Next Article in Journal
Continuous Extradural Infusion of Ropivacaine in a Cat with Severe Abdominal Trauma
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Gait Characteristics for Horses Without Shoes, with Steel Shoes, and with Aluminum Shoes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 15
Issue 16
10.3390/ani15162377
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Risk Factors and Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Poultry Carcasses in Slaughterhouses Under Official Veterinary Inspection Service in Brazil

by
Anna Carolina Massara Brasileiro
1,2,*,
Cláudia Valéria Gonçalves Cordeiro de Sá
3,
Carla Susana Rodrigues
3,
Adriana Oliveira
3,
Rafael Nicolino
1 and
João Paulo Amaral Haddad
1
1
Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine and Epidemiology, Veterinary College, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
2
CIVG—Vasco da Gama Research Center/EUVG—Vasco da Gama University School, 3020-210 Coimbra, Portugal
3
Department of Support and Standards, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Secretariat of Animal and Plant Health and Inspection, Brasília 70043-900, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2025, 15(16), 2377; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162377 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 24 July 2025 / Revised: 5 August 2025 / Accepted: 7 August 2025 / Published: 13 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Animal Diseases in Agricultural Production Systems: Their Veterinary, Zoonotic, and One Health Importance, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Salmonella is a type of bacteria that can cause serious foodborne illness in humans, and poultry meat is one of the main sources of this infection. To better protect consumers, the Brazilian government updated its rules in 2016 to improve how Salmonella is monitored and controlled in chicken production. This study presents the results of an official nationwide survey carried out in 2017. During this period, 140 slaughterhouses across Brazil were studied, and over 1400 chicken carcass samples were collected and analyzed in a presumptive detection method after processing. These samples were taken in a way that ensured they fairly represented the national production. The results showed that nearly 18% of the chicken carcasses were contaminated with Salmonella. This finding highlights the importance of maintaining strict control programs and regularly evaluating them to reduce contamination risks. Since Brazil is one of the world’s largest exporters of chicken, improving food safety helps protect not only national consumers but also millions of people around the world. This research supports the need for continued efforts in monitoring and prevention to ensure safer poultry products for everyone.

Abstract

Because of the relevance of Salmonella spp. in poultry, in 2016, the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply updated its regulation for the control and monitoring of Salmonella in the poultry meat production chain. We herein present the results of the official monitoring of sampling cycles of carcasses performed by the Brazilian official veterinary inspection service (SIF) and the Center for Epidemiology, Statistics, and Public Health of the Veterinary School of the Federal University of Minas Gerais. Samples were collected in March–September 2017, during which 140 slaughterhouses slaughtered over three billion chickens. The establishments were classified according to the number of animals slaughtered per day, and cycles varied according to the size of the establishment. Sample weights were defined to increase the external validity of the data. Chicken carcasses were randomly sampled after chilling and dripping. A total of 1434 samples were analyzed in official laboratories using Vidas SLM and SPT systems, for positive samples were used the ISO 6579:2014. The estimated prevalence of Salmonella spp. in chicken carcasses was 17.88% (95% CI 14.34–22.05). Considering the representativeness of Brazilian chicken meat in the global market, constant evaluation and review of the program is necessary to reduce the prevalence of Salmonella.

1. Introduction

Public health is globally affected by Salmonella spp. infections. This bacterial species uses a wide variety of animals as reservoirs and easily survives in various environments, hampering its control [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Broilers are considered one of the main reservoirs of Salmonella, with these animals and their derived products being important carriers of the pathogen [8,9,10,11]. Over 2600 Salmonella serovars are currently recognized, which mostly affect poultry. These serovars can basically cause two diseases: typhoid Salmonella (caused by S. pullorum and S. gallinarum) and nontyphoid Salmonella (several other serovars). These diseases may or may not be species-specific, as is the case with nontyphoid Salmonella that affects humans [8,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Expenses related to human infections by nontyphoid Salmonella have reached USD 3.65 billion annually in the European Union (EU) [22,23] and USD 3.7 billion in the United States of America (USA) [13]. A study on the costs for the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) of Salmonella spp. outbreaks linked to the consumption of animal products revealed an expense of USD 1.1 million [24].
The most commonly identified serovars in the EU and USA linked to human foodborne outbreaks are S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium. Salmonella Enteritidis is associated with the consumption of poultry meat and eggs, while S. Typhimurium is linked to a larger variety of foods, including pork, chicken, beef, and sheep [25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. In a study conducted in the USA in 2007–2011 [32], S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium serovars were correlated with several species of animals in the field, with clinical and non-clinical manifestations. Chickens also had the highest frequency (29.23%) of the S. Typhimurium serovar, but without clinical manifestation. Thus, integrating measures related to animal health in the field and processing industry are clearly necessary, as problems are identified in the phases of food processing, handling, transport, and storage, including in restaurants, supermarkets, and households. The risk inherent to food handling—the biggest challenge to mitigate the risks of Salmonella spp. infection [33,34,35,36,37,38]—is evident, as an erroneous conduct of the handlers leads to food contamination. In Brazil, most infections (when the place of contamination could be identified) occurred in residences (34.0%), restaurants, and bakeries (14.6%) [39]. Recently, China also identified differences between rural and urban cases of human infections [40].
In 2003, the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA) established the Pathogen Reduction Program as a mitigation measure to monitor Salmonella spp. in chicken and turkey carcasses, providing a basis for more efficient control measures in the production process [41]. Based on exploratory studies, this program was revised and updated in 2016. The current standard was elaborated based on American [42] and European [43] regulations, in order to meet the requirements of both markets. In the current standard, animal health defense actions were integrated, covering the entire production chain (from farm to slaughterhouse). Chickens destined for slaughter must be accompanied by a laboratory report of the Salmonella spp. test; moreover, a positive result must be species-specified—i.e., for S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, S. Gallinarium, S. Pullorum, and/or monophasic salmonela (1,4[5],12:-:1,2/1,4[5],12:i:-), the monophasic genomic variant of S. Typhimurium. Batches positive for Salmonella spp., S. Gallinarium, and S. Pullorum must be separately sacrificed, and the entire line immediately hygienized. Batches positive for S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, and monophasic Salmonella must be separately slaughtered, equipment must be immediately sanitized, and the carcasses can be destined for mechanically separated meat and cooked products [44].
These preventive and control measures, in addition to verifying Salmonella spp. contaminations in poultry, are also applied to industrial self-control programs. These mitigation measures are also integrated with the production chain, making it more effective and promoting food safety for the consumer.
The objective of the present study was to determine the prevalence of Salmonella spp. in chicken carcasses, as well as to characterize the risk of contamination according to the size and commercial qualification of Brazilian slaughter establishments under the Brazilian veterinary inspection service in 2017. The findings from this investigation will serve as technical guidance for the official sanitary inspection service, aiming to enhance preventive control measures for improved public health protection.

2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional, nationwide prevalence study of Salmonella spp. was conducted on chicken carcasses slaughtered in slaughterhouses under the Brazilian official inspection service from March to September 2017. During the study period, 140 establishments slaughtered more than 3 billion chickens in the country. A total of 1434 samples from 115 slaughter establishments were analyzed in the Brazilian official Federal Laboratories for Agricultural Defense (LFDAs).

2.1. Sampling

Sampling methods were defined after the publication of the regulation, contemplating field mitigation measures [44], and were based on previous monitoring studies implemented by the Department of Inspection of Products of Animal Origin (DIPOA), with the support of members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Microbiology of Products of Animal Origin [45]. Two-level sampling considering establishments and carcasses was used, and their respective sample weights were implemented to increase the external validity of the data [46,47]. To define the sampling plan, slaughterhouses under the Brazilian official veterinary inspection service were categorized into Small, Medium, Large, and Very Large, according to the number of chickens slaughtered per day (Table 1).

2.2. Sample Collection

The data herein analyzed were obtained from the official collections of the veterinary service, and all days of the week and slaughter shifts were considered to have the same chance of being sampled. Samples (carcasses) were randomly collected immediately after the drip stage and before packing [44], and then sent refrigerated or exceptionally frozen to the official laboratories (LFDA) for Salmonella spp. testing. The criteria for defining the cycles and sampling were proportional to the sizes of the slaughter establishments (Table 2) [44,48]. Expected prevalence and probability were estimated based on previous studies.
A total of 1434 samples were collected from 115 establishments, 95 of them qualified for the foreign market (EM) and 20 qualified exclusively for the domestic market (IM) [49] (Table 3).

2.3. Microbiological Analysis

In the official laboratories, 25 g of skin and muscle from the pericloacal, wing, and neck regions of each carcass was collected. The presumptive detection method by enzyme immunoassay reaction (VIDAS® Easy Salmonella Method (SLM), bioMérieux, Lyon, France, Validation: AFNOR BIO 16/12-09/05 or VIDAS® UP Salmonella (SPT), Validation: AFNOR BIO 12/32-10/11) was used. Samples with positive results for Salmonella spp. were subjected to confirmatory analysis using the ISO 6579:2014 methodology, using specific O and H antisera according to the White–Kauffmann–Le Minor scheme for serological confirmation [50].
This method ensures standardized detection of Salmonella across various matrices, with validated performance characteristics, including sensitivity and specificity, as discussed by Mooijman [51]. All official laboratories involved in the analyses have the procedures controlled and accredited by ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO 6579:2014 [50,52].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Sample collection and laboratory results data were stored in electronic spreadsheets. After verification and adjustments, the status of samples and establishments was characterized. Statistical analysis was performed based on the principle of probability, applicable in the definition of a sampling plan as required by the Codex Alimentarius [53]. Sample weights of the establishments were calculated based on production capacity and sampling unit, as follows:
Sample   weight :   t o t a l   n u m b e r   o f   s l a u g h t e r h o u s e s n u m b e r   o f   s l a u g h t e r h o u s e s   s a m p l e d × t o t a l   p r o d u c t i o n   o f   t h e   s l a u g h t e r h o u s e   s a m p l e d n u m b e r   o f   s a m p l e s   o f   t h e   s l a u g h t e r h o u s e   s a m p l e d
In addition to descriptive statistics, logistic regression models were used, considering the sample weights of establishments and samples. The dependent variable was Salmonella spp. results in slaughter establishments, and the independent variables were their respective sizes, qualifications, and the day of the week of collection. The weighting of the data for each production volume provides a scientific basis for the assessment of the exposure of products to the pathogen and their use in microbial risk evaluations. Model goodness-of-fit used was the Hosmer–Lemeshow test for logistic regression; the results include standard errors and 95% confidence. Sample collection data and laboratory results were analyzed using the Stata 15 statistical software (Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, Texas, USA).

2.5. Geoprocessing

To perform the geoprocessing of slaughterhouses, we listed all active chicken slaughterhouses in 2017, consulting their respective addresses. All information was extracted from SIGSIF and MAPA’s website [49]. The Google Maps platform was then used to search for geographic coordinates, which were entered into the ArcGIS Pro Version 3.5 [54] for geoprocessing.
The distribution of Brazilian chicken slaughter establishments under the federal inspection service is shown in Figure 1.

3. Results

The prevalence of Salmonella spp. in broiler carcasses in Brazil was 17.88% (95% CI 14.34–22.05) of 20,484,000 carcasses. The prevalence in small slaughterhouses was 25.18% (95% CI 14.41–40.20), which was not significantly different from that of the other slaughterhouse sizes (Table 4).
Considering the day of collection, the highest prevalence was on Monday (21.74%), and Thursday presented a significant protection factor (0.29; 95% CI 0.14–0.58; p = 0.001) compared to the other days of the week. However, since the self-control programmes are standardized and, in the present study, there is no information about working shifts and workers’ presence, factors that could influence these results, further investigation is necessary to check the possible associated reasons.
Most slaughter establishments were concentrated in the South (52.14%) of Brazil, followed by the Southeast (25.71%), Center-West (13.57%), Northeast (5.71%), and North (2.86%). The regional characterization of Salmonella prevalence in slaughter establishments was similar among these regions; the highest prevalence was in the South, followed by the Midwest, Southeast, and North/Northeast regions of Brazil (Table 5).
Table 5. Regional characterization of Salmonella spp. prevalence in chicken carcasses in Brazilian slaughterhouses under official veterinary inspection service in 2017.
Table 5. Regional characterization of Salmonella spp. prevalence in chicken carcasses in Brazilian slaughterhouses under official veterinary inspection service in 2017.
RegionNo. of Slaughter Establishments Sampled% SalmonellaCI (95%)
South6318.421.38–24.14
Central-west1117.4810.35–27.98
Southeast3316.5810.5–25.19
North/Northeast816.050.51–40.31
Salmonella spp. prevalences in slaughterhouses with different marketing qualifications, for which no statistically significant difference was found, are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in relation to the commercial scope.
Table 6. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in relation to the commercial scope.
Commercial Qualification% SalmonellaCI (95%)
IM19.598.5–39.9
EM (European Union)18.8212.7–26.9
EM (Other)16.9813.1–21.8
IM, Domestic Market; EM, External Market.
The five main serovars identified in the positive samples are shown in Table 7.
The distribution of the five main Salmonella serovars according to slaughterhouse size is shown in Figure 2.

4. Discussion

4.1. Brazilian Prevalence Comparison with Other Countries

The prevalence of Salmonella spp. in chicken carcasses in Brazil in the study period was 17.88% (95% CI 14.34–22.05), which is lower than the value found in a study conducted in the USA in 2012. However, the latter study evaluated parts of carcasses and viscera in which the prevalence was 24.02% (95% CI 19.24–28.79). Prevalence was compared between skinned and skinless samples, but no significant difference was detected [42]. The carcass cutting process exposes muscle surfaces that are particularly vulnerable to bacterial contamination, especially in the presence of pre-existing surface contamination [55,56]. A baseline study conducted in the EU in 2008 obtained results similar to those from Brazil, with a prevalence of 15.6% (95% CI 13.6–17.9) in neck and breast skin samples. Variation among member state countries (MS) was detected, with Hungary (85.6%), Bulgaria (26.6%), Poland (25.4%), and Slovakia (22.8%) standing out. The other countries did not show such disparity in prevalence, and Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg (MS), and Norway (non-MS) showed negative results for Salmonella in chicken carcasses [57].
The microbiological acceptance standards of the cycles were based on studies developed in previous years and were established according to each reality, as recommended in the Codex Alimentarius [53] and international microbiological standards [48]; this allowed the Brazilian Salmonella control program to be standardized with those of countries that have more stringent sanitary rules. Cycle variation is proportional to the size of the slaughterhouse and was calculated by estimating a prevalence of 20% [44]. The expected prevalence in the EU and in the USA is approximately 11.3% (n = 50; c = 7) [43] and 7.5% (n = 51; c = 5) [58], respectively.
The creation of the National Pathogen Control Program (PNCP) in 2013 allowed the evaluation of the frequency of Salmonella spp. in chicken carcasses. In the 2013–2014 cycle, 856 samples were collected from 89 establishments, obtaining a prevalence of 17.52%. In 2015–2016, 1922 samples from 143 establishments were analyzed; 330 samples had positive results, resulting in a frequency of 17.17% [59]. A progressive fluctuation in the occurrence of Salmonella spp. in poultry carcasses was observed between 2017 and 2022, with an initial decline followed by subsequent increases. Between 2018 and 2022, the occurrence of Salmonella spp. in poultry carcasses exhibited moderate fluctuations, with rates ranging from 12.61% to 14.86%, indicating slight variations over time but no consistent downward trend [59]. However, it can be observed that in these most recent results, in Brazil, Salmonella occurrence is lower than that presented in the current study, indicating the effectiveness of the measures adopted to ensure public health protection.

4.2. Slaughterhouse Size

No statistically significant difference in prevalence was found among slaughter establishments of different sizes; however, constant monitoring should be maintained, as small-sized slaughter establishments tend to have a higher prevalence than other establishment sizes. A prevalence study conducted in France in 2008 on the risk factors influencing the presence of Salmonella in carcasses found that establishments slaughtering 50,000–150,000 animals per day had a high percentage of positive carcasses. The specific risk factors were the number of operators present at evisceration (<2) (OR = 4.65) and the exclusivity of the establishment in slaughtering only Gallus (OR = 7.08) [60]. Algeria also reported a high Salmonella prevalence in small-scale establishments [61].

4.3. Regional Influence

No statistically significant differences in prevalence were found among the regions of Brazil. This may indicate that the quality standards of the regions are uniform in the field and industry, despite regional challenges such as the climate. Nevertheless, previous studies in different regions detected some differences. In Rio Grande do Sul, in 2006–2015, the average prevalence of Salmonella spp. in 77,165 analyzed carcasses was 4.04% [62]; and in the state of São Paulo in 2000–2010, 609 samples had a prevalence of 14.6% [63]. However, these studies used different methodologies. Analysis of USDA-FSIS demonstrated regional variation in serovar distribution, with S. Infantis and S. Typhimurium predominating in the Atlantic and S. Schwarzengrund in the Southeast. In Georgia, comparison between processing and breeder flock data indicated S. Kentucky as the dominant serovar in breeders (67.91%), though largely absent at processing, likely due to effective antimicrobial interventions [64]. These findings highlight the importance of implementing region-specific serovar surveillance in Brazil to better inform control strategies and improve public health outcomes.

4.4. Operational Influences

Considering the day of collection, the highest prevalence was on Monday (21.74%), and Thursday presented a significant protection factor (0.29; 95% CI 0.14–0.58; p = 0.001) compared to the other days of the week. However, as the self-control programs are standardized, and the present study lacks information regarding operational details, factors that could potentially influence the results [55,65,66,67]. Further investigation is required to identify the underlying causes associated with the observed outcomes.
Ensuring product safety requires not only standardized processing but also strict biosecurity measures at the farm level. Key practices include sourcing Salmonella-free chicks, using pelleted feed with organic acids, maintaining water quality, effective pest control, and regulated access to facilities [68,69,70,71,72]. Although poultry slaughter is automated, pathogen control depends heavily on well-implemented self-control programs focused on sanitation and hygiene [73,74,75,76]. Critical control points—starting with animal welfare and continuing through pre-slaughter handling, scalding, evisceration, and chilling—must be carefully managed to reduce stress and microbial load [73,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84]. Notably, Salmonella has been detected even after cage sanitization, highlighting the importance of rigorous cleaning protocols to prevent farm-to-plant pathogen transmission [73,74,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84].

4.5. Prevalence and Serotyping According to Establishments Qualification

In 2017, 66.9% of production was destined for domestic consumption and 33.1% for the foreign market [85]. Regarding the minimal and non-significant difference in prevalence among establishments with different commercial qualifications, it is important to highlight that the very large and large establishments are export-oriented establishments. They are officially certified for international trade and also operate in the domestic market. These establishments are responsible for a substantial portion of the domestic supply due to their high production volume. The main destinations of national poultry meat are countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa [86].
The five main serovars found in this study—S. Heidelberg (9.0%), S. Minessota (3.07%), S. Saintpaul (1.2%), S. Infantis (0.21%), and S. Schwarzengrund (0.21%)—were also found in previous studies conducted in Brazil. Enteritidis and Typhimurium serovars were identified in 0.25% and 0.51%, respectively, in 2017 b, demonstrating the effectiveness of the official national vaccination program instituted in the field since 2003 [41]. In a field prevalence study conducted in 2009–2010 in the states of Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Mato Grosso do Sul to identify the main serovars circulating in broiler production, the most frequent serovars identified from 1543 samples were Minnesota (40.24%), Infantis (14.63%), Heidelberg (7.31%), Senftenberg (6.09%), and Mbandaka (6.09%). Between 2007 and 2011, 12,582 strains of Salmonella from chicken carcasses and products from all regions of the country were analyzed by the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Sixty-one different serovars were identified, among which the main ones (53%) were Enteritidis, Minnesota, Typhimurium, Schwarzengrund, and Mbandaka. The Heidelberg serotype was among the 20 most frequent in the study and had not yet been isolated in the southern region [87]. We herein show that it is currently notably present in the southern region.

4.6. Public Health Impact

According to the Brazilian government [88], in 2017, 10 outbreaks caused by Salmonella spp. were reported, resulting in 378 cases, along with one outbreak attributed to Salmonella Typhimurium, which resulted in 15 cases. None of these outbreaks were linked to the consumption of chicken meat or derived products. The serovars S. Heidelberg, S. Senftenberg, and S. Mbandaka have been identified in broilers for years, but there are no studies establishing their relationship with foodborne outbreaks [8]. More recently, in Brazil, among the Salmonella spp. isolates subjected to serotyping, S. Minnesota and S. Heidelberg were the most frequently identified serotypes, accounting for 60% and 21.7% of samples, respectively. Serotypes of greater public health concern, such as S. Typhimurium and the monophasic variant S. 1,4,[5],12:i:-, both of which are classified within the same serovar, Typhimurium, were detected at low frequency (0.48%), while no isolates of S. Enteritidis were identified [59]. Although the health status of live animals was not assessed in this study, it is important to emphasize that all animals testing positive for Salmonella enterica serovars Typhimurium or Enteritidis are systematically slaughtered separately from other flocks, at the end of the processing shift. Their carcasses are subsequently subjected to heat treatment to ensure effective elimination of the pathogen.
In addition to the challenge of mitigating Salmonella, there remains the significant concern of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and its public health implications. In Brazil, the National Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Antimicrobial Resistance in Animal Production was established in 2018. The plan aims to promote awareness, monitoring, and control of antimicrobial use and resistance across multiple areas of intervention [89]. As part of these efforts, the MAPA conducted an exploratory study on antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica from poultry meat, involving the analysis of 146 isolates from 2014 and 163 from 2017. Salmonella ser. Heidelberg and Salmonella ser. Minnesota were the main serotypes associated with resistance. Multidrug resistance was detected in 50.7% (74/146) of isolates in 2014 and increased significantly to 77.3% (126/163) in 2017 (p < 0.05). The most frequent resistance profiles were observed against nalidixic acid (57.5% and 86.5%), ampicillin (56.2% and 76.7%), cefotaxime (52.1% and 76.1%), ceftazidime (50.0% and 76.1%), ciprofloxacin (56.9% and 89.0%), and tetracycline (60.3% and 82.8%) for 2014 and 2017, respectively [90]. In a recent study conducted in the UK, Salmonella strains originating from Brazilian poultry products are unlikely to cause disease in UK consumers. No evidence of Salmonella Heidelberg or Salmonella Minnesota—serovars detected in Brazilian poultry—was found in UK domestic chicken populations. These results indicate that the introduction of the Salmonella Enteritidis vaccine in Brazil, along with increased antimicrobial use, may have led to the replacement of more virulent serovars with those exhibiting higher antimicrobial resistance but lower pathogenicity in humans within the UK context [91].
A study conducted in the USA on the incidence rates of Salmonella serovars associated the Saintpaul (2%), Heidelberg (2%), and Infantis (1.9%) serovars with most foodborne infections from 2010 to 2015. Enteritidis (18%), Newport (10.7%), and Typhimurium monophasic serovars (9.8%) are the most representative [25]. It should be noted that the previous study does not detail the types of products linked to the outbreaks. In 2012, the most prevalent serovars in chicken carcasses and cuts were Kentucky (30.0%), Enteritidis (24.7%), Typhimurium monophasic (20.55%), Heidelberg (7.6%), and Thompson (4.3%) [42]. In another study conducted in the USA in 2013, the Heidelberg serotype was associated with a foodborne outbreak due to the consumption of contaminated chicken cutlets, affecting 634 people [10]. In 1970–2009, the Heidelberg serotype was among the most common in chickens and humans [92].
In the EU, 77,486 cases of human salmonellosis have been confirmed in all member states. The serovars most commonly identified and associated with cases were S. Enteritidis (70.8%), S. Typhimurium (8.9%), monophasic S. Typhimurium 1,4,[5],12:i:- (5.1%), S. Infantis (2.0%), and S. Coeln (0.77%). Salmonella Enteritidis was associated with hen eggs and broiler meat, while Salmonella Typhimurium was associated with pork consumption, and S. Infantis was strongly associated with chicken consumption [93].
The Minnesota serovar is rarely associated with foodborne outbreaks worldwide [8,92,94].

4.7. Efforts Improvements on Surveillance

The continuous evaluation and refinement of pre-harvest and post-harvest interventions are essential for adapting to emerging challenges, such as evolving pathogen profiles and changing production practices. Studies focusing on innovative interventions and technologies intended to complement the established approaches will be crucial in mitigating microbial evolution [68,95,96].
Recently, China applied whole-genome sequencing and machine learning to characterize Salmonella from different retail chicken supply modes, revealing distinct genetic profiles, serotypes, and resistance patterns. Advanced genomic analyses identified clonal persistence and critical resistance genes, particularly in frozen products [97]. These findings underscore the value of integrating emerging technologies—such as machine learning and microbiome analysis—into food safety monitoring systems to enhance pathogen surveillance and strengthen multi-hurdle control strategies against Salmonella in poultry production.

5. Conclusions

The size of the slaughterhouses, their respective markets, and location did not affect Salmonella prevalence. However, we could identify the serovars present in Brazilian slaughterhouses and their association with possible foodborne outbreaks. Additionally, attention is given to the identification of Salmonella serovars Heidelberg and Infantis in field-derived reports, with measures such as product segregation and restriction of their use exclusively to cooked products, due to their potential to cause human salmonellosis. Our data prove the need for constant monitoring of the surveillance program. Improvements and more detailed studies can be planned considering a greater number of variables, for example, further investigation into the observed trend of higher contamination rates on Mondays, and the use of technologies, aiming at food safety and risk mitigation by the Brazilian official veterinary service.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.M.B. and J.P.A.H.; methodology, A.C.M.B. and J.P.A.H.; software, R.N. (geoprocessing) and J.P.A.H.; validation, A.C.M.B., J.P.A.H., C.V.G.C.d.S., A.O. and C.S.R.; formal analysis, A.C.M.B.; investigation, A.C.M.B.; resources, J.P.A.H.; data curation, A.C.M.B. and J.P.A.H.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.M.B.; writing—review and editing, A.C.M.B., J.P.A.H., C.V.G.C.d.S. and C.S.R.; visualization, A.C.M.B., J.P.A.H., C.V.G.C.d.S., A.O. and C.S.R.; supervision, J.P.A.H., C.V.G.C.d.S. and C.S.R.; project administration, J.P.A.H.; funding acquisition, J.P.A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply-MAPA, Process No. 21000.048282/2020-58 and Ministry of Education, Foundation for the Coordination of Higher Education Personnel Improvement—CAPES, CGC No. 00.889.834/0001-08.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This dataset is authorized for use under the auspices of the Department of Inspection of Animal-Origin Products (DIPOA/SDA/MAPA), in accordance with Process No. 21000.048282/2020-58.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from Department of Inspection of Animal-Origin Products (DIPOA/SDA/MAPA) regarding the use of animal data.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to official confidentiality restrictions. These data were provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) and are subject to prior authorization for use, as detailed in the attached official approval document (Process No. 21000.048282/2020-58).

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply for providing the data and for supporting discussions regarding the monitoring and use of the results. The authors are grateful to CAPES for awarding a scholarship to Anna C. M. Brasileiro for her PhD. program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CIConfidence Interval
DIPOADepartment of Inspection of Animal Products
EMExternal Market
EUEuropean Union
IMInternal Market
ISOInternational Organization for Standardization
LFDAsFederal Laboratories of Agriculture Defense
MAPAMinistry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply
MSMember State
NMNational Market
No.Number
SDASecretariat of Animal Defense
SUSUnified Health System
UFMGFederal University of Minas Gerais
USAUnited States of America

References

  1. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States-Major Pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. European Food Safety Authority. The 2013 Joint ECDC/EFSA Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-Borne Outbreaks Published. Sci. Rep. EFSA E ECDC 2015, 20, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Galán-Relaño, Á.; Valero Díaz, A.; Huerta Lorenzo, B.; Gómez-Gascón, L.; Mena Rodríguez, M.Á.; Carrasco Jiménez, E.; Pérez Rodríguez, F.; Astorga Márquez, R.J. Salmonella and Salmonellosis: An Update on Public Health Implications and Control Strategies. Animals 2023, 13, 3666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ashton, P.M.; Nair, S.; Peters, T.M.; Bale, J.A.; Powell, D.G.; Painset, A.; Tewolde, R.; Schaefer, U.; Jenkins, C.; Dallman, T.J.; et al. Identification of Salmonella for Public Health Surveillance Using Whole Genome Sequencing. PeerJ 2016, 4, e1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Whiley, H.; Ross, K. Salmonella and Eggs: From Production to Plate. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 2543–2556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fernandes, S.A.; Tavechio, A.T.; Ghilardi, Â.C.R.; Dias, Â.M.G.; Almeida, I.A.Z.C.D.; Melo, L.C.V.D. Salmonella Serovars Isolated from Humans in São Paulo State, Brazil, 1996–2003. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. São Paulo 2006, 48, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Popa, G.L.; Popa, M.I. Salmonella Spp. Infection—A Continuous Threat Worldwide. GERMS 2021, 11, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Voss-Rech, D.; Vaz, C.S.L.; Alves, L.; Coldebella, A.; Leao, J.A.; Rodrigues, D.P.; Back, A. A Temporal Study of Salmonella enterica Serotypes from Broiler Farms in Brazil. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Finstad, S.; O’Bryan, C.A.; Marcy, J.A.; Crandall, P.G.; Ricke, S.C. Salmonella and Broiler Processing in the United States: Relationship to Foodborne Salmonellosis. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 789–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gieraltowski, L.; Higa, J.; Peralta, V.; Green, A.; Schwensohn, C.; Rosen, H.; Libby, T.; Kissler, B.; Marsden-Haug, N.; Booth, H.; et al. National Outbreak of Multidrug Resistant Salmonella Heidelberg Infections Linked to a Single Poultry Company. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0162369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ramtahal, M.A.; Amoako, D.G.; Akebe, A.L.K.; Somboro, A.M.; Bester, L.A.; Essack, S.Y. A Public Health Insight into Salmonella in Poultry in Africa: A Review of the Past Decade: 2010–2020. Microb. Drug Resist. 2022, 28, 710–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Heithoff, D.M.; Shimp, W.R.; Lau, P.W.; Badie, G.; Enioutina, E.Y.; Daynes, R.A.; Byrne, B.A.; House, J.K.; Mahan, M.J. Human Salmonella Clinical Isolates Distinct from Those of Animal Origin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 1757–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Siddique, A.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, H.; Huang, L.; Jia, C.; Wang, B.; Ed-Dra, A.; Teng, L.; Li, Y.; Yue, M. The Evolution of Vaccines Development across Salmonella Serovars among Animal Hosts: A Systematic Review. Vaccines 2024, 12, 1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rabsch, W.; Fruth, A.; Simon, S.; Szabo, I.; Malorny, B. The Zoonotic Agent Salmonella. In Zoonoses—Infections Affecting Humans and Animals; Sing, A., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 179–211. ISBN 978-94-017-9456-5. [Google Scholar]
  15. Steele, J.H. Salmonellosis: A Major Zoonosis. Arch. Environ. Health Int. J. 1969, 19, 871–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stevens, M.P.; Humphrey, T.J.; Maskell, D.J. Molecular Insights into Farm Animal and Zoonotic Salmonella Infections. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2709–2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Michael, G.B.; Schwarz, S. Antimicrobial Resistance in Zoonotic Nontyphoidal Salmonella: An Alarming Trend? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 968–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rabsch, W.; Hargis, B.M.; Tsolis, R.M.; Kingsley, R.A.; Hinz, K.-H.; Tschäpe, H.; Bäumler, A.J. Competitive Exclusion of Salmonella Enteritidis by Salmonella Gallinarum in Poultry. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2000, 6, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhou, X.; Kang, X.; Zhou, K.; Yue, M. A Global Dataset for Prevalence of Salmonella Gallinarum between 1945 and 2021. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Hilbert, F.; Smulders, F.J.M.; Chopra-Dewasthaly, R.; Paulsen, P. Salmonella in the Wildlife-Human Interface. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bangtrakulnonth, A.; Pornreongwong, S.; Pulsrikarn, C.; Sawanpanyalert, P.; Hendriksen, R.S.; Wong, D.M.A.L.F.; Aarestrup, F.M. Salmonella Serovars from Humans and Other Sources in Thailand, 1993–2002. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (EFSA and ECDC). The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2017. EFSA J. 2018, 16, e05500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mellor, K.C.; Petrovska, L.; Thomson, N.R.; Harris, K.; Reid, S.W.J.; Mather, A.E. Antimicrobial Resistance Diversity Suggestive of Distinct Salmonella Typhimurium Sources or Selective Pressures in Food-Production Animals. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mesquita, F.B.; Nicolino, R.R.; Brasileiro, A.C.M.; Brenner, S.; Haddad, J.P.A. Costs Estimation of Human Salmonellosis Outbreaks Associated to Animal Products Consumption in Brazil, 2008/2016. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 12–16 November 2018; Abstract Book. p. 661. [Google Scholar]
  25. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne Diseases. Who 2015, 255, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Snary, E.L.; Swart, A.N.; Simons, R.R.L.; Domingues, A.R.C.; Vigre, H.; Evers, E.G.; Hald, T.; Hill, A.A. A Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment for Salmonella in Pigs for the European Union. Risk Anal. 2016, 36, 437–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ferrari, R.G.; Rosario, D.K.A.; Cunha-Neto, A.; Mano, S.B.; Figueiredo, E.E.S.; Conte-Junior, C.A. Worldwide Epidemiology of Salmonella Serovars in Animal-Based Foods: A Meta-Analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e00591-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wagenaar, J.A.; Hendriksen, R.S.; Carrique-Mas, J.J. Practical Considerations of Surveillance of Salmonella Serovars Other than Enteridis and Typhimurium. Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE 2013, 32, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Baggesen, D.L.; Sandvang, D.; Aarestrup, F.M. Characterization of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium DT104 Isolated from Denmark and Comparison with Isolates from Europe and the United States. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2000, 38, 1581–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ward, L.R.; Threlfall, J.; Smith, H.R.; O’Brien, S.J. Salmonella enteritidis Epidemic. Science 2000, 287, 1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sun, H.; Wan, Y.; Du, P.; Bai, L. The Epidemiology of Monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2020, 17, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Andino, A.; Hanning, I. Salmonella enterica: Survival, Colonization, and Virulence Differences among Serovars. Sci. World J. 2015, 2015, 520179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Carrasco, E.; Morales-Rueda, A.; García-Gimeno, R.M. Cross-Contamination and Recontamination by Salmonella in Foods: A Review. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nauta, M.; Corbellini, L.G.; Aabo, S. The Use of Risk Assessment to Support Control of Salmonella in Pork. In Proceedings of the Proceedings Book; Embrapa Suínos e Aves: Foz do Iguaçu, Brasil, 2017; pp. 36–39. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ravishankar, S.; Zhu, L.; Jaroni, D. Assessing the Cross Contamination and Transfer Rates of Salmonella enterica from Chicken to Lettuce under Different Food-Handling Scenarios. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 791–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Parry, S.M.; Palmer, S.R.; Slader, J.; Humphrey, T. The South East Wales Infectious Disease Liaison Group Risk Factors for Salmonella Food Poisoning in the Domestic Kitchen—A Case Control Study. Epidemiol. Infect. 2002, 129, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Altekruse, S.F.; Street, D.A.; Fein, S.B.; Levy, A.S. Consumer Knowledge of Foodborne Microbial Hazards and Food-Handling Practices. J. Food Prot. 1996, 59, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fatica, M.K.; Schneider, K.R. Salmonella and Produce: Survival in the Plant Environment and Implications in Food Safety. Virulence 2011, 2, 573–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ministério da Saúde Surtos de Doenças de Transmissão Hídrica e Alimentar Informe. Available online: https://higienealimentar.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/surtos-de-doencas-de-transmissao-hidrica-e-alimentar-no-brasil-informe-2024.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  40. Wang, T.; Li, W.; Zhang, R.; Wen, J.; Liu, S.; Jiang, Y.; Lin, L.; Chen, W.; Liang, J.; Ma, X.; et al. Epidemiological Features of Nontyphoidal Salmonella Infections Reported to Foodborne Disease Surveillance System in China, 2013–2022. BMC Public Health 2025, 25, 2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ministry of Agriculture; Livestock and Food Supply; MAPA. Normative Instruction. In Establish the Microbiological Pathogen Reduction Program, Monitoring and Control of Salmonella sp. in Chicken and Turkey Carcasses; 2003. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/camaras-setoriais-tematicas/documentos/camaras-setoriais/aves-e-suinos/anos-anteriores/minuta-in-salmonella-aves.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2018).
  42. USDA; Food Safety and Inspection ServiceFSIS. The Nationwide Microbiological Baseline Data Collection Program: Raw Chicken Parts Survey; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  43. European Communities No 2073/2005. Commission Regulation on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs. 2005. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/2073/oj (accessed on 3 May 2018).
  44. Ministry of Agriculture; Livestock and Supply. MAPA Normative Instruction No. 20 of October 21, 2016. Establishes the Control and Monitoring of Salmonella spp. in Commercial Poultry Establishments of Broilers and Turkeys and in Establishments for the Slaughter of Chickens, Chickens, Broiler and Breeding Turkeys, Registered with the Federal Inspection Service (SIF), in Order to Reduce the Prevalence of This Agent and Establish an Adequate Level of Consumer Protection. 2016. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sanidade-animal-e-vegetal/saude-animal/programas-de-saude-animal/pnsa/in20-2016-en-atualizada2017.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2017).
  45. Ministry of Agriculture; Livestock and Food Supply; MAPA Ordinance No. 17. Establishes, within the Department of Inspection of Animal Products of the Secretariat of Agricultural Defense of the Ministry of Agriculture; Livestock and Food Supply (DIPOA/SDA/MAPA); the Advisory Scientific Committee on Microbiology of Products of Animal Origin. 2013. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/inspecao/produtos-animal/controle-de-patogenos/arquivos-controle-de-patogenos/por00000017.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2018).
  46. Dargatz, D.A.; Hill, G.W. Analysis of Survey Data. Prev. Vet. Med. 1996, 28, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dohoo, I.; Martin, W.; Stryhn, H. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, 2nd ed.; VER Inc.: Chalottetown, PEI, Canada, 2009; ISBN 978-0-919013-60-5. [Google Scholar]
  48. Microbiological Specifications For, I.C.O. Microorganisms in Foods 8: Use of Data for Assessing Process Control and Product Acceptance; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-1-4419-9373-1. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply—MAPA National Establishment Consultation. Available online: https://sigsif.agricultura.gov.br/sigsif_cons/%21ap_estabelec_nacional_cons (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  50. ISO 6579-3; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection, Enumeration and Serotyping of Salmonella. International Standard ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
  51. Mooijman, K.A. The New ISO 6579-1: A Real Horizontal Standard for Detection of Salmonella, at Last! Food Microbiol. 2018, 71, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E); ISO General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. International Standards Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  53. Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual; FAO; WHO: Rome, Italy, 2025; ISBN 978-92-5-139597-4.
  54. Esri ArcGIS Pro 2025. Available online: https://www.arcgis.com/index.html (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  55. Zeng, H.; De Reu, K.; Gabriël, S.; Mattheus, W.; De Zutter, L.; Rasschaert, G. Salmonella Prevalence and Persistence in Industrialized Poultry Slaughterhouses. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 100991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Song, X.; Wang, H.; Xu, X. Investigation of Microbial Contamination in a Chicken Slaughterhouse Environment. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 3598–3610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Food, E.; Authority, S. Analysis of the Baseline Survey on the Prevalence of Campylobacter in Broiler Batches and of Campylobacter and Salmonella on Broiler Carcasses, in the EU, 2008—Part B: Analysis of Factors Associated with Salmonella Contamination of Broiler Carcasses. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). FSIS Directive 10250.1 Establishment Eligibility Criteria for the Salmonella Verification and FSIS Scheduling Algorithm for the Salmonella Verification Sampling Program for Raw Meat and Poultry Introduction Eligibility Criteria and the Sampling Frame; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; Available online: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/import/Salmonella_Scheduling_Algorithm_Functions.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2017).
  59. Secretariat of Agricultural Defense; Department of Inspection of Products of Animal Origin; General Coordination of Special Programs; MAPA. Yearbook of the Control Programs of Food of Animal Origin of DIPOA; MAPA: Brasília, Brazil, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hue, O.; Le Bouquin, S.; Lalande, F.; Allain, V.; Rouxel, S.; Petetin, I.; Quesne, S.; Laisney, M.-J.; Gloaguen, P.-Y.; Picherot, M.; et al. Prevalence of Salmonella Spp. on Broiler Chicken Carcasses and Risk Factors at the Slaughterhouse in France in 2008. Food Control 2011, 22, 1158–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mezali, L.; Mebkhout, F.; Nouichi, S.; Boudjellaba, S.; Hamdi, T.-M. Serotype Diversity and Slaughterhouse-Level Risk Factors Related to Salmonella Contamination on Poultry Carcasses in Algiers. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2019, 13, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. De Lima, M.S.; Isolan, L.W.; Hessel, C.T.; Pessoa, J.P.; Tondo, E.C. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Poultry Carcasses Samples Collected in Slaughterhouses of Southern Brazil from 2006 to 2015. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2018, 12, 1034–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Cardoso, A.L.S.P.; Kanashiro, A.M.I.; Stoppa, G.F.Z.; Castro, A.G.M.; Luciano, R.L.; Tessari, E.N.C. Occurrence of Salmonella spp. in Chicken Carcasses from Abattoirs in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, in the Period from 2000 to 2010. 2015, Número 24. Available online: https://faef.revista.inf.br/imagens_arquivos/arquivos_destaque/k0NDVFIlGwZBWtn_2015-4-28-9-16-30.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  64. Siceloff, A.T.; Waltman, D.; Shariat, N.W. Regional Salmonella Differences in United States Broiler Production from 2016 to 2020 and the Contribution of Multiserovar Populations to Salmonella Surveillance. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2022, 88, e00204-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Marin, C.; Cerdà-Cuéllar, M.; González-Bodi, S.; Lorenzo-Rebenaque, L.; Vega, S. Research Note: Persistent Salmonella Problems in Slaughterhouses Related to Clones Linked to Poultry Companies. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Rosamilia, A.; Galletti, G.; Casadei, G.; Dell’Orfano, G.; Ferrari, M.; Carlantonio, E.D.; Vergani, F.; Riceputi, N.; Zanchini, F.; Bardasi, L.; et al. Assessment of Process Hygiene Criteria in Poultry Slaughterhouses: A Comparative Analysis of Own-Checks and Official Controls in Northeast Italy (2021–2023). Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 105465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. De Witte, L.; De Reu, K.; Van Immerseel, F.; Van Raemdonck, J.; Botteldoorn, N.; Van Der Eycken, M.; Rasschaert, G. Research Note: Gut Instincts: Salmonella Contamination Based on Monitoring Systems in the Broiler Sector. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 104848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Betiku, E.; Ogundipe, T.T.; Kalapala, T.; Obe, T. A Mini-Review on Multi-Hurdle Control of Salmonella Along Poultry Production Continuum. Animals 2025, 15, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Meher, M.M.; Sharif, M.A.; Al Bayazid, A. Seroprevalence of Salmonella spp. Infection in Different Types of Poultry and Biosecurity Measures Associated with Salmonellosis. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Food Sci. 2022, 6, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Totton, S.C.; Farrar, A.M.; Wilkins, W.; Bucher, O.; Waddell, L.A.; Wilhelm, B.J.; McEwen, S.A.; Rajić, A. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Biosecurity and Vaccination in Reducing Salmonella spp. in Broiler Chickens. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Oscar, T. Salmonella Prevalence Alone Is Not a Good Indicator of Poultry Food Safety. Risk Anal. 2021, 41, 110–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Velasquez, C.G.; Macklin, K.S.; Kumar, S.; Bailey, M.; Ebner, P.E.; Oliver, H.F.; Martin-Gonzalez, F.S.; Singh, M. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Salmonella Isolated from Poultry Farms in Southeastern United States. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2144–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Buncic, S.; Sofos, J. Interventions to Control Salmonella Contamination during Poultry, Cattle and Pig Slaughter. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 641–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Santos, L.A.D.; Mion, L.; Marotzki, M.; Parizotto, L.; Rodrigues, L.B.; Nascimento, V.P.D.; Santos, L.R.D. Número Mais Provável Miniaturizado e Microbiologia Convencional Para Isolamento de Salmonella spp. Em Abatedouros de Frangos de Corte. Pesqui. Veterinária Bras. 2015, 35, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wideman, N.; Bailey, M.; Bilgili, S.F.; Thippareddi, H.; Wang, L.; Bratcher, C.; Sanchez-Plata, M.; Singh, M. Evaluating Best Practices for Campylobacter and Salmonella Reduction in Poultry Processing Plants. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Obe, T.; Nannapaneni, R.; Schilling, W.; Zhang, L.; McDaniel, C.; Kiess, A. Prevalence of Salmonella enterica on Poultry Processing Equipment after Completion of Sanitization Procedures. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 4539–4548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Souza, A.P.O.; Taconeli, C.A.; Plugge, N.F.; Molento, C.F.M. Broiler Chicken Meat Inspection Data in Brazil: A First Glimpse into an Animal Welfare Approach. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avicola 2018, 20, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. USDA; Food Safety and Ispection Service (FSIS). DRAFT FSIS Compliance Guideline for Controlling Salmonella and Campylobacter in Raw Poultry; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  79. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ). Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in Broiler Meat Production: Control Options and Performance Objectives and/or Targets at Different Stages of the Food Chain. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Iannetti, L.; Neri, D.; Santarelli, G.A.; Cotturone, G.; Podaliri Vulpiani, M.; Salini, R.; Antoci, S.; Di Serafino, G.; Di Giannatale, E.; Pomilio, F.; et al. Animal Welfare and Microbiological Safety of Poultry Meat: Impact of Different at-Farm Animal Welfare Levels on at-Slaughterhouse Campylobacter and Salmonella Contamination. Food Control 2020, 109, 106921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel); Koutsoumanis, K.; Allende, A.; Alvarez-Ordóñez, A.; Bolton, D.; Bover-Cid, S.; Chemaly, M.; De Cesare, A.; Herman, L.; Hilbert, F.; et al. Salmonella Control in Poultry Flocks and Its Public Health Impact. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Iannetti, L.; Neri, D.; Torresi, M.; Acciari, V.A.; Di Marzio, V.; Centorotola, G.; Scattolini, S.; Pomilio, F.; Di Giannatale, E.; Vulpiani, M.P. Can Animal Welfare Have an Impact on Food Safety? A Study in the Poultry Production Chain. Eur. J. Public Health 2020, 30, ckaa166.202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Oh, H.; Yoon, Y.; Yoon, J.-W.; Oh, S.-W.; Lee, S.; Lee, H. Salmonella Risk Assessment in Poultry Meat from Farm to Consumer in Korea. Foods 2023, 12, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Stathas, L.; Aspridou, Z.; Koutsoumanis, K. Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment of Salmonella in Fresh Chicken Patties. Food Res. Int. 2024, 178, 113960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Brazilian Association of Animal Protein-ABPA. Annual Report of the Brazilian Association of Animal Protein; ABPA: São Paulo, Brazil, 2018; p. 176. Available online: https://abpa-br.org/abpa-relatorio-anual/ (accessed on 19 March 2019).
  86. Ministry of Development, Industry. Trade and Services Comex Stat Official System for Extracting Statistics on Brazilian Foreign Trade of Goods. 2020. Available online: https://comexstat.mdic.gov.br/pt/home (accessed on 5 December 2020).
  87. Costa, R.G.; Festivo, M.L.; Araújo, M.S.; Reis, E.M.F.; Lázaro, N.S.; Rodrigues, D.P. Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Serovars of Salmonella Circulating in Commercial Poultry Carcasses and Poultry Products in Brazil. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 2011–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ministry of Agriculture; Livestock and Food Supply; MAPA. Techinical Note—Understand Better—Salmonella in Poultry; Brasília, Brazil. 2018. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/inspecao/produtos-animal/arquivos-publicacoes-dipoa/entenda-melhor-salmonela-em-carne-de-frango (accessed on 5 October 2020).
  89. Ministry of Agriculture; Livestock and Food Supply; MAPA. National Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Antimicrobial Resistance in Animal Production; MAPA: Brasília, Brazil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  90. Rau, R.B.; Ribeiro, A.R.; Dos Santos, A.; Barth, A.L. Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella from Poultry Meat in Brazil: Results of a Nationwide Survey. Epidemiol. Infect. 2021, 149, e228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alikhan, N.-F.; Moreno, L.Z.; Castellanos, L.R.; Chattaway, M.A.; McLauchlin, J.; Lodge, M.; O’Grady, J.; Zamudio, R.; Doughty, E.; Petrovska, L.; et al. Dynamics of Salmonella enterica and Antimicrobial Resistance in the Brazilian Poultry Industry and Global Impacts on Public Health. PLOS Genet. 2022, 18, e1010174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC National Enteric Disease Surveillance: Salmonella Annual Report; CDC: Sydney, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  93. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The European Union One Health 2023 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2024, 22, e9106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. European Food Safety Authority; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2014. EFSA J. 2015, 13, 4329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Cargnel, M.; Filippitzi, M.; Van Cauteren, D.; Mattheus, W.; Botteldoorn, N.; Cambier, L.; Welby, S. Assessing Evidence of a Potential Salmonella Transmission across the Poultry Food Chain. Zoonoses Public Health 2023, 70, 22–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Baptista, D.; Borsoi, A.; Reischak, D.; Nascimento, A.; Montesino, L.; Camillo, S.; Abreu, D.; Pereira, V. Salmonella Serovars Isolated from Poultry Breeding Flocks under the Brazilian Official Control Programme Between 2016 and 2018. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2023, 25, eRBCA-2022-1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Peng, J.; Xiao, R.; Wu, C.; Zheng, Z.; Deng, Y.; Chen, K.; Xiang, Y.; Xu, C.; Zou, L.; Liao, M.; et al. Characterization of the Prevalence of Salmonella in Different Retail Chicken Supply Modes Using Genome-Wide and Machine-Learning Analyses. Food Res. Int. 2024, 191, 114654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 15 02377 g001
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of poultry slaughter establishments with samples collected under federal inspection service in Brazil, in 2017.
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of poultry slaughter establishments with samples collected under federal inspection service in Brazil, in 2017.
Animals 15 02377 g001
Animals 15 02377 g002
Figure 2. Salmonella serovars according to slaughterhouse size.
Figure 2. Salmonella serovars according to slaughterhouse size.
Animals 15 02377 g002
Table 1. Size of Brazilian chicken slaughterhouses under official veterinary inspection service according to slaughter volume.
Table 1. Size of Brazilian chicken slaughterhouses under official veterinary inspection service according to slaughter volume.
PortNo. of Poultry
Slaughtered/Day		No. of Slaughterhouses
Analyzed
Small<50,00016
Medium50,001–100,00030
Large100,001–200,00044
Very Large>200,00125
Source: Normative Instruction No. 20 [44].
Table 2. Distribution of the official sampling plan of chicken carcasses according to the size of the slaughterhouses. Expected prevalence 20%, probability 80%.
Table 2. Distribution of the official sampling plan of chicken carcasses according to the size of the slaughterhouses. Expected prevalence 20%, probability 80%.
SlaughterhousencNo. of Cycles/YearCollection Frequency
Small8221 sample/3 weeks
Medium8221 sample/3 weeks
Large8221 sample/2 weeks
Very Large8221 sample/2 weeks
n: number of samples taken, c: maximum number of acceptable positive samples, No.: number. Source: Normative Instruction No. 20 [44].
Table 3. Samples of chicken carcasses collected according to the scope of commercialization, Brazil, 2017.
Table 3. Samples of chicken carcasses collected according to the scope of commercialization, Brazil, 2017.
MarketplaceNo. of Slaughtering EstablishmentsNo. of Slaughter Establishments SampledNo. of Samples
Analyzed
External (EM)11695(1267)
Internal (IM)2420(167)
Total140115(1434)
Table 4. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. considering the size of Brazilian chicken slaughterhouses under official veterinary inspection service in 2017.
Table 4. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. considering the size of Brazilian chicken slaughterhouses under official veterinary inspection service in 2017.
Slaughterhouse Size% SalmonellaNumber of Positive SamplesCI (95%)
Small25.1825 (124)14.41–40.20
Medium17.1542 (256)9.8–28.35
Large18.7114 (633)13.75–24.97
Very Large17.1368 (421)11.93–23.97
CI = confidence interval.
Table 7. Five main Salmonella serovars identified in chicken carcasses from slaughterhouses under Brazilian official veterinary inspection service in 2017.
Table 7. Five main Salmonella serovars identified in chicken carcasses from slaughterhouses under Brazilian official veterinary inspection service in 2017.
Salmonella SerovarsNumber of Isolates%
Salmonella Heidelberg1299.0
Salmonella Minnesota443.07
Salmonella Saintpaul181.26
Salmonella Infantis30.21
Salmonella Schwarzengrund30.21
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brasileiro, A.C.M.; Sá, C.V.G.C.d.; Rodrigues, C.S.; Oliveira, A.; Nicolino, R.; Haddad, J.P.A. Risk Factors and Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Poultry Carcasses in Slaughterhouses Under Official Veterinary Inspection Service in Brazil. Animals 2025, 15, 2377. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162377

AMA Style

Brasileiro ACM, Sá CVGCd, Rodrigues CS, Oliveira A, Nicolino R, Haddad JPA. Risk Factors and Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Poultry Carcasses in Slaughterhouses Under Official Veterinary Inspection Service in Brazil. Animals. 2025; 15(16):2377. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162377

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brasileiro, Anna Carolina Massara, Cláudia Valéria Gonçalves Cordeiro de Sá, Carla Susana Rodrigues, Adriana Oliveira, Rafael Nicolino, and João Paulo Amaral Haddad. 2025. "Risk Factors and Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Poultry Carcasses in Slaughterhouses Under Official Veterinary Inspection Service in Brazil" Animals 15, no. 16: 2377. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162377

APA Style

Brasileiro, A. C. M., Sá, C. V. G. C. d., Rodrigues, C. S., Oliveira, A., Nicolino, R., & Haddad, J. P. A. (2025). Risk Factors and Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Poultry Carcasses in Slaughterhouses Under Official Veterinary Inspection Service in Brazil. Animals, 15(16), 2377. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162377

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop