4.7 Article

Thermal resistance of Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus isolated from vegetable feed ingredients

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Volume 94, Issue 11, Pages 2274-2281

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.6554

Keywords

food safety; thermal processing; foodborne microorganism; cattle feed; mathematical modeling

Funding

  1. Xunta de Galicia, Spain [PGIDIT03TAL07E]
  2. PhD fellowship from the Plan Galego de Investigacion, Desenvolvemento e Innovacion Tecnoloxica-Incite (Xunta de Galicia)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Cattle feed is at the beginning of the food chain in the 'farm-to-fork' model and might serve as a source of contamination with pathogenic bacteria. Heat treatment is one of the most effective methods utilized to ensure the microbial safety of feeds. In this work, the thermal resistance of Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus isolated from vegetable feed ingredients was investigated in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and in cattle feed. RESULTS: Mean D values calculated in PBS ranged from 34.08 to 5.70 min at 55 degrees C, decreasing to 0.37 and 0.22 min at 65 degrees C for E. coli and S. enterica, respectively. No relationship was found between thermoresistance and source of isolation. D values in feed were calculated from the adjustment of two nonlinear models to the inactivation data. Thermal resistance of E. coli and S. enterica in cattle feed showed similar results to liquid medium; however, a fivefold increment of S. aureus thermoresistance in feed was observed. Our results also revealed an increase of microbial thermoresistance with the mean feed particle diameter. CONCLUSION: These results provide relevant information for improvement in the safety of cattle feed regarding its process conditions (i.e. time, temperature and particle size). (C) 2013 Society of Chemical Industry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available