Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production
Open Access

Poultry; Chemicals; Antimicrobial; Pathogenic; Texture

Introduction

The consumption of poultry per capita has increased. During the period 1980 to 2012, per capita poultry meat utilization expanded from 26.4 to 54.1 pounds each year, while red meat utilization diminished by just about an indistinguishable sum from 96.3 to 71.2 pounds each year. However, consumers’ chances of contracting foodborne illnesses may raise as a result of this increased consumption of poultry products. Among a wide range of food things related with foodborne disease, poultry items rank number one concerning the yearly assessed cost of sickness and loss of value changed life year [1]. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently announced new regulations aimed at halting the spread of Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry products (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The uses of Formic acid as an chemical for poultry production.

Treatment of handled poultry items with antimicrobials is one of the best procedures for limiting purchasers’ dangers related with consuming poultry items. The term “preservatives” refers to a broader category of substances used in food preservation. Antimicrobial agents are defined as “substances used to preserve food by preventing growth of microorganisms and subsequent spoilage, including fungistats, mold and rope inhibitors, and the consequences indexed with the aid of using the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council under “preservatives” with the aid of using the Food and Drug Administration of the United States. An antimicrobial drug is frequently referred to as an “antibiotic.” However, antibiotics are administered to live poultry prior to slaughter to maintain its growth-related health [2]. With the end goal of this audit, we will limit the antimicrobials talked about in this paper to intensify commonly utilized in the handling of poultry to defer the outgrowth of microorganisms and microbial waste post butcher.

The concentration of a treatment agent affects how effective it is against the microorganisms it is intended to treat. Much of the time, high focuses are expected to accomplish the ideal antimicrobial impact. In any case, it is notable that the higher centralizations of antimicrobials could antagonistically influence the item concerning its tangible traits. It is important to note that the product’s commercial success may be heavily influenced by its sensory features. Numerous customers assess the nature of poultry meat in light of their tactile characteristics and agreeableness [3]. Surprisingly, there isn’t a systematic review of how antimicrobials affect how poultry products taste. This audit features the impacts of the most well-known antimicrobials on tangible attributes, for example, poultry products’ surface color, taste, odor, flavor, and texture.

Method

The application of various kinds of chemical

There are many different characteristics of the antimicrobials used in poultry processing. Classifying them according to whether they are “natural” or “traditional” is one method. Traditional antimicrobials are made of organic acids and other chemicals that have been used for a long time, whereas naturally occurring antimicrobials are made from plants, animals, or microorganisms [4].

As a result of consumers’ concerns regarding the use of synthetic chemicals in food, many poultry businesses have begun using natural antimicrobials rather than synthetic ones in an effort to create a “clean label” for their products. Plant, animal, and/or microbial sources are the sources of natural antimicrobials. The natural antimicrobials that people use the most are essential oils. Oils of oregano, rosemary, clove, and citrus have shown great microbial hindrance in such manner. Additionally, animal-derived chitosan and lysozyme have been found to have significant antimicrobial activity. It was discovered that liquid smoke extracts are an effective antimicrobial for processed meat products like frankfurters, earning them the label “Generally Recognized as Safe.” Besides, a few microorganisms themselves can possibly go about as antimicrobial specialists [5]. For example, Koo showed that lactic corrosive microscopic organisms, which contained lactate/diacetate, worked as an antimicrobial specialist against Listeria monocytogenes on hotdogs.

Discussion and Results

The following characters change when chemicals are applied to poultry products:

Impact of chemicals on tactile parts

While settling on a characteristic or compound antimicrobial, it is totally basic to know how they impact the tangible qualities of the poultry items to which they are applied while guaranteeing that the chose antimicrobial is dynamic against the objective microorganism. Despite their significance and long-term use, antimicrobials’ effects on flavor, aroma/flavor, appearance, and texture of poultry products are surprisingly poorly understood. Numerous researchers have demonstrated that the specific antimicrobials they used have little or no effect on the sensory characteristics of poultry products in previous studies [6]. However, poultry processors must have a better understanding of how antimicrobials can affect consumer acceptability of poultry products because some consumers have concerns about the sensory impact of antimicrobials on the product.

Effect of chemicals on poultry products

Antimicrobials probably have the greatest impact on appearance, which typically refers to the color of the surface. Visual attributes are significant in light of the fact that they make the initial feeling of any item and assume an essential part in purchasers’ impression of the item quality. For instance, off-colors, or anything that looks different from how it normally does, are thought to indicate poor quality (Table 1).

Table 1: Effect of various chemicals on poultry products.

One method for assessing the variety qualities of poultry items is to play out a visual examination, completed via prepared or undeveloped specialists. However, a controlled testing environment and trained panelists are necessary for sensory evaluation, particularly descriptive sensory analysis. Therefore, using a colorimeter, the majority of studies have assessed the effect of antimicrobials on the surface color characteristics of poultry products [7]. However, correlations between instrument analysis and visual inspection results have not always been strong. It is worthwhile to conduct sensory evaluation tests to determine whether trained or consumer panelists can identify color differences.

It has been demonstrated that weak organic acids like citric acid, lactic acid, and malic acid have varying effects on the appearance of treated, raw poultry products in an effort to extend their shelf life. In a shelf-life study, for instance, chicken legs that had been treated with citric acid either by directly adding it or by dipping them in it were found to have a better color acceptability than the untreated control. However, in some instances, the appearance acceptability of chicken legs treated with lactic acid solutions was found to be lower than that of control samples [8]. Succinic acid treatment of chicken legs at concentrations of 3% and 5% was found to result in a greyish appearance and less yellow skin color. Also, other natural acids, for example, malic corrosive and benzoic corrosive have been found to have no massive changes in appearance adequacy of crude chicken bosom filet concerning the control filets.

The effectiveness of chemical agents likes phosphates, particularly disodium phosphate, as antimicrobials have been extensively researched. Even after the eighth day of storage, the untrained panelists preferred the pinker-looking whole chicken carcasses treated with TSP dodecahydrate to the untreated controls [9]. Additionally, Vareltziso observed that entire chickens treated with sodium tripolyphosphate didn’t foster surface sludge until the eighth day of capacity at 4°C, while the untreated control tests had vile surfaces from the fifth day (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Effect of chemicals on chicken in poultry industry.

A lot of previous research on the sensory effects of antimicrobials considered odor and flavor to be the same quality, even though they are perceived in different ways, through the mouth and nose, respectively. In view of this verifiable viewpoint, in this survey the impacts of antimicrobials on scent and flavor attributes will be tended to together [10].

The preservative activity of antimicrobials in poultry products was measured using odor and flavor characteristics in numerous previous studies. Mastromatteo, for instance, reported that treating poultry patties with the essential oils of thymol and carvacol reduced the offodors associated with poultry meat over time [10]. Researchers could evaluate the effect of specific antimicrobials on the shelf life of poultry products based on the development of these off-odors (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Flavor of Poultry Products affected by chemicals.

Testing the effects of an antimicrobial’s own distinct odors/flavors on consumer acceptability and the odor profiles of poultry products have also been a major focus of previous research. The unique odors and flavors of some natural antimicrobials, particularly essential oils, may have an impact on the overall odor and flavor profile of the finished product, which could make the product less appealing to consumers.Even when odorous antimicrobials are added, poultry processors and sensory professionals want poultry products to maintain the anticipated odors and flavors of poultry [11, 12]. For instance, 0.2% thyme oil was found to hold the smell of cooked chicken kebabs despite the fact that it bestowed an unmistakable yet organoleptically engaging scent of its own. Chicken noodles treated with peppermint oil were viewed anyway as less enjoyed by the specialists on account of serious areas of strength for the flavor. Another illustration of this is Sallam’s investigation into the effects that fresh and powdered garlic had on chicken sausages. He found that fresh garlic imparted an unpleasant garlic odor to the sausages. Conversely, it has been likewise found that adding antimicrobials can as a matter of fact increment specialists’ acknowledgment of the scents of poultry items [13-15]. At the beginning of its storage life, chicken breast meat was observed to have a pleasant odor when oregano oil was added at a concentration of 0.25 percent. Khare demonstrated that chicken noodles treated with eugenol had a more acceptable odor when stored than the untreated control. In a similar vein, Giatrakou’s study revealed that, when compared to an untreated control, prepared ready-to-cook products containing 1.5% chitosan had a more pleasant odor up until the 12th day of storage.

Citric acid treatments, among the organic acids, have been shown to have varying effects on the odor and flavor of raw, cut-up poultry. Treatment with 1% lactic corrosive arrangement was viewed as ‘a lot of satisfactory’ when assessed for smell worthiness by undeveloped tangible specialists in chicken meat in both crude and barbecued states. In a different study, González-Fandos and Dominguez found that samples treated with lactic acid produced less strong off-odors than a control sample that was not treated. Other natural acids, for example, peracetic corrosive, peroxy acids, and sorbic corrosive, have additionally shown potential to hold and really further develop the flavor profile of cooked chicken items [16].

Phosphates are one more class of synthetic antimicrobial that have been broadly examined, particularly TSP. Depending on the concentration, TSP addition had varying effects on odor retention and acceptability. When compared to untreated controls, cut-up chicken drumsticks dipped in 14% TSP showed no significant difference. Due to the development of a pungent flavor in the untreated control, samples treated with a 100g/L solution of STPP were found to spoil later than the treated samples [17]. Similar to this, Del Ro pointed out that samples treated with 12% TSP retained the pleasant odor characteristics of chicken legs for a longer period of time than an untreated control.

Impact of chemicals on taste

Individuals frequently allude to the impression of unpredictable mixtures by means of the oral cavity as “taste” and this peculiarity is classified “smell-taste disarray”. Because flavor and taste perception frequently occur in the mouth, smell-taste confusion may occur. There are only five fundamental characteristics of taste, as is known: umami, sourness, bitterness, sweetness, and saltiness [18]. One of the fundamental sensory modalities utilized in evaluating the quality of food is the sense of “taste,” which is closely linked to food consumption along with the sense of “smell.”

Similar to the characteristics of odor and flavor, previous research has focused on the development of an off-taste in antimicrobial-treated and untreated poultry products. In poultry products, an off-taste is frequently used as a sign that microbial spoilage has occurred, typically during storage. It has been reported that processed foods like chicken kebabs, breast meat, and chicken noodles contain natural antimicrobials of animal origin that delay the onset of an off-taste while maintaining the typical flavor characteristics. Be that as it may, in numerous past examinations, an off-smell/flavor has been mistaken for an off-taste [19]. It’s important to keep in mind that ingestion, rather than sniffing, is where the off-odor is felt. Therefore, especially in shelf-life studies, panelists’ ratings of off-taste characteristics require greater caution (Figure 3).

In addition, the taste profiles of poultry products and antimicrobials themselves have been the focus of previous research on consumer acceptance. Natural antimicrobials, particularly essential oils, typically have a distinctive flavor that is linked to the essential oil’s origin. It appears that essential oils incorporate their own taste-related characteristics into the product’s overall flavor characteristics, which may alter taste acceptability. It was observed that the addition of 1.5% chitosan to ready-to-cook chicken-pepper kebabs improved their freshness and contributed to their pleasant flavor characteristics [20, 21]. Likewise, Chouliara revealed that 1% oregano oil in chicken bosom meat delivered a trademark helpful taste which worked out positively for the cooked chicken flavor. On the other hand, Mytle discovered that meat products like chicken frankfurters that contained higher concentrations of clove oil had a strong flavor that was not well received by sensory panelists.

A combination of essential oils and an ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-lysozyme solution appears to be a good way to increase the safety of the poultry product while maintaining its preferred flavor characteristics, according to previous research involving combinations of natural antimicrobials. The panelists greatly appreciated the lemonlike flavor that this combination imparts to chicken fillets. Hasapidou and Savvaidis concentrated on the mix of EDTA and oregano oil and found that oregano oil bestowed a particular yet helpful taste to chicken meat. Furthermore, a mix of EDTA and nisin has shown to be a decent choice to broaden timeframe of realistic usability in chicken filets [22].

Chemicals effect on the texture

Antimicrobials’ effects on the texture of poultry meat products haven’t been studied as much as other sensory aspects have. Table 1 provides a summary of the effects of antimicrobials on the texture of poultry products. The textural quality of chicken in products like noodles and sausages has not been significantly affected by the addition of antimicrobials like garlic, chitosan, vinegar, peppermint oil, and clove oil. When compared to the control with chicken breast and leg meats, Kolsarici and Candogan demonstrated that the addition of 5% potassium sorbate solution did not significantly alter the texture characteristics [23]. Nonetheless, treatment of chicken bosom meat with peracetic corrosive was found to deliver a bosom that was more delicate as far as surface than a chlorine control test toward the start of a timeframe of realistic usability review.

Conclusion

A lot of research has been done to get the most out of certain antimicrobials’ ability to stop the growth of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms. In some cases, an extremely high concentration of an antimicrobial must be utilized in order to achieve the desired effect against a target organism. However, these elevated concentrations may limit the poultry products’ commercial success by reducing their sensory acceptability. Despite its significance, the impact of antimicrobials on the sensory characteristics of products derived from further processing of poultry has received relatively little attention. However, it is essential to investigate the sensory effects of specific antimicrobials on poultry products because sensory acceptability influences consumers’ willingness to purchase poultry products. It is conceivable that the additional antimicrobial makes the item protected however not economically OK because of a subsequent poor tangible quality. It is likewise conceivable that antimicrobials can restrain the vital tactile view of deterioration. As a result, it is crucial to conduct a systematic sensory analysis to ensure that the poultry product is not only safe but also palatable to consumers. For a better understanding of the sensory impact of antimicrobials on poultry meat products, an analytical approach utilizing descriptive analysis should be considered in addition to effective testing. Additionally, because of the varying sensory perceptions and acceptability of consumers, consumer testing ought to be carried out with specific target groups in addition to a broad range of consumers.

Acknowledgement

The author has well explained the entire study.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Funding

Not applicable.

1. Aarestrup FM (1998) Association between decreased susceptibility to a new antibiotic for treatment of human diseases, everninomycin (SCH 27899), and resistance to an antibiotic used for growth promotion in animals, avilamycin. Microb Drug Resist 4: 137-141.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Aarestrup FM, Rasmussen SR, Arturson K, Jensen NE (1998) Trends in the resistance to antimicrobial agents of Streptococcus suis isolates from Denmark and Sweden. Vet Microbiol 63: 71-78.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Aarestrup FM, Jensen LB (2000) Presence of variations in ribosomal proteins L16 corresponding to the susceptibility to oligosaccharides (avilamycin and everninomycin) Antimocrob. Agents Chemother 44: 3425-3427.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Abou-Youssef MH, Cuollo CJ, Free SM, Scott GC (1983) The influence of a feed additive level of virginiamycin on the course of an experimentally induced Salmonella typhimurium infection in broilers. Poult Sci 62: 30-37.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Adrian PV, Zhao W, Black TA, Shaw KJ, Hare RS, et al. (2000) Mutations in ribosomal protein L16 conferring reduced susceptibility to everninomycin (SCH27899): Implications for mechanism of action. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 44: 732-738.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Allignet J, Loncle V, Simenel C, Delepierre M, El Sohl N (1993) Sequence of a staphylococcal gene vat, encoding an acetyl transferase inactivating the A-type components of virginiamycin-like antibiotics. Gene 130: 91-98.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Allignet J, Liasinne N, El Sohl N (1998) Characterization of a staphylococcal plasmid related to pUB110 and carrying two novel genes, vatC and vgbB, encoding resistance to streptogramin A and B and similar antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 42: 1794-1798.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

8. Allignet J, Loncle V, El Sohl N (1992) Sequence of a staphylococcal plasmid gene, vga, encoding a putative ATP-binding protein involved in resistance to virginiamycin A-like antibiotics. Gene 117: 45-51.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

9. Allignet J, Aubert S, Morvan A, El Sohl N (1996) Distribution of genes encoding resistance to streptogramin A and related compounds among staphylococci resistant to these antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 40: 2523-2528.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

10. Andrews J, Ashby J, Jevons G, Lines N, Wise R (1999) Antimicrobial resistance in Gram-positive pathogens isolated in the UK between October 1996 and January 1997. J Antimicrob Chemother 43: 689-698.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

11. Armstrong-Evans M, Litt M, McArthur MA, Willey B, Cann D, et al. (1999) Control of transmission of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in a long-term-care facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20: 312-317.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

12. Atef M, Shalaby AA, Khafagy A, Abo-Norage MA (1989) Fetotoxicity of some anticoccidial drugs in chickens. Dtsch Tierärztl Wochenschr 96: 296-298.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

13. Augustine PC, Smith CK, Danforth DH, Ruff D (1987) Effect of ionophorous anticoccidials on invasion and development of Eimeria: comparison of sensitive and resistant isolates and correlation with drug uptake. Poult Sci 66: 960-965.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

14. Barnes EM, Mead GC, Impey CS, Adams BW (1978) The effect of dietary bacitracin on the incidence of Streptococcus faecalis subspecies liquefaciens and related streptococci in the intestines of young chickens. Br Poult Sci 19: 713-723.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

15. Bascomb S, Manafi M (1998) Use of enzyme tests in characterization and identification of aerobic and facultatively anaerobic Gram-positive cocci. Clin Microbiol Rev 11: 318-340.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

16. Bates J (1997) Epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the community and relevance of farm animals to human infections. J Hosp Infect 37: 89-101.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

17. Benno Y, Endo K, Shiragami N, Mitsuoka T (1988) Susceptibility of fecal anaerobic bacteria from pigs and chickens to five polyether antibiotics for growth promotion. Jpn J Vet Sci 50: 783-790.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

18. Bolder NM, Wagenaar JA, Putirulan FF, Veldman KT, Sommer M (1999) The effect of flavophospholipol (Flavomycin) and salinomycin sodium (Sacox) on the excretion of Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella enteriditis, and Campylobacter jejuni in broilers after experimental infection. Poult Sci 78: 1681-1689.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

19. Solomn G, Abule E, Yayneshet T, Zeleke M, Yoseph M, et al. (2017) Feed resources in the highlands of Ethiopia: A value chain assessment and intervention options. ILRI 1–36.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

20. Duguma B, Janssens GPJ (2021) Assessment of Livestock Feed Resources and Coping Strategies with Dry Season Feed Scarcity in Mixed Crop-Livestock Farming Systems Around the Gilgel Gibe Catchment, South West Ethiopia. Sustain 13.

Google Scholar, Crossref

21. Adinew D, Abegaze B, Kassahun D (2020) Assessment of feed resources feeding systems and milk production potential of dairy cattle in Misha district of Ethiopia. Ethiop J Appl Sci Technol 11: 15–26.

Google Scholar

22. Chufa A, Tadele Y, Hidosa D (2022) Assessment on Livestock Feed Resources and Utilization Practices in Derashe Special District, Southern-Western Ethiopia: Status, Challenges and Opportunities. J Vet Med 5: 14.

Google Scholar

23. Melaku T (2011) Oxidization versus Tractorization: Options and Constraints for Ethiopian Framing System. Int J Sustainable Agric 3: 11-20.

Google Scholar, Indexed at