Summer months are filled with professional meetings. Some are science-focused, some are more industry-focused, but all of them involve some level of discussion of the newest, latest and greatest research. As an industry, we continue to strive toward better products and food safety. I am so proud to be a part of this industry that values science. Last week was the annual meeting of the American Meat Science Association, the Reciprocal Meat Conference. I’m often asked, “Why is the work “reciprocal” there?” It’s important. This conference values reciprocation (aka debate)! We debate and discuss the science to move the bar forward in the meat science community.

As I browsed through the posters and talked with the amazing young researchers, I did what most professionals do: I looked at the conclusions and final results presented. I was gathering the take-home message of the work. This is critical and important. However, often in the same poster session or even in back-to-back oral sessions, the outcomes can differ, vastly or slightly. Does this mean one group is wrong and one is right? Not necessarily! Often the differences lie in the methodologies…the details of the work. This is the often overlooked portion of the poster, but the ever important aspects that drive the final conclusion. I want to dissect this a bit so we, as an industry, can have informed conversations with those who look at our science with criticism and skepticism.

Sometimes a hypothesis can be the same from one study to the next, but the way we go about proving the hypothesis matters. When evaluating data, one should always consider the sample size. When we refer to sample size, this not only refers to the number of samples, but also the volume of the sample. The more samples collected, the more costly the research and the larger volumes (grams or ml), also adds costs and logistical constraints. Sometimes studies are constrained by the budget/funding. The type of sample also matters. Today we have surface samples (swabs, sponges, MicroTally) and excision/whole carcass wash/full product samples or even environmental samples, among others. Sample details matter! Always know the details before trying to mimic the results of a study in a plant when the research was done in the lab. This is another important distinction in sampling…know where the work was done! Research usually begins in a lab, but scaling up to a pathogen processing lab or validation in a plant setting is important to actual impact.

Another important component to consider is the methodology. It is unlikely that an established laboratory would follow methods that are not validated, but it has happened so double check! Rapid methods can yield slightly different results than traditional, both of which are accurate, but need to be put into context. There are also variations in the parameter being measured. “Indicator” microorganisms can encompass a wide array of bacteria. APCs will be higher than EB counts and shouldn’t be confused with one another! Keep in mind that indicators do not always mimic pathogen behavior. Recently available rapid pathogen quantification methods have opened up the door for a whole new area of research in our laboratory when working with plants when we need quick turnaround on the results. As research evolves, I hope we will continue to see more pathogen data collected from plants and these methods will accelerate the implementation of new technologies in the plant environment.

When you find yourself at a professional meeting or reading a new research finding, keep all of these things in mind. This is not a comprehensive list, but these are a few big things to consider. It is important that we are able to defend the industry and the science within our community and to the outside world. This industry is solid and sound, and we will continue to advance because of the dedication of the people in it to science.

Why the Small Things Matter

Join for free* to continue reading.