6 1.17
09/09/2013 01:00 4.15 1.6 1.6 1.6
09/09/2013 01:10 4.15 1.6 1.6 2.46
09/09/2013 01:20 4.15 1.6 2.03 2.89
09/09/2013 01:30 4.15 1.6 2.03 3.31
09/09/2013 01:40 4.15 1.6 2.46 2.89
09/09/2013 01:50 4.15 2.03 2.03 0.73
2. Lamb carcass chilling data
Date
(dd/mm/yyyy)
Time Surface temp (°C) back Surface temp (°C) thigh
06/11/2001 10:55:56 22.0 18.5
06/11/2001 11:10:56 19.1 17.1
06/11/2001 11:25:56 17.4 18.9
06/11/2001 11:40:56 16.5 20.8
06/11/2001 11:55:56 15.3 20.3
06/11/2001 12:10:56 14.2 19.5
06/11/2001 12:25:56 13.3 18.6
06/11/2001 12:40:56 12.3 17.7
06/11/2001 12:55:56 11.5 16.8
06/11/2001 13:10:56 10.8 16.0
06/11/2001 13:25:56 10.1 15.3
06/11/2001 13:40:56 9.4 14.5
06/11/2001 13:55:56 8.8 13.8
06/11/2001 14:10:56 8.2 13.2
06/11/2001 14:25:56 7.6 11.7
06/11/2001 14:40:56 7.0 9.3
06/11/2001 14:55:56 6.5 8.6
06/11/2001 15:10:56 5.9 8.0
06/11/2001 15:25:56 5.6 7.8
06/11/2001 15:40:56 5.4 7.6
06/11/2001 15:55:56 5.1 7.4
06/11/2001 16:10:56 4.9 7.2
06/11/2001 16:25:56 4.7 7.0

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 71
Date
(dd/mm/yyyy)
06/11/2001 16:40:56 4.4 6.7
06/11/2001 16:55:56 4.3 6.6
06/11/2001 17:10:56 4.1 6.3
06/11/2001 17:25:56 3.9 5.7
06/11/2001 17:40:56 3.7 5.3
06/11/2001 17:55:56 3.5 4.9
06/11/2001 18:10:56 3.3 4.7
06/11/2001 18:25:56 3.2 4.5
06/11/2001 18:40:56 3.1 4.3
06/11/2001 18:55:56 2.9 4.1
06/11/2001 19:10:56 2.8 4.0
06/11/2001 19:25:56 2.7 4.0
06/11/2001 19:40:56 2.6 3.9
06/11/2001 19:55:56 2.6 3.8
06/11/2001 20:10:56 2.5 3.5
06/11/2001 20:25:56 2.4 3.2
06/11/2001 20:40:56 2.2 2.9
06/11/2001 20:55:56 2.2 2.8
06/11/2001 21:10:56 2.2 2.7
06/11/2001 21:25:56 2.1 2.6
06/11/2001 21:40:56 2.1 2.6
06/11/2001 21:55:56 2.1 2.5
06/11/2001 22:10:56 2.0 2.4
06/11/2001 22:25:56 2.0 2.3
06/11/2001 22:40:56 1.9 2.2
06/11/2001 22:55:56 1.9 2.2
06/11/2001 23:10:56 1.8 2.1
06/11/2001 23:25:56 1.8 2.0
06/11/2001 23:40:56 1.7 1.9
06/11/2001 23:55:56 1.7 1.9
07/11/2001 00:10:56 1.7 1.8
07/11/2001 00:25:56 1.6 1.8
07/11/2001 00:40:56 1.6 1.7
07/11/2001 00:55:56 1.6 1.7
07/11/2001 01:10:56 1.5 1.7
07/11/2001 01:25:56 1.5 1.7
07/11/2001 01:40:56 1.5 1.6
07/11/2001 01:55:56 1.5 1.6
07/11/2001 02:10:56 1.5 1.6
07/11/2001 02:25:56 1.4 1.5
07/11/2001 02:40:56 1.4 1.5
07/11/2001 02:55:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 03:10:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 03:25:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 03:40:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 03:55:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 04:10:56 1.3 1.4
07/11/2001 04:25:56 1.3 1.4
07/11/2001 04:40:56 1.3 1.3
07/11/2001 04:55:56 1.3 1.3

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 72
Date
(dd/mm/yyyy)
07/11/2001 05:10:56 1.3 1.3
07/11/2001 05:25:56 1.3 1.3
07/11/2001 05:40:56 1.3 1.3
07/11/2001 05:55:56 1.3 1.3
07/11/2001 06:10:56 1.3 1.3
07/11/2001 06:25:56 1.3 1.3
07/11/2001 06:40:56 1.3 1.4
07/11/2001 06:55:56 1.4 1.5
07/11/2001 07:10:56 1.4 1.5
07/11/2001 07:25:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 07:40:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 07:55:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 08:10:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 08:25:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 08:40:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 08:55:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 09:10:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 09:25:56 1.4 1.4
07/11/2001 09:40:56 1.3 1.2

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 73
Appendix C. Secondary models
For Escherichia coli the square root model developed by Ross et al., (2003) was used.
The model equation was:
√ max = c • (T-Tmin) • (1-exp (d• (T-Tmax)))
• √ (aw-awmin)
• √ (1-10(pHmin-pH))
• √ (1-10(pH-pHmax)
)
• √ (1-[LAC]/ (Umin • (1+10(pH-pKa)
)))
• √ (1- [LAC]/ (Dmin • (1+10(pKa-pH)
)))
±e
Where:
max = maximum specific growth rate (hours-1
)
c, d and g = fitted parameters
aw = water activity
awmin = theoretical minimum water activity below which growth is not possible
T = temperature,
Tmin = theoretical minimum temperature below which growth is not possible
Tmax = theoretical maximum temperature beyond which growth is not possible
pH has its usual meaning
pHmin = theoretical minimum pH below which growth is not possible
pHmax = theoretical maximum pH beyond which growth is not possible
[LAC] = lactic acid concentration (mM)
Umin = minimum concentration (mM) of undissociated lactic acid which prevents growth
when all other factors are optimal
Dmin = minimum concentration (mM) of dissociated lactic acid which prevents growth
when all other factors are optimal
pKa is the pH for which concentrations of undissociated and dissociated lactic acid are
equal, reported to be 3.86
e = error
The values of the parameters are:
Parameter Estimate
C 0.2790
T min 4.14
T max 49.55
pH min 3.909
pH max 8.860
U min 10.43
D min 995.5
awmin 0.9508
d 0.2636
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) 0.0054

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 74
For Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes and Yersinia enterocolitica the polynomial models of
ComBase were used.
The model equation was:
Ln( max) = a_0 + a_1*T + a_2*pH + a_3*bw + a_4*T*pH + a_5*T*bw + a_6*pH*bw + a_7*tT^2 +
a_8*pH^2 + a_9*bw^2 + LA*(a_10 + a_11*T + a_12*pH + a_13*bw + a_14*LA) ±e
Where:
max = maximum specific growth rate (hours-1
)
a_0-a_14 = fitted parameters
bw = sqrt(1-aw), aw = water activity
T = temperature,
pH has its usual meaning
LA = Lactic acid concentration (ppm)
e = error
The values of the parameters are:
Parameter Listeria monocytogenes Salmonella spp. Yersinia enterocolitica
a_0 -18.851 -11.906 -13.616
a_1 0.2409 0.3649 0.203
a_2 4.2628 1.7832 3.0026
a_3 6.36771 7.00019 8.42249
a_4 0 -0.00442 -0.00629
a_5 0 0 0.11391
a_6 0 0 0
a_7 -0.00332 -0.00458 -0.00217
a_8 -0.31377 -0.12539 -0.2171
a_9 -43.1241 -62.114 -93.4381
a_10 -3.5E-05 0 0
a_11 -3E-07 0 0
a_12 0.000009 0 0
a_13 -0.00014 0 0
a_14 -1.2E-09 0 0

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 75
Appendix D. Equivalent growth in beef, pork and lamb
Equivalent growth in beef
Table 1: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of E. coli (VTEC) as compared to the mean and worst case baseline scenario for
beef carcasses
carcass chilling
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
0.000 0.000 0.008 0.014 0.022 0.032
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of E. coli to mean baseline scenario:
5 °C ng ng
6 °C ng ng 0.0
7 °C ng 0.0 0.0
8 °C 1.3 0.7 0.5
9 °C 1.4 0.9 0.6
10 °C 1.8 1.2
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of E. coli to worst baseline scenario
5 °C ng ng
6 °C ng ng 48.0
7 °C ng 48.0 26.4
8 °C 49.3 27.1 17.1
9 °C 29.2 18.4 12.7
10 °C 20.2 13.9

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 76
Table 2: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of L. monocytogenes as compared to the mean and worst case baseline scenario for
beef carcasses
carcass chilling
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
0.021 0.026 0.031 0.038 0.046 0.054
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of L. monocytogenes to mean baseline scenario:
5 °C 44.6 36.4
6 °C 45.6 37.2 30.6
7 °C 38.0 31.2 25.8
8 °C 32.2 26.6 22.2
9 °C 27.1 22.6 18.9
10 °C 23.5 19.7
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of L. monocytogenes to worst baseline scenario
5 °C 74.4 60.7
6 °C 77.3 63.1 51.8
7 °C 65.4 53.7 44.4
8 °C 56.0 46.3 38.5
9 °C 48.1 40.1 33.6
10 °C 41.8 35.1

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 77
Equivalent growth in pork
Table 3: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of L. monocytogenes as compared to the mean and worst case baseline scenario for
pork carcasses
carcass chilling
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
0.021 0.026 0.031 0.038 0.046 0.054
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of L. monocytogenes to mean baseline scenario:
5 °C 59.8 48.8
6 °C 60.3 49.2 40.4
7 °C 50.0 41.1 34.0
8 °C 42.0 34.8 29.0
9 °C 35.8 29.8 25.0
10 °C 30.7 25.7
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of L. monocytogenes to worst baseline scenario
5 °C
6 °C
7 °C 60.0 49.3 40.8
8 °C 57.9 47.9 39.9
9 °C 52.6 43.8 36.7
10 °C 47.1 39.5

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 78
Table 4: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of Y. enterocolitica as compared to the mean and worst case baseline scenario for
pork carcasses
carcass chilling
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
0.039 0.045 0.052 0.060 0.068 0.078
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of Y. enterocolitica to mean baseline scenario:
5 °C 41.2 35.6
6 °C 46.6 40.2 34.9
7 °C 44.9 38.9 33.9
8 °C 42.0 36.5 31.9
9 °C 38.9 34.0 29.8
10 °C 35.9 31.5
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of Y. enterocolitica to worst baseline scenario
5 °C
6 °C
7 °C 57.0 49.4 42.9
8 °C 57.6 50.2 43.8
9 °C 54.7 47.8 42.0
10 °C 51.0 44.8

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 79
Equivalent growth in lamb
Table 5: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of E. coli as compared to the worst case baseline scenario for lamb carcasses
carcass chilling
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
0.000 0.000 0.008 0.014 0.022 0.032
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of E. coli to worst baseline scenario:
5 °C ng ng
6 °C ng ng 48.0
7 °C ng 49.3 27.1
8 °C 50.6 27.8 17.5
9 °C 29.2 18.4 12.7
10 °C 19.8 13.6

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 80
Table 6: Transportation time required to achieve an equivalent growth of L. monocytogenes as compared to the worst case baseline scenario for lamb
carcasses
carcass chilling
5 °C 6 °C 7 °C 8 °C 9 °C 10 °C
0.021 0.026 0.031 0.038 0.046 0.054
Transportation time (hours) required for the equivalent growth of L. monocytogenes to worst baseline scenario:
5 °C 74.4 60.7
6 °C 76.8 62.7 51.5
7 °C 64.2 52.8 43.7
8 °C 54.7 45.2 37.7
9 °C 46.6 38.8 32.5
10 °C 39.6 33.2

EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3601 81
Combined results for all tested pathogens in pork
Table 7: Combinations of surface temperature of pork carcasses at the end of chilling process and
(hours)
-
5 41.2
6 46.6
- -
- -
- -
(hours)
5 35.6
6 40.2
7 44.9
5 -
6 -
7 57.0
(hours)
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 1.3
6 -
7 48.7
8 50.7

Scientific Opinion on the public health risks related to the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Scientific Opinion on the public health risks related to the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat (20)

More from Héctor Lousa @HectorLousa (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Scientific Opinion on the public health risks related to the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat