Performance of raw bovine meat preservation by hyperbaric storage ( quasi energetically costless) compared to refrigeration

Extended preservation of raw beef and pork meat by hyperbaric storage at room temperature

“…Thus, from a microbiological point of view, the present work reinforces and increases the data already published by Freitas et al () and Fernandes et al () that HS at a pressure level of only 75 MPa is capable not only of inhibiting microbial growth at variable RT but also of inactivating microorganisms over 60 days for these products, and looks a better alternative than RF to extend the microbial shelf life of raw meat.…”

“…The few published studies regarding meat products stored under pressure reported similar results for microbial behaviour, but for shorter storage periods and different storage conditions. For instance, Freitas et al () performed HS studies on sliced fresh top round beef and found that at variable RT, 50 MPa allowed a microbial effect similar to RF and 100 and 150 MPa led to a microbial inactivation (of TAM, ENT, YM, coliform and psychrophilic bacteria) over 12 h. Later, these authors extended the storage period up to 10 days at 50 MPa (variable RT) and reported results pointing to a possible microbial shelf life extension considering coliform bacteria, ENT and YM with the reduction of these microbial loads (although TAM and psychrophilic bacteria presented values above 6 log CFU g −1 ). Interesting results were also obtained by Fernandes et al () at 100 MPa and variable RT with raw minced pork meat, since microbial inactivation of TAM, ENT and YM was obtained over 24 h. On the other hand, in the study of Fernandes et al (), sliced cooked ham was stored under pressure at RT and exhibited microbial growth inhibition at 50 MPa/30 °C for TAM and LAB, while microbial inactivation was achieved at 100/25, 100/30, 100/37 and 150 MPa/30 °C for TAM and LAB (it should be highlighted that this study examined a cooked meat product and a storage period of only 8 h).…”

“…For these analyses, ≈10 g of each sample was placed in a small dish and the colour measured in six random spots. The colour difference (∆ E ) was calculated according to Freitas et al (), where , and are the parameters values at the beginning of the study, prior to any storage time:…”

“…The few published studies regarding meat products stored under pressure reported similar results for microbial behaviour, but for shorter storage periods and different storage conditions. For instance, Freitas et al (2016) performed HS studies on sliced fresh top round beef and found that at variable RT, 50 MPa Figure 1 Total aerobic mesophiles (TAM), Enterobacteriaceae (ENT), lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and yeasts and moulds (YM) counts on beef in pieces (BP) expressed in log CFU g À1 (mean AE SE), up to 60 days at different storage conditions: 50, 75, 100 MPa at variable room temperature (RT), atmospheric pressure/4°C (0.1 MPa À 4°C) and atmospheric pressure/variable room temperature (0.1 MPa À RT). Different lower case letters (a-e) and different upper case letters (A-E) indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between storage times at each tested storage condition (different columns) and between storage conditions at each storage time (different lines), respectively, and * represent samples with microbial counts below or above the established limit.…”

“…Since 2012, an increasing number of studies regarding hyperbaric storage (HS) as a new food preservation methodology have been published (Bermejo‐Prada et al , ). Among them, fruit juices (Bermejo‐Prada & Otero, ; Lemos et al , ), ready‐to‐eat meals (Moreira et al , ), whey cheese (Duarte et al , ), sliced cooked ham (Fernandes et al , ), raw bovine meat (Freitas et al , ), raw pork meat (Fernandes et al , ), hake loins (Otero et al , ) were successfully stored under pressure at different storage conditions (pressure level/temperature) over different periods of time.…”