4.7 Article

Exploring lot-to-lot variation in spoilage bacterial communities on commercial modified atmosphere packaged beef

Journal

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 62, Issue -, Pages 147-152

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2016.10.004

Keywords

Beef; Spoilage; Meat microbiome; Modified atmosphere packaging; Shelf life

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland [267623]
  2. Academy of Finland (AKA) [267623, 267623] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding the factors influencing meat bacterial communities is important as these communities are largely responsible for meat spoilage. The composition and structure of a bacterial community on a high-O-2 modified-atmosphere packaged beef product were examined after packaging, on the use-by date and two days after, to determine whether the communities at each stage were similar to those in samples taken from different production lots. Furthermore, we examined whether the taxa associated with product spoilage were distributed across production lots. Results from 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing showed that while the early samples harbored distinct bacterial communities, after 8-12 days storage at 6 degrees C the communities were similar to those in samples from different lots, comprising mainly of common meat spoilage bacteria Carnobacterium spp., Brochothrix spp., Leuconostoc spp. and Lactococcus spp. Interestingly, abundant operational taxonomic units associated with product spoilage were shared between the production lots, suggesting that the bacteria enable to spoil the product were constant contaminants in the production chain. A characteristic succession pattern and the distribution of common spoilage bacteria between lots suggest that both the packaging type and the initial community structure influenced the development of the spoilage bacterial community. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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