Food chain information and post-mortem findings in fattening Turkey flocks

The European Food Safety Authority suggests using food chain information (FCI) to identify public health risks caused by slaughter poultry flocks. Research on using FCI as a risk assessment tool is scarce, especially concerning slaughter turkeys. Our study investigated the main FCI and post-mortem inspection (PMI) findings and the prevalence of public health hazards in Finnish slaughter turkeys. The study included 82 Finnish fattening turkey flocks. We assessed the FCI documents and PMI results of the sampled turkey flocks. We also studied the presence of Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), Listeria monocytogenes, and enteropathogenic Yersinia spp. From faecal swab samples. In 44% of the slaughter turkey flocks, farmers had reported deviations in the FCI. Necrotic enteritis and medication were the most common deviations. Male turkey flocks underwent significantly more condemnations in PMI than female flocks (p < 0.001). Skin injuries were the most common reason for whole and partial carcass condemnations in female flocks. In male flocks, enlarged sternal bursa and skin injuries were the most common reasons for whole and partial carcass condemnation, respectively. Leg problems reported in the FCI significantly affected whole carcass condemnations due to bruising/fractures (p = 0.03, females) and arthritis (p = 0.001, males) and partial condemnations due to arthritis (p = 0.02, males). Altogether, 68% of the turkey flocks carried microbial public health hazards, the most common of which were STEC (43% of flocks testing positive) and L. monocytogenes (32% of flocks testing positive). The FCI in its current form proved insufficient for identifying turkey flocks carrying public health hazards other than Salmonella spp. The FCI is a potential tool for the risk assessment of slaughter turkey flocks, but we suggest that the system requires improvements in the structure of the FCI form (for example using more specific yes/no questions or scale-based assessment systems) and in motivating farmers to respond.