Microbial Ecology of Decontaminated and Not Decontaminated Beef Carcasses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate spoilage microflora of decontaminated and not decontaminated beef carcasses. Carcasses after skinning and after chilling at two beef plants (A, a small plant where no interventions but dry chilling are used; B, a large plant where multiple antimicrobial interventions and spray chilling are used) were swab-sampled for determination of carcass microflora. The numbers of aerobes, Pseudomonas, Brochothrix thermosphacta, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and Enterobacteriaceae (EB) on carcasses at plant A after skinning were 5.2, 3.7, 2.8, 3.9, and 1.6 log cfu 15,000 cm-2 and they were not significantly different (p>0.05) from those on carcasses at plant B at equivalent times. The numbers of EB were significantly lower (p<0.05) on carcasses after chilling at both plants. However, no difference was observed for the other four groups of microorganisms (p>0.05). At plant A, the microflora on carcasses after skinning and after chilling included 18 and 19 bacterial species, with Psychrobacter (30.9%) and Psychrobacter (42.9%) being the respective predominant genus, respectively. At plant B, the microflora after skinning and after chilling included 21 and 17 bacterial species, with Chryseobacterium (18.6%), Kocuria (18.6%) and Brevibacterium (18.6%), and Pseudomonas (33.3%) being the respective predominant genera. The spoilage microflora of decontaminated beef carcasses is similar in numbers to that of conventionally produced carcasses, suggesting the decontamination treatments for beef carcasses may not cause major difference in storage life of chilled vacuum packaged beef, the major form of beef for international and domestic trading in North America.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".