ScienceQ Publishing GroupScienceQ Publishing Group
  • Home
  • Submit Manuscript
    • Open Access
  • List of Journals
  • Policies and Ethics
  • Contact Us

Comparative Microbial Analyses of Freshly Prepared Stored Beef Sausages of Different Vegetable Oils

HomeComparative Microbial Analyses of Freshly Prepared Stored Beef Sausages of Different Vegetable Oils

Research Article

Comparative Microbial Analyses of Freshly Prepared Stored Beef Sausages of Different Vegetable Oils

OLATUNDE, A.O., JOEL, E.O., TEMIKOTAN, T and R. O. OJO.

Corresponding Author : OLATUNDE, A.O.

Department of Biological Sciences, College of Natural and Applied Sciences, Achievers University, P.M.B. 1030, Owo Ondo State Nigeria.

Email ID : olaposiolatunde@yahoomail.com

Received : 2019-01-08 Accepted : 2019-02-23 Published : 2019-02-23

Abstract : Freshly prepared beef sausage samples using four different types of vegetable oils; lard, olive oil, Shea butter, groundnut oil and a control sausage prepared without any oil were used in this study. The study was partitioned into five treatments based on the type of oil used and labeled, T1 (Control i.e. without oil), T2 (Lard based), T3 (Olive oil based), T4 (Shea butter based) and T5 (Ground nut oil based). Method of preparation for all sausage samples was same and according to a standard commercial method with all ingredients added equally. The sausage samples were stored at 40C for 20 days. Microbial analyses of samples was done every 5 days beginning from the day of preparation (day 0) up to day 20 following the procedures of APHA and Difco manuals using plate count agar (PCA) and MSA (Mannitol Salt Agar). The analyses procedures were replicated three times and the mean data obtained was subjected to the Duncan Multiple Range Test statistical analyses. The bacteria species isolated and identified in the course of the experiment include coliform bacteria, E. coli and Enterobacter spp., Staphyloccocus aureus and Staphyloccocus spp. Results of the study indicated a gradual buildup of microbial populations in the samples from day 0 of the experiment. The results also indicated that microbial count increases as storage period increases reaching its peak at day 20 in all sausage samples. All the oil based samples i.e. T2 – T5 had lower bacterial counts compared to the control sausage without oil (T1).Significant differences (P <0.05) exists in the total plate count among all the treatment from day 0 to day 20.The results shows that olive oil based sausage (T3) and groundnut based sausage (T5) had lower microbial counts of 2.60 x 104 and 2.30 x 104 respectively at day 20 compared with those of No oil (T1), Lard (T2) and Shea butter (T4) based sausages with microbial counts of 8.20 x 104, 3.80 x 104, and 5.40 x 104 respectively. Both Olive oil and Ground nut oil effectively inhibit microbial growth on MSA in comparison with other oils as there was no microbial growth recorded on both oils from day 0 to day 20. In the present circumstance, it seems Olive oil and groundnut oil are better oils for sausage manufacturing as they seem to possess better antioxidant and antimicrobial qualities.

Keywords : Microbial, stored, Beef, Sausages, Comparative.

Citation : OLATUNDE, A.O. et al (2018). Comparative Microbial Analyses of Freshly Prepared Stored Beef Sausages of Different Vegetable Oils, J. of Advancement in Medical and Life Sciences. V7I2.04. DOI : 10.5281/zenodo.2577051

Copyright : © 2019 OLATUNDE, A.O. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Journal of Advancement in Medical and Life Sciences

ISSN : 2348-294X

Volume 7 / Issue 2

ScienceQ Publishing Group

Download Article

Reviewer Comments : Reviewers comments section of this article will get update shortly.

February 25, 2019
admin
Issue 2, JALS, Volume 7
No Comments
Submit Online
Article Structuring Guideline
Instruction for Author pdf
Policies and Ethics

 

pdf Copyright Form docx

Archives
  • JABZ
    • Volume 1
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 2
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • volume 3
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 4
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • volume 5
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • volume 6
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 7
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 8
      • Issue 1
  • JAET
    • Volume 1
      • Issue 1
      • Issue-2
      • Issue-3
      • Issue-4
    • Volume 2
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 3
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 4
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 5
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • volume 6
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 7
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 8
      • Issue 1
  • JALS
    • Volume 1
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 2
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 3
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 4
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 5
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 6
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 7
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 8
      • Issue 1
  • JBCE
    • Volume 1
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 2
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 3
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
  • JCLS
    • Volume 1
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
    • Volume 2
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 3
    • Volume 3
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
  • JMDDR
    • Volume 1
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 2
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 3
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 4
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 5
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
  • JPCS
    • Volume 1
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 2
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 3
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 4
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 5
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 6
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 7
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
  • Home
  • Submit Manuscript
  • List of Journals
  • Policies and Ethics
  • Contact Us
© ScienceQ Publishing Group 2022. All Rights Reserved.
SciencQ Publishing Group
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons
  • Home
  • Submit Manuscript
    • Open Access
  • List of Journals
  • Policies and Ethics
  • Contact Us