Next Article in Journal
Towards a Better Understanding of Texturization during High-Moisture Extrusion (HME)—Part I: Modeling the Texturability of Plant-Based Proteins
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Docking of Natural Compounds for Potential Inhibition of AhR
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/foods12101954
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fate of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli on Slices of an All-Beef Soppressata during Storage

by
John B. Luchansky
1,*,
Laura E. Shane
1,
Manuela Osoria
1,
Bryan T. Vinyard
2,
Bradley A. Shoyer
1,
Stephen G. Campano
3 and
Anna C. S. Porto-Fett
1
1
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Wyndmoor, PA 19038, USA
2
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA
3
Hawkins Inc., Roseville, MN 55113, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(10), 1954; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101954
Submission received: 28 March 2023 / Revised: 4 May 2023 / Accepted: 8 May 2023 / Published: 11 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Microbiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cells of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) were inoculated (ca. 4.0 log CFU/slice) onto slices (ca. 4 g each slice) of an all-beef soppressata (ca. pH 5.05 and aw 0.85). The storage of vacuum-sealed slices of inoculated soppressata at 4 °C or 20 °C for 90 days resulted in reductions of all three pathogens by ca. 2.2 to 3.1 or ca. ≥3.3 log CFU/slice, respectively. When pathogen levels decreased to below detection (≤1.18 log CFU/slice) by direct plating, it was possible to recover each of the target pathogens by enrichment, albeit more frequently from slices stored at 4 °C (p < 0.05) compared to 20 °C. In summary, the slices of the commercially produced beef soppressata selected for this study did not provide a favorable environment for either survival or outgrowth of surface-inoculated cells of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC during storage.

1. Introduction

Prior to the availability of modern-day preservation technologies, such as refrigeration, freezing, pasteurization, high pressure processing, irradiation, and food-grade antimicrobials, which became mainstream only within the last 200 years or so, human beings were reliant on salting, drying, and/or fermentation to preserve meat [1,2]. Among the most popular of so-called “old-world-style” preserved meats are pork products from Southern Europe dating back to between 100 BC and 700 AD, such as dry-cured ham (e.g., prosciutto) and fermented salume/sausage (e.g., soppressata), respectively [2,3,4,5,6]. However, since pork is the primary protein species comprising these artisanal ready-to-eat (RTE) meats, such products cannot be universally enjoyed by all consumers, notably because some individuals adhere to a restrictive diet [7]. Thus, there has been considerable interest of late to utilize beef as the sole protein source in various specialty/ethnic meats that are traditionally made exclusively with pork. In addition to exploring and improving the taste and texture of artisanal meats made exclusively with beef, further research is also needed to establish and, if needed, to improve upon the safety of these products.
One example of a globally recognized, well-liked, Mediterranean-type salume is soppressata, a dry-cured, often flattened, salami made from coarsely ground leaner cuts of pork [8]. The process of preparing soppressata, namely fermentation and drying, is sufficient to both ensure safety and achieve shelf stability; however, on occasion, pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) have been recovered from various Italian-type deli meats, and a handful of recalls and outbreaks have been linked to the consumption of fermented sausage, including soppressata, when contaminated with these pathogens [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Regarding recalls, as recently as 2023, there was a recall of ca. 70,000 pounds of RTE charcuterie products such as soppressata, Genoa, cappocolo, coppa, and calabrese due to potential contamination with L. monocytogenes [21]. An example of a somewhat recent US outbreak attributed to L. monocytogenes contamination of Italian-type deli meats is a listeriosis outbreak in 2021 across four states involving salami, mortadella, and prosciutto (12 cases, 1 death [22]). Likewise, there were two salmonellosis outbreaks in 2021 involving Italian-type deli meats: (i) illnesses caused by uncured prosciutto, soppressata, Milano salami, and coppa (produced by a single manufacturer) across 17 states (40 cases, 12 hospitalizations, 0 deaths [23]), and (ii) illnesses caused by salami sticks (produced by a single manufacturer) across 10 states (34 cases, 7 hospitalizations, 0 deaths [24]). Although there have not been any notable STEC illnesses in recent years in the US linked to Italian-type fermented sausage [25], such products were first identified as a “new” route of transmission for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli dating back to the mid-1990s [26]: The consumption of a dry-fermented sausage contaminated with serotype O157:H7 cells of E. coli sickened 17 people (3 hospitalizations) across 2 states in 1994 [27]. Note, STEC were also responsible for a 2007 outbreak in Denmark involving an organic beef sausage (20 cases, no cases of HUS, 0 deaths [28]). The association of the above-mentioned three pathogens with Italian-type fermented sausage, and on occasion with recalls and illnesses, is most likely due to inadequate processing, process deviations, improper handling, or post-process contamination [29].
Whereas much has been published on the prevalence and behavior of pathogens such as L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and STEC in/on various Italian-type pork salumi, far less information has been published on the fate of these pathogens when associated with an otherwise similar all-beef salumi, inclusive of soppressata. Given the appreciable demand for all-beef artisanal meats in general, and for soppressata specifically, especially from individuals adhering to a halal or kosher diet, as well as given the occasional recovery of pathogens from traditional artisanal fermented/dried salami and attendant recalls and illnesses, there is both a need and an opportunity to collect scientifically sound data on the likelihood of products such as beef soppressata to support pathogen persistence and proliferation. Thus, in the present study, we monitored the fate of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC on slices of a commercial all-beef soppressata during storage at both refrigeration and ambient temperatures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Strains

Individual slices of an all-beef soppressata were surface-inoculated, as elaborated below, with either a multi-strain cocktail of eight rifampicin-resistant strains of STEC (100 μg rifampicin/mL; TCI America, Portland, OR, USA), five rifampicin-resistant strains of Salmonella spp. (100 μg rifampicin/mL), or five rifampicin-resistant strains of L. monocytogenes (100 μg rifampicin/mL). These multi-strain pathogen cocktails (Table 1) were separately prepared, confirmed, cultured, and/or maintained as described previously [30].

2.2. Inoculation of Soppressata Slices

Multiple packages (142 g each, single chub per package) from different production lots of a single brand of a commercially produced all-beef soppressata (Brand A) were purchased from an online vendor. The outside of each chub was wiped down with a paper towel moistened with 70% alcohol before the collagen casing was removed with the aid of a sterile scalpel. Next, each chub was sliced (Model 8512, Univex, Salem, NH, USA), and then, a single slice (ca. 3.9 ± 0.34 g each; ca. 3.5 cm diameter; ca. 0.1 cm thick) of soppressata was placed into a cast nylon and polyethylene copolymer bag containing vinyl acetate (Item #185-10; 3 mil standard barrier, 15.2 by 20.3 cm; Associated Bag, Milwaukee, WI, USA). Each face of each slice was separately inoculated with a 25-µL portion (50 µL total; ca. 4.0 log CFU/slice) of overnight-grown (ca. 18–20 h) rifampicin-resistant cells of each pathogen cocktail. The bags containing inoculated slices of soppressata were vacuum-sealed to 950 mBar with an Ultravac 550 vacuum packaging unit (Koch Equipment, Kansas City, MO, USA) and then stored at 4 °C or 20 °C for 90 days. In each of the three trials, each of three bags containing an inoculated slice of soppressata was separately analyzed for viable cells of a target pathogen at each sampling interval (N = 3 trials; n = 3 inoculated slices per sampling interval).

2.3. Chemical Analyses

Proximate chemical analyses were conducted on a single ca. 400 g composite (representative) sample from each of the two batches/production lots for each beef salume product purchased online between May and August of 2022 (N = 2 trials of each brand of salume; n = 1 sample per each batch/lot of each product). Note, in addition to the brand of salume that we separately inoculated with the three pathogen cocktails (i.e., Brand A), for comparative purposes, we also elaborated the chemical composition of two additional all-beef salume products (Brand B and Brand C) that were not inoculated. Chemical analyses of all three brands of salume were conducted by an independent commercial testing facility using methods approved by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [31] as follows: fat (AOAC 960.39), salt (AOAC 983.14), ash (AOAC 920.153), moisture (AOAC 950.46Bb), protein (AOAC 991.20.i), carbohydrates (by difference), sodium nitrite (AOAC 973.31), titratable acidity (AOAC 942.15), and water activity (AOAC 978.18).

2.4. Microbiological Analyses

Inoculated slices of soppressata were analyzed on days 0, 7, 15, 21, 28, 45, 60, 75, and/or 90 essentially as described [32]. In brief, after opening each bag with the aid of alcohol sterilized scissors, 15 mL of 0.1% sterile peptone water (Difco; Becton, Dickinson Company, Sparks, MD, USA) were added to each bag and the contents were massaged by hand for ca. 1 min. Portions of the resulting rinsate, with and without prior dilution in 0.1% peptone water, were plated onto sorbitol-MacConkey (SMAC; Difco), xylose-lysine-tergitol-4 (XLT-4; Difco), or modified Oxford (MOX; Difco) agar plates containing rifampicin (100 µg/mL) to recover surviving cells of STEC, Salmonella spp., or L. monocytogenes, respectively. The SMAC and XLT-4 agar plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h, whereas the MOX agar plates were incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. Colonies typical for each pathogen were enumerated and expressed as log CFU/slice. When pathogen levels decreased to below the detection limit (i.e., ≤1.18 log CFU/slice) by direct plating, pathogen presence was determined via enrichment as previously described [30]. In addition, at each sampling point, the pH of the rinsate was measured using a model 6000P pH/temperature electrode and a model 5500 pH meter (Daigger, Vernon Hills, IL, USA). As received from the online vendor, the 400 g composite salumi samples (see preceding section) were also separately analyzed for the presence/absence of cells of STEC (serogroups O26, O45, O103, O104, O111, O121, O145 (AOAC RI 09130) and serotype O157:H7 (AOAC RI 031002)), L. monocytogenes (AOAC 2003.12), and Salmonella spp. (AOAC 2003.09). The initial total aerobic plate count (APC; AOAC 966.23) and initial levels of lactic acid bacteria (LAB [33]) were also enumerated for each brand of salume.

2.5. Statistical Methods

Values for log CFU and pH values were analyzed by fitting a Pathogen (3) × Temperature (2) × Day (9) ANOVA model. The heterogeneity of within-treatment variability for these 54 treatments was incorporated into the model by assigning each treatment to a group. Treatments assigned to the same group had variances within four-times magnitude of all treatments in that group. Groups were specified as a random effect to ensure that the appropriate magnitude of within-treatment variability was associated with each treatment for all statistical tests and comparisons obtained from the ANOVA models. For proximate composition, one-way Sample (3) ANOVA models were fit for each test. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS PROC MIXED [34] software, with α = 0.05 LSD pairwise means comparisons [35] obtained using SLICE = options in the LSMEANS statement.

3. Results and Discussion

As elaborated by others [36,37], meat preservation has transitioned from a necessity for survival/subsistence in ancient times to a luxury marked by convenience and unique sensory attributes in more recent times. One of the best examples of a modern-day indulgence is consumption of charcuterie trays comprised of artisanal meats [38,39,40]. The longstanding demand for high-quality and locally sourced artisanal meats and, in more recent years, especially for all-beef products formulated to accommodate individuals on a restrictive diet, have been the catalyst for the ongoing development of new types, tastes, and textures of meat products for consumers to enjoy. It has also served as a justification to scientifically validate the safety and to certify the shelf life of such products. As detailed elsewhere [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54], our group and other investigators have quantified the potential for various all-beef meats that are dried, salted, cured, cooked, and/or fermented, inclusive of breakfast meats, savory snacks, and salted/dried and/or fermented products, to support the viability or outgrowth of various foodborne bacterial pathogens. Regardless of product categories and characteristics, the physicality and logistics of slicing and packaging, as well as extensive and unavoidable hand manipulation during the preparation and assembly of artisanal foods on charcuterie trays, provide ample opportunities for the introduction of food-borne pathogens onto the surface of RTE artisanal meats [55]. Such conditions also provide adequate justification for collecting additional data related to the occurrence, levels, and control of target pathogens on niche meat products that are fermented/dried, inclusive of all-beef products. Thus, the primary objective of the present study was to determine if an all-beef soppressata would allow for survival or support the (out)growth of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC during storage.
To our knowledge, there have been no data published on the chemical composition of soppressata prepared with beef as the sole protein source. Thus, as one objective of this study, we elaborated the proximate composition of a commercial all-beef soppressata (Brand A) that was subsequently sliced and inoculated with cells of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC (Table 2). For comparative purposes, we also quantified the proximate composition of two additional all-beef salumi products (i.e., Brand B and Brand C) that were also purchased online (Table 2). Chemical analyses revealed no significant (p > 0.05) differences in acidity, carbohydrates, fat, moisture, nitrite, protein, or pH levels among Brand A, Brand B, and Brand C. In contrast, chemical analyses revealed Brand C salume as discernibly (p < 0.05) different from Brand A and Brand B products with respect to salt content. Significant differences (p < 0.05) in ash levels among all three brands were also observed. Lastly, chemical analyses revealed that Brand C was similar (p > 0.05) to Brand A with respect to aw, but it had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher aw when compared to Brand B salume. Note, no differences (p > 0.05) were observed between Brand A and Brand B products with respect to aw. In general, on average, the three brands of commercial all-beef salami displayed a slightly low pH (ca. pH 5.0) and low water activity value (ca. aw 0.86), an intermediate moisture level (ca. 36%), and a relatively high fat (ca. 27%) and high salt (ca. 4.9%) content (Table 2). It should also be noted that there were no significant changes (p > 0.05) in pH of the inoculated slices of the all-beef soppressata (Brand A) after 90 days of storage at 4 °C or 20 °C; the initial pH was pH 4.97 ± 0.09, and regardless of the storage temperature, the final pH of the product after 90 days of storage was pH 5.15 ± 0.03. In comparison to compositional data for the all-beef soppressata analyzed herein, Liguori et al. [56] reported on the moisture (ca. 40%), protein (ca. 32%), and fat (ca. 25%) levels of a traditional pork-based soppressata prepared at an industrial establishment. As another example, Jung and colleagues [57] analyzed salchichón, a soppressata-like, dry-cured pork salume originating from Spain that displayed the following attributes after a 45-day ripening period: moisture (ca. 24%), protein (ca. 44%), ash (ca. 4.7%), fat (ca. 26%), aw (ca. aw 0.80), and pH (ca. pH 6.4). Romeo et al. [58] evaluated the chemical composition of typical Calabrian cured meats made from pork, including soppressata, and reported levels of about 4.1% ash, 27.9% fat, and 29.3% protein, with a water activity level of aw 0.835 and ca. pH 5.6. Lastly, Coppola and colleagues [59] reported levels of about 35.8% moisture, 6.2% ash, 39% protein, 17.2% fat, and ca. pH 6.0 for an all-pork soppressata, as traditionally produced in Southern Italy. The above-mentioned peer-reviewed compositional data for soppressata-type salumi prepared with pork compare favorably with the data reported herein for a soppressata-type salume prepared exclusively with beef.
Retrospectively, and based solely on its chemical composition (Table 2), it is not likely that Brand A soppressata would support (appreciable) outgrowth of any of the three pathogens tested herein during cold storage for 90 days. In support of this statement and depending on the menstruum/substrate and temperature evaluated, L. monocytogenes can grow at salt levels of up to ca. 6.5% and at ≥pH 4.4, whereas most strains will not grow at ≤aw 0.93 [60]. Salmonella can also grow at pH 4.0 to pH 4.5, but most strains are not able to grow at salt levels of ≥2.5% or at water activity values of ca. ≤aw 0.93 when held at refrigeration temperatures [61,62]. For STEC, the reported minimum conditions for growth are pH 4.0 to pH 4.5, ≤aw 0.89, and salt levels of ≤6.5% [61,63,64,65]. For point of reference, Brand A soppressata displayed a salt content of 5.43%, a water activity level of aw 0.85, and an acidity/basicity factor of pH 5.05 (Table 2).
We also conducted a microbiological profile of the three commercial brands of salume as received directly from the attendant online vendors (Table 3). A single soppressata sample from each of two trials/batches from each of the three brands of all-beef salami all tested negative (<0.04 cells/g) by enrichment for L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and STEC. In addition, significantly (p < 0.05) higher levels of LAB were observed for Brand A and Brand C salami compared to Brand B salume; levels of LAB ranged from <1 cell/g for Brand B to ca. 5.1 log CFU/g for Brand A and Brand C salami (Table 3). Although it remains unclear why levels of LAB were appreciably lower for Brand B salume, it is possible that factors such as product age (e.g., use by date), differences in levels and types of autochthonous LAB on raw materials, and/or differences in processing parameters could collectively account for such divergences. Variations were also observed among brands related to results for APC, with appreciably higher levels (p < 0.05) observed for Brand A when compared to Brand B salume; however, no significant (p > 0.05) differences in APC levels were observed between Brand C compared with Brand A or Brand B products; levels of APC ranged from ca. 1.2 to 5.5 log CFU/g (Table 3).
It has been well established that L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and STEC are recoverable from a variety of Italian-type sausage. For example, De Cesare and collaborators [66] recovered cells of L. monocytogenes from ca. 15% (36 of 237 samples) of fermented sausage produced in Northern Italy; pathogen levels in positive samples were estimated at <10 MPN/g. Likewise, Quaglia et al. [67] recovered cells of L. monocytogenes from ca. 6.5% (2 of 31 samples) of pork soppressata samples produced in Southern Italy; pathogen levels in positive samples were estimated at ca. 1.5 to 1.8 log CFU/g. Note that these same soppressata samples also tested negative for cells of serotype O157:H7 and serotype O26 strains of E. coli. In another study, Hussein and Bollinger [68] summarized that the prevalence of serotype O157:H7 and non-O157:H7 cells of STEC in raw and fresh sausage worldwide, inclusive of beef sausage, ranged from 0.1 to 4.4% and 17 to 49.2%, respectively; pathogen levels in positive samples were not reported. Regarding Salmonella spp., Levine et al. [69] reported a 3-year cumulative prevalence of 1.43% (10 of 698 samples) for dry and semi-dry sausage collected in the late-1990s in the US from ca. 1800 federally inspected facilities; pathogen levels in positive samples were not reported. As another example, Cabedo and colleagues [70] reported the recovery of cells of Salmonella spp. from 9 of 81 (11.1%) cured/dried pork sausage samples collected between 1998 and 2004 from retail stores or from food processing facilities in Spain; pathogen levels in positive samples were not reported. It has also been well established that cells of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and STEC have, on occasion, caused human illness from consumption of fermented sausage when/if contaminated with these pathogens by whatever means or routes available. As such, it seems probable that cells of these pathogens, if present on the raw materials or when associated with any of the ingredients used to prepare salami, might remain on the finished product and/or that post-process contamination would exacerbate the risk of food-borne illness. Therefore, from a public health perspective, it is significant that slices of the commercial all-beef soppressata tested herein did not provide a favorable environment for the outgrowth or survival of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC during extended storage at 4 °C or 20 °C: levels of all three pathogens were reduced by ca. 2.2 to 3.3 log CFU/slice within 90 days (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
When inoculated slices of soppressata were stored at 4 °C, appreciable differences (p > 0.05) in pathogen recovery via direct plating were not observed; initial levels of all three pathogens decreased to ca. 1.4 log CFU/slice after 90 days (Figure 1). However, due to the lower (p < 0.05) initial levels of Salmonella spp. (3.6 log CFU/g) used to the inoculate slices of soppressata compared to the initial levels of L. monocytogenes or STEC (ca. 4.5 log CFU/slice), it was not possible to quantify a 3.0-log reduction for Salmonella by direct plating (detection limit of ≤1.18 log CFU/slice). Regardless, all three pathogens were recovered by direct plating from at least some slices of soppressata at each sampling interval during storage at 4 °C. Overall, although only subtle differences in the levels of the three pathogens were observed during refrigerated storage, there were no significant (p > 0.05) differences in levels of Salmonella, L. monocytogenes, or STEC after 90 days of storage at 4 °C (Figure 1). That being said, when levels of L. monocytogenes decreased to below the detection limit by direct plating beginning on day 75 (6 of 9 samples negative by direct plating) but also on day 90 (1 of 9 samples negative by direct plating), all 7 of these samples testing negative by direct plating subsequently tested negative by enrichment as well (Table 4). For Salmonella spp., when pathogen levels on some slices of soppressata decreased to below detection by direct plating beginning on day 60 (1 sample negative by direct plating) but also on day 75 (2 samples negative by direct plating) and on day 90 (4 samples negative by direct plating), 4 of these 7 (57%) samples testing negative by direct plating subsequently tested positive by enrichment (Table 4). Likewise, for STEC, when pathogen levels on some slices of soppressata tested negative by direct plating beginning on day 60 (1 sample negative by direct plating) but also on day 75 (6 samples negative by direct plating) and on day 90 (4 samples negative by direct plating), 4 of these 11 (36%) samples testing negative by direct plating subsequently tested positive by enrichment (Table 4).
When inoculated slices of soppressata were stored at 20 °C, subtle but significant (p < 0.05) differences in pathogens levels were observed throughout storage (Figure 2); however, appreciable differences in recovery among pathogens were not observed (p > 0.05) after 90 days of storage at 20 °C (Figure 2). In general, initial starting levels of all three pathogens were reduced from ca. 4.6 log CFU/slice to ca. 1.3 to 1.7 log CFU/slice within 28 days during storage at 20 °C. However, when levels of L. monocytogenes on some slices of soppressata decreased to below detection by direct plating beginning on day 21 but also on day 28 through to day 90, only 2 of 39 (5%) of such samples subsequently tested positive by enrichment (Table 4). When levels of Salmonella spp. on some slices of soppressata decreased to below detection via direct plating beginning on day 28, and continuing from day 45 through day 90, 17 of 38 (45%) of such samples subsequently tested positive by enrichment (Table 4). Likewise, when levels of STEC on some slices of soppressata decreased below the detection limit beginning on day 21, and continuing through day 90, 8 of 38 (21%) of such samples subsequently tested positive by enrichment (Table 4).
There have been only a handful of recalls and illnesses attributed to soppressata-type products, presumably because the intrinsic attributes of such products typically do not provide a favorable environment for persistence or proliferation of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC over the anticipated refrigerated shelf life [47]. It has also been well established that fermentation and drying alone will typically deliver only a ≤2.0 log reduction in levels of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC [71,72,73,74,75,76]. Numerous publications have detailed the occurrence and fate of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC during the manufacture and storage of Italian-type, dry-cured salume containing pork, but relatively few studies are specific to soppressata. As one example of the latter, Luchansky and colleagues [47] monitored the fate of L. monocytogenes or STEC in soupie, an old-world-style, specialty/ethnic pork soppressata, during fermentation, drying, and storage at 20 °C; reductions of ca. ≥5.0 log in levels of both pathogens were observed after 4 and 1 month, respectively, during storage. Regarding the fate of Salmonella during production of Italian salami, Bonilauri and colleagues [77] reported reductions ranging from ca. 1.0 to 4.5 log CFU/g.
The literature cited herein confirms that a traditional pork-based soppressata does not support survival of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC during manufacture or storage. Similarly, the present study provides the first scientifically sound data confirming that an otherwise similar soppressata made from beef rather than pork does not provide a favorable environment for viability or persistence of these same three pathogens during storage. More specifically, storage of inoculated slices of beef soppressata at 4 °C or 20 °C resulted in reductions of 2.2 to 3.3 log CFU/slice in levels of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC. Our data also established that when levels of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC decreased to below detection by direct plating (≤1.18 log CFU/slice), it was more likely on occasion to separately recover all three target pathogens by enrichment from vacuum-packaged slices of beef soppressata following storage at 4 °C (p < 0.05) compared to 20 °C. Nonetheless, our validation of the wholesomeness of (slices of) an all-beef soppressata confirms the safety and broadens the market for this category of dry-cured, Italian-type salumi and interpolates the food preferences of people adhering to a restrictive diet.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B.L. and A.C.S.P.-F.; methodology, J.B.L., A.C.S.P.-F. and S.G.C.; validation, J.B.L., A.C.S.P.-F., L.E.S., M.O., B.A.S., B.T.V. and S.G.C.; formal analysis, J.B.L., A.C.S.P.-F., L.E.S., M.O. and B.A.S.; investigation, J.B.L., A.C.S.P.-F., L.E.S., M.O. and B.A.S.; resources, J.B.L. and A.C.S.P.-F.; data curation, J.B.L., A.C.S.P.-F. and B.T.V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.B.L.; writing—review and editing, J.B.L., A.C.S.P.-F., B.T.V. and S.G.C.; supervision, J.B.L. and A.C.S.P.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. These data are not publicly available due to the proprietary nature of the source/formulation of the substrates evaluated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

References

  1. Hartman, P.A. The evolution of food microbiology. In Food Microbiology—Fundamentals and Frontiers, 4th ed.; Doyle, M.P., Buchanan, R.L., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mitchell, E. History of Food Preservation Timeline–When did People Start to Preserve Food? 2022. Available online: https://dehydratorlab.com/history-of-food-preservation/ (accessed on 31 August 2022).
  3. Pérez-Álvarez, J.A.; Viuda-Martos, M.; Fernández-López, J. Salchichón (Spanish Dry-Cured Sausage). In Pork, 1st ed.; Munekata, P.E.S., Pateiro, M., Franco, D., Lorenzo, J.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Roca, M.; Incze, K. Fermented sausages. Food Rev. Int. 1990, 6, 91–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Toldrá, F. Improving the sensory quality of cured and fermented meat products. In Processed Meats—Improving Safety, Nutrition and Quality; Kerry, J.P., Kerry, J., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 508–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zanardi, E.; Novelli, E. Italian salami, a comprehensive analysis. In Pork, 1st ed.; Munekata, P.E.S., Pateiro, M., Franco, D., Lorenzo, J.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fatima, M. Beef Salami Guide and History: Is it a Healthy Meat? 2022. Available online: https://meatnmarrow.com/beef/beef-salami-guide/ (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  8. Miner, B. What is Soppressata? It’s Definitely Cured Meat but What Makes It Unique? 2020. Available online: www.ilporcellinodenver.com/blogs/bills-blog/what-is-soppressata (accessed on 17 December 2022).
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to commercially distributed dry-cured salami-Washington and California, 1994. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 1995, 44, 157–160. [Google Scholar]
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community outbreak of hemolytic uremic syndrome attributable to Escherichia coli O111:NM—South Australia, 1995. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 1995, 44, 550–557. [Google Scholar]
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multistate Outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 Infections Associated with Lebanon Bologna (FINAL UPDATE). 2011. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2011/lebanon-bologna-3-23-11.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  12. Gieraltowski, L.; Julian, E.; Pringle, J.; Macdonald, K.; Quilliam, D.; Marsden-Haug, N.; Saathoff-Huber, L.; Von Stein, D.; Kissler, B.; Parish, M.; et al. Nationwide outbreak of Salmonella Montevideo infections associated with contaminated imported black and red pepper: Warehouse membership cards provide critical clues to identify the source. Epidemiol. Infect. 2013, 141, 1244–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Mataragas, M.; Bellio, A.; Rovetto, F.; Astegiano, S.; Greci, C.; Hertel, C.; Decatelli, L.; Cocolin, L. Quantification of persistence of the food-borne pathogens Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica during manufacture of Italian fermented sausages. Food Control 2015, 47, 552–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Meloni, D. Presence of Listeria monocytogenes in Mediterranean-style dry fermented sausages. Foods 2015, 4, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Moore, J.E. Gastrointestinal outbreak associated with fermented meats. Meat Sci. 2004, 67, 565–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Omer, M.K.; Ordonez, A.A.; Prieto, M.; Skjerve, E.; Asehun, T.; Alvseike, O.A. A systematic review of bacterial foodborne outbreaks related to red meat and meat products. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2018, 15, 598–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Thévenot, D.; Delignette-Muller, M.L.; Christieans, S.; Vernozy-Rozand, C. Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in 13 dried sausage processing plants and their products. Meat Sci. 2005, 102, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Pennsylvania Firm Recalls Lebanon Bologna Products Due to Possible E.coli O157:H7 Contamination. 2011. Available online: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls-alerts/pennsylvania-firm-recalls-lebanon-bologna-products-due-possible-e.-coli-o157h7 (accessed on 30 January 2023).
  19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Olli Salumeria Americana Firm Recalls Ready-to-Eat Meat Products Due to Possible Listeria Contamination. 2018. Available online: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2018/recall-018-2018-release (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Ezzo Sausage Company Recalls Meat Products Due to Possible Listeria Contamination. 2019. Available online: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-111-2019-release (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Daniele International LLC Recalls Ready-to-Eat Sausage Products due to Possible Listeria contamination. 2023. Available online: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls-alerts/daniele-international-llc-recalls-ready-eat-sausage-products-due-possible-listeria (accessed on 11 March 2023).
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of Listeria Infections Linked to Deli Meats. 2021. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/delimeat-10-20/index.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Italian-Style Meats. 2021. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/italian-style-meat-08-21/index.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Salami Sticks. 2021. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/i45-10-21/index.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. List of Multistate Foodborne Outbreak Notices. 2022. Available online: www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/lists/outbreaks-list.html (accessed on 17 January 2023).
  26. Tilden, J.; Young, W.; McNamara, A.M.; Custer, C.; Boesel, B.; Lambert-Fair, M.A.; Majkowski, J.; Vugia, D.; Werner, S.B.; Hollingsworth, J.; et al. A new route of transmission for Escherichia coli O157:H7: Infection from dry fermented salami. Public Health Briefs 1996, 86, 1142–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alexander, E.R.; Boase, J.; Davis, M.; Kirchner, L.; Osaki, C.; Tanino, T.; Samadpour, P.; Goldoft, M.; Bradley, P.; Hinton, B.; et al. Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to commercially distributed dry-cured salami. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1995, 273, 985–986. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ethelberg, S.; Smith, B.; Torpdahl, M.; Lisby, M.; Boel, J.; Jensen, T.; Nielsen, E.M.; Malbak, K. Outbreak of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infection from consumption of beef sausage. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009, 48, e78–e81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Barbuti, S.; Parolari, G. Validation of manufacturing process to control pathogenic bacteria in typical dry fermented products. Meat Sci. 2002, 62, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Luchansky, J.B.; Shoyer, B.A.; Jung, Y.; Shane, L.E.; Osoria, M.; Porto-Fett, A.C.S. Viability of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes within plant versus beef burgers during cold storage and following pan frying. J. Food Prot. 2020, 83, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 19th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC): Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  32. Luchansky, J.B.; Porto, A.C.S.; Wallace, F.M.; Call, J.E. Recovery of Listeria monocytogenes from vacuum-sealed packages of frankfurters: Comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service product composite enrichment method, the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) product composite rinse method, and the USDA-ARS package rinse method. J. Food Prot. 2002, 65, 567–570. [Google Scholar]
  33. Downes, F.P.; Ito, K. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods, 4th ed.; American Public Health Association (APHA): Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  34. SAS Institute. SAS v9.4, TS1M7, SAS/STAT v15.2; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  35. Saxton, A.M. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. In Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International; Nashville, TN, USA, 22–25 March 1998, SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 1998; pp. 1243–1246. [Google Scholar]
  36. Howard, H. Charcuterie: What’s Old Is New Again. Specialty Meats and Cheeses Still Reign Supreme in Delis. 2020. Available online: https://www.delibusiness.com/charcuterie-whats-old-is-new-again/ (accessed on 17 December 2022).
  37. Leroy, F.; De Vuyst, L. Fermented foods: Fermented meat products. In Encyclopedia of Food and Health, 1st ed.; Caballero, B., Finglas, P., Toldrá, F., Eds.; Academic Press: Waltham, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 656–660. [Google Scholar]
  38. Allen, L. The Perfect Charcuterie Board. 2021. Available online: https://tastesbetterfromscratch.com/charcuterie-board/ (accessed on 18 December 2022).
  39. Bisceglia, B. Get on Board with Charcuterie. 2022. Available online: https://asicentral.com/news/web-exclusive/july-2022/infographic-get-on-board-with-charcuterie/ (accessed on 18 December 2022).
  40. Schilling, W. Charcuterie: A Marriage of Art and Science. 2022. Available online: https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-magazine/issues/2022/february/columns/processing-applied-science-artisan-meat (accessed on 10 February 2023).
  41. Calicioglu, M.; Faith, N.G.; Buege, D.; Luchansky, J.B. Viability of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in fermented semidry low temperature-cooked, beef summer sausage. J. Food Prot. 1997, 60, 1158–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gill, A.O.; Ramaswamy, H.S. Application of high pressure processing to kill Escherichia coli O157 in ready-to-eat meats. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 2182–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Holck, A.L.; Axelsson, L.; Rode, T.M.; Høy, M.; Måge, I.; Alvseike, O.; L’Abée-Lund, T.M.; Omer, M.K.; Granum, P.E.; Heir, E. Reduction of verotoxigenic Escherichia coli in production of fermented sausages. Meat Sci. 2011, 89, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jacob, R.; Porto-Fett, A.C.S.; Call, J.E.; Luchansky, J.B. Fate of surface inoculated Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella typhimurium on kippered beef during storage at refrigeration and abusive temperatures. J. Food Prot. 2009, 72, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Karolenko, C.E.; Bhusal, A.; Nelson, J.L.; Muriana, P.M. Processing of biltong (dried beef) to achieve USDA-FSIS 5-log reduction of Salmonella without a heat lethality step. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Luchansky, J.B.; Mayhew, M.; Jung, Y.; Klinedinst, A.; Harkins, L.; Shane, L.E.; Osoria, M.; Mcgeary, L.; Traugher, Z.; Shoyer, B.A.; et al. Meat bars: A survey to assess consumer familiarity and preparation parameters and a challenge study to quantify viability of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli cells during processing and storage. J. Food Prot. 2019, 82, 1249–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Luchansky, J.B.; Shoyer, B.A.; Shane, L.E.; Osoria, M.; Campano, S.G.; Porto-Fett, A.C.S. Inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in “soupie”, a homemade soppressata. Food Prot. Trends 2022, 42, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Miraglia, V.; Finazzi, G.; Daminelli, P.; Bonometti, E.; Gregorelli, M.; Boni, P. Behaviour of Listeria monocytogenes in chunked or sliced seasoned Bresaola della Vatellina IGP. Ind. Alimentari. 2009, 48, 58–64. [Google Scholar]
  49. Porto-Fett, A.C.S.; Hwang, C.-A.; Call, J.E.; Juneja, V.K.; Ingham, S.C.; Ingham, B.H.; Luchansky, J.B. Viability of multi-strain mixtures of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, or Escherichia coli O157:H7 inoculated into the batter or onto the surface of a soudjouk-style fermented semi-dry sausage. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Porto-Fett, A.C.S.; Call, J.E.; Luchansky, J.B. Validation of a commercial process for inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes on the surface of whole muscle beef jerky strips. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 918–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Porto-Fett, A.C.S.; Pierre, J.; Shoyer, B.A.; Luchansky, J.B. Effect of storage temperature and cooking times on viability of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in/on goetta. J. Food Saf. 2013, 33, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Porto-Fett, A.C.S.; McCoy, A.; Shane, L.E.; Henry, E.; Osoria, M.; Shoyer, B.A.; Campano, S.G.; Burson, D.; Luchansky, J.B. Fate of Listeria monocytogenes and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli on bresaola slices during storage. Meat Muscle Biol. 2022, 6, 13918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stoltenberg, S.K.; Getty, K.J.K.; Thippareddi, H.; Phebus, R.K.; Loughin, T.M. Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during production of snack sticks made from beef or a venison/beef fat blend and directly acidified with citric or lactic acid. J. Food Sci. 2006, 71, M228–M235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Watson, S.; Gaydos, N.J.; Egolf, S.R.; Campbell, J.A. Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes during curing and drying of beef bresaola. Meat Muscle Biol. 2021, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Berry, D. Keeping Charcuterie Safe. 2022. Available online: https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/27733-keeping-charcuterie-safe (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  56. Liguori, A.; Belsito, E.L.; Di Gioia, M.L.; Leggio, A.; Malagrinò, F.; Romio, E.; Siciliano, C.; Tagarelli, A. GC/MS analysis of fatty acids in Italian dry fermented sausages. Open Food Sci. J. 2015, 9, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jung, J.-H.; Shim, K.-S.; Shin, D. Effects of ripening duration and rosemary powder addition on salchichon modified sausage quality. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 28, 671–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Romeo, F.V.; Runcio, A.; Piscopo, A.; Iaccarino, T.; Mincione, A.; Poiana, M. Characterization of four typical Calabrian cured meat products: Spicy sausage, soppressata, ’nduja and capocollo. Acta Aliment. 2014, 43, 564–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Coppola, R.; Iorizzo, M.; Saotta, R.; Sorrentino, E.; Grazia, L. Characterization of micrococci and staphylococci isolated from soppressata molisana, a Southern Italy fermented sausage. Food Microbiol. 1997, 14, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Matthews, K.R.; Kniel, K.E.; Montville, T.J. Listeria monocytogenes. In Food Microbiology: An Introduction, 4th ed.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 223–242. [Google Scholar]
  61. Jay, J.M. Foodborne gastroenteritis caused by Salmonella and Shigella. In Modern Food Microbiology, 6th ed.; Aspen Publishers: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2000; pp. 511–530. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bailey, S.; Richardson, L.J.; Cox, N.A.; Cosby, D.E. Salmonella. In Pathogens and Toxins in Foods: Challenges and Interventions; Juneja, V.K., Sofos, J.N., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 108–118. [Google Scholar]
  63. Glass, K.A.; Loeffelholz, J.M.; Ford, J.P.; Doyle, M.P. Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 as affected by pH or sodium chloride and in fermented, dry sausage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1992, 58, 2513–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Getty, K.J.K.; Phebus, R.K.; Marsden, J.L.; Fung, D.Y.C.; Kastner, C.L. Escherichia coli O157:H7 and fermented sausages: A review. J. Rapid Methods Autom. Microbiol. 2000, 8, 141–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sperber, W.H. Influence of water activity on foodborne bacteria—A review. J. Food Prot. 1983, 46, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. De Cesare, A.; Mioni, R.; Manfreda, G. Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in fresh and fermented Italian sausages and ribotyping of contaminating strains. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 120, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Quaglia, N.C.; Storelli, M.M.; Ioanna, F.; Celano, G.; Celano, G.V.; Conversano, C.; De Rosa, M.; Dambrosio, A. Listeria monocytogenes and enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus in dry fermented sausages belonging to “Traditional Agri-Food Product” produced in Southern Italy. J. Food Saf. 2019, 39, e12685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hussein, H.S.; Bollinger, L.M. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in beef. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 676–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Levine, P.; Rose, B.; Green, S.; Ransom, G.; Hill, W. Pathogen testing of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products collected at federally inspected establishments in the United States, 1990 to 1999. J. Food Prot. 2001, 64, 1188–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cabedo, L.; Picart i Barrot, L.; Teixidó i Canelles, A. Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella in ready-to-eat food in Catalonia, Spain. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 855–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Glass, K.A.; Kaspar, C.W.; Sindelar, J.J.; Milkowski, A.L.; Lotz, B.M.; Kang, J.; Faith, N.G.; Enache, E.; Katoaka, A.; Henry, C. Validation of pepperoni process for control of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 838–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Heir, E.; Holck, A.L.; Omer, M.K.; Alvseike, O.; Mage, I.; Hoy, M.; Rode, T.M.; Sidhu, M.S.; Axelsson, L. Effects of post-processing treatments on sensory quality and Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli reductions in dry-fermented sausages. Meat Sci. 2013, 94, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Hinkens, J.C.; Faith, N.G.; Lorang, T.D.; Bailey, P.; Buege, D.; Kaspar, C.W.; Luchansky, J.B. Validation of pepperoni processes for control of Escherichia coli O157:H7. J. Food Prot. 1996, 59, 1260–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ihnot, A.M.; Roering, A.M.; Wierzba, R.K.; Faith, N.G.; Luchansky, J.B. Behavior of Salmonella typhimurium DT104 during the manufacture and storage of pepperoni. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1998, 40, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nelson, A. Consumers Continue to Crave Craft Meats. 2018. Available online: https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/12821-consumers-continue-to-crave-craft-meats (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  76. Porto-Fett, A.C.S.; Call, J.E.; Shoyer, B.A.; Hill, D.E.; Pshebniski, C.; Cocoma, G.J.; Luchansky, J.B. Evaluation of fermentation, drying, and/or high pressure processing on viability of Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp., and Trichinella spiralis in raw pork and genoa salami. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 140, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bonilauri, P.; Grisenti, M.S.; Daminelli, P.; Merialdi, G.; Ramini, M.; Bardasi, L.; Taddei, R.; Coscian-Cunico, E.; Dalzini, E.; Frustoli, M.A.; et al. Reduction of Salmonella spp. populations in Italian salami during production process and high pressure processing treatment: Validation of processes to export to the U.S. Meat Sci. 2019, 157, 107869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 12 01954 g001 550
Figure 1. Recovery of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) (log CFU/slice) inoculated onto slices of beef soppressata during extended storage at 4 °C. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (N = 3, n = 3). The dotted line (-------) denotes the detection limit of ≤1.18 log CFU/slice. When L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC numbers were below the detection limit, no cells of any of the three pathogens tested were recovered via enrichment. For a given storage day, bars/means that have no uppercase letter in common denote statistical differences (α = 0.0001) among pathogens.
Figure 1. Recovery of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) (log CFU/slice) inoculated onto slices of beef soppressata during extended storage at 4 °C. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (N = 3, n = 3). The dotted line (-------) denotes the detection limit of ≤1.18 log CFU/slice. When L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC numbers were below the detection limit, no cells of any of the three pathogens tested were recovered via enrichment. For a given storage day, bars/means that have no uppercase letter in common denote statistical differences (α = 0.0001) among pathogens.
Foods 12 01954 g001
Foods 12 01954 g002 550
Figure 2. Recovery of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) (log CFU/slice) inoculated onto slices of beef soppressata during extended storage at 20 °C. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (N = 3, n = 3). The dotted line (-------) denotes the detection limit of ≤1.18 log CFU/slice. When L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC numbers were below detection limit, no cells of any of the three pathogens tested were recovered via enrichment. For a given storage day, bars/means that have no uppercase letter in common denote statistical differences (α = 0.0001) among pathogens.
Figure 2. Recovery of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) (log CFU/slice) inoculated onto slices of beef soppressata during extended storage at 20 °C. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (N = 3, n = 3). The dotted line (-------) denotes the detection limit of ≤1.18 log CFU/slice. When L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC numbers were below detection limit, no cells of any of the three pathogens tested were recovered via enrichment. For a given storage day, bars/means that have no uppercase letter in common denote statistical differences (α = 0.0001) among pathogens.
Foods 12 01954 g002
Table
Table 1. Strains of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) used in this study.
Table 1. Strains of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) used in this study.
Bacterial StrainsStrain DesignationSourceType 1
L. monocytogenesMFS2Environmental isolate from a pork processing plant1/2a
H7776Frankfurter isolate, 1998 outbreak4b
ScottAClinical isolate, 1983 Massachusetts pasteurized milk outbreak4b
LM-101MBeef and pork sausage isolate4b
F6854Turkey frankfurter isolate1/2a
S. TyphimuriumMFS 248Hog carcass isolate
S. TyphimuriumMFS 330Hog carcass isolate
S. TyphimuriumFSIS OB060362Clinical isolate associated with pork sausage
S. TyphimuriumH3380Clinical isolateDT104
S. CopenhagenMFS 3446Pork isolate
STECH30Infant with diarrheaO26:H11
CDC 96-3285Human stoolO45:H2
CDC 90-3128Human stoolO103:H2
ATCC BAA-2326Human stoolO104:H4
JB1-95Clinical isolateO111:H-
CDC 97-3068Human stoolO121:H19
83-75Human stoolO145:NM
USDA FSIS 011-82Meat isolateO157:H7
1 Serotypes for L. monocytogenes and STEC strains; phage types for Salmonella spp. strains.
Table
Table 2. Proximate composition of all-beef salumi purchased from online vendors 1.
Table 2. Proximate composition of all-beef salumi purchased from online vendors 1.
AnalyteBrand A 2Brand B 2Brand C 2Average All Brands
Ash (%)6.90 ± 0.18 3,A6.48 ± 0.05 B5.20 ± 0.03 C6.19 ± 0.88
Carbohydrates (%)2.85 ± 0.70 A3.38 ± 1.78 A1.13 ± 0.74 A2.45 ± 1.18
Fat (%)26.34 ± 5.03 A32.07 ± 4.04 A23.77 ± 0.42 A27.39 ± 4.25
Moisture (%)35.51 ± 2.85 A30.66 ± 5.55 A42.06 ± 0.85 A36.07 ± 5.72
Protein (%)28.42 ± 1.29 A27.42 ± 0.33 A27.85 ± 1.20 A27.90 ± 0.50
Salt (%)5.43 ± 0.17 A5.27 ± 0.08 A4.02 ± 0.02 B4.90 ± 0.77
Nitrite (ppm)<5.0 ppm ± 0.0 A<5.0 ppm ± 0.0 A<5.0 ppm ± 0.0 A<5.0 ppm ± 0.0
Acidity (%; as lactic acid)2.95 ± 0.91 A2.39 ± 0.63 A2.54 ± 0.07 A2.62 ± 0.29
Water activity (aw)0.850 ± 0.007 AB0.825 ± 0.034 B0.911 ± 0.006 A0.86 ± 0.04
pH5.05 ± 0.08 A5.02 ± 0.16 A4.92 ± 0.02 A5.00 ± 0.07
1 Data are the average of the results for each analyte from analyses of a single ca. 400 g composite representative sample of soppressata (prior to inoculation) from each of two trials/batches purchased online for each of the three brands of all-beef salume (N = 2, n = 1). Within a row, means that have no letters in common are significantly different (p > 0.05) as determined by the Bonferroni LSD technique. 2 Ingredients from label: Brand A = beef, salt, natural flavoring, cultured celery powder, dextrose, spices, maltodextrin, yeast extract, potassium chloride salt, sea salt, starter culture; brand B = beef, sea salt, sauterne wine, contains less than 2% of the following: cane sugar, spices, natural flavoring, garlic, natural smoke flavoring, lactic acid starter culture; brand C = beef meat, salt, dextrose, celery juice, spices, cherry juice powder, garlic, lactic acid starter. Contains celery. 3 Average ± standard deviation.
Table
Table 3. Microbiological profile of commercially prepared all-beef salumi 1.
Table 3. Microbiological profile of commercially prepared all-beef salumi 1.
MicroorganismBrand ABrand BBrand C
Aerobic plate count5.40 ± 1.41 A1.22 ± 0.37 B2.77 ± 0.22 AB
Lactic acid bacteria5.01 ± 0.55 A<1 log/g 2,B5.22 ± 0.02 A
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7NegativeNegativeNegative 3
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli “Top Six” 4NegativeNegativeNegative
Listeria monocytogenesNegativeNegativeNegative
Salmonella spp.NegativeNegativeNegative
1 Data are the average of the results for analyses of a single ca. 400 g composite representative sample of soppressata (prior to inoculation) from each of two trials/batches purchased online for each of the three brands of all-beef salume (N = 2, n = 1). Within a row, means that have no letters in common are significantly different (p > 0.05) as determined by the Bonferroni LSD technique. 2 Less than 0.04 cells/g. 3 Less than 10 cells/g. 4 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serogroups O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145 (also known as “Top Six”).
Table
Table 4. Recovery of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) by direct plating and by enrichment of inoculated beef soppressata slices after storage at 4 °C or 20 °C (N = 3, n = 3).
Table 4. Recovery of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) by direct plating and by enrichment of inoculated beef soppressata slices after storage at 4 °C or 20 °C (N = 3, n = 3).
Storage Temperature
4 °C20 °C
Storage DaysL. monocytogenesSalmonellaSTECL. monocytogenesSalmonellaSTEC
DP 1,3E 2,3DPEDPEDPEDPEDPE
09/9 40/0 59/90/09/90/09/90/09/90/09/90/0
79/90/09/90/09/90/09/90/09/90/09/90/0
159/90/09/90/09/90/09/90/09/90/09/90/0
219/90/09/90/09/90/08/90/19/90/06/93/3
289/90/09/90/09/90/01/90/87/92/28/91/2
459/90/09/90/09/90/00/90/90/99/93/91/6
609/90/08/90/18/90/10/90/90/94/90/93/9
753/90/67/92/23/92/66/92/30/91/90/90/9
908/90/15/92/45/92/40/90/90/91/90/90/9
1 DP = direct plating. 2 E = enrichment. 3 Enrichment and direct plating results for beef soppressata slices stored at 4 °C or 20 °C for 90 days (three slices per each of three trials for a total of nine slices for each sampling day). 4 Number of slices from which cells of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., or STEC were recovered by direct plating/total number of slices direct plated. 5 Number of slices from which cells of a given pathogen were recovered by enrichment/total number of slices enriched.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Luchansky, J.B.; Shane, L.E.; Osoria, M.; Vinyard, B.T.; Shoyer, B.A.; Campano, S.G.; Porto-Fett, A.C.S. Fate of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli on Slices of an All-Beef Soppressata during Storage. Foods 2023, 12, 1954. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101954

AMA Style

Luchansky JB, Shane LE, Osoria M, Vinyard BT, Shoyer BA, Campano SG, Porto-Fett ACS. Fate of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli on Slices of an All-Beef Soppressata during Storage. Foods. 2023; 12(10):1954. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101954

Chicago/Turabian Style

Luchansky, John B., Laura E. Shane, Manuela Osoria, Bryan T. Vinyard, Bradley A. Shoyer, Stephen G. Campano, and Anna C. S. Porto-Fett. 2023. "Fate of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli on Slices of an All-Beef Soppressata during Storage" Foods 12, no. 10: 1954. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101954

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop