<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" "journalpublishing.dtd"><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">mmb</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">mmb</journal-id><journal-title>Meat and Muscle Biology</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="full">MMB</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="epub">2575-985X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>American Meat Science Association</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">134</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>2019 Reciprocal Meat Conference&#x2013; Meat and Poultry Safety</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Fate of <italic>Salmonella</italic> ssp., <italic>Listeria monocytogene</italic>s, and <italic>Campylobacter</italic> ssp., During Fermentation and Drying of Duck Salami</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name><surname>Watson</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><aff><label>1</label>Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Ostiguy</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><aff><label>2</label>Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Cutter</surname><given-names>C. N.</given-names></name><aff><label>3</label>Department of Food Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Campbel</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name><aff><label>1</label>Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA</aff></contrib></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">&#x2a;Corresponding author. Email: <email>scw186@psu.edu</email> (S. Watson)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>12</month><year>2019</year></pub-date><volume>3</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>134</fpage><lpage>134</lpage><permissions><copyright-year>2019</copyright-year><copyright-holder>American Meat Science Association</copyright-holder><license license-type="open-access"><p>This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</ext-link>)</p></license></permissions><abstract><sec><title>Objectives</title><p>Creating artisanal, dry salami products is an increasing trend for charcuterie companies in the United States. These raw, ready-to-eat products are required by USDA-FSIS to have a scientifically valid HACCP system addressing relevant biological hazards. To our knowledge, no literature exists for the validation (at least a 5 Log<sub>10</sub> reduction of pathogens per FSIS) of salami products containing duck. Therefore, an experiment was designed to validate the safety of duck salami. The objectives of this study were to validate the safety of fermented and dried duck salami and to investigate if a duck salami manufacturing processes could achieve a 5 LOG<sub>10</sub> (CFU/g) reduction of <italic>Salmonella</italic> ssp., <italic>Listeria monocytogenes,</italic> and <italic>Campylobacter</italic> ssp.</p></sec><sec><title>Materials and Methods</title><p>Duck trim and pork belly (70% duck trim, 30% pork belly) were placed in a mixed culture bath approximating three liters. The culture bath was made by growing individually and then combining three strains each of <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp. and <italic>Listeria monocytogenes,</italic> two strains of <italic>Campylobacter jejuni,</italic> and one strain of <italic>Campylobacter coli.</italic> After inoculation, meat was air dried (30 min @ 23&#xb0;C), tumbled with one liter of 2.5% Beefxide<sup>&#xd2;</sup>antimicrobial treatment (lactic and citric acid and hydrogen peroxide), and placed in a walk-in cooler (2&#x2013;4&#xb0;C) overnight. After inoculation and antimicrobial treatment (&#x223c;24 h), the meat was ground (6mm grinding plate) and seasoned with salt (2.5%), cure (NaNO<sub>3</sub> &#x26; NaNO<sub>2</sub>), spices, and starter culture. The ground duck-pork mixture was stuffed into 55mm collagen casings, fermented for 48 h (23&#xb0;C, 95% rH), and dried (12&#xb0;C, 75% rH) to &#x223c;45% weight loss (approx. 5 wk). Salamis were then vacuum packaged and stored at 23&#xb0;C (approx. 4 wk). Three independent replications were conducted, and pathogen concentrations, pH, and water activity (aw) were analyzed at Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and weekly until Day 66 during each replication. Critical parameters for production included a final pH less than 5.3 and final aw less than 0.90.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>A 5 LOG<sub>10</sub>(CFU/g) reduction was achieved for all three pathogens. <italic>Salmonella</italic> achieved a 5.47 LOG<sub>10</sub>(CFU/g) (<italic>p</italic> &#x3c; 0.0001) reduction by Day 38, <italic>Listeria monocytogenes</italic> achieved a 5.20 LOG<sub>10</sub>(CFU/g) (<italic>p</italic> &#x3c; 0.0001) reduction by Day 59, and <italic>Campylobacter</italic> achieved a 6.85 LOG<sub>10</sub>(CFU/g) (<italic>p</italic> &#x3c; 0.0001) reduction by Day 45. Final reductions of 7.03 (<italic>p</italic> &#x3c; 0.0001), 5.90 (<italic>p</italic> &#x3c; 0.0001), and 7.19 (<italic>p</italic> &#x3c; 0.0001) LOG<sub>10</sub>(CFU/g) were achieved for <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp., <italic>Listeria monocytogenes,</italic> and <italic>Campylobacter</italic> spp., respectively. During the entire fermentation and drying process, populations of each species never increased by more than 1 LOG<sub>10</sub> (CFU/cm<sup>2)</sup>. A final pH of 5.11 and a final a<sub>w</sub> of 0.81 were also achieved.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>The results of this study indicate that the parameters used to ferment and dry this product are able to achieve a 5 LOG<sub>10</sub> (CFU/g) reduction of each pathogen to validate the safe production of duck salami.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><title>Keywords: </title><kwd><italic>Campylobacter</italic></kwd><kwd>duck salami</kwd><kwd><italic>Listeria monocytogenes</italic></kwd><kwd><italic>Salmonella</italic></kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front></article>
