4.7 Article

The interaction of the non-bacteriocinogenic Lactobacillus sakei 10A and lactocin S producing Lactobacillus sakei 148 towards Listeria monocytogenes on a model cooked ham

Journal

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 511-518

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2005.10.005

Keywords

Lactobacillus sakei; Listeria monocytogenes; lactocin S; bacteriocin; biocontrol; ready-to-eat meat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two lactic acid bacteria, Lactobacillus sakei subsp. carnosus (10A) and lactocin S producing Lactobacillus sakei 148 (LS5), were examined for their usefulness as protective,culture in the biopreservation of cooked meat products. Co-culture experiments on a model cooked ham (MCH) between 10A or LS5 and a cocktail of three Listeria monocytogenes strains were performed to examine the influence of inoculum level (105 VS. 10(6)cfu/g), storage temperature (4 vs. 7 degrees C) and packaging type (vacuum-packaging vs. modified atmosphere-packaging). At 7 degrees C, applying Lactobacillus sakei 10A at 10(6) cfu/g limited the growth of Listeria monocytogenes to < 1 log(10)cfu/g during 27 days, whilst an application level of 10(5) cfu/g failed to prevent growth to unacceptable levels. Lactobacillus sakei LS5 did not demonstrate an antagonistic effect towards Listeria monocytogenes. Lowering the temperature to 4 degrees C or switching from vacuum-packaging to modified atmosphere packaging (MAP),did not influence the ability of strain 10A to grow on the MCH, as its dominance did not change. A combination of strain 10A and 4 degrees C or a MAP containing 50% CO2 completely inhibited the growth of Listeria monocytogenes. Sensory assessments and pH measurments confirmed that 10A, even when present at a high level for prolonged storage times, did not acidify the cooked ham to a point of Sensory rejection. (c) 2005 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