## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Antibacterial Effect  
The antibacterial effects of EOF in minced meat added via addition to the meat are illustrated in Figure 1. The minced meat samples were not sterilized in refrigerated storage at 6 \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The initial load of the TVC was 4.00 log cfu/g, indicative of acceptable-quality meat. Initial loads of TVC (24 h post-slaughter) of 2.60, 3.08, 4.60, and 5.39 log cfu/g were reported for lamb steaks [38], loins [39], lamb meat [40], and chicken meat [41] at a refrigerated temperature and in aerobic storage, respectively, reflecting differences in meat quality and microbial post-processing contamination. The initial load levels were very low in the cases of LAB (approximately 1.3 log cfu/g) and Enterobacteriaceaeaceae bacteria (approximately 0.87 log cfu/g). Figure 1: Total bacteria count in ground meat (uncooked meatballs) (**A**), lactic acid bacteria (**B**), and Enterobacteriaceaeaceae bacteria (**C**) with control and added EOF at the concentrations of 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, and 2.50 wt% using the addition method (after grinding) during storage at 6 \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 21 days. Concerning TVC, adding 2.50 wt% EOF to the minced meat samples showed a strong preservative effect (Figure 1A). The results present the microbial reduction between control samples and treated samples with 2.50 wt% EOF by marinating (3.83 log cfu/g) significantly higher (\(p<0.05\)) than with the addition method (2.22 log cfu/g) after grinding. Samples treated with 1.00 wt% EOF using the marinating method showed a similar reductive effect on the TVC to samples treated with 2.50 wt% EOF using the addition method (\(p>0.05\)). A comparison of the growth curves (TVC, LAB, and Enterobacteriaceae bacteria) using both methods of EOF addition before and after grinding is shown in the supplementary data (Figure S2). The weakest effects of using EOF were observed in LAB, agreeing with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [42] that _Lactobacillus_ spp. and _Pediococcus_ spp. were more resistant to EOF than other foodborne microorganisms such as _S. aureus, B. cereus_, and _L. monocytogenes_. Furthermore, based on the similar microbial growth patterns of TVC and LAB, it can be assumed that LAB are the major constituent of the microorganisms in TVC, which is consistent with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [40] that LAB constitute a major part of the natural microflora of meat. The additive effects of 0.25 and 0.50 wt% EOF using the addition method were similar and very low compared with the control sample. Conversely, the addition of 0.25 and 0.50 wt% EOF by marinating inhibited the LAB population slightly less than the control sample, a reduction of slightly less than 1 log compared with the control sample (Figure 1B). The population of LAB in treated samples with 2.50 wt% EOF either via addition or marinating showed an initial decrease of 2 log cfu/g on day 3 and then increased, reaching ca. 4.46 log cfu/g by the end of storage. The LAB population in the control sample reached 6 log cfu/g on day 15. The discoloration and acidification observed in the meat were caused by LAB. Spoiled meat has a LAB load of approximately 6-7 log cfu/g [4]. In addition, the application of 2.50 wt% EOF by marinating and adding to the minced meat showed similar antimicrobial efficacy against LAB (\(p>0.05\)). The positive effect of adding EOF was most evident for Enterobacteriaceae bacteria (Figure 1C). The application of 1.00 and 2.50 wt% EOF by addition and all conditions treated with EOF by marinating showed a decrease in Enterobacteriaceae counts during refrigerated storage. The sample treated with 0.25 wt% EOF did not differ from the control (\(p>0.05\)). The sample marinated with EOF showed a strong antibacterial effect (\(p<0.05\)) against Enterobacteriaceae bacteria (a microbial reduction of 4.85 log cfu/g). With 0.50 wt% EOF, the Enterobacteriaceae counts were slightly lower than those of the control on days 6 to 12, and the population increased to 6.16 log cfu/g by the end of storage.