4.6 Article

Distinct Microbiotas Are Associated with Different Production Lines in the Cutting Room of a Swine Slaughterhouse

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11010133

关键词

production lines; 16S rRNA sequencing; random forest; cutting room; swine slaughterhouse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study found that microorganisms on fresh meat at a slaughterhouse can affect the safety and spoilage patterns of the meat during processing. Using 16s rRNA sequencing, researchers analyzed the microbiota on conveyor belts in the cutting room. Significant differences in alpha and beta diversity were found between visits and production lines, and specific bacterial genera were associated with each visit and production line.
The microorganisms found on fresh, raw meat cuts at a slaughterhouse can influence the meat's safety and spoilage patterns along further stages of processing. However, little is known about the general microbial ecology of the production environment of slaughterhouses. We used 16s rRNA sequencing and diversity analysis to characterize the microbiota heterogeneity on conveyor belt surfaces in the cutting room of a swine slaughterhouse from different production lines (each associated with a particular piece/cut of meat). Variation of the microbiota over a period of time (six visits) was also evaluated. Significant differences of alpha and beta diversity were found between the different visits and between the different production lines. Bacterial genera indicative of each visit and production line were also identified. We then created random forest models that, based on the microbiota of each sample, allowed us to predict with 94% accuracy to which visit a sample belonged and to predict with 88% accuracy from which production line it was taken. Our results suggest a possible influence of meat cut on processing surface microbiotas, which could lead to better prevention, surveillance, and control of microbial contamination of meat during processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据