- Email: [email protected]
Color Variation in Commercially Packaged Broiler Breast Fillets
€31999Applied Poultry Science, I n c
COLORVARIATION IN COMMERCIALLY PACKAGED BROILER BREAST FILLETS DANIEL L. FLETCHER Department of Poultry Science, Poultry Science Building The Universityof Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Phone: (706) 542-2476 FAX: (706) 542-2475
Primary Audience: Poultry Processors, Marketers
Meat color has long been recognized as an important quality attribute. Although there is no established optimum color for many meat products, including boneless, skinless breast fillets, extremes of either dark or light meat have been identified as negative qualities. For practical purposes, however, variation in color between fillets may well be far more important to quality than absolute color of the meat. This has been established in numerous commodities, including whole birds [l], where skin color uniformity is often considered a major quality issue.
handling, and processing factors affecting raw and cooked poultry meat color were recently reviewed by Froning [ 2 ] .However, other than for the occurrence of specific defects, there is little information available concerning the importance of meat color variation in the marketplace. Considering the recent increase in the retail marketing of boneless, skinless breast fillets, factors affecting the visual appearance, uniformity, and acceptability of these products need further investigation. The purpose of this survey was to determine the extent of breast meat color variation
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 3, 2015
I
Numerous factors that affect poultry meat DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM color have been identified. Live production,
BREAST MEAT COLOR VARIATION
68 in retail outlets. Since it is assumed that color uniformity in presentation is more important
than absolute color, the occurrence of color variation within multiple-fillet packages was determined.
test criterion of a "noticeabledifference,"the observer tended to see the dark defects more readily than the light defects. A summary of the results by grocery store company and location is presented in Table 1. The incidence of defects by retail outlet ranged from 0 to 25%. Although the number of samples per companyvaried, the stores with the lowest incidence of defects tended to be the more modern "upscale"markets. One such grocery store (Store G) had less than 1% defective packages out of the more than 100 sampled. Several of the retail companies with the more traditional display of generic poultry (Stores A, B, and C) had the highest incidence of defective packages (12.50, 16.88, and 15.38%, respectively). The other stores had more of a mix of generic and name brands, and more variation in the incidence of colordefective packages occurred. A comparison of the incidence of colordefective packages by brand is presented in Table 2. Brand A had the lowest incidence, with less than 1%color-defective packages. Two brands, D and E, had more than 10% color-defective packages (12.59 and 16.88%, respectively). Miscellaneous and store
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TABLE 1. Incidence of noticeable breast fillet color differences in multi-fillet packages (number defects/total packages) and (%) by retail company and store
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Of the 997 packages examined, 71, or 7.1%, were identified as defective based on the presence of at least one fillet noticeably different in color from the other fillets in that package. Although no effort was made to record the relative incidence of light vs. dark defects, the observer did note that in most cases the odd fdet tended to be darker than the others. It was also noted that based on the
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 3, 2015
The same individual visited a number of grocery stores in the north Georgia and metropolitan Atlanta areas. During each Visit, only packages containing four boneless, skinless breast fillets were observed. Each package was examined in the display case under each store's normal retail conditions. Those packages that had one or more fillets noticeably different in color from the other fillets in that package were recorded as having a defect. For this study, no effort was made to either identify the differing fdet(s) as lighter or darker than the other fillets in the package, nor were comparisons made between packages. The only criterion was the assessment of a noticeable color difference between fdets within a given package, since a lack of product uniformity is often considered to be a negative quality attribute. Data were recorded by date, company, store location, and brand name. Some stores were sampled on more than one occasion, but never in the same week. During the sampling period, 16 separate grocery stores were visited, representing 12 different retail companies. A variety of stores were sampled based on market stratification (traditional supermarkets as well as modern "upscalev' stores). Five major poultry company brand names were identified over multiple locations and sampled repeatedly. Minor brands and store labels were combined into one category. A total of 997 packages were evaluated during 59 independent store visits conducted over a 30-day period.
Research Report 69
FLETCHER
MARKET
BRAND A (Name brand)
NUMBER DISCOLORED/ TOTAL
70
1/117
B (Name brand) C (Name brand)
D (Name brand)
E (Name brand) X (Minor brands
13/77
16.88 I
711997
7.12
brands (Brand X) had a defect incidence of 6.15%. Some of the variation between brands could be due to processing plant sources, since some of the brand names are from large companies with multiple slaughter and packaging facilities. No effort was made in this study to record the official plant identification (USDA Plant Number) from the label information. Therefore, it is impossible to identify packages by actual producer, especially the minor brand names and store labels. Some processing plants could have been sampled under more than one label designation. It is also possible that any one company could produce various quality levels depending on customer specifications. For these reasons, the
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. Differences in the uniformity of breast fillet color in multiple fillet packages exist in the retail market. This lack of uniformity accounted for 7.1% of the packages being identified as defective because of color variation within a given package. 2. There were major differences in the incidence of defects based on both retail outlet and brand name. These factors of outlet and brand are probably correlated. 3. This study did not determine whether the differences in breast meat color are due to variation in live production, handling, or processing, or to color sorting of fillets prior to packaging.
REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Fletcher, D.L.1989. Factors influencine Dimnentation in poultry. Critical Reviews in Poulyfi 'Biology 2(2):149-170. 2. Froninp, G.W., 1995.Color of poultIy meat. Poultry and Avian Biology Reviews 6(1):8>93.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study was supported in part by state and Hatch funds allocated to the Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station.T h e author extends his appreciation to Ms. Carla Craig for data collection and technical assistance.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 3, 2015
Total
6.15
201325
and store labels)
individual store identities and brand names are not listed. These results indicate that pronounced variations in breast meat color are found in the retail marketplace. However, the differences in color between packages are not as critical as those within a package. The incidence of color-defective packages may be more a function of process control within a plant (in packing similar color fillets) than one of real variation in production. It would be possible under the conditions of this test that a brand with a greater color variance in production, but who sorted by color during packaging, would have a lower defect rate. There is, however, no support for this speculation,since this study did not include any attempt to determine whether the brands with the lowest percentages of color defects came from plants that did indeed sort fillets during packing. The variation in the incidence of defects between brand names and stores appears to be correlated. The store with the lowest incidence of defects is the one that marketed only the brand with the lowest incidence. Regardless of the source and amount of color variation in broiler breast meat, sorting and packing fillets by color could reduce the negative effects of this lack of color uniformity. Further surveys should be conducted to determine whether consumers select against packages with differing fillet appearances or compare fillet appearances between packages.
COLORVARIATION IN COMMERCIALLY PACKAGED BROILER BREAST FILLETS DANIEL L. FLETCHER Department of Poultry Science, Poultry Science Building The Universityof Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Phone: (706) 542-2476 FAX: (706) 542-2475
Primary Audience: Poultry Processors, Marketers
Meat color has long been recognized as an important quality attribute. Although there is no established optimum color for many meat products, including boneless, skinless breast fillets, extremes of either dark or light meat have been identified as negative qualities. For practical purposes, however, variation in color between fillets may well be far more important to quality than absolute color of the meat. This has been established in numerous commodities, including whole birds [l], where skin color uniformity is often considered a major quality issue.
handling, and processing factors affecting raw and cooked poultry meat color were recently reviewed by Froning [ 2 ] .However, other than for the occurrence of specific defects, there is little information available concerning the importance of meat color variation in the marketplace. Considering the recent increase in the retail marketing of boneless, skinless breast fillets, factors affecting the visual appearance, uniformity, and acceptability of these products need further investigation. The purpose of this survey was to determine the extent of breast meat color variation
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 3, 2015
I
Numerous factors that affect poultry meat DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM color have been identified. Live production,
BREAST MEAT COLOR VARIATION
68 in retail outlets. Since it is assumed that color uniformity in presentation is more important
than absolute color, the occurrence of color variation within multiple-fillet packages was determined.
test criterion of a "noticeabledifference,"the observer tended to see the dark defects more readily than the light defects. A summary of the results by grocery store company and location is presented in Table 1. The incidence of defects by retail outlet ranged from 0 to 25%. Although the number of samples per companyvaried, the stores with the lowest incidence of defects tended to be the more modern "upscale"markets. One such grocery store (Store G) had less than 1% defective packages out of the more than 100 sampled. Several of the retail companies with the more traditional display of generic poultry (Stores A, B, and C) had the highest incidence of defective packages (12.50, 16.88, and 15.38%, respectively). The other stores had more of a mix of generic and name brands, and more variation in the incidence of colordefective packages occurred. A comparison of the incidence of colordefective packages by brand is presented in Table 2. Brand A had the lowest incidence, with less than 1%color-defective packages. Two brands, D and E, had more than 10% color-defective packages (12.59 and 16.88%, respectively). Miscellaneous and store
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TABLE 1. Incidence of noticeable breast fillet color differences in multi-fillet packages (number defects/total packages) and (%) by retail company and store
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Of the 997 packages examined, 71, or 7.1%, were identified as defective based on the presence of at least one fillet noticeably different in color from the other fillets in that package. Although no effort was made to record the relative incidence of light vs. dark defects, the observer did note that in most cases the odd fdet tended to be darker than the others. It was also noted that based on the
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 3, 2015
The same individual visited a number of grocery stores in the north Georgia and metropolitan Atlanta areas. During each Visit, only packages containing four boneless, skinless breast fillets were observed. Each package was examined in the display case under each store's normal retail conditions. Those packages that had one or more fillets noticeably different in color from the other fillets in that package were recorded as having a defect. For this study, no effort was made to either identify the differing fdet(s) as lighter or darker than the other fillets in the package, nor were comparisons made between packages. The only criterion was the assessment of a noticeable color difference between fdets within a given package, since a lack of product uniformity is often considered to be a negative quality attribute. Data were recorded by date, company, store location, and brand name. Some stores were sampled on more than one occasion, but never in the same week. During the sampling period, 16 separate grocery stores were visited, representing 12 different retail companies. A variety of stores were sampled based on market stratification (traditional supermarkets as well as modern "upscalev' stores). Five major poultry company brand names were identified over multiple locations and sampled repeatedly. Minor brands and store labels were combined into one category. A total of 997 packages were evaluated during 59 independent store visits conducted over a 30-day period.
Research Report 69
FLETCHER
MARKET
BRAND A (Name brand)
NUMBER DISCOLORED/ TOTAL
70
1/117
B (Name brand) C (Name brand)
D (Name brand)
E (Name brand) X (Minor brands
13/77
16.88 I
711997
7.12
brands (Brand X) had a defect incidence of 6.15%. Some of the variation between brands could be due to processing plant sources, since some of the brand names are from large companies with multiple slaughter and packaging facilities. No effort was made in this study to record the official plant identification (USDA Plant Number) from the label information. Therefore, it is impossible to identify packages by actual producer, especially the minor brand names and store labels. Some processing plants could have been sampled under more than one label designation. It is also possible that any one company could produce various quality levels depending on customer specifications. For these reasons, the
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. Differences in the uniformity of breast fillet color in multiple fillet packages exist in the retail market. This lack of uniformity accounted for 7.1% of the packages being identified as defective because of color variation within a given package. 2. There were major differences in the incidence of defects based on both retail outlet and brand name. These factors of outlet and brand are probably correlated. 3. This study did not determine whether the differences in breast meat color are due to variation in live production, handling, or processing, or to color sorting of fillets prior to packaging.
REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Fletcher, D.L.1989. Factors influencine Dimnentation in poultry. Critical Reviews in Poulyfi 'Biology 2(2):149-170. 2. Froninp, G.W., 1995.Color of poultIy meat. Poultry and Avian Biology Reviews 6(1):8>93.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study was supported in part by state and Hatch funds allocated to the Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station.T h e author extends his appreciation to Ms. Carla Craig for data collection and technical assistance.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at New York University on May 3, 2015
Total
6.15
201325
and store labels)
individual store identities and brand names are not listed. These results indicate that pronounced variations in breast meat color are found in the retail marketplace. However, the differences in color between packages are not as critical as those within a package. The incidence of color-defective packages may be more a function of process control within a plant (in packing similar color fillets) than one of real variation in production. It would be possible under the conditions of this test that a brand with a greater color variance in production, but who sorted by color during packaging, would have a lower defect rate. There is, however, no support for this speculation,since this study did not include any attempt to determine whether the brands with the lowest percentages of color defects came from plants that did indeed sort fillets during packing. The variation in the incidence of defects between brand names and stores appears to be correlated. The store with the lowest incidence of defects is the one that marketed only the brand with the lowest incidence. Regardless of the source and amount of color variation in broiler breast meat, sorting and packing fillets by color could reduce the negative effects of this lack of color uniformity. Further surveys should be conducted to determine whether consumers select against packages with differing fillet appearances or compare fillet appearances between packages.