title: Microbial and quality attributes of ground pork prepared from commercial pork trim treated with combination intervention processes.
abstract: The effects of combination intervention treatments of commercial pork trim on microbial and quality attributes of the subsequent ground pork were examined. Fresh commercial pork trim was inoculated with swine feces and subjected to five different intervention treatments: (i) control (untreated), (ii) water (15 degrees C, 120 s), (iii) water followed by 2% lactic acid wash (15 degrees C, 75 s), (iv) Combination 1 (water plus lactic acid plus hot air [510 degrees C, 90 s]), and (v) Combination 2 (hot air plus water plus hot air). Following treatment, the pork trim was stored at 4 degrees C for 24 h, then ground, stuffed, vacuum packaged, and stored at 4 degrees C for 21 days. Populations of aerobic bacteria, coliforms, Escherichia coli, and lactic acid bacteria in the ground pork were monitored before treatment, after treatment (day 0), and at 2, 7, 14 and 21 days. In addition, uninoculated pork trim was treated as described above, and the color and emulsion stability of the ground product was evaluated. Ground pork prepared from trim treated with any of the treatment processes had lower initial microbial populations compared to the untreated samples. The applications of water plus lactic acid or Combination 1, which included a lactic acid wash, were more effective than water or Combination 2 at both reducing initial populations and suppressing the growth of aerobic bacteria, coliforms, and E. coli in ground pork during refrigerated storage. By day 21, populations of aerobic bacteria in ground pork prepared from control, water-treated, and Combination 2-treated trim were 8.22 to 8.32 log CFU/g, but in water plus lactic acid and Combination 1 ground pork, populations were 6.32 and 4.90 log CFU/g, respectively. Among the trim interventions examined, Combination 1 was most detrimental to the color and emulsion stability of the ground pork. The water plus lactic acid treatment provided the greatest microbial reduction and inhibition without large negative effects on quality attributes of the ground pork.
authors.affiliation: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Roman L Hruska US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska 68933, USA.
authors.forename: M M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Castelo
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Koohmaraie
authors.forename: E D
authors.initials: ED
authors.lastname: Berry
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000494:pharmacology*; D001419:Bacteria / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development*; D015169:Colony Count, Microbial; D005506:Food Contamination; D005511:Food Handling / Q000379:methods*; D018857:Food Packaging; D005519:Food Preservation / Q000379:methods*; D008461:Meat Products / Q000382:microbiology* / Q000592:standards*; D011786:Quality Control; D013552:Swine; D013696:Temperature; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents