Authors: Chang V.P.¹; Mills E.W.²; Cutter C.N.¹

Source: Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 66, Number 6, 1 June 2003 , pp. 1019-1024(6)

Publisher: International Association for Food Protection

Abstract:

In addition to reducing the temperature of pork carcasses immediately after slaughter and before fabrication, blast chilling (snap chill) or conventional chilling can reduce bacterial populations associated with fresh meats. However, there is little information on bacteria survival resulting from the freeze or chill injury of meat products. In this study, porcine fecal slurries with and without pathogens (Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhimurium, and Campylobacter coli) were inoculated onto skin-on and skin-off pork surfaces and subjected to industry-specific blast or conventional chilling conditions. A thin agar layer method was used for the recovery of freeze- or chill-injured cells. Test results indicated that there were no statistically significant (P > 0.05) differences between blast and conventional chilling treatments with respect to the reduction of high and low inoculation levels of mesophilic aerobic bacteria, total coliforms, or Escherichia coli on either skin-on or skin-off surfaces. Chilling treatments did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) with respect to their ability to reduce low (3 log₁₀ CFU/cm²) levels of L. monocytogenes and Salmonella Typhimurium. However, C. coli was reduced to undetectable levels, even after enrichment, on pork surfaces inoculated with low levels (3 log₁₀ CFU/cm2) and subjected to blast chilling. Blast and conventional chilling treatments were more effective against all pathogenic bacterial populations when pork surfaces where inoculated at high levels (5 log₁₀ CFU/cm²). The effects of chilling techniques on microbial populations could provide pork processors with an additional intervention for pork slaughter or information to modify and/or improve the chilling process. The information obtained from this study has the potential to serve as a means of producing a microbiologically safer product.

Document Type: Research article

Affiliations: 1: Department of Food Science, 111 Borland Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA 2: Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Agricultural and Sciences Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA

Publication date: 2003-06-01

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: info@foodprotection.org or Web site: www.foodprotection.org
• Information for Authors
• Submit a Paper
• Subscribe to this Title
• Membership Information
• Information for Advertisers
• ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Nutrition & Food
• By this author: Chang V.P. ;  Mills E.W. ;  Cutter C.N.

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers