Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ii xdto raetteseflf fciknft hrfr,i a u betv odtrieteeffect the . affect determine poultry agents to treated concentration) in antimicrobial objective inhibitory life our these (minimum shelf was of doses and it addition established oxidation Therefore, previously of the fat. their measures fat how chicken at on into to of acidulants introduced as preventive shelf-life pathogens pathogen phos- exists the to of acid, data affect controls lactic effecti- or no preventive as is oxidation However, such residual lipid 2019). process acidulants provide that al., rendering may re-contamination suggest et bisulfate the would post-rendering (Dhakal sodium during work for Recent or heat protection 2006). acid, provide of Meeker, phoric not application 2016; does al., the it et Although microorganisms, (Cochrane 2012). most inactivating al., at et ve (Batz system products, food poultry potential a in represents food. this found the storage. food) Commonly onto pet and an in pathogens transport (extrusion is of step handling, kill indications reintroduction Rendering through established recent for re-contaminated rendering. the However, et vector following be organisms. of (Romans applied could pathogenic surface heat function is fat killing of fat a application in the Since through effective rendering as so also following sources does is that animal and process suggest tissue thermal from animal This derived from 2001). fat essential are al., the calories, food separating added for pet (Bauer, means of vitamins to effective source fat-soluble added of a absorption provides aids Most also This fat food. The cat. pet and extruded dog the to 2006). for topically texture and fat flavor add acids, fatty to common is It SBS but shelf-life, INTRODUCTION the In weeks. impact W2. may 6 fat through of chicken increased period (P rendered and a increased in D0 over fat LA at effect treated the 2.12 SBS minimal doses averaged effective whereas, a antimicrobial exception fat thereafter; had at slightly control the that declined of with values indicates AV AV control study The the the W5.This meqv/100gm). fat, like (2.52 treated P and W5 LA meqv/100gm, low on and remained 0.38 control peak PVs to a the to W4 throughout fat, increased consistent on P and treated remained increase (9.3%, SBS and slight W5 the ˜7% a For at (W2), was declined. of peaked 2 fat then week fat untreated-control and W1 treated (D7), of until LA 7 level meqv/100gm and the FFA (D5), whereas, The 5 (P incubation; (W6). (D3), 40 (˜8.5%; the 3 6 at W6 1(D1), and weeks (D0), until 6 (W5), 0 incubation for and day 5 the at (SBS) incubated (W4), measured bisulfate and 4 were Sodium fat levels (W3), chicken (FFA) fat. 3 to acid chicken fatty rendered 0.5% free of at and shelf-life added (AV) the value each on were addition (LA), antimicrobial acid of lactic effects the evaluated study This Abstract 2020 28, April 2 1 Dhakal Janak Chicken Rendered of Life Shelf Fat on Addition Antimicrobial of Effects oe-aitnCo Jones-Hamilton University State Kansas 1 atnHolt Dalton , < .5.TeFAvle nSStetdftwr osat(ag .583% throughout 7.25-8.30%) (range constant were fat treated SBS in values FFA The 0.05). 1 hre Aldrich Charles , Salmonella < .5.I h AtetdftP a rae hntecnrlfo W1 from control the than greater was PV fat treated LA the In 0.05). ean infiateooi n aeyhzr nthe in hazard safety and economic significant a remains 1 1 n alKnueven Carl and , < .5.Frtecnrlft V eebten0.56-0.67 between were PVs fat, control the For 0.05). ° .Prxd au P) p-anisidine (PV), value Peroxide C. 2 < .5 o1.8on 10.28 to 0.05) Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ooiain ii xdto scmlxadivle utpenme fratos(sw ta. 2008). al., value desired et own (Osawa 2015). their fatty Gray, reactions with 2016; Unsaturated each of Jacobsen, oxidation, 2016). number lipid and susceptibility multiple of Jacobsen, (Hu acid higher measurement a limitations in and fatty the involves results and for (Hu total and this exist (Kilcast the complex atoms, methods analytical carbon chains of is Numerous their oxidation 20% and of Lipid as unsaturated some fatty (Miller, oxidation. much between of the to bonds as compounds percentages of double of for toxic reactive high that accounting structure contain of contain than acids (C18:2) the fats formation higher acid of Poultry much linoleic the function palatability. 2008). profile, with to a al., and 57%-75%) oxidative lead et largely (ranging odor, of can Osawa acids are taste, terms and 2000; lipids in color, nutrients Subramaniam, in described in and of rates be changes quality can Oxidation undesirable Lipid the which 2010). 2000). causing threatens oxygen Subramaniam, /fat involving also and Kilcast of reactions This 2016; For chemical deterioration can Jacobsen, hydrolysis 2009). of product or and and series (Galic, oxidation rancidity, (Hu food lipid quality/safety storage a a upon and contingent to is time is processing oxidation changes of shelf-life of amount them, appreciable time contain the the without that determine during products fresh food to remain the means and to methodical oils/fats expected objective, be an reasonably is of study effects shelf-life the A considered for and data comparison pairwise the DISCUSSION a duplicate AND analyze with a RESULTS to 0.05. points separated of used were the10-time P was Means of a interval. each 9.2) at time At version different the performed. (SAS; within was software treatment and Statistical each treatments for tested. replications was 3 sample of total A were block. p-anisidine) (with a on reactions analysis measured dissolving and tube Statistical was fat p-anisidine) After test sample (without the the wrapped isooctane. time, sample foil of reaction of the aluminum minutes separately. gm Both ml an 10 read nm. After into 25 0.75 350 p-anisidine. transferred with with of at was 1ml dissolved spectrophotometer sample 18-90) of and the addition Cd the flask of by 5ml method volumetric followed minutes, mL official 4-5 25 prepared. (AOCS approximately also a for determined was into solution was mixture transferred starch the (AV) blank sample of indicator, A value starch 1.0mL ml disappeared. of and p-anisidine 100 color ml chloroform min, blue The 1 acid: the 1 to of until acetic acetic after swirling shaking addition of After Then, constant of the 30mL well. under stopper. After ml with thiosulfate mixed glass reaction. sample 30 sodium and a the 0.01N added with adding stop with was flask to by titrated Erlenmeyer solution added was 965.33) was an iodide water in method potassium distilled sample saturated official seconds. of of of (AOAC 30 gm least ml determined 3 at 1 permanent was to for dissolve, first v/v) persisted fat which (3:2, of the alcohol chloroform appearance neutralized of acid: hot the value the until of peroxide vigorously, that (KOH) The of as Shaking hydroxide gm intensity indicator. 7.05 potassium same phenolphthalein to the of 0.1% added of ml using was color 2 alcohol pink titrated by neutralized followed was hot the flask of content Erlenmeyer at ml the an 75 water) in used) sample added was mixed 51-40 (not well Ca fat. fat method chicken official chicken rendered (AOCS) only moisture Society of were study added (control). and life 3% untreated Shelf cups 40 a left at sample attain or intervals. incubated of to LA time were middle added pre-determined 0.5% cups were the various SBS, sample treatments from 0.5% the The were acidulants, only. All measurements the water fat. of distilled in two of level with consisted treated control and The rendering. cups fat plastic the antimicrobials free of with week fat one of within Treatment begun was experiment The AR). Springs, fat. Chicken PROCEDURES EXPERIMENTAL edrdciknftwspoue rmargoa olr edrr(imn Foods (Simmons renderer poultry regional a from procured was fat chicken Rendered h td a odce sacmltl admzddsg ihtm nevla the as interval time with design randomized completely a as conducted was study The . naiuto hce a a rnfre no9 la n grease- and clean 90 into transferred was fat chicken of aliquot An . o h eemnto ffe at cd,(mrcnOlChemists’ (American acids, fatty free of determination the For 2 ° o pt ek.Alsbape o oxidative for subsamples All weeks. 6 to up for C ® Silom , Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. a norsuymyb iia otefidnso aes ta.(07,weenteP au nanimal in declined then value and PV weeks, 5 the until wherein period (2017), storage the al. 25 over et increased at values Tadesse stored treated PV when of SBS the 6 hours fat and findings 72 on chicken control to the added in up LA to 5 the period day similar in storage to during be up increased value may continuously PV study the in our increase in continuous compared fat The temperature obvious. storage immediately lower ( not the value is to higher due a likely with is stored fat, study fat our chicken (40 to of ours value compared breaking to value PV products oxidation PV The meqv/100 lower primary increased. 0.56-0.67 to 4 This time of due (1994). storage at range be the days could a as 7 decline in product This were for oxidation declined. values secondary it 0-0.67 The form of before 2). to range week the down (Fig. first in the period was for PV storage effects fat fat the control main gm the throughout their the In fat to Both fat. gm of compared analysis. products meqv/100 smaller oxidative before primary was time the study storage measure in values our and equivalents) Peroxide is ( in source acid which significant range fat oleic were period the the (as treatments) storage as FFA on and well the 28.0% dependent (time as during to be percentage increased 4.6 could fatty FFA samples also which of The free Osawa finding who range food samples. more increase. 2017) a pet food of to al., reported pattern dry pet leading et regular They in the (Tadesse rancidity. acids no level al. with hydrolytic the FFA lactic et time of that in by Tadesse incubation indicative reported by fat especially the over (2008) finding of time, FFA the al. over hydrolysis the to et FFA in acid increase related the the constant also in a to 8.53% is reported increase due finding to The This be slightly rendering. production. could increased acid after FFA fatty fat of hydrolysis chicken 6, free initiation steam added week The on or LA on 6.88% 2009). however, acid approximately (AOCS, 5; through was week or indicator study titration through this the on consistent in as based remained used (P acid phenolphthalein fat and oleic chicken 2010). using study of rendered (Miller, weight) KOH the the (in backbone of of percentage glycerol molecules a concentration the triacylglyceride solution as and acid the standard expressed acids from was fatty a study cleaved the with this between acids in bonds fatty FFA ester percentage free the The of of concentration breaking hydrolytic the by measures value FFA The h asadol.Tdsee l 21)rpre htteA auso nmlbte nrae uigstorage during of increased the single butter stability oxidative animal both the lower of study, with values indicates our AV 10, value the In of AV that For 1974). threshold higher reported 3). this The al., (2017) (Fig. below 5. et al. 5 65 week or et (List week at Tadesse 8.18 on at 10 the oils. values fat to than on and AV treated 0 lower fats 10.28 had SBS day the to be fat for on 0 control should 10.28 day 1.89 values as of on AV between well exception 2.00 values the as of AV oil, fats, values had AV treated or the had fat acidulant fat to for fat treated quality tandem values treated LA AV in good SBS The The the tests the a measurement. 6.68. as whereas, these of to 2; use but time week 2.11 oxidation to the on essential between lipid at is ranged during occurring it Jacobsen, is fat increased what so values and control about dropped, peroxide (Hu information values the off-smells meaningful primary initially and as achieve the that off-tastes such formed note producing compounds compounds to foods, carbonyl secondary secondary important of These form AV. is quality as to It sensory such cleaved 2016). products the oxidation are impact secondary hydroperoxides can non-volatile as as compounds measured occurs be can oxidation products. which of aldehydes, oxidation stage secondary ( second to ( higher The down linearly were days increased breaking and fat start treatments control they of and interactions before treated and peroxides effects 6 form main on to The falling oxidation started lipid it more before values PV the nteft n i nuty h OO au a enpooe sama ocmieteaiiievalue anisidine the combine to mean a as proposed been has effect value time TOTOX The the industry, temperature. oil and and time fats storage ( ( the linear of In significant a function were showed a effects control were main the oils as the and well of fats interaction of the value and AV the in increase < .5 Fg ) h yrlsso a a cu u oteezmtc(iae yrlssbfr rendering, before hydrolysis (lipase) enzymatic the to due occur can fat of hydrolysis The 1). (Fig. 0.05) th ° hc a iia oorfidnsa 40 at findings our to similar was which C ek h ihs Vvleo .3mq/0 mo a a eoddo 5 on recorded was fat of gm meqv/100 2.53 of value PV highest The week. ° ) h Vvle nteSStetdftwr loi ls ag f01-.9mq/0 mof gm meqv/100 0.11-0.39 of range close a in also were fat treated SBS the in values PV The C). ° a esrda .1 ev10g ffti td eotdb hnh n Decker and Shantha by reported study a in fat of gm meqv/100 0.215 at measured was C < .5 ndy5adwe ftesmln.Terao o hs lvtdvalues elevated these for reason The sampling. the of 4 week and 5 day on 0.05) P < P .5ices nteA au vrtetime. the over value AV the in increase 0.05 P < th .5 hra,teitrcin eenot. were interactions the whereas, 0.05) < ekmyb h ffc fteaiuat(atcai)causing acid) (lactic acidulant the of effect the be may week ° trg.CrsesnadHle 19)rpre htthe that reported (1996) Holmer and Christensen storage. C .5 vrtime. over 0.05) 3 P < .5.Bt h cdln rae ape as samples treated acidulant the Both 0.05). P < .5.TeP ausi h LA the in values PV The 0.05). th ° ek h nraein increase The week. n 65 and C ° .However, C. Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. o)poie nu eadn xeietldsg n ecito fteSSactivity. (Jones-Hamilton SBS Knueven the C. of research. description this and REFERENCES design of experimental funding regarding partial input for provided Co. Co.) Jones-Hamilton the acknowledge of We production the 6 in for used use fat acidulant ACKNOWLEDGMENTS for to greater. levels due chicken be acceptable rendered time would over within with foods. air observed coated remained pet to kibbles were measured the exposure changes food products where while pet oxidation conclusion, foods dry and the on In pet model weeks, life acidulants. to oil” shelf layer with “bulk on thin a treated oxidation effects a in fat storage. primary the in conducted of evaluate the was applied weeks should on experiment if 4 research impact the amplified Future beyond greater because be (AV) control have findings might products pathogen may these results oxidation for in LA to the secondary acidulants rise limitations that on of a be and impact use to may weeks that more led There 4 indicate SBS each least would whereas treatment This at acidulant (PV), the increase 6. for the product slight of and oxidation combination a regardless 5 to in to weeks Taken weeks stable led by study. 6 SBS are fat the and the the of fat over chicken for weeks for slightly values the two 5 TOTOX of last rose week PV the fat on the at of increased 11.36 AV FFA LA in and of the fat addition that treated The demonstrated treatments. SBS acidulant study for this 5 (P week conclusion, differed on overIn throughout and 10.67 constant increased 4) of fats remained (Fig. chicken TOTOX storage fat treated maximum treated of acidulant a LA the week with for 1 time the values after TOTOX storage adding the fat the by (P broad Whereas, control increase calculated a period. of linear combines is provides storage it a values value the value because was TOTOX TOTOX basis TOTOX There the scientific The value. The Individually, sound PV 2002). any 2010). treatments. have the al., not al., twice et “does with et it (Shahidi value AV Keefe but dimensions” fat, O’ different or oil 2002; with an variables al., of history et the (Shahidi for value accounting peroxide the and Mee,D .(06.Esnilrneig ib ihgahcCmay n.Alntn Virginia. Arlington, Inc. Company, Lithographic Kirby rendering. Essential Oxidation (2006). (1974). L. C. D. J. Cowan, Meeker, & K., 11. B. Boundy, K., Warner, F., W. Kwolek, D., C. Evans, R., G. List, 10. Glc .(09.Afehprpcie okn tteseflf fpcae od odEgneig& Engineering Food food. packaged of life shelf and the Bisulfate at Sodium Looking perspective: of fresh Efficacy A the (2009). K. Assessing Galic, che- (2019). Evaluating 6. C. (2016). Knueven, K. & C. G., Jones, C. & Aldrich, R., C. J., Stark, Dhakal, C., 5. G. butter Aldrich, in R., components A. aroma volatile Huss, of A., analysis American R. GC/MS the Cochrane, (1996). of K. Journal 4. G. dogs. Hølmer, and & cats pathogens of C., 14 diets T. of in Christensen, burden fats 3. functional disease and the Facilitative (2006). Ranking E. (2012). J. G. Bauer, J. 2. Jr, Morris & S., Hoffmann, B., M. Batz, 1. Klat .&Sbaaim .(00.Tesaiiyadseflf ffo.Woha Publishing, Woodhead food. of life shelf (1 and fats stability and The oils containing (2000). P. foods of Subramaniam, life & shelf D. and stability Kilcast, Oxidative 9. (2016). Kansas C. dissertation, Jacobsen PhD & foods. pet M. in Hu, meals 8. protein rendered oxidized of Evaluation (2015). M. Gray, 7. rai cdTetet o oto fSloel yhmru nRnee hce a Applied Fat Chicken Ingredients, Rendered protection, in food Typhimurium of Salmonella Journal Foods. of Pet Control to for Treatments food Acid of Organic Journal ingredients. feed animal in 14028 ATCC Typhimurium protection, Salmonella of mitigation mical Milchwissenschaft, packaging. catering different in storage during expert and investigations outbreak Association, from Medical Veterinary data attribution using protection, States food United of the Journal in elicitation. sources food in n ult fsyenol rlmnr td fteaiiiets.Junlo h mrcnOil American the of Journal test. anisidine the of study preliminary a oil: Society, soybean Chemists’ of quality and Kingdom. United Cambridge, Illinois. Urbana, Press, AOCS ed.). KS. University, State 79 34 :672-676. :17-19. 51 :17-21. 229 < .5 rmtecnrl(OO f6.0). of (TOTOX control the from 0.05) :680-684. 75 82 :1278-1291. :1864-1869. 4 < .5 nTTXvle vrtm o all for time over values TOTOX in 0.05) 51 :134-139 ST Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. IUE4 ffcso cdlnsi h OO auso edrdciknfteautdoe h eidof period the over evaluated fat chicken rendered of values 0.05). TOTOX 40 the at in weeks acidulants 6 of of period Effects the 4. over FIGURE evaluated fat chicken rendered of values 0.05). anisidine 40 the at of in weeks acidulants 6 period of the SBS Effects over LA, 3. evaluated is FIGURE fat it chicken 1 rendered week of on value (but, peroxide 0.05) 40 the at in weeks acidulants 6 of Effects 2. FIGURE < IUE1 ffcso cdlnsi h reftyai eeso edrdciknfteautdoe h period the over evaluated fat chicken rendered of levels 40 acid fatty at free weeks the 6 in of acidulants of Effects 1. FIGURE LEGENDS FIGURE Tdse . ea . eeo .(07.Lvlo auainadatoiatvleo etadspice and heat of value antioxidant and saturation of Level for (2017). methods N. Beyero, spectrophotometric & iron-based R., sensitive, Reta, Rapid, N., Tadesse, (1994). A. 19. Nutrition E. Chemistry, Decker, Lipids: Food & house (2002). C., B. Packing N. D. (2001) Shantha, Min, K.W. & 18. C., Jones, C. Akoh, & N., M.L., U. using Wanasundara, Greaser, foods F., C.W., Shahidi, pet Carlson, of 17. quality W.J., the Costello, of R., Evaluation (2008). J. 7 S. Romans, (2009) Ragazzi, 16. Society & MA. G., Chemists’ Boston, A. Oil Springer, Gon¸calves, L. Analysis, C., American Fat C. the (2010) Osawa, of S. 15. S. practices Nielsen, recommended & and A. O. methods Pike, Official F., https://www.oilsfats.org.nz/documents/Oxidation%20101.pdf at: 14. S. Available 1-2. Keefe, Research, O’ food and 13. Plant (2010) M. Miller, 12. 0.05). rae nmlbte.Fo n ulcHealth, Public and Food International, butter. AOAC animal of treated Journal lipids. food of values peroxide of determination York. New Inc., Dekker, Illinois. Marcel Danville, Biotechnology, Inc. and Publishers Interstate Eat, We Meat The In byproducts. methods. official and techniques fast publication. AOCS ° ° ° .SS oimbslae A atcai,Cnrl oaiuat -L,Control LA, *- acidulant. no Control: acid, lactic LA: bisulfate, sodium SBS: C. LA *- acidulant. no Control: acid, lactic LA: bisulfate, sodium SBS: C. LA *- acidulant. no Control: acid, lactic LA: bisulfate, sodium SBS: C. ° .SS oimbslae A atcai,Cnrl oaiuat -LA *- acidulant. no Control: acid, lactic LA: bisulfate, sodium SBS: C. > Control). odSineadTechnology and Science Food 5 7 :81-90. , 28 223-230. , > > 77 B,Cnrl( Control SBS, ( Control SBS, > :421-424. B,Cnrl( Control SBS, > B ( SBS th P P P Ed. < < < P Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

Percentage (%) 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 0.5% SBS0.5% Time (weeks) Time 3 6 0.5% LA0.5% 4 Control *

5 6 7

Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

Meqv/100 gm 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0 1 2 0.5% SBS0.5% Time (weeks) Time 3 7 0.5% LA0.5% 4 Control *

5 6 7

Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

OD350/gm of fat 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 0.5% SBS0.5% Time (weeks) Time 3 8 0.5% LA0.5% 4 Control * 5

6 7

Posted on Authorea 27 Mar 2020 — CC BY 4.0 — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158532502.21758985 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary.

10 12 14

0 2 4 TOTOX6 value8 0 1 2 0.5% SBS 0.5% 3 Time (weeks) Time 9 0.5% LA 0.5% 4 * 5 Control

6 7