## 3 Results and Discussion  
Meat products, due to their high water activity and chemical composition, constitute a perfect ground for the growth of various microflora, which in turn leads to spoilage and reduced health safety [16]. Statistical analysis of the results (Table 2) showed a significant effect (\(p<0.05\)) of storage time on the total number of aerobic mesophilic bacteria. After storage studies, it was found that the effectiveness of selected functional additives was unsatisfactory in most cases, as sausages produced with their use lose their shelf life after 7 days of storage under refrigeration conditions of 4-6 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
The highest increase in the total bacterial count was recorded in sausages made with FPRX functional additive. Most samples stored in bulk had higher bacterial counts than those in the vacuum pack. Samples produced with the addition of AFX, AE100 and FPRX showed characteristics indicating spoilage after 7 days of storage, i.e., slime or white film on the surface of the product or unpleasant odor. The first two additives contained spice \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Samples**} & **Total Number of Aerobic** & **Expanded** & **Number of _Listeria_** \\  & **Mesophilic Bacteria** & **Uncertainty U** & _monocytogenes_ \\ \hline AFX (0) & 4.06 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) Aa & (2.97 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\); 5.63 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ AFX (7) & 2.8 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) ABb & (2.06 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 3.73 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ AFX (7P) & 6.86 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) Ce & (5.16 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 9.13 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline AE100 (0) & 1.1 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) Aa & (0.83 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\); 1.46 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ AE100 (7) & 2.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{9}\) Ec & (1.85 \(\times\) 10\({}^{9}\); 3.43 \(\times\) 10\({}^{9}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ AE100 (7P) & 4.76 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) BCb & (3.63 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 6.80 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline PANA4 (0) & 1.76 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) Aa & (1.34 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\); 2.33 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ PANA4 (7) & 1.56 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) Ac & (1.25 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 2.10 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ PANA4 (7P) & 1.26 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) Ab & (0.93 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\); 1.63 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline FPRX (0) & 2.27 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) Aa & (1.70 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\); 3.10 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ FPRX (7) & 9.33 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) Dec & (7.23 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\); 1.23 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ FPRX (7P) & 7.33 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) Ab & (5.46 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\); 9.80 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\)) & \(<\)1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} A–E–means with different capital letters within the same column are significantly different at \(p<0.05\); a–means with different small letters within the same samples are significantly different at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Microbiological analysis of meat products (cfu in 1 g). extract in their composition; thus, one could expect their better inhibition of bacterial growth. Numerous articles have described in vitro activity of spices against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, yeasts and molds [17]. Where this antimicrobial activity may vary according to the origin and bioactive compounds of spice, different bacteria can also react in different ways [18]. Several studies have proven possible applications for spices and their derivatives as antimicrobial agents in meat products. For instance, [PERSON] et al.