Reagan James O, Acuff Gary R, Buege Dennis R, Buyck Marietta J, Dickson James S, Kastner Curtis L, Marsden James L, Morgan J Brad, Nickelson Ranzell, Smith Gary C, Sofos John N
National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843.
J Food Prot. 1996 Jul;59(7):751-756. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-59.7.751.
A study to compare procedures and interventions for removing physical and bacterial contamination from beef carcasses was conducted in six carcass conversion operations that were representative of modern, high-volume plants and located in five different states. Treatment procedures included trimming, washing, and the current industry practice of trimming followed by washing. In addition, hot (74 to 87.8°C at the pipe) water washing and rinsing with ozone (0.3 to 2.3 ppm) or hydrogen peroxide (5%) were applied as intervention treatments. Beef carcasses were deliberately contaminated with bovine fecal material at >4.0 log colony-forming units (CFU)/cm in order to be better able to observe the decontaminating effects of the treatments. Carcasses were visually scored by 2 to 3 trained personnel for the level of gross contamination before and after treatment. Samples (10 by 15 cm, 0.3 to 0.5 cm thick) for microbiological testing were excised as controls or after application of each procedure or intervention and analyzed for aerobic mesophilic plate counts, Escherichia coli Biotype I counts, and presence or absence of Listeria spp., Salmonella spp., and Escherichia coli O157:H7. Average reductions in aerobic plate counts were 1.85 and 2.00 log CFU/cm for the treatments of trimming-washing and hot-water washing, respectively. Hydrogen peroxide and ozone reduced aerobic plate counts by 1.14 and 1.30 log CFU/cm, respectively. In general, trimming and washing of beef carcasses consistently resulted in low bacterial populations and scores for visible contamination. However, the data also indicated that hot- (74 to 87.8°C at the pipe) water washing was an effective intervention that reduced bacterial and fecal contamination in a consistent manner.
一项比较去除牛肉胴体物理和细菌污染的程序及干预措施的研究,在六个代表现代、高产量工厂且位于五个不同州的胴体加工企业中进行。处理程序包括修整、清洗,以及当前行业中先修整后清洗的做法。此外,还采用了热水(管道处温度为74至87.8°C)清洗以及用臭氧(0.3至2.3 ppm)或过氧化氢(5%)冲洗作为干预处理措施。牛肉胴体被故意用牛粪便物质污染,污染程度大于4.0 log菌落形成单位(CFU)/平方厘米,以便更好地观察各处理措施的去污效果。处理前后,由2至3名经过培训的人员对胴体进行肉眼评分,以评估总体污染水平。切取样本(10×15厘米,厚0.3至0.5厘米)作为对照,或在每种程序或干预措施实施后进行微生物检测,分析其中的需氧嗜温平板计数、大肠杆菌I型计数,以及李斯特菌属、沙门氏菌属和大肠杆菌O157:H7的有无情况。修整 - 清洗处理措施使需氧平板计数平均减少了1.85 log CFU/平方厘米,热水清洗处理措施使需氧平板计数平均减少了2.00 log CFU/平方厘米。过氧化氢和臭氧分别使需氧平板计数减少了1.14和1.30 log CFU/平方厘米。总体而言,牛肉胴体的修整和清洗始终能使细菌数量较低,且可见污染评分较低。然而,数据还表明,热水(管道处温度为74至87.8°C)清洗是一种有效的干预措施,能持续减少细菌和粪便污染。