If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email email@example.com
To determine the extent of microbiological contamination of U.S. pork, 384 samples of retail pork were collected from 24 stores in six cities, including (i) whole-muscle, store-packaged pork; (ii) fresh,
store-packaged ground pork and/or pork sausage; (iii) prepackaged ground pork and/or pork sausage; and (iv) whole-muscle, enhanced (injected or marinated; 60% store-packaged, 40% prepackaged) pork. Additional
samples (n = 120) of freshly ground pork and/or pork sausage were collected from two hot-boning sow/boar sausage plants, two slaughter and fabrication plants, and two further-processing plants. Samples
were analyzed for aerobic plate counts (APC), total coliform counts (TCC), Escherichia coli counts (ECC), and incidences of Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni,
Campylobacter coli, and Yersinia enterocolitica. Mean log APC and TCC were highest (P < 0.05) for store-ground pork, while whole-muscle, enhanced products and prepackaged ground products
had the lowest (P < 0.05) APC. Mean log APC and TCC were higher (P < 0.05) in samples from the slaughter and fabrication plants than in samples from hot-boning and further processing
plants. Mean log ECC were lower (P < 0.05) in samples from further-processing plants compared to slaughter and fabrication plants and hot-boning, sow and boar sausage plants. L. monocytogenes
was detected in 26.7% of plant samples and 19.8% of retail samples and was present more frequently in ground products. Y. enterocolitica was detected most often in whole-muscle, store-packaged cuts
(19.8%) and in store-ground product (11.5%). Salmonella spp. were found in 9.6% of retail samples and 5.8% of plant samples, while C. jejuni and C. coli were found in 1.3% of retail
samples and 6.7% of plant samples. Pork products exposed to the most handling and processing appeared to be of the poorest microbiological quality. These results should be useful in risk assessments that
are directed at the identification of actions that could enhance food safety.
Document Type: Research Article
Colorado State University, Department of Animal Sciences, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1171, USA 2:
Idexx Food Safety Net Laboratory, Inc., 221 West Rhapsody, San Antonio, Texas 78216, USA
Publication date: February 1, 2001
More about this publication?
IAFP members must first sign in on the right to access full text articles of JFP First published in 1937, the Journal of Food Protection®, is a refereed monthly publication. Each issue contains scientific research and authoritative review articles reporting on a variety of topics in food science pertaining to food safety and quality. The Journal is internationally recognized as the leading publication in the field of food microbiology with a readership exceeding 11,000 scientists from 70 countries. The Journal of Food Protection® is indexed in Index Medicus, Current Contents, BIOSIS, PubMed, Medline, and many others.
Print and online subscriptions are available to Members and Institutional subscribers. Online visitors who are not IAFP Members or journal subscribers will be charged on a pay-per-view basis. Information can be obtained by calling +1 800.369.6337; +1 515.276.3344; fax: +1 515.276.8655, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org or Web site: www.foodprotection.org