You are developing a new natural preservative chemical derived from a native Australian herb plant to extend the shelf-life of refrigerated raw chicken meat. After applying the preservative you notice that the meat doesn't smell or appear spoiled until two weeks after the meat without the preservative appears spoiled. You determine the total aerobic plate count from the two samples and the results are shown in the graph below (with preservative = black line; without preservative = green line). Provide a possible explanation (hypothesis) for the extended shelf-life of the chicken meat with the new preservative. Also discuss what analysis you could carry out to verify your explanation. Chicken meat total aerobic plate count $10^8$ $10^7$ $10^6$ CFU/g $10^5$ $10^4$ $10^3$ $10^2$ $10^1$ With preservative Without preservative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time (days)
Added by Richard W.
Close
Step 1
Hypothesis: The extended shelf-life of the chicken meat with the new preservative is due to a lower total aerobic plate count compared to the meat without the preservative. Show more…
Show all steps
Your feedback will help us improve your experience
Emily Himsel and 60 other Biology educators are ready to help you.
Ask a new question
Labs
Want to see this concept in action?
Explore this concept interactively to see how it behaves as you change inputs.
Key Concepts
Recommended Videos
The use of preservatives by food processors has become a controversial issue. Suppose two preservatives are extensively tested and determined safe for use in meats. A processor wants to compare the preservatives for their effects on retarding spoilage. Suppose 15 cuts of fresh meat are treated with preservative I and 15 are treated with preservative II, and the number of hours until spoilage begins is recorded for each of the 30 cuts of meat. The results are summarized in the table below. Preservative I Preservative II overbar(X)I = 106.4 hours overbar(X)II = 96.54 hours S I = 10.3 hours S II = 13.4 hours suppose α = 0.05. What is the critical value for testing if the population variances differ for preservatives I and II at the 5% level of significance?
David N.
Recent incidents of food contamination have caused great concern among consumers. The article "How Safe Is That Chicken?" (Consumer Reports, Jan. 2010: 19-23) reported that 35 of 80 randomly selected Perdue brand broilers tested positively for either campylobacter or salmonella (or both), the leading bacterial causes of food-borne disease, whereas 66 of 80 Tyson brand broilers tested positive. a. Does it appear that the true proportion of non- contaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand? Carry out a test of hypotheses using a significance level .01. b. If the true proportions of non-contaminated chickens for the Perdue and Tyson brands are .50 and .25, respectively, what is the type II error when a .01 significance level is used and the sample sizes are both 80 ?
Sri K.
Recent incidents of food contamination have caused great concern among consumers. The article "How Safe Is That Chicken?" (Consumer Reports, Jan. 2010: 19-23) reported that 35 of 80 randomly selected Perdue brand broilers tested positively for either campylobacter or salmonella (or both), the leading bacterial causes of foodborne disease, whereas 66 of 80 Tyson brand broilers tested positive. a. Does it appear that the true proportion of non-contaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand? Carry out a test of hypotheses using a significance level of .01. b. If the true proportions of non-contaminated chickens for the Perdue and Tyson brands are .50 and .25, respectively, what is the type II error when a .01 significance level is used and the sample sizes are both 80?
Kari H.
Recommended Textbooks
Biology for AP Courses
Objective Biology for NEET
Introduction to General, Organic and Biochemistry
Watch the video solution with this free unlock.
EMAIL
PASSWORD