- Email: [email protected]
Chemical Sanitizer Influences on the Flavor of Chicken Broilers
Chemical Sanitizer Influences on the Flavor of Chicken Broilers H . L . O R R , J. P . WALKER AND G. W . FRIARS
Department of Animal and Poultry Science,
N . A. F I S H
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology, NIG 2W1
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada
ABSTRACT Control pens and pens treated with two disinfectants and No. 2 diesel fuel were used to rear chicken broilers on three types of litter, shavings, straw and sand, in three separate trials. Taste panel scores indicated that the shift from desirable to undesirable flavors was more prevalent in the presence of 25 and 50 p.p.m. of disinfectant X (active ingredients were: sodium dodecybenzene sulfonate 22.0%, isopropyl alcohol 19.0%, phosphoric acid 9.6%, 2, 4, 6 trichlors phenol 6.4%, and inert ingredients 43.0%) than in the controls. Pens treated with disinfectant Z (active ingredients: o-phenylphenol 10%, o-benzyl-p-chlorophenol 8.5%, p-tertiary amylphenol 2.0% and inert ingredients 79.5%) had only a slight effect on flavor and No. 2 diesel fuel produced no more undesirable flavors than the controls. The panel detected a higher frequency of undesirable flavors in carcasses of broilers raised on straw than on shavings or sand, following treatment with disinfectant X. However in pens treated with disinfectant Y, shavings or sand produced the higher incidence of undesirable flavors than straw. POULTRY SCIENCE 54: 1031-1035, 1975
INTRODUCTION
F
LAVOR of a cooked meat can be an important factor in the consumer acceptance or rejection of the product. In 1971 samples of "take-out" cooked chicken, which had a distinct off-taste (described as either a fishy—musty—metallic or lingering flavor) and which had been rejected by purchaser's of the product, were brought to this laboratory. After a few occurrences of this problem, it was decided to investigate the case history of each. The investigation resulted in the discovery that a recently introduced disinfectant had, in nearly all cases, been used during germicidal treatment of the broiler buildings. It has been reported by Engel et al. (1966) and Curtis et al. (1972) that a "musty" taint in broiler chickens was caused by the presence of the chlorinated compounds, 2, 3, 4, 6—tetrachloroanisol and pentachloroanisol in the litter. The levels of 2, 3, 4, 6—tetrachloroanisol in the litter appeared to determine
the level which was found in birds from that particular location in the house and this in turn was closely related to the degree of taint as measured by the taste panel. Curtis et al. (1972) have shown that certain chloroanisols, in extremely low concentrations, produce the characteristic musty— fishy—earthy, lingering flavor. Patterson (1972) in reporting on a disinfectant taint in chicken broilers showed that 6-chloro-o-cresol was present in the chicken volatiles and this compound was subsequently found to be an occasional impurity in a cresylic and disinfectant used in broiler houses. The experiments reported here were conducted to determine the effect on flavor of spraying broiler pen floors with chemicals before litter has been added. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Three trials were conducted in a windowless house using three rooms, each 10' x 15' and divided by wire partitions into three
1031
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
(Received for publication October 1, 1974)
1032
H. L. ORR, J. P. WALKER, G. W. FRIARS AND N. A. FISH
on a broiler finisher for the remainder of the trial. At 7 weeks of age all birds were processed in the University facilities. After the carcasses were chilled overnight, a random sample of 5 carcasses were selected from each pen for flavor evaluation. Carcasses were cut in half and one half was packaged, frozen at -28° C. and held in storage at - 1 8 ° C . until required for cooking. The 10 carcasses from each treatment were removed from storage and defrosted at 18° C. Samples from each group were cooked and sampled separately by the panel to eliminate cross
TABLE 1.—Contingency table of observed flavor scores—using disinfectant X Line 1 2 3 4
Litter
Treatment
Combined
Control 25 p.p.m. Control 50 p.p.m.
5 6 7 8
Shavings Straw
9 10
Shavings Sand Straw Sand Shavings
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Straw
25 26
Sand
27 28 29 30
Flavor
Scores
Desirable 122 73 122 87
Undesirable
X2
28 67
26.702**
27 73
24.402**
67 73 59 63
0.073
59 46
1.069
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
73 87
Combined
101 77 101 104
Combined
1.719
Combined
77 104
63 46
5.745*
Control 25 p.p.m.
11 18
1.748
Control 50 p.p.m.
39 32 39 30
11 30
7.986*
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
32 30
18 30
1.641
Control 25 p.p.m.
39 18
11 32
16.319**
Control 50 p.p.m.
39 20 18 20
11 10
6.525*
32 20
1.257
44 23 44 37 23 37
6 17 6 23 17 23
9.321**
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m. Control 25 p.p.m. Control 50 p.p.m. 25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
* Significant P < .05. ** Significant P s .01. Unequal frequency totals resulted from the absence of a panel mmeber for some tests.
8.432* 0.0434
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
equal pens (5' x 3') on each side of an aisle, making a total of 18 pens. Shavings, straw and sand were each used in six pens. The pens were thoroughly steam cleaned before each trial. The floors of the treated pens were sprayed with the respective chemicals, approximately three to four hours prior to the placement of the chicks. While the floors were still moist, the litter was added and the infra-red brooding lamps started. Two hundred and eighteen meat type chickens from a commercial source were used in each trial. All birds were fed a commercial broiler starter for 4 weeks and then placed
1033
CHEMICAL SANITIZERS AND BROILER FLAVOR
and undesirable categories respectively. Trial 1. Disinfectant X was used in this trial where the active ingredients were: sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate 22.0%, isopropyl alcohol 19.0%, phosphoric acid 9.6%, 2, 4, 6 trichlors phenol 6.4%, and inert ingredients 43.0%. For each type of litter, there were two control pens, two pens treated with 25 p.p.m. solution, at rate of 4.6 liters per 14 square meters of floor area and two pens were treated, at the same rate, with 50 p.p.m. solution. Trial 2.
This trial was similar to trial 1 with
TABLE 2.—Contingency table of observed flavor scores—using disinfectant Y Line 1 2 3 4
Flavor
Scores
Litter
Treatment
Desirable
Combined
Control 25 p.p.m.
133 112
Undesirable 7 8
Control 50 p.p.m.
133 133
7 17
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
112 133
8 17 16 4 16 12 4 12
5 6
X2 0.094 3.037 1.217
7 8
Shavings Straw
Combined
134 126
9 10
Shavings Sand
Combined
134 118
11 12 13 14
Straw Sand
Combined
126 118
Control 25 p.p.m.
0 7 0 9 7 9
0.744
Shavings
4.958* 0.039 3.263
15 16
Control 50 p.p.m.
17 18
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
50 43 50 41 43 41
Control 25 p.p.m.
37 40
3 0
1.385
Control 50 p.p.m.
37 49
3 1
0.552
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
40 49
Control 25 p.p.m.
46 29
0 1 4 1
27 28
Control 50 p.p.m.
29 30
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
46 43 29 43
19 20
Straw
21 22 23 24 25 26
Sand
5.259* 7.814**
0.012 0.128
4 7
0.408
1 7
1.333
*Significant P < .05. "Significant P s .01. Unequal frequency totals resulted from the absence of a panel member of some tests.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
contamination of flavors. The half carcasses were heated in a "General Electric" oven, with the controls set to maintain a temperature of 163° C , to an internal temperature of 85° C. Each of the 5 panel members received a coded sample of cooked breast muscle and were asked to score for flavor as follows: 1—like very much; 2—like moderately; 3—like slightly; 4—dislike slightly; 5—dislike moderately; 6—dislike extremely. For purposes of interpreting the statistical analysis, by the Chi-square test, the frequency of panel scores were grouped across 1, 2 and 3 and across 4, 5 and 6 into desirable
1034
H. L. ORR, J. P. WALKER, G. W. FRIARS AND N. A. FISH
the exception that the treated pens received 25 p.p.m. and 50 p.p.m. of disinfectant Y. The active ingredients were: o-phenylphenol 10%, o-benzyl-p-chlorophenol 8.5%, p-tertiary-amylphenol 2.0%, and inert ingredients 79.5%.
RESULTS Trial 1. The observed frequency of the combined flavor scores 1-3 and 4-6 and the calculated Chi-square for each comparison are shown in Table 1. In comparing the effect of the various treatments, independent of litter, (Table 1, lines 1 to 6) it is evident that the change in frequencies in the desirable
TABLE 3.—Contingency table of observed flavor scores—using No. 2 diesel fuel Line 1 2 3 4
Litter Combined
5 6
Flavor
Scores
Desirable
Undesirable
Control 150 ml.
141 111
23 19
0.001
Control 300 ml.
141 126
23 24
0.110
150 ml. 300 ml.
111 126
0.023
130 127 130 139
19 24 20 27 20 21 27 19 2 10
Treatment
7 8
Shavings Straw
Combined
9 10
Shavings Sand
Combined
11 12 13 14
Straw Sand
Combined Control 150 ml.
48 30
15 16
Control 300 ml.
17 18
150 ml. 300 ml.
150 ml. 300 ml.
48 52 30 52 43 42 43 42 42 42
Control 150 ml.
27 28
Control 300 ml.
29 30
150 ml. 300 ml.
19 20
Shavings
127 121
Straw
21 22 23 24 25 26
Control 150 ml. Control 300 ml.
Sand
X2
0.729 0.012 0.597 6.760**
2 8
1.856
10 8
1.493
11 8
0.103
11 8
0.103
8 8
0.074
50 39
10
3.579
50 32 39 32
10 8
0.025
1 8
4.507*
""Significant P a .05. "Significant P < .01. Unequal frequency totals resulted from the absence of a panel member for some tests.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
Trial 3. A questionnaire distributed by the Ontario Chicken Producers Marketing Board in 1972 indicated that a large majority of Ontario broiler producers were using No. 2 diesel fuel in lieu of a disinfectant between crops of birds. Therefore in this trial, which
was similar to trials 1 and 2, 150 ml. and 300 ml. of No. 2 diesel fuel per pen was used.
CHEMICAL SANITIZERS AND BROILER FLAVOR
Trial 2. Broilers raised on shavings and sand litters (Table 2, lines 7 and 10) produced carcasses with a higher tendency towards undesirable flavors than those on straw (Table 2, line 8). It will also be noted (Table 2, lines 13 to 30) that it required a higher concentration of disinfectant Y (50 p.p.m.) to produce undesirable flavors on straw or sand, while the 25 p.p.m. treatment caused an increase in undesirable flavors on shavings. Trial 3. The results of the panels scores of the effect of No. 2 diesel fuel (Table 3, lines 1 to 6) indicated very little difference in the presence of undesirable flavors between the controls and the treated groups. Although, the comparison of control and 150
ml. using shavings and that of 150 ml. compared to 300 ml. using sand are significant (lines 13, 14, 29 and 30, P < .01 and P < 0.5 respectively) it is inconsistent with the other comparisons (lines 15 to 28). This in part maybe due to the fact that all five panelists were not present for each sampling. DISCUSSION The presence of undesirable flavors, especially following the use of chemical agents, e.g. disinfectant X, reveals that there should be a careful selection and flavor testing of all agents before their application to broiler buildings. The results of this study would indicate that certain litters, e.g. straw, may release certain disinfectant components which affect the flavor of the product. Therefore, the use of straw may require a greater restriction of the concentrations of the chemicals used as sanitizing agents in broiler houses. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. REFERENCES Curtis, R. F., D. G. Land, N. M. Griffiths, M. Gee, D. Robinson, J. L. Peel, C. Dennis and J. M. Gee, 1972. 2, 3, 4, 6-Tetrachloroanisol association with musty taint in chickens and microbiological formation. Nature, 235: 223-224. Engel, C , A. P. de Groat and C. Weurman, 1966. Tetrachloroanisol: A source of musty taste in eggs and broilers. Science, 154: 270-271. Patterson, R. L. S., 1972. Disinfectant taint in poultry. Chem. Ind. 15: 609-610.
AUGUST 3-6, 1975. SIXTY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING, POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, INC., WASHINGTON STATE UNIV: 5RSITY, PULLMAN, WASHINGTON
AUGUST 3-9, 1975.
XTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF NUTRITION, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE HALL, KYOTO, JAPAN
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
versus the undesirable flavor classes is much more prevalent in the presence of 25 and 50 p.p.m. of disinfectant X than in the controls. The panel detected a higher frequency of undesirable flavors (Table 1, lines 7 to 12) in the carcasses of broilers raised on straw litter, with only the comparison of straw and sand showing a significant (P s .05) Chisquare value. In broiler carcasses, which were raised on shavings (Table 1, lines 13 to 18) there is a non-significant shift in flavor scores at 25 p.p.m. and a significant (P :£ .05) influence at 50 p.p.m. In a comparison of straw and sand litter (Table 1, lines 19 to 30), there is a significant shift (P =s .01) to undesirable flavor scores at the 25 p.p.m. level of treatment. Therefore, a lower level of the disinfectant will affect the flavor of broilers reared on straw or sand in contrast to shavings.
1035
Department of Animal and Poultry Science,
N . A. F I S H
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology, NIG 2W1
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada
ABSTRACT Control pens and pens treated with two disinfectants and No. 2 diesel fuel were used to rear chicken broilers on three types of litter, shavings, straw and sand, in three separate trials. Taste panel scores indicated that the shift from desirable to undesirable flavors was more prevalent in the presence of 25 and 50 p.p.m. of disinfectant X (active ingredients were: sodium dodecybenzene sulfonate 22.0%, isopropyl alcohol 19.0%, phosphoric acid 9.6%, 2, 4, 6 trichlors phenol 6.4%, and inert ingredients 43.0%) than in the controls. Pens treated with disinfectant Z (active ingredients: o-phenylphenol 10%, o-benzyl-p-chlorophenol 8.5%, p-tertiary amylphenol 2.0% and inert ingredients 79.5%) had only a slight effect on flavor and No. 2 diesel fuel produced no more undesirable flavors than the controls. The panel detected a higher frequency of undesirable flavors in carcasses of broilers raised on straw than on shavings or sand, following treatment with disinfectant X. However in pens treated with disinfectant Y, shavings or sand produced the higher incidence of undesirable flavors than straw. POULTRY SCIENCE 54: 1031-1035, 1975
INTRODUCTION
F
LAVOR of a cooked meat can be an important factor in the consumer acceptance or rejection of the product. In 1971 samples of "take-out" cooked chicken, which had a distinct off-taste (described as either a fishy—musty—metallic or lingering flavor) and which had been rejected by purchaser's of the product, were brought to this laboratory. After a few occurrences of this problem, it was decided to investigate the case history of each. The investigation resulted in the discovery that a recently introduced disinfectant had, in nearly all cases, been used during germicidal treatment of the broiler buildings. It has been reported by Engel et al. (1966) and Curtis et al. (1972) that a "musty" taint in broiler chickens was caused by the presence of the chlorinated compounds, 2, 3, 4, 6—tetrachloroanisol and pentachloroanisol in the litter. The levels of 2, 3, 4, 6—tetrachloroanisol in the litter appeared to determine
the level which was found in birds from that particular location in the house and this in turn was closely related to the degree of taint as measured by the taste panel. Curtis et al. (1972) have shown that certain chloroanisols, in extremely low concentrations, produce the characteristic musty— fishy—earthy, lingering flavor. Patterson (1972) in reporting on a disinfectant taint in chicken broilers showed that 6-chloro-o-cresol was present in the chicken volatiles and this compound was subsequently found to be an occasional impurity in a cresylic and disinfectant used in broiler houses. The experiments reported here were conducted to determine the effect on flavor of spraying broiler pen floors with chemicals before litter has been added. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Three trials were conducted in a windowless house using three rooms, each 10' x 15' and divided by wire partitions into three
1031
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
(Received for publication October 1, 1974)
1032
H. L. ORR, J. P. WALKER, G. W. FRIARS AND N. A. FISH
on a broiler finisher for the remainder of the trial. At 7 weeks of age all birds were processed in the University facilities. After the carcasses were chilled overnight, a random sample of 5 carcasses were selected from each pen for flavor evaluation. Carcasses were cut in half and one half was packaged, frozen at -28° C. and held in storage at - 1 8 ° C . until required for cooking. The 10 carcasses from each treatment were removed from storage and defrosted at 18° C. Samples from each group were cooked and sampled separately by the panel to eliminate cross
TABLE 1.—Contingency table of observed flavor scores—using disinfectant X Line 1 2 3 4
Litter
Treatment
Combined
Control 25 p.p.m. Control 50 p.p.m.
5 6 7 8
Shavings Straw
9 10
Shavings Sand Straw Sand Shavings
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Straw
25 26
Sand
27 28 29 30
Flavor
Scores
Desirable 122 73 122 87
Undesirable
X2
28 67
26.702**
27 73
24.402**
67 73 59 63
0.073
59 46
1.069
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
73 87
Combined
101 77 101 104
Combined
1.719
Combined
77 104
63 46
5.745*
Control 25 p.p.m.
11 18
1.748
Control 50 p.p.m.
39 32 39 30
11 30
7.986*
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
32 30
18 30
1.641
Control 25 p.p.m.
39 18
11 32
16.319**
Control 50 p.p.m.
39 20 18 20
11 10
6.525*
32 20
1.257
44 23 44 37 23 37
6 17 6 23 17 23
9.321**
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m. Control 25 p.p.m. Control 50 p.p.m. 25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
* Significant P < .05. ** Significant P s .01. Unequal frequency totals resulted from the absence of a panel mmeber for some tests.
8.432* 0.0434
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
equal pens (5' x 3') on each side of an aisle, making a total of 18 pens. Shavings, straw and sand were each used in six pens. The pens were thoroughly steam cleaned before each trial. The floors of the treated pens were sprayed with the respective chemicals, approximately three to four hours prior to the placement of the chicks. While the floors were still moist, the litter was added and the infra-red brooding lamps started. Two hundred and eighteen meat type chickens from a commercial source were used in each trial. All birds were fed a commercial broiler starter for 4 weeks and then placed
1033
CHEMICAL SANITIZERS AND BROILER FLAVOR
and undesirable categories respectively. Trial 1. Disinfectant X was used in this trial where the active ingredients were: sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate 22.0%, isopropyl alcohol 19.0%, phosphoric acid 9.6%, 2, 4, 6 trichlors phenol 6.4%, and inert ingredients 43.0%. For each type of litter, there were two control pens, two pens treated with 25 p.p.m. solution, at rate of 4.6 liters per 14 square meters of floor area and two pens were treated, at the same rate, with 50 p.p.m. solution. Trial 2.
This trial was similar to trial 1 with
TABLE 2.—Contingency table of observed flavor scores—using disinfectant Y Line 1 2 3 4
Flavor
Scores
Litter
Treatment
Desirable
Combined
Control 25 p.p.m.
133 112
Undesirable 7 8
Control 50 p.p.m.
133 133
7 17
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
112 133
8 17 16 4 16 12 4 12
5 6
X2 0.094 3.037 1.217
7 8
Shavings Straw
Combined
134 126
9 10
Shavings Sand
Combined
134 118
11 12 13 14
Straw Sand
Combined
126 118
Control 25 p.p.m.
0 7 0 9 7 9
0.744
Shavings
4.958* 0.039 3.263
15 16
Control 50 p.p.m.
17 18
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
50 43 50 41 43 41
Control 25 p.p.m.
37 40
3 0
1.385
Control 50 p.p.m.
37 49
3 1
0.552
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
40 49
Control 25 p.p.m.
46 29
0 1 4 1
27 28
Control 50 p.p.m.
29 30
25 p.p.m. 50 p.p.m.
46 43 29 43
19 20
Straw
21 22 23 24 25 26
Sand
5.259* 7.814**
0.012 0.128
4 7
0.408
1 7
1.333
*Significant P < .05. "Significant P s .01. Unequal frequency totals resulted from the absence of a panel member of some tests.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
contamination of flavors. The half carcasses were heated in a "General Electric" oven, with the controls set to maintain a temperature of 163° C , to an internal temperature of 85° C. Each of the 5 panel members received a coded sample of cooked breast muscle and were asked to score for flavor as follows: 1—like very much; 2—like moderately; 3—like slightly; 4—dislike slightly; 5—dislike moderately; 6—dislike extremely. For purposes of interpreting the statistical analysis, by the Chi-square test, the frequency of panel scores were grouped across 1, 2 and 3 and across 4, 5 and 6 into desirable
1034
H. L. ORR, J. P. WALKER, G. W. FRIARS AND N. A. FISH
the exception that the treated pens received 25 p.p.m. and 50 p.p.m. of disinfectant Y. The active ingredients were: o-phenylphenol 10%, o-benzyl-p-chlorophenol 8.5%, p-tertiary-amylphenol 2.0%, and inert ingredients 79.5%.
RESULTS Trial 1. The observed frequency of the combined flavor scores 1-3 and 4-6 and the calculated Chi-square for each comparison are shown in Table 1. In comparing the effect of the various treatments, independent of litter, (Table 1, lines 1 to 6) it is evident that the change in frequencies in the desirable
TABLE 3.—Contingency table of observed flavor scores—using No. 2 diesel fuel Line 1 2 3 4
Litter Combined
5 6
Flavor
Scores
Desirable
Undesirable
Control 150 ml.
141 111
23 19
0.001
Control 300 ml.
141 126
23 24
0.110
150 ml. 300 ml.
111 126
0.023
130 127 130 139
19 24 20 27 20 21 27 19 2 10
Treatment
7 8
Shavings Straw
Combined
9 10
Shavings Sand
Combined
11 12 13 14
Straw Sand
Combined Control 150 ml.
48 30
15 16
Control 300 ml.
17 18
150 ml. 300 ml.
150 ml. 300 ml.
48 52 30 52 43 42 43 42 42 42
Control 150 ml.
27 28
Control 300 ml.
29 30
150 ml. 300 ml.
19 20
Shavings
127 121
Straw
21 22 23 24 25 26
Control 150 ml. Control 300 ml.
Sand
X2
0.729 0.012 0.597 6.760**
2 8
1.856
10 8
1.493
11 8
0.103
11 8
0.103
8 8
0.074
50 39
10
3.579
50 32 39 32
10 8
0.025
1 8
4.507*
""Significant P a .05. "Significant P < .01. Unequal frequency totals resulted from the absence of a panel member for some tests.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
Trial 3. A questionnaire distributed by the Ontario Chicken Producers Marketing Board in 1972 indicated that a large majority of Ontario broiler producers were using No. 2 diesel fuel in lieu of a disinfectant between crops of birds. Therefore in this trial, which
was similar to trials 1 and 2, 150 ml. and 300 ml. of No. 2 diesel fuel per pen was used.
CHEMICAL SANITIZERS AND BROILER FLAVOR
Trial 2. Broilers raised on shavings and sand litters (Table 2, lines 7 and 10) produced carcasses with a higher tendency towards undesirable flavors than those on straw (Table 2, line 8). It will also be noted (Table 2, lines 13 to 30) that it required a higher concentration of disinfectant Y (50 p.p.m.) to produce undesirable flavors on straw or sand, while the 25 p.p.m. treatment caused an increase in undesirable flavors on shavings. Trial 3. The results of the panels scores of the effect of No. 2 diesel fuel (Table 3, lines 1 to 6) indicated very little difference in the presence of undesirable flavors between the controls and the treated groups. Although, the comparison of control and 150
ml. using shavings and that of 150 ml. compared to 300 ml. using sand are significant (lines 13, 14, 29 and 30, P < .01 and P < 0.5 respectively) it is inconsistent with the other comparisons (lines 15 to 28). This in part maybe due to the fact that all five panelists were not present for each sampling. DISCUSSION The presence of undesirable flavors, especially following the use of chemical agents, e.g. disinfectant X, reveals that there should be a careful selection and flavor testing of all agents before their application to broiler buildings. The results of this study would indicate that certain litters, e.g. straw, may release certain disinfectant components which affect the flavor of the product. Therefore, the use of straw may require a greater restriction of the concentrations of the chemicals used as sanitizing agents in broiler houses. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. REFERENCES Curtis, R. F., D. G. Land, N. M. Griffiths, M. Gee, D. Robinson, J. L. Peel, C. Dennis and J. M. Gee, 1972. 2, 3, 4, 6-Tetrachloroanisol association with musty taint in chickens and microbiological formation. Nature, 235: 223-224. Engel, C , A. P. de Groat and C. Weurman, 1966. Tetrachloroanisol: A source of musty taste in eggs and broilers. Science, 154: 270-271. Patterson, R. L. S., 1972. Disinfectant taint in poultry. Chem. Ind. 15: 609-610.
AUGUST 3-6, 1975. SIXTY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING, POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, INC., WASHINGTON STATE UNIV: 5RSITY, PULLMAN, WASHINGTON
AUGUST 3-9, 1975.
XTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF NUTRITION, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE HALL, KYOTO, JAPAN
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 1, 2015
versus the undesirable flavor classes is much more prevalent in the presence of 25 and 50 p.p.m. of disinfectant X than in the controls. The panel detected a higher frequency of undesirable flavors (Table 1, lines 7 to 12) in the carcasses of broilers raised on straw litter, with only the comparison of straw and sand showing a significant (P s .05) Chisquare value. In broiler carcasses, which were raised on shavings (Table 1, lines 13 to 18) there is a non-significant shift in flavor scores at 25 p.p.m. and a significant (P :£ .05) influence at 50 p.p.m. In a comparison of straw and sand litter (Table 1, lines 19 to 30), there is a significant shift (P =s .01) to undesirable flavor scores at the 25 p.p.m. level of treatment. Therefore, a lower level of the disinfectant will affect the flavor of broilers reared on straw or sand in contrast to shavings.
1035