- Email: [email protected]
Consumer acceptance of broiler breast fillets marinated with varying levels of salt
Consumer acceptance of broiler breast fillets marinated with varying levels of salt A. Saha,* Y. Lee,† J. F. Meullenet,† and C. M. Owens*1 *Department of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701; and †Department of Food Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72704 ABSTRACT Marination is an increasingly popular trend in the meat industry for meat quality enhancement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects different levels of salt in marinated poultry breast meat on consumer acceptance. A total of 100 broiler carcasses were deboned at 5 h postmortem, and breast fillets were marinated with 1 of 4 concentrations of salt: 0.5, 0.75, 1, and 1.25%. All marinated treatments had 0.45% phosphate concentration. A nonmarinated control was also included. Sensory evaluations of left fillets for moistness, texture, tenderness, saltiness, flavor, and overall impression were obtained on all treatments using hedonic and just about right (JAR) scales. Instrumental tenderness analysis was conducted on right fillets using Meullenet-Owens Razor Shear analysis methods. Hedonic data showed no significant difference in the marinated products (0.5 to 1.25% salt) for overall impression, flavor, and texture. However, according to the JAR scale, as the percentage of salt in the formulation increased (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25%), the percentage of con-
sumers who considered the product as not salty enough generally decreased. The products with the greater concentrations of salt (1.0 and 1.25%) resulted in high percentages of consumers who considered the product too salty. For juiciness and tenderness, a large percentage (>70%) of the consumers considered 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0% treatments to be JAR. Greater than 20% of consumers considered fillets marinated with 1% or greater salt concentration as too salty. Fillets marinated with lower levels of salt (0.5 and 0.75%) were considered JAR for saltiness by most consumers, whereas very few consumers considered the fillets to be too salty. Using instrumental tenderness analysis, salt concentrations above 1.0% were more tender than other treatments; however, all marinated treatments were significantly more tender than nonmarinated controls. These results suggest that using low salt concentrations, 0.5 to 0.75%, is appropriate for marination of postrigor broiler breast meat to obtain desirable quality attributes.
Key words: marination, consumer, broiler, salt 2009 Poultry Science 88:415–423 doi:10.3382/ps.2008-00230
INTRODUCTION
With the increasing demand for poultry boneless breast meat, producers are shortening the deboning time, and meat quality properties are directly affected as a result. A positive correlation was reported by Stewart et al. (1984) between prerigor deboning and shear values. Stewart et al. concluded that breast meat toughness associated with prerigor deboning can be evaded by application of appropriate tenderizing treatment or postrigor (at least 4 to 6 h postmortem) deboning of breast muscle. Some of the technologies with promising results in improving tenderness of early harvested broiler breast meat include electrical stimulation (Sams et al., 1989), wing restraints or tensioning (Birkhold and Sams, 1993), and high temperature conditioning of broiler carcasses (Sams, 1990), but none of these technologies fully assure acceptable broiler breast tenderness and product uniformity or are widely used in industry.
Consumer satisfaction is very crucial for repeat purchase of any product. Therefore, studying consumer acceptance of a product plays a very important role in the food industry. Consumers have shifted their preference away from purchasing poultry as whole carcasses toward purchasing it as boneless meat and as further processed products, and breast meat is considered the most valuable part of a broiler carcass in the United States. Therefore, in the past few decades breeders have focused their efforts on improving breast meat yield and quality.
©2009 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received June 6, 2008. Accepted October 24, 2008. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected]
415
416
SAHA ET AL.
The meat industry has successfully implemented marination technologies to meet consumer demands and help maintain product uniformity, and the use of marination has increased dramatically in the past few years in the poultry industry. It is one of the methods used by the industry for tenderization of early harvested broiler breast fillets. Zheng et al. (2000) reported that poultry breast fillets deboned at 2 h postmortem and marinated with salt and phosphate (sodium tripolyphosphate, hexametaphosphate, or tetrasodium pyrophosphate) significantly reduced the toughness of poultry breast. Additionally, beneficial effects of marination on meat texture include a juicier meat and reduction of water loss during cooking (Miller, 1998). Most commonly used commercial marinades contain salt, phosphate, and water as their primary ingredients (Barbut et al., 1988; Lyon et al., 2005). Phosphates are known to increase water holding capacity (WHC), stabilize meat emulsions, improve juiciness and tenderness, and maintain flavor of processed meat products (Ellinger, 1972). Phosphates, like sodium tripolyphosphate, improve the functional properties of meat proteins by increasing the ionic strength and pH of meat (Hamm, 1960). Increased ionic strength or greater pH results in greater WHC or juicier product. Salt or sodium chloride solubilize proteins to increase WHC (Whiting, 1988). The Cl− ions interact with positively charged myosin molecules and result in a change of isoelectric point to a lower pH (Hamm, 1986). This weakens the interaction and increases swelling and WHC (Hamm, 1986). Increasing the WHC of the meat reduces cook loss and increases tenderness and juiciness of the meat product (Desmond, 2006). There are concerns of increased sodium intake in consumer diets due to the association of excessive NaCl or sodium intake and its relationship to hypertension (Dahl, 1972; Fries, 1976; Law et al., 1991a,b). These concerns have prompted processors to decrease salt in many meat products. Reduced salt levels in meat lower the ionic strength and may not allow an increase in the WHC compared with meat with greater salt concentrations. Salt is a natural flavor enhancer, increasing the flavor intensity of meat products (Gillette, 1985). Thus, salt reduction not only reduces the perceived saltiness but also weakens the overall flavor in meat products (Wu and Smith, 1987; Ruusunen et al., 2005). Sodium content in meat products can be lowered by NaCl reduction, substitution, or both with other ingredients like potassium chloride or magnesium chloride (Terrell and Olson, 1981; Terrell, 1983). The purpose of this study was to produce a marinated product with reduced NaCl without negatively affecting the sensory attributes. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality characteristics of different sodium levels by varying NaCl content in marinated poultry breast meat.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Processing At 42 d of age, 100 commercial broilers were processed in 2 replications at the university poultry processing pilot plant. Feed was withdrawn 10 h before processing; however, broilers had free access to water before processing. Broilers were transported in coops to the processing plant 15 min before slaughter. The broilers were electrically stunned (11 mV, 10 s), manually cut (severed left carotid artery and jugular vein), bled out (1.5 min), scalded (55°C, 2 min), and picked inline using commercial defeathering equipment. Carcasses were manually eviscerated, and a 2-stage immersion or water chilling system was used for all treatments. Carcasses were placed in a prechill tank for 15 min (12°C) and a chill tank (ice slush) for 55 min (1°C); carcasses were manually agitated frequently throughout the chilling process to reduce thermal layering around the carcass and improve chilling efficiency. The carcasses were deboned at 5 h postmortem. In efforts to primarily determine the appropriate flavor and saltiness of a product, postrigor deboned fillets were evaluated in this study.
Marination Following chilling, breast fillets were aged on ice for 24 h. Following aging, fillets were marinated in 2 replications (20 fillets per replication per treatment) in a vacuum tumbler (508 mm Hg; 67.5 kPa) at 20 rpm for 30 min in a cooler at 4°C in a 15% marinade solution (based on meat weight) consisting of varying levels of NaCl (salt) and 0.45% sodium tripolyphosphate. The salt concentrations used for this experiment were 0.0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25%. The control (0%) was not marinated with salt or phosphate. After tumbling, fillets were allowed to rest for a period of 5 min and then vacuum packed and frozen. The left breast fillet was used for consumer sensory evaluation and the right fillet for instrumental Meullenet-Owens Razor Shear analysis (MORS).
Cooking Before cooking, the frozen fillets were taken out of the freezer (−20°C) and thawed overnight in a refrigerator (4°C). The fillets were cooked in pans covered with aluminum foil to an internal temperature of 76°C in a convection oven according to the method described by Sams (1990). Cooked fillets were used for sensory or instrumental analysis.
Consumer Sensory Analysis The 5 treatments were evaluated by a 68-member consumer panel. The consumer test was conducted at
417
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MARINATED BROILER FILLETS Table 1. Summary table for hedonic scale for marinated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel1 Salt, % Sensory attribute2 Overall impression Texture Flavor
Control, 0% b
4.79 5.03b 4.74b
0.50 a
6.94 6.89a 6.70a
0.75
1.00
a
a
7.02 6.96a 6.98a
6.89 7.03a 6.74a
1.25 a
6.99 6.80a 6.81a
Pooled SEM 0.07 0.07 0.07
a,b
Means within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). n = 68. 2 Hedonic scale: 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely. 1
the University of Arkansas Sensory Laboratory. The sensory testing facility consisted of 6 individual testing booths with controlled lighting and positive airflow. The panelists were presented with one treatment at a time that consisted of three 1- to 1.25-cm cubes of breast meat identified by a random 3-digit code (Meilgaard et al., 1999). Room-temperature water and unsalted crackers were also served. A total of 5 treatments were served, and treatment order was completely randomized for each panelist. Once the consumer received the sample, they were asked to enter the code into the computer and evaluate the product for overall impression, flavor, and texture on a 9-point hedonic scale with 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely. The 5-point just about right (JAR) scale was used on questions about tenderness, moistness, overall flavor, chicken flavor, and saltiness. In this case, 1 = much too low and 5 = much too high with 3 = JAR.
Instrumental Shear Analysis After cooking, fillets were cooled, wrapped in aluminum foil, and stored overnight at 4°C. On the following day, fillets were evaluated for tenderness using the MORS method (Cavitt et al., 2004), which consists of shearing the sample perpendicularly to the longitudinal fiber orientation with a razor blade in duplicate at predetermined locations. The MORS total energy (MORSE, N·mm) was determined using a Texture Analyzer (model TX-TX2, Texture Technologies, Scarsdale, NY) with a 5-kg load cell using a razor blade probe with a height of 24 mm and a width of 8.9 mm set to a penetration depth of 20 mm. The crosshead speed was 5 mm/s; sample shear depth was 20 mm; and trigger force was 0.1 N. Data points were collected with an acquisition rate of 200 points/s. The instrumental data were collected using Texture Exponent 32 version 1.0.0.92. The MORSE was calculated from the forcetime curves using the macro options of Texture Exponent (Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, Surrey, UK).
Statistical Analysis All data was subjected to ANOVA conducted using JMP (version 5.1, SAS Institute, 2004). Means from sensory analysis were separated using least squares means
at a significance level of P < 0.05. Salt concentration (0.0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25%) was defined as the main effect to determine the influence of salt concentration on meat quality attributes. The frequency distributions for the hedonic scales and JAR scales were compared using Fisher’s exact test for equality of distributions. A chi-square test was not utilized in this instance because more than 20% of the expected values were below 5 (Fleiss, 2003). Significant differences for the frequency distribution were determined at a P < 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Consumer sensory analysis was conducted to determine consumer acceptance of quality attributes of marinated broiler breast fillets using varying levels of salt. Based on the responses of the panelists, there were no significant (P > 0.05) differences in mean values for overall impression among the marinated treatments (Table 1). Fillets marinated with any concentration of salt (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25%) had greater (P < 0.05) overall impression mean values compared with the nonmarinated control treatment. Robbins et al. (2003) and Baublits et al. (2006) also reported greater consumer overall acceptability when beef steaks and pork loins were enhanced with salt and phosphate in comparison with nonenhanced treatments. Similar to overall impression, there were no significant (P > 0.05) differences in mean hedonic ratings for flavor or texture of marinated breast fillets, but all marinated fillets had significantly greater acceptance scores compared with the nonmarinated fillets. Frequency distribution (%) of overall impression, texture, and flavor are presented in Table 2. No significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in the frequency distributions for any category of the hedonic scales in all of the 4 marinated treatments. However, in most cases, the marinated treatments differed from the nonmarinated treatments in terms of percentages of consumer responses for the hedonic scale categories (e.g., like extremely, like moderately, etc.). The frequency distribution (%) for overall impression shows that majority of the consumers (52.95%) disliked (hedonic scale rating ≤4) the nonmarinated control treatment. Furthermore, these percentages in the dislike categories (hedonic scale rating ≤4) were significantly greater
418
SAHA ET AL. 1
Table 2. Frequency (%) of consumer responses for overall acceptance, flavor, and texture for control and marinated breast fillets Salt, % 2
Attribute (hedonic scale ) Overall impression Dislike extremely (1) Dislike very much (2) Dislike moderately (3) Dislike slightly (4) Neither like nor dislike (5) Like slightly (6) Like moderately (7) Like very much (8) Like extremely (9) Texture Dislike extremely (1) Dislike very much (2) Dislike moderately (3) Dislike slightly (4) Neither like nor dislike (5) Like slightly (6) Like moderately (7) Like very much (8) Like extremely (9) Flavor Dislike extremely (1) Dislike very much (2) Dislike moderately (3) Dislike slightly (4) Neither like nor dislike (5) Like slightly (6) Like moderately (7) Like very much (8) Like extremely (9)
Control, 0%
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.47 13.24a 16.18a 22.06a 7.35 11.76 16.18b 11.76b 0.00b
1.47 0.00b 1.47b 2.94b 7.35 13.24 39.71a 23.53ab 10.29a
1.47 0.00b 1.47b 5.88b 2.94 11.76 36.76a 26.47ab 13.24a
0.00 1.47b 0.00b 5.88b 5.88 17.65 35.29a 25.00ab 8.82a
0.00 0.00b 1.47b 7.35b 7.35 10.29 32.35a 30.88a 10.29a
1.47 11.76a 10.29a 22.06a 14.71 7.35 17.65b 13.24b 1.47
0.00 0.00b 1.47ab 7.35b 7.35 14.71 29.41ab 30.88a 8.82
0.00 0.00b 1.47ab 8.82ab 4.41 13.24 29.41ab 32.35a 10.29
0.00 0.00b 0.00b 2.94b 8.82 14.71 35.29a 30.88a 7.35
0.00 1.47b 0.00b 11.76ab 7.35 10.29 26.47ab 36.76a 5.88
2.94 11.76a 16.18a 20.59a 10.29 11.76 19.12 7.35b 0.00b
1.47 1.47b 0.00b 2.94b 13.24 17.65 30.88 25.00a 7.35a
0.00 1.47b 0.00b 5.88b 4.41 23.53 17.65 38.24a 8.82a
0.00 2.94ab 0.00b 10.29ab 4.41 16.18 27.94 33.82a 4.41b
0.00 1.47b 4.41ab 2.94b 5.88 20.59 25.00 33.82a 5.88b
a,b
Proportions within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). n = 68. 2 A 9-point hedonic scale used for overall consumer overall impression, flavor, and texture. 1
than the percentages in the same categories for the marinated fillets regardless of salt (0.5 to 1.25%) where only 5.88 to 8.82% of the consumers disliked (hedonic scale rating ≤4) the marinated fillets. In comparison, 83.81 to 88.23% of the consumers liked (hedonic scale rating ≥6) the marinated fillets regardless of their salt concentration. Furthermore, greater than 80% of consumers liked (hedonic scale rating ≥6) the texture of marinated fillets compared with approximately 40% of consumers who like the texture of nonmarinated fillets. Saha et al. (2006) reported that mean consumer ratings for marinated fillets ranged from like slightly to like moderately regardless of debone time (pre- or postrigor), suggesting that marination results in acceptable texture. The myofibrillar proteins of muscle, myosin and actin, are salt soluble, and these proteins impact a wide range of meat attributes including texture and WHC (Foegeding, 1987). It has been an historic practice to incorporate salt into meat to increase shelf-life and enhance flavor. Salt is a natural flavor enhancer, increasing the flavor intensity of meat products (Gillette, 1985). Thus, salt not only improves the perceived saltiness but also strengthens the overall flavor in meat products (Ruusunen et al., 2005). Salt reduces the water activity of meat, thereby increasing the concentration of other compounds in solution and their sensory perception
(Matthews and Strong, 2005). There was a significantly greater percentage of consumers who liked very much the flavor of the marinated fillets compared with the nonmarinated fillets regardless of salt concentration in the marinade (Table 2). A similar trend was apparent with the like extremely category with the exception of those fillets marinated in 1.0 or 1.25% salt as these were not statistically different from the nonmarinated treatment. Overall, most consumers (>80%) liked (hedonic scale rating ≥6) all of the marinated fillets, whereas only 38% of consumers liked the nonmarinated fillets in terms of flavor. There was generally a greater percentage of consumers who disliked the flavor of the nonmarinated fillets compared with the marinated fillets. There were no differences in percentages of consumers who disliked (hedonic scale rating ≤4) flavor among marinated fillets (0.5% salt or greater). Bryhni et al. (2003) reported that flavor characteristics negatively influenced consumer liking. Howe and Barbella (1937) commented that the addition of salt to meat develops the flavor. Since then, numerous researchers have found that marination with salt and phosphate improves meat flavor (Cross and Stanfield, 1976; Schwartz and Mandigo, 1976; Olson, 1982; Steinhauer, 1983; Wheeler et al., 1990; Miller, 1998; Woods and Church, 1999). In addition to hedonic sensory scales, JAR sensory scales were used to determine appropriateness of meat
419
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MARINATED BROILER FILLETS Table 3. Summary table for just about right (JAR) scale for marinated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel1 Salt, % Sensory attribute2 Tenderness Moistness Overall flavor Chicken flavor Saltiness
Control, 0% b
2.40 2.49b 2.47c 2.82ab 1.89d
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
a
a
a
a
3.03 2.85a 2.73bc 2.69b 2.60c
3.09 2.96a 2.80ab 2.93ab 2.84bc
2.99 2.95a 2.97ab 2.98a 2.93b
3.03 3.05a 3.09a 2.80ab 3.20a
Pooled SEM 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03
a–c
Proportions within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). n = 68. 2 JAR scale: 1 = much too low, 3 = JAR, and 5 = much too high. 1
tenderness (Table 3). Fillets marinated with any concentration of salt (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25%) had greater (P < 0.05) tenderness JAR mean values compared with the nonmarinated control treatment. Furthermore, JAR tenderness mean values for all the marinated fillets were 2.99 to 3.03, indicating the consumers considered the fillets to be JAR, whereas the nonmarinated fillets had a mean of 2.4, which indicated that consumer considered these as too tough. Furthermore, there was a greater percentage of consumers who considered the nonmarinated fillets as much too tough or too tough compared with marinated fillets (Table 4). The percentage of consumers who considered the fillets as JAR for tenderness was significantly greater in all marinated fillets (>77%) compared with nonmarinated fillets (32%). Moreover, the percentages of consumers considering the meat as JAR in any JAR scale category were similar (P > 0.05) for all marinated fillets. These data suggest that marination can improve consumer perception of poultry meat tenderness. This research also agrees with previous research that has shown that marination improves meat quality attributes (Lyon et al., 1998). Saha (2007) reported that the percentage of consumers rating meat tenderness as JAR ranged from 59.3 to 81.1% for marinated fillets in comparison with 21.6 to 82.4% (Xiong et al., 2006) and 25.0 to 73.0% (Cavitt et al., 2005a) for nonmarinated pre- and postrigor fillets. Palladino and Ball (1979) found sodium ions have a tenderizing effect in postrigor broiler breast meat. Robbins et al. (2003) reported that marinated beef steaks and roasts were considered to be significantly more tender and juicy than nonmarinated controls by consumer sensory panel. Similar results were also reported by Robbins et al. (2002) for evaluation of marinated beef using trained sensory panel. Sheard et al. (1999) and Smith et al. (1984) reported that phosphate-injected pork roasts were more tender than fresh cooked, unpumped roasts. Total energy data from the MORS method can be used as a predictor of tenderness (Cavitt et al., 2004). Nonmarinated control fillets had significantly greater MORSE values compared with the MORSE values for the marinated treatments (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25%, respectively; Figure 1) indicating that marination improved tenderness. According to the instrumental/
sensory equivalency scales developed by Cavitt et al. (2005a) and Xiong et al. (2006), the marinated fillets in this study would be perceived as very tender to extremely tender by consumers. The results of this study are similar to previous research. Saha (2007) reported that marinated fillets deboned early postmortem had shear values (MORSE) that were considerably lower than nonmarinated fillets deboned at 24 h in studies conducted by Cavitt et al. (2004, 2005b) and Xiong et al. (2006). These results support that marination improves consumer acceptance of the product. In the process of marination, salts and phosphates dissociate actomyosin into actin and myosin, improving the texture of the meat (Smith, 2001). Zheng et al. (2000), Brashear et al. (2002), and Hayes et al. (2006) also reported decreased shear force values indicating increased tenderness for poultry breasts treated with marinated solutions compared with untreated breasts. In the present study, the varying salt concentration in the marinades also affected tenderness of breast fillets. The MORSE values decreased, or tenderness increased, with the increasing salt concentration for marinated samples. This decreasing MORSE pattern, as shown in Figure 1, was similar to that previously observed by Aktas et al. (2003). The authors concluded that increasing the salt concentration in the marinade decreases the Warner-Bratzler shear force. Wu and Smith (1987) showed that an increase in ionic strength was effective in solubilizing many proteins in myofilaments. As a result, NaCl increases the ionic strength of myofibrils so that tenderization occurs through the solubilization of muscle protein. Moistness was assessed in this study as an indicator of juiciness. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in JAR moistness means among marinated fillets despite the differences in salt concentrations. The mean values for marinated fillets ranged from 2.85 to 3.05, which represent the just-about-right anchor on the JAR scale (Table 3). However, all marinated fillets had significantly greater (P < 0.05) JAR means compared with nonmarinated fillets, indicating that marination improved moistness, or juiciness. Frequency distribution also indicated that a greater percentage of consumers (50.0%) considered that nonmarinated fillets as much too dry or too dry compared with marinated fillets
420
SAHA ET AL.
Figure 1. Meullenet-Owens razor shear total energy (MORSE) value for breast fillets marinated with varying levels of salt. Control treatment was not marinated. a–dMeans lacking a common letter differ (P < 0.05). n = 20 per mean.
where there were no differences in distribution among marinated fillets with varying levels of salt (Table 4). The majority of consumers (72.06 to 80.88%) considered
the moistness to be JAR compared with only 44.12% of the consumers who considered nonmarinated fillets as JAR. Hayes et al. (2006) and Brewer et al. (1999)
Table 4. Frequency (%) of consumer1 acceptance for tenderness, juiciness, overall flavor, saltiness, and purchase for control and marinated breast fillets Salt, % Attribute (scale2) Tenderness Much too tough (1) Too tough (2) Just about right (3) Too tender (4) Much too tender (5) Moistness Much too dry (1) Too dry (2) Just about right (3) Too wet (4) Much too wet (5) Overall flavor Much too weak (1) Too weak (2) Just about right (3) Too strong (4) Much too strong (5) Chicken flavor Much too weak (1) Too weak (2) Just about right (3) Too strong (4) Much too strong (5) Saltiness Not nearly salty enough (1) Not salty enough (2) Just about right (3) Too salty (4) Much too salty (5) a–c
Control, 0%
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
10.29a 50.00a 32.35b 4.41 2.94
0.00b 7.35b 82.35a 10.29 0.00
0.00b 8.82b 77.94a 8.82 4.41
0.00b 8.82b 85.29a 4.41 1.47
0.00b 8.82b 80.88a 8.82 1.47
10.29a 39.71a 44.12b 2.94 2.94
2.94ab 13.24b 80.88a 2.94 0.00
0.00b 17.65b 72.06a 7.35 2.94
0.00b 13.24b 79.41a 7.35 0.00
0.00b 8.82b 79.41a 10.29 1.47
22.06a 38.24a 19.12b 13.24abc 7.35
4.41b 23.53ab 66.18a 5.88a 0.00
0.00b 26.47ab 66.18a 7.35ac 0.00
2.94b 16.18b 61.76a 19.12bc 0.00
0.00b 14.71b 63.24a 20.59b 1.47
13.24a 23.53 41.18b 13.24a 8.82a
5.88ab 22.06 70.59a 0.00b 1.47ab
0.00b 17.65 73.53a 7.35ab 1.47ab
2.94ab 10.29 75.00a 10.29a 1.47ab
0.00b 23.53 73.53a 2.94ab 0.00b
25.00a 58.82a 16.18c 0.00a 0.00
4.41b 36.76b 54.41b 4.41b 0.00
0.00b 20.59c 73.53a 5.88b 0.00
2.94b 20.59c 55.88b 20.59a 0.00
0.00b 14.71c 54.41b 26.47a 4.41
Proportions within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). n = 68. 2 A 5-point just about right scale was used for tenderness, moistness, overall flavor, chicken flavor, and saltiness. 1
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MARINATED BROILER FILLETS
concluded that juiciness and tenderness were significantly improved with salt and phosphate marination in comparison with nonmarinated or water-injected pork loins. Supporting these results, Shults et al. (1972) reported greater water binding of ground beef with NaCl and phosphates. Similarly, Wheeler et al. (1990) also reported that steaks with no salt were less juicy, less salty, and lower in overall palatability than were steaks with salt. Marination not only helps in improving the tenderness but also improves the WHC of meat (Young and Lyon, 1986; Woelfel and Sams, 2001), which explains the narrow range of mean values or no difference in the frequency distribution percentage among all the 4 marinated treatments. The addition of salt reduces electrostatic interactions between protein molecules to increase protein extractability, solubility, and water binding (Offer and Knight, 1988; Matthews and Strong, 2005). Salt also increases WHC by increasing the space between the thick and thin filaments (Matthews and Strong, 2005). The anions bind to positively charged amino groups of proteins. As a result the isoelectric point moves to a lower pH without changing the meat pH, resulting in subsequent improvements in purge loss and cook yields (Miller, 1998). Tumbling or chopping helps in absorption of more water by the muscle because salt disrupts the muscle fibers. Meat proteins can swell to twice their size in salt concentrations (Miller, 1998). This increases the yield after cooking and improves palatability and texture. Overall flavor JAR mean values for breast fillets increased with the increasing salt concentration (Table 3). Fillets marinated with 1.25% salt had the highest JAR mean, indicating JAR, and the nonmarinated fillets had the lowest means, indicating too weak, whereas the other marinated fillets (0.5, 0.75, and 1.0%) were intermediate. These results are in accordance with hedonic scale distributions where majority of the consumers liked (hedonic scale rating ≥6) the marinated fillets compared with the nonmarinated treatment. Fillets marinated with salt concentrations of 1.0 and 1.25% had significantly (P < 0.05) lower percentages (16.18 and 14.71%, respectively) of consumers considering them as too weak in comparison with the nonmarinated control fillets (38.24%; Table 4). Fillets marinated with 0.5 or 0.75% had similar percentage as those with greater (1.0 or 1.25%) or lower (0%) salt concentration. Similar results were reported by Keeton (1983) and Hayes et al. (2006) for pork loins. The authors found that pork loins enhanced with phosphate and salt had a greater overall flavor rating in comparison with the control. In this study, most consumers considered marinated fillets regardless of salt concentration to be JAR in overall flavor. Consumers considered the chicken flavor to be uniform with marination or salt concentration having no effect on the JAR means (Table 3). Terrell (1983), Ruusunen and Puolanne (2005), and Desmond (2006) commented on salt being essential for the flavor and it
421
being used by the meat industry as flavoring. Therefore, salt may mask some of the chicken flavor, resulting in a lower percentage of consumers considering the marinated treatments as too strong and much too strong. All JAR saltiness mean scores ranged from 2.60 to 3.20 for marinated treatments (Table 3). The nonmarinated control fillets had a significantly lower JAR rating (1.89) in comparison with the marinated samples, indicating that nonmarinated samples were not salty enough as would be expected. Salt concentration of 1.25% had the greatest JAR rating of 3.2, indicating that more consumers rated the samples as too salty rather than JAR. Among the marinated samples, fillets with 0.5% salt concentration had lowest rating, followed by the 0.75 and 1.0 salt concentrations suggesting that as salt concentration increases, the appropriateness of saltiness improves in this range. Frequency distribution (%) for saltiness had differences in the JAR ratings (Table 4). As the percentage of salt in the formulation increased, the percentage of consumers who considered the product as not salty enough generally decreased. Similarly, the saltiness was considered as not salty enough by 14.71 to 36.76% of consumers for the marinated treatments. Consumers considering the nonmarinated fillets as not nearly salty enough or not salty enough were significantly greater (25.0 and 58.82%, respectively) in comparison with the marinated samples (<4.41 and <36.76%, respectively). The sensory attributes including saltiness had the greatest JAR proportions for the 0.75% salt concentration, indicating this concentration as being accurate for ready-to-cook products. Raw marinated breast fillets fall under the category of further processed products that generally undergo further preparation after purchase (e.g, retail raw marinated breast fillets). For example, in household settings, it is likely that chicken breasts would be prepared with additional ingredients (seasonings, spices, etc.) leading to increased levels of appropriateness for flavor, saltiness, or both. Therefore, using a greater salt concentration for marination may potentially result in a product being categorized by a large percentage of people as too salty after cooking. Salt concentration of 0.5% had a significantly (P < 0.05) greater percentage of consumers rating it as not salty enough in comparison with other marinated treatments and significantly (P < 0.05) lower percentage in comparison with the nonmarinated control. Also, the fillets were not penalized for being too salty unlike salt concentrations of 1.0 and 1.25%. Over 50% of consumers considered saltiness levels of the 0.5% marinated fillets as JAR. However, when marinating with 0.75%, the majority of consumers (>70%) considered the saltiness levels as JAR. Fillets with salt concentrations of 1% and above were considered as too strong for overall flavor, and >20% of the consumers considered them to be too salty. These results indicate that the lower salt concentrations used in marinating breast fillets would be appropriate to produce products that are acceptable to consumers.
422
SAHA ET AL.
Conclusions Marination improved consumer acceptance of broiler breast fillets for all quality attributes including overall impression, flavor, texture, tenderness, moistness, and saltiness, regardless of salt concentration. Saltiness, as perceived by consumers, increased as salt concentrations in the marinades increased. Salt concentrations of 1% or greater resulted in greater than 20% of consumers who considered the fillets as too salty, which could result in more consumer complaints in the marketplace. The majority of consumers considered the lower levels of salt to be just about right for saltiness levels, whereas very few consumers considered the fillets as too salty. The results of this study suggest that using low salt concentrations, 0.5% to 0.75% (depending on end product), is appropriate for marination of postrigor broiler breast meat to obtain desirable quality attributes. Future research should include evaluation of tenderness of early deboned fillets marinated with low salt concentrations.
REFERENCES Aktas, N., M. I. Aksu, and M. Kaya. 2003. The influence of marination with different salt concentrations on the tenderness, water holding capacity and bound water content of beef. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 27:1207–1211. Barbut, S., A. J. Maurer, and R. C. Lindsay. 1988. Effects of reduced sodium-chloride and added phosphates on physical and sensory properties of turkey frankfurters. J. Food Sci. 53:62–66. Baublits, R. T., J. F. Meullenet, J. T. Sawyer, J. M. Mehaffey, and A. Saha. 2006. Pump rate and cooked temperature effects on pork loin instrumental, sensory descriptive and consumer-rated characteristics. Meat Sci. 72:741–750. Birkhold, S. G., and A. R. Sams. 1993. Fragmentation, tenderness and postmortem metabolism of early-harvested broiler breast fillets from carcasses treated with electrical stimulation and muscle tensioning. Poult. Sci. 72:577–582. Brashear, G., M. S. Brewer, D. Meisinger, and F. K. McKeith. 2002. Raw material, pH, pump level and pump composition on quality characteristics of pork. J. Muscle Foods 13:189–204. Brewer, M. S., M. Gusse, and F. K. McKeith. 1999. Effects of injection of dilute phosphate-salt solution on pork characteristics from PSE, normal and DFD carcasses. J. Food Qual. 22:375–485. Bryhni, E. A., D. V. Byrne, M. Rodbotten, S. Moller, C. ClaudiMagnussen, A. Karlsson, H. Agerhem, M. Johansson, and M. Martens. 2003. Consumer and sensory investigations in relation to physical/chemical aspects of cooked pork in Scandinavia. Meat Sci. 65:737–748. Cavitt, L. C., J. F. Meullenet, R. K. Gandhapuneni, G. W. Youm, and C. M. Owens. 2005b. Rigor development and meat quality of large and small broilers and the use of Allo-Kramer shear, needle puncture, and razor blade shear to measure texture. Poult. Sci. 84:113–118. Cavitt, L. C., J. F. C. Meullenet, R. Xiong, and C. M. Owens. 2005a. The relationship of razor blade shear, Allo- Kramer shear, Warner-Bratzler shear, and sensory tests to changes in tenderness of broiler breast fillets. J. Muscle Foods 16:223–242. Cavitt, L. C., G. W. Youm, J. F. Meullenet, C. M. Owens, and R. Xiong. 2004. Prediction of poultry meat tenderness using razor blade shear, Allo-Kramer shear, and sarcomere length. J. Food Sci. 69:11–15. Cross, H. R., and M. S. Stanfield. 1976. Consumer evaluation of restructured beef steaks. J. Food Sci. 41:1257–1258. Dahl, L. K. 1972. Salt and hypertension. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 25:231– 244.
Desmond, E. 2006. Reducing salt: A challenge for the meat industry. Meat Sci. 74:188–196. Ellinger. R. H. 1972. Phosphates in food processing. In Handbook of Food Additives. 2nd ed. T. E. Furia, ed. CRC Press, Cleveland, OH. Fleiss, J. 2003. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. J. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Foegeding, E. A. 1987. Functional properties of turkey salt-soluble proteins. J. Food Sci. 52:1495–1499. Fries, H. A. 1976. Salt volume and prevention of hypertension. Circulation . JAMA 4:589–595. Gillette, M. 1985. Flavor effects of sodium chloride. Food Technol. 39:47–52. Hamm, R. 1960. Biochemistry of meat hydration. Adv. Food Res. 10:355–463. Hamm, R. 1986. Functional properties of the myofibrillar system and their measurements. Pages 135–199 in Muscle as Food. P. J. Bechtel, ed. Academic Press, New York, NY. Hayes, J. E., E. M. Desmond, D. J. Troy, D. J. Buckley, and R. Mehra. 2006. The effect of enhancement with salt, phosphate and milk proteins on the physical and sensory properties of pork loin. Meat Sci. 72:380–386. Howe, P. E., and N. G. Barbella. 1937. The flavor of meat and meat products. Food Res. 2:197–202. Keeton, J. T. 1983. Effects of fat and NaCl/phosphate levels on the chemical and sensory properties of pork patties. J. Food Sci. 48:878–881. Law, M., C. Frost, and N. Wald. 1991a. By how much does dietary salt reduction lower blood pressure? I. Analysis of observational data among populations. BMJ 302:811–815. Law, M., C. Frost, and N. Wald. 1991b. By how much does dietary salt reduction lower blood pressure? I. Analysis of data from trials of salt reduction. BMJ 302:819–824. Lyon, B. G., D. P. Smith, and E. M. Savage. 2005. Descriptive sensory analysis of broiler breast fillets marinated in phosphate, salt, and acid solutions. Poult. Sci. 84:345–349. Lyon, C. E., B. G. Lyon, and J. A. Dikens. 1998. Effects of carcass stimulation, deboning time, and marination on color and texture of broiler breast meat. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 7:53–60. Matthews, K., and K. Strong. 2005. Salt–Its role in meat products and the industry’s action plan to reduce it. Nutr. Bull. 30:55–61. Meilgaard, M., G. V. Civille, and B. T. Carr. 1999. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 3rd ed. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Miller, R. 1998. Functionality of non-meat ingredients used in enhanced pork - Pork quality. Facts. 1-12. National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA. Offer, G., and P. Knight. 1988. The structural basis of waterholding in meat. Pages 173–243 in Developments in Meat Science-4. R. A. Lawrie, ed. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK. Olson, D. G. 1982. Salt for processing probably can be cut by only one quarter. Natl. Provisioner 17:7–10. Palladino, D. K., and H. R. Ball. 1979. Effects of selected inorganic salts on certain tenderness characteristics of spent hen muscle. J. Food Sci. 44:322–326. Robbins, K., J. Jensen, K. J. Ryan, C. Homco-Ryan, F. K. McKeith, and M. S. Brewer. 2002. Enhancement effects on sensory and retail display characteristics of beef rounds. J. Muscle Foods 13:279–288. Robbins, K., J. Jensen, K. J. Ryan, C. Homco-Ryan, F. K. McKeith, and M. S. Brewer. 2003. Consumer attitudes towards beef and acceptability of enhanced beef . Meat Sci. 65:721–729. Ruusunen, M., and E. Puolanne. 2005. Reducing sodium intake from meat products. Meat Sci. 70:531–541. Ruusunen, M., J. Vainionpaa, M. Lyly, L. Lahteenmaki, M. Niemisto, R. Ahvenainen, and E. Puolanne. 2005. Reducing the sodium content in meat products: The effect of the formulation in lowsodium ground meat patties. Meat Sci. 69:53–60. Saha, A. 2007. The effects of salt concentration, deboning time and extended aging on consumer perception and texture of marinated poultry breast meat. PhD Diss. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. UMI 32-76907. Saha, A., A. V. S. Perumalla, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens. 2006. Tenderness, juiciness and flavor of pre- and post-rigor mari-
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MARINATED BROILER FILLETS nated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel. Poult. Sci. 85(Suppl. 1):115. (Abstr.) Sams, A. R. 1990. Electrical stimulation and high temperature conditioning of broiler carcasses. Poult. Sci. 69:1781–1786. Sams, A. R., D. M. Janky, and S. A. Woodward. 1989. Tenderness and R-value changes in early harvested broiler breast tissue following postmortem electrical stimulation. Poult. Sci. 68:1232– 1235. SAS Institute. 2004. JMP. Version 5.1. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC. Schwartz, W. C., and R. W. Mandigo. 1976. Effect of salt, sodium tripolyphosphate and storage on restructured pork. J. Food Sci. 41:1266–1269. Sheard, P. R., G. R. Nute, R. I. Richardson, A. Perry, and A. A. Taylor. 1999. Injection of water and polyphosphate into pork to improve juiciness and tenderness after cooking. Meat Sci. 51:371–376. Shults, G. W., D. R. Russell, and E. Wierbicki. 1972. Effect of condensed phosphates on pH, swelling and water- holding capacity of beef . J. Food Sci. 37:860–864. Smith, D. M. 2001. Functional properties of muscle proteins in processed poultry products. Pages 181–195 in Poultry Meat Processing. A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Smith, L. A., S. L. Simmons, F. K. McKeith, P. J. Bechtel, and P. L. Brady. 1984. Effects of sodium tripolyphosphate on physical and sensory properties of beef and pork roasts. J. Food Sci. 49:1636–1637. Steinhauer, J. E. 1983. Food phosphates for use in the meat, poultry, and seafood industry. Dairy Food Sanit. 3:244–247. Stewart, M. K., D. L. Fletcher, D. Hamm, and J. E. Thomson. 1984. The influence of hot boning broiler breast meat muscle on pH decline and toughening. Poult. Sci. 63:1935–1939. Terrell, R. N. 1983. Reducing the sodium content of processed meats. Food Technol. 37:66–71.
423
Terrell, R. N., and D. G. Olson. 1981. Chloride salts and processed meats: Properties sources, mechanisms of action, labeling. Proc. Meat Industry Research Conference, American Meat Institute Foundation, Arlington, VA. Wheeler, T. L., S. C. Seideman, G. W. Davis, and T. L. Rolan. 1990. Effect of chloride salts and antioxidants on sensory and storage traits of restructured beef steaks. J. Food Sci. 55:1274–1277. Whiting, R. C. 1988. Ingredients and Processing Factors that Control Muscle Protein Functionality. Food Technol. 42:104–114. Woelfel, R. L., and A. R. Sams. 2001. Marination performance of pale broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 80:1519–1522. Woods, L. F. J., and P. N. Church. 1999. Strategies for extending the shelf-life of poultry meat and products. Pages 397–410 in “Poultry Meat Science: Poultry Science Symposium Series Volume Twenty-five,” R. I. Richardson and G. C. Mead, ed. CABI Publishing, New York, NY. Wu, F. Y., and S. B. Smith. 1987. Ionic strength and myofibrillar protein solubilization. J. Anim. Sci. 65:597–608. Xiong, R., L. C. Cavitt, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens. 2006. Comparison of allo-kramer, warner-bratzler and razor blade shears for predicting sensory tenderness of broiler breast meat. J. Texture Stud. 37:179–199. Young, L. L., and B. G. Lyon. 1986. effect of sodium tripolyphosphate in the presence and absence of calcium- chloride and sodium-chloride on water-retention properties and shear resistance of chicken breast meat. Poult. Sci. 65:898–902. Zheng, M., N. A. Detienne, B. W. Barnes, and L. Wicker. 2000. Tenderness and yields of poultry breast are influenced by phosphate type and concentration of marinade. J. Sci. Food Agric. 81:82–87.
sumers who considered the product as not salty enough generally decreased. The products with the greater concentrations of salt (1.0 and 1.25%) resulted in high percentages of consumers who considered the product too salty. For juiciness and tenderness, a large percentage (>70%) of the consumers considered 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0% treatments to be JAR. Greater than 20% of consumers considered fillets marinated with 1% or greater salt concentration as too salty. Fillets marinated with lower levels of salt (0.5 and 0.75%) were considered JAR for saltiness by most consumers, whereas very few consumers considered the fillets to be too salty. Using instrumental tenderness analysis, salt concentrations above 1.0% were more tender than other treatments; however, all marinated treatments were significantly more tender than nonmarinated controls. These results suggest that using low salt concentrations, 0.5 to 0.75%, is appropriate for marination of postrigor broiler breast meat to obtain desirable quality attributes.
Key words: marination, consumer, broiler, salt 2009 Poultry Science 88:415–423 doi:10.3382/ps.2008-00230
INTRODUCTION
With the increasing demand for poultry boneless breast meat, producers are shortening the deboning time, and meat quality properties are directly affected as a result. A positive correlation was reported by Stewart et al. (1984) between prerigor deboning and shear values. Stewart et al. concluded that breast meat toughness associated with prerigor deboning can be evaded by application of appropriate tenderizing treatment or postrigor (at least 4 to 6 h postmortem) deboning of breast muscle. Some of the technologies with promising results in improving tenderness of early harvested broiler breast meat include electrical stimulation (Sams et al., 1989), wing restraints or tensioning (Birkhold and Sams, 1993), and high temperature conditioning of broiler carcasses (Sams, 1990), but none of these technologies fully assure acceptable broiler breast tenderness and product uniformity or are widely used in industry.
Consumer satisfaction is very crucial for repeat purchase of any product. Therefore, studying consumer acceptance of a product plays a very important role in the food industry. Consumers have shifted their preference away from purchasing poultry as whole carcasses toward purchasing it as boneless meat and as further processed products, and breast meat is considered the most valuable part of a broiler carcass in the United States. Therefore, in the past few decades breeders have focused their efforts on improving breast meat yield and quality.
©2009 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received June 6, 2008. Accepted October 24, 2008. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected]
415
416
SAHA ET AL.
The meat industry has successfully implemented marination technologies to meet consumer demands and help maintain product uniformity, and the use of marination has increased dramatically in the past few years in the poultry industry. It is one of the methods used by the industry for tenderization of early harvested broiler breast fillets. Zheng et al. (2000) reported that poultry breast fillets deboned at 2 h postmortem and marinated with salt and phosphate (sodium tripolyphosphate, hexametaphosphate, or tetrasodium pyrophosphate) significantly reduced the toughness of poultry breast. Additionally, beneficial effects of marination on meat texture include a juicier meat and reduction of water loss during cooking (Miller, 1998). Most commonly used commercial marinades contain salt, phosphate, and water as their primary ingredients (Barbut et al., 1988; Lyon et al., 2005). Phosphates are known to increase water holding capacity (WHC), stabilize meat emulsions, improve juiciness and tenderness, and maintain flavor of processed meat products (Ellinger, 1972). Phosphates, like sodium tripolyphosphate, improve the functional properties of meat proteins by increasing the ionic strength and pH of meat (Hamm, 1960). Increased ionic strength or greater pH results in greater WHC or juicier product. Salt or sodium chloride solubilize proteins to increase WHC (Whiting, 1988). The Cl− ions interact with positively charged myosin molecules and result in a change of isoelectric point to a lower pH (Hamm, 1986). This weakens the interaction and increases swelling and WHC (Hamm, 1986). Increasing the WHC of the meat reduces cook loss and increases tenderness and juiciness of the meat product (Desmond, 2006). There are concerns of increased sodium intake in consumer diets due to the association of excessive NaCl or sodium intake and its relationship to hypertension (Dahl, 1972; Fries, 1976; Law et al., 1991a,b). These concerns have prompted processors to decrease salt in many meat products. Reduced salt levels in meat lower the ionic strength and may not allow an increase in the WHC compared with meat with greater salt concentrations. Salt is a natural flavor enhancer, increasing the flavor intensity of meat products (Gillette, 1985). Thus, salt reduction not only reduces the perceived saltiness but also weakens the overall flavor in meat products (Wu and Smith, 1987; Ruusunen et al., 2005). Sodium content in meat products can be lowered by NaCl reduction, substitution, or both with other ingredients like potassium chloride or magnesium chloride (Terrell and Olson, 1981; Terrell, 1983). The purpose of this study was to produce a marinated product with reduced NaCl without negatively affecting the sensory attributes. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality characteristics of different sodium levels by varying NaCl content in marinated poultry breast meat.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Processing At 42 d of age, 100 commercial broilers were processed in 2 replications at the university poultry processing pilot plant. Feed was withdrawn 10 h before processing; however, broilers had free access to water before processing. Broilers were transported in coops to the processing plant 15 min before slaughter. The broilers were electrically stunned (11 mV, 10 s), manually cut (severed left carotid artery and jugular vein), bled out (1.5 min), scalded (55°C, 2 min), and picked inline using commercial defeathering equipment. Carcasses were manually eviscerated, and a 2-stage immersion or water chilling system was used for all treatments. Carcasses were placed in a prechill tank for 15 min (12°C) and a chill tank (ice slush) for 55 min (1°C); carcasses were manually agitated frequently throughout the chilling process to reduce thermal layering around the carcass and improve chilling efficiency. The carcasses were deboned at 5 h postmortem. In efforts to primarily determine the appropriate flavor and saltiness of a product, postrigor deboned fillets were evaluated in this study.
Marination Following chilling, breast fillets were aged on ice for 24 h. Following aging, fillets were marinated in 2 replications (20 fillets per replication per treatment) in a vacuum tumbler (508 mm Hg; 67.5 kPa) at 20 rpm for 30 min in a cooler at 4°C in a 15% marinade solution (based on meat weight) consisting of varying levels of NaCl (salt) and 0.45% sodium tripolyphosphate. The salt concentrations used for this experiment were 0.0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25%. The control (0%) was not marinated with salt or phosphate. After tumbling, fillets were allowed to rest for a period of 5 min and then vacuum packed and frozen. The left breast fillet was used for consumer sensory evaluation and the right fillet for instrumental Meullenet-Owens Razor Shear analysis (MORS).
Cooking Before cooking, the frozen fillets were taken out of the freezer (−20°C) and thawed overnight in a refrigerator (4°C). The fillets were cooked in pans covered with aluminum foil to an internal temperature of 76°C in a convection oven according to the method described by Sams (1990). Cooked fillets were used for sensory or instrumental analysis.
Consumer Sensory Analysis The 5 treatments were evaluated by a 68-member consumer panel. The consumer test was conducted at
417
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MARINATED BROILER FILLETS Table 1. Summary table for hedonic scale for marinated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel1 Salt, % Sensory attribute2 Overall impression Texture Flavor
Control, 0% b
4.79 5.03b 4.74b
0.50 a
6.94 6.89a 6.70a
0.75
1.00
a
a
7.02 6.96a 6.98a
6.89 7.03a 6.74a
1.25 a
6.99 6.80a 6.81a
Pooled SEM 0.07 0.07 0.07
a,b
Means within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). n = 68. 2 Hedonic scale: 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely. 1
the University of Arkansas Sensory Laboratory. The sensory testing facility consisted of 6 individual testing booths with controlled lighting and positive airflow. The panelists were presented with one treatment at a time that consisted of three 1- to 1.25-cm cubes of breast meat identified by a random 3-digit code (Meilgaard et al., 1999). Room-temperature water and unsalted crackers were also served. A total of 5 treatments were served, and treatment order was completely randomized for each panelist. Once the consumer received the sample, they were asked to enter the code into the computer and evaluate the product for overall impression, flavor, and texture on a 9-point hedonic scale with 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely. The 5-point just about right (JAR) scale was used on questions about tenderness, moistness, overall flavor, chicken flavor, and saltiness. In this case, 1 = much too low and 5 = much too high with 3 = JAR.
Instrumental Shear Analysis After cooking, fillets were cooled, wrapped in aluminum foil, and stored overnight at 4°C. On the following day, fillets were evaluated for tenderness using the MORS method (Cavitt et al., 2004), which consists of shearing the sample perpendicularly to the longitudinal fiber orientation with a razor blade in duplicate at predetermined locations. The MORS total energy (MORSE, N·mm) was determined using a Texture Analyzer (model TX-TX2, Texture Technologies, Scarsdale, NY) with a 5-kg load cell using a razor blade probe with a height of 24 mm and a width of 8.9 mm set to a penetration depth of 20 mm. The crosshead speed was 5 mm/s; sample shear depth was 20 mm; and trigger force was 0.1 N. Data points were collected with an acquisition rate of 200 points/s. The instrumental data were collected using Texture Exponent 32 version 1.0.0.92. The MORSE was calculated from the forcetime curves using the macro options of Texture Exponent (Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, Surrey, UK).
Statistical Analysis All data was subjected to ANOVA conducted using JMP (version 5.1, SAS Institute, 2004). Means from sensory analysis were separated using least squares means
at a significance level of P < 0.05. Salt concentration (0.0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25%) was defined as the main effect to determine the influence of salt concentration on meat quality attributes. The frequency distributions for the hedonic scales and JAR scales were compared using Fisher’s exact test for equality of distributions. A chi-square test was not utilized in this instance because more than 20% of the expected values were below 5 (Fleiss, 2003). Significant differences for the frequency distribution were determined at a P < 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Consumer sensory analysis was conducted to determine consumer acceptance of quality attributes of marinated broiler breast fillets using varying levels of salt. Based on the responses of the panelists, there were no significant (P > 0.05) differences in mean values for overall impression among the marinated treatments (Table 1). Fillets marinated with any concentration of salt (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25%) had greater (P < 0.05) overall impression mean values compared with the nonmarinated control treatment. Robbins et al. (2003) and Baublits et al. (2006) also reported greater consumer overall acceptability when beef steaks and pork loins were enhanced with salt and phosphate in comparison with nonenhanced treatments. Similar to overall impression, there were no significant (P > 0.05) differences in mean hedonic ratings for flavor or texture of marinated breast fillets, but all marinated fillets had significantly greater acceptance scores compared with the nonmarinated fillets. Frequency distribution (%) of overall impression, texture, and flavor are presented in Table 2. No significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in the frequency distributions for any category of the hedonic scales in all of the 4 marinated treatments. However, in most cases, the marinated treatments differed from the nonmarinated treatments in terms of percentages of consumer responses for the hedonic scale categories (e.g., like extremely, like moderately, etc.). The frequency distribution (%) for overall impression shows that majority of the consumers (52.95%) disliked (hedonic scale rating ≤4) the nonmarinated control treatment. Furthermore, these percentages in the dislike categories (hedonic scale rating ≤4) were significantly greater
418
SAHA ET AL. 1
Table 2. Frequency (%) of consumer responses for overall acceptance, flavor, and texture for control and marinated breast fillets Salt, % 2
Attribute (hedonic scale ) Overall impression Dislike extremely (1) Dislike very much (2) Dislike moderately (3) Dislike slightly (4) Neither like nor dislike (5) Like slightly (6) Like moderately (7) Like very much (8) Like extremely (9) Texture Dislike extremely (1) Dislike very much (2) Dislike moderately (3) Dislike slightly (4) Neither like nor dislike (5) Like slightly (6) Like moderately (7) Like very much (8) Like extremely (9) Flavor Dislike extremely (1) Dislike very much (2) Dislike moderately (3) Dislike slightly (4) Neither like nor dislike (5) Like slightly (6) Like moderately (7) Like very much (8) Like extremely (9)
Control, 0%
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.47 13.24a 16.18a 22.06a 7.35 11.76 16.18b 11.76b 0.00b
1.47 0.00b 1.47b 2.94b 7.35 13.24 39.71a 23.53ab 10.29a
1.47 0.00b 1.47b 5.88b 2.94 11.76 36.76a 26.47ab 13.24a
0.00 1.47b 0.00b 5.88b 5.88 17.65 35.29a 25.00ab 8.82a
0.00 0.00b 1.47b 7.35b 7.35 10.29 32.35a 30.88a 10.29a
1.47 11.76a 10.29a 22.06a 14.71 7.35 17.65b 13.24b 1.47
0.00 0.00b 1.47ab 7.35b 7.35 14.71 29.41ab 30.88a 8.82
0.00 0.00b 1.47ab 8.82ab 4.41 13.24 29.41ab 32.35a 10.29
0.00 0.00b 0.00b 2.94b 8.82 14.71 35.29a 30.88a 7.35
0.00 1.47b 0.00b 11.76ab 7.35 10.29 26.47ab 36.76a 5.88
2.94 11.76a 16.18a 20.59a 10.29 11.76 19.12 7.35b 0.00b
1.47 1.47b 0.00b 2.94b 13.24 17.65 30.88 25.00a 7.35a
0.00 1.47b 0.00b 5.88b 4.41 23.53 17.65 38.24a 8.82a
0.00 2.94ab 0.00b 10.29ab 4.41 16.18 27.94 33.82a 4.41b
0.00 1.47b 4.41ab 2.94b 5.88 20.59 25.00 33.82a 5.88b
a,b
Proportions within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). n = 68. 2 A 9-point hedonic scale used for overall consumer overall impression, flavor, and texture. 1
than the percentages in the same categories for the marinated fillets regardless of salt (0.5 to 1.25%) where only 5.88 to 8.82% of the consumers disliked (hedonic scale rating ≤4) the marinated fillets. In comparison, 83.81 to 88.23% of the consumers liked (hedonic scale rating ≥6) the marinated fillets regardless of their salt concentration. Furthermore, greater than 80% of consumers liked (hedonic scale rating ≥6) the texture of marinated fillets compared with approximately 40% of consumers who like the texture of nonmarinated fillets. Saha et al. (2006) reported that mean consumer ratings for marinated fillets ranged from like slightly to like moderately regardless of debone time (pre- or postrigor), suggesting that marination results in acceptable texture. The myofibrillar proteins of muscle, myosin and actin, are salt soluble, and these proteins impact a wide range of meat attributes including texture and WHC (Foegeding, 1987). It has been an historic practice to incorporate salt into meat to increase shelf-life and enhance flavor. Salt is a natural flavor enhancer, increasing the flavor intensity of meat products (Gillette, 1985). Thus, salt not only improves the perceived saltiness but also strengthens the overall flavor in meat products (Ruusunen et al., 2005). Salt reduces the water activity of meat, thereby increasing the concentration of other compounds in solution and their sensory perception
(Matthews and Strong, 2005). There was a significantly greater percentage of consumers who liked very much the flavor of the marinated fillets compared with the nonmarinated fillets regardless of salt concentration in the marinade (Table 2). A similar trend was apparent with the like extremely category with the exception of those fillets marinated in 1.0 or 1.25% salt as these were not statistically different from the nonmarinated treatment. Overall, most consumers (>80%) liked (hedonic scale rating ≥6) all of the marinated fillets, whereas only 38% of consumers liked the nonmarinated fillets in terms of flavor. There was generally a greater percentage of consumers who disliked the flavor of the nonmarinated fillets compared with the marinated fillets. There were no differences in percentages of consumers who disliked (hedonic scale rating ≤4) flavor among marinated fillets (0.5% salt or greater). Bryhni et al. (2003) reported that flavor characteristics negatively influenced consumer liking. Howe and Barbella (1937) commented that the addition of salt to meat develops the flavor. Since then, numerous researchers have found that marination with salt and phosphate improves meat flavor (Cross and Stanfield, 1976; Schwartz and Mandigo, 1976; Olson, 1982; Steinhauer, 1983; Wheeler et al., 1990; Miller, 1998; Woods and Church, 1999). In addition to hedonic sensory scales, JAR sensory scales were used to determine appropriateness of meat
419
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MARINATED BROILER FILLETS Table 3. Summary table for just about right (JAR) scale for marinated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel1 Salt, % Sensory attribute2 Tenderness Moistness Overall flavor Chicken flavor Saltiness
Control, 0% b
2.40 2.49b 2.47c 2.82ab 1.89d
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
a
a
a
a
3.03 2.85a 2.73bc 2.69b 2.60c
3.09 2.96a 2.80ab 2.93ab 2.84bc
2.99 2.95a 2.97ab 2.98a 2.93b
3.03 3.05a 3.09a 2.80ab 3.20a
Pooled SEM 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03
a–c
Proportions within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). n = 68. 2 JAR scale: 1 = much too low, 3 = JAR, and 5 = much too high. 1
tenderness (Table 3). Fillets marinated with any concentration of salt (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25%) had greater (P < 0.05) tenderness JAR mean values compared with the nonmarinated control treatment. Furthermore, JAR tenderness mean values for all the marinated fillets were 2.99 to 3.03, indicating the consumers considered the fillets to be JAR, whereas the nonmarinated fillets had a mean of 2.4, which indicated that consumer considered these as too tough. Furthermore, there was a greater percentage of consumers who considered the nonmarinated fillets as much too tough or too tough compared with marinated fillets (Table 4). The percentage of consumers who considered the fillets as JAR for tenderness was significantly greater in all marinated fillets (>77%) compared with nonmarinated fillets (32%). Moreover, the percentages of consumers considering the meat as JAR in any JAR scale category were similar (P > 0.05) for all marinated fillets. These data suggest that marination can improve consumer perception of poultry meat tenderness. This research also agrees with previous research that has shown that marination improves meat quality attributes (Lyon et al., 1998). Saha (2007) reported that the percentage of consumers rating meat tenderness as JAR ranged from 59.3 to 81.1% for marinated fillets in comparison with 21.6 to 82.4% (Xiong et al., 2006) and 25.0 to 73.0% (Cavitt et al., 2005a) for nonmarinated pre- and postrigor fillets. Palladino and Ball (1979) found sodium ions have a tenderizing effect in postrigor broiler breast meat. Robbins et al. (2003) reported that marinated beef steaks and roasts were considered to be significantly more tender and juicy than nonmarinated controls by consumer sensory panel. Similar results were also reported by Robbins et al. (2002) for evaluation of marinated beef using trained sensory panel. Sheard et al. (1999) and Smith et al. (1984) reported that phosphate-injected pork roasts were more tender than fresh cooked, unpumped roasts. Total energy data from the MORS method can be used as a predictor of tenderness (Cavitt et al., 2004). Nonmarinated control fillets had significantly greater MORSE values compared with the MORSE values for the marinated treatments (0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25%, respectively; Figure 1) indicating that marination improved tenderness. According to the instrumental/
sensory equivalency scales developed by Cavitt et al. (2005a) and Xiong et al. (2006), the marinated fillets in this study would be perceived as very tender to extremely tender by consumers. The results of this study are similar to previous research. Saha (2007) reported that marinated fillets deboned early postmortem had shear values (MORSE) that were considerably lower than nonmarinated fillets deboned at 24 h in studies conducted by Cavitt et al. (2004, 2005b) and Xiong et al. (2006). These results support that marination improves consumer acceptance of the product. In the process of marination, salts and phosphates dissociate actomyosin into actin and myosin, improving the texture of the meat (Smith, 2001). Zheng et al. (2000), Brashear et al. (2002), and Hayes et al. (2006) also reported decreased shear force values indicating increased tenderness for poultry breasts treated with marinated solutions compared with untreated breasts. In the present study, the varying salt concentration in the marinades also affected tenderness of breast fillets. The MORSE values decreased, or tenderness increased, with the increasing salt concentration for marinated samples. This decreasing MORSE pattern, as shown in Figure 1, was similar to that previously observed by Aktas et al. (2003). The authors concluded that increasing the salt concentration in the marinade decreases the Warner-Bratzler shear force. Wu and Smith (1987) showed that an increase in ionic strength was effective in solubilizing many proteins in myofilaments. As a result, NaCl increases the ionic strength of myofibrils so that tenderization occurs through the solubilization of muscle protein. Moistness was assessed in this study as an indicator of juiciness. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in JAR moistness means among marinated fillets despite the differences in salt concentrations. The mean values for marinated fillets ranged from 2.85 to 3.05, which represent the just-about-right anchor on the JAR scale (Table 3). However, all marinated fillets had significantly greater (P < 0.05) JAR means compared with nonmarinated fillets, indicating that marination improved moistness, or juiciness. Frequency distribution also indicated that a greater percentage of consumers (50.0%) considered that nonmarinated fillets as much too dry or too dry compared with marinated fillets
420
SAHA ET AL.
Figure 1. Meullenet-Owens razor shear total energy (MORSE) value for breast fillets marinated with varying levels of salt. Control treatment was not marinated. a–dMeans lacking a common letter differ (P < 0.05). n = 20 per mean.
where there were no differences in distribution among marinated fillets with varying levels of salt (Table 4). The majority of consumers (72.06 to 80.88%) considered
the moistness to be JAR compared with only 44.12% of the consumers who considered nonmarinated fillets as JAR. Hayes et al. (2006) and Brewer et al. (1999)
Table 4. Frequency (%) of consumer1 acceptance for tenderness, juiciness, overall flavor, saltiness, and purchase for control and marinated breast fillets Salt, % Attribute (scale2) Tenderness Much too tough (1) Too tough (2) Just about right (3) Too tender (4) Much too tender (5) Moistness Much too dry (1) Too dry (2) Just about right (3) Too wet (4) Much too wet (5) Overall flavor Much too weak (1) Too weak (2) Just about right (3) Too strong (4) Much too strong (5) Chicken flavor Much too weak (1) Too weak (2) Just about right (3) Too strong (4) Much too strong (5) Saltiness Not nearly salty enough (1) Not salty enough (2) Just about right (3) Too salty (4) Much too salty (5) a–c
Control, 0%
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
10.29a 50.00a 32.35b 4.41 2.94
0.00b 7.35b 82.35a 10.29 0.00
0.00b 8.82b 77.94a 8.82 4.41
0.00b 8.82b 85.29a 4.41 1.47
0.00b 8.82b 80.88a 8.82 1.47
10.29a 39.71a 44.12b 2.94 2.94
2.94ab 13.24b 80.88a 2.94 0.00
0.00b 17.65b 72.06a 7.35 2.94
0.00b 13.24b 79.41a 7.35 0.00
0.00b 8.82b 79.41a 10.29 1.47
22.06a 38.24a 19.12b 13.24abc 7.35
4.41b 23.53ab 66.18a 5.88a 0.00
0.00b 26.47ab 66.18a 7.35ac 0.00
2.94b 16.18b 61.76a 19.12bc 0.00
0.00b 14.71b 63.24a 20.59b 1.47
13.24a 23.53 41.18b 13.24a 8.82a
5.88ab 22.06 70.59a 0.00b 1.47ab
0.00b 17.65 73.53a 7.35ab 1.47ab
2.94ab 10.29 75.00a 10.29a 1.47ab
0.00b 23.53 73.53a 2.94ab 0.00b
25.00a 58.82a 16.18c 0.00a 0.00
4.41b 36.76b 54.41b 4.41b 0.00
0.00b 20.59c 73.53a 5.88b 0.00
2.94b 20.59c 55.88b 20.59a 0.00
0.00b 14.71c 54.41b 26.47a 4.41
Proportions within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). n = 68. 2 A 5-point just about right scale was used for tenderness, moistness, overall flavor, chicken flavor, and saltiness. 1
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MARINATED BROILER FILLETS
concluded that juiciness and tenderness were significantly improved with salt and phosphate marination in comparison with nonmarinated or water-injected pork loins. Supporting these results, Shults et al. (1972) reported greater water binding of ground beef with NaCl and phosphates. Similarly, Wheeler et al. (1990) also reported that steaks with no salt were less juicy, less salty, and lower in overall palatability than were steaks with salt. Marination not only helps in improving the tenderness but also improves the WHC of meat (Young and Lyon, 1986; Woelfel and Sams, 2001), which explains the narrow range of mean values or no difference in the frequency distribution percentage among all the 4 marinated treatments. The addition of salt reduces electrostatic interactions between protein molecules to increase protein extractability, solubility, and water binding (Offer and Knight, 1988; Matthews and Strong, 2005). Salt also increases WHC by increasing the space between the thick and thin filaments (Matthews and Strong, 2005). The anions bind to positively charged amino groups of proteins. As a result the isoelectric point moves to a lower pH without changing the meat pH, resulting in subsequent improvements in purge loss and cook yields (Miller, 1998). Tumbling or chopping helps in absorption of more water by the muscle because salt disrupts the muscle fibers. Meat proteins can swell to twice their size in salt concentrations (Miller, 1998). This increases the yield after cooking and improves palatability and texture. Overall flavor JAR mean values for breast fillets increased with the increasing salt concentration (Table 3). Fillets marinated with 1.25% salt had the highest JAR mean, indicating JAR, and the nonmarinated fillets had the lowest means, indicating too weak, whereas the other marinated fillets (0.5, 0.75, and 1.0%) were intermediate. These results are in accordance with hedonic scale distributions where majority of the consumers liked (hedonic scale rating ≥6) the marinated fillets compared with the nonmarinated treatment. Fillets marinated with salt concentrations of 1.0 and 1.25% had significantly (P < 0.05) lower percentages (16.18 and 14.71%, respectively) of consumers considering them as too weak in comparison with the nonmarinated control fillets (38.24%; Table 4). Fillets marinated with 0.5 or 0.75% had similar percentage as those with greater (1.0 or 1.25%) or lower (0%) salt concentration. Similar results were reported by Keeton (1983) and Hayes et al. (2006) for pork loins. The authors found that pork loins enhanced with phosphate and salt had a greater overall flavor rating in comparison with the control. In this study, most consumers considered marinated fillets regardless of salt concentration to be JAR in overall flavor. Consumers considered the chicken flavor to be uniform with marination or salt concentration having no effect on the JAR means (Table 3). Terrell (1983), Ruusunen and Puolanne (2005), and Desmond (2006) commented on salt being essential for the flavor and it
421
being used by the meat industry as flavoring. Therefore, salt may mask some of the chicken flavor, resulting in a lower percentage of consumers considering the marinated treatments as too strong and much too strong. All JAR saltiness mean scores ranged from 2.60 to 3.20 for marinated treatments (Table 3). The nonmarinated control fillets had a significantly lower JAR rating (1.89) in comparison with the marinated samples, indicating that nonmarinated samples were not salty enough as would be expected. Salt concentration of 1.25% had the greatest JAR rating of 3.2, indicating that more consumers rated the samples as too salty rather than JAR. Among the marinated samples, fillets with 0.5% salt concentration had lowest rating, followed by the 0.75 and 1.0 salt concentrations suggesting that as salt concentration increases, the appropriateness of saltiness improves in this range. Frequency distribution (%) for saltiness had differences in the JAR ratings (Table 4). As the percentage of salt in the formulation increased, the percentage of consumers who considered the product as not salty enough generally decreased. Similarly, the saltiness was considered as not salty enough by 14.71 to 36.76% of consumers for the marinated treatments. Consumers considering the nonmarinated fillets as not nearly salty enough or not salty enough were significantly greater (25.0 and 58.82%, respectively) in comparison with the marinated samples (<4.41 and <36.76%, respectively). The sensory attributes including saltiness had the greatest JAR proportions for the 0.75% salt concentration, indicating this concentration as being accurate for ready-to-cook products. Raw marinated breast fillets fall under the category of further processed products that generally undergo further preparation after purchase (e.g, retail raw marinated breast fillets). For example, in household settings, it is likely that chicken breasts would be prepared with additional ingredients (seasonings, spices, etc.) leading to increased levels of appropriateness for flavor, saltiness, or both. Therefore, using a greater salt concentration for marination may potentially result in a product being categorized by a large percentage of people as too salty after cooking. Salt concentration of 0.5% had a significantly (P < 0.05) greater percentage of consumers rating it as not salty enough in comparison with other marinated treatments and significantly (P < 0.05) lower percentage in comparison with the nonmarinated control. Also, the fillets were not penalized for being too salty unlike salt concentrations of 1.0 and 1.25%. Over 50% of consumers considered saltiness levels of the 0.5% marinated fillets as JAR. However, when marinating with 0.75%, the majority of consumers (>70%) considered the saltiness levels as JAR. Fillets with salt concentrations of 1% and above were considered as too strong for overall flavor, and >20% of the consumers considered them to be too salty. These results indicate that the lower salt concentrations used in marinating breast fillets would be appropriate to produce products that are acceptable to consumers.
422
SAHA ET AL.
Conclusions Marination improved consumer acceptance of broiler breast fillets for all quality attributes including overall impression, flavor, texture, tenderness, moistness, and saltiness, regardless of salt concentration. Saltiness, as perceived by consumers, increased as salt concentrations in the marinades increased. Salt concentrations of 1% or greater resulted in greater than 20% of consumers who considered the fillets as too salty, which could result in more consumer complaints in the marketplace. The majority of consumers considered the lower levels of salt to be just about right for saltiness levels, whereas very few consumers considered the fillets as too salty. The results of this study suggest that using low salt concentrations, 0.5% to 0.75% (depending on end product), is appropriate for marination of postrigor broiler breast meat to obtain desirable quality attributes. Future research should include evaluation of tenderness of early deboned fillets marinated with low salt concentrations.
REFERENCES Aktas, N., M. I. Aksu, and M. Kaya. 2003. The influence of marination with different salt concentrations on the tenderness, water holding capacity and bound water content of beef. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 27:1207–1211. Barbut, S., A. J. Maurer, and R. C. Lindsay. 1988. Effects of reduced sodium-chloride and added phosphates on physical and sensory properties of turkey frankfurters. J. Food Sci. 53:62–66. Baublits, R. T., J. F. Meullenet, J. T. Sawyer, J. M. Mehaffey, and A. Saha. 2006. Pump rate and cooked temperature effects on pork loin instrumental, sensory descriptive and consumer-rated characteristics. Meat Sci. 72:741–750. Birkhold, S. G., and A. R. Sams. 1993. Fragmentation, tenderness and postmortem metabolism of early-harvested broiler breast fillets from carcasses treated with electrical stimulation and muscle tensioning. Poult. Sci. 72:577–582. Brashear, G., M. S. Brewer, D. Meisinger, and F. K. McKeith. 2002. Raw material, pH, pump level and pump composition on quality characteristics of pork. J. Muscle Foods 13:189–204. Brewer, M. S., M. Gusse, and F. K. McKeith. 1999. Effects of injection of dilute phosphate-salt solution on pork characteristics from PSE, normal and DFD carcasses. J. Food Qual. 22:375–485. Bryhni, E. A., D. V. Byrne, M. Rodbotten, S. Moller, C. ClaudiMagnussen, A. Karlsson, H. Agerhem, M. Johansson, and M. Martens. 2003. Consumer and sensory investigations in relation to physical/chemical aspects of cooked pork in Scandinavia. Meat Sci. 65:737–748. Cavitt, L. C., J. F. Meullenet, R. K. Gandhapuneni, G. W. Youm, and C. M. Owens. 2005b. Rigor development and meat quality of large and small broilers and the use of Allo-Kramer shear, needle puncture, and razor blade shear to measure texture. Poult. Sci. 84:113–118. Cavitt, L. C., J. F. C. Meullenet, R. Xiong, and C. M. Owens. 2005a. The relationship of razor blade shear, Allo- Kramer shear, Warner-Bratzler shear, and sensory tests to changes in tenderness of broiler breast fillets. J. Muscle Foods 16:223–242. Cavitt, L. C., G. W. Youm, J. F. Meullenet, C. M. Owens, and R. Xiong. 2004. Prediction of poultry meat tenderness using razor blade shear, Allo-Kramer shear, and sarcomere length. J. Food Sci. 69:11–15. Cross, H. R., and M. S. Stanfield. 1976. Consumer evaluation of restructured beef steaks. J. Food Sci. 41:1257–1258. Dahl, L. K. 1972. Salt and hypertension. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 25:231– 244.
Desmond, E. 2006. Reducing salt: A challenge for the meat industry. Meat Sci. 74:188–196. Ellinger. R. H. 1972. Phosphates in food processing. In Handbook of Food Additives. 2nd ed. T. E. Furia, ed. CRC Press, Cleveland, OH. Fleiss, J. 2003. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. J. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Foegeding, E. A. 1987. Functional properties of turkey salt-soluble proteins. J. Food Sci. 52:1495–1499. Fries, H. A. 1976. Salt volume and prevention of hypertension. Circulation . JAMA 4:589–595. Gillette, M. 1985. Flavor effects of sodium chloride. Food Technol. 39:47–52. Hamm, R. 1960. Biochemistry of meat hydration. Adv. Food Res. 10:355–463. Hamm, R. 1986. Functional properties of the myofibrillar system and their measurements. Pages 135–199 in Muscle as Food. P. J. Bechtel, ed. Academic Press, New York, NY. Hayes, J. E., E. M. Desmond, D. J. Troy, D. J. Buckley, and R. Mehra. 2006. The effect of enhancement with salt, phosphate and milk proteins on the physical and sensory properties of pork loin. Meat Sci. 72:380–386. Howe, P. E., and N. G. Barbella. 1937. The flavor of meat and meat products. Food Res. 2:197–202. Keeton, J. T. 1983. Effects of fat and NaCl/phosphate levels on the chemical and sensory properties of pork patties. J. Food Sci. 48:878–881. Law, M., C. Frost, and N. Wald. 1991a. By how much does dietary salt reduction lower blood pressure? I. Analysis of observational data among populations. BMJ 302:811–815. Law, M., C. Frost, and N. Wald. 1991b. By how much does dietary salt reduction lower blood pressure? I. Analysis of data from trials of salt reduction. BMJ 302:819–824. Lyon, B. G., D. P. Smith, and E. M. Savage. 2005. Descriptive sensory analysis of broiler breast fillets marinated in phosphate, salt, and acid solutions. Poult. Sci. 84:345–349. Lyon, C. E., B. G. Lyon, and J. A. Dikens. 1998. Effects of carcass stimulation, deboning time, and marination on color and texture of broiler breast meat. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 7:53–60. Matthews, K., and K. Strong. 2005. Salt–Its role in meat products and the industry’s action plan to reduce it. Nutr. Bull. 30:55–61. Meilgaard, M., G. V. Civille, and B. T. Carr. 1999. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 3rd ed. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Miller, R. 1998. Functionality of non-meat ingredients used in enhanced pork - Pork quality. Facts. 1-12. National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA. Offer, G., and P. Knight. 1988. The structural basis of waterholding in meat. Pages 173–243 in Developments in Meat Science-4. R. A. Lawrie, ed. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK. Olson, D. G. 1982. Salt for processing probably can be cut by only one quarter. Natl. Provisioner 17:7–10. Palladino, D. K., and H. R. Ball. 1979. Effects of selected inorganic salts on certain tenderness characteristics of spent hen muscle. J. Food Sci. 44:322–326. Robbins, K., J. Jensen, K. J. Ryan, C. Homco-Ryan, F. K. McKeith, and M. S. Brewer. 2002. Enhancement effects on sensory and retail display characteristics of beef rounds. J. Muscle Foods 13:279–288. Robbins, K., J. Jensen, K. J. Ryan, C. Homco-Ryan, F. K. McKeith, and M. S. Brewer. 2003. Consumer attitudes towards beef and acceptability of enhanced beef . Meat Sci. 65:721–729. Ruusunen, M., and E. Puolanne. 2005. Reducing sodium intake from meat products. Meat Sci. 70:531–541. Ruusunen, M., J. Vainionpaa, M. Lyly, L. Lahteenmaki, M. Niemisto, R. Ahvenainen, and E. Puolanne. 2005. Reducing the sodium content in meat products: The effect of the formulation in lowsodium ground meat patties. Meat Sci. 69:53–60. Saha, A. 2007. The effects of salt concentration, deboning time and extended aging on consumer perception and texture of marinated poultry breast meat. PhD Diss. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. UMI 32-76907. Saha, A., A. V. S. Perumalla, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens. 2006. Tenderness, juiciness and flavor of pre- and post-rigor mari-
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MARINATED BROILER FILLETS nated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel. Poult. Sci. 85(Suppl. 1):115. (Abstr.) Sams, A. R. 1990. Electrical stimulation and high temperature conditioning of broiler carcasses. Poult. Sci. 69:1781–1786. Sams, A. R., D. M. Janky, and S. A. Woodward. 1989. Tenderness and R-value changes in early harvested broiler breast tissue following postmortem electrical stimulation. Poult. Sci. 68:1232– 1235. SAS Institute. 2004. JMP. Version 5.1. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC. Schwartz, W. C., and R. W. Mandigo. 1976. Effect of salt, sodium tripolyphosphate and storage on restructured pork. J. Food Sci. 41:1266–1269. Sheard, P. R., G. R. Nute, R. I. Richardson, A. Perry, and A. A. Taylor. 1999. Injection of water and polyphosphate into pork to improve juiciness and tenderness after cooking. Meat Sci. 51:371–376. Shults, G. W., D. R. Russell, and E. Wierbicki. 1972. Effect of condensed phosphates on pH, swelling and water- holding capacity of beef . J. Food Sci. 37:860–864. Smith, D. M. 2001. Functional properties of muscle proteins in processed poultry products. Pages 181–195 in Poultry Meat Processing. A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Smith, L. A., S. L. Simmons, F. K. McKeith, P. J. Bechtel, and P. L. Brady. 1984. Effects of sodium tripolyphosphate on physical and sensory properties of beef and pork roasts. J. Food Sci. 49:1636–1637. Steinhauer, J. E. 1983. Food phosphates for use in the meat, poultry, and seafood industry. Dairy Food Sanit. 3:244–247. Stewart, M. K., D. L. Fletcher, D. Hamm, and J. E. Thomson. 1984. The influence of hot boning broiler breast meat muscle on pH decline and toughening. Poult. Sci. 63:1935–1939. Terrell, R. N. 1983. Reducing the sodium content of processed meats. Food Technol. 37:66–71.
423
Terrell, R. N., and D. G. Olson. 1981. Chloride salts and processed meats: Properties sources, mechanisms of action, labeling. Proc. Meat Industry Research Conference, American Meat Institute Foundation, Arlington, VA. Wheeler, T. L., S. C. Seideman, G. W. Davis, and T. L. Rolan. 1990. Effect of chloride salts and antioxidants on sensory and storage traits of restructured beef steaks. J. Food Sci. 55:1274–1277. Whiting, R. C. 1988. Ingredients and Processing Factors that Control Muscle Protein Functionality. Food Technol. 42:104–114. Woelfel, R. L., and A. R. Sams. 2001. Marination performance of pale broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 80:1519–1522. Woods, L. F. J., and P. N. Church. 1999. Strategies for extending the shelf-life of poultry meat and products. Pages 397–410 in “Poultry Meat Science: Poultry Science Symposium Series Volume Twenty-five,” R. I. Richardson and G. C. Mead, ed. CABI Publishing, New York, NY. Wu, F. Y., and S. B. Smith. 1987. Ionic strength and myofibrillar protein solubilization. J. Anim. Sci. 65:597–608. Xiong, R., L. C. Cavitt, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens. 2006. Comparison of allo-kramer, warner-bratzler and razor blade shears for predicting sensory tenderness of broiler breast meat. J. Texture Stud. 37:179–199. Young, L. L., and B. G. Lyon. 1986. effect of sodium tripolyphosphate in the presence and absence of calcium- chloride and sodium-chloride on water-retention properties and shear resistance of chicken breast meat. Poult. Sci. 65:898–902. Zheng, M., N. A. Detienne, B. W. Barnes, and L. Wicker. 2000. Tenderness and yields of poultry breast are influenced by phosphate type and concentration of marinade. J. Sci. Food Agric. 81:82–87.