A case of ‘blown pack’ spoilage of vacuum‐packaged pork likely associated with <i>Clostridium estertheticum</i> in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the potential causative agents for vacuum-packaged pork that had shown gross package extension during a routine storage life study in a Canadian pork plant using both conventional and culture-independent methods. The spoilage-associated bacteria in purge samples from two packages were enumerated using selective media and profiled using 16S rDNA amplicon analysis. The presence of Clostridium estertheticum was detected using species-specific real-time PCR. An enrichment procedure was used to isolate C. estertheticum from one of the purge samples. The average population density in the two purge samples of total aerobes, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), coliforms and Brochothrix thermosphacta was 9·4, 9·1, 6·0 and 4·6 log CFU per ml respectively, as determined by plating. The estimated numbers of C. estertheticum were >7 log cells per ml. Clostridium estertheticum was recovered although the enrichment condition used for isolation favoured the growth of LAB more than that of Clostridium spp. Based on 16S rDNA amplicon analysis, the microbiota in the two purge samples had 64·7 and 20·7% of Clostridium spp., and 32·5 and 70·1% of LAB respectively. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Blown pack spoilage of vacuum-packaged meat may lead to severe economic losses and is often associated with beef, venison and lamb. This study is the first to report vacuum-packaged chilled pork can also be subject to blown pack spoilage, and data support the conclusion that the causative agent is likely Clostridium estertheticum. The lysozyme-digestion step greatly improved the isolation efficiency for C. estertheticum, a spore-forming anaerobic organism that has been proven to be difficult to recover. This method can be used for isolating spore-forming organisms from food samples.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".