Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Food Processing Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Food Processing

The Effects Of Sous Vide Cooking And Cysteine Proteases On Instrumental And Sensory Textural Properties Of Lower Value Cuts Of Beef, Ian Smith Dec 2023

The Effects Of Sous Vide Cooking And Cysteine Proteases On Instrumental And Sensory Textural Properties Of Lower Value Cuts Of Beef, Ian Smith

All Theses

Sous vide cooking has the potential to increase the value of lower quality cuts of beef. Understanding the textural properties following a cook-chill sous vide process is crucial to maximizing this potential. The use of enzymes may further increase the value of these products if able to positively alter the texture of the final product.

The first research objective was to use instrumental texture analysis to evaluate potential relationships between enzymatic treatments and sous vide processing time of lower value cuts of beef. Three cuts were evaluated: infraspinatus (top blade), semitendinosus (eye of round), and beef tongue. Infraspinatus and semitendinosus …


Effects Of Poor Sanitation Procedures On Cross-Contamination Of Animal Species In Ground Meat Products, Sunjung Chung, Rosalee S. Hellberg Oct 2019

Effects Of Poor Sanitation Procedures On Cross-Contamination Of Animal Species In Ground Meat Products, Sunjung Chung, Rosalee S. Hellberg

Food Science Faculty Articles and Research

The presence of <1% of an undeclared species in ground meat is generally thought to be indicative of cross-contamination as opposed to intentional mislabeling; however, this has not been experimentally tested. The objective of this study was to quantify the effects of poor sanitation on the cross-contamination of animal species in ground meat products, with the example of undeclared pork in ground beef. Cross-contamination was quantified using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Three different sanitation treatments were tested with a commercial grinder (“no cleaning”, “partial cleaning”, or “complete cleaning”) in between grinding of pork and beef samples (13.6 kg each). A 100-g sample was collected for each 0.91 kg (2 lb) of beef processed with the grinder and each sanitation treatment was tested twice. For the “no cleaning” treatment, the first 100-g sample of ground beef run through the grinder contained 24.42 ± 10.41% pork, while subsequent samples (n = 14) contained <0.2% pork. With “partial cleaning,” the first sample of ground beef contained 4.60 ± 0.3% pork and subsequent samples contained <0.2% pork. Pork was not detected in ground beef following “complete cleaning.” These results indicate that incomplete cleaning of grinding equipment leads to species cross-contamination at levels of <1% in most cases. Proper sanitation procedures must be followed when grinding multiple species in order to prevent cross-contamination and product mislabeling.