## 3 Results and Discussion
### Microbial Counts  
With respect to the dry-cured sausage safety, the counts for all the pathogens checked (_S. aureus, Cl. perfringens, E. coli_) were under the detection levels and, therefore, are not included in Table 2. In addition, the dry-cured sausages presented an absence of _Salmonella_ spp. and _L. monocytogenes_ in 25 g.  
Regarding the other microorganisms checked, the total coliforms were also under the detection limits and, therefore, not included in Table 2. For the microbial groups above the detection limits, the counts were high (Table 2). Even so, they were still within the ranges reported for similar microbial groups in dry-cured sausages [26; 38; 39; 47]. The high \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control** & **NITRASC** & **0.5\%Pomace** & **3\%Pomace** & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) \\ \hline Mesophilic & 8.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 8.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 b & 8.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 8.6 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 0.002 \\ Psychophilic & 8.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 8.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 b & 9.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 8.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & \textless{}0.001 \\ Lactic acid bacteria & 8.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 ab & 8.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 b & 8.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 8.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 ab & 0.024 \\ Molds and yeasts & 5.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 5.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 5.4 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 0.127 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The results are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation and significance (\(p\)) from a one-way ANOVA. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences in [PERSON]’s test.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Microbial counts (log CFU g\({}^{-1}\)) over the detection limit in Control dry-cured sausages and dry-cured sausages with synthetic additives (NITRASC) or with stabilized grape pomace at 0.5% (0.5%Pomace) or 3% (3%Pomace). mesophilic and psychrophilic counts could be partly caused by the high counts of LAB in Control and pomace (0.5 and 3%) sausages, since LAB are also detected during mesophilic and psychrophilic analyses. These high counts (Table 2) might have been favored by the relatively high values in pH of the samples (Table 1), as suggested previously [48]. Molds and yeasts were also within the usual range [39]. There were significant differences between the four sausage groups in the mesophilic, psychrotrophic, and LAB counts (Table 2), the NITRASC sausages reaching the lowest values for all of them (Table 2). The differences between the NITRASC and Control groups are in line with previous studies reporting the effectiveness of sodium nitrite against the microorganisms [1; 49], and the pomace was not as effective as nitrites to control microbial growth. It should be noted that although low microbial counts are generally advisable, that is not the case for LAB, which are a microbial group involved in dry-cured sausage stabilization and the assurance of its hygien/sanitary quality [39]. Therefore, the lower LAB counts in the NITRASC group than in the 0.5%Pomace one could not be considered straightforwardly positive since a low LAB growth could potentially favor the development of anomalous fermentation. No significant differences were found between the Control and the pomace groups, which suggests that the pomace did not have any beneficial effect to achieve lower microbial counts at the end of ripening. These results are in line with a previous study on the same grape pomace applied to burgers, also without differences from the Control burgers in any of those microbial groups, which was attributed to factors such as a decrease in the antimicrobial activity from the pomace due to phenol-protein interactions and the hydrophobicity of phenols in a matrix where the microorganisms are especially present in the more hydrophilic tissues [20].