Control of Pathogenic Bacteria in Foods

Abstract

Methods of making coated pet food kibble and the kibble product by coating kibble with a composition that include at least one of: (i) lecithin and chicken fat; (ii) lecithin, a glycerol monoester of a fatty acid, a sugar monoester of a fatty acid, and chicken fat; (iii) lecithin, N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.8-C.sub.18) ester, and chicken fat; or (iv) N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.8-C.sub.18) ester-thymol and chicken fat. When the pet food kibble coated with a composition as described above, exhibits amounts of Salmonella sp. that are reduced by about 99%. This reduction is effective for at least 60 days post coating when compared to pet food kibble coated with a composition lacking one of (i)-(iv). The compositions are also used in a method for treating raw beef or poultry prior to grinding where the ground meat exhibits amounts of Salmonella sp. that are reduced by about 99%.

Claims

1. A method of making an improved pet food kibble comprising: (a). obtaining pet meal formed into a kibble shape; (b). coating the kibble shaped pet meal with a composition comprising chicken fat and at least one of: a lecithin; a glycerol monoester of a fatty acid; a sugar monoester of a fatty acid; and a N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester salt; wherein, the pet food kibble coated with a composition having lecithin, glycerol monoester of a fatty acid, a sugar monoester of a fatty acid, or a N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester salt exhibits amounts of Salmonella sp. present in the kibble reduced by about 99% for at least 60 days post coating when compared to pet food kibble coated with a composition lacking lecithin, glycerol monoester of a fatty acid, a sugar monoester of a fatty acid, or a N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester salt.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the coating composition comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of: ((i). from about 0.05 to about 30 wt % lecithin and from about 0.05 to about 99 wt % chicken fat; (ii). 0.05 to about 30 wt % lecithin, from about 0.01 to about 7.5 wt % glycerol monoester of a fatty acid, from about 0.02 to about 15.0 wt % sugar monoester of a fatty acid, and from about 0.05 to about 99.0 wt % chicken fat; (iii). 0.05 to about 30.0 wt % lecithin, from about 0.002 to about 4.0 wt % N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester, and about 0.05 to about 99.0 wt % chicken fat; (iv). from about 0.002 to about 4.0 wt % of N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester-thymol and 0.05 to about 99.0wt % chicken fat; and any combination of the preservatives (i), (ii) (iii), and (iv), wherein, the pet food kibble coated with a composition having at least one of (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) exhibits amounts of Salmonella sp. present in the kibble reduced by about 99% for at least 60 days post coating when compared to pet food kibble coated with a composition lacking (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv).

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of coating the kibble shaped pet meal comprises at least one step of spraying the composition on the kibble or submersion of the kibble in the composition.

4. The method of claim 2, wherein each of preservative compositions (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) further comprises buffers to maintain pH of less than 7 or a chelant.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the chelant is EDTA.

6. The method of claim 2, wherein the composition further comprises a flavoring, coloring or enhancer.

7. The method of claim 2, wherein the glycerol monoester of composition (ii) is monolaurin and the sugar monoester of composition (ii) is sucrose laurate.

8. The method of claim 2, wherein the N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester of composition (iii) is LAE-HCl.

9. A pet food kibble coated with a composition comprising chicken fat and at least one or more of: a lecithin; a glycerol monoester of a fatty acid; a sugar monoester of a fatty acid; and a N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester salt, wherein, the pet food kibble coated with a composition having lecithin, glycerol monoester of a fatty acid a sugar monoester of a fatty acid, or a N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester salt exhibits amounts of Salmonella sp, present in the kibble reduced by about 99% for at least 60 days post coating when compared to pet food kibble coated with a composition lacking lecithin, glycerol monoester of a fatty acid, a sugar monoester of a fatty acid, or a N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester salt.

10. The pet food kibble of claim 9, wherein the coating composition comprises at east one selected from the group consisting of: (i). from about 0.05 to about 30 wt % lecithin and from about 0.05 to about 99 wt % chicken fat; (ii). 0.05 to about 30 wt % lecithin, from about 0.01 to about 7.5 wt % glycerol monoester of a fatty acid, from about 0.02 to about 15.0 wt % sugar monoester of a fatty acid, and from about 0.05 to about 99.0 wt % chicken fat; (iii). 0.05 to about 30.0 wt % lecithin, from about 0.002 to about 4.0 wt % N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester, and about 0.05 to about 99.0 wt % chicken fat; (iv). from about 0.002 to about 4.0 wt % of N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester-thymol and 0.05 to about 99.0 wt % chicken fat; and any combination of the preservatives (i), (ii), and (iv), wherein, the pet food kibble coated with a composition having at least one of (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) exhibits amounts of Salmonella sp. present the kibble reduced by about 99% for at least 60 days post coating when compared to pet food kibble coated with a composition lacking (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv).

11. The pet food kibble of claim 10, wherein each of preservative compositions (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) further comprises buffers to maintain pH of less than 7 or a chelant.

12. The pet food kibble of claim 11, wherein the chelant is EDTA.

13. The pet food kibble of claim 10, wherein the composition further comprises a flavoring, coloring or other enhancer.

14. The pet food kibble of claim 10, wherein the glycerol monoester of composition (ii) is monolaurin and the sugar monoester of composition (ii) is sucrose laurate or the N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester of composition (iii) is LAE-HCl.

15. A method to treat raw beef or poultry comprising: providing a composition of GRAS food ingredients comprising: a lecithin having a HLB of about 11 to about 12; a glycerol monoester of a fatty acid; a sugar monoester of a fatty acid; and a N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester salt (LAE), treating raw beef or poultry with the composition; wherein, the raw beef or poultry treated with the composition-exhibits amounts of Salmonella sp. present in the raw beef or poultry reduced by about 99% for at least 3 days post treatment when compared to untreated raw beef or poultry.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the composition comprises: from about 0.05 to about 30.0 wt % lecithin; from about 0.02 to about 9.0 wt % glycerol monoester; from about 0.02 to about 18.0 wt % sugar monoester of a fatty acid; and from about 0.002 to about 4 wt % N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) salt, wherein all wt % are based on the total weight of the beef or poultry parts being treated.

7. The method of claim 16, wherein the compositions comprises buffers to maintain pH of less than 7 or a chelant.

18. The method of claim 16, wherein the glycerol monoester is monolaurin, the sugar monoester of composition is sucrose laurate and the N.sup.-(C.sub.8-C.sub.18) acyl arginine alkyl (C.sub.1-C.sub.8) ester salt is LAE-HCl.

19. A ground beef or ground poultry product produced by grinding the treated raw beef or poultry of the method of claim 15.

Description

EXAMPLES

[0070] The following examples are set forth to assist in understanding the invention and should not, of course, be construed as specifically limiting the invention described and claimed herein. Such variations of the invention, including the substitution of all equivalents now known or later developed, which would be within the purview of those skilled in the art, and changes in formulation or minor changes in experimental design, are to be considered to fall within the scope of the invention incorporated herein.

[0071] The following abbreviations may be found throughout the Examples. LAE HCL refers to N.sup. C.sub.8-C.sub.16 alkanoyl-L di-basic amino acid (C.sub.1-C.sub.4) alkyl ester being N.sup.-lauroyl-L-arginine-ethyl ester HCL salt. ML refers to monolaurin. SL refers to sucrose laurate. DW refers to distilled water. CF refers to chicken fat. ADM refers to Archer Daniels Midland. Emulsifier can be used interchangeably with lecithin or any of the tradenames: Ultralec F, Performix E, or Yelpin1018. RT refers to room temperature.

Sample Preparation

[0072] Control consisting of 50 g of distilled water (DW) while vigorously stirring and 50 g of chicken fat (CF; for example as sold by AFB International, 3 Research Park Drive, St. Charles, Mo. 63304).

[0073] Sample #1 was prepared by making an emulsion consisting of adding 7 g of ADM Ultralec F lecithin to 50 g of distilled water (DW), and then adding 50 g of chicken fat (CF) while vigorously stirring. Total 50 g CF+50 g DW+7 g emulsifier=107 g. This emulsion was clear after seven days at RT.

[0074] Sample#2 was prepared by making an emulsion consisting of adding 7 g of ADM Performix E lecithin and 1.0 g of sucrose laurate (SL) to 50 g of distilled water (DW) while vigorously stirring, then 50 g of chicken fat (CF) was added to the mix with continued stirring, then 0.5 g of monolaurin (ML) was added to the emulsion with continued stirring. For the sake of this invention, both ML and SL are defined as actives. It can be appreciated that SL and ML are both surfactants with inhibitory characteristics. ML is known to need solubilization in an aqueous system, so it was added as a powder after the CF was added to aid in its solubilization. This emulsion was clear after seven days at RT. In the instant invention, SL acts as a solubilizer to the ML. Total actives in sample #2 are 1.5 g. Sample #2 consists of 50 g CF+50 g DW+7 g ADM Performix E emulsifier+1.5 gm actives=108.5 g; 1.5 g actives/108.5 g=0.014 or 1.4 wt % actives; 10 g emulsion coated onto 100 g kibble=>10 g1.4 wt %/100 g kibble=0.14 g total actives/100 g kibble or 1400 ppm of actives.

[0075] Sample #3 was prepared by making an emulsion consisting of 7 g of ADM Performix E lecithin, 50 g of distilled water (DW), 50 g of chicken fat (CF), and 0.1 g of LAE-HCl preservative. The LAE-HCl was dissolved into the DW, and separately the lecithin was added to the chicken fat, then both were added together by vigorous mixing . Total 50 g CF+50 g DW+7 g emulsifier+0.1 g LAE-HCl=107.1 g. 0.1 g active preservative/107.1 g=0.00093 or 0.093 wt % preservative; 10 g emulsion coated onto 100 g kibble=>10 g 0.093 wt % LAE-HCl preservative/100 g kibble=0.093 g total preservative/100 g kibble or 93 ppm. This emulsion was clear after seven days at RT.

[0076] Sample #4 was by making an emulsion consisting of 7 g of ADM Yelpin1018 lecithin added to 50 g of chicken fat (CF) by vigorous mixing, then 50 g of distilled water (DW) was added with continued stirring. No additional surfactants or preservatives were added.

[0077] Sample #5 was prepared w/o lecithin by dissolving LAE-thymol into 50 g of DW with vigorous mixing, and then the DW+LAE-thymol was added to 50 g of chicken fat with vigorous mixing. LAE-thymol is a controlled release salt of LAE with low water solubility as compared to LAE-HCl. Total 0.1 g preservative+50 g CF+50 g DW=100.1 g; 0.1 g active preservative/100.1 g total=0.1 wt % actives ; 10 g CF/DW coated onto 100 g kibble=>10 g0.1 wt % preservative/100 g kibble=>0.01 g total preservative/100 g kibble or 100 ppm.

[0078] All samples using CF/DW/emulsifier systems were visually stable after storage at RT for one week.

[0079] Table 1 summarizes the compositions tested. Each sample contained 50 g chicken fat and 50 g DW; 10 g of each sample was applied to 100 g kibble. Testing and storage was at RT. Samples of coated kibble were kept in sealed plastic bags after applying to the kibble.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Summary of compositions formulation according to the instant invention Sucrose LAE- LAE- Lecithin Emulsifier, Chicken DW, Monolaurin laurate HCl, thymol, Sample Emulsifier g fat, g g (ML) (SL), g g g Control 50 50 #1 Ultralac 7 50 50 #2 Performix E 7 50 50 0.5 1 #3 Performix E 7 50 50 0.1 #4 Yelkin 1018 7 50 50 #5 50 50 0.1

Experimental Methods

[0080] 10 g of each sample and control was applied to 100 g kibble. To apply each sample to the kibble, all samples were separately shaken onto a commercial kibble using a common hand held cocktail shaker. If a sample was made with a surfactant/emulsifier, to check the condition of the emulsions, each sample was stored in a glass bottle. In a commercial setting this step can be done either with a revolving pan or with a spray nozzle. There is no anticipated extra step in the overall process as compared with the steps commonly used in the pet food industry to manufacture kibble. Also the inclusion of the lecithin emulsifier only increases the overall water content by 4 to 8% and it does not necessitate an extra step to remove this water.

[0081] Testing and storage was at RT. Samples of coated kibble were kept in sealed plastic bags after applying to the kibble. A sample was removed at 30 days for testing and a sample was removed at 60 days for testing. The kibble samples were challenged with a known load and reduction of bacteria measured.

[0082] Performance kill tests on kibble against a mix of Salmonella bacterial strains (ATCC 10708, 6539, and 14028), defined in the instant invention as Salmonella sp., were conducted at 30 and 60 days. At each time point, cfu (colony forming units) were observed. The cfu was converted to a log number and the log reduction in colony forming units observed. This calculation is also shown as a percentage.

Results

[0083] Table 2 demonstrates the log reduction found at 30 days post coating of kibble for all five samples.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 colony forming units of Salmonella sp. found on coated kibble after 30 days cfu Log Sample recovered Log reduction % reduction Control 1.8 10.sup.4 4.25 0 0 #1 8.5 10.sup.2 2.9 1.35 92.0 #2 1.0 10.sup.2 2.0 2.25 99.4 #3 2.8 10.sup.2 2.45 1.80 97.0 #4 4.0 10.sup.2 2.55 1.70 96.0 6.0 10.sup.2 2.75 1.50 94.0

[0084] Table 3 demonstrates the log reduction found at 60 days post coating of kibble for all five samples.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 colony forming units of Salmonella sp. found on coated kibble after 60 days cfu Log Sample recovered Log reduction % reduction Control 1.8 10.sup.4 4.25 0 0 #1 2.3 10.sup.4 4.45 0 0 #2 1.0 10.sup.1 1.05 3.4 99.95 #3 3.1 10.sup.3 3.55 0.9 89.00 #4 2.0 10.sup.1 1.35 3.1 99.92 #5 1.6 10.sup.2 2.25 2.2 99.35

[0085] Mono fatty acid glycerides, with C.sub.6-C.sub.18 carbon chain length of the fatty acid, in combination with mono fatty acid sucrose derivatives, from C.sub.6-C.sub.18 carbon chain length and suitable emulsifiers, provided the overall anti-microbial/preservative activity in pet food against Salmonella contained in chicken fat coated onto kibble. The log reduction was significant for several of the samples tested using various food preservatives (samples #2-5), with some compositions of the instant invention without containing lecithin giving significant log reductions (sample # 5). Samples also containing only lecithin also gave significant log reductions (sample #4). It is very advantageous that all ingredients are GRAS approved for food, and they all have nutritional value as food additives. It is expected that there will be no apparent taste problems at the inventive usage levels.

[0086] Samples 1-5 showed log reductions after 30 days. Sample #1 showed no log reduction after 60 days, using only an emulsifier with an HLB of 7. (There was also visual growth noted after 60 days). Sample #4 using only an emulsifier with an HLB of 11 gave increased log reduction after 60 days. Sample # 2 with an emulsifier with an HLB of 12 and two GRAS surfactants with inhibitory characteristics gave an increased log reduction after 60 days, while sample #3 with the same emulsifier as sample #2 but with a food preservative gave reduced log reduction after 60 days. Sample #5 with no emulsifier and no surfactants but with the salt LAE-thymol, gave an increased log reduction after 60 days. After 120 days there was no mold evident in Sample #3 of coated kibble in a sealed plastic bag using a combination of sucrose laurate and monolaurin emulsified with lecithin.

[0087] Another test using the composition in Sample #3 on poultry utilizing 0.093 wt % LAE-HCl (per weight of raw poultry). At 3 day recovery, the cfu 1.5110.sup.5, the log 5.18, the log reduction 2, for a % reduction of 99.95%. (The control: cfu at 210.sup.7, log 7.3). For Sample #3 coated onto kibble, the log reduction was 1.9 after 30 days and 0.9 after 60 days. A zone of inhibition was done at 1 hour to confirm if these samples had any preservative activity. A zone of inhibition is used as a screening test to determine if further testing should be done for a quantitative, determination e.g. a time kill log reduction. The zone data supports the 3 day results that sample 3 is effective at killing salmonella in chicken fat.

[0088] As stated above, while the present application has been illustrated by the description of embodiments thereof and while the embodiments have been described in considerable detail, it is not the intention of the applicants to restrict or in any way limit the scope of the appended claims to such detail. Additional advantages and modifications will readily appear to those skilled in the art, having the benefit of the present application. Therefore, the application, in its broader aspects, is not limited to the specific details of the illustrative examples shown. Departures may be made from such details and examples without departing from the spirit or scope of the general inventive concept.