Effect of dry air or immersion chilling on recovery of bacteria from broiler carcasses

40Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A study was conducted to investigate the effect of chilling method (air or immersion) on concentration and prevalence of Escherichia coli, coliforms, Campylobacter, and Salmonella recovered from broiler chicken carcasses. For each of four replications, 60 broilers were inoculated orally and intracloacally with 1 ml of a suspension containing Campylobacter at approximately 10 8 cells per ml. After 1 day, broilers were inoculated with 1 ml of a suspension containing Salmonella at approximately 108 cells per ml. Broilers were processed, and carcasses were cooled with dry air (3.5 m/s at -1.1°C for 150 min) or by immersion chilling in ice water (0.6°C for 50 min). Concentrations of E. coli, coliforms, Campylobacter, and Salmonella recovered from prechill carcasses averaged 3.5, 3.7, 3.4, and 1.4 log CFU/ml of rinse, respectively. Overall, both chilling methods significantly reduced bacterial concentrations on the carcasses, and no difference in concentrations of bacteria was observed between the two chilling methods (P < 0.05). Both chilling methods reduced E. coli and coliforms by 0.9 to 1.0 log CFU/ml. Air and immersion chilling reduced Campylobacter by 1.4 and 1.0 log CFU/ml and reduced Salmonella by 1.0 and 0.6 log CFU/ml, respectively. Chilling method had no effect on the prevalence of Campylobacter and Salmonella recovered from carcasses. These results demonstrate that air- and immersion-chilled carcasses without chemical intervention are microbiologically comparable, and a 90% reduction in concentrations of E. coli, coliforms, and Campylobacter can be obtained by chilling.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Huezo, R., Northcutt, J. K., Smith, D. P., Fletcher, D. L., & Ingram, K. D. (2007). Effect of dry air or immersion chilling on recovery of bacteria from broiler carcasses. Journal of Food Protection, 70(8), 1829–1834. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-70.8.1829

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free