‘E‘HEE 15’5"?“ T C” “KEV-L. ' ERA. ms 065' $5511.?- 3%? 32‘ 35313332“ (31);: “R3 5%.EZA? Wink 5a? {3210 33mm as? :“ei. S. .‘I .‘A‘ . fl-fm‘ ““319? swétudiusr-‘ux 3:59.. 2: ufi'é‘ §a$u . a . x a g ‘1 a3” .3352“ Ext" 21.51%? sffi '3 33‘ it? 3&3 THESIS .‘D burr/"n can firirrw‘r ll'uia QPI‘LJV k." _ '5“ AM“ "T T"""“;‘""‘ ’3 J. Una-» .L.'L.L.L‘. .LJ“-U L._;R -.;-_l-.‘ ,~,1~\v 1'"? 2-1 ~§ V '1';-\ \‘1 '«'1°\~* 1 ' 1~.,~ Y ”113‘? , 1 "I W C ¢ I M “ 1 I ' ‘ Us ULlJ - “1.1 .L .'_J I. J. AB—lL-JA. ‘ ~ 5 By Robert James thicker AN ABSTRnCT Submitted to the College of ngriculture nichigan State University of Agriculture 1nd C Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Department of koultry Xusbandry Year 1957 Approved / CC? W During recent years the 1 n rown from ") 0 United states 5 F minor importance to a major 5 growth has been characterized which hey; resulted in mnkin 1. l to (D 4. b the most recent on the 30Lll‘Cl‘}! inot ‘ " strv Qobert James IcVicker poultry industry of an industry of relative ource of farm income. This by many notable echieyemcnts . . “ J." i- v~ (‘1 J- ouality poultry meet 7 WP .m-Jl’ cons u l per prices. 1.6 o .LL Ekn _ 1. .- .l. 3 ,, .r, I) ,. ° has been tse use Ol antl- o o —-. h."1 ‘c.._»\4 1 r. -4I'H" 0.1.‘o‘~ ‘flfl -9 -4 0.. biotiCs and otn:1 oucteiinl in.ioito Q or extend inJ 1 _:_1 I .0 r1 "0 1‘ __‘ _,_. ~ _( r. 4- 557‘ c - o n .... ~f‘l‘ o 2" sne i-lile Oi ireSn poultry neu . ixo odtlolotlbo “lion 11 1': 1"” ‘ "3’3 ", ‘-‘~.""’1 -\ -. 7? t1. ‘, ‘5 v, A~') ‘ '5 /~ '1 3" . .~‘ 1- nj t: '0 -1 -'-.JC Damon -:.i—/l—)l OVb‘LL VV iv A 00v. L ilk). Mil/LU .L‘M ......‘.Ll..) l ..- .LOLL .L .. use in an; on uncookeu rooms in speCii‘cd euonnts :re ctlortctr C“cline ans n,tetrecyCl1no. n total Oi lOUF studies were curried out, (1) to eeter- 4.] A ,. r are. n —r‘ ‘99 4": I‘- u.ine tne eliecciveness of cLl --«‘- ADA/J and onlorine in enc cone in; s . 4‘ ‘1‘“, ' 'fi 4' ". I “‘13 “x t\"\ u“ " ‘. T,‘ ‘..1 4;. L; bl‘qut UCCL Ulluef l-.. 301‘“. u 3;; 1 , '- r —. ,. to deteruine tre effc-ctiv11es 1 nni \r J b e V'I ' *‘U e t hclf -lif “1., ' r . - ,— . .1- commerCi:.l p‘ocessi nU ,1 no, . '0 r‘ 'rq‘- A] C‘ln . L-‘O 1r“ "W 4“. Tf‘ {\A‘r ll .“j, in one L-llLv ocuucod x..-,..'— -.. -_ 1:; -_---fi.z_l,,,- .. ’ --. o t: I cyclino, OAJLpbloCECllhc, .n- ,. , - -- 4- .0 . .. ‘1 J.-- . DLLL‘) .L--Ll.1-e 0.. .LTC‘SL {Obi of] processing conditions, (4) y‘fi ~ "'5 "- J-“ v .1 *. - . ‘ - oi chlo; t crucyciinJ in . .~ — . .1— 4“. -- A .1 ‘- r“ WOLtfi-L VI. ‘7 41.6.". L) Dre 3 LJ'L‘LL 1-1 G. ' ‘ - x A C 1 '1 1’ ".5 4 of“ W.” (5) to .1:-oL¢<3 tit, ulii_c-enice, ~-,~. ”went, 11111.er C 134“?) g: g. '0 -‘w, ,-, 1“,..4-',,v.-' u 1.1. 1:10 1.1.3 Cuzil Lilobl-.. L 1.81; .L V ' V _ fl, n J- - v: J- t— ‘. -. - .1 r v c.1cnen M€:b .ic; Fig“ unc lou lobert James LCVicker 2 numbers of bacteria. Two of the four studies Jere replications involving birds slau5htered in the Poultry Department processing laboratory and treated with chlortetracycline, oxytetra- cycline, and chlorine. goth raw odor and flavor determi- nations were made. Bacteria counts were determined in the Department of Licrobiology and fublic health. hembers of ' the Foods and hutrition Department cooked the birds and administered the taste panels. The last two studies involved purchasing birds from a commercial processing plant. In the first commercial study four treatments were evaluated. They were (1) split, A unpackc5 ed con trol (2) cutfup, pa k5a ed control (3) split. unpackaged, chlortetracycline-treated, and (A) cut-up, packaged chlortetrecycline- ~treated. The second commercial study involved only controls and chlortetracycline-treated birds. The controls were divided into two 5roups, one frozen and the other unfrozen. The same division was made ior the chlortetracycline treatments. flaw odor determinations were made for the first of these two studies and taste panels were conducted for both commercial studies. Bacterial counts were determined in the Department 01 Licrobiolo5y and rublic Aealth. .‘ The results of the“e studies showed that under labora- U tory Processing conditions clwlortetr: cg Cline was more effect- ive in extending s} elf- li1e of fresh poultry meat than JObért James LcVicker oxytetrecycline or chlorine. Fresh poultry meat, treated commercially with chlortetrecycline, deteriorated more rapidly than poultry receiving the same treatment and processed under laboratory processing conditions. Chlortetrecycline-treeted commercial bicds were con- sidered unaccegteble prior to cookin; from 7 to 8 days sooner than similarly treated laboratory birds. nccording to raw odor determinations, fresh poultry meet was unaccept- able when bacterial contamination reached e population of, r '1 ,6 , 0 ~‘ " . _ o A. ,0 .C‘ or user l x 10 organisns per square inch 0: skin surlace. Bacteria counts on chlortetrecycline-treated commercial 6 birds reached a bacteria population of l X 10 from 7 to 8 days sooner than similarly treated laboratory birds. .1 a 1 L0 aeberent relationship SXlStS between bacterial A 1,- contamination and cooked flavor of brees end thign chicken meat (without skin), as determined b" test: panels for the length of time involved. Results of a poultry processing plant sanitation survey showed that bacterial inhibitors are no substitute for good plant senitetion. Fresh chicken meat treated commercially with chlortetrecycline in a single processing plant did not 1 remain acceptable longer than untreated birds from the same plant. ”1—1? r \7—1 rut-"r ,'.‘ :‘r 'j:_‘ mr>;1“‘\I ‘* k":T‘TIEIn1 73f" illi"pr C/J.‘ EAR-:1“ 1.1-; 4.-.;47. 43.1.: .LiJL .J LC’JLC) F1". ‘ '-' lilo-ll oil-34. A—JV “an? or- ‘CCTT m‘Jv HT‘ T ‘ L1.-- L)... L "kIL J...L.L 11.4.”; CI BELLE-LIFE C? by Eobert James LcVicker Submitted to the College of agriculture hichigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of EASTER CF-SCIENCE Department of Eoultry husbandry Year 1957 IIIII]..|..I.| MC IO V’fi ‘ f1"? fluid; {‘1 -1 Lo—JJ. \.. .‘J; “45'- .L 1he author wi ales to express hi sincere appreciation (D to hrs. Suzanne L. Jalters of the Department of Foods and Eutrition for her cooperation in administering the taste panels and to Dr. ;. L. hallman, gr. Herbert S. firight, and hr. earnet g. Sultzer of the Lepartment of Licrobiology and Public iealth for their cooperation in providing the micro- biological data presented in this thesis. an expression of thanks is extended to deard 3. Farmer of the roultry Depart- ment for his assistance and cooperation in preparing birds and facilities used in this stud" A special token of appreciation and th anks is extended to Dr. L. E. Dawson of the Department of Poultry Husbandry for his invaluable assistance and gui idance ~3‘1ich made this study possible. The author also wisl‘1es to thank Dr. i. L. Lindel of tl‘.e Department of Ioultry Husbandry for 11is many courtesies which assisted this study. m.- w "n a“ n .‘F‘1‘T“"-’7 « .1.[.J_).].Jl.l L;.L Vb‘a’. .LL4;‘. Ll») 'v ”j": 1");N‘,\T"f1.'1 ‘v‘.".-v .Lo il.rlALK/‘Ub‘u;l'vl; ocoo-00000.000.00000000000000000on l 1‘" "FT “ 'l“ [7“ p'w-gr w“ .L o LliwLu‘iiLflgJLLLJJLLJI000...0.00000000000000000000no 5 *- —‘ .A *;~ :‘1'1’17‘3-T‘ 7‘ J-I-Lo UL'JlJvllx/lJJooooooocooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 10 “j 7‘ ‘A‘Ififi "-;,-1 if. IALUL/LJUL'l-Liboooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 19 T,’ '31- fiT'“ ' fl '?“1'~ 1“. wmwrfi ‘1' (“\‘T r)r\ .. 4 ‘ ~ . - . -— I o .L'wLJquLlid (LLJ dIQ'deQ—Edn o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 ‘vv ‘ " 3‘ “IT“. "' 3“ "9 fl. ULLAQ.-VL_00ooooooooooooooooooooo00000000000000ooo O V\II];. LIBLIOG-RALEE;YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 7]- J r—J m U] H O -,_ v-— IIII. ‘1" “(7“ Ntfl m' '|\“'.' l N 1.1 5121. LJ'J 1.3.)...40 A Conrarison of Total Bacteria Counts Letneen Treatments. studies l and II.................... A Conparison of Raw Odor Scores Between Treatments. studies I and ll.................... The Rela tionshii: Between Raw Odor Scores and -LCCQi.t3nCGo 5tL1C37 11.000000000000000.0000000 A Comparison of Flavor Scores Between Treet:nents. Studies I and II.................... A Conn sarison of Total Bacteria Counts Letween TrCC-‘ét-ents. Jt‘xldy‘ IIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO r'n 1n Re ationship Between iar Cdor Scores and $AcceL-18lt nee. 34011.11} IIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00... A Comparison of Nlavor Scores Eetween Treatments Jthd] 1-:10000000000000000000....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO: ['11 A Comparison of Iotal Bacteria Counts, Study IV. A Comparison of Flavor Scores Between Ire atments. Qtuay IVOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000.0.0.0000... bora tory Versus Com“ mercial Treatment of Fresh lled Ioultry heat ith Cl‘.lortetracycline Otal BCLCteI‘ifi301111138)o......................ooo Commercial Ioultry Brocessing Slant Sanitation Jurvey (Total Bacteria Counts)................... hssaY of Chillin' Tank ..'a er . ml sConteininS o1.lortetracy cline Cbtai ined at A c.1c101al lOUlLI‘y IJTOCGSSinj-j LlClntooooooooooooooooooooooooo C1\ fl LIST CT ICLn;3 FIGURE 1. U1 o -\l o Bacteria Counts, Studie es I and II................. Control vs. Chlortetracycline ontrol vs. vatCCIcevclin Control vs. Chlorine Ran Udor score Ctudies I and II................. Control vs. C1 Control vs. 0:, Control vs. Chlorine Flavor Scores, Ctudies I and II................... Control vs. Chlortetracycline Control vs. Oxjtetracycline Control vs. Chlorine bacteria Counts, Ctudy III.............. Control anacka"ed vs. Control rackaée Control anac‘” ad vs. Chlortetracgcline anack- {.1380 Control bnlucuu ed vs. Chlortetracycline ;acxa .44 ‘LO-VKI' DdOl" Scores, IthdE’r IIIOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000 Control anr1c: - ed vs. Control facha;ed Control CnCucgaécd vs. Chlortetracycline anack- aged ControI Cnnacla*ed vs. Chlortetracycline Lackaged flavor Scores, Study III.......................... Con Crol CUFJCHCLCd vs. Control Packaged Control anacna ad vs. ‘ hlortetracy cIine Unpack- a ed ControI Lnnacxab 1d vs. Chlortetracycline rackaaed Bacteria Counts, Study If......................... Control Lnfr0”en vs. Control frogen Control Lnfroz en vs Chlortetracycline Lnfrozen Control Unfrozen vs. Chlortetracycline Jrozen Flavor 3Cores, Study IV........................... Control Unfrozen vs. ortrol Erozen Control Lnfrozen vs. Chlo1 tetraC"cline Cnirosen Control Unfrozen vs. Ch101tetr: cycline Iroze n n? w G I (D V; O 33 15 56 LIST OI" FIGURES (continued) F I G U £5.13 9. bacteria Counts, Commercial vs. Laboratory Chlortetracycline Creatments...................... 59 10. Raw bdor Scores, Commercial vs. Laboratory Chlorte- tracycline Ereatments............................. 62 ll. Flavor Scores, Commercial vs. Laboratory Chlorte- tri‘LCBrClj-neUb‘r‘eatirfl-ecntSOOCOO0.00.00...OOOOIOOOOOOOOO [OZ-1p INTR DUCTICN During recent years the poultry industry of the Lnited States has grown from an industry 01 relative minor import- ance to a major source of farm incon (D . This growth has ,-) been characterized by many notable achievements which have placed the poultry industry among the leading agricultural industries. These achievements have resulted in (l) a laying hen which can produce 250-300 eggs per year at a lower body Ieight and on less feed per dozen eggs, (2) a -.* broiler which can be grown to a body weight of 4.5 pounds in ten weeks on 2.5 pounds of feed per pound of body weight, f‘ 3) fewer, but larger and more efficient hatcheries and feed mills, (h) poultry rations designed for better efficiency by increasing the protein and energy levels and lowering the fiber content, (5) efficient and modern poultry processing plants which prepare poultry ready-to-cook rather than flew York dressed, and (6) chicken on the family menu during every day of the week throughout the entire year. Through improved breeding, feeding, management, market- ing, merchandising, and disease control, higher quality poultry is more readily available to the consumer at lower prices. This, in part, accounts for the reason why per n 1/» PU wq‘q ..V‘ .sn‘ 1" ‘fi capita consumption of ready-to-cook chicken meat has in- creased from 13.2 pounds during the period of 1935-39 |._J to 22.7 pounds per person in 1955. Today most of the poultry meat is prepared in process- ing plants in ready-to-cook style. Also, most of the chicken meat distributed in retail stores is sold as fresh ratl er than frozen, live, or 5e; York dressed. It is herefore necessary for fresh chick3n meat to move rapidly through the various marketing channels and be held at favorable low temperatures during this rgoveme nt i1 spoilage is to be deterred. Spoilage is greater in r (D D ) dy-to-cook birds than in dressed poultry according to Cake r et al (1956). Since “eady- -to- -coo:: poultry meat is preferred over dressed poultry by the consumer, the trend has been for an increasing amount of poultry meat to be marketed in this form. In the process of prep;r1 ing poultry in ready-to-cook form, it is necessary for the poultry to be handled severa times, thus increasing the possibility of higher bacterial contamination. Lundt, Stokes, and Goff (195A) reported that whenever the skin of dressed poultry is cut or torn, there is a marked increase in bacterial contamination. lherefore, bacterial contamination of ready-to-cook poultry 1 Statistical abstract of the Lnited States (1956). could present a serious problem toxard maintaininr hi"h g) L)“ ‘ acceptability by the consumer for fresh Lcaltry meat. One of the most recent achievements which has had an effect on the poultry industry has been the use of anti- "'I A biotics and other bacterial innieitors for extendiné shelf- life 01 lresh poultry meat. On hovember 30, 1955 the Food and drug administration1 approved the antibiotic Lureomycin chlortetracycline for use on certain uncooked foods. In the case of poultry, the Food and Drug Administration states, ”a tolerance of seven parts per million is established for residues of chlortetra- cycline in or on uncooked poultry. This tolerance level shall not be exceeded in any part of the poultry." Since the approval of nureomycin chlortetracycline (referred to commercially as Acronize) another antibiotic has been approved by the Food and Drug ldministration. She name of this antibiotic is Terranycin oxytetracycline, more commonly known by the commercial name of hiostat. Both of these products are in powder form and can be dissolved in the chill water, which presently is the most common method used in processing plants for cooling poultry. Some of the possible benefits which could be derived from treating fresh poultry meat with antibiotics are: (l) 1 Federal Register, 20 F. R. 3775 (Iov. 30) 1955. $- it may improve the econ01y 01 the over -all poultry marketing process by allowing fresh poultry meat to be cut-up and pa ckaged in the poultry processing plant, (2) it raay be possible to scald birds at 11100 F. and still hold bacteria counts relatively low. Lore of the skin is removed at 1400 F., thereby setting up greater possible bacterial contam- ination, (3) ex ending the distribution range of fresh poultry meat from a g'i1ven poultry processing p ant, (h) reducing frequency of deliveries to retail outlets, (5) nay provide greater protection against loss for the retailer, especially, in carrying poultry over a weekend period, and (6) may provide greater assurance to the housewife that she is getting a cleaner, more wholesome product. due to the nany l.roelens involved in retaining fresh- ness in poultry meat, it was felt that furt er studies would be desirable in order to explore new possibilities and substantiate or reject findings byo tner workers in both commercial and educational institutions. LITERLEURE RH 13 .7 Studies have been carried on in various parts of the United States and Canada to determine the effectiveness of different bacterial inhibitors on extending the shelf- life of flesh foods. killer (1955) reported that Dr. Kugh Tarr and associates of the Canadian Pacific isLeries Experimental Station in Canada began studies involving the use of penicillin to extend the shelf-life of flesh foods as early as l9hh. Since this early work with penicillin several other wide spectrum antibiotics have been intro- g duced for use in preserving flesn foods. Use of Bacterial Inhibitors on roultry heat, fish and Beef Early studies by Tarr, Southcott and Bissett (1952) involving preservation of fish and meat with streptomycin, penicillin, subtilin, polymixin B, circulin, neomycin, bacitracin, gramicidin, methyl gramicidin, tyrothricin, rimocidin, terramycin, chloromycin, aureomycin, and one unnamed antibiotic showed favorable results for the use of'antibiotics in the field of food preservation. zureo- Inycin, terramycin, and chloromycetin, in order named, IIroved the most effective inhibitors of growth of the . ‘-‘--\k I "‘A "'-'~v O--‘~. A 1,7«-. My ‘5 ‘35 If ‘1 \1’ V 4“ g V“ .1 ‘s .‘ " a natural nixed bacterial flora at temperatures between 00;. pa :3 91 to l..__1 O L - O 71'" a1 ,. a .. o 5“. 1. 0 P‘s. ..\'-. a! _ _‘ ‘v, a.“ ' ’- 1n11e r1n001u11 1nn1b1tea yeast 10 tn. “ureo- 'svcin caused rarked inhibition of spoil"" -..J M UC‘J IL~-\. -LV\ i LA...- ~U L .L Q‘J _._ \— (D in 0.5 to 2.0 . -- . ‘mt‘ '-~ ‘ ' 1 r‘ r ---r A an F- . ~1.'x . - ”x arx A ‘ . IElCIOU1u o pe1 Oran conCentration Lnen 1nc rpolated 1n minced ilesh. 1.1er31n; steaks in €011t1ons containing the antibiotic in 5 or 10 micro rams per wran corcentra- t Jurther studies by Goldberg, Beatler; e and Kaiser (1953) to determine which of the wide spectrum antibiotics would be more useful in the field of food preservation, were carried out by adding 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 parts per million of penicillin, bacitracin, streptomycin, chloramphenicol, aureomycin, and terramycin to ground t beef. fhe samples were stored at 10 e. Cnlv the la 0 U1 three delayed spoila e. fhis work confirmed completely .4 A~ \ the work of larr, et a1. (1&521. 1 In error to decide which of the antibiotics to use, 3 Lepovetsky et a1. (1953) screened aureonycin, terram oil, and chloramphenicol against 93 strains of o ganisns from 492 isolates from meat. 1hese organisms represented 12 enera. aureomycin inhibited growth in 51 strains, C" terramycin in 77, and chloramphenicol in /h. line strains veers unaffected by all three antibiotics. . y-- 7 -... fi \ h. ‘L, P'fl s. I \a h. 0." v . V», V- . ‘. ' - .i - ‘. ’5 \ 4 V‘ N‘ V ”A k.- \ V . If *4 fi. n. .. \ -gler and dtsdelmsn (1955) Compered unt ested, peckeved chicken meat with packaged, sureomycin treat- ments at various conce ntrgtion levels. doncentrstions of 10, 2D, and #0 parts ter million were used. Lsily A. enuuin tion 01 the treated birds showed the microflora 1'43 1‘ 1 was composed mostly o yeasts having the shege end bud- ding characteristics of the family deccheromycetsceee. tn the controls the cred0““ndnt oru- mzisms were gram negative organisms. flecing eviscercted c ‘1icken fryers in the various concen trs1tions si nificently increased their shelf life. These results are similer to those obtained by Kohler, eroquist, and Liller (1954), Terr, Soutncott end Bissett (1952) and Goldberg, Ieiser, and Leetherede (1953) who were studying the effect of anti- biotics in the gires erW tion of poultrg, fish, and beef, I" 1 (D U) (is wl. deencer, siegler, end Stedelmen (1054) ‘_ f pectiv regorted that nureomycin was one f the nost effective becteriostatic agents for poultryr e1ts. Their work r‘ I showed that 1L”e0“ycln extended shelf- life of iresn roul- try meet as follows: controls, 11.5 Gave; 10 parts Der Ior those treated with 10 parts ger million 19.0 days. 1hey also re;orted the difference *et een c lo1ine dipped broiler hslves end thwir control helves was very snall, in fact, less than one day for either e chlorine concen- tration of 10 or 20 parts per million. (1‘! nohler, Liller and croguist (1955} lound t1:.t subtilin t..- 4_. . -', ..| ¢.,.1' {pi—:7 . "1": C's—U‘I‘IBPJC f‘.‘ .‘. -10.},‘3 A1,,- "1' t'n‘jl 'c.Clbfc.C_I_l1 , 01“..--lc11113. c---“ 13.11 v_- O-.._/'C..Lfl ...-.. 1, Ol-il-z.ltl:1.._ y success1u1 in detarrin; s 0111 e 1 canned foods. .heir fl w, .”‘1‘1 4‘ r" r‘ -, v.r,-),-; (‘1 "'Ar '-\:r y,"". ‘fi )" “\ ’3 " ’o‘q/N t: ~' '~ *3 V‘ "l“ l locale.) 01-0.2111. “L16. . Cil’l .../11-0 “101:, “1.1.1.0 .11V'J .11- COnof‘O - C» .H- O (‘1‘ _CS .1 tin v- ,‘ H r‘ 4- — .~ .-. ’~. - ’3 ‘6 *. “ - w -- ‘ . — '- I - ‘ ~. r" 1 ~ ~- “/"I r‘ (N ‘- |JOu-L :1’ 111;, ..U 1.5-1...) 3.1.. 114.1. iCIlJ .1." .‘il. 1-131“ tl.;k..ll COLILJ. OlD CLU -'\v' ~' J-, ‘”' A-n' J-V-‘- A " ’3 , I , r ' 1 l ‘ .1 (1 ‘4’1'.'. ‘~ 8 to; til—(.13 LI'3-sL- Cl- .-. Isr- 4‘48 O 2 "' , 3 I , “11"”, ';—.-:1‘f:'. VKJO ‘. C -CCC,-L .~-L.LLF1LJ f1“ .1 .- .—. ..1‘ , . r1-‘fi .- . '. -.,~, - ,1 . *\‘, -. 1 to shennon 1nd 4 -u11uen ( .211. vyuHCQT, ~13 11:, and ‘; ._. '.:\,._ .‘- ‘. 1 '_ -.. , - . -_ -‘ ..j -, a 01.3.LL-ll_:z O.L LL} \sLQZv’b 00-..}: p‘l.“:\.‘. 7V0 1U ‘1'...er ) .!. - .. .fi - J— ‘:' "r I - w > r, ~ . .~ ’3 ‘1' I -- “CI—75 4- ‘ 4‘ Stored mu ,o0 r. ice storage ndu the sums e11ect as a '1 O I. . 1.,“ .2 ”"1”... ' .1 ..W t .UZ‘t -.. .1. 4- . (511114111 c.3101- 5:11 Q1 L...’ e. ’1 A ' "1r- .- . <. I» 1 T -' r N"!" . ‘ , 1“ :- ‘ " ' .", “cc01d1;1 to soc1neeu and 11n1e n \L;j/) s501l1 . ~ ' 1 .- 1“ ‘ 1 - .9-.. .1 ..111 - - 1. ...1, ---. ..- 01 CLlCnen held 1t re111.er1tor te¢,:-1 u1es LUQVQ 1reesin '1 .1, ,-: - ' - - In, . - _». ' . 1 1- 1--- lo due .r11.rilj to Inc Vrort- o1 51131-13 “11¢ 11ct1°1- 1 ’\ n'M“ r“ ,\,—1, (‘ n‘n'nl' Ar“ ‘1-'W,\_ fin H‘“ ‘Izj'n r ’fi ‘ ‘ fi \ ’ 3 or]. tI'L’ vii-A GOV»; QLLL .Lv-CC 0 -. -EV'.’ UUuIL/J. I ‘JfiC’LJ-J -~_ Vb J‘ Cal..- 1| 0 ‘ 1 - - ‘ IV _ F‘ . ‘. . .‘ ‘ r‘ -‘ 1| . ‘ . [I fi I“! 7‘.'\ A‘ .7 ~' C 011.1. 11" . .1111 D] '1.1.._r1.1.:1‘oo.. , -.C‘» .413 2.111111 1.1 @1311 \_L,- L} {j 9.11s. _ _. 1‘38 , . . . -§' - v 1 ‘. -\ _ - - 1 LA. .1 ‘ -_ '_ .f ‘1 4 ‘_~ a ”I .r_\_- _‘ ‘ .- P f’_ ,1 (‘1 LQl¢YV3 1.1.111 ...t1;.. ..1"L (1,",u) . -Ji.L!....L.\ '11:: L1 _;_ “1,53... :111C 1.1,: 1:11 1 1 “ Olww; -“ v'1r3r-Tr t’ 1“ ' t“‘ ‘ "37 " ' 1d .1. L-V U . U .L-vaky \4..-;«-v.. L .. I 2”, J; , L- ~- - , - 1.... . ..'-- , 1.. , 1 c- .-111. drdwin smog: s h/lde 1rom he :eCUO‘“ 1e, tner tract . ‘. I; "' .-. ’- r“ .23.. 4-7‘ '~ - f; 15 - " vv- - ‘ "I " 1" h "‘ '.r‘: "| ‘\ 1 "\ r‘x ~~ .7 l ....11cllc.t l .‘Ilftlc. 111.1. 1.1113, “4.5.9, OJ -.LC- 11..) O... 1.11 b 1.00: 15.111 7°. ' 4" w: _ w z - 3‘ . '1 1.11 e7 '50 "0 -. *1" 1411 to L) IJJ. - .1 LI .LLAL -) Uni-I —\1 1'2 L. llj- J. “0;” - :-L‘ L :1 Q‘- :J—‘V \JQ U-I-lk-hv V J LI U lb-c— L- [’1‘ o" . A .. ‘ .. _, ~ .1 '1 _ "a“ ‘1,“ ‘I - o 'v‘ ‘ . u sensory sone1 .s T3'O-bcu or 11;1ler, 1 3 4. .‘ '1 . . I '1 "1 ,“ , . I ., . . ..J U ... -1. ‘3. L-—.C‘ -1 k ..L V/ ,1. IV: ’1 . 1‘ :fi .1."‘. r‘ ‘ ‘ ' ‘fN-‘" v7 4‘ \ 4-4" . 4-“. ,-‘ i—O.)S.LC‘1.L1L2]-3L) Cw 31“—-.u1-1,wrou---. .1” u lu - 3.111.311-11031C ‘ . L1, ‘ o 4‘: 0-. v A - a \ - A .0 .- a1u1 111-131..) . nL1;iotj333 1;. 3 .1 019- --11LL13 *3.1oz“to (“F fi (0 ..Jo P.) C' ( 'v r \ (.3 (‘1 r D ('t‘ C I r- 2' ‘d. p. ,-) J r C L. ‘J O V- ' 1 ‘l C 1.] I I I ... O O > b ,_ \ H b— C7 }_.J O 4 , 4 ‘N LJ I 4. I . J ..t J '— x p. '— q C) 3—“ O ...] k) {V I-'- O (‘w ,1 P‘J 9'1 H H. H ’_ . \‘J O) O I._J 5: C p; y—J cf (3 c4.“ IJW v w ( 1 b- .1) O (L) 5r I U) . . ‘.- ‘ .+.‘. ..z. .1. . ., 1 .‘ ..., .. -. .,,. . .1. ...... .-- 11012311, kfllu KKLV.OLAJ pue sya11133 bol¢131011 hue (Nib 31533_:- " ’4 1":‘. ‘~ "‘. ': 1"" " "fl -4 ~ I" —-‘- -. \ I . ' (x ... agce L33 moist. -Lc “013uneos 333 -LurLuuteq to 00m-- l"‘ 4‘ "‘1'. 1 j ": ‘."'\ ‘. 21- "~“ "‘g“ “ f) ‘ " “‘ N ‘V i. 3 J,| “ fin ' 1': 1‘ n 1" \‘.-') -\ ‘3‘"- U. -2 U‘V‘J. JLOO-J. 1.‘.L..L\J_— llC‘J. L3"; '15.}. .1. -L..U.L3 .C CL L -$:L(\ 1].]. E‘QQLLA. ‘21 ”J L l d F" L3 F‘J f“, D) 5.. L; C H' C P- Or 1..“ O C O H C. (—1 v"‘ a . — - \ - ‘ . ".-i 1 1. 33L111, bangle, mola- 1 / ‘ .‘ 7‘ \’ 'u"‘ f" f: -1 \L.‘., - " 7 my,” “ '\ 2 03r;, -3133“, 331 yeauL3:-ue (l; 3} Iowa. LLLt roungs .-.. , ._ ' -1-‘ . . . ...-.... - . . - —.-." -‘ as. .1 4— -... . n4— - , .- tr'J< .tb‘Ll nvrl U1: 9.. F130...) C451 (..Iflli i: JLKL '2‘. G. [33433 v3.50. DU "0 O1- \ I “.0 I "f‘ I-) ' r " ‘fi " rfi ... '. "w ‘ n'r 1 fl ‘ w ’ 1 .7 fl 7u-3u 2. 10? -A- 3 uOUfo 313 not oChl, out contlol rounco . ‘7 H" 91% }»-,.. 3" “‘“fmv‘ ' r l “7‘ Tab-n P‘— l»‘~‘-ny. ~ ' la. mn-a ulu. LL 1L1t3c1 Suu3133 1110 Vi Duel, b0 L3~1Q, 31331 0- ‘ " l -\», 1n . . '\ Dr ‘ 71', 1&1» -1 ' z-L-f" Jv. - ~q ms . 333 -e3tL31LQ3 (199)) 1uun3 tudt Cn1010430331n, D3313 vein .1 .. . .... ‘11.. .-.-lw. Ln3 ~L1 on.c1n success;*11. 133 . ‘Q a , -—' .. , ,.."I 'J- .- 1t ened k3331n, uu3113y of - ‘A ,3 1H A ~0 4‘ m] r‘ 1 P1 ~.* ' 'Ifif': '7‘ 1"]. ‘1‘ " J,“ . ‘7' . "“ r "‘\_$ Y‘I h"- ‘1" “Q 1 LL; UGUJ. 311;. d..l.oO QiiOfiCv. :1. “Lo“ ...C ul v 1 v37 c:‘.k._.,::.----1.3 u L- .....l CLl " tr ""33“ "7' -~~° 5"} vac ' n 6- “flmQ or *1 r30 '1" t' :‘n - ,m .n :3- :0 Ll K15.) OJ- ‘LllcrO-L d—OJ. \.r~ loo ~~ Kayk .LuL O..A \J. IOLJ 1001;»; OJ. l-JC --— O “ '1’ '9 "’" ' ' . ,J‘ . fi-‘v ‘flr‘xr: ‘1 f" "7‘ (“x w, I sLy 1or &Ul€OLg Cln re8133e 1n ouO1cu 0331 33033d no ‘ 4., 4—.—.7 ' ueuec3Lole anti 1'! f‘ ‘ '. - fi‘“ ‘ ‘ I“ r - ’ n‘ ’ . ra-h-‘fl , ‘I , ' f: q I' 1" r‘ .- r\!~ x. - . . ”‘4‘ r. I“ .‘ uLm1ll, LuuLle, 3nL ueLtL31L.3 (19/); LLV3 33013333d tLLt 7.- ' .:‘ : . 0 . . --. .,,.- t3e 1n1ua1on o1 3ureonyc1n Lgy I...) O .— I H- (J) ,c . (7) }_J (j {,4 1 v L‘I O D 1... D *3 (J r j ‘5 D H Li: 0 H I ‘ .~, ‘1 f1 ' ‘ ', /\ A . .’~\,-‘ r.(, J 053.c3¢: es .m1erg;1f3lr1.-3 -; r~ . .H V ('4. -‘ . " V “" h . r- 'fi" V “l '1 . Pu'v‘ '- l , - c3t10us tnLu 390113,3 ML; Lr13e 130m rO.L13ms yresent 1n the 1y m;h nodes. r ...-J- ' I‘ ' A ‘ '- A ‘ ‘ I" . a" ' "1' . . . ‘ 1nes: workers also found tlcc aureouyc1n 1s Lore rx -\ \ r‘ , ~ ‘5 r‘ ’1 — F‘ J— \ -\ - " J‘ r f ruuluLV d tr vrQ bv oeei tissue t-.1 u I-ter alone 'n . 1r ‘ 1 'r .‘ ' p n ‘ VP J" '\ \ v reioti C13 oit time. abcl inlLSed ”is“ au::o_3c1n Q owed sli ltlv altered avoearance, but from the stand- ". ' .1. 5‘ .....‘-'.1.. .. .-..“ 4.. ,— '.,‘."_.4.‘.'-7.-'.--._‘-‘1 . V. .3..- fOlI’l’o 0.1. uEuolilo Dual; by" 131.3 11 111:: 1114.: 1.101...-Lule lI‘O;.1 l’lOfn'fil 1.0 adverse effect was noted UZCH beef infused with . ~ (‘ ‘1 w a! --. 5'- -- ~1 . an --- A o “\ v . .- ‘ ; auroomycln was consumed. 1: Ce051n; oi beei o3 iniusion before dressing out shows some OHlSG, out some modiil- '“5 cation of certa n packing house and inQJection y1oce edu1“es would be requir-d according to these workers. Larr “03:1, and Lissett (lQEL) snowed that spoilage of r:hole eviscerated fish was retarded markedly by ices contairing l to 4 parts per million chlortetraq Cline by holdin; 6 days at ~10 C. in sea u:ter cout“lilpé 2 carts L per million, or by one minute immersion in solutions con- taining 50 or 100 parts per million of the antibiotic prior to icing. It was observed that fish iced with ordinary ice attained a state of obvious staleness about four or five days earlier than fish stored in the chlor— tetre c3cline-containin5 ices. Ihese organoleptic improve- II 0 .L ments in quality were even more obvious with 15k stored in sea water containing chlortetrCCVCli ne, or brief 13 immersed in the stron::er chlor etracycline solutions. #0 extensive tests were m?.de, but treated fish were generally ll accegted in the few tests that were made. Loyd, grumwell and larr (1953) also regorted that aureomycin at the level Jer million effectively etarded bacterial f) 1‘ ”\tr‘ k. iJLsi D P“) 0 growth in fresh eviscerated fish as compared to controls. fi5e), in a study designed to deteruine pre- servative action of antibiotics at minimal concentrations, found that at a garts per million chlortetracycline and (D - ‘ - ‘—Qv '- '- ‘4‘: a', v ... . * far 1- I“ 1 1:3: -- . “' “ ‘y ‘1 P" ‘ . ' ." ‘f' I" hydronytetraC3011ne had a oellnite yr uprALlVQ eilect on the fish fillets in the order named. Leomycin was not effective and none of the antibiotics tested were effect- ive in prSCTViné shrimp. bacterial dontamination of Lressed versus deady-to-Uook .oultry It has been reported by several workers tlat the pri- mary source of bacterial contamination of poultry meat comes from outside the carcass. Lundt, Stokes and Zoff (1954) studied the source of bacterial contamination of poultry meat by examining possible sources of infestation both interior and ex erior to the bird. In one case fifty milliliters of 13 percent saline solution was poured into the body cavity of fresh killed birds and samples of the contaminated solution were plated to determine the extent of bacterial infestation. Counts were very low and in many cases the sam3le of solution was sterile. Cores 12 fl 1 of flesh removed from under the Skin were found to be sterile in almost every case. lhese inv es ti5 ators stated that bacteria could be carried throu'5 h t21e skin layer by dama5e to the skin durin5 scaldin5, especially at hi5h temperatures, by mechanical dame “e durin5 plucking and washin5, and by the K.) .3 temperature 5radient establisi-e ed in the chillin5 tank, in which contraction due to coolin5 could serve to lend mechanical assistance to the pen netra tion of both water and bacteria. Pie authors stated that failure to recover intestinal bacteria from the cavities of birds 5enerally indicates that passa5e throu5 h the intestinal tract si5nifies that contamination of the flesh from this source is not an 1 im rta nt factor. “cto s oth tnan penetration during processin5 are indicated as bein5 responsible for contam- ination with bacteria and the subse luent deterioration of poultry meat. Lewell, Gwin and Jull (lQhS) concluded that chickens stored in ice keep an acceptable ap Qrance lon 5er, but cieveloped off-odors sooner than birds refrigerated in air <:oolin5 units. fhey also observed that evis cerated birds dmeveloped off- odors sooner than Lew York dressed poultry. Goresline et al (l95l) reported that most bacterial (zontamination in dressed poultry is found on the surface 13 of the body. \ trj aler et al (l9SO) found that bacterial counts on ready-to-cook poultry were hi5her to start with and in— creased much more rapidly than on dressed poult y. Counts were highest for poultry stored at 4503., intermediate for those stored at 350F., and lowest for those in ice. They also stated that bacterial counts of the caecal contents 9 . .— h at the be5innin5 o- the xeeriment and did not A V 0 were 315 change si5nificantly during the storage period. Dressed carcasses showed more hydrolytic rancidity of the fatty tissue than the ready-to-cook birds. Eoultry Processing Plant Sanitation And Other Factors affectin5 bacterial Contamination Salksr and uyres (1956) investigated sanitary con- ditions in a poultry processin5 plant by swabbin5 known areas of the skin surface of birds being processed or by removin5 known amounts of scald or chill tank water. Sam- ples taken at various stations on the processing line indicated that the numbers of or5anisms per square centi- meter of skin decrea~ed after operations in which washing was involved. icald water contained an avera5e of l x 104 or5anisms per milliliter; chill water l X 109 or5anisms per milliliter. Increases in the microbial flora on tne ,1“, ° birds resulted as a consequence of hand11n5 and immersin5 in water. Initial bacterial populations on birds obtained U735? ._ _1__e MM l4 from different sources ran5ed from 5 l03 to l x 100 or5anisms per square centimeter. Yeasts were present initially at avera5e levels of l 1 l03 per square centi- meter and increased upon stora5e to levels which seldom exceeded 1 X 106. Organisms typical of Lseudomonas, slcali5enes and ”chromobacter made up the majority of the population and were associated with the off-odors and sliminess typical of poultry spoila5e. Another report by Gunderson, dchJartz, and Rose (1955) shows that another potential source of bacterial contamina- tion in the processin5 plant may be the chill tanks. They found that in one plant the bacterial count in a chill tank was 5,400 organisms per milliliter of water but in seven hours increased to o5, 000 ,000 or 5anisms per n1illiliter. On another day initial count was 6,000,000 and increased to 292,000,000 organisms per milliliter. 1his difference can be accounted for by the difference in cleanliness of the tanks. The re searchers su55ested usin5 an overflow sufficient to remove all Jat every 30 minutes or spray- wash all poultry to cut-down on bacterial contamin wt; on. Further evidence of processin5 plant cor ta mina ition was pointed out by Clark (195A) when she reported that Iéesearchers found the avera5e bacter al count on birds erviscera ted at the followin5 times to ‘e: (1) fresh killed, waxna‘birds--h,868 per uare centimeter, (2) frozen then 11 defrosted 37,200, and (3) unfrozen, chilled-~60,c300 per 15 square centimeter. This study also su55ested that the use of chill tanks is a poor practice. Ei5h counts (98,000 or5a r1is.‘ns per cubic centimeter) were found in chill tanks and water at the bottom of the tanks showed 44,000,000 organisms per cubic centimeter. Jounts as hi5l1 as 30, 030 ,QQJ :or milliliter were found in drippin5s from the trou5h water at the evisceratin5 table. Clark (l954) also reported tha an in-plant chlorina- tion program usin5 10 and 20 parts per million of chlorine successfully lowered both viable and colif or1 bacterial counts. In-plant chlorination reduced bact ris l conta Isina- tion by as much as 90 percent on equipment and workin5 surfaces. The effects of in-plant chlorination (23 parts per million of available chlori11e) in poultry processing plants were reported by doresline, no..e, ;aush and Sunderson (195 lito have incre; sed sl1elf-life, lowered bacteria counts on the poultry, reduced odors in the plant, and reduced slime on equipment. accordin5 to sie5ler and stadelnan (1955} chlorine used in the coolin5 water si5nificantly incre:sed shelf- life as determined by off-odor or apfecrance of slire. The 11se of a chlorine dip 5ave a stctistically si 5n1ficant clecrease in appearance of slime. This difference was 01 Such.small me. nitude to be of no practical importance. O ld1ey also stated that the use of chlorine in the coolin5 16 m: ter m1 d considerably more effect on shelf-life of birds processed at 1200?. than on those processed a 14003. Spencer, sie51er, and Stadelman (1954) studied fac- tors affecting the shelf-life of chicken meat and found scaldin5 temperature has very little effect on shelf-life. Their test conpgred12303. with 1100E. with birds scalded at the lower temperature reportedly havin5 a shelf-life of one extra day over those scalded at lhOOF. They also 1 observed that pacha5in5 has no ffect on shelf- ife, but .‘ does have an effect on wei ;5ht loss and discoloration. Thin cellophane was found to be undesirable as a protect- ive wrap. Further studies by these investigators showed no difference from a be cterie.1 standpoint between evis- cerating birds before or after coolin5. Another possible reason for bacterial counts on ready-to-cook poultry bein5 hi5her than on dressed poultry was pointed out by bailey, stewart, and Lowe (1943;. They found that new York dressed birds absorbed 1.5 percent water, eviscerated whole carcasses 7.4 percent, and cut up carcasses 9.h ercent moisture durin5 135 minutes of chillin5 in ice slush at 320E. Cut-up chicken absorbed nore water when chilled at 2 3. than when chilled at 70019 . Organoleptic Tests baker et a1 (1956) reported that bacterial counts within storage conditions did not seem to materially k.) influence aersonal Opinion flavor ratin5s of cooked A broilers. fhe ready-to-cook birds which had the hi'rest bacterial counts mere preferred in flavor to the dressed birds. Off flavor first a, - *6 eared in the liver, 5izzard, thi5n, and ”erster." Loss of 500d flavor was appreciably ‘Ill‘lCS o «.4 slower in the breast and (4 ‘ uie5ler and utadelman (1955) stated that the undesir- n able odor of the treate' birds was differert iron that 01 the control birds. ihe average number of days before off-odor occurred were 11.6, 17.0, 1;.hl and 18.9 for con- trols and 5roups treated with 10, 20, and 40 parts per million of chlortetracycline, respecti'ely. 1.1., ' I,- \ .__ 1 _\n,_ n \r jfiv” ._ ‘ ..7 fl p4. “1118? (1995/ Stated tnat a person would have to eat 1L5 pounds of raw meat in a day to receive 0.5 C,rans of gureomycin chlortetracycline. This is ‘he amount which ‘n ‘7. w -'r‘ . . u. ’5" 4— . , . n -, ... -‘ r‘ r~ ~-1~. , .‘ ,--‘ .- -: '.—.: P" I q 119.8 08811 011/911 UO 'I‘lv:.t1‘.._Co ch c". 1.1305111; _L-;'.C 1C b.0013 .LOI' (U d. .. r. ...n A - ' x ..- .. . a: fl 4—“ ”5 as iour years with only sole bene11c1al restlts. ' T‘ *- -nr~1"rr LJJQJLJU ii‘j.r'_.k3 Four separate stucies were u dertaken to determine 1; .tudic 1 did 11 the primary objective was to deternine the eiiectiveness of Cl lortetr: C3cline oxy- tetrscyc clin e, and chlorine in e tendiz5 the shelf-life of free: poultry meat tre sted under laboratory proces sin3 conditions. C—v‘ _ -.- 1 ghe objectives of itudy 111 were 11) to determine the effectiveness of ch10: tetracycl in in ex endin5 shelf- life of fresh poultry meat treated in a commercial pro- (“i P“: ',w - l ‘ \‘Et 4" ' (‘v ‘I I: ‘ 4- WM ,3", ." ""/\ ' "—\ .'-\ -1 : rfi'c‘,-\-r\ r-. I" -.. ~C‘ r~. v‘ '77- Ceobluu k on gnu \~) 0 msd‘uiu Che ellleiche, 11 an}, . ' - l - . “’3 ‘ O 'fif)" \ ‘l " 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘I 1”'r 1-- 0-1C .L"..Ll.LC Cetus/(11,1 3"“C--r-g CL.» c :11 111’} C -1 UV'J C.-.1.C.-'vn ' '- ' v ’u n *','\ 1 .-. - ."’ . ~ - ...-1": 1 O QC DJ. r3" .1. 01" 1.1.113. cl" agelfld u UU.---.},’ ..- if f 1 .‘\ I ‘ \ "I- .‘fi - ' ';‘ 1- /‘ ‘ —‘ . I: -w .‘ -.- J". ._|_ d 0 A-lm-JD,’ TUIcre (l) LJO C.‘L€CA- bl-i; $11-“.llk) o: JtL‘Lxljyr .L—L-L .Lor 11n1x; he.5ed tJilILS 3111 \d; ‘60 Culeélhlllé) 11. pexr3le (Lin c.1s o _ . _. ~.‘ ‘ _ ._- -. Z'I'“ __ ".fl' fl r" “ " J_~ ‘ 3 ." _ ”.3 _ .- .. »,r J- v ,. J-1. 1,\ I 1‘. “6111511151: 1153.».0!‘ alllai’biiCbb u--~'u..ee'11 billCl‘iflL’li bignu 2.11.1: 111,11; bec r13 ont Lination as comp red to taut wit» low r-\- ~ fi ...uV'JLJ ki-qu ‘_J \o s - j -' 1, 1 r1 .vv‘ /\ 1‘ rxr ‘ 'fi \‘fin +‘ "‘ ' \‘I "1" "t :4." r 'fi'L' IN 1 a ULLCL J J- who CC: ;-1 veto. 1.111-; U1 u; 111.“ 1 -17.). -..,‘l u L11”; LadCL I: - ~ + ,3 L‘-r: ..1- — .1’- . {1‘}: ., Y‘ A +, -L 7 ‘v —. r 1.,“ -. .. '. s . ‘ ~ rp"f.‘:"\‘| grunJLLCLu'w vb\-~~ .» Aelv -.L 4-41 «'u'.L;‘.. v-i...'.\~. .1. Rx-L‘J o -~Ov CV1" , U x ‘ ,3 "‘r‘ ,‘ -1.“ ‘I -.. J.‘ .3 .-. -..,‘ —' ,« 1...“ n:...‘ n' '7 "1, _' ‘1 . .1.) ..1 J- tl'~u 'IuL K‘CC“L1¢L \v.’ -.— O; U.‘ .LKJ k4 L1.“ 7 NJ 1); -V UJ‘bL-J‘J‘y .L‘VL \J‘LL U-LC'.---L O 4- ‘ .-‘ ’- .F' ’- - - >lh.‘ ‘. -. 3 ‘1“' ‘1 :L‘ AFV’v r 4 ‘ ’fi'/1('..‘1 4‘ A I“ ' '- ‘fl’ '\ 1.. n .- n b—-L-. U 1.1. J \JL‘.1A. -L-—- - 4b wk) bV-a- <4.th ‘4»; U I J -; .L \_. .l—IV .1. OJ- 4. . . .. T :71 1 1,, A n -n . '. ,. ..., , .1 ...- A .' .. .7 r. ,1 1' ...: 1 -. 1.1 fl .3- ubdx 2’ -o —1-" "101 J, t. C, Oceucu'g --1-1'.,CL~..:)V'L1,~. 7. .Lll :10 11.be; .r' ‘J- ,,‘.,, - (W .3” “1" ./ I ' 4 J. u - .J .- . '-: ..-..L..:.. ‘ ‘ -. ‘— ‘ .1 ~o j ~\ 1-{— 1.1 ,\ A " - 1 -/5(p\ ‘\ 7 n" ~/1(—‘ .' r. 7.5 A: ~l-r. .31». (w Inf: -—/.J.1-L;J I11.LU'.7 - ...,1.1LJL; 11.. .ppx- J- 1.11-911) 1.. J_ L L; 1 12,0. . a, 3 , 1‘ .\1« 4 , ]_ 11 1 4 1 ;=« ~~ - . a 1- . 1 rw"lan~'71" 1: ; c . ..a «-‘7 3 .L l v.-i . Cfv 1.. L -r‘ ._-_,_ .Jr\).L_L.J_ £41 Ol- 21 L}-- .4 ‘ Q‘LL—L—JJKJ V-A— v.1. — b Inf-J .' .‘ .. . . .. - -. . .‘ J- .. . ' '_ 1 . .1 .' 4.7 7.. '1 f .9- . . 4-7 ‘1 ' .. .‘ .fi,,_ A i _ ' 1 _ V I I {\‘r .l'f ‘ '19} ‘vu_ . ; fl_ _ ‘C\ .q‘c‘ b-LJ-uk) ....1. \3 Ul--IA'_J—- bva IV .4-. ‘- SJ“ \I'K— b I‘i-LLJ_-- JL». -n- O L Lla..\ 1‘ Aktk) «O Y‘ ."~ --\Y. 1 w— . | «r' -< .— ... y— ‘1 PI -‘ \n ‘3” p q n-A. v r‘ . .‘ J—‘r‘. ,-\ ‘N‘ . ’4“: ru ..‘ YA- ‘. .- . / ’ _. . 4’. . .. J— O-b C-i-v’LJl Odulosig.L\.:-J—~‘ ...“; —«\JL-l D, \—~-1-t\_rll- Via-LJ—C- UL; 1. Lil-L \I-V I. “re ~ -’,- J- - ~ rx --‘ ° -' "° v ' “ ‘ lL'fl - *w“ 15““: r 7‘ -'- ~--,--\. 81;. 1;.11U\_.'...q'vL". 1-11 k1“: - LIL. UL :1? “SHEA; bi.-;)1iu L ; 0C _) J. r ‘6‘.’ t 1 _, . ."‘.~‘ 0 u“ .- 3 - - 1‘ , .. - -- ~1— ) I; ".-'. J— ‘ ,fi J—J. :1 L.)L"C/‘m1 11:}.th IJV-LA PJ b—t Lie—\- 1,- UJLIV'VL [vi—$— kl-' (a. 2 3" " : 1’"; ‘1‘."7' 'i‘ _ "‘ ‘1‘“ . .71 4““ ~: 1“: H‘ 1'3"?“ Q J... 1., 1111.1... k, VJ u _, 1.’ V 1 ”“u b-1e JUWLLA- Vb.1_-1~.. o ‘— l 3.' . 1‘. r3 ‘ “f "'3“ - \-‘\ ‘3 -‘ 1‘ INK) ' ' I‘ ‘ 1"! «I.- U NIA t/I‘»L $11K) “—1.1 Q —'--L ‘VL \J .-I \I “A .L' .J—\-C LJVL -J. x‘h *“0 VB ‘|‘\—'- J— . a . ' - "--‘- - . ~ 4— i — -'~ - '\ . ‘. ‘E‘. -A —‘ J‘~ 7»--"" p-111” 101‘ 1,-Lz‘z'1‘0--ll 11.9-1.1; 01113-1..l1lL‘. 11-3 “11¢. L: .911 :3 r~ MO I v ‘ ‘ fl -. .1 ,. ,- - a . 1 ,-- -:- t :- .- ,_ C t c_-. J- -1" i1‘1--LUI ‘ OJ. .L/\) ~ 0 4 03 U 0.. 1. to .1. .3 ‘ T ’ - ° 1 ' T- - '~‘\ ‘ - ~ - A -4 r‘ ‘ ’ " x‘. .L 31‘0"”1 Ofl L1 \.~1"~3?31101‘l‘31 LLLLLOJL. th {1101-01 . 'u .1 "‘1. “r. ‘ ’: ij"/‘I fi‘. '13“ I, V, . ‘I/I: J'~)"ft ‘1 ‘l‘ ‘ ’7'" OO- . '\—/-..LL..Ll.\/\A (1&1 ....) l.JJ-J. \A-J k-~.-. big—'- dL 'Qita \JL 1 -1 .9 n t», -- 141..-; 0;“! 1 I 1 ' ‘-‘- o m: \- J— O-L ‘ t4“; \/ chill tanks t " 1 . . ,-.5 . -4..- _ . -.;.LDOJ- k— I I ‘ 1 y T f‘ ‘-‘u Vf‘r ’1.‘ (‘1 '--I' .‘v wk)? A--CI»»"- K... O L)..I..C-.- f‘tw ~ ~ ”A ‘4... ‘_'J1 ‘».O-O'. 1.. .L ' ,. .~ '7 ,7 3. .3 L110 QCyg_-V..J-L’lq _’ "‘-l ' ’\ _~ A -" f- q U5;"—.._.LJJ LJCC'JL;~.LD ' ,‘ 7“ v ~- -\ 4— an, - Luc‘no UNIX; bug-1'1 ‘ J.‘ -‘ Oct) 0.4. {1-18 ' 1) LI, _ h 4—7 . .L 01 on ,.Le311:e° 1.11 0.11.1 39.15.13 into 1 cold water. Split broiler ralves were tagged through tle wing web with identification cards which bore the treat- ment and the number of each broiler half as it was removed from the processing line. Immediately after tagging and rinsing, thirty halves were placed individually into each of the chill tanks in consecutive order. an equal amount of chipped ice had previously been placed in each chill tank. The order and treatment within the chill tanks was as follows: tank A--control, tank B--lO parts per million of chlortetracy- cline, tank C--lO parts per million of oxytetracycline, and D--20 parts per million of chlorine. all chill tanks were thoroughly scrubbed prior to processing although no disin- fectant was used. The birds were allowed to remain in the chill ta.hs for from three to four hours. Time in the tanks was dependent upon when each bird was slaughtered. after the birds were tLoroughly chilled, they were removed from the tanks and packed in chipped ice in drain- able stainless ‘teel trays. The iced birds were then regoved from the processing laboratory to adjacent refrig- erated coolers. All trays were carefully co*ered with three layers of waxed paper before being removed from the ! processing laboratory. She refrigerated room temperature Ivas approximately 4505. and the temperature within the iced trays measured 3403. The day following slaughter one broiler half from each 21 treatment was removed from the trays by touching only small portion of the hock joint. Each half was then placed in a polyethelene bag and carefully removed to another room where a raw odor determination test was made by a panel of four experienced people. The procedure for the raw odor panel consisted of the author removing each broiler half from the bag by the tip of the hook joint and letting each anel member smell the surlace area. Then the birds would be returned to the bar individ ally after each determination was made. The polyethelene packaged birds were then carefully wrapped in two layers of waxed paper and taken to the Department of nicrobiology and Public Health where bacterial deter- minations were made. The bacteriological procedure consisted of cutting, the polyethelene bags with sterile scissors and swabbing a four square inch area of each bird. The area swabbed was the thigh. The contaminated swab was then placed in a test tube which contained 10 milliliters of saline solution. This tube was shaken for two minutes. Before shaking the test tubes containing the swabs, however, the swabbed birds were each placed in individual one-gallon jars which contained 200 milliliters of dis- tilled water. The jars were then sealed and placed on a small platform whe re they were securely held and snaken, a automatically, at a rate of 20m oscillations per minute for two minutes. after shakin5, one milliliter of the rinse water from each jar was added to a small bottle containin5 99 milliliters of saline solution. after the shakin5 process for both wab and rinse tests, suitable dilutions were made from the respective solutions to facilitate countin5 the colonies of or5anisms after the incubation period. The or5 nuloJ-Contc inin5' solutions were then plated on two types of media with the exception of the solution obtained from the swab test. The only determination made for the swab test was on tryptone-5lucose—extract a5ar which was incubated for three days it 23 Q. for the rinse test, three deteruinitions were made LEG was tne same as that described for the swab test, but th.e others consisted of platin5 a portion of the solution on phytone-naccarol a5ar and incubatin5 at 2OOU. for three days while the third technique was to plate some of the solution on tryptone-5Wluco e-extract a5ar and incubate the plates for seven days at h.503. lhe tryptone-5lucose- e: {tract a5a~ 5ave the tote l bacter a counts, while the phytone-naccarol a5ar was used for leisuri 5 only 5ram-ne5ative or 5anisms. followin5 this bacteriolO5ical procedure, the sane birds were taken to the bepartment of foods and Lutrition where raw odor tests were a5ain made and all birds ere cooked and ranked accordin5 1 -‘l 1W r“'1- J-ng.’ I‘LL-11 ea or and flavor score card Qfid a :1n5e o” from one to seven with a ord descrijtion of each see a score one meant ”very poor‘I and S van ienoted ”excelleht .” igis same ;rocedure was continued on each of the t dafs Until the study was u-letcu. The riw od onel which assen;bled in t1e oultry department, met at 7:!5 the eirds were delivered to the JcCtpl iolo ists at 13: and finalli to the a.m., by 11:00 on 7]“ o ..l 0 w The author obt: ined . "‘-'- 4- 'vf' h‘.rfl (*4“ [1" 1n5 giant lor t-is stud] iflae urvmxplfllma 'ere: (E. (2) 33 cut-up, pgcha5s€ cent and t ee.ted ”it21 c Wlor etrac 4. ‘ - ' 4.1., gal/1Q trig/l: L) 3(1‘L I'll L’l'. CI)“ tvgi split into floods chlortetracycline. ELL Ild. each test drv (.xs 0 t e commerCial I" ' Q 4“ Ann"— ’31"? : n-f ‘1’”. l bfbgbbu. anti. i.’c..C.L-.C1O- f" ‘1 - 'l -| - ... 00.0- 1. J1 J-..1.ulu-lq ..'~,.L '. .- 1.10. c u 0-2...) 1. ”1.19.1 -21); .1'.) 1-2.09.3 1 H —-—o.- u ‘ - - _ P .. W .0 ~A 4-1‘ q .l_. I 1 I _ r w . .'\ {1 - - ~ :A ’x '14 - r , -»-| C. -11 KA .L . K i L J ‘J 4 - A U x. J -A-‘ (\L 5 ill Lil 3 ‘J n b J-O . (t) ‘—l— C l i- .L O - C C: ‘1"":‘) '3 n.) '1“ . 1. '. "H ‘ 1 ("3A ’. “ '—‘:" ' ‘5 .' "A. “3“ Fflwd'} ""\-.4 x.“ L1... v.1...1u‘, L2- 4 kJ-_\--. x.w',.L l.’ - LJL-‘_~-j~ ..-—~— ‘..v- \, y‘ql.‘.1_)--.,‘..._..L - U _ 1\ "I .- .1 q “‘5 J.‘ .1.‘ .\ "x ‘ fl fir- ’0 . ... -l- ti 4‘ £5 a a _ a w. , n I I ~ *3 a ' r I; x; \J—L .1 .J—\ I ,1 /— U_- x... U "I I LLkr J - in!» LJL’. I ul- , - ~l ( C\\.1’1 O-- \‘J—t‘- U “ . fi -u . _. I ‘ 1 '. r , ’ I -, '1 I 1 o - - ’r ' 0 _~ ' ' 3“» ' ~ ‘."‘.‘ ~ ~ 1“ ‘ . J ) V "1 - 2 0 LLLL'JLL .. lil / 1: u. - s Q 111C; -. L.) ., -- --.L '3'. - :va’ \J() ’ \ \ L-'-J_-L1-L.L- I — 'C‘ E )r ~J O 1'" ". “"1 't ' "~~ An: I ' “’\ ' ~- ‘4 ’7. ‘4, ‘7“ 1“": r ”Y!" J" ("fit " 1r -1 -¢ CiLu-cAK‘J'- LLL ._ LIVKJ‘xLLLJ. I; ”01...) .L '4‘- ’ .-...L '---4. .. L..-‘ LJLJJ ..L -h-'-»- v' OJ. .. 7 _ «,- . _' ,_ ,‘. J- 4.2 ‘ ,. .. ‘ -° .. ‘ ,4. " ‘_ .. -_1 _ - _1_“ ‘ ,‘1 AN . , D. ‘ f) \ . .'. ,‘ ‘ I 1 .101 10L -.fi..t o 2.: 01.1.. 1.0 U... -1 - -.1 0.1. .. 01 0.1.1.1..— . “a . c , a . .7 _ w "“ 1 n 1 . o .L. -1 ~ 4— fi r [... w.‘ , --- . -— 1'.‘ . . 1- ... ‘_ la —7- x“ I" - - ~< ‘ - .‘ -« r“ 1 E '5 I . G‘ "I y (3 Y‘. I“ 1"! ...L..-'_ \zL’lLL/L’L- i_'-'_u_.u.1.C./-l 14'va Lug. .. "J - UOL..Q ._ 1p» LU. _ luiCL- -‘Jvrnu; U- " ’3 "‘ 4' 7"“ I y'~-\ r1. . 31w ‘I- . I} .“ ' ',"I’,’) ."‘ "" “" “/W“ 1“ 'q “r". 4‘1.» _‘. ’. 15 + r‘. 1":4‘ n "\r- :(‘I (All -. {41L U 4..'.~.L_s. 4..» L‘. ‘ :.... 1-. .‘ 10‘ ...") --.L ‘ "';“__')\‘ ---‘- 1.1 U'v‘ .1. 0.1. UJ . J_L.L U‘-.\_; U ‘4 .1" 1L 4.!_, A- \ r 1 .. a 1.}. - .ir ‘1’ n 7 ‘ r“ ’ ‘< r ‘l'x‘v" - — - -— .3 -: ‘1 a . r —. ,- -‘ -— to ;L'\/)'3 ex L41. r ‘ C’Ilb.xk . ’ 01.1 Li-v-JKL a, , k --LL ‘~ g. *‘vLs J, Lx U 1,100.1. . . -~ \ -‘ - . .-~ -- *— m - v - I“ .- I " g», 1 "\ * .‘~ fi V J‘ "4. r ‘1“ vlnce bact0c10; 000-00 4030 OutulLCu 1113; Owner in?) . ’ “"' 4". "/ '7‘ | “:fi '4' ”VI“ " ‘_ 1“ ’ “‘r ‘ , '1‘.‘ ‘V +‘, 1rr~~9000110 1 “Own-21LD, lb ”.0 “CCObsbff no 1U‘_¢Su U18 .3. Q. ‘ H ‘ . '0 ,_I 1 a - - ‘ ' '1. a n ‘V ‘ \ , ~ ' d Lm.st¢: v-3-01. .11“; 011‘ s h lCJ?.T.u 1.00 13101 JuU3.M:t3 to A . - .. ~ ‘ - -. .- — . .. ‘ <-~ —~ - ° W J— ‘- -- J— . _- -‘ ' -v —: .n J‘ _ a 1.’ F.7-‘ 32!;1301_: 01n1 11110.1.1) 'JxLTB (3. 0-1. r.1L: . -n1121:;J 11.: .mec-.s U s A - \ q a 1 0 . _ .. ' .. P‘ r a: w.—‘ - - ~ ~. -'~ ~n:- 1* - Irvin: " r -1 r .\ 111.~.; .*." 11 , . 1x811 tjivYL’J‘UL/‘ll; ‘ 1‘.-—‘1'\A - .L-LA‘J-L-‘ 11V}. ‘-' \J-O-lw’ U‘LL " ”‘V")u‘-.J ’ '-::L-L ‘U%;-Jr , ‘.J .-4 ‘r I r.»- a —— . n H.. , 7 ~.,7 . v-r ~~ -~.4 -1.~ ;. : .1 4 7~r-:: z -,3-..: r;Lw<‘~ra7 j_rwr1 CHLLKL 1- -.. 3L- .1. CL .' , L' --D ..'L-OLJ‘;.‘0. ...;lu. L.n .LJ. 13 “q. ‘ 4... 0L .4 .. ‘04—- :4 L; ‘L”“J./"' *0»... . 1 ‘ ... _ ....M .- +1- 0 - v to the 10005 fing -utrlclon Heuirt ant iroc ’ x“0d tae " .L ' - 4. p .- 100:. days. gactsr aL counts Lnd ? v1 -' ‘\ ' I‘ A '5 r. L . L ze.loL ”L lf - c ,_ V. A J- - ‘ ‘3 * ‘4- . '1 «a - -r- .L"; .3 0;“.01‘ Li. C beuLLfLL b10110 ”Acre '7’. "!- ' - .‘ I’ ' “ ~ -- -.—\——,~ »-k\J" II.) ~J- L’vL-h llesLl, 1~L~4r . “O -“«.f ‘II. ’31“, \JW I 0 fr _ _ ‘_ _._ _‘ -. , ,1- -2 , -, ~ - ' , . .L. ' - :“4. .1_‘. ’ ‘.. J; LLVOI‘ LLG w , “....Lu u.‘.Ol-u ;_ I": (_;lSCCl.‘ ulii L_ ..-L bul“ b;-C 15th T.- \-' f." ..4. 4., . LVLJ OJ. {JLJO k—he. ~—J :'J- 5-- “T L.) ULIUJ ..LJ \ . .1. J-‘ . - _. ._ 4., f.‘ f . . "‘."' ' .L. . ’7‘,“ .L.‘. u.e pg Le rLoLibs o; ”Lu_y LLL, lb :35 Lilt pm: ‘,"4.' - " '.,...-.4.' .'.',..,. - -“.‘. ‘ - -.4.'.-. -1 .1 .' -, EaCLulblOlL.._L 14.- valvf plum." ...-OLJ.-. Dd CO;’lul-;L;€'L Li.3~.l.‘_l ; '- 0 !_ ‘.. ’1‘." ) C“ 7 ..-. _. 1‘ . .. '2 J- - 1 IA - A {—1 0.1 OVA /, .. - .‘_- l) .1" .3 ,- :1- 1 , \‘A‘ I‘- Hrl .‘ ..L (Jo. CLAJ- -.VIA - W's) .L OCUu.J"'\l ..L.Ll \L CO-..LiLE..L C...“ .L .1. MLLUQ J_ “-1 r “ hI , I A .T‘ J- ‘2. I 1 _\ ., 1 n " . ’- ‘fi :1 -. L; p;-=:? Lu- _'_L-l;-llAlJ UL u;.lE: .3314 I." u- o .2. -... .- -1’.-4'v3‘.).’1 O; 7., ‘1 J- -_ ., ‘ . ,. 4— .. - ..., 4- _. ,..‘ J- .. AWN .. -. J“ 1.7“ , ..L. -, t--;) .L OLL. f; Jet‘wl" bug'ixu “DU. bur? ...Li..-u'3;';3 0.. mdj --{LC b??- . 1 ' I .g'“ '1‘.‘ "" J. ‘L' .- .1 l\ '- 4- .'.‘ -~.- § . t“ - . a ... - . .x. lOLOUY u;:L*Vm;¢u b? ve Cu to LL” COLJCfCl l L”OC€o~lflo .."‘ ..- J- 4— "-.4....‘.. ‘ .3 -. L I‘M. ‘4. _ .. “7’ , ..-“ .L. ‘ 1. .3.'.‘ ,. iJ.L.-.lll b0 0 }b'-3..l.J.i LJ...‘.-.;:I .Lv fl JUL/1‘--.) .L.‘- L..'i,u DO C.-“'3C.~. ULG Son- ' ,. .-- .1 : 4-. ' ,A .—~ f- J. , .- .. l thl‘y‘; OLE-11.--; ‘vJ—U_10 C; Lanai L lgifb . -nfi C‘ ‘l 4‘... p- "\t" ‘ >‘,_\fl‘_ “‘0' _~.0 ‘4. “~ n-fl f‘ 01.7 X?" A. -'1'\~ o a +1-2, qx -11 x“- hulk/1; C:.c.‘\.,u Chgflqiou“ up. Clb..;.‘. ‘ ..‘. gluio 1..- -.. -.-. ., D . , 1.1...-“ - . , .."‘. 2-? ..- . ” 7-.. .. . L— ‘L;A(~/Ill“i LIL’-A:‘J— C33 0“ OK) b— ..I-ll-L--4I.‘J SULLR‘J—l—Jlitd .LI‘LJ] -ilOU-‘ll C\:\’l“. bu, -' ‘A - I ..L. I H I .‘ .',. . _ _ _ .c .. ‘1 - - - .. u - _I_ "’3 ‘/x ‘fi 5’3 “* .~3 r‘l _ r} , ’ . ‘A ‘1 ‘1 ,n._ 3 "\ ‘Dar..L'.,- ‘- V0.1. V1 Léh.) lil U-~\_r 1J- OCOUIJ—n—Aa_ LII-L. Jll 4 x .L 'j C.‘ Vb. lJ‘y‘L (. “.3 r l- - ...- I (l r\ ~" . ‘fir 'N‘W 3“ “’1 1—~ ~ «‘3 ‘j - —: 1 "\ "l '4‘ '4 .--,‘; .LU i0..’o. L- Q]. ' bu u)”, WLOCUQ‘JfiLiL‘J 4....11'; (--_LJ'.1. bu... I ‘, ’7’ -.l , 1"ch vr‘ “3‘ g)’~ \ I/\ r.“ 2W“ 1,1_ {1+ 3,1 ._—i (-1 ,:‘-'fi il < ,. ‘5 f4 .,._‘ S lJiU\'\-- —-‘-\L I» V- . «U. ~l [-7 U——J- \_« -.—— U-..-.L \ *LJCM4.L -' 14‘, L) «L L. LL) J 1.\,.,.\--.,,-, \ , -- -1 ’ , '- p) f-.:.,- "4“,, “l"fir‘i" -, ,.. ..., . -- I: V 4.0.1 9 -.‘,Ck). .. .3: \/) L. 1.1.2.1.. L kw...» -..;V-» 9....) f '- .C x.‘ «a; Q I , ’I \ ~ I" ~ a 1 I I ‘ — -_.. -|- ‘,_ _ 7, A ._ \ .‘ - ‘_ -.. _ - . . -. , 7‘ (—5 Oll- IL - f .'L -)‘ ‘ VL)1 A $31 \ /, l , ‘1 ..LJ. Ll. (J-l . l - .ju. A ‘ ~ Z-h BA k) - " .. “ ." ‘ _ .1-._:-- _ -_ -._. - _ -. 1 : '1 4“ ._‘ l .‘x ._ '- rn‘ n ‘I_ _ , ’3 n .. r. ‘ . ,E '1 n ‘ - _ {U} (,L VOLUt'("' b4. ‘V 1.04. u.. u; .KJj, K,_.J.‘;L 4.1 v1 '.'_-L. U .g..- .4 ' ‘ U x o -1 a A '7 -~\ - - -L- ’ n‘ . " ' ‘4‘ 'L "1- n* '- h" '1 ‘ ‘0 M, a 3 . 4- - 2' ( l' j ' UO-LLL UlJll O-.. L“. .LUl Lil. L w; C4.A.L.IL« -Li L ”4-1.. Uk-».i1.. [4-2. I '\ .. —. 1 . J- —: .. V ,-\ r_\ I“ _ 1 J- . J“ _ q , f5 _ '1 ‘ >0 ,. 4 , ‘ I 1 J- 1 ‘ I) (L) , L-O-'.L_L.,.1.'_;;l LJ. 9. .' 01 u; -.k,’ , Liwuxj .1.-‘. C1 .' 4... u ...... ”9) ' " " 1 .. 1 ’1 ; I l“ _ I --‘ I ‘ J- -I ' ‘ ,fl ~ .. - . . ‘ ~._ 1 fl - ’ .I A -I _‘ A 1 II .1 J- ' ‘ ‘l kpl m. .2\J.1.L1 4.33. CAL u- -LOL b 2 Lu. .0 01....--“ .1.-- L- ”1.1. U. -..- n;- —_-u 5.1 -- .; 'I V (l3) chlorte HGT c3 cline treated pieces of cut—up cgicnen inset afte* beinp glaced in boat-sh:.ped, cerdboard pack- aging cartons and ( l) a srsb of the table top where hilled poultry was cut-up for geckaJing. The treatnents used in this study were (A) 30 un— frozen control birds (3) 30 frozen control birds (C) 30 chlor tetr acycli ne- treated, unfro:m r1 birds and (L) 30 cnlortetracycline-treuted, frozen birds. “ll birds were h lv ed and loosely wr'tped in polyethelene bags. fhe frozen birds were olaced in a freezer at ~4003. and the unfrozen birds were refr‘ierateci in 350 . cooler. This was the only study in which birds were either frozen or refrigerated in air. lo official raw odor determinations were made with the exception of determining rejection dates, Lech evening, prior to check days, the frozen birds were removed from the freezer and placed in a 6003. room for thawing. The procedure for bacteria counts was identical to that of study III with all determinations being made at 9 a.m. fhe primarv Chan e in procedure involved the taste panel. birds were cooked in the .oultry neoart.‘ie 1t meat teclnoloo y laboratory and a ten-member jaLel instead of a five W1 noer Janel Ihich 11nd been used in studies I, I, . and III was used. no attempt was made to have the same 27 ten DEOyle taste the cooked meat durin“ each da of the l - :3 trial. Lnly flavor was considered by this anel. Ihe panel net every other day in accordance with the dates of bacterial counts. All birds subjected to cooking had been examined for bacterial contamination. ’7 . ’«LJ . W...” , l 1-‘ ‘ .1. a -- . Lil-.4.J\.r..4‘_ J --- AJ .s‘J. JJ‘». J‘JJ.'\. 1. fl a c '1‘ ’T" i l1 -1 ‘1“ "I’ a, U‘-_\.L_J_C|3 -h ‘ JL'-L .L—L- J- .53 7 'l - 7 .'- . I ,3 ' l I CU-/4L .l.k/.L.\, ....V .... u L.‘ o J- - .l " Q ""‘ ’0 '1 ll . ‘ H 4‘ 4-- fi 0 \‘ 1 .‘A‘ ‘ ‘ ‘7 x *7 ”1‘1 :x . ." ,fi-- fi . *1 1“ ’3 \"’.y’ VVMk—sd»t.xg .5 .--\i. ..-.L .L-4.L'..:-\ ...--,) C ._k‘.L Umui _. k,_..__i,_., O‘._.'— \ s _ . ‘ - . o - 9 ‘ O '| J- .. J— .. ' 1" - . 71..., -1 .\ ‘ '1. .‘ .‘ 1 .-. r.‘ _.; "J a ’1 r -- ’I- | - '~ .4 .3 fl . .. ‘4‘- L} _, LI~ u ... $.7'9, .-.v. u..‘.-\,_- --A_I~.l .-....h i \J A..‘<..\/.IAA-L Us-‘4.“ _. L ‘ a «..L...‘-'-VL U ‘ a ~1 . a u ‘ I I ‘ I \ I 1 '\ '1‘} ‘3 . ‘ ' - " -‘ CJ‘ ‘2‘." " - l ' ‘, j '1 L z “‘3 ‘7 ‘ ,“ n '1'“_\T1Yi‘l ‘. ~ ’N.‘ 4“ f;5-.‘\ l‘. l ent u we”- b to; in-.. “1-11.”- tel. o in. , col 1 ins ~C U 2* ~‘~--~ . Q Q‘ . . - - ..., .1. . t -. .N. 1- -n . /\ fl . , . .‘ I F35 . CJL- b.) ..‘Va. . . l ,_o +--€ CULJLUV .L 1-.. * .11, ”is 0. WV .L- , v f" ‘ ‘3, D . 1 . .1 - ‘ 1'. ., ’1 ‘ - .1-‘ ‘ '1 . . 4 4.. .. J- . ‘ l - ‘ 3‘1 . | _I_._ fl_.\ a _ |, ~r l n‘ 1 , .3 1 1 u . ‘, .5 , . _, . . ‘.’I C‘ J. ‘ LA l'yvfi .L.‘ VJAL J .\J\-/\ ‘h ‘J ..LUL --V CAL-1.0.1. .1-$$=3 L); V ‘J «1&4 U-L-L VLK) l" "0 ~ ;’f’ " 1— t' . J,_‘.\ . , A“, .- “ ,- .‘ - . -. V. I». ‘ _ ‘ LO 1 . // Jlt l'x.) L011 U—‘Le ijfl U+“U.L U1. “M3 0 --_L 1:4. \:/l:'... kt: 1f: .L. ‘ — .~ .. 1. ,-- ~:. , \. v-l- ‘ an“ 1 "4“: ‘ ‘ ”\f,‘ ., . _' ', -_. " 1’ ,‘ _‘ 4_’ 5 1303-2 2‘ , ‘~-C Lexis. ccun c.1- o- c.:-:- excl.) ecu..- :1 to :is _, all}. be I/ . '. ':-:-‘ - I ‘ - ‘ r"‘ ' 'L“: I fi ’2 A I "’ ‘\' \‘Lfi t -‘L'-\ 114-111.1411., , r - c in. .. total- tion 0,. 5.9" 1- lu : .ter -11 P' O (,1 *— (u 1.1. H 0 FR; <1" Lu J l_' O *3 P L . 01 D ‘-'., ‘H. .L— l-4_ ..V‘ - :4.” 7.. ,. 4.,4-- ,. . .'.‘ ~ ..-4.,\' ... 4.‘ -L 01" bli‘t‘. J bl‘r::. . tau. (3:. UL]. (311101"er u "he- C-‘.l1-3 2.7- ..> :10 bed bnbll r‘ "‘+. . ---'.~,. , ., l .. -‘ '.“ I. , 1‘,‘ 1-: ,\ a l vul‘ t_fi,'1"o-_i-.._ 13qu l 1-- ;s o 1- corn“ ; . - 1e controls ,- 1‘ .1- r '2 3.4.1-. 1, ' -2-.- ...“ .. 4.1. .4“, ”1111:; the eoun ‘ ..e-re sli ntlg 11:11.1“ .1 r be con ‘o.-~ on the first day after storage, the initial effects of bacterial contamination were observed later. Ihe oxytet- racycline-treated birds began to show rapid increases in organisms after eight days of storag e. Both the control and oxytetracycline-treated birds reached an organism 1.00 x 106 or more ten da 3rs after storage. I’b population 0 After 14 days of storase the bacterial counts were gen- erally higher for the oxytetracycline-treated birds than for the controls. In comparing the actual counts of bacterial contamination listed in “ able I, it s11ould noted that the actual nunzber of organisn1s present on these groups (ox't+trachline and control) are quite similar. Therefore, these studies snowed that chlor- tetracycline was supeiior to no treatment or oxytetracv- cline in controlling bacterial counts. fl1e cl-lorine— tre ;.ted birds did not sl1ow a bacteria population of 1.00 x 106 until about 13 days after storage or two days later than the controls and birds treated with wytetracsrcline. a close analysis of Table I will reveal the t there was very little difference in bacteria counts for the controls, oxytetra cycline-tre'w ted birds, or chlorine- treated birds. These results show th at chlortetracycline was more effective in inhibiting the growth of bacteria organisms than all other treatments listed. .pmmm posapxonomoosam locopmmnp co .moow pm mane mmagp pom om93950cfi who: mmpdah .eozpoa swam exp an wocflmppo who: mamficempo mo 0 mpcsoo .mpczoo wflaopoap ampOp so mpqupmopp mo pommmm may .a ousaflm QumOLum W>(0 OMiOPm m>U<¢FM._..>XO UZ.JU>U(¢FMP¢OJIU FZMZP mcflcwme a 39H: .vmm: mm: bra mo emcee mcwpoom 4 .mmpoom powo 3mg :0 mesmspmmhu mo pommmm one .N mmsmfim omebm 953 05.0.5 m>UXO uZ_JU>U>./IJ -..~.-t- w J- Li;‘-- UV - .th..1 -—.L Ml) U 'x—JCm \J .J— ..L . h ‘ . ‘ ‘ 1‘ -' ‘-. . ’3‘ ’ r‘ * \ J‘- ‘ r . ‘1 ' 4‘ ‘. r‘ . ' " " ~.~ ' "fl ‘2 ‘.' ‘ 1 '_ C ...-Ul .L.-\3 .. ..... 0-..:2 Lhof'; .056. COHLJI'Oloo 4.1.3.16 'CllCGb ...-1 PM} 0 C O F) O) O Q n (. (- ('1 f) E.) O ‘ ‘ 4" . .1. ,. 4. ,- -- ' _‘ .4- \ .1. .. '5 7-. ' ._, -‘ unLOi‘u-J ‘01"...0~ C-‘_.'-.;‘3 01“ - 0y... 01.0025 - ~ ~- - J-r ‘-—' i 'D 2 r . ‘. a.- - . r ~, f" ’. , ‘ . 1"“ _1 I “. \ 7 .. ;;f“3 ,_ COG: o-.u__i_‘:,' .-. Q." ~;. 1.0.1 1:. " 1.231'102... Q... t... 2.! L_.C 1‘5} CCLOI‘ .—. ,. .. . 4.1., . . - .‘., 7 _. .' 4f. - ... . 4...... .- -‘ .__. .. ‘ ’1 -.., ' 4.. n" .4- ichll‘Jl {4.16:1 .. 6.3:; [1.1. Ulla“? 04-3’13‘.) L2... LC” 01.1.-1.) Ol" Ci.-.'_Ol 1.1.6 brig; 08d. ,' ‘ e - J- . 1 I‘ ‘ '- v ‘ A -’ r ~~ - y ~ I‘ j " J— V? t‘ r“ \‘ A- " )fi‘ v vr‘ o rialacirns occ .63 rd: odor reality .nu lme ”crc .9, - a. a: ‘ - 3.-. D - - ‘ ...n A .. - .s- airiy alga ranJinU .rom d.59 «or C-lOTtsbf-CJCllH3 to ~ vr r . ,— ‘ ‘ ~ " ~ ‘ ‘ J— . A \ . 1_fi. . / I 3 r\ 1 . V ‘N were grouped , C01“ ‘ 1.1.03. ’41. COeiilClClb OJ. -c).u/ ”'51.; 00-- .“ -. VA _,-‘ . 0 -' .‘N ~: 4- I ~ -. , Ly. ,— \ j 4—1 —~_ ‘ r /\ H.‘ ~Vv 1‘ 1“ . 4 tc'..J.il€U.o Jtmtloticeal El":.x..0.---‘.3nt ()1 0.1:: {Ain‘t-10.1. b.;O..‘€" I10 .31., '- \_J - ' .. ‘ .: .'~..:~ -. ° ., ..-.-r, . 1.7, -- H , _.,, n . 1;.11 1C . ..t L..- icl‘eflceo 1.1 COI..;Jc.;'lI.U 0.3 Val‘lQLlo cl" “6.38 J. 0:." t A q...“ '.,,—. an“: - a." «#11 1.- 1K, c, .011 .7 :01 ...O-. 0.. .Joua_ o QLe raw o~or scorgs of Jtuly II are slown ropfr tel; in 1;: 3 1:1. awrds m6C3iViJQ L score of h.53 0“ belox were considered unacceptable. after ll o-v: of storage two of the four panel members rejectet the bird treated with chlortetra- cycline. ‘However it has been observed that the“; are wide \JJ Cm TABLE III 7"- YT.‘ 7‘.) .."L r‘1'" "1‘7 (11} I 1.} 1.3"? .11 q-i'js‘ : 1) '. ' Cfr‘O ) .jC x“; 7')”; :‘ ll.21 15;; Ski-LL11.L)$- .L ...J"_J.L.a~.-A_IJJ.‘ ¢L4o.l U ¢L k) UéLuJL) ‘- ’- Ir‘lf‘i'fi‘.‘mlt\"‘~a U .’L_‘.‘ fsUUEJl-‘i.;l‘. .CJ hean Scores Of a flour-member fanel Study II Storage mau.m~wnra Time—- 1112141.; 2.14;": PO Days Control Chlortetracycline nytetracycline Chlorine 1"." Kean Panel Scores for lhe Various Treatments]- 2 6.50 6.25 6.75 . 6.50 7 5.75 6.00 5.50 6.00 9 5.00 3.75 5-25 5.2 11 5.00 4.502 5.00 4.50 it 4.75 5.00 2.003 4.252 16 2.253 3.75 1.253 2.503 13 2.003 4.003 1.253 1.253 n scoring range of 1-7 was used,with 1 meaning very poor and 7 meaning excellent. Rejected for acceptability by at least two panel members. 3 dejected for acceptability by at least three panel members. 37 differences between individual birds within the same treat— ment and also differences in panel member's opinions and sensory keenness from day to day. This can be e:: lified by noting the bird on tie loth dayc a.fter storage. The score on the létb day was 3.75, but the bird was accepted by three oi the four members. After In davs of storaée, three panel members rejected the oxytetracycline-treated bird. The only bird considered accep Ml after 10 da3s of storage 3385 the chlortetracycline treated bird. after 13 days of storage all birds were rejected. In comparing the bacteria counts found in Taule I with rejection dates, in terms of storeée, found in Table III it rejection corresponds to a degree 3";3 can be noted that date 0 r37 ' ' '7‘ .. f‘ , _ . C) *7 _ . Wlth a bacterial count 0: :03 LOJluct i3 1.30 x lO . nOMeVGT there are excegtions to this observation. ste ranel liata: q An experienced ive-member tcste p7.nel sar Med portions *6 of the breast and thick teLLt 0 the same birds for which bacteria counts and ran odor scores are listef in Tables I eind II, respectively. FIQUFG 3 and Table IV show h w the panel ranked bi: ds oi? various treatments for flavor. Lo skin we“ included in 'tne flavor tests. Ike results are soxne bat in agreement . .MSoHHmomm Ag. 4 ._J\l 4 s It. . .41 ,‘a \/ r\lJ 4 ‘I .i .QH; as e _:s poo: hpc> .nfl;cos H apes son: was 51H 40 awash esflsoow : .nmaoon ho>sfim :o mpstpsopp mo pooMue ozn .m shaman Dump—um m>dxo mz_._u>u<¢hmEo._zu F2w2h -.luWOLiQQ out, L‘J..A..‘..Ofei1ceb .3 3 “ 3' m 0 3.3/33 0 p. 1 W‘re srell sin n00 olqnlllCmnt. -|-, . - r" 1 v +‘ A (3 -.-‘— '_'.1 - .-\ > f < 3" 4.1 1 ... r i: ltlcllf, tne t.;.s te 3Jone 111311 3.1 b- e c; 101 tr cycl 1 fl. - ,. ... .1. ,., ,. . .-. '1 4.“. -3 . -W a ' . .' .. . .: ...4. .-.- a- - 3 ' 4.1-3 -‘;- trdtbfii below s11 otner “routs ”ulCfl is consistent ”itn ne r '— 1 'I r r“ -~ . ..L... ‘f . 'n'f‘ \- 'fi #1 , ‘x r: -3 "~ - q '1‘ (I: Tell? OUOI SCOl 6D 0 .- -=.lr1 v.10 (11.1. i. bide; C80 1:133. e 5.45.1.1. oils. HOt . . 31" . .3 -‘ ‘ ‘V "A‘ ‘fi » A .f A - 3 13 - -: ('V F; SlullilC- t sltnOuQn tnere hdo been e consistent trend to ‘33,)“ 45v ne 0t jectcriologica his study chlortetrecyclire figure 4 a u I“ _' '1 _ 3 A v“ r 3 _: 3", r' 1 I 33.13“: -— -‘ tetruc Cline-tleeted birds sii; tly 10 .er groups on 4-, >4 UJ‘QZ.’ III 0; e: v r" I" . "‘ ‘1 '1 " H" r‘ m ‘ '1“. 40-!) J- . ‘5‘ 'V '0 u-s des13neu to measu“e t-e e1 ec iveiess 01 is under commercial conditions. nd reveal that initie 1 be ctcrie counts 41 lm...mOU.DH.H.I®COP2.3,...er CO oNOrJAw. 0+. Uh)...» mumeH ...u. ramp...“ ...waxflrMWdW ,r:2. @093 349,30... o.m.....n 0.5 .3 10:..dubob.3.1.... wimdflungm we ouczon .mpzzoo uflgrpowb HapOp cc mpmmipuohp go pooawo as» .: ogsoau 3:65 925 9:55 9.3 9:65 mid a..o.§_m_o__mmw1~ o n.1m_x_mr_o_mo.WN o o_o_v_~_o_oo+~ o 5.0. ....O. ...NO_ 60. V0— 60. ....o. KO. 1&0— BuoUU<¢PuF¢OJIU ...OmPZOU F2u2k03?” mw> Lom+gcuolib 53. «fissfidum 6mo>1u>fé ma... - ASm§fl>mmfi .....sf 3333450 .10 523,0»: mafioLIm Emerzgnv E. .o a 225 LQIflS now .To. 5 Jr; W in, 7A... $9 Jhwm- 4.40. .“0 m." we" ; o.“ . . m t 2 1Fh411rw-.w..a.“. “4+.1$ ”4% vpa++»++Tk r .l . . I tn: f .2». \It \I. u \ a. m.mm?_v.c.m m V m Av m_0~?.m_9 u w 7 ‘ av m_0u?.uwf_u & t v o . 1|) . x.. .. \ . .3 ome4m m<fi0 mmmo_0 m4>D OMXOHR m4): fif'fi‘fi u~."rl.s,->!.. VIII, I'll“ . .. . 4 Q... n f l‘ ' C V H I Ob 0L 1-:LE f .18 CL”; .LSL L? r4.C‘T.‘ L :1 .3 3 . I ULU :51 :..:11 .:..-.1' TR .4 5r: .... :‘J Study III .I: r .. r'1"," r1 T‘Vr‘rwr) atorc'i'JE i-..'...L;_:-. LD~ gime Qontrol_ Chlortetracycline (UGYD) (tnpackeged) (rack35ed) (Unpb knged) (inckuged) ccctericl Counts . A 0 1 5.C} x 103 6.72 x 103 l.tl x 10h 6.16 x 10) 3 1.11 x 105 3.59 x 10 4.63 x 104 2.88 x 104 1. 5 9.96 x 104 1.29 x 104 1.06 x 105 3.30 x 10* 7 1.61 x 105 3.06 x 104 2.99 x 105 5.56 x 10’ 9 6.70 x 101P 3.00 x 10‘F 3.60 x 106 2.20 x 105 \ \n O\ 11 1.96 x 100 1.00 x 10 3.37 x 10 2.73 x 106 13 4.70 x 100 5.30 x 100 7.26 x 107 3.00 x 10 C- .1 15 5.50 x 107 1.30 x 107 .88 x 10 1.20 x 107 17 1.08 x 108 8.33 x 107 1.17 >4 [—1 O \ 2.13 X 10 l . . . . fotsl bscteria counts are expressed in log numcer of Organisms per square inch of skin surface area. 2 ' 0 V o o - 1 All birds were stored in crushed ice. Leat-sealec POlyethelene was used for the packaging material. #3 were higher on commercially treated birds than on labora- tory treated birds. :Ccteria cour ts ior un 1cnu eu controls and pacl aged controls increased at approximately the same rate although the unpachaded birds began to show hiéher bacterial contam- ination from one to two days sooner. 1he un1acr0“eo con- trols generally had hiQher bacteria counts than did hie packaged controls, and reached a bacteria H30 ul ation of / 1.00 X 100 or more approximately two ceys earlier. Eiéure A shows an unexpected trend in bacteria counts. 11. Chlortetr11 y'cline- trea ted, unpacka e birds, had higner bacteria counts than the corresponding control birds during every day of this study. The chlortetracycline-treated, unpackaged birds reached a population of 1.00 x 106 or more after nine days of storage or two days sooner than the comparable control group. Table “ shows that bacteria counts for the chlortetracycline—treated, unpackaged birds liad higher initial bacterial counts and the increase of the organisms was more rapid than for any other group in this study. These results indica e that the chlortetracycline— treated, unpackaged birds were probably contaminated either in the tank or after rem val from the tanks The higher initial organism counts for the commercial birds of this Study as compared to the laboratory birds of Stud ies I and II 4h indicates that some improvements in sani ation could be em- ployed by the commercial processing plant. Table V also shows that the bacteria counts of the unpackaged, control group and the chlortetracycline-treated, paclaged group were similar. Both groups reached a bacteria population level of 1.00 x 100 after 11 days of storage. After nine days of storage the controls began to rise above the treated birds in bacteria counts although the differences were small. Raw Odor Panel Data: A comparison of Figures 4 and 5 shows a close relation- ship between bacterial counts and raw odor on both control groups. although the changes in raw odor scores approxima- ted the changes in bacteria populations, the packaged con- trols received scores slightly below the unpackaged controls. The differences in raw odor scores between the two controls are not significant as shown in Table VI and Figure 5. Neither of the control groups were rejected until after 14 days of storage although both groups had reached a 'bacteria population of at least 1.00 x 106 after 13 days of storage and the unpackaged controls reached a population level of 1.96 x 106 after ll days of storage. This should illustrate the fact that there are odor differences among birds within the same group and/or treatment, and birds may 1+5 .pcmaaeoxm bcficwee 5 end Loom mam> mdflemma H flea: .eoms mm: NIH mo enema mcfipoom a .moaoom Loco 3mg :0 mucoEQemap mo pommmm mzm .m mazmwm omeFm m>U(¢FmF¢Oa—IU UZ_JU>U0 DPWV 8528.----- dzE mumsmz «So... .<.._o mmmoom 232 mm 100m .. mOOO >>Lm> mcflcwma H Spas vows mm: bua mo omcmp mcflhoom a .mohoom ho>mam no mpceapmmsp mo pomMmo one .0 magmas ommOFm m>U(¢._.uF¢OI_IU wZ_JU>U<¢._.mP¢O:-IU JOmPZOU F2w2kODFWV JOmFZOU 0:--.0 JmZ_n_ < “.0 mmmOUm Z<._.._. 938039 HOAV'L-J 4 . I I l... . . . . .. . III . M” . ’0...)J. A: i. .. L. as .. Q .. a. a.“ ... % .... I.. ... .f o. . a. -nI. .} I ‘I it! I l a, .‘I v 11". . :f. .. H .. 1 1 t\ It N . m J ‘1’.. I.u . . & .5. I!“ c. ‘m 3. I». \ n .e . . K. ... .. .. . I. . y . h . u 40.! "I ’34 s o {I (I Q a \ .r IoII. * g o u a In .I. 1.. r ..n m a...» 1 4‘»: I.” m ‘ u v) I , nu ..I.I . fi. ... uyo‘ h «L‘. ol§ u q; IIII II‘ . I. l.‘ a . - II . .u .x a (By. ... . .‘I o I . . .0 u . .oa ’, a a . I, u “.50., V o o I a}: ..14 .“m u)" .N‘I .VL ....“ Io... ..L.IJ an & 1.1m _. .a. 1 1 . ”.13. an “- ...a u A. In . ... k a .. \w M AW . la. to... n 's II\. - .... a I 1|! — I. .o aft-Ila '. .. 4‘ r, I‘ All. a .‘ .o o : l u 5 a v s. e - ... aI-v I. t t 4‘ r I .. I.» M I n I. n .I. I I'd m ... I. 3.. I. .2 "4.11 N». s _. g» . v.3... lax-I... I a If: .e V“ .6». ... ‘3... I . , . i .1 . . . .. .. .. ... .. .. , . . ....q . .. .. . , 4 Pa . I." .F..a ... IN“ I. W fl . x \ ” in“ A“ it. u?’.-\ ’fi‘m w o \‘ Pr.‘ u’.‘ II... II— o‘t.\."5’ D. u ....\..b‘ I. 0 § 1 '4 3 ‘0. 1;} ‘9 III III. I III I.I|\_ O 9 Q 1 0 W I. ii. a . -.....II .. _ IIIIIIII m III I III- . I 7. I III \0 I II. I Il [I II I II I .II a u IIIII‘ II .\ In I .-. l .0 III..1 ii! .. I ,. I I . II!!! ...III IIIIIJ I . e n In I l I ”Hus-III O IlkI.’ ”III-'1'! I. II II IIIIII i ...v IIIIL/dIIII . -. a r. l I II I a! \ f\ A I\ c I '12.. JIIIIIIII I.-.‘I I -....- .I\‘ III: III-:.....IIIIIII- .I/ a s) _ I4 _ .. .1 v. .I . s... u 7 All“ .II . . In. ..1 11w.) V, w .. ... . . J Y.“— \J. u N... ... _ I ,m H1; . .f .U ...... IT. ....I O we; r ._ I . 1: ”L. re I-» fix r9; urn... MU. _ k .. (... AI. 4 7 L .. I. ., .I. I .. - 4. .-., J ) .. . . » ..J. a». I. «I. .I I... .4 .... ..... 0 hi: .i w 0.7.. 1.2.. n. b T. Chm m :../I r- - .1.-. . ... m. ...... .... . a I ‘ I . . . 0 /I ...a II I I. I. I O . . I4 . . a. . - . I: I I t -I It . _ ..I I. .1 (3 "1 T1” 17" \. .- {fifi "‘ 2:1 .‘1 0r p avCR stones 50 A COKFARISOH '“TIEEN fiififlithS Lean Scores of A five-sember ranel VStudy III Storage TRELTYLMTS T' q q, . (éTes) bontrol unlortetracycline Qy bnpackaged :ackaged Unpackag rackaged a: ll 13 Lean Panel Scores For The Various Treatmentsl 3.13 4.50 3.40 4.20 5.00 4.40 3.60 3.80 3.80 3.30 2.50 1.50 5.20 5.20 4.60 3.50 2.30 1 poor and 7 meaning excellent. A scoring range of l-7 was used, with 1 meaning very 51 in flavor between the packaged and the unpackaged birds. rlavor scores for the chlortetracycline-treated unpacra5ed birds were practically identical with the unpacha5ed con- trols. Table VII shows that the packa5ed birds were 5enerally favored over the unpa cka5 ed birds although the differences were sli5ht. Cnly vcry n1inor chan5 es in flavor were detected by the taste pa nel throu 5hout the entire stud;. fable VII shows that there was little consistency in scorins the birds a for flavor. For exam le, after 8 and 11 days of storage the packa5ed controls received hi5her flavor scores than during the early sta5es of stora5e when bacteria counts.were lower. another interestin5 observation shows that the chlortetra- cycline-tre at ed, uncw. k35ed birds with the hi- 5hest bacteria counts ranked hi5hest in score after four days of stora5e and retained a hi5h score after ei5ht d: ys of stora5e when organisms exceeded one million per square inch of skin surface. fhe taste parIel results 01 this study indicate that no real differences could be detected between control and treated lots and that during the course of this study bac- terial contamination had no detrimental effect on flavor. Study IV BacteriolO5ical fata: This study serves as a partial replica for Study III in deter;'1i Mn5 if the unusually h 5h oac er a counts and early rejection dates would be duplicated. frozen birds were used in this stuiy to seek -urtler eviclence re5 ardinv the ability of pee le to jud5e the flavor of chicken meat sub- jected to difierent treatments and storage time. he initial bacteria counts of the commc i1al birds (... USES in this stuay duplicated tfose of Study Ill. ”his '1‘- n 7. -- O ‘n r- 1.1» fl. ' h r 1- h an -v '1 5‘ 5ave 1urther gr001 that the e is appalently a SOUICG o1 Conta11nation in the cozaterc1a groce351n5 plant Unicn 1s , . J-" .3 1 ° .7,‘ ' . -f ..I. ' ,1 l . .5 4- ,5 (PW 1’,th "1 l .1. C; Uui.-.) 'uil‘L L11D1_ 111; Old. COLILLUO. 1H8 1.0.1! (1.1L; illi L/i u. COLIIIU for any lot of this study was b.53 t 103 (Table VIII) and 1 - o ‘ ,-\ : )1 5 _ ..C‘ .A tne highest was l.oo K lOer for the un1rozen c0ntrols. Lne unfrozen birds in Qtudy IV exhibited similar ._—— to tnose 1n 1tuay ill. necter1a i; CT 9 O (L "J I_’ increases i" counts from the frozen birds remained about the same throu5h- out this trial. ;acteria counts for the c lortctrLC"cl1nc— reatec birds were sli htly hi her th:n those for the unfrozen controls throu5hout the tria1. 4 comparison of actual bacteria quite consistent with rcsu1ts obtained in qtudy 111. She bacteriolo5ical results of Study If more finite con- sistelc with those of study El indicating a need for further work to determine the source of contamination in the commercial plant. 14...? I. a I; c H l: a. up I 53 .hemm pomapxm aemoosamsmcopmhhp so .uoom pm muse omega now wepUQSocfi egos mmpmag .eogpea bmsm ogp me woeflmpbo mam: memfleamao mo mpcsow .mpcsoo dfinoponn HUPOp so magmapwopp mo pommmw one .5 mpsmflm 0”..me ym>U(¢PuP¢OJIU uz_JU>U(m._.u._.mOI_IU JOmPZOU F2u2h035.” 4.“ F . It. .I “9 I . to I . II . . . 1.. -lln‘c. h‘illf4k . v ..n u . \ I; I .3. (1i. . I o t. . r . . .5 . ... A u (I u f\ ‘ ... n H _ .r V... ~ . n ~ .. ...: A t 1 . . a. .. . II _ ...... . . u Lu . :..... . . 4 M .. CMI. ... .0. I i 0.! . 1* t$1*,0§ ”Al-I Ivor p.19 Inc: .1 er .‘. '..O. t . *.....I..v.‘pl‘ ”...-(IEoITJIL . x). . .. . . . . s . ... v... ... . y ...; m ....» 5.. -. .1! s.) .. M . .. .... .. . . ...- . ,. .. ... fl. :7. .1. p .. u . 0v . 9 v .\ Q L 02.... Pk c 9.}. O. . . . IVa. :1 ll ,. V w u . . I; . lo I I. v.. N a, . J. .,Am a? o. I. ml \ U V n. «)7 a . H “ Ix “‘0 W .1“! o. p\ n . . (a. 3.. w . . . ... all N. ...L .1... IL . . ..I. is. A‘ — . c p.‘ . .. l h l . n . vi .1. . , 0 Erin '5. . . 9 .‘l "in. k..tu~ VI.- ull 5"”!"E‘d . . . , I G‘)’. ' a... . I .... 2.-. ... . .. . . . . . ~ .- . .. ‘0 .. a‘. . . . t. e u. \ o ) 6n . o .... .. i . aphid '1 h ii‘ 14 {01.0 +1.0 ...-.... y.|.‘ . ...”... f...“ ... nu. r- ,.’¢u. ... 4‘ .... l ‘0 54 ”1.EL3 VIII ‘f 0F T0T1.L B C" TIm CCLlTS 3 31 1.3 Tn;nT3l Study IV giggaoe TREATLLHTSZ (Days) Control - milortetracycline (Unfrozen) (Frozen) (Unfrozen) (Frozen) Bacterial Counts 0 1.06 x 101F 1.62 x 101+ 6.77 x 103 6.53 x 103 2 9.17 x 103 1.37 x 103 1.23 x 10“ 1.10 x 104 1 3.23 x 10“ 2.27 x 104 2.70 x 101F 5.67 x 101P 6 3.53 x 10“ 1.16 x 101P 1.52 x 105 9.50 x 103 3 1.36 x 106 1.00 x 101+ 6.45 x 106 1.00 x 10‘P 10 9.40 x 106 4.30 x 103 4.05 x 106 4.87 x 105 12 3.56 x 107 3.00 x 103 3.96 2 107 5.30 x 103 14 1.96 x 108 1.50 x 104 6.90 x 107 1.30 x 101 16 1.04 x 108 5.30 x 103 5.16 x 107 6.13 x 103 1 Total be cteria counts are exltressed in 10: number of organisms #:aer square inch of skin surface area. 2311 birds in this study were packaged in polyethelene bags and air cooled. 55 Raw Cdor ranel ‘at1: Lo official raw odor panel was conducted during this re1ection were recorded. L Ff) study. “nly dates 0 “ejection dates as determined by raw odor were consistent with results obtained in Study III. The onl difference was the t in Study IV both the control and tre Wed bi ‘ were declared unacceptable after nine days of store e. In Stucy III the treated, unpackaged birds were designated unaccept- able four days sooner than were the unpackated coi1trols. r—l aste kanel Data: “ ten member taste panel designed to fully test the accuracy and ability of peogle to detect flavor differ ez1ces between cooked chicken meat with high and low bacterial con- tamination, was used in this study. The results shown in Figure 8 and Table I; reveal that there was little difference, if any, from the standpoint of flavor whether a bird contains a hi h or low bacteria popula- tion with in limits of this study. figure 8 shows that there were little differences in flavor between frozen a1c unfrozen control birds. In fact, after 1h days of storage, when the unfrozen bird was consid- ered putrid, the scores for the controls were the san -e gure 8 and Table II also show that the treated unfrozen bird, which was considered unacceptable after nine days of storage, actually improved in flavor as determined by this 56 .pCmHHoon bzflcmoe b was poom mnm> ocflznma a flpflz flow: was NIH mo omcwh mafiaoom i .menoom no>mfim so mummapwonp mo pooMMm msw .m mpsmflm Gum—01?... w>U<¢FMP¢OJIU uZ_JU>U<¢._.mFmOJT—U JOmFZOU 1.292559 AZMNomuzav AHH >DDFmV ..omrzoo 0-1.6 JUZ<.._n_ 838039 8 DAV-1:! 0...... 1..-... .... . .. inf; a...) .. .. .11.... ......y... ..., u. .... m 3......” .. n . . .s .... VA. . . ..n no. ... :a . a. JILLV‘ 6Tub. “7...... .a v. a» . wok; an. ... o v .... . . m. Cm \u. a VA m. “VI H“ ” N. do ‘a n .A a... h ‘II O n .m . . .... .- .ol . . ‘ k . w . .. 9 #3th It...» a. . ..n. and»... ...»... t4 - «1.1a... ...u A. .. archx..v u s. ...-II .‘II A. . Ill. ‘. .. \lld. 3.5. .v 0 I. ... n. .. .v .- a‘ .v 0-” f . n‘ a. J. :u. . ...“. I}. .5. ‘t h 5% . w. .. . . ...vJ . c . .. . . _ . . . . u u . .....\ 13.1.1» . ....\ It. (1.. .... a s / 3L . X“ n v ... a W. J. ....IJ .lv .s .‘Ixn PL 0. . .1 .V 3.. w. .0 a! D... cc n a! . . . . A l I3. .15. u. . .. i. .. 3’ .... .. . . u k I... m m». . P. . . .. u . . . . . m It. U in. Y n .9 c . III‘ . .o a U .K . 4- u m. n -p‘. .. :1 v p \ .. 1 . . . v .. .... 1.. . . II ; r‘\ .0 0...... O \.N. -‘a‘ I .14 . ~41. ...5. .u v. I“ 1m .. .- u I 1 w w w o v ...V . 1v .-.. . r . .u s .r 1:55!‘ m .0... folk ~ (\\ ..- e ......1.J..-..... .71). 11...).3.) .1435...) 1......) ..--.. 1.4.”... 1. , ....“ I m Osul .- - s: on ‘ o ..‘oo uf.‘ '09.. 1.... .r. .1‘ # ltNol-w . ya. - \J (...-u. .u u." l\ («h D. “t r r I cl ., ~ a ’i ‘ ' .- q 4 a j. ‘0. \ti. .4 Ill. ... \ n w . A _ I. . . d . re u. . . .. L ...r_!..*. "K.... 'K \r I)...“ ‘\t ‘2 I «I I I» ,1 i ’1 f \ "1 ‘ - at.”- ”N?” 9‘ p. ’1 -.....5'. -- . v— :.....o-o.!-..m ... . ... .1 .U w ... 1 , ' ‘ t f” m .a 4 . r (A. o . . ..t - i .... u .5. 1‘ . t. . D l. MI... 1> o. / «J a J hir‘ ‘b u ~ Rf! KL M. u. )r‘ .. .. :1 l. .(Qiof... 1| ..- . o L 1111!}?! . . 1 q . - :.....c. .51.--. aw. r . u . ‘9 § 0 1.“ bl! ' :- l|| v I \ . uh. \ 1‘ rl. \ I. t; :.. \. \tll ‘ .\ I .... . A. ..1 O- l \ s , .. II. N . § {I| \ n n O \. \b |. 9 ... .4 \ u!‘ I \I. uI- 1‘ \ n i a s 7 \) f s u) \la I. 1) p C o l .... . . ... «x W. V “4 H I‘ . “la-‘4'... 7‘ .- 1" . . . ~w‘-’- -r '1 l I p -—- "t‘pcl”; . ‘ig'uis'ilt.ll‘ L I, . ...! «..1 fl . . .. s/ ._ . .ulJr~ J“ ’.\J” .u r..\ ‘1 Ill .r\ I i i «L... I‘ll‘ midi III! I: I... ...!‘i . . n I . . t. ‘ I“ .. . 1 4| — II). I\. .l ,. 1 - ..- .3 . :13 r . ._ -. .. 1 .1113. x. .. L .L....1_O..Jt 1:...»11. Q -.. 1...). . a. mffim 01:... .. .u fits/C . 1‘ (In I. O «‘E: 12" C; C: KL 1’" 1 . ,4 C) CC...“ .1»... u i. I 1. . ..Illli pink. lint-.51 .PluJ‘ t . u... ~ 57 .pnoaamoxo maficmme m was noon hpo> mqflsmoe H spa: .ooms mmB NIH mo mmcmh wqflpoom 4 a m©.a 0®.¢ 05.¢ om.¢ 0m.¢ 0H.m 0H 00.¢ 0o.a 00.m 0m.m 00.m 00.m .m.4 0m.q 00.¢ 0m.¢ 0a.: 00.d ad m0.q 00.¢ 0m.m mm.m 00.¢ 0m.© 0H.m 0m.¢ 00.0 0b.¢ 04.: 00.m NH 00.m 0m.m 00.0 00.m 0m.m 10.4 0¢.q 00.m 0N.m 0m.¢ 0¢.4 00.q 0H 00.¢ 00.m 0m.¢ mm.m 0©.m 0m.m 0d.m 00.m 0N.m 0a.m 00.m 0m.m w 0m.m 0m. om.m 00.m 0m.m 00.0 00.m 04.m om.m mm.m 0H.m 00.m 0 mm.a 00.a 0m.m m0.m 0m.a om.m 0m.m 0m.m 0m.m ma.m 0n.a 03.m : 0H.m 0H.m 0H.m 00.¢ 00.¢ 00.; 0m.m 0m.m 0m.m 0m.m 0m.m 0m.m N Hmpcmapmmna mSOHnwr may pom mmaoon Honda one; apom swarm pmxonn snow mwwmm pmuoam :pom swash pmmmpn :pom Amway pmwmnn mmmm conch; cowonmcp somonh sonopmc: mafia ocflaoxomapmpnoagq mafiaozomnpopnoasu Honpsou Hohpcoo mmmhopm maamdmw<1m sH madam Honda ampswfilcoe m mo mohoon smog 34 .-.1- .11 1-11... ...}-.. . ,_..flaf....a_. ... . Crr, -.. ... 1L r,C.rL . ,.h....i Curr» mflmoom ~Rfifisbm m0 aomHmdmmoo 4 HH mqmde 58 ‘~ 2- A - - \-\ V v-‘ +- f. 1-1 ‘ r ‘ I“.\ fl (\ (- J— -‘- . H; r ‘ fistuTOuedeOho caste l......nel. -ne ilavor score attained oy the (J : 0x c) treated, unfrozen bird after two days of storage :3- Contared to 5.30 after lb days 01 store . These birds ’3 .L r" v. L) world n;ve also been considered unacceptable aiter nine days 0 a 1 - ': - I: -.. .' ..T' 1n D .1 01 storaoe and con31uered putlid alter lb days 01 storaoe. rigure o also snows that there were only m1nor 1lavor "O difi bet een birds with hi'h and low bacterial (I) rence 01 counts. In this case the regression lines for the frozen treated bird and tie unfrozen control are identical. “fter lo days of storage it was decided to contin e the taste panel, but only supply the panel members with cooked samples of 1rozen, low bacteria count chicken meat which iad been thawed the evening before cookin" On the 16th L). H4 (‘1) )4 d y after processing the scores were practically 'dentical with those obtained on the lhth day for unfrozen birds. 10 noticeable differences were detected between thi¢h and breast meat. n donparison Cf Laboratory and Commercial dhlortetracycline Treatments Bacteriological Data: A comparison of results obtained from chlortetracycline- treated birds prepared in both laboratory and a commercial processing plant revealed the importance of sanitation. .Eicure 9 reveals that the commercially trea ed birds had a higher initial bacteria count by almost one 10?. “fter J 0 59 mumm_n_mr_m_-_._o_ew~.mmemm_ o Stag 22.51.83 mo. ou...1..._<.Umm2§00 mbzmzium... uzjo>o¢OFU>U<|_n_ $38033 HOAV-IJ 6 f»: L, 5.5J -.M ...... . .‘n‘ v a: I ,n ‘ I r\ .. g z. I"... v u .. v c.\ o .I 1.11 .0 {191..IE) I. b 30' (...II 3' oh I I“ - ¢”A r walla}.- 1.. “ _ a ‘I 1 .. rt 4 . “a ~ . l u i; .u\ ... '. t r ... '0! £5. '9‘. i. 51-?“ u’”P.'.. ' ’0 .rfif‘ ; '~ ..‘c. , C.) I.‘.. n no I W ...... 1...“. I“ .1 .. ... . ... r «h. . . .. .. ., .. ...... . .. . s.» y >. s. .. ... .. . 1V. \7 . 1.2.5.. . .l ' .o .. ...4v. _ a w- .. . 4.. 8 ...: ......ti... :73. ... ..u o ...X. \h .... . -..L \. .... .m .. ...p .... ... t‘.‘ I t o .. u‘“. b R ..M ¥ ll . .3 a. Q ’L‘. ....h . c I 1.1 a 0 ...v 5..“ 0. a- r 1. PM I ‘c.l\..o.. r ‘M. It}... y. .3... l Err, . .u J .....n J. . .....0. ‘1. \...v o . . § 9'1‘!‘.." N O. .... a .. m .uw‘ 5. -.. m. ... I! o ...II (a. fl.‘ .I ... ... ... ... f t v . . v .. “ n 9. 5 . . *2” «.....0 «43.1.1.-. m... u 1‘ O u u. I ' ‘ n '1 ‘0‘ w. a 9 r 0 § “ I a \- u. 6. .6 .1“ .... n ‘3 .1 in.“ hi! . . . . . .. I..u.$’..‘m“o .w. .fl ~ ‘ r . t. l~ \fl I, a ..‘o O” 04 p . u .l *n. u . .. .... Q9. IJ. ‘. 1.: In! .9 . ‘ . .. ..I. s c u .. . ~v v . ... p . . .. x \In a III p I o 1 C :..-(1.. a . .fi . . a . w .. (i‘ .14 .0 ..I t .I‘l‘.‘ '4’ J....!. \l' .I . v a Q — ‘l .... ......mlok .. In...~...p\.. _ ...m u . , a .. 4’.- . L . . :... . .... .. . ... L x1. ... .‘or ...... b. a ‘ g n .o .fih .. kn. .4 . 1'- A.) ‘ rs ...; ‘ ‘ Iv. . ‘L'l‘.0t I ' 23.1}--- C..." It! i ~l ivgla‘l -.-: I‘.‘. I“; .... n f. . '1 \v 0 M .. 1 r., u). ... (a - u '0 0‘ .‘u.\r. ... Ilia... .6 ii!‘ ‘1 ‘i h 3...: 1 {ll U\tlll ‘1. in! ‘llll .- ..¢.. 2...) I.“ ..H. J“. 1‘. c I‘Vs- \ s... 1:11....) a ... ..J . . .. “J J ... . . \. i141... .....-» ... ... .. .. , ..., I}. § ‘L n at . y. w .. .J . 1 . I". (I. . ‘ .0 \V. o . 1 . of. ; P‘u‘. ....D.d'.v{.s‘. $1.3.» ii, . . £3? u . ...... u o . 5‘ “I4 m Ir J \t .a J, _ a . . v n . z . J . l. as u. . .r \ ~ ‘ 0 “ c. a???» 1.1 an. 1.... ... ......J o .. .. ”It; a” «ll-a O u . .9 4 ~ “v '1 i’h‘ it‘lblusl . . is”... gall. kn. 'Jiiulr - . 1,301.;4 .9. o .I “I .V .10! ill! .n .. . ... 3:61:35... 2.9}... ,1! 9|. If; ‘3 ‘ O‘c o}... r? («ION-aid?! .... P I :... '7" 3.70' "J ' ' 1'"' ’45:"; ‘v M. _ O... 6”“ «1‘5. . .- pOinto on tetracycline 1 obtuined. ”hi” 0 the S proc 65 grocessi n5 line, and s: J diluted chlor- 3 V olutions fr01 tie veriou.s c'iiill tun1s w re 1 ‘ ‘- Y V" ‘ '1' v - ‘ s‘. 1" r~ . >-(‘. [q 1 g . edure ”Go gee bGCauQu 1t nus oel-eved isl co tuminution in V“ L .I. “~ . ‘t'x rx rd 1 n s, h -w . ~ A ‘ 1" n.1c1 was 31nder1n5 any uselul of chlortetrecycline. The . ~ . immortdjce A 7 Q a. rocessing poultry if ble II s r‘ f', y'- p.31 FBSU pla spo lotnfs were included cnecl :ed on ra;id in alter tle Fifi? 1.1.18 r1 _'1, alter tne it was probable that trlis conturlnu the cuttin5 There were no facilities for cold, on this table and the microbiolO5icul counts UlI‘CL“ ('4‘ J- .) L; birds bile lts of this bacterisl SUFV 3 requirements needed in poultry nts to insure ”cterisl control on processed ilu5e of fresh poultry meat is to be deterred. the various locations witlin the plant which Q U a v in the urv y. were comparsole for birds 8. and in the chill tsnk er of bucterisl or5unisms occurred -D - -T-. ‘--: r\ r‘t‘fi “ere remov;u 1r0u tne Cnlll tunns. L) EU J \z -, .1 .. -'.~ 1 ,~ -° ~ .1. m:r-:d incre. 1n bucteriul nu.1.1s occu1 ed " -' 1 V. * 1" -'» ' r.Z " 7'!‘ r~ fl.f“ 1 4 -\— a .uxisaeen cut-u1,.jn1 JJCnLde. ..ielslole, tion occurred u.:1ng 1 ... . . (Ix-q -. .-| \ w .u w CgLLCJ. P “Cl-LL juggn i I (.15, 3;)J Q to the d partial answer conou bacterial count on the cut—up table was 1.95 ble XI). runnin5 .eter, hot or .L. table was not washed or cleaned 66 l I ‘/ > h ' ‘Wf‘T V T - ’I'.‘ “17 ‘TT 3" "'1 _'~ ~‘ "" ('1 .. ‘ 'I _ . Uk/¢‘-.L-_J-JJ.L-L—.L; J- C/\_I.LJ.--‘.--. - -LK-\J.4.; .J J-” ' .- A r -. of -« ‘ ~. ..‘. _ :- . '1‘ ‘f I l1 [l |( _ _ ‘ . ‘ ”‘1' ‘- A—Jo --- A L—l-La J— -.--L —-—“-¢ MIL‘ “v I .u—Jo. " 1 J— --, J l" '.’ — A - A] -Iv.:.-C bgifiLp; uUUlit/S" I‘.i-.‘z_‘%.nl'~-‘:.‘S 4-” er 'J'T-YULLmV C L chb Ja;;ling itgtions ( KJ . *4 i‘ H' :2 i". a F33 p O (D F V {a .- h- Lo. 3--aftar neck i? removcd 5.3 x 10'( ‘\‘ I \I] \ -: rm r\ '.z ‘ :.x. a; O o l I *— \ p. (. (I: 0 if. D {In I P O 1 l \J‘i I. ’ 0. :--on weiéninq pin 2.00 x 10' . L Lo. u--c:iort;tracycline 0 ill 11k 11 2.32 x 13‘r ,3 r) NF J.\. E...’ C- 1...] O V ( L.o. ’7--rfifiLozfiy;trrm:feliJle cfl1ill.1;an1; ‘2 IL 0 i.:. }_J I._J Cr bx.) N O F) «'0 1 F4 C) ‘5- _ ‘ ,1 ”4-44.... __ an,“ L0 . p--C-;_LOL Us; pfc:C_v Gillie .— E’ Q \.-J d‘. \J 0 ?~ 3 \JW Lo. 9-—chlort;t1;cyclln; C ill taLR ,g f ’l “ ‘ ’ ., 4. ,r_ . .. -- 'i I .,. . ,- .. , .. A -o.¢u-—CHLorugtrthc;*4e tredtgg #10098 "' .L. .. ‘- ‘ '..,~.\ .~ . J- .- F‘J—H. OJ. OVAL/“UL: CillCLA‘jd lune: «4 m4. bur. .- ._ ' r. (f 0 1|.» ‘ ..- '7'.“ "x/ I ‘1‘, iii—Cheek). 1:1 UO‘J‘. U-S;;\-‘.‘--73CL I .1 ‘— ‘ c A 'I‘ .m. .V‘ ‘ 'V".’:“‘ .K’“~(-t.—.-L*l' b nbvo .00 x “03 k; p. i C y h .g- :A q,‘ 2.211w . .1.-,-, .~ 9“ch L400 Hue; g: C--.L..L....:- 91L 14014.; CL‘» LS U ‘i r‘ v'~ ~ .I‘ , N 4" .‘\ : v -" . -, /_ *1 v vu‘x 1‘: 1. 4 v” '. y" - \ 3‘“. 2' ..V , 1 P ‘ . rflnwo_ "leCtLOfl o; 013¢D Hg; oath'ued hug a A aquhro . ‘ . ’ fl ~' . 'r ~“I ‘, ‘C‘ u' ' ‘ . P‘ 7‘ ,~\ " . "- {f v vrx .'V 17"!“ ‘\.1 ~‘ :1.A " J- 1". 'I ‘ l-LC—— bulll bur}. L. 1;-.. OJ. edcgi DlJXkJ. no.0 5'.‘.‘-;LLJD€\ .LUI' OUUJuLl/l- ‘ ‘ n ,2: Kg, V q p‘ ‘:I ' '| ‘ 3‘ ‘3 . I", ’ ' +‘ ‘! ;n5 Dthcrla Cthub. 2 ‘ -»-‘ J- —\ r" r m . 1" v“ 4- N - I U D ‘4 4" “" ‘i ' ""5 .L' 8 fl. Ugo \JCL‘) lflCU.L/:.‘.I cu g t 2v J. .LOJ. «lee b..._".oo 3 ”I" ' r“ L- \ 1 ‘ -r\ '5 ~- 1 - J< -. 1 1 — ‘n . fl fl l r‘ ' -‘ “r . A 4.-...LQ b-xli.- ”"310 On]. :,.;1 v.1. :..L_LJ’ LlLlDQ, L .L .. vi-» COI-D, 4.1:. fi ‘fi‘: ‘1.(-‘ ‘- n K ...-a, Ju- . f“ q - I.‘ q .14.“ ' “r won-1: —‘ 3 ‘ - J.— . -\,\ D r L4.¢ gr CCMLJGA Lu¢~7-<3- c-;¢m.pchux;;pfiimA, L <3 tlmld o; L, 7 PF _. .fi _ *7. ‘ ‘ .L b~¢J.-' JuJ—L ' ‘ ' I ‘. '. ‘ ‘_. T —'_ y". f". I ‘ " “ .-. ' . - . f": ‘. n‘ ‘ '7‘, VI -- 'ffi . ' ' . ' ‘ ‘_ . I ‘ \ . ..J..J.~..L K..- ‘J. -l—JJULJ'A 4' 3...; 5- ...... -.. -.J-.....§ ..J._A.) JK....'~-¢-.n-. .... -A _“‘ h 1' ' {fl ‘ ’;1 ‘ .P‘V‘ ".T T" ’ C "“f'fi' 7" ' ‘ ' fr! J. Aug»... JJ.----q _- .J....'_._-.._1 ‘-_‘J.-L-._ (‘1 ‘ “1".‘f " ‘~"" "T" "‘ “' v “ "' “1 ‘T ' ."1 ' I - ~ ‘ '. - . Uk- . -_:J.LIJ-Lah-J uL blv‘fi’ -‘|'-- l .LvK-"J Jhr’.J..——I ~,- 1 uLJ-AJ. l IX) .1“ . fi' - .~ ‘. _- v: “I . -' -_ - 4— rs‘-, .2 r‘ fl‘ ,— ~~ -':'- f“ UHlOFtthqCJ. (3.1.111; C L»; 21.3. ~JUU.V1UQ ‘ ,. ., 4.- r - . " .-: _. .— .- ' 1 * 4 -.U.;...L)3£‘ upJCE’J brazthR \UI'Q-;.;...S. -D :31" l...l.L.L.1_ I ‘ a _ _ . .1 A .0 .' '\“r v 'l'x"-." ‘ l‘ '\ \‘V {firth 1331‘ J 3.114.011) OJ. “.... 11.x: Lw-‘f' 8.9.121 " 11.5 I; r: x 10»:— ll°5 2.QO x 10h 7-1 2.90 x 10 14-3 1.60 x 104 r -\ w ‘ U U I 4.. i ' “in- ..., .. . a. ...." u'- 5:. - '. - 1- ._ J- , ... beuxeeA uiiisreit Ur ugs oi Ulf¢o UglCu ware CUu-LW ind l Cl:’.‘~. Q'Lo q-..lJ.-._. \‘q ' fl :c‘fi'.’ 4‘ 0' r3“h"'*."("':. ”‘1'- ~1n ~,—~.~‘,- "HF-i. -.~ 3' O‘vC-Dvx L1H b.1- ( .. \. \JU- J, LJU \AK. U J. ...]..‘l'x; U--.‘./ C Ol&vel$ rgx U4-‘»3.Ll OJ. Chlortetracycline in t;e chill tanks revcaled tLfit the caucentritions JQTS generally satisfgctc;y (Table All). ghin tLe ailutiou was taxi. frag 53:31: A, the tank was only half filled with water, thus accountin; for tTe high figure of 14.3 Lart; g3? million of chlortetrscycline. “ "\ ,‘K ' tfi 1 ’V ’-j ‘wx . A V - v I - .v r“\ I" . a . u”: - J"- A iLc rioulto oi tulb survag gre oimilir to bflOc; ‘ - u an- .~~1' r“ n’“ A ‘ ,- I . rd " ' CL-‘:-'4rCLI .54, LIIL: ..C32; \1959) . ns p.‘ ,i) % f.) L. (L) ’3 (u (1 C) U C. ‘I “VI. 1,“ q‘fl '52-. "3 r3 3‘ l -1(‘\ "- .3 (“a (‘f 'zxvr J- 'T' 3111‘ 1 '1‘ Q117\“'; 'rx ('3 (:11. .. LNL CAD; ‘ Ub.‘.«L.—ZO L. a, ilk/Cock)“; ‘. £40 4.1,.--“ me up... ......;D a-.. Cl bacterial contix'ngtion in 13:113 "JQHCTClQl *: o H- a C1 Id I PWOCGSSlH l. ”‘3“ q. 77. ‘- ‘r JUL“ ‘--L.L Under laborctory processin" wes more effective in ex ending shelf- ife 01 fresh poultry meat then oxytetrecycline or chlorine. Fresh poultry r1ect, treste d corm1erc ell; with cblortetre- cycline, deteriorated at a rate si3nificcm tly hi3her them poultry receiving the same treatment and processed under laboratory processing conditions. illortetrecycline-treeted commercial bi1ds were considered unacceptable from 7 to 8 days sooner than similarly re1tcd labor1tory birds, accord irg to results of a raw odor panel. '1..- Fresh poultry mes .t will O-nei llv be rejected for eccep - d ability when bacterial contamination reaches a population F4) 0 ,. , , . . o , or near, 1 x 10 , accordinr to raw Odor determinations. x.) Bacteria counts of chlortetrecycline-treated commercial birds ree.cned a becter 1 population of l " 106 from 7 to 3 days sooner than similarly treated laboratory birds. So apparent relationship exists between bacterial contem— inetion and cooked flavor of breast and thigh chicken meat (without skin), accordi1g to results of taste panels. nesults of a poultry processing plant sanitation survey Siowed that bacterial inhibitors are no substitute for 7O pl1nt sanitation. Unless 1 ri3id sanitation program is employed in this glent, no value can be 1tt1ined I f V - w by usin3 chlortetracycline or any otner bacteriel' inhibitor. I .1 - 1 nu ‘ 1. o ‘.- - ’r- .1 J- ‘ V rres1 Cniclen me1t treetv C d co mercially with chlortetra- D -'. - .1 . - . - I“ ~ . —\ ,“g . - --‘ r‘ - ‘\ ~ ‘ \ , ~C. CJCLlAG in 1 sinule processlno ,l1nt has no more e lect- ive in extendin' shelf-life th1n untreated birds from Q 71 11,3- 1 ,. t;e 1111 pl1nt. 71 7“ "T""r‘\f‘l")' “"tr .. ... 1_ - 7 l—L . A—fiI—‘d—JibK-‘AHA-Q ‘1‘”. 1yres, g. 0., L3ilvy, -. 0., 1nd 5 ewer , 3°~:°“(1953)° LOSE ortk' cnan3 es in stored meat. 1. Licroorgan- SoOCl.uQQ Jitfl develOLment of slime on evis- 9 CUt-UP Poultry. -001 Le knolO3y, 1:199. A~~ T m." - P' rr.- .‘ l,‘ r- 1 '— ‘- I VI “811le, , u. .1" -)tLEll‘auiF-t, \J. &' . , CLILIV‘L .L-IO,‘,IL:,', -_'. \lgl'rv) . .Lce SlUSl coolin3 01 dressed poultry. Heiri3cr1tin3 .- ‘1 _ o I . LT . I) If" _n3ideerin3, 95.519. b1ker, -.. 0., Zagrlor, i. 1., gfund, -. C., ginset, 3., and ot1euucli 4. (1951). Leeping cuelity of ready-to- coo};1nd dressed po oultrr. 1 ultry Science, 35:391. Zoyd, J., brumwell, 3., and Terr, L. L. A. (1953/. 1ureo- mycin in ex;er1~odttl fish 13rese rv1tion. Jisleries nese1rcn so1rd 11n1d1, :rogress 1eport, 9b: 25. Cahill, V. 1., Kunkle, L. E., Coldber3, 2., Ieiser, H. E., F'l“ 1nd seethera3e, E. 1. (1954). 1fliior”“ory studies on the processin3 of fresh beef by the infusion of antibiotics. Journal of unimel dcience, 11:717. Clark, L. {195i ). dressed poultry must be 1m 5 ed to remove the bacteria and keec down bt1cteri1 wit: in-plent chlorination. :oultry Irocess sin; and garketing, 03:10. fiarber, L. (l954). Antibiotics as 1ides in fish p‘eserva— tion. 1. Studies on fise fillets and shrimg. food Technology, 6:503. —.—A . l o Cir-1d 3881b leI'C-i 138, 1?. :40 t. iv. The use of antibiotics sn beef. Jood TTechnolo3y, Uoldber: :. 5., Jeiser, H. E (1953) . Studies on ewe in preservation of Mr /:105. CL.‘ 1 Goresline, H. 2., HOJe, L. 1., Baush, L. 3., 1nd dunderson, 1. E. (1951). ln-plent chlorination does a 3-way job. L. S. ;33 1nd roultry “a3azine, 57:12. Uunderson, g. 3., Rose, I. 3., 1nd fienn, L. J., (1917). roultry bonin‘ plants nee d bacteriolO3 ical control. 0 M00 ind ustry, l9:l5lo 1 1109. 1 Gunderson, L. F., Schwartz, -. L., and No.91, 1. U. (1955)- es “ J. How much dr sed poultry is es c ean as it looks: all..- .I :N1H4......m 31.443 ...le... {1.11 72 t. d. svw and Poultry na5szine, 2:399. I \Jt Kohler, ... i., bronuist, E. 3., and niller, I. h. (1955). Jhlorte tracycline and t} e control 01 poultry spoilage. :ood Technolo5y, Jtl5l. -- . ' 1 Lelsovetsky, 3. b., eiser, H. H., and Jeatlerd5c, F. 1. (1953). A 1nicrobiolO5icel study of lymgh nodes, bone marrow, and muscle tissue obtained from slaughtered cattle. applied Licrobi0105y, l: 57. Lockheed, A. G., and Leziderkin, G. B. (1935). Bacteriolog- ical studies on dressed poultry. Canadian Journal of 5ricultural Scienc'e , 15:705. .111 or, I. H. (1955). The maintenance of freshness of poul- try, red meats, and fish with acronize clwlort tr scy— cline. Lime05ra5h prepared by ”meric: n Cya namid Company, Kine Jhemicals Division. Lundt, J. 0., Stokes, R. L., and Goff, C. E. (1954). The skin of broilers as a barrier to bacterial invss ion durin5 processin5. roultry Jcience, 33:799. lire‘llfell , GO ,3]. , {it‘ll-ill , J O I':. , and Junll , lat. Al: O (1.91?» ) O LffeCt of certs in hold in5 conditions on the queli y 0: dressed :oultrr. koultr' Science 27 2271. l y 57). The ef1icecy of ere tures in control— ult 1 Science, chlortetracycline at several to lin5 s;oilu5e of poultry meat. 'olel. Shannon, J. 6., und Stgdelmen, J. J. (319 W} 0 Spencer, J. V., siegler, 3., and stedelmun, J. J. (1954). decent studies of f1ctors affectin5 the slelf-life of chicken meat. Lssllin5 :ton state Jolle5e L5ricul- tural ixgerimcnt Jtation Uir culsr 35;. Earl“, :1. Lo zit.) Boyd, J. [.103 an“ 1'-’:|:].'Sse‘t-’t') i“ I" (1951+). prerimenta preservation of fish and beef With antibiotics. Agriculture and flood Chemistry, 23375' Terr, n. L. L., Southcott, I. A., 5nd Sissett, H. L. (1952). s 15er1mcntdl,”“esorvdtion o1 flesh foods witn anti biot ics. 100d l‘echnolo5y, 0:3o3. .kalker, L. U., 5nd hyres, J. C. (195d). dtudies on tne m1crollo1r; oi processe youltry. 1950 Zecteriolo5ic: l xroceedin5s :2’7. 44p 413L931” mun”... “Jigs! 73 fieiser, 3. H., Goldber5, E. 3. Cuhill, ” " Kunkle, " V 5" ‘ , J. -Lo? 1.). 1.1., :11 Leatl er 5e, 2. a. (1953). tbservations on iresh meet processed by he infusion of antibiotics. food .1 Lechn0105y, 7:59 U1 0 " ' -- 17 " T" T‘ n 7‘2, ‘—. ~~ '7‘ i“ ( r ;‘ Heiser, h. 5., “unhel, L. s., and seat er;5e, 1. s. 1J5+). She use of antibiotics in most proces s1n5. 4pclied uicrob iolo5y, 2:65. 1105131, 3., Scencer, J. V., and Studelman, I. J. (1951). A rapid method for determinin5 spoila5e 1n fresh poultry molt. oultry science, 3321253. sie51er, 3., and StLdelmen, I. J. (1955). The effect of sureomycin tre tment on the shelf-life of fresh poultry meat. -ood Iechnolo53, 9:107. sie5ler, F., and ot‘cel.1n, H. J. (1955). Incre1sin5 shelf- life of fresh chicke n meet by usin5 chlorir ation. Ioultry Lcience, 34:13 J. Date Due Demco-293