Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement: Food
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meafoo

Critical factors affecting the shelf life of packaged fresh red meat – A review
Perichitala Vasudev Nethra a, Kappat Valiyapeediyekkal Sunooj a,∗, Basheer Aaliya a,
Muhammed Navaf a, Plachikkattu Parambil Akhila a, Cherakkathodi Sudheesh a,
Shabir Ahmad Mir b, Aboobacker Shijin c, Johnsy George d
a
Department of Food Science and Technology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry 605014, India
b
Department of Food Science and Technology, Government College for Women, M. A. Road, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190001, India
c
Government Veterinary dispensary, Moonniyur, Kerala 676311, India
d
Food Engineering and Packaging Division, Defence Food Research Laboratory, Mysore 570011, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The current review seeks to highlight various factors involved in defining the shelf life of packaged fresh red meat.
Red meat Conversion of livestock into nutrient-dense meat and commercialization of the same involves several stages com-
Shelf life mencing from rearing, handling, slaughtering, processing, packaging, storage, and distribution. A minor mishap
Supply chain
can significantly impact the meat’s quality and shelf life at any of the above stages. This review focuses on critical
Packaging systems
factors of the meat supply chain that can affect the shelf life by altering the quality parameters or introducing
Novel technologies
deteriorative agents into the substrate. The review also highlights the importance of animal welfare, hygienic
practices, control and monitoring practices, novel packaging systems, and novel technologies for maximizing the
quality and shelf life of packaged red meat.

1. Introduction
The European meat hygiene law, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 defines
meat as skeletal muscles derived from specified animal species which
may include specified edible offal and blood [1]. Fresh red meat refers
to the meat obtained from reared farm animals (cattle, sheep, pigs, and
goats) that appears red when raw. Meat consumption has drastically
increased over the past 50 years [2], with the global market for fresh
and processed meat estimated to be 277.5 million metric tons in 2020
and is expected to reach a revised size of 292.92 million metric tons
by 2027 [3]. Global meat consumption is projected to increase by 12%
by 2029 with beef, and pig, consumption estimated to increase by 76
MT and 127 MT, respectively [4]. The rise in the demand for meat
and meat products is because of the surge in population, higher pur-
chasing power, and demand from consumers for nutritionally superior
foods. Meat and meat products contribute about 20–40% of the protein
in the diet and are also rich in vitamins, minerals, and essential fatty
acids [2].
Meat quality can be determined by four quality parameters, includ-
ing nutritional, technological, sensory, and safety (See Table 1). All the
above parameters are interrelated, affecting meat’s quality and shelf life.
Loss in the achievement of any of the above parameters leads to product
loss and consumer dissatisfaction. Therefore, it is crucial to understand
their influence on the meat’s shelf life. Owing to the rich nutrient ma-
trix, high moisture content, and neutral pH, fresh red meat is considered
unsafe for consumption when left for more than two hours at room tem-
perature due to its susceptibility to microbial attack. Some of the pre-
dominant foodborne bacterial pathogens associated with the spoilage of
red meat include Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus,
Campylobacter jejuni, and Clostridium perfringes [5]. Microbial growth,
enzymatic action, and physical damage are the factors that reduce the
shelf life of fresh red meat, leading to consumers dissatisfaction and
food loss [6]. To fulfill the existing demand and consumer expectations
(i.e., constant availability, freshness, and minimal processing) for fresh
meat, actions to improve its shelf life are necessary. A longer shelf life
helps reduce food waste and improves the sustainability of meat supply
chains [7]. According to FAO, (2019) [8], around 13.8% of total food
loss occurs between farm and on-farm activities, transportation, abat-
toirs, storage, processing, and packaging. Packaging and storage are the
essential steps required to convert livestock into commercially avail-
able fresh meat after processing [9]. Packaging systems help to improve
a product’s shelf life by retarding/inhibiting the deteriorative effects of
microorganisms and atmospheric oxygen (O2 ) and by containing and
protecting the product against its immediate environment [10]. Well-
packed fresh red meat maintained at a refrigeration temperature of 4 °C
can have a desirable shelf life of 3–5 days and, when maintained at
‒18 °C can last up to 12 months [11].

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sunooj4u@gmail.com (K.V. Sunooj).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meafoo.2023.100086
Received 20 February 2023; Received in revised form 22 March 2023; Accepted 24 March 2023
2772-2759/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al.
Fig. 1. A schematic representation of factors affecting the shelf life of fresh red meat.
Table 1
Meat quality parameters.
Quality aspects Meat quality parameters
Nutritional Rich source of essential amino acids, omega-3
composition polyunsaturated fatty acids, zinc, selenium, phosphorus,
potassium, iron, magnesium, sodium, vitamin A, vitamin E,
vitamin D, and B complex vitamins
Technological pH, water holding capacity (WHC), emulsification,
gelation, shear constrain, cohesiveness
Sensorial Color, odor, flavor, juiciness, texture
Safety Presence of spoilage/pathogenic bacteria and their load
The shelf life of fresh meat is integrally related to the product condi-
tion, packaging system, and storage temperature. Loss of product’s shelf
life results from human error, poor management, and technical mal-
functions leading to rejection, as the food product no longer meets the
standards of the consumer [8]. With food safety and quality being the
prime importance to present-day consumers, modern meat supply chain
management systems focus on having a holistic approach (See Fig. 1.)
towards providing high-quality products by taking preventive measures
to ensure hygiene and safety at every stage of the supply chain. A mi-
nor mishap in any stage of the supply chain can significantly impact
the product’s shelf life. This review focuses on the effect of different
stages of the meat supply chain, like animal husbandry, slaughter, han-
dling, processing, packaging, and cold chain systems, on the shelf life
of packaged fresh red meat and provides potential strategies to improve
the quality and shelf life via novel technologies and also highlights the
research gap and future trends in meat packaging.
2. Critical factors affecting the quality and shelf life of fresh red
meat
2.1. Animal housing and management
Livestock animals are housed to be protected from predators and
harsh climatic conditions. Appropriate shelter, spacing, ventilation,
2
Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086
management, veterinary treatment, prevention of diseases, nutritious
feed, and care can positively affect the animal’s health and state of be-
ing. Stress is the product of poor animal welfare at farms, transport, and
slaughterhouses, leading to abnormal meat pH decline, rapid meat pro-
tein denaturation, and higher susceptibility to oxidation and microbial
spoilage, reducing the shelf life [12]. High internal temperatures cou-
pled with high relative humidity results in greater stress to livestock ani-
mals. Roofs made of asbestos/polyethylene/galvanized iron sheets had a
higher temperature and humidity index (THI), leading to higher thermal
stress in cattle when compared to roofs made of clay titles/thatch or re-
inforced cement concrete [13]. Exposure of livestock to an environment
with higher THI exceeds the capacity of the animal to dissipate heat,
leading to a rise in the body temperature exceeding the physiological
limits. The increase in body temperature urges cattle to consume more
water, reduces feed intake, and results in behavioral changes. Chronic
heat stress can result in depletion of glycolytic reserves forming dark
firm dry (DFD) meat with amino acid and lipid mobilization from tis-
sues leading to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and ox-
idative stress. There are three possible outcomes on meat quality due to
heat stress. Firstly, heat provokes the adrenal glands to produce stress
hormones resulting in increased vasodilatation and depletion of mus-
cle glycogen leading to high pHult (ultimate pH) and darker meat [14].
Secondly, due to dehydration, livestock animals, especially lambs, tend
to over-hydrate themselves, leading to ’wet carcass syndrome’ where,
after slaughter and deskinning, the carcass appears to be wet due to the
presence of a colorless, sticky, and jelly-like fluid [14,15]. This fluid
does not dry off with overnight cooling, and the meat is rejected due to
its appearance and reduced shelf life. Finally, if the animal under heat
stress is exercised and immediately slaughtered, the resultant meat un-
dergoes faster and stronger rigor, leading to low pHult , excessive drip
loss, and pale meat. Pale, soft, exudative (PSE) meat is commonly seen
in pigs due to acute heat stress, and DFD meat is seen in beef meat due
to chronic thermal stress [16,14]. A micro-environmental temperature
of 15–25 °C and relative humidity of around 55–75% is considered to be
optimal for animal housing [17]. Optimal ventilation and roofing, ade-
quate space and appropriate bedding, surplus availability of freshwater,
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al. Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086

reduced stocking densities inside the pen, east-west direction orienta- slaughter. Three stunning methods that are commonly used are mechan-
tion of shed, and zero energy cooling systems can help to reduce the ical (captive bolt pistol), electrical, and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) stunning
temperature inside the pens and improve the animal’s welfare and qual- [31]. Captive bolt pistol (CBP) is generally used for cattle and sheep,
ity of their by-products [18,19]. whereas electrical and CO2 are most commonly used for pigs as pigs
have a thicker skull, rendering CBP ineffective. Compared to other meth-
ods, stunning with CO2 is the most stressful and expensive method. A
2.2. Feeding regimen
report on ’The welfare of pigs at slaughter’ by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) [16] reported that very high concentrations of CO2
Finishing diet plays an important role in determining the meat’s qual-
(˃80%) lead to pain, fear, and respiratory distress in pigs. Kim et al.
ity and shelf life as the amount and type of feed influence the muscle
[32] reported that gas-stunning leads to drip loss, tenderness, higher
structure and composition, thereby influencing various quality param-
lightness values, and decreased rate of pH decline compared to cattle
eters (color, WHC, emulsifying ability, nutritional composition), shelf
stunned by CBP. However, there was no effect of stunning on the pHult
life, meat to bone ratio, protein to fat ratio, and the amount of mus-
of meat in both studies, but due to slow pH decline in gas-stunning, ex-
cle glycogen. Hall et al. [20] reported that beef from grain-fed cattle
cessive drip loss was seen. A sharp knife causes minimal suffering and
had lower amounts of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and higher amounts
damage to the muscle tissues, and the animal must be allowed to bleed
of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), whereas grass-fed cattle
completely. Any amount of residual blood can act as a medium for mi-
had higher amounts of omega-3 PUFA and SFA. Pro-oxidants like light,
crobial growth, and bruising can act as a portal for internal carcass con-
O2 , heat, metal ions, PUFA concentration, and the presence of microbes
tamination [33]. Sticking and bleeding performed on a hoisted vertical
in fresh meat determine meat’s oxidative stability, making it an impor-
rail rather than on the floor reduces the initial carcass contamination
tant factor to be considered to improve fresh meat’s shelf life and qual-
and is considered a more hygienic practice [34,35].
ity. Free radicals produced on exposure of meat to pro-oxidants lead to
lipid oxidation and release of peroxides absorbed by the hydrogen ions
2.4. Processing and hygiene
of proteins, forming protein free radicals affecting meat’s natural en-
zyme activity and color [21]. Improving the shelf life of fresh red meat
After the bleeding process, the carcass is deskinned, eviscerated,
by dietary inclusion of natural antioxidants, natural and synthetic vita-
split, washed, and dressed. Bakhtiary et al. [34] reported that hides and
min E supplements showed promising results in many studies [22–26].
rectum were the sources of contamination of the slaughter environment.
Ornaghi et al. [21] reported that a diet containing natural antioxidant
Salmonella enterica, Enterococcus fecalis, Pseudomonas fluorescence, E. coli,
additives like thymol, eugenol, vanillin, clove leaf essential oil, and func-
and Staphylococcus aureus were detected on the carcass along with the
tional oils from cashew and castor seeds improved the muscle pH, oxida-
slaughter-line equipments, hands of workers, and slaughterhouse sur-
tive stability, and tenderness of beef. Tayengwa et al. [27] reported that
faces being the primary source. Skin, hides, lymph nodes, gastrointesti-
the inclusion of natural antioxidant-rich grape pomace in the diet of An-
nal and urinary tracts host a large number of microorganisms that tend
gus steers showed high antioxidant activity in beef meat, which helped
to cross-contaminate muscle tissues and the slaughter environment dur-
maintain the color up to 5 days during retail display of meat packed in
ing evisceration and deskinning [36]. Zwirzitz et al. [37] reported that
an air-permeable package. Supplemented vitamin E is provided in the
sealing intestinal contents in a plastic bag before evisceration signifi-
form of 𝛼-tocopherol-acetate in animal diets. On consumption, vitamin
cantly reduced Salmonella contamination in pig meat. The interaction
E gets deposited in the muscle cells, liver, and adipose tissues, [23,28]
of microbiota on the surface of the carcass and cuts and the presence
acting as a free radical scavenger reducing lipid and protein oxidation
of an optimum growth environment will determine the meat’s shelf
providing color stability and shelflife improvement [25]. The optimal
life. Pseudomonas spp., Lactobacillus spp., Brochothrix thermosphacta,
concentration of 𝛼-tocopherol concentration to inhibit lipid oxidation
Carnobacterium spp., Clostridia, Enteriobactericea spp., Leuconostoc
and metmyoglobin formation was 3–3.8 μg/g of muscle [28,29]. Pos-
spp., and Weissella spp. are the most common bacteria causing spoilage
samai et al. [25] reported that the higher the concentration of vitamin
in fresh red meat [38]. Spoilage bacteria like Pseudomonas and Enter-
E in the diet, the higher was the probability of preservation of lamb
obacteriaceae initially metabolize low molecular weight compounds like
meat, i.e., a vitamin E supplementation of 150 and 450 mg resulted in
glucose, glucose-6-phosphate, and free amino acids increasing the cell
5–6 day longer shelf life when compared to supplementation of 50 mg
count and meat pH from 5.5 to 6.6. As soon as their cell count crosses the
that resulted in the improvement of shelf life for only up to 2.3 days.
threshold of 108 bacteria/cm2 , spoilage begins to accelerate [39]. A pH
However, along with feeding regime, type of packing, presence of pro-
of 6.6 and the presence of O2 provides a comfortable environment for
oxidants such as light and O2 , and storage temperature play a crucial
the production and activity of extracellular proteases and lipases of aer-
role in determining the overall shelf life of fresh red meat.
obic bacteria. The extracellular enzymes catabolize proteins and lipids
Organic farming is a robust approach towards sustainably improving
into ammonia, H2 S, esters, indoles, dimethyl sulfide, trimethylamine,
food quality. Organic livestock management focuses on a diet consist-
cadaverine, diamines, putrescine, glycerol, free fatty acids, and sulfo
ing of grass silage and other crops grown on the farm, avoiding the
myoglobin leading to off-odor, discoloration, and rancidity [40–43]. In
use of synthetic food supplements, free-range systems, optimal hous-
the absence of glucose moieties (DFD meat), Pseudomonas directly ca-
ing conditions with enough space, daylight and ventilation, preventive
tabolizes proteins leading to spoilage as soon as the cell counts reach
measures to maintain health without the use of conventional veterinary
106 bacteria/cm2 [39]. This shows the importance of achieving opti-
medicines, herbal remedies for ailments and diseases, and better expres-
mal pHult and hygienic handling. Stellato et al. [38] reported that meat
sion of animal’s natural behavior, thus promoting animal welfare [30].
contamination is strongly dependent on its handled and processed en-
vironment. Initial microbial load and the type of microbial community
2.3. Slaughter day operations present will determine the shelf life of meat with respect to the stor-
age conditions. Bakhtiary et al. [34] and Diyantoro et al. [35] reported
Around 40% of meat defects occur during the events of slaughter, that sterilizing knives, contact surfaces and hands of workers, and min-
with stunning, sticking, bleeding, evisceration, and post-slaughter chill- imal handling procedures like automatic hide removal equipment or a
ing being the critical points [31]. Ante-mortem handling and slaugh- vertical hoist minimized the initial bacterial load on fresh red meat.
ter events strongly influence the physicochemical properties of meat; Apart from hygienic handling, the effect of abiotic factors like storage
hence, it must be optimally carried out. To ensure animal welfare, ani- temperature and type of packaging will determine the dominant micro-
mals are to be stunned as per USDA and EU regulation to ensure a state biota that will grow and spoil the meat. With poor barrier properties of
of unconsciousness so that animals undergo minimal suffering during vacuum packaged (VP) films and with meat pH ˃5.8, facultative anaer-

3
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al.
obes like B. thermosphacta, Shewanella putrifaciens, Hafniaalvei, and
Yersinia enterocolitica are capable of growing at chill temperatures and
cause early spoilage [39]. Once the carcass is split and washed, it is
immediately moved into the chilling room and is maintained at 0 °C.
Optimal chilling is obtained when the internal muscle temperature is
between 6 and 7 °C within 28–36 h for beef, 12–16 h for pork, and 24–
30 h for lamb. Failure to achieve this temperature will result in rapid
multiplication of bacteria and spoilage [44]. The chilled carcass is ei-
ther cut and packed for retailers or is transported as whole cuts to the
markets.
2.5. Packaging and meat quality
Packaging and cold chain are ultimate defense strategies to protect
the product against deteriorative agents and improve its shelf life. Pack-
aging plays an important role in maintaining fresh meat’s integral qual-
ity by containing it in an environment that inhibits or delays microbial
growth, enzyme activity, and lipid oxidation [45,9]. Shelf life is depen-
dent upon the initial meat quality parameters (microbial load, microbial
community, and pHult ), and the packaging system, in turn, is a function
of the product size and desired product characteristics for storage, dis-
play, and consumer expectations [46]. Consumers often expect a bright
red color and minimum drip loss during their purchase of fresh red
meat. Fresh meat in retail markets is usually packed in air-permeable
packaging (APP)/overwrap packaging or modified atmospheric packag-
ing (MAP), whereas vacuum packaging (VP) is done for large wholesale
meat cuts. Retailers often adopt APP as it is inexpensive and familiar to
consumers, and the frequency of purchase is high enough that deprives
long-term storage of meat. Primal meat cuts from abattoirs reach cen-
tral kitchens/retail outlets in vacuum packs which are cut, trimmed,
minced as per the requirements of retail markets and are placed on
foamed polystyrene (PS) trays overwrapped with polyvinyl chloride
(PVC)/polyethylene (PE) films and are stacked in self-service refrigera-
tors [47]. The overwrap films are O2 permeable, allowing the interaction
of myoglobin and O2 to form oxymyoglobin (bright red color/bloom).
The shelf life of meat in APP is usually for 1–3 days, beyond which
the growth of aerobic bacteria accelerates, and the reducing capac-
ity of myoglobin is exhausted due to oxidation, leading to metmyo-
globin formation (brown coloration) [47]. The discoloration is often
related to spoilage by consumers leading to rejection of the product.
Gram-negative rods like Pseudomonas, Moraxella, Acinetobacter, and Psy-
chrobacter are the microbial flora found in APP refrigerated storage,
causing off-odors and surface slime [39,43]. Among these, Pseudomonas
spp. has the highest potential to cause spoilage when the number of cells
exceeds 107 –108 bacteria/cm−2 . Since O2 is required for their growth,
modifying aerobic spoilage bacteria’s atmospheric gas composition can
be reduced successfully. MAP is the removal or dilution of atmospheric
gases around the product contained in a barrier package with the desired
mixture of gases. O2 , CO2 , Nitrogen (N2 ), and CO are the commonly
used gases for MAP of fresh red meat. The CO2 is used for bacterio-
static and mycostatic properties by extending the log phase and gener-
ation time of spoilage microorganisms. CO2 is highly soluble in water,
and partially dissociates into carbonic acid that penetrates bacterial cell
walls and alters the intercellular pH, lysing the cell [10]. Increasing CO2
concentration, microbial nutrient intake, enzymatic reaction, and cell
proteins are altered, inhibiting spoilage microbiota growth [45]. Wang
et al. [48] reported that inhibition of microbial growth is related to the
concentration of CO2 . A minimum concentration of 20% CO2 was rec-
ommended to prevent the growth of aerobic bacteria [49]. To inhibit the
growth of Enterobacteriaceae, a CO2 concentration of 40% is required, es-
pecially when the pHult is greater than 6 [43]. The O2 is a part of MA as
it promotes bloom by binding with meat myoglobin, which consumers
most desire [45]. The O2 concentrations of less than 5% improved the
shelf life of fresh meat up to 12.7 days [50]. In contrast, concentra-
tions higher than 5% resulted in the onset of spoilage within the fourth
day. High concentrations of O2 can promote lipid oxidation, premature
4
Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086
browning, and growth of aerobic spoilage microorganisms, whereas a
low O2 concentration of 0.2% results in purplish-red discoloration, of-
ten seen in VP with O2 barrier films [49,45]. To prevent the drawbacks
of high O2 concentrations and maintain bloom, CO of concentrations
˃0.4% was approved for fresh meat packing by the US FDA [45]. CO on
binding with meat myoglobin forms a red pigment, carboxy myoglobin
(See Fig. 2), that is highly stable for longer periods [46].
Application of CO in meat is approved in the U.S., Australia, Canada
and New Zealand, provided that the concentration is as low as 0.4%
with the package labeled with "use or freeze by" date [49]. According
to Hunter [51], 0.3–0.5% of CO concentration along with high concen-
trations of CO2, can improve shelf life by up to 11–21 days, but the
meat must be stored at a maximum temperature of 4 °C. If meat under-
goes temperature abuse, the presence of CO might mask the evidence of
spoilage. Therefore, the use of CO is banned in the EU member states
[49]. As the gas composition inside the package changes on interaction
with the product, nitrogen is used as a filler gas to prevent package col-
lapse [45]. Since N2 is an inert gas, it does not interact with the product
but helps in displacing O2 , delaying oxidation and microbial growth
[45,10]. Other gases like argon and helium are also used as fillers in
MAP [10]. In VP, ambient air around the product is removed with the
help of a negative air pressure/vacuum and the product is packed in
pouches or roll-stock films with a high O2 barrier to prevent aerobic mi-
crobial growth and lipid oxidation. An important property of VP is the
permeability of the packaging film. Literature suggests that a permeabil-
ity of 190 ml/24 h/m2 or less can maintain a shelf life of up to 15 weeks
with 89.8% vacuum [52]. But the problem with VP for retail markets is
the purplish-red pigmentation due to lack of O2 and increased drip loss
upon storage that makes meat unattractive. Excessive drip loss in VP is
due to tight skin-packing of fresh meat that exerts pressure and releases
purge [9]. Smaller the cuts greater the exposed surface area, leading
to higher purge loss. Therefore, VP is usually done for large wholesale
meat cuts. But in recent times, conventional VP has been replaced with
vacuum skin packaging for retail markets where meat cuts are placed on
high gas barrier trays made of polystyrene (PS)/polypropylene (PP) and
specially formulated lidding barrier films that forms a skin around the
product without shape distortion [53,46]. Table 2 summarizes different
packaging systems employed for storing retail red meats.
2.6. Cold chain management
The cold chain/distribution chain is a critical stage of the meat sup-
ply chain as it encompasses activities that can alter the physicochemi-
cal and microbiological quality of meat before it reaches retail shelves
and the consumers. Although MAP and VP offer solutions to maintain
quality and improve meat shelf life, they are often functions of storage
temperatures [59]. For example, the solubility of CO2 in MAP increases
significantly with the decrease in temperature [10]. An increase in tem-
perature from 4 to 12 °C showed a decrease in CO2 solubility by 16%
[45]. The permeability of packaging material is also a function of the
temperature, with permeability increasing with an increase in tempera-
ture [10]. Cold chain embodies chilling of postmortem carcass, transport
of chilled carcasses from abattoirs to wholesale/central kitchen, storage
of carcass at the central kitchens, transportation of retail meat cuts from
central kitchens to retail markets, display of retail meat in refrigerated
shelves, and finally domestic refrigeration of meat products by the con-
sumer. Temperature fluctuations/abuse along this chain can result in
variations in product quality during distribution and result in spoilage
before the predicted shelf life [59]. The optimum growth temperature
of most spoilage causing bacteria ranges from 12 to 30 °C. On chilling,
the temperatures are brought down to 2–4 °C resulting in cold shock in
microbial cells, causing injury and death. Storing meat at temperatures
below 4 °C slow down bacterial growth, thus improving the shelf life up
to a few days. Upon further lowering the temperature to −2 to −18 °C,
the microbial and enzymatic activity stops completely due to the freez-
ing and unavailability of water. Freezing is often done when meat is to
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al.
Fig. 2. A schematic representation of the chemical/redox state of myoglobin pigment.
be exported, and fresh red meat is chilled for domestic markets [59].
Luong et al. [50] reported that fresh meat stored at a temperature of
8 °C or higher spoils much faster than those stored at 2–6 °C. Refrigera-
tion temperature of 4 °C helped maintain fresh red meat shelf life from
3 to 21 days depending upon the packaging system. Kaur et al. [60] also
reported that higher temperatures of 8 °C accelerated bacterial growth
and quality deterioration by 3.4 times in VP beef and 2.2 times in VP
lamb compared to a storage temperature of 0 °C for VP meat. Tempera-
ture plays a crucial part in the stability of fresh red meat [7]. According
to FAO [33] and EU [51] regulations, fresh carcasses are to be chilled
to a temperature of 7 °C in the carcass’s internal/the warmest points,
and the carcass’s surface must be chilled to 0 °C at the abattoirs before
transportation to slow down microbial proliferation. Air temperatures in
chilling rooms must be at 0 °C and not below −1 °C to prevent surface
freezing with the velocity ranging from 0.75 to 1.5 m/s, and the relative
humidity (RH) must be kept at 90–95% to prevent carcass weight loss
[61]. If carcasses are cut within the abattoirs, the cutting and deboning
rooms are maintained at a temperature below 7 °C at a RH of 80–90%
before transport [50] The rate of oxidation and O2-consuming reactions
are greatly decreased at low temperatures [62]. Therefore, fresh meat
stored at 2–4 °C has a characteristic bloom when compared to meat
stored at higher temperatures. Nearer the temperature to 0 °C at stor-
age, slower is the growth of spoilage bacteria and longer the shelf life
[63]. Eriksson et al. [64] reported that fresh red meat stored at 2 °C had
an extension in their shelf life by 34–36%, and this temperature reduced
wastage by 19%. Critical points in the cold chain are product cooling
and loading, waiting time at loading and dispatch points, temperature
abuse due to frequent opening and closing of refrigerated transit con-
tainers [65]. In order to minimize the ill effects of these critical points
it is necessary to monitor and control temperatures throughout the dis-
tribution chain.
Predictive microbiology is one of the models that can be used to
determine the microbial ecology in meat/food products by measuring
the microbial growth kinetics and product characteristics like the pH
and temperature [66]. Australian beef export industry uses predictive
models to predict changes in the total viable counts and LAB in vac-
uum packed beef and lamb that were exported in relation to dynamic
5
Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086
temperatures along the supply chain. These predictive models helped to
increase Australia’s GDP to $161.7 million by reducing food waste and
maintaining the product’s shelf life [66]. Time-temperature sensors, ra-
diofrequency identification, wireless sensor networks, and data loggers
are other latest cold chain technologies used to monitor temperature
fluctuations along the supply chain [67,66].
3. Measures to improve the quality and shelf life of packaged
fresh red meat
3.1. Novel technologies
3.1.1. Superchilling
Super chilling can help to improve the shelf life of fresh red meat
by 1.5 to 4 times compared to conventional chilling [68] by lowering
the product’s temperature 1–2 °C below its initial freezing point result-
ing in partial ice crystallization [59]. It combines the effect of chilling
and freezing, converting some free water (5–30%) to ice, making it un-
available for deteriorative purposes. Establishing superchilling technol-
ogy as a part of the commercial cold chain can help to decrease the
energy inputs, process time, labor costs, and product loss as the super-
ficial ice formed will provide a refrigeration reservoir and protect the
product from temperature abuse in the weak links of the cold chain
[68]. Depending on the packaging method and the type of meat, shelf
life with superchilling differs. Chen et al. [69] reported that beef su-
per chilled at −1 °C coupled with VP exported from Australia to China
maintained pH and desired color up to 20 weeks of storage and micro-
bial shelf life of up to 15 weeks. Bellés et al. [70] also reported that
superchilling of lamb meat at −1 °C with vacuum skin packaging had
microbial shelf life twice as long as conventional chilling at 4 °C and ex-
tended the shelf life up to 28 days inhibiting lipid oxidation and micro-
bial growth. With the added benefits of reducing labor and energy costs,
superchilling also rules out the negative effects such as weight loss, loss
of product freshness, and freezer burns during freezing and increases
the capacity of chilling equipment by reducing process time, making it
an energy-efficient and economically feasible technology [68].
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al. Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086

3.1.2. High-pressure processing (HPP)

PVC – Polyvinyl chloride, PE – Polyethylene, PVDC – Polyvinylidene chloride, EVOH – Ethylene vinyl alcohol, PA – Polyamide, PET- Polyethylene terephthalate, PP- Polypropylene, PS-Polystyrene, EVA- Ethylene
Refs.

[54]

[45]
[47]

[55]
[56]
[57]
[52]
[48]
[58]
HPP, also known as cold pasteurization, is a non-thermal technology

[9]
that inactivates foodborne pathogens, spoilage microbiota, and enzyme
activity at low temperatures and high pressures of 400–600 MPa, im-

10–12 weeks
9–12 weeks

4–8 weeks
3–5 weeks
2–3 weeks
proving a product’s shelf life [71]. HPP aims at maintaining the fresh-

3–6 days
1–3 days

5–8 days
Shelf life ness, wholesomeness, and quality of fresh red meat by utilizing low
temperature, high pressure, and short-time treatment of 3–10 min [72].
Treatment of raw beef with high pressures of 80–100 MPa was reported
temperature

to improve the rate and depth of the bloom layer by inactivating cat-
Storage

alytic enzymes that cause oxidation [73]. But bacterial activity can only
Expected shelf life of retail red meat under different storage temperatures, packaging systems, their effect on product characteristics and growth potential of different bacterial groups.

(°C)

be inhibited at high pressures of 350–600 MPa. At such high pressures,

–1
0
4
2
4

0
2
4
myoglobin and muscular proteins denature, giving raw meat a cooked
Drip loss

appearance. Commercial sterilization by HPP is currently unavailable

Product Characteristics

+++

+++
for fresh meat due to its limitations. However, with combinations of
++

++

++

other hurdles and moderate pressures, HPP can be a potential technol-

ogy to improve fresh meat shelf life.
Discoloration
+++

+++

3.1.3. Biopreservation
++

++

Biopreservation is a sustainable technology that utilizes natural com-

pounds, microorganisms, and by-products of microbiota like organic
B. thermosphacta

acids, bacteriocins, hydrogen peroxides, and lysozymes for shelf life

extension [74]. Bio-preservatives can be incorporated as active ingre-
++/+++

++/+++
++/+++

++/+++

dients in packaging material or coupled with packaging systems for

+++

shelf life improvement. Leucocin A, enterocin A&B, sakacin, nisin, pe-

diocin PA-1/AcH are the most commonly used bacteriocins in meat and
++/+++

meat products [75]. Bacteriocins are small heat-stable cationic peptides

+++
LAB

with a broad spectrum of action. They can inhibit the growth of gram-
++

++
++

positive bacteria and certain foodborne pathogens like Salmonella, Bacil-

lus cereus,and Listeria monocytogens [74]. Plant polyphenols like tannic
Enterobacteriaceae

acids, catechins, ferulic acids, and ellagic acids have the potential to
improve fresh meat shelf life by inhibiting oxidative degeneration of
++/+++

proteins and lipids [76]. Altering the bacterial mechanism and quorum
+/++
Bacterial Community

++

sensing makes the natural compounds worthy alternatives to synthetic

+
+

food additives for shelf life extension.

Pseudomonas

3.2. Novel packaging methods

+++

+++

+
+

3.2.1. Active packaging

Multilayer barrier film: PA/PE or PET or PVC/PP + EVOH and PVDC
PP/EVOH/PP, PVC/PE (PP, EVA), EPP/EVOH/PE Nylon is also used
for its barrier properties Tray: PP, PS, PVC, PA, PET with EVOH and

Active packaging system involves the interaction of package, prod-

Multilayer barrier film: PET/PE(PP), PS/EVOH/PE, PET/EVOH/PE,

uct, and micro-environment positively to improve shelf life [77]. This

system incorporates organic/inorganic active compounds in sachets,
polymer matrices, or active coating of compounds on the package
or product surfaces. Active compounds absorb food-derived chemicals
from the micro-environment or directly from the food or release com-
pounds that will help to control deteriorative processes [46]. Antimi-
crobial packaging, antioxidant packaging, and CO2- emitting/generating
packaging are the most common types of active packaging used in the
meat industry.
Tray: Foamed PS/PP/PE
Overwrap film: PVC/PE

Packaging systems incorporated with bioactive compounds. Antimicrobial

Packaging material

and antioxidant agents improve meat shelf life by emitting or absorb-

ing substances that destroy microorganisms and free radical oxidants.
EVA coating

Borzi et al. [78] developed an active packaging for fresh minced beef by
immersing a polyamide laminate in a green tea extract (GTE) solution.
In this study, active compounds of GTE repressed myoglobin oxidation
+++–high, ++– moderate +–low.

and maintained meat freshness by protecting it against lipid oxidation

Air permeable packaging (APP)

for a period of 23 days than a conventional shelf life of 6 days. The

MAP-60% O2 and 40% CO2
MAP-100% CO2 or 50–90%

antimicrobial potential of silver nanoparticles incorporated pullulan ac-

tive packing has a prospective role as a green preservative for the meat
80% O2 and 20% CO2

CO2 and10–50% N2
Vacuum packaging

industry [79]. Wrona et al. [80] reported that extruded 50 μm low den-
Packaging system

sity polyethylene (LDPE) packaging films infused with 25% flaxseed oil
MAP- High O2

vinyl acetate.

improved the shelf life of meat by 22%, and films infused with ginger
Table 2

essential oil and grape seed oil increased the shelf life by 6% and 2%.
Antioxidant capacity was evaluated using an aqueous solution of 0.29 M
hydrogen peroxide as an in-situ generator of hydroxyl (OH) free radicals

6
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al.
[80]. Alizadeh-Sani et al. [81], in their study developed a biodegrad-
able active packaging containing cellulose nanofiber and whey protein
matrix embedded with titanium dioxide (1%) and rosemary oil (2%)
as the active compounds. The active compounds helped improve the
shelf life of conventional lamb meat from 6 days to 12–15 days under
refrigerated storage (4 °C) by controlling microbial growth, lipolysis,
lipid oxidation, and maintained meat color until the 12th day. Chen
et al. [82] formulated antibacterial aerogels containing lipid encapsu-
lated copper nanoparticles as active substances to study the shelf life
of fresh pork. The aerogels improved pork’s shelf life to 14 days at 4 °C
without spoilage. Bugatti et al. [83] developed an active packaging with
zeolite, a food-based acrylic resin, hosting LDH (layered double hydrox-
ides) nanofiller with antimicrobial para-hydroxybenzoate coated on PET
for packaging of fresh beef in a modified atmosphere of 70% O2 and 30%
CO2 stored at 7 °C. The active packaging helped to maintain the total
viable count at 5.5 log CFU and had a low CO2 transmission rate. As a
result, the quality and color of the meat remained optimal throughout
the study.
Active absorbent pads. Absorbent pads are placed at the bottom of the
packaging tray to perform the activity of absorbing drip loss and exu-
date during the storage periods. On the addition of active compounds
to the pads, the shelf life of red meat can be improved by delaying de-
teriorative events. Castrica et al. [84] in their study reported that an
active absorbent pad consisting of polymeric cations decreased growth
of spoilage causing bacteria like Pseudomonas and Brocothrix thermo-
sphacta to 16.8% and 16.1%, had a positive effect on the meat color and
decreased total volatile basic nitrogen (TVBN) values showing poten-
tial to increase the shelf life of retail meat. Gedarawatte et al. [85] re-
ported from their study that bacterial cellulose (BC) produced by Ko-
magataei bacterxylins was effective in reducing drip accumulation in
vacuum-packed meat and enhancing redness values at pre-blooming
conditions. However, BC pads enhanced microbial growth and lipid ox-
idation, therefore concluding that the addition of bioactive compounds
to the BC pads can reduce microbial growth and lipid oxidation. BC
shows to be an alternative to synthetic absorbents used in the meat
industry.
Gas scavengers/emitters. Meat deterioration cascades in the following
manner: discolouration, oxidative rancidity, and microbial degradation.
All three stages are an immediate reflection of the gas present around
them. On using O2 scavengers or CO2 emitters, O2 concentration can
be drastically reduced to less than 0.01% than the usual levels of 0.3–
3% achieved by MAP [86]. However, commercial use of gas scavengers
and emitters is relatively low for fresh meat compared to cooked meat
since cooked meat is more susceptible to O2 . Table 3 shows a few com-
mercially available active packaging solutions for the meat industry
and their mode of action to improve shelf life. Active compounds cou-
pled with traditional packaging systems show great potential to enhance
meat shelf life by delaying/inhibiting spoilage and pathogenic microbial
growth, and lipid and protein oxidation.
Intelligent and smart packaging systems
Intelligent and smart packaging is a packaging system capable of
gathering and communicating data on the quality and safety of the food
product enclosed in the package to the customer and manufacturer with
the help of sensors, tags, and labels. Compared to an active packaging
system, where active compounds take action to protect the product, in-
telligent packaging systems are able to track the product, monitor the
internal/external environment of the package, and successfully commu-
nicate the product’s condition to the customers [77]. A few intelligent
packaging systems applied to fresh meat are time-temperature indicators
(TTI), gas sensors, radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags, barcodes,
pathogen indicators, and freshness indicators.
7
Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086
Indicators and sensors. TTI, gas sensors, pathogen and freshness indica-
tors communicate about the quality of the product through an exter-
nal color change on the packaging label by sensing the gas concentra-
tions or chemical compounds synthesized by microorganisms/enzyme
action. Hidayat et al. [87] developed a smart freshness indicator using
filter paper immersed in pH indicator solutions (phenol red and bro-
mothymol blue set at pH 5) to monitor freshness changes in fresh beef
by visible color changes from yellow to red (fresh) and red to purple
(deteriorated). Change in pH occurs due to the accumulation of TVBN
(produced due to microbial deterioration) inside the package over time
which is communicated by the change in color of the indicator. TTI
helps to optimize the cold chain by monitoring and communicating
the quality and safety of chilled fresh foods through irreversible, visi-
ble responses. Indicators can be mechanical, chemical, electrochemical,
enzymatic, or microbial indicators. Mataragas et al. [88] developed a
microbial TTI by utilizing Janthino bacterium spp. which produces a sec-
ondary chromogenic metabolite, violacein, depending on the tempera-
ture. Tryptic soy agar enriched with 1% glycerol and spot inoculated
bacterium constituted the TTI system. The system monitored the entire
time-temperature history of fresh minced beef providing information
on temperature abuse. Ramírez et al. [89] reported that the use of elec-
tronic nose- Food sniffer® allowed real-time shelf life characterization
of fresh pork through visible color change on the package from green
to red by detecting volatile compounds. The authors concluded that all
fresh meat should not be labelled with the same expiry date as shelf
life depends on various other factors (as discussed above), making it
exclusive from product to product.
Traceability devices. In contrast, RFID tags and barcodes help in the
traceability of the product. A digitalized supply chain improves product
traceability, providing better control at critical points, thus improving
product quality, with better communication of the product’s condition
to the consumer. It can also help guarantee a flexible approach to in-
teractive meat information flow and compliance with regulations and
mandatory requirements. However, meat traceability is a very compli-
cated subject due to the huge amounts of data needed by the regula-
tion and the willingness of stakeholders to share that information [90].
Meat traceability was first introduced in Europe to tackle the spread of
disease. Information regarding all the stages of the supply chain (birth-
date, sex, transportation, slaughter, etc.) can be accessed by the public
through the national portal in Italy by typing the 14 letter code [90].
RFID is an automatic identification system that identifies the object and
obtains information through radio frequency (RF) signals. Yiying et al.
[91] developed a highly integrated traceability system that can provide
information on birth, feeding, slaughter, transport, warehousing along
with detailed data on production, wholesale and retail links. Data col-
lection begins with generating a unique production identification code
(PIC) after the birth of the animal and registering it on the food safety
data center to establish a database for the individual animal followed by
RFID tags during breeding that is linked with the PIC. Data of transport,
warehouse, and slaughter is registered by the management on the food
safety center. After slaughter, the PIC is segmented to produce plural
slaughter identification codes which in turn is segmented to user iden-
tification codes (UIC) in supermarkets and are registered in the data
center and the RFID tags. Consumers can track the entire meat supply
with the UIC. Along with RFID tags blockchain technologies can be in-
tegrated with the meat supply chain to enhance the reliability of supply
chain traceability and to make the chain more robust without interfer-
ence from external agents.
4. Gap in research and future trends in meat packaging
The shelf life of fresh red meat is a complex and dynamic property
that must be maintained in order to avoid food waste and provide qual-
ity products to consumers. Maintenance of optimal shelf life is a mam-
moth task as it depends on handling the raw material in each stage of
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al. Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086

Table 3
Commercially available active packaging solutions for fresh meat.

Product Active compound Type/design Mode of action Manufacturer

Anti-microbial active packaging

Biomaster® Silver Ready-made solution which can be Inhibition of energy metabolism by Addmaster Ltd., USA
added to overwrap films, lids and interfering with the enzyme function
trays. and interference with cellular DNA
function preventing replication
Nano Pack© Halloysite nanotubes incorporated Plastic foams and flexible films Films slowly release vapours of active Israel institute of technology
with thyme and oregano oil compounds that inhabit/retard (EU funded project)
WasaouroTM Allyl isothiocyanate Sheets, labels films, beads, gas for gas growth of bacteria, yeast and mold Mitsubishi chemical
flushing, water-based preparations corporation, Japan
Anti-oxidant packaging
FreshPax® Packets, Iron Sachets, flexible films, adhesive Iron compounds consume O2 and Multisorb Technologies, USA
FreshPax® CR, patches, cards, packaging material control the level of O2 available
FreshMax®, FreshPlus® inside the package environment
and FreshCard®
Cilicant Oxygen absorber Sachets Cilicant Chem Pvt. Ltd., India
Oxy-GuardTM NaCl + iron powder Sachets Salt helps in moisture absorption and Clariant Ltd., Switzerland
iron powder consumes O2 present in
the packaging environment
CO2 emitters/generating packaging
Cellsorb active© Cellulose pulp kernel + CO2 emitter Absorbent pads Absorption of excessive moisture and Cellcomb AB, Sweden
release of CO2 thereby, maintaining
the CO2 Levels in-pack inhibiting
aerobic spoilage microorganisms
VerifraisTM Ascorbate and sodium bicarbonate Pads absorb the drip which reacts SARL Codimer, France
with ascorbate and sodium
bicarbonate to release CO2

the supply chain. Nanotechnology is a promising field that can revolu-
tionize the food packaging industry by providing high-barrier materials
and active and smart materials that can communicate and actively pro-
tect food enrobed in the package [92]. Packaging systems that incorpo-
rate nanotechnological approaches, such as nanoencapsulation of active
compounds, nanoemulsions and metallic nanoparticles in the polymeric
matrix, can help enhance meat shelf life later in the supply chain. Along
with packaging systems, control of temperature and humidity fluctua-
tions throughout the cold chain is crucial. Integration of TTI throughout
the cold chain can help maintain and control these fluctuations, thus
aiding in improving the shelf life. Apart from these, super chilling and
other energy efficient technologies such as chilled and frozen storage
must also be incorporated in the cold chain to maintain the shelf life.
Future research must focus on optimizing a systematic network that
can communicate mishaps at each stage of the supply chain to the per-
sonnel, thereby rectifying mishaps at the earliest. This can be done by
coupling artificial intelligence, blockchain technologies and other novel
information technologies with the meat supply chain. Future research
must also focus on the commercial scalability of novel technologies and
the use of economically suitable technologies that can enhance meat
shelf life.
ters like color, WHC, and pH are affected not only by exposure to the
external environment but also by the quality of life led by the animal
on farms, during transport and slaughter, and the way meat is handled
post-slaughter. If fresh meat does not possess optimal quality parame-
ters due to pre-slaughter stress and poor animal welfare, none of the
upcoming strategies to improve shelflife will help. Facilitation of real-
time monitoring, training of personnel on animal welfare practices, and
communication of relevant information among the key players in the
supply chain can help optimize fresh meat shelf life. Low-temperature
storage and micro-environment gas modification through MAP and VP
have successfully helped delay deteriorative processes, improving the
shelf life. Along with these technologies, novel technologies like the use
of active compounds, super-chilling, HPP, and intelligent systems show
promising results in extending and monitoring the shelf life of conven-
tional fresh produce. Hence, care must be taken from the initial stages
of the supply to the very end to improvise the shelf life of fresh red meat
in a sustainable and energy-efficient way.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.

5. Conclusion
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fresh red meat is a dynamic system consisting of all the necessary
Perichitala Vasudev Nethra: Writing – original draft.
nutrients required for microbial growth. The shelf life of fresh red meat
Kappat Valiyapeediyekkal Sunooj: Supervision, Writing – review
is an additive effect of all the stages of the meat supply chain, starting
& editing. Basheer Aaliya: Writing – review & editing. Muhammed
with on-farm activities, slaughter day operations, post-slaughter pro-
Navaf: Investigation. Plachikkattu Parambil Akhila: Visualization.
cessing, packaging, and the cold chain. Outrageous microbial activity
Cherakkathodi Sudheesh: Validation. Shabir Ahmad Mir: Visual-
and oxidation of lipids and proteins result from poor handling and neg-
ization. Aboobacker Shijin: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
ligence of personnel along the supply chain leading to quality deterio-
Johnsy George: Project administration.
ration and reduction in the keeping quality of meat. The complexity of
the global supply and increase in consumer demand and expectations for
fresh meat makes it essential to attain and maintain optimal quality and Acknowledgment
shelf life throughout the supply chain. Packaging and chill storage can
help delay deteriorative processes, but post-production quality control The authors are thankful to Department of Food Science and Tech-
alone is not sufficient to improve the shelf life. Meat quality parame- nology, Puducherry, India.

8
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al.
References
[1] R. Lautenschlaeger, M. Upmann, How meat is defined in the European Union and in
Germany, Anim. Front. 7 (2017) 57–59, doi:10.2527/AF.2017.0446.
[2] J.D. Wood, Meat composition and nutritional value, Lawrie’s Meat Science 2017
(2017) 635–659, doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100694-8.00020-0.
[3] StrategyR, Meat (Fresh and processed) - Market study by global industry analysts,
Inc. (2021).
[4] OECD-FAO, Agricultural outlook 2020-2029, 2020.
[5] K. Bantawa, K. Rai, D. Subba Limbu, H. Khanal, Foodborne bacterial pathogens
in marketed raw meat of Dharan, eastern Nepal, BMC Res. Notes 11 (2018),
doi:10.1186/S13104-018-3722-X.
[6] S.K. Matarneh, E.M. England, T.L. Scheffler, D.E. Gerrard, The conversion of mus-
cle to meat, in: Lawrie’s Meat Science, Woodhead Publishing, 2017, pp. 159–185,
doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100694-8.00005-4.
[7] A. Albrecht, L.C. Dresch, Identification of influence factors on the quality and shelf
life of fresh meat throughout the supply chain, in: D.S. Kreyenschmidt J (Ed.), Liv-
ing Handbook of Perishable Food Supply Chains, 2016: pp. 1–12. doi:10.5680/lh-
pfsc000003.
[8] FAO, The state of food and agriculture 2019: moving forward on food loss and waste
reduction, Rome, 2019. www.fao.org/publications (accessed April 9, 2021).
[9] K.T. Lee, Shelflife extension of fresh and processed meat products by vari-
ous packaging applications, Korean J. Packag. Sci. Technol. 24 (2018) 57–64,
doi:10.20909/kopast.2018.24.2.57.
[10] P. Singh, A.A. Wani, S. Saengerlaub, H.C. Langowski, Understanding critical factors
for the quality and shelflife of MAP fresh meat: a review, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.
51 (2011) 146–177, doi:10.1080/10408390903531384.
[11] Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Cold food storage chart, FoodSafety.Gov. (2019) 3–5.
[12] V. Sante-Lhoutellier, E. Pospiech, Meat and muscle composition structure of mus-
cle, chemical and biochemical constitution of muscle, nutritional value. Species
and breed characteristics, in: Meat Quality Genetic and Environmental Factors, CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Rato, 2016, pp. 1–31.
[13] U. Singh Narwaria, M. Singh, K.K. Verma, P.K. Bharti, Amelioration of thermal stress
using modified roof in dairy animals under tropics: a review, J. Anim. Res. 5 (2017)
801–812, doi:10.5958/2277-940X.2017.00124.3.
[14] N.G. Gregory, How climatic changes could affect meat quality, Food Res. Int. 43
(2010) 1866–1873, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2009.05.018.
[15] Lené Van Der Westhuizen, Genetic study on wet carcass syndrome-Detection of
quantitative trait loci affecting wet carcass syndrome in sheep, 2018. https://
rmrdsaonline.co.za/genetic-study-on-wet-carcass-syndrome/ (accessed June 4,
2021).
[16] S.S. Nielsen, J. Alvarez, D.J. Bicout, P. Calistri, K. Depner, J.A. Drewe, B. Garin-
Bastuji, J.L. Gonzales Rojas, C. Gortázar Schmidt, V. Michel, M.Á.Miranda Chueca,
H.C. Roberts, L.H. Sihvonen, H. Spoolder, K. Stahl, A. Viltrop, C. Winckler, D. Can-
diani, C. Fabris, Y. Van der Stede, A. Velarde, E.P. on A.H. and W. (AHAW), Welfare
of pigs at slaughter, EFSA J. 18 (2020) e06148, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6148.
[17] Á.R. Quintana, S. Seseña, A. Garzón, R. Arias, Factors affecting levels of airborne bac-
teria in dairy farms: a review, Animals 10 (2020) 526, doi:10.3390/ANI10030526.
[18] O. Madzingira, Animal welfare considerations in food-producing animals, in: Animal
Welfare, InTechOpen, London, UK, 2018, p. 99, doi:10.5772/intechopen.78223.
[19] V. Pandey, Management of heat stress in dairy cattle and buffaloes for optimum
productivity, J. Agrometeorol. 10 (2008) 365–368.
[20] N. Hall, H. Schönfeldt, B. Pretorius, Fatty acids in beef from grain- and grass-fed
cattle: the unique South African scenario, S. Afr. J. Clin. Nutr. 29 (2016) 55–62,
doi:10.1080/16070658.2016.1216359.
[21] M.G. Ornaghi, A. Guerrero, A.C.P. Vital, K.A. de Souza, R.A.C. Passetti, C. Mot-
tin, R. de Araújo Castilho, C. Sañudo, I.N. do Prado, Improvements in the qual-
ity of meat from beef cattle fed natural additives, Meat Sci. 163 (2020) 108059,
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108059.
[22] K. Guo, L. Zhang, X. Bian, Q. Cao, C. Wei, A-, B- and C-type starch gran-
ules coexist in root tuber of sweet potato, Food Hydrocoll. 98 (2020) 105279,
doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105279.
[23] E. Kasapidou, J.D. Wood, R.I. Richardson, L.A. Sinclair, R.G. Wilkinson, M. Enser,
Effect of vitamin E supplementation and diet on fatty acid composition and on meat
colour and lipid oxidation of lamb leg steaks displayed in modified atmosphere
packs, Meat Sci. 90 (2012) 908–916, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.11.031.
[24] F.J. Monahan, A. Asghar, J.I. Gray, D.J. Buckley, P.A. Morrissey, Effect of oxidized
dietary lipid and vitamin E on the colour stability of pork chops, Meat Sci. 37 (1994)
205–215, doi:10.1016/0309-1740(94)90081-7.
[25] A.P.S. Possamai, C.R. Alcalde, A.C. Feihrmann, A.C.S. Possamai, R.M. Rossi, B. Lala,
S.C. Claudino-Silva, F. de A.F. Macedo, Shelf life of meat from Boer-Saanen
goats fed diets supplemented with vitamin E, Meat Sci. 139 (2018) 107–112,
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.01.011.
[26] G. Ripoll, M. Joy, F. Muñoz, Use of dietary vitamin E and selenium (Se) to increase
the shelf life of modified atmosphere packaged light lamb meat, Meat Sci. 87 (2011)
88–93, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.09.008.
[27] T. Tayengwa, O.C. Chikwanha, P. Gouws, M.E.R. Dugan, T. Mutsvangwa, C. Mapiye,
Dietary citrus pulp and grape pomace as potential natural preservatives for ex-
tending beef shelf life, Meat Sci. 162 (2020) 108029, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.
2019.108029.
[28] C.G. Jose, R.H. Jacob, D.W. Pethick, G.E. Gardner, A supply chain approach
to improving the shelf life of lamb meat; vitamin E concentration, electrical
stimulation, ageing period and packaging system, Meat Sci. 139 (2018) 65–73,
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.01.005.
9
Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086
[29] B.E. Walshe, E.M. Sheehan, C.M. Delahunty, P.A. Morrissey, J.P. Kerry, Composi-
tion, sensory and shelf life stability analyses of Longissimus dorsi muscle from steers
reared under organic and conventional production systems, Meat Sci. 73 (2006)
319–325, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.12.008.
[30] FAO, Animal husbandry in organic agriculture, (2015).
[31] W. Przybylski, J.M. Regenstein, A. Zybert, Slaughter-line operations and their effects
on meat quality, in: Meat Quality: Genetic and Environmental Factors, 2015: pp.
219–256. 10.1201/b19250-12.
[32] G.D. Kim, H.S. Lee, E.Y. Jung, H.J. Lim, H.W. Seo, Y.H. Lee, S.H. Jang, S.B. Baek,
S.T. Joo, H.S. Yang, The effects of CO2 gas stunning on meat quality of cat-
tle compared with captive bolt stunning, Livest. Sci. 157 (2013) 312–316,
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.05.025.
[33] FAO, Guidelines for slaughtering meat cutting and further processing, FAO An-
imal Production and Health Papers 91. (1991). http://www.fao.org/3/t0279e/
T0279E04.htm (accessed May 8, 2021).
[34] F. Bakhtiary, H.R. Sayevand, M. Remely, B. Hippe, H. Hosseini, A.G. Haslberger,
Evaluation of bacterial contamination sources in meat production line, J. Food Qual.
39 (2016) 750–756, doi:10.1111/jfq.12243.
[35] D. Diyantoro, D.K. Wardhana, Risk factors for bacterial contamination of bovine
meat during slaughter in ten Indonesian abattoirs, Vet. Med. Int. 2019 (2019),
doi:10.1155/2019/2707064.
[36] M. Zagorec, M.C. Champomier-Vergès, Meat microbiology and spoilage, in: Lawrie’s
Meat Science, Woodhead Publishing, 2017, pp. 187–203, doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-
100694-8.00006-6.
[37] B. Zwirzitz, S.U. Wetzels, I. Rabanser, S. Thalguter, M. Dzieciol, M. Wagner, E. Mann,
Culture-independent evaluation of bacterial contamination patterns on pig car-
casses at a commercial slaughter facility, J. Food Prot. 82 (2019) 1677–1682,
doi:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-19-103.
[38] G. Stellato, A. La Storia, F. De Filippis, G. Borriello, F. Villani, D. Ercolini, Overlap
of spoilage-associated microbiota between meat and the meat processing environ-
ment in small-scale and large-scale retail distributions, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82
(2016) 4045–4054, doi:10.1128/AEM.00793-16.
[39] X.D. Sun, R.A. Holley, Antimicrobial and antioxidative strategies to reduce
pathogens and extend the shelf life of fresh red meats, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food
Saf. 11 (2012) 340–354, doi:10.1111/j.1541-4337.2012.00188.x.
[40] O.S. Papadopoulou, V. Iliopoulos, A. Mallouchos, E.Z. Panagou, N. Chorianopou-
los, C.C. Tassou, G.J.E. Nychas, Spoilage potential of pseudomonas (P. fragi, P.
putida) and LAB (Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactobacillus sakei) strains and their
volatilome profile during storage of sterile pork meat using GC/MS and data analyt-
ics, Foods 9 (2020) 633, doi:10.3390/foods9050633.
[41] D. Dave, A.E. Ghaly, Meat spoilage mechanisms and preservation techniques:
a critical review, Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 6 (2011) 486–510, doi:10.3844/ajab-
ssp.2011.486.510.
[42] K. Bala, R.T. Marshall, W.C. Stringer, H.D. Naumann, Effect of Pseudomonas fragi
on the color of beef, J. Food Sci. 42 (1977) 1176–1179, doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2621.1977.tb14454.x.
[43] J.N. Sofos, Microbial growth and its control in meat, poultry and fish, in: Quality
Attributes and their Measurement in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products, Springer US,
1994, pp. 359–403, doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2167-9_14.
[44] FAO, Guidelines for slaughtering meat cutting and further processing, FAO Animal
Production and Health Papers 91. (1991).
[45] M. Perna, Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh meat, Reference Module in Food
Science, Elsevier, 2016, doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-100596-5.03313-8.
[46] K.W. McMillin, Advancements in meat packaging, Meat Sci. 132 (2017) 153–162,
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.015.
[47] K.W. McMillin, N.Y. Huang, C.P. Ho, B.S. Smith, Quality and shelflife of meat
in case-ready modified atmosphere packaging, in: Quality Attributes of Mus-
cle Foods, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1999, pp. 73–93, doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-
4731-0_6.
[48] T. Wang, L. Zhao, Y. Sun, F. Ren, S. Chen, H. Zhang, H. Guo, Changes in the mi-
crobiota of lamb packaged in a vacuum and in modified atmospheres during chilled
storage analysed by high-throughput sequencing, Meat Sci. 121 (2016) 253–260,
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.06.021.
[49] D. Djenane, P. Roncalés, Carbon monoxide in meat and fish packaging: advantages
and limits, Foods 7 (2018) 1–34, doi:10.3390/foods7020012.
[50] N.D.M. Luong, L. Coroller, M. Zagorec, J.M. Membré, S. Guillou, Spoilage of chilled
fresh meat products during storage: a quantitative analysis of literature data, Mi-
croorganisms 8 (2020) 1198, doi:10.3390/microorganisms8081198.
[51] B. Hunter, European commission, Int. J. Integr. Care 1 (2001) e23,
doi:10.5334/ijic.40.
[52] T.E. Lawrence, D.H. Kropf, Vacuum packaging of meat, in: Reference Mod-
ule in Food Science, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 1–8, doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-100596-
5.22620-6.
[53] J.P. Kerry, A.A. Tyuftin, Storage and preservation of raw meat and muscle-based
food products: IV storage and packaging, in: Lawrie’s Meat Science, 2017, Woodhead
Publishing, 2017, pp. 297–327, doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100694-8.00010-8.
[54] D. Ercolini, F. Russo, E. Torrieri, P. Masi, F. Villani, Changes in the spoilage-related
microbiota of beef during refrigerated storage under different packaging conditions,
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72 (2006) 4663–4671, doi:10.1128/AEM.00468-06.
[55] Z. Boz, J.K. Brecht, B.A. Welt, W. Pelletier, E. Mclamore, G. Kiker, J.E. Butler, Chal-
lenges and advances in development of active components to modify headspace
gases in packaging of fresh produce and muscle foods, 2018.
[56] G. Ripoll, P. Albertí, I. Casasús, M. Blanco, Instrumental meat quality of veal
calves reared under three management systems and color evolution of meat stored
in three packaging systems, Meat Sci. 93 (2013) 336–343, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.
2012.09.012.
P.V. Nethra, K.V. Sunooj, B. Aaliya et al.
[57] F. Zhao, G. Zhou, K. Ye, S. Wang, X. Xu, C. Li, Microbial changes in
vacuum-packed chilled pork during storage, Meat Sci. 100 (2015) 145–149,
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.10.004.
[58] M. Kaur, M. Williams, A. Bissett, T. Ross, J.P. Bowman, Effect of abattoir, live-
stock species and storage temperature on bacterial community dynamics and sen-
sory properties of vacuum packaged red meat, Food Microbiol. 94 (2021) 103648,
doi:10.1016/j.fm.2020.103648.
[59] I. Nastasijević, B. Lakićević, Z. Petrović, Cold chain management in meat storage,
distribution and retail: a review, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. (2017) 12022,
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/85/1/012022.
[60] M. Kaur, H. Shang, M. Tamplin, T. Ross, J.P. Bowman, Culture-dependent and
culture-independent assessment of spoilage community growth on VP lamb meat
from packaging to past end of shelflife, Food Microbiol. 68 (2017) 71–80,
doi:10.1016/j.fm.2017.06.015.
[61] G. Cano-Muñoz, Manual on meat cold store operation and management. (No.92),
1991.
[62] Banafsheh Aghamohammadi, Milad Hadidi, Nila Ghasemkhani, Ava Akbarian,
Mina Akbarian, Effect of chilling, freezing and thawing on meat quality: a review,
Int. J. Biosci. (IJB) 5 (2014) 159–169, doi:10.12692/ijb/5.4.159-169.
[63] Z.T. Rani, A. Hugo, C.J. Hugo, P. Vimiso, V. Muchenje, Effect of post-slaughter han-
dling during distribution on microbiological quality and safety of meat in the formal
and informal sectors of South Africa: a review, S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 47 (2017) 255–
267, doi:10.4314/sajas.v47i3.2.
[64] M. Eriksson, I. Strid, P.A. Hansson, Food waste reduction in supermarkets - Net costs
and benefits of reduced storage temperature, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 107 (2016)
73–81, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.022.
[65] V. Raab, B. Petersen, J. Kreyenschmidt, Temperature monitoring in meat supply
chains, Br. Food J. 13 (2011) 1267–1289, doi:10.1108/00070701111177683.
[66] M.L. Tamplin, Integrating predictive models and sensors to manage food stability in
supply chains, Food Microbiol. 75 (2018) 90–94, doi:10.1016/j.fm.2017.12.001.
[67] R. Badia-Melis, U. Mc Carthy, L. Ruiz-Garcia, J. Garcia-Hierro, J.I. Robla Villalba,
New trends in cold chain monitoring applications - A review, Food Control 86 (2018)
170–182, doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.11.022.
[68] R. Banerjee, N.B. Maheswarappa, Superchilling of muscle foods: potential alter-
native for chilling and freezing, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 59 (2019) 1256–1263,
doi:10.1080/10408398.2017.1401975.
[69] X. Chen, Y. Zhang, X. Yang, D.L. Hopkins, L. Zhu, P. Dong, R. Liang, X. Luo, Shelflife
and microbial community dynamics of super-chilled beef imported from Australia
to China, Food Res. Int. 120 (2019) 784–792, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2018.11.039.
[70] M. Bellés, V. Alonso, P. Roncalés, J.A. Beltrán, The combined effects of super-
chilling and packaging on the shelf life of lamb, Meat Sci. 133 (2017) 126–132,
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.06.013.
[71] T. Bolumar, V. Orlien, A. Sikes, K. Aganovic, K.H. Bak, C. Guyon, A.S. Stübler, M. de
Lamballerie, C. Hertel, D.A. Brüggemann, High-pressure processing of meat: molec-
ular impacts and industrial applications, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 20 (2021)
332–368, doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12670.
[72] S. Sazonova, R. Galoburda, I. Gramatina, Application of high-pressure process-
ing for safety and shelflife quality of meat–a review, in: Proceedings of the 11th
Baltic Conference on Food Science and Technology "FOODBALT, 2017, pp. 17–22,
doi:10.22616/foodbalt.2017.001.
[73] H. Ma, D.A. Ledward, High pressure processing of fresh meat - Is it worth it? Meat
Sci. 95 (2013) 897–903, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.03.025.
[74] V.P. Singh, Recent approaches in food bio-preservation-A review, Open Vet. J. 8
(2018) 104–111, doi:10.4314/ovj.v8i1.16.
[75] A. Bekuma, W.M. Ahmed, Biopreservation, promising strategies to improve the
safety and shelflife of foods: a review, Int. J. Microbiol. Res. 9 (2018) 76–80,
doi:10.5829/idosi.ijmr.2018.76.80.
[76] C. Papuc, G.V. Goran, C.N. Predescu, V. Nicorescu, G. Stefan, Plant polyphenols as
antioxidant and antibacterial agents for shelflife extension of meat and meat prod-
ucts: classification, structures, sources, and action mechanisms, Compr. Rev. Food
Sci. Food Saf. 16 (2017) 1243–1268, doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12298.
10
Measurement: Food 10 (2023) 100086
[77] Z. Fang, Y. Zhao, R.D. Warner, S.K. Johnson, Active and intelligent packaging
in meat industry, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 61 (2017) 60–71, doi:10.1016/j.tifs.
2017.01.002.
[78] F. Borzi, E. Torrieri, M. Wrona, C. Nerín, Polyamide modified with green tea ex-
tract for fresh minced meat active packaging applications, Food Chem. 300 (2019)
125242, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125242.
[79] M.J. Khan, S. Kumari, J. Selamat, K. Shameli, A.Q. Sazili, Reducing meat per-
ishability through pullulan active packaging, J. Food Qual. 2020 (2020) 8880977,
doi:10.1155/2020/8880977.
[80] M. Wrona, F. Silva, J. Salafranca, C. Nerín, M.J. Alfonso, M.Á. Caballero, Design of
new natural antioxidant active packaging: screening flowsheet from pure essential
oils and vegetable oils to ex vivo testing in meat samples, Food Control 120 (2021)
107536, doi:10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2020.107536.
[81] M. Alizadeh-Sani, E. Mohammadian, D.J. McClements, Eco-friendly active packag-
ing consisting of nanostructured biopolymer matrix reinforced with TiO2 and essen-
tial oil: application for preservation of refrigerated meat, Food Chem. 322 (2020)
126782, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126782.
[82] L. Chen, X. Niu, X. Fan, Y. Liu, J. Yang, X. Xu, G. Zhou, B. Zhu, N. Ullah,
X. Feng, Highly absorbent antibacterial chitosan-based aerogels for shelflife exten-
sion of fresh pork, Food Control 136 (2021) 108644, doi:10.1016/J.FOODCONT.
2021.108644.
[83] V. Bugatti, L. Vertuccio, F. Zuppardi, V. Vittoria, G. Gorrasi, Pet and active coating
based on a ldh nanofiller hosting p-hydroxybenzoate and food-grade zeolites: evalu-
ation of antimicrobial activity of packaging and shelf life of red meat, Nanomaterials
9 (2019) 1727, doi:10.3390/nano9121727.
[84] M. Castrica, D. Miraglia, L. Menchetti, R. Branciari, D. Ranucci, C.M. Balzaretti,
Antibacterial effect of an active absorbent pad on fresh beef meat during the shelflife:
preliminary results, Appl. Sci. 10 (2020) 7904, doi:10.3390/APP10217904.
[85] S.T.G. Gedarawatte, J.T. Ravensdale, M.L. Johns, A. Azizi, H. Al-Salami, G.A. Dykes,
R. Coorey, Effectiveness of bacterial cellulose in controlling purge accumula-
tion and improving physicochemical, microbiological, and sensorial properties of
vacuum-packaged beef, J. Food Sci. 85 (2020) 2153–2163, doi:10.1111/1750-3841.
15178.
[86] M. Cruz-Romero, J.P. Kerry, Packaging systems and materials used for meat products
with particular emphasis on the use of oxygen scavenging systems, in Emerging
Technologies in Meat Processing: Production, Processing and Technology. (2016)
pp. 231–263. doi:10.1002/9781118350676.CH9.
[87] S.H. Hidayat, A. Dirpan, M.Djalal Adiansyah, A.N.F. Rahman, A.F. Ainani, Sensitivity
determination of indicator paper as smart packaging elements in monitoring meat
freshness in cold temperature, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 343 (2019) 012076,
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/343/1/012076.
[88] M. Mataragas, V.C. Bikouli, M. Korre, A. Sterioti, P.N. Skandamis, Development
of a microbial time temperature indicator for monitoring the shelf life of meat,
Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 52 (2019) 89–99, doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2018.
11.003.
[89] H.L. Ramírez, A. Soriano, S. Gómez, J.U. Iranzo, A.I. Briones, Evaluation of the Food
Sniffer electronic nose for assessing the shelf life of fresh pork meat compared to
physicochemical measurements of meat quality, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 244 (2018)
1047–1055, doi:10.1007/s00217-017-3021-0.
[90] P. Barge, A. Biglia, L. Comba, D.R. Aimonino, C. Tortia, P. Gay, Radio frequency
identification for meat supply-chain digitalisation, Sensors 20 (2020) 1–17 (Basel),
doi:10.3390/S20174957.
[91] Z. Yiying, R. Yuanlong, L. Fei, S. Jing, L. Song, Research on meat food traceability
system based on RFID technology, in: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 3rd Informa-
tion Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control Conference, 2019,
pp. 2172–2175, doi:10.1109/ITNEC.2019.8729408. ITNEC 2019.
[92] T.V. Duncan, Applications of nanotechnology in food packaging and food safety:
barrier materials, antimicrobials and sensors, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 363 (2011)
1–24, doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2011.07.017.