Effects of hot water and lactic acid treatment of beef trimmings prior to grinding on microbial, instrumental color and sensory properties of ground beef during display

Stivarius, M.R; Pohlman, F.W.; McElyea, K.S; Waldroup, A. L.

doi:10.1016/s0309-1740(01)00127-9

Cited by 72 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The reductions we observed on hides were generally greater than those reported for carcass and trim interventions. Boneless beef trim interventions composed of 10% trisodium phosphate, 5% lactic acid, or 0.5% CPC reduced APC by 0.6 log CFU/g and reduced coliforms and E. coli by 0.6 to 0.8 log CFU/g (19,24). Multiple-step interventions that used 5% acetic acid followed by 0.5% CPC, 200 ppm chlorine dioxide followed by 0.5% CPC, or 0.5% CPC followed by 10% trisodium phosphate reduced APC on boneless beef trim by 1.2, 1.8, and 0.9 log CFU/g, respectively (18).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Development and Evaluation of an On-Line Hide Decontamination Procedure for Use in a Commercial Beef Processing Plant

Bosilevac

Nou

Osborn

et al. 2005

Journal of Food Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hides of cattle are the source of Escherichia coli O157:H7 that contaminates beef carcasses during commercial beef processing. Therefore, effective interventions that reduce hide contamination should reduce subsequent carcass contamination. The first objective of this study was to identify the most effective reagents for decontamination of beef hides. Cattle hides draped over barrels were used for in vitro experiments to compare the efficacy of washes using 1.6% sodium hydroxide, 4% trisodium phosphate, 4% chlorofoam, or 4% phosphoric acid, each followed by a rinse step using either water or acidified (pH 7.0) chlorine at 200 or 500 ppm. All treatments using a water rinse reduced hide coliform counts by 1.5 to 2.5 log CFU/ 100 cm 2 . Compared with water rinses, 200 and 500 ppm acidified chlorine rinses increased efficacy by approximately 1.0 and 2.0 log CFU/100 cm 2 , respectively. Vacuuming of the treated areas to remove excess liquid improved hide cleanliness by an average of an additional 1.0 log CFU/100 cm 2 . The second objective was to evaluate the use of an on-line hide-wash cabinet that used a sodium hydroxide wash and a chlorinated (1 ppm) water rinse. Hides sampled before entering and after exiting the cabinet had aerobic plate counts and Enterobacteriaceae counts that were reduced by 2.1 and 3.4 log CFU/100 cm 2 , respectively, and the prevalence of E. coli O157 on hides was reduced from 44 to 17% when the cabinet was in use. Preevisceration carcass aerobic plate counts and Enterobacteriaceae counts were both reduced by 0.8 log CFU/100 cm 2 , and the prevalence of E. coli O157 on preevisceration carcasses was reduced from 17 to 2% when the cabinet was in use. These results support decontamination of hides as an effective means to reduce pathogen contamination of cattle carcasses during processing.Cattle hides are major sources of beef carcass contamination that occurs during processing (3,5,16). During the hide removal process, pathogens such as Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella are transferred from the hide, which carries high concentrations, to the carcass (1,3,5,16). The current hazard analysis and critical control point plans (25) implemented in most beef processing plants in the United States focus on decontamination of the carcass by a combination of intervention strategies, including steam vacuuming, acid rinses, steam, and hot water spray (11). Such antimicrobial interventions combined with strict hygiene practices have significantly improved the microbial quality of beef carcasses in processing plants (1-3, 10). However, occasional process failures result in higher levels of contamination that cannot be effectively removed with current carcass interventions.Processes that effectively clean the hides before hide removal are successful in lowering carcass microbial contamination (5, 16). In an evaluation of chemical dehairing,

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Development and Evaluation of an On-Line Hide Decontamination Procedure for Use in a Commercial Beef Processing Plant

Bosilevac

Nou

Osborn

et al. 2005

Journal of Food Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results are similar to those seen in this study. A decrease in a* values denotes a decrease in oxymyoglobin content and is shown by decreased redness of the product over the display period (Stivarius et al, 2002). Quilo et al (2010) also noted decreasing a* values for antimicrobial treated ground beef versus the control over a 7-d color evaluation period, whereas Jimenez-Villarreal et al (2003b) found no statistical difference in overall color among control and treated groups by the end of the 7-d display period.…”

Section: 035% Accent Flavor Enhancer Solution = 75mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This may be a result of the additive effect of applying lactic acid sequentially. Stivarius et al (2002) noted that hot water and lactic acid treatments applied to fresh beef trimmings before grinding resulted in little difference in overall color and discoloration when compared to a control treatment over their color evaluation period. The same study also found that a* values decreased over the color evaluation period.…”

Section: 035% Accent Flavor Enhancer Solution = 75mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Multiple Antimicrobial Interventions on Ground Beef Quality

Eastwood

Arnold

Miller

et al. 2018

Meat and Muscle Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple antimicrobial intervention strategies are employed in beef manufacturing, and some may impact quality and palatability of ground beef patties. Combinations of antimicrobial treatments -hot water (at least 82 °C), lactic acid (4.0 to 5.0%), acidified sodium chlorite (pH of 2.7 to 2.8) and Beefxide (lactic/citric acid mixture; up to 2.5%) -were applied to hot or chilled carcasses and trimmings before manufacturing ground beef patties, which were designated for color evaluation, consumer panel, or trained panel evaluation. Few significant changes were seen in color space values for each treatment combination. Consumer scores for overall liking, flavor liking, and beefy flavor liking were impacted (P < 0.05) by combined antimicrobial treatment effects. Trained panelists detected 18 out of 33 attributes with only scores for fat-like (P = 0.0391) and cardboardy (P < 0.0001) being impacted by treatments. No clear trends were related to any single or combined antimicrobial treatment, and findings support that these food safety interventions have minimal negative impacts on beef patty quality. Material and MethodsConsumer panel procedures were approved by the Texas A&M Institutional Review Board (IRB2013-0060D). Cattle harvestFive head of cattle were purchased from a commercial feedyard. Cattle were harvested on the same day using normal slaughter procedures at the Rosenthal Meat Science and Technology Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

show abstract

“…On d 0,5,10,15,20,25, and 30 of simulated retail display, panelists evaluated chops ( ± 2 h) used for instrumental color analysis for average color, percent discoloration, muscle darkening, and purge characterization. Average color and percent discoloration were measured on an 8 point scale (where 8 = extremely dark purplish-pink, 96 to 100% discoloration; 7 = dark purplish-pink, 80 to 95% discoloration; 6 = moderate purplish-pink, 60 to 79% discoloration; 5 = slight dark purplish-pink, 40 to 59% discoloration; 4 = slight purplish-pink, 20 to 39% discoloration; 3 = moderately bright purplishpink, 5 to 19% discoloration; 2 = bright purplish-pink, 0 to 4% discoloration; 1 = extremely bright purplishpink, 0% discoloration) modified from American Meat Science Association (1991) and Stivarius et al (2002). Muscle darkening was evaluated on a 7 point scale (7 = very dark; 5 = moderately dark; 3 = slightly dark; 1 = no darkening) as described in American Meat Science Association (2012).…”

Section: Subjective Colormentioning

confidence: 99%

Replacing Traditional Enhancement Solutions with Alkaline Electrolyzed Water Does Not Improve Pork Shelf Life

Rigdon

Hung

Stelzleni

2017

Meat and Muscle Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sixty-four whole pork loins (Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications 413) were procured from a national supplier and randomly assigned to 4 treatments across 2 replications to evaluate the use of alkaline electrolyzed reduced water as a replacement for traditional salt and phosphate based enhancement solutions. Treatments included: alkaline electrolyzed reduced water (EOH; pH≈11.5), EOH plus 2.5% potassium lactate (EOK), industry standard (IS; 0.35% Sodium Tri-polyphosphate, 0.14% sodium chloride, 2.5% potassium lactate), and no enhancement (CON). After enhancement to a target of 110% raw loin weight, chops were cut (2.54-cm), vacuum packaged, and placed in simulated retail display for 30 d to determine treatment effects on objective and subjective shelf life color and lipid oxidation. Despite the alkaline nature of the enhancement solution, EOH chops were lighter in color (L*; P < 0.05) and less red (P < 0.05) but had greater proportions of deoxymyoglobin (P < 0.01) than IS chops across all days of retail display. Subjective color panelists rated the average color of EOH chops as brighter purplish-pink (P < 0.05) with less muscle darkening (P < 0.05) than both IS and CON. Additionally, EOH enhanced chops exhibited greater (P < 0.05) lipid oxidation than all other treatments. Although the addition of potassium lactate to EOH (EOK) was intermediate to EOH and IS for most measures, the use of alkaline electrolyzed reduced water as a pork enhancement solution was not able to maintain similar color or lipid oxidation properties when compared to a traditional salt and phosphate based enhancement solution and is therefore not recommended.

show abstract

Effects of hot water and lactic acid treatment of beef trimmings prior to grinding on microbial, instrumental color and sensory properties of ground beef during display

Cited by 72 publications

References 15 publications

Development and Evaluation of an On-Line Hide Decontamination Procedure for Use in a Commercial Beef Processing Plant

Development and Evaluation of an On-Line Hide Decontamination Procedure for Use in a Commercial Beef Processing Plant

Impact of Multiple Antimicrobial Interventions on Ground Beef Quality

Replacing Traditional Enhancement Solutions with Alkaline Electrolyzed Water Does Not Improve Pork Shelf Life

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About