Evaluation of simulated shelf-life conditions for food service applications on chicken tenderloins

Laura E. Yoder, John G. Rehm, Hunter R. Smith, Daniel A. Tigue, Barney Wilborn, Amit Morey, Christy L. Bratcher, Eugene Blythe, Jason T. Sawyer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The objective of this study was to validate the shelf-life of marinated and frozen chicken tenderloins. Treatments were randomly assigned to the age of the tenderloins post-harvest, days aged (DA): DA4, DA5, DA6, DA7, and DA8. Microbial analyses were used to analyze the growth of aerobic, psychotropic, and lactobacilli bacteria to assess the shelf-life of bulk-packaged chicken tenderloins. Tenderloins were sampled fresh, then vacuum tumbled in a marinade. After marination, the tenderloins were sampled with the remaining tenderloins packaged and frozen (−25C). After freezing the chicken tenderloins were slacked in a refrigerated cooler (2.2C) for up to 132 h (h) and sampled at 36 h, then every 24 h following. After marination, each treatment significantly (p < 0.05) decreased in aerobic and psychotropic counts except DA4. During slacking, no treatment crossed the threshold of 106 CFU/mL (Log 6) set for this study. Though none crossed the threshold, treatments DA4, DA5, and DA6 had significant (p < 0.05) increases in aerobic bacteria after 7 days of age. The psychotropic bacteria continuously grew at each sampling period, with DA4 and DA5 surpassing the other treatments (p < 0.05) at 108 h and 132 h reaching 105 CFU/mL. Every treatment remained below the spoilage threshold, suggesting that this method of storage is suitable for chicken tenderloin shelf-life.

Original languageEnglish
Article number2028
JournalAnimals
Volume11
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2021

Keywords

  • Chicken
  • Marination
  • Microbiology
  • Shelf-life

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of simulated shelf-life conditions for food service applications on chicken tenderloins'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this