Control of Listeria monocytogenes in queso fresco and other fresh cheeses continues to be a challenge in the United States. These cheese types are particularly challenging due to their high moisture and high pH, which provide favorable conditions for the growth of L. monocytogenes. Protective cultures (i.e., viable strains of lactic acid bacteria that inhibit other microorganisms) have been investigated in foods such as meat as an alternative, clean-label control strategy for L. monocytogenes. However, the efficacy of protective cultures can vary by food matrix. In this study, we were interested in whether protective cultures used to control L. monocytogenes in meats could be applied to control the pathogen in queso fresco. We selected 4 commercially available bacterial cultures used for the control of L. monocytogenes in meat: Lactobacillus curvatus, Lactobacillus sakei, Pediococcus acidilactici, and Leuconostoc carnosum. We incorporated these cultures into batches of queso fresco during manufacturing and evaluated them for their ability to inhibit the growth of surfaceapplied L. monocytogenes at levels of 1 × 10 2 and 1 × 10 4 cfu/g. We stored the queso fresco at 6 and 21°C for up to 21 d. After 14 d, Listeria was able to grow to 1 × 10 7 cfu/g on the cheese. Our data show that the bacterial cultures did not significantly inhibit the growth of L. monocytogenes in queso fresco. The results from this study highlight the complexity of antagonistic bacterial interactions and their potential variability across food matrices. Protective cultures represent an important, clean-label tool for the control of L. monocytogenes in foods, but each strain must be evaluated in the food environment it is intended for to ensure its efficacy.
In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of 3 commercial protective cultures designated PC1 (Lactobacillus spp.), PC2 (Lactobacillus rhamnosus), and PC3 (Lactobacillus rhamnosus) as biopreservatives in queso fresco (QF) against 9 yeast strains (Candida zeylanoides, Clavispora lusitaniae, Debaryomyces hansenii, Debaryomyces prosopidis, Kluyveromyces marxianus, Meyerozyma guilliermondii, Pichia fermentans, Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, and Torulaspora delbrueckii) and 11 mold strains (Aspergillus cibarius, Aureobasidium pullulans, Penicillium chrysogenum, Penicillium citrinum, Penicillium commune, Penicillium decumbens, Penicillium roqueforti, Mucor genevensis, Mucor racemosus, Phoma dimorpha, and Trichoderma amazonicum). All fungal spoilage strains were previously isolated from dairy processing environments. A positive control (C) with no protective culture was included. Fungal spoilage organisms were inoculated on cheese surfaces at an inoculum level of 20 cfu/g, and cheeses were stored at 6 ± 2°C throughout the study. For yeast enumeration, cheeses were sampled on d 0, 7, 14, and 21 postinoculation. Significant inhibition was detected for each yeast strain by comparing yeast counts for each cheese treated with protective culture against the control cheese using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction performed individually at d 7, 14, and 21 postinoculation. Mold growth was visually observed and imaged weekly through 70 d postinoculation. Whereas PC3 inhibited Cl. lusitaniae, Mey. guilliermondii, and Ph. dimorpha, PC2 inhibited the outgrowth of Cl. lusitaniae, D. hansenii, and Ph. dimorpha. Protective culture 1 had the broadest spectrum of efficacy across yeast and molds, delaying spoilage caused by 4 distinct yeast strains (Cl. lusitaniae, D. hansenii, D. prosopidis, and Mey. guil-liermondii), and inhibiting visible growth of 2 mold strains (P. chrysogenum and Ph. dimorpha). Results demonstrated that commercial protective cultures vary in performance, as indicated by the breadth of mold and yeast inhibition at both the genus and species level. This study suggests that manufacturers looking into using protective cultures should investigate their efficacy against specific fungal strains of concern.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.