The objective of this study was to record a quantitative approximation of how many bacteria are present within various samples of meat products. The bacterial content of each meat sample is vital information in regards to improvements within the meat processing industry, and gives reason for changing or sustaining current feeding and processing conditions. Understanding which methods taken in processing meat that is sold to the public is a matter of public health, as obtaining and maintaining lower levels of bacteria in meats will reduce the likelihood of succumbing to illness from the consumption of such products by the end consumer. In a previous study focusing on the levels of antibiotic resistant bacteria found within randomly selected meat samples, it was found that 41.4% acquired meats were infected with strains Staphylococcus aureus (Waters et al. 2011). It has also been shown that the presence of toxin producing Escherichia coli strains is commonly found, at approximately 24.1 percent of 1001 random samples, among meats produced in the United States, posing a serious health threat. These, as well as similar studies, typically focused on a single type of bacterium, while in this study, there will be no discrimination of the type of bacteria and, instead, will provide an idea of the quantitative levels of bacterial presence in the randomly selected sources.
The purpose of obtaining this knowledge is to show a direct relationship between the processing conditions of meat products and their bacterial allotment. If the sources of the meat, or meats being processed, are exposed to unsanitary conditions, then there will be a higher level of bacterial infection amongst the products. As found by McGinnis and Gill in 2004, once...
... middle of paper ...
...ntent. It would also be recommended to take samples from these same sources, and research the bacterial cultures that grow to see exactly what types of bacteria are present, and if they are in a high enough number to cause illness.
REFERENCES.
Shand RF. 2014. BIO 205: NAU Microbiology Lab Manual. Englewood (CO): Morton Publishing Company.
Gill CO, McGinnis JC. 2004. Microbiological conditions of mechanically tenderized beef cuts prepared at four retail stores. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 95(1): 95-102.
Bosilevac JM, Koohmaraie M. 2011. Prevalence and Characterization of Non-O157 Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Isolates from Commercial Ground Beef in the United States. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 77(6): 2103-2112.
Waters et al. 2011.Multidrug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in US Meat and Poultry
I identified the genus and species of an unknown bacterial culture, #16, and I applied the following knowledge of morphologic, cultural and metabolic characteristics of the unknown microorganism according to the laboratory manual as well as my class notes and power point print outs. I was given an incubated agar slant labeled #16 and a rack of different tests to either examine or perform myself; the tests are as follows: Gram Stain; Nutrient Gelatin Test; Carbohydrate Fermentation; Dextrose, Lactose and Sucrose; IMVIC tests; Citrate, Indole, Mythel-Red and Vogues Proskauer test; as well as a Urease and TSI Test.
After the end of the experiment the unknown 10 sample was Staphylococcus epidermidis. Came to this conclusion by first beginning with a Gram Stain test. By doing this test it would be easier to determine which route to take on the man made flow chart. Gram positive and gram negative bacteria have a set of different tests to help determine the unknown bacterium. Based on the different tests that were conducted in lab during the semester it was determined that the blood agar, MSA, and catalase test are used for gram positive bacteria while Macconkey, EMB, TSI, and citrate tests are used for gram negative bacteria. The results of the gram stain test were cocci and purple. This indicated that the unknown bacteria were gram positive. The gram stain test eliminated Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, Salmonella enterica, and Yersinia enterocolitica as choices because these bacteria are gram negative. Next a Blood Agar plate was used because in order to do a MSA or a Catalase test there needs to be a colony of the bacteria. The result of the Blood Agar plate was nonhemolytic. This indicated that there was no lysis of red blood cells. By looking at the plate there was no change in the medium. Next an MSA test was done and the results showed that there was growth but no color change. This illustrates that the unkown bacteria could tolerate high salt concentration but not ferment mannitol. The MSA plate eliminated Streptococcus pneumonia and Streptococcus pyogenes as choices since the bacteria can’t grow in high salt concentration. Staphylococcus aureus could be eliminated because not only did the unknown bacteria grow but also it didn’t change color to yellow. Lastly a Catalase test was done by taking a colony from the Blood Agar plate...
Makousky, David Tangley, Laura Loeb, Penny Holstein, William J. Thorton, Jeannye, "Hay feed might stop infections from meat." U.S. News & World Report 125.11(1998): middlesearchplus. EBSCO.web.27.Oct.2011
Walking into a Subway or Chipotle restaurant and seeing the antibiotic free sign can lead some consumers to believe that these restaurants are making them healthier. However, is antibiotic free meat really a thing? Well actually it is, in order for any meat to be served at a restaurant it has to go through the United States Department of Agriculture or USDA regulations to secure a healthy and nutritious product for the consumer. The regulations the meat has to go through help to make sure that if an animal was vaccinated with an antibiotic that the medication is out of the animals system. So what this means is that once the meat has passed these strict regulations then the meat is technically antibiotic free simply because it does not contain
The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was an attempt to regulate the meatpacking industry and to assure consumers that the meat they were eating was safe. In brief, this act made compulsory the careful inspection of meat before its consummation, established sanitary standards for slaughterhouses and processing plants, and required continuous U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection of meat processing and packaging. Yet, the most important objectives set by the law are the prevention of adulterated or misbranded livestock and products from being commercialized and sold as food, and the making sure that meat and all its products are processed and prepared in the adequate sanitary and hygienic conditions (Reeves 35). Imported meat and its various products are no exception to these conditions; they must be inspected under equivalent foreign standards.
Factory farming is a necessary component of our modern food production and supply system. In 2005, the U.S. produced 45.7 billion pounds of red meat. It efficiently produces and distributes huge quantities of food to feed the growing population of America. But the overfeeding of antibiotics in the U.S. meat industry has gotten to the extreme and it calls for a drastic change in order to prevent a potential public health crises.
Infection with C. perfringens as a food-borne illness is acquired from consumption of food or water that has come in contact with the bacterium. Some possibilities include unwashed fruits and vegetables, undercooked me...
Wein, Harrison, Ph.D. "Risk in Red Meat? - National Institutes of Health" U.S National Library
directed by Robert Kenner does a great job portraying all of the issues with the American food industry. He talks about one of the major issues regarding our health and the meat industry when he mentions the health risks associated with meat consumption. Cattle are now being fed corn which results in a mutation of a strain of E. Coli called E. Coli 0157h7. This is a product of the diet we’re feeding the cows on feedlots. Even if these animals are infectious, they still slaughter and sell them which results in the consumer’s health possibly being effected. Another way our meat gets infected is when the animals stand in their manure all day long so if one has it, they all will get it. Also, since they stand in their manure, all of the hides are covered in it which gets in the meat because they slaughter about 400 cattle an hour so they cannot keep the manure from getting on the carcasses. One person in specific that was effected by E. Coli 0157h7 is Kevin Kowalcyk. He was just two and a half years old when he passed away, due to eating a hamburger that was infected. It is unbelievable to think that this little boy could go from being healthy to dead in just 12 days and we consumers are putting our faith in the food industry to protect us from these viruses. Since his passing, Kevin’s Law was implemented which gave back to the USDA the power to shut down any plants that repeatedly produce contaminated meat (Food Inc.). Although, E. Coli isn’t the only
Meat cultivation uses more land, water and resources to house, transport, and slaughter animals and their grain and food than it would cost to fund in vitro meat studies. In April 2008 the In Vitro Consortium first met at the Norwegian Food Research Institute. The consortium is “an international alliance of environmentally concerned scientists striving to facilitate the establishment of a large scale process industry for the production of muscle tissue for human consumption through concerted R&D efforts and attraction of funding fuels to these efforts. ”Meat in both its production and its consumption has a number of destructive effects on not only the environment and humans but also live stock. Some of these effects are antibiotic resistant bacteria due to the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, meat-borne pathogens (e. coli), and diseases associated with diets rich in animal fats (diabetes).
In the article, “CDC Shares Data on E. Coli and Salmonella in beef,” Author James Andrews explains how the North American Meat Association held a conference with L. Hannah Gould, Ph.D., explaining her presentation data on beef-related illnesses and how to avoid outbreaks caused by beef. James’s main focal point deals with the presentation because Gould offers a 10-year update summary of E. coli outbreaks from 2003-2012. With this intention, Andrews asserts that many industries need to reduce the number of food borne illness outbreaks caused by beef. Moreover, Andrews supports his claim by using statistical facts from Gould’s presentation when she is discussing E. coli 0157:H7 and how serious this issue leads to cases of illnesses, hospitalization,
A. Organic vs. Conventional: A Bacterial Comparison. February 21, 2010. 3 May 2014. Department of Health.
The only way to ensure that sterilization has occurred is to use the biological monitoring methods. This is because these are the only tests done which show whether or not actual microbial life has been killed. Biological methods are the only ones which are recommended by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the AAMI (Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation), the AMA (American Medical Association), OSHA, and OSAP (Office Safety and Asepsis Procedures Foundation)
Food safety is an increasingly important public health issue. Governments all over the world are intensifying their efforts to improve food safety. Food borne illnesses are diseases, usually either infectious or toxic in nature, caused by agents that enter the body through the ingestion of food. “In industrialized countries, the percentage of people suffering from food borne diseases each year has been reported to be up to 30%. In the United States of America, for example, around 76 million cases of food borne diseases, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths, are estimated to occur each year.” (Geneva 2)
It is estimated that over one-half of the antibiotics in the U.S. are used in food animal production. The overuse of antimicrobials in food animal production is an under-appreciated problem. In both human and veterinary medicine, the risk of developing resistance rises each time bacteria are exposed to antimicrobials. Resistance opens the door to treatment failure for even the most common pathogens and leads to an increasing number of infections. The mounting evidence of the relationship between antimicrobial use in animal husbandry and the increase in bacterial resistance in humans has prompted several reviews of agricultural practices by scientific authorities in a number of countries, including the US.