# Microbial Growth Dynamics in Minced Meat Enriched with Plant Powders
## 4 Discussion  
Most of the plant materials used in this study were selected based on the results of previous studies [5, 8]. [PERSON] et al. [5] focused on in vitro experiments of selected plant-ethanol infusions against essential foodborne pathogens where the strongest inhibition of bacterial growth was observed in 96% ethanol infusions of the rhubarb roots, whereas the black chokeberry (_Aronia melanocarpa_ ([PERSON].) [PERSON]), blackcurrant (_Ribes nigrum_ L.), and edible honeysuckle (_Lonicera aerulea_ L. var. _edulis_ [PERSON]. ex [PERSON]) berries had the highest antioxidative activity [5]. The plant powders and their mixes were added to minced meat in a study by [PERSON] et al. [8] in order to examine their effects on the sensory properties, microbial growth, and lipid oxidation of meat during storage. The results revealed the high potential of rhubarb petioles (_Rheum_ sp. ), tomato (_Solanum locyersicum_ L.) powders, and their mixtures for the development of good quality meat products with lower salt content [8]. The current study used the most effective plant materials based on the aforementioned two studies with the aim to determine possible microbial growth inhibition in minced meat samples enriched with plant powders and their blends. Unlike the aforementioned previous studies, some of the powdered plant materials used for the enrichment of minced pork samples in the present study (e.g., apple, blackcurrant, rowanberry, and black chokeberry pomace) were derived from valuable juicing residues, which should not be wasted but recycled for valorization. In the current study, the highest microbial growth inhibition effect was determined for the 13% fat content raw minced pork samples with Apple+On+BCber, Apple+Ga+Tom, and Apple+Tom+Rhub mixtures. Significant differences were not found between the samples with different fat contents, but, generally, the different microbial counts were higher in samples with 27% fat content. This is similar to the findings of [PERSON] et al. [19], who found that microbial counts were significantly higher in pork samples with high-fat contents (20-30%) at low temperatures. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Samples** & **Storage Day** & **pH \({}^{*}\)** & **Water Activity \({}^{*}\)** & **Total Count** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\delta\)**(log cfu/g) \({}^{**}\)**} \\  & 0 & 6.35 \(\pm\) 0.048 & 0.986 \(\pm\) 0.003 & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & \\ Meat *** & 6 & 6.30 \(\pm\) 0.021 & 0.987 \(\pm\) 0.003 & 4.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & 7.30 \\  & 12 & 6.35 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.992 \(\pm\) 0.005 & 2.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Apple+On+BCber} & 0 & 5.75 \(\pm\) 0.071 & 0.987 \(\pm\) 0.002 & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & \\  & 6 & 5.70 \(\pm\) 0.016 & 0.985 \(\pm\) 0.001 & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & 3.63 \\  & 12 & 5.72 \(\pm\) 0.005 & 0.984 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Apple+Ga+Tom} & 0 & 5.93 \(\pm\) 0.066 & 0.986 \(\pm\) 0.001 & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & \\  & 6 & 5.87 \(\pm\) 0.021 & 0.990 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & 5.35 \\  & 12 & 5.95 \(\pm\) 0.010 & 0.979 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 2.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Apple+Tom+Rhub} & 0 & 5.51 \(\pm\) 0.011 & 0.988 \(\pm\) 0.002 & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & \\  & 6 & 5.42 \(\pm\) 0.013 & 0.987 \(\pm\) 0.001 & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & 3.74 \\  & 12 & 5.48 \(\pm\) 0.012 & 0.977 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 1.5  
The current study's findings indicated that the combination of several different plant powders in raw minced pork samples was more effective against the growth of aerobic mesophilic microorganisms, pseudomonads, and yeasts and moulds compared to the samples containing only a single plant powder, or no plant additives (Control). Similarly, a study by [PERSON] et al.