HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kotula, A. W. Articles by Grouse, J. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kotula, A. W. Articles by Grouse, J. D.

Variability in Microbiological Counts on Beef Carcasses¹

U. S. Department of Agriculture⁵, Beltsville, Maryland 20705

Abstract

Variability in microbial counts on beef carcasses representing seven shipments from three packers was determined. Six location, inside round, outside flank, inside flank, outside brisket, inside chuck and outside neck, were sampled on five carcasses from each shipment. The sampling was carried out during the spring, summer and fall. Mold and yeast counts were low and differences due to location on the carcasses or among carcasses were not significant. Within a carcass, the forequarter contained significantly more psychrotrophic, total aerobic, enterococcus, and coliform bacteria than the hindquarter. The neck area contained more psychrotrophic and total aerobic bacteria than other locations sampled but this difference was not significant for all shipments. The inside flank contained significantly fewer total aerobic and psychrotrophic bacteria than other locations. For the neck and inside flank, respectively, total aerobic counts averaged 1.2 x 10⁵ and 2.5 x 10³ and psychrotrophic counts 2.4 x 10³ and 2.1 x 10. Carcasses from plant A tended to have more bacteria than those from other plants but this difference was not always significant. Season did not affect bacterial counts consistently.

¹ This study contributes to the Western Regional Marketing Research Project WM-62, Technological and Structural Changes in the Marketing of Beef.

² Agricultural Environmental Quality Institute, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland.

³ U. S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska.

⁴ We thank the Liberal Markets, Inc., which supplied facilities and Mr. E. James Koch, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, for advice and assistance in analyzing the data.

⁵ Meat Science Research Laboratory, Agricultural Marketing Research Institute, Agricultural Research Service.