Descriptive sensory and instrumental texture profile analysis of woody breast in marinated chicken

Descriptive sensory and instrumental texture profile analysis of woody breast in marinated chicken Abstract The broiler industry is currently experiencing a muscle anomaly referred to as “woody breast,” and the effect of different cooking methods on the marination properties of severe woody breast (SWB) has not yet been reported. This study compared the texture attributes of marinated (injected) normal (NOR) and SWB using a convection oven and a flat-top grill. The objectives were 1) to develop and validate a descriptive texture attribute panel with 6 trained panelists using a 16-point scale and 2) to evaluate the instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA) using a texture analyzer. Sixty-four NOR and SWB were obtained from a commercial facility. Fillet color (L*, a*, b*) and pH were measured before marination. In each of 2 trials, the breast muscles were injected in bulk with 15% brine (0.48 STPP, 0.55% NaCl, final concentration), and marinade retention was determined after 20 minutes. The meat was vacuum packaged, stored at −20°C (7 d sensory; 29 d TPA) and then thawed (4°C, 24 h). Fillets were cooked to 73°C on a flat-top grill (176°C) or in an oven (176°C), and cook loss % was determined. Panelist samples (2 × 2 cm) and TPA samples (4 × 2 cm) were cut into 3 pieces. Color and pH were higher for SWB than NOR fillets (P < 0.05). Marinade retention was 83.21% for NOR meat and 59.23% for SWB meat. The flat-top grill method resulted in higher cook loss than oven (P < 0.05). SWB had higher cook loss when compared to NOR (P < 0.05). Sensory texture descriptors springiness, hardness, denseness, cohesiveness, fracturability, fibrousness, crunchiness, and chewiness were higher for SWB than NOR fillets (P < 0.05). TPA attributes also showed higher values for SWB compared to NOR (P < 0.05). No differences in texture were found between the grill and oven for sensory and TPA attributes. In summary, marinated SWB has significant texture differences when compared to NOR, regardless of cooking method. INTRODUCTION In the last 2 decades, the genetic selection for muscle growth has led to an increase in muscle abnormalities, especially in the Pectoralis major muscle (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999; Kuttappan et al., 2012; Petracci and Cavani, 2012; Petracci et al., 2013; Sihvo et al., 2014). Woody breast (WB) is a recently described muscle condition related to older and heavier birds (Kuttappan et al., 2017). The dramatic increase of WB meat during the last 5 yr has become a challenge for the global poultry market. Furthermore, the mechanisms that control the incidence and severity of WB remain unknown (Mazzoni et al., 2015). WB is characterized by abnormal hardness throughout the fillet with different degrees of severity (Sihvo et al., 2014). Previous studies by Petracci et al. (2013) compared the muscle traits of 2 commercial hybrids and found that high breast yield broilers presented a greater incidence of abnormal fibers compared to standard breast yield broilers. In addition, Mazzoni et al. (2015) and Soglia et al. (2017) showed that these fibers often have varying degrees of myodegeneration with different diameters and shapes, and increase of interstitial connective tissue (fibrosis). As a result, these fiber changes can influence quality traits such as pH, color, water-holding capacity, and the texture of non-marinated and marinated WB fillets (Kuttappan et al., 2012; Petracci et al., 2013; Mazzoni et al., 2015; Tijare et al., 2016). Moreover, no differences in shear force values or sarcomere length of non-marinated and marinated normal and WB fillets have been reported (Mudalal et al. 2014; Tijare et al., 2016). Therefore, WB is not a problem associated with tenderness. On the other hand, texture is one of the sensory factors that influence the perception of quality by consumers. In this regard, descriptive sensory texture profile and instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA) are objective methods widely used by the meat industry for quantifying different texture attributes (Lyon and Lyon, 2001; Lee et al., 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2016). Previous studies have shown that non-marinated WB fillets have a significantly different texture profile when compared with normal breast fillets resulting in less water-holding capacity and subsequently higher drip loss and cook loss (Mudalal et al., 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2016; Soglia et al., 2017). Marination is a common practice by the industry to improve the quality properties of the meat. The most widely used marinade ingredients in poultry are salt and sodium tripolyphosphate (STP), which have been shown to increase water-holding capacity (yield and cook loss %), as well as improve texture (Alvarado and Mckee, 2007). There are 3 marination methods, including immersion, injection, and vacuum tumbling (Xargayó et al., 2001). In this regard, the impact of marination and cooking methods on the texture profile of WB remains unknown. Thus, this study compared the texture attributes of injection marinated normal (NOR) and severe woody breast (SWB) using 2 cooking methods (convection oven and flat-top grill). The objectives were 1) to develop and validate a descriptive texture attribute panel with 6 trained panelists using a 16-point scale (0 = none, 15 = extremely intense), and 2) to evaluate the instrumental TPA using a texture analyzer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Meat Preparation WB and NOR breast fillets were obtained 3 h postmortem from a commercial processing plant and kept at 3°C during transport to the Poultry Science Research Facility at Texas A&M University. The samples were categorized into NOR and SWB fillets by tactile evaluation of hardness using the classification proposed by Tijare et al. (2016). All the meat was trimmed to remove any excess fat and cartilage. Each breast was split in half. The right fillet was used for sensory texture profile and the left fillet for instrumental texture analysis. The meat was subsequently labeled using 3 random digit codes and sorted depending on the experiment. Quality measurements, color, and pH were taken before marination. Color was measured from the surface of each fillet (bone side) by averaging3 readings using the CIELAB L* = lightness, a* = redness, and b* = yellowness color scale of a calibrated colorimeter (Minolta Chroma Meter Model CL-200; Minolta Corp., Ramsey, NJ). The pH was measured with a pH meter (Piercing probe Model 205; Testo, Inc., Sparta, NJ) from the cranial end of each fillet. Marination and Cooking Procedures NOR and SWB fillets were weighed in bulk in 2 replicates. The meat was marinated using a multi-needle injector (Inject-star BI-88 P-VSO, Mountain View, AZ) with 15% brine target at constant pressure (10 to 15 psi); brine was composed of salt and STP (0.55% NaCl, 0.48% STP, final concentration in the product) (Blend 100, Francee Flavoring and Spice, Ankeny, IA). After marination, 2 replicates of NOR and SWB meat were weighed in bulk to determine marinade pickup (%) and 20 min marinade retention. Subsequently, each breast fillet was vacuum packaged individually in Cryovac vacuum-package bags (Model B4173T, Sealed Air Corporation, Simpsonville, SC) and stored in a blast freezer at −20°C for 7 d sensory and 29 d TPA measurements. Prior to analysis, the meat was thawed at refrigeration temperatures (3°C) for 24 hours. NOR and SWB fillets were subsequently cooked to an endpoint internal temperature of 73°C using either a flat-top grill (536TGF 36″, Star Max, Lancaster, PA) set at 177°C (fillet was flipped at 37°C) or a convection oven using pans covered with aluminum foil (FC-34/1 Sodir Convection Oven, Equipex, Providence, RI) set at 177°C. During cooking, internal temperatures were monitored using copper-constant thermocouples (Omega Engineering, Stanford, CT) inserted into the geometric center of the cranial part of the fillet. Sensory Texture Profile Phase I. Texture Profile Development A panel composed of 6 expert panelists from the Sensory Testing Facility at Texas A&M University was trained to determine the texture attributes of NOR and SWB fillets. The panel has 25 yr of experience working with The Spectrum™ descriptive analysis method across meat, poultry, and food products. The attributes, references, definitions, and techniques (Table 1) were developed using previous resources (Barbut, 2002; Meilgaard et al., 2007) and reference standards developed by the panel. The panelists participated in 13-day (2-hour sessions) ballot development sessions to determine the texture attributes present in marinated NOR and SWB fillets. Two scales per d were introduced to the panelists, and, subsequently, they were served marinated NOR and SWB samples cooked using grill and oven methods as described above. Each panelist tasted the marinated NOR and SWB samples individually and then collectively came to a single value conclusion for each attribute using a 16-point scale (0 = none, 15 = extremely intense). Table 1. Descriptive sensory attributes, definition, and techniques. Attribute  Definition  Technique  Springiness  The degree to which sample returns to the original shape.  Place sample between molars; compress partially without breaking the sample structure; release.  Hardness  The force required to compress a sample.  Place food between the molars and bite down evenly, evaluating the force required to compress the food.  Denseness  The compactness of the cross section.  Place sample between molars and compress.  Cohesiveness of mass  The degree to which chewed sample (at 10 to 15 chews) holds together in a mass.  Chew sample with molars for up to 15 chews.  Cohesiveness  The degree to which sample deforms rather than crumbles, cracks, or breaks.  Place the sample between molars; compress fully (can be done with incisors).  Crunchiness  Amount of noises present in the sample during the first bite.  Place sample between molar teeth and bite down evenly until the food breaks.  Tooth packing  The degree to which product sticks on the surface of teeth.  After the sample is swallowed, feel the tooth surfaces with tongue.  Loose particles  Amount of particles remaining in and on the surface of mouth after swallowing.  Chew samples 8 times with molars, swallow, and evaluate.  Fracturability  The force with which the sample breaks.  Place food between molars and bite down evenly until the food crumbles, cracks, or shatters.  Fibrousness  Amount of fibers present in the sample.  Place the sample between the molars and evaluate during the first 2 bites.  Chewiness  Number of chews necessary for food to be swallowed.  Place the sample between the molars and chew 3 to 5 times.  Attribute  Definition  Technique  Springiness  The degree to which sample returns to the original shape.  Place sample between molars; compress partially without breaking the sample structure; release.  Hardness  The force required to compress a sample.  Place food between the molars and bite down evenly, evaluating the force required to compress the food.  Denseness  The compactness of the cross section.  Place sample between molars and compress.  Cohesiveness of mass  The degree to which chewed sample (at 10 to 15 chews) holds together in a mass.  Chew sample with molars for up to 15 chews.  Cohesiveness  The degree to which sample deforms rather than crumbles, cracks, or breaks.  Place the sample between molars; compress fully (can be done with incisors).  Crunchiness  Amount of noises present in the sample during the first bite.  Place sample between molar teeth and bite down evenly until the food breaks.  Tooth packing  The degree to which product sticks on the surface of teeth.  After the sample is swallowed, feel the tooth surfaces with tongue.  Loose particles  Amount of particles remaining in and on the surface of mouth after swallowing.  Chew samples 8 times with molars, swallow, and evaluate.  Fracturability  The force with which the sample breaks.  Place food between molars and bite down evenly until the food crumbles, cracks, or shatters.  Fibrousness  Amount of fibers present in the sample.  Place the sample between the molars and evaluate during the first 2 bites.  Chewiness  Number of chews necessary for food to be swallowed.  Place the sample between the molars and chew 3 to 5 times.  View Large Phase II. Texture Profile Validation Once all the attributes, references, and texture intensities were defined, trained panelists were asked to evaluate the marinated chicken breast samples using the texture attributes established during ballot development. Eleven texture attributes were defined as part of the texture profile of chicken breast: Springiness, hardness, denseness, cohesiveness, cohesiveness of mass, crunchiness, tooth packing, loose particles, fracturability, fibrousness, and chewiness. Normal (n = 16) and SWB (n = 16) fillets were measured for the validation process during 3 d of evaluation. Prior to use, the meat was thawed at refrigeration temperatures (3°C) for 24 hours. Then, NOR and SWB were cooked using the 2 cooking methods explained in phase I. Cook loss % was calculated and the samples were placed in a holding oven at 48.8°C on a plate covered in aluminum foil for no more than 20 min or served immediately. Approximately 2 × 2 cm cubes from the ventral to the cranial end region were cut, and 3 cubes were served for evaluation in an odorless plastic cup (56.7 g Solo soufflé plastic cup, Dart Container Corporation, Mason, MI). Each sample was assigned a random 3-digit code. All the samples were tested during 3 d of evaluation. A warm-up sample (normal chicken breast) was provided before each testing d to calibrate the panel. The panelists were placed in individual breadbox-style booths separated from the preparation area under red lights. Each panelist received double-distilled deionized water and unsalted saltine crackers for palate cleansing between samples, the scales sheet, and a sensory ballot. Panelists were given a 5-minute break between each sample to reduce sensory fatigue. The texture attributes that the panelist measured were quantified using a 16-point anchored scale (0 = none and 15 = extremely intense). Texture Profile Analysis Thirty-two NOR and SWB left breast fillets in 2 replicates were used for the TPA. Once cooked, the fillets were placed at refrigeration temperature (3°C) over 24 hours. After the allotted time, the ventral to the cranial end portion of the fillet was cut into 3 rectangular 4 × 2 cm samples using a template and a sharp knife (Mudalal et al., 2014). The texture measurements were performed using a texture analyzer (TA.XTPlus, Texture Technologies, Hamilton, MA) with a cylinder probe of 76.2 × 10 mm to compress the samples. A 50 kg load cell at a test speed of 3.0 mms-1; (pre-test), 1.0 mms-1; (test), and 3.0 mms-1; (post test) was used to reach a 50% compression. Statistical Analysis Individual fillets were used as experimental units. Color and pH measurements were subjected to analysis of variance using PROC GLM of SAS (SAS® 9.4, Inc., Cary, NC.). TPA data were analyzed as protected 3-way ANOVA using the LS-MEANS procedure of JMP® Pro 12.01. Cooking method (grill or oven), type of meat (NOR or SWB), and replication were the main effects. Sensory data and cook loss (%) were analyzed separately by the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS 9.4 with type of meat and cooking method included as fixed factors, and d and panel as random factors. Tukey's HSD was used for means separation, and significance was accepted at P < 0.05. Interactions with P > 0.05 were not considered in the final model. Pearson correlation coefficient r was generated using the PROC CORR procedure to compare sensory and instrumental texture. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Meat Quality Measurements The results from this study showed that fillets affected by SWB had higher pH (P-value <.0001), L* (P-value 0.04), a* (P-value 0.04), and b* (P-value 0.002) compared to NOR fillets (Table 2). The pH results of this experiment are similar to recent publications in which the cranial region of the SWB fillet had higher pH values than NOR (Zotte et al., 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2016; Kuttappan et al., 2017; Sanchez Brambila et al., 2017). In contrast, Mudalal et al. (2014) reported that SWB and NOR fillets did not differ in pH. Table 2. pH and color (L*, a*, b*) least squares means for non-marinated NOR and SWB fillets. Treatment  pH  Lightness (L*)  Redness (a*)  Yellowness (b*)  NOR  5.83 ± 0.03  53.69 ± 0.52  4.63 ± 0.20  3.73 ± 0.29  SWB  6.07 ± 0.03  55.25 ± 0.52  5.21 ± 0.20  5.03 ± 0.29  P-value  <0.0001  0.04  0.04  0.0021  Treatment  pH  Lightness (L*)  Redness (a*)  Yellowness (b*)  NOR  5.83 ± 0.03  53.69 ± 0.52  4.63 ± 0.20  3.73 ± 0.29  SWB  6.07 ± 0.03  55.25 ± 0.52  5.21 ± 0.20  5.03 ± 0.29  P-value  <0.0001  0.04  0.04  0.0021  Values are expressed as means ± SE. P-values < 0.05 are significantly different. View Large During the normal process of rigor mortis, the pH of breast muscle in broilers progressively decreases to approximately 5.8 as it is converted to meat. However, factors such as pre- and post-slaughter handling (Richardson, 1995), heat stress (McKee and Sams, 1997), genetics (Sandercock et al., 2006), nutrition (Guardia et al., 2014), and other factors can affect rigor mortis. According to Mudalal et al. (2014) and Kuttappan et al. (2017) the higher ultimate pH in WB meat could be the result of the reduced glycolytic potential associated with the reduced carbohydrate metabolism in the myopathy muscle during postmortem. The color data were consistent with Zotte et al. (2014) who reported that SWB fillets had increased lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) color values. Chatterje et al. (2016) and Mudalal et al. (2014) also reported differences in a* and b* values in SWB compared to NOR. These findings can be attributed to alterations in fiber membrane integrity, which contributed to the loss of liquid (Soglia et al., 2016). Thus, this can explain the higher light reflectance and the higher values in lightness in SWB breast. In this study, marination of SWB and NOR meat was done through injection in bulk in 2 replications. The fillets were allowed to rest for 1 min and were then weighed to measure marinade uptake (%). As a result, NOR meat marinade pickup was 13.02% and SWB meat 13.17%. After 20 min, marinade retention for NOR fillets was 83.26% and SWB fillets 59.23%. Cook loss is considered a measurement for evaluating water-holding capacity in marinated fillets. Oven and grill cooking are the most popular methods used for boneless, skinless poultry meat, particularly in foodservice systems. As for cook loss, there was no interaction between cooking methods and muscle type of meat (P-value 0.10) (Table 3). Therefore, main effects were used to analyze cook loss data. The results showed that breasts cooked using the grill method had higher cook loss (%) compare to breasts cooked using the oven method (P-value 0.0002). Muscles with SWB had increased cook loss (%) compared to NOR (P-value 0.007), which was similar to what was reported by Mudalal et al. (2014), who reported higher cook loss values in tumble marinated SWB fillets compared to NOR fillets. On the other hand, Petracci et al. (2013) found that non-marinated meat from high-yielding broilers also showed increased cook loss values compared to standard yielding broilers. Regardless of the cooking method, the cook loss values for SWB were higher than NOR. Therefore, SWB meat has a high impact on water-holding capacity. According to Mudalal et al. (2014); Soglia et al. (2016, 2017); Petracci et al. (2013), the higher cook loss percentage in WB meat can be associated with the following factors: 1) decrease of myofibrillar protein, which is linked to protein functionality and; 2) increase in connective tissue or collagen content, which can reduce the ability of the meat to bind water. Table 3. Cook loss (%) least squares means for marinated NOR and SWB fillets cooked by grill and oven methods. 1Interaction        P-value  0.10      Cooking methods  Cook loss (%)  Treatments  Cook loss (%)  Grill  24.08 ± 0.73  NOR  20.62 ± 0.73  Oven  20.02 ± 0.73  SWB  23.48 ± 0.73  P-value  0.0002  P-value  0.007  1Interaction        P-value  0.10      Cooking methods  Cook loss (%)  Treatments  Cook loss (%)  Grill  24.08 ± 0.73  NOR  20.62 ± 0.73  Oven  20.02 ± 0.73  SWB  23.48 ± 0.73  P-value  0.0002  P-value  0.007  Values are expressed as means ± SE. P-values < 0.05 are significantly different. 1Interaction = type of meat × cooking method. View Large Sensory Texture Attributes Texture has been considered to be one of the most important attributes influencing consumer final satisfaction with poultry meats (Fletcher, 2002). Eleven texture attributes were described as part of the texture profile of SWB. There was no interaction (P > 0.05) among the 11 texture attributes, and therefore the main effects were used to analyze the data. During the ballot development sessions, the panel was asked to describe new texture attributes present in SWB meat. Interestingly, the panel detected fibrousness and crunchiness attributes present only in SWB samples. Therefore, the panel developed intensity scales for crunchiness and fibrousness. The results in Table 4 showed that SWB fillets were higher in texture attributes: springiness, hardness, denseness, cohesiveness, cohesiveness of mass, crunchiness, fracturability, fibrousness, and chewiness, compared to NOR fillets (P < 0.05). No differences in texture attributes were found between grill and oven cooking methods (P-value 0.0002). Sanchez Brambila et al. (2017) developed a descriptive sensory texture profile of non-marinated WB and also found differences in hardness and springiness in WB compared to normal. On the other hand, Sanchez Brambila et al. (2017) did not find differences in fibrousness between NOR and WB meat. These differences in texture could be associated with changes in muscle fiber composition. In this regard, Petracci et al. (2013) reported that breasts with higher yield presented a greater incidence of abnormal fibers compared to standard breast yield hybrid. In addition, Sihvo et al. (2014) and Soglia et al. (2016) found severe multifocal myodegeneration and necrosis with different quantities of interstitial connective tissue accumulation or fibrosis in fillets affected by WB. According to Rehfeldt et al. (2004), extreme hypertrophy of muscle fibers is an indicator of poor meat quality, as reported in this study. Table 4. Sensory descriptive texture attributes of marinated NOR and SWB fillets. 1Attributes  NOR  SWB  Grill  Oven  Springiness  3.87 ± 0.12a  4.32 ± 0.13b  4.13 ± 0.12  4.06 ± 0.13  Hardness  4.56 ± 0.13a  4.97 ± 0.13b  4.76 ± 0.12  4.77 ± 0.13  Denseness  4.77 ± 0.12a  5.38 ± 0.12b  5.04 ± 0.12  5.11 ± 0.13  Cohesiveness  4.96 ± 0.10a  5.31 ± 0.10b  5.17 ± 0.10  5.10 ± 0.10  Cohesiveness of mass  6.74 ± 0.09a  6.52 ± 0.09b  6.64 ± 0.09  6.62 ± 0.09  Crunchiness  1.88 ± 0.19a  2.78 ± 0.20b  2.42 ± 0.19  2.23 ± 0.20  Tooth packing  3.36 ± 0.08  3.36 ± 0.08  3.30 ± 0.07  3.41 ± 0.07  Loose particles  2.88 ± 0.08  2.81 ± 0.08  2.88 ± 0.08  2.81 ± 0.08  Fracturability  2.83 ± 0.11a  3.23 ± 0.12b  2.97 ± 0.11  3.09 ± 0.12  Fibrousness  2.01 ± 0.21a  3.19 ± 0.21b  2.68 ± 0.20  2.55 ± 0.21  Chewiness  1.62 ± 0.13a  2.41 ± 0.13b  1.95 ± 0.13  2.08 ± 0.14  1Attributes  NOR  SWB  Grill  Oven  Springiness  3.87 ± 0.12a  4.32 ± 0.13b  4.13 ± 0.12  4.06 ± 0.13  Hardness  4.56 ± 0.13a  4.97 ± 0.13b  4.76 ± 0.12  4.77 ± 0.13  Denseness  4.77 ± 0.12a  5.38 ± 0.12b  5.04 ± 0.12  5.11 ± 0.13  Cohesiveness  4.96 ± 0.10a  5.31 ± 0.10b  5.17 ± 0.10  5.10 ± 0.10  Cohesiveness of mass  6.74 ± 0.09a  6.52 ± 0.09b  6.64 ± 0.09  6.62 ± 0.09  Crunchiness  1.88 ± 0.19a  2.78 ± 0.20b  2.42 ± 0.19  2.23 ± 0.20  Tooth packing  3.36 ± 0.08  3.36 ± 0.08  3.30 ± 0.07  3.41 ± 0.07  Loose particles  2.88 ± 0.08  2.81 ± 0.08  2.88 ± 0.08  2.81 ± 0.08  Fracturability  2.83 ± 0.11a  3.23 ± 0.12b  2.97 ± 0.11  3.09 ± 0.12  Fibrousness  2.01 ± 0.21a  3.19 ± 0.21b  2.68 ± 0.20  2.55 ± 0.21  Chewiness  1.62 ± 0.13a  2.41 ± 0.13b  1.95 ± 0.13  2.08 ± 0.14  a,bTPA values (means ± SE) within a row with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). 1All attributes were rated using a 16-point scale (0 = none, 15 = extremely intense). View Large Texture Profile Analysis Four attributes (Texture Technologies, 2015) were evaluated for TPA (Table 5). There was no interaction among the main effects for the texture attributes, and therefore the data were pooled and analyzed together (P > 0.05). The texture of SWB fillets was harder, more cohesive, springier, and chewier compared to NOR fillets (P < 0.05). Cooking methods did not affect (P > 0.05) TPA values. Soglia et al. (2016) found comparable results for hardness and chewiness in tumble marinated WB fillets. Similar results in texture were found in non-marinated SWB fillets, where Chatterjee et al. (2016) found higher differences in hardness, springiness, and chewiness compared to NOR (P < 0.05). In this regard, these studies confirm that the texture of marinated SWB is different from NOR breast fillets, regardless of the cooking method. As previously mentioned, it can be hypothesized that the overall changes in texture profile could be attributed to several histological and chemical changes in the muscle fibers and connective tissues (Sihvo et al., 2014; Soglia et al., 2016). Table 5. Texture profile analysis (TPA) of marinated NOR and SWB fillets. Attributes  NOR  SWB  Grill  Oven  ¥Hardness (kg)  8.13 ± 0.67a  13.95 ± 0.67b  11.02 ± 0.67  11.05 ± 0.66  §Springiness  0.66 ± 0.008a  0.68 ± 0.008b  0.67 ± 0.008  0.67 ± 0.008  ¤Cohesiveness  0.46 ± 0.01a  0.56 ± 0.01b  0.51 ± 0.01  0.51 ± 0.01  ¶Chewiness  2.50 ± 0.40a  5.85 ± 0.40b  4.02 ± 0.40  4.33 ± 0.40  Attributes  NOR  SWB  Grill  Oven  ¥Hardness (kg)  8.13 ± 0.67a  13.95 ± 0.67b  11.02 ± 0.67  11.05 ± 0.66  §Springiness  0.66 ± 0.008a  0.68 ± 0.008b  0.67 ± 0.008  0.67 ± 0.008  ¤Cohesiveness  0.46 ± 0.01a  0.56 ± 0.01b  0.51 ± 0.01  0.51 ± 0.01  ¶Chewiness  2.50 ± 0.40a  5.85 ± 0.40b  4.02 ± 0.40  4.33 ± 0.40  a,bTPA values (means ± SE) within a row with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). ¥Hardness = Maximum force during the first compression. §Springiness = Distance of the detected height during the second compression divided by the original compression distance. ¤Cohesiveness = Area of work during the second compression divided by the area of work during the first compression. ¶Chewiness = Gumminess * Springiness. View Large Even though TPA is used in meats to assess texture, it is necessary to validate the results with sensory evaluation. To better understand the relation between sensory texture and instrumental texture, the Pearson correlation coefficient was analyzed. Hardness (r = 0.40, P-value <.0001), springiness (r = 0.31, P-value 0.004), cohesiveness (r = 0.31, P-value 0.002), and chewiness (r = 0.51, P-value <.0001) showed positive and significant correlation between both methods (Table 6). Comparable results were found by Ruiz de Huidobro et al. (2004), who reported similar correlation values when comparing these 2 methods using longissimus dorsi muscle. The correlation values could be associated with the complex texture of the meat itself. In this regard, Cavitt et al. (2004) reported that meat was not a homogeneous product due to the variation from fillet to fillet. Another approach to understand the difference in hardness can be the fat deposit and collagen present in the fillets explained above. Future studies are needed to corroborate if these correlation values are considered strong enough when working with meats. Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between sensory texture and instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA). Attributes  Hardness  Springiness  Cohesiveness  Chewiness  Sensory/Instrumental texture  0.40  0.31  0.31  0.51  P-value  <0.0001  0.004  0.002  <0.0001  Attributes  Hardness  Springiness  Cohesiveness  Chewiness  Sensory/Instrumental texture  0.40  0.31  0.31  0.51  P-value  <0.0001  0.004  0.002  <0.0001  r = Pearson correlation coefficient. P-value < 0.05 is significant. View Large In summary, the results in this study showed that injected marinated SWB fillets affected the cook loss yield and the sensory and instrumental TPA. Regardless of the grill and oven cooking methods, SWB was significantly higher in 9 of the 11 attributes tested. Attributes tooth packing and loose particles were not affected by SWB. Sensory texture and instrumental TPA were accurate tools to measure the texture of chicken meat, since similar results were found between them. Additional research and texture attribute validation needs to be done. These data suggest that marination and cooking methods do not improve the quality and texture of SBW. New alternatives need to be investigated in order to reduce the economic impact due to this meat quality problem. REFERENCES Alvarado C., Mckee S.. 2007. Marination to improve functional properties and safety of poultry meat. J. Appl. Poult. Res.  16: 113– 120. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Barbut S. 2002. Poultry Products Processing. An Industry Guide . CRC Press, Florida. Cavitt L. C., Young G. W., Meullenet J. F., Owens C. M., Xiong R.. 2004. Prediction of poultry meat tenderness using razor-blade shear, Allo-Kramer shear, and sarcomere length. J. Food Sci.  69: 3274– 3283. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Chatterjee D., Zhuang H., Bowker B. C., Rincon A. M., Sanchez-Brambila G.. 2016. Instrumental texture characteristics of broiler pectoralis major with the wooden breast condition1. Poult. Sci.  95: 2449– 2454. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dransfield E., Sosnicki A. A.. 1999. Relationship between muscle growth and poultry meat quality. Poult. Sci.  78: 743– 746. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fletcher D. L. 2002. Poultry Meat Quality. World Poult. Sci. J.  58. Guardia S., Lessire M., Corniaux A., Metayer-Coustard S., Mercerand F., Tesseraud S., Bouvarel I., Berri C.. 2014. Short-term nutritional strategies before slaughter are effective in modulating the final pH and color of broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci.  93: 1– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kuttappan V. A., Brewer V. B., Apple J. K., Waldroup P. W., Owens C. M.. 2012. Influence of growth rate on the occurrence of white striping in broiler breast fillets. Poult. Sci.  91: 2677– 2685. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kuttappan V. A., Owens C. M., Coon C., Hargis B. M., Vazquez-Añon M.. 2017. Incidence of broiler breast myopathies at 2 different ages and its impact on selected raw meat quality parameters. Poult. Sci.  96: 3005– 3009. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lee Y., Xiong R., Chang Y. H., Owens C. M., Meullenet J. F.. 2014. Effects of cooking methods on textural properties and water-holding capacity of broiler breast meat deboned at various postmortem times. J. Texture Stud.  45: 377– 386. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lyon B. G., Lyon C. E.. 2001. Meat quality: Sensory and instrumental evaluations. Pages 97– 120 in Poultry Meat Processing . Sams A. R. ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Mazzoni M., Petracci M., Meluzzi A., Cavani C., Clavenzani P., Sirri F.. 2015. Relationship between pectoralis major muscle histology and quality traits of chicken meat. Poult. Sci.  94: 123– 130. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  McKee S. R., Sams A. R.. 1997. The effect of seasonal heat stress on rigor development and the incidence of pale, exudative turkey Meat. Poult. Sci.  76: 1616– 1620. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Meilgaard M. C., Civille G. V., Carr B. T.. 2007. Sensory Evaluation Techniques . 4rd ed. CRC, Press, Boca Raton, FL. Mudalal S., Lorenzi M., Soglia F., Cavani C., Petracci M.. 2014. Implications of white striping and wooden breast abnormalities on quality traits of raw and marinated chicken meat. Anim.  9: 728– 734. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Petracci M., Cavani C.. 2012. Muscle growth and poultry meat quality issues. Nutrients  4: 1. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Petracci M., Sirri F., Mazzoni M., Meluzzi A.. 2013. Comparison of breast muscle traits and meat quality characteristics in 2 commercial chicken hybrids. Poult. Sci.  92: 2438– 2447. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rehfeldt C., Fiedler I., Stickland N. C.. 2004. Number and size of muscle fibers in relation to meat production in muscle development of livestock animals: Physiology, genetics and meat quality . Te Pas M. F. W., Everts M. E., Haagsman H. P. ed. CABI Publ., Cambridge, MA. Richardson R. I. 1995. Poultry meat for further processing. Pages 351– 361 in Proceedings of the XII European Symposium on the Quality of Poultry Meat. , Zaragoza, Spain. Ruiz de Huidobro F., Miguel E., Blázquez B., Onega E.. 2004. A comparison between two methods (Warner-Bratzler and texture profile analysis) for testing either raw meat or cooked meat. Meat Sci.  69: 527– 536. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sanchez Brambila G., Chatterjee D., Bowker B., Zhuang H.. 2017. Descriptive texture analyses of cooked patties made of chicken breast with the woody breast condition1. Poult. Sci.  96: 3489– 3494. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sandercock D. A., Hunter R. R., Mitchell M. A., Hocking P. M.. 2006. Thermoregulatory capacity and muscle membrane integrity are compromised in broilers compared with layers at the same age or body weight. Poult. Sci.  47: 322– 329. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sihvo H. K., Immonen K., Puolanne E.. 2014. Myodegeneration with fibrosis and regeneration in the pectoralis major muscle of broilers. Vet .Pathol.  51: 619– 623. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Soglia F., Mudalal S., Barbini E., Di Nunzio M., Mazzoni M., Sirri F., Cavani C., Petracci M.. 2016. Histology, composition, and quality traits of chicken Pectoralis major muscle affected by wooden breast abnormality. Poult. Sci.  00: 1– 9. Soglia F., Gao J., Mazzoni M., Puolanne E., Cavani C., Petracci M., Ertbjerg P.. 2017. Superficial and deep changes of histology, texture and particle size distribution in broiler wooden breast muscle during refrigerated storage. Poult. Sci.  96: 3465– 3472. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Texture Technologies. 2015. An overview of texture profile analysis (TPA). Accessed Jan 2016. http://www.texturetechnologies.com/texture-profile-analysis/texture-profile-analysis.php-section-04. Tijare V. V., Yang F. L., Kuttappan V. A., Alvarado C. Z., Coon C. N., Owens C. M.. 2016. Meat quality of broiler breast fillets with white striping and woody breast muscle myopathies. Poult. Sci.  0: 1– 7. Xargayó M., Lagares J., Fernandez E., Ruiz D., Borrell D.. 2001. Fresh meat spray marinating: The influence of spray injection on the quality of marinated products. http://www.metalquimia.com/images/doctecnologic/art13.pdf Accessed Oct. 2006. Zotte A. D., Cecchinato M., Quartesan A., Bradanovic J., Tasoniero G., Poulanne E.. 2014. How does “wooden breast” myodegeneration affect poultry meat quality? Pages 476– 479 in 60th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology , Punta del Este, Uruguay. © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Poultry Science Oxford University Press

Descriptive sensory and instrumental texture profile analysis of woody breast in marinated chicken

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/descriptive-sensory-and-instrumental-texture-profile-analysis-of-woody-5MT6rNlFSH
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc.
ISSN
0032-5791
eISSN
1525-3171
D.O.I.
10.3382/ps/pex428
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The broiler industry is currently experiencing a muscle anomaly referred to as “woody breast,” and the effect of different cooking methods on the marination properties of severe woody breast (SWB) has not yet been reported. This study compared the texture attributes of marinated (injected) normal (NOR) and SWB using a convection oven and a flat-top grill. The objectives were 1) to develop and validate a descriptive texture attribute panel with 6 trained panelists using a 16-point scale and 2) to evaluate the instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA) using a texture analyzer. Sixty-four NOR and SWB were obtained from a commercial facility. Fillet color (L*, a*, b*) and pH were measured before marination. In each of 2 trials, the breast muscles were injected in bulk with 15% brine (0.48 STPP, 0.55% NaCl, final concentration), and marinade retention was determined after 20 minutes. The meat was vacuum packaged, stored at −20°C (7 d sensory; 29 d TPA) and then thawed (4°C, 24 h). Fillets were cooked to 73°C on a flat-top grill (176°C) or in an oven (176°C), and cook loss % was determined. Panelist samples (2 × 2 cm) and TPA samples (4 × 2 cm) were cut into 3 pieces. Color and pH were higher for SWB than NOR fillets (P < 0.05). Marinade retention was 83.21% for NOR meat and 59.23% for SWB meat. The flat-top grill method resulted in higher cook loss than oven (P < 0.05). SWB had higher cook loss when compared to NOR (P < 0.05). Sensory texture descriptors springiness, hardness, denseness, cohesiveness, fracturability, fibrousness, crunchiness, and chewiness were higher for SWB than NOR fillets (P < 0.05). TPA attributes also showed higher values for SWB compared to NOR (P < 0.05). No differences in texture were found between the grill and oven for sensory and TPA attributes. In summary, marinated SWB has significant texture differences when compared to NOR, regardless of cooking method. INTRODUCTION In the last 2 decades, the genetic selection for muscle growth has led to an increase in muscle abnormalities, especially in the Pectoralis major muscle (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999; Kuttappan et al., 2012; Petracci and Cavani, 2012; Petracci et al., 2013; Sihvo et al., 2014). Woody breast (WB) is a recently described muscle condition related to older and heavier birds (Kuttappan et al., 2017). The dramatic increase of WB meat during the last 5 yr has become a challenge for the global poultry market. Furthermore, the mechanisms that control the incidence and severity of WB remain unknown (Mazzoni et al., 2015). WB is characterized by abnormal hardness throughout the fillet with different degrees of severity (Sihvo et al., 2014). Previous studies by Petracci et al. (2013) compared the muscle traits of 2 commercial hybrids and found that high breast yield broilers presented a greater incidence of abnormal fibers compared to standard breast yield broilers. In addition, Mazzoni et al. (2015) and Soglia et al. (2017) showed that these fibers often have varying degrees of myodegeneration with different diameters and shapes, and increase of interstitial connective tissue (fibrosis). As a result, these fiber changes can influence quality traits such as pH, color, water-holding capacity, and the texture of non-marinated and marinated WB fillets (Kuttappan et al., 2012; Petracci et al., 2013; Mazzoni et al., 2015; Tijare et al., 2016). Moreover, no differences in shear force values or sarcomere length of non-marinated and marinated normal and WB fillets have been reported (Mudalal et al. 2014; Tijare et al., 2016). Therefore, WB is not a problem associated with tenderness. On the other hand, texture is one of the sensory factors that influence the perception of quality by consumers. In this regard, descriptive sensory texture profile and instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA) are objective methods widely used by the meat industry for quantifying different texture attributes (Lyon and Lyon, 2001; Lee et al., 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2016). Previous studies have shown that non-marinated WB fillets have a significantly different texture profile when compared with normal breast fillets resulting in less water-holding capacity and subsequently higher drip loss and cook loss (Mudalal et al., 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2016; Soglia et al., 2017). Marination is a common practice by the industry to improve the quality properties of the meat. The most widely used marinade ingredients in poultry are salt and sodium tripolyphosphate (STP), which have been shown to increase water-holding capacity (yield and cook loss %), as well as improve texture (Alvarado and Mckee, 2007). There are 3 marination methods, including immersion, injection, and vacuum tumbling (Xargayó et al., 2001). In this regard, the impact of marination and cooking methods on the texture profile of WB remains unknown. Thus, this study compared the texture attributes of injection marinated normal (NOR) and severe woody breast (SWB) using 2 cooking methods (convection oven and flat-top grill). The objectives were 1) to develop and validate a descriptive texture attribute panel with 6 trained panelists using a 16-point scale (0 = none, 15 = extremely intense), and 2) to evaluate the instrumental TPA using a texture analyzer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Meat Preparation WB and NOR breast fillets were obtained 3 h postmortem from a commercial processing plant and kept at 3°C during transport to the Poultry Science Research Facility at Texas A&M University. The samples were categorized into NOR and SWB fillets by tactile evaluation of hardness using the classification proposed by Tijare et al. (2016). All the meat was trimmed to remove any excess fat and cartilage. Each breast was split in half. The right fillet was used for sensory texture profile and the left fillet for instrumental texture analysis. The meat was subsequently labeled using 3 random digit codes and sorted depending on the experiment. Quality measurements, color, and pH were taken before marination. Color was measured from the surface of each fillet (bone side) by averaging3 readings using the CIELAB L* = lightness, a* = redness, and b* = yellowness color scale of a calibrated colorimeter (Minolta Chroma Meter Model CL-200; Minolta Corp., Ramsey, NJ). The pH was measured with a pH meter (Piercing probe Model 205; Testo, Inc., Sparta, NJ) from the cranial end of each fillet. Marination and Cooking Procedures NOR and SWB fillets were weighed in bulk in 2 replicates. The meat was marinated using a multi-needle injector (Inject-star BI-88 P-VSO, Mountain View, AZ) with 15% brine target at constant pressure (10 to 15 psi); brine was composed of salt and STP (0.55% NaCl, 0.48% STP, final concentration in the product) (Blend 100, Francee Flavoring and Spice, Ankeny, IA). After marination, 2 replicates of NOR and SWB meat were weighed in bulk to determine marinade pickup (%) and 20 min marinade retention. Subsequently, each breast fillet was vacuum packaged individually in Cryovac vacuum-package bags (Model B4173T, Sealed Air Corporation, Simpsonville, SC) and stored in a blast freezer at −20°C for 7 d sensory and 29 d TPA measurements. Prior to analysis, the meat was thawed at refrigeration temperatures (3°C) for 24 hours. NOR and SWB fillets were subsequently cooked to an endpoint internal temperature of 73°C using either a flat-top grill (536TGF 36″, Star Max, Lancaster, PA) set at 177°C (fillet was flipped at 37°C) or a convection oven using pans covered with aluminum foil (FC-34/1 Sodir Convection Oven, Equipex, Providence, RI) set at 177°C. During cooking, internal temperatures were monitored using copper-constant thermocouples (Omega Engineering, Stanford, CT) inserted into the geometric center of the cranial part of the fillet. Sensory Texture Profile Phase I. Texture Profile Development A panel composed of 6 expert panelists from the Sensory Testing Facility at Texas A&M University was trained to determine the texture attributes of NOR and SWB fillets. The panel has 25 yr of experience working with The Spectrum™ descriptive analysis method across meat, poultry, and food products. The attributes, references, definitions, and techniques (Table 1) were developed using previous resources (Barbut, 2002; Meilgaard et al., 2007) and reference standards developed by the panel. The panelists participated in 13-day (2-hour sessions) ballot development sessions to determine the texture attributes present in marinated NOR and SWB fillets. Two scales per d were introduced to the panelists, and, subsequently, they were served marinated NOR and SWB samples cooked using grill and oven methods as described above. Each panelist tasted the marinated NOR and SWB samples individually and then collectively came to a single value conclusion for each attribute using a 16-point scale (0 = none, 15 = extremely intense). Table 1. Descriptive sensory attributes, definition, and techniques. Attribute  Definition  Technique  Springiness  The degree to which sample returns to the original shape.  Place sample between molars; compress partially without breaking the sample structure; release.  Hardness  The force required to compress a sample.  Place food between the molars and bite down evenly, evaluating the force required to compress the food.  Denseness  The compactness of the cross section.  Place sample between molars and compress.  Cohesiveness of mass  The degree to which chewed sample (at 10 to 15 chews) holds together in a mass.  Chew sample with molars for up to 15 chews.  Cohesiveness  The degree to which sample deforms rather than crumbles, cracks, or breaks.  Place the sample between molars; compress fully (can be done with incisors).  Crunchiness  Amount of noises present in the sample during the first bite.  Place sample between molar teeth and bite down evenly until the food breaks.  Tooth packing  The degree to which product sticks on the surface of teeth.  After the sample is swallowed, feel the tooth surfaces with tongue.  Loose particles  Amount of particles remaining in and on the surface of mouth after swallowing.  Chew samples 8 times with molars, swallow, and evaluate.  Fracturability  The force with which the sample breaks.  Place food between molars and bite down evenly until the food crumbles, cracks, or shatters.  Fibrousness  Amount of fibers present in the sample.  Place the sample between the molars and evaluate during the first 2 bites.  Chewiness  Number of chews necessary for food to be swallowed.  Place the sample between the molars and chew 3 to 5 times.  Attribute  Definition  Technique  Springiness  The degree to which sample returns to the original shape.  Place sample between molars; compress partially without breaking the sample structure; release.  Hardness  The force required to compress a sample.  Place food between the molars and bite down evenly, evaluating the force required to compress the food.  Denseness  The compactness of the cross section.  Place sample between molars and compress.  Cohesiveness of mass  The degree to which chewed sample (at 10 to 15 chews) holds together in a mass.  Chew sample with molars for up to 15 chews.  Cohesiveness  The degree to which sample deforms rather than crumbles, cracks, or breaks.  Place the sample between molars; compress fully (can be done with incisors).  Crunchiness  Amount of noises present in the sample during the first bite.  Place sample between molar teeth and bite down evenly until the food breaks.  Tooth packing  The degree to which product sticks on the surface of teeth.  After the sample is swallowed, feel the tooth surfaces with tongue.  Loose particles  Amount of particles remaining in and on the surface of mouth after swallowing.  Chew samples 8 times with molars, swallow, and evaluate.  Fracturability  The force with which the sample breaks.  Place food between molars and bite down evenly until the food crumbles, cracks, or shatters.  Fibrousness  Amount of fibers present in the sample.  Place the sample between the molars and evaluate during the first 2 bites.  Chewiness  Number of chews necessary for food to be swallowed.  Place the sample between the molars and chew 3 to 5 times.  View Large Phase II. Texture Profile Validation Once all the attributes, references, and texture intensities were defined, trained panelists were asked to evaluate the marinated chicken breast samples using the texture attributes established during ballot development. Eleven texture attributes were defined as part of the texture profile of chicken breast: Springiness, hardness, denseness, cohesiveness, cohesiveness of mass, crunchiness, tooth packing, loose particles, fracturability, fibrousness, and chewiness. Normal (n = 16) and SWB (n = 16) fillets were measured for the validation process during 3 d of evaluation. Prior to use, the meat was thawed at refrigeration temperatures (3°C) for 24 hours. Then, NOR and SWB were cooked using the 2 cooking methods explained in phase I. Cook loss % was calculated and the samples were placed in a holding oven at 48.8°C on a plate covered in aluminum foil for no more than 20 min or served immediately. Approximately 2 × 2 cm cubes from the ventral to the cranial end region were cut, and 3 cubes were served for evaluation in an odorless plastic cup (56.7 g Solo soufflé plastic cup, Dart Container Corporation, Mason, MI). Each sample was assigned a random 3-digit code. All the samples were tested during 3 d of evaluation. A warm-up sample (normal chicken breast) was provided before each testing d to calibrate the panel. The panelists were placed in individual breadbox-style booths separated from the preparation area under red lights. Each panelist received double-distilled deionized water and unsalted saltine crackers for palate cleansing between samples, the scales sheet, and a sensory ballot. Panelists were given a 5-minute break between each sample to reduce sensory fatigue. The texture attributes that the panelist measured were quantified using a 16-point anchored scale (0 = none and 15 = extremely intense). Texture Profile Analysis Thirty-two NOR and SWB left breast fillets in 2 replicates were used for the TPA. Once cooked, the fillets were placed at refrigeration temperature (3°C) over 24 hours. After the allotted time, the ventral to the cranial end portion of the fillet was cut into 3 rectangular 4 × 2 cm samples using a template and a sharp knife (Mudalal et al., 2014). The texture measurements were performed using a texture analyzer (TA.XTPlus, Texture Technologies, Hamilton, MA) with a cylinder probe of 76.2 × 10 mm to compress the samples. A 50 kg load cell at a test speed of 3.0 mms-1; (pre-test), 1.0 mms-1; (test), and 3.0 mms-1; (post test) was used to reach a 50% compression. Statistical Analysis Individual fillets were used as experimental units. Color and pH measurements were subjected to analysis of variance using PROC GLM of SAS (SAS® 9.4, Inc., Cary, NC.). TPA data were analyzed as protected 3-way ANOVA using the LS-MEANS procedure of JMP® Pro 12.01. Cooking method (grill or oven), type of meat (NOR or SWB), and replication were the main effects. Sensory data and cook loss (%) were analyzed separately by the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS 9.4 with type of meat and cooking method included as fixed factors, and d and panel as random factors. Tukey's HSD was used for means separation, and significance was accepted at P < 0.05. Interactions with P > 0.05 were not considered in the final model. Pearson correlation coefficient r was generated using the PROC CORR procedure to compare sensory and instrumental texture. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Meat Quality Measurements The results from this study showed that fillets affected by SWB had higher pH (P-value <.0001), L* (P-value 0.04), a* (P-value 0.04), and b* (P-value 0.002) compared to NOR fillets (Table 2). The pH results of this experiment are similar to recent publications in which the cranial region of the SWB fillet had higher pH values than NOR (Zotte et al., 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2016; Kuttappan et al., 2017; Sanchez Brambila et al., 2017). In contrast, Mudalal et al. (2014) reported that SWB and NOR fillets did not differ in pH. Table 2. pH and color (L*, a*, b*) least squares means for non-marinated NOR and SWB fillets. Treatment  pH  Lightness (L*)  Redness (a*)  Yellowness (b*)  NOR  5.83 ± 0.03  53.69 ± 0.52  4.63 ± 0.20  3.73 ± 0.29  SWB  6.07 ± 0.03  55.25 ± 0.52  5.21 ± 0.20  5.03 ± 0.29  P-value  <0.0001  0.04  0.04  0.0021  Treatment  pH  Lightness (L*)  Redness (a*)  Yellowness (b*)  NOR  5.83 ± 0.03  53.69 ± 0.52  4.63 ± 0.20  3.73 ± 0.29  SWB  6.07 ± 0.03  55.25 ± 0.52  5.21 ± 0.20  5.03 ± 0.29  P-value  <0.0001  0.04  0.04  0.0021  Values are expressed as means ± SE. P-values < 0.05 are significantly different. View Large During the normal process of rigor mortis, the pH of breast muscle in broilers progressively decreases to approximately 5.8 as it is converted to meat. However, factors such as pre- and post-slaughter handling (Richardson, 1995), heat stress (McKee and Sams, 1997), genetics (Sandercock et al., 2006), nutrition (Guardia et al., 2014), and other factors can affect rigor mortis. According to Mudalal et al. (2014) and Kuttappan et al. (2017) the higher ultimate pH in WB meat could be the result of the reduced glycolytic potential associated with the reduced carbohydrate metabolism in the myopathy muscle during postmortem. The color data were consistent with Zotte et al. (2014) who reported that SWB fillets had increased lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) color values. Chatterje et al. (2016) and Mudalal et al. (2014) also reported differences in a* and b* values in SWB compared to NOR. These findings can be attributed to alterations in fiber membrane integrity, which contributed to the loss of liquid (Soglia et al., 2016). Thus, this can explain the higher light reflectance and the higher values in lightness in SWB breast. In this study, marination of SWB and NOR meat was done through injection in bulk in 2 replications. The fillets were allowed to rest for 1 min and were then weighed to measure marinade uptake (%). As a result, NOR meat marinade pickup was 13.02% and SWB meat 13.17%. After 20 min, marinade retention for NOR fillets was 83.26% and SWB fillets 59.23%. Cook loss is considered a measurement for evaluating water-holding capacity in marinated fillets. Oven and grill cooking are the most popular methods used for boneless, skinless poultry meat, particularly in foodservice systems. As for cook loss, there was no interaction between cooking methods and muscle type of meat (P-value 0.10) (Table 3). Therefore, main effects were used to analyze cook loss data. The results showed that breasts cooked using the grill method had higher cook loss (%) compare to breasts cooked using the oven method (P-value 0.0002). Muscles with SWB had increased cook loss (%) compared to NOR (P-value 0.007), which was similar to what was reported by Mudalal et al. (2014), who reported higher cook loss values in tumble marinated SWB fillets compared to NOR fillets. On the other hand, Petracci et al. (2013) found that non-marinated meat from high-yielding broilers also showed increased cook loss values compared to standard yielding broilers. Regardless of the cooking method, the cook loss values for SWB were higher than NOR. Therefore, SWB meat has a high impact on water-holding capacity. According to Mudalal et al. (2014); Soglia et al. (2016, 2017); Petracci et al. (2013), the higher cook loss percentage in WB meat can be associated with the following factors: 1) decrease of myofibrillar protein, which is linked to protein functionality and; 2) increase in connective tissue or collagen content, which can reduce the ability of the meat to bind water. Table 3. Cook loss (%) least squares means for marinated NOR and SWB fillets cooked by grill and oven methods. 1Interaction        P-value  0.10      Cooking methods  Cook loss (%)  Treatments  Cook loss (%)  Grill  24.08 ± 0.73  NOR  20.62 ± 0.73  Oven  20.02 ± 0.73  SWB  23.48 ± 0.73  P-value  0.0002  P-value  0.007  1Interaction        P-value  0.10      Cooking methods  Cook loss (%)  Treatments  Cook loss (%)  Grill  24.08 ± 0.73  NOR  20.62 ± 0.73  Oven  20.02 ± 0.73  SWB  23.48 ± 0.73  P-value  0.0002  P-value  0.007  Values are expressed as means ± SE. P-values < 0.05 are significantly different. 1Interaction = type of meat × cooking method. View Large Sensory Texture Attributes Texture has been considered to be one of the most important attributes influencing consumer final satisfaction with poultry meats (Fletcher, 2002). Eleven texture attributes were described as part of the texture profile of SWB. There was no interaction (P > 0.05) among the 11 texture attributes, and therefore the main effects were used to analyze the data. During the ballot development sessions, the panel was asked to describe new texture attributes present in SWB meat. Interestingly, the panel detected fibrousness and crunchiness attributes present only in SWB samples. Therefore, the panel developed intensity scales for crunchiness and fibrousness. The results in Table 4 showed that SWB fillets were higher in texture attributes: springiness, hardness, denseness, cohesiveness, cohesiveness of mass, crunchiness, fracturability, fibrousness, and chewiness, compared to NOR fillets (P < 0.05). No differences in texture attributes were found between grill and oven cooking methods (P-value 0.0002). Sanchez Brambila et al. (2017) developed a descriptive sensory texture profile of non-marinated WB and also found differences in hardness and springiness in WB compared to normal. On the other hand, Sanchez Brambila et al. (2017) did not find differences in fibrousness between NOR and WB meat. These differences in texture could be associated with changes in muscle fiber composition. In this regard, Petracci et al. (2013) reported that breasts with higher yield presented a greater incidence of abnormal fibers compared to standard breast yield hybrid. In addition, Sihvo et al. (2014) and Soglia et al. (2016) found severe multifocal myodegeneration and necrosis with different quantities of interstitial connective tissue accumulation or fibrosis in fillets affected by WB. According to Rehfeldt et al. (2004), extreme hypertrophy of muscle fibers is an indicator of poor meat quality, as reported in this study. Table 4. Sensory descriptive texture attributes of marinated NOR and SWB fillets. 1Attributes  NOR  SWB  Grill  Oven  Springiness  3.87 ± 0.12a  4.32 ± 0.13b  4.13 ± 0.12  4.06 ± 0.13  Hardness  4.56 ± 0.13a  4.97 ± 0.13b  4.76 ± 0.12  4.77 ± 0.13  Denseness  4.77 ± 0.12a  5.38 ± 0.12b  5.04 ± 0.12  5.11 ± 0.13  Cohesiveness  4.96 ± 0.10a  5.31 ± 0.10b  5.17 ± 0.10  5.10 ± 0.10  Cohesiveness of mass  6.74 ± 0.09a  6.52 ± 0.09b  6.64 ± 0.09  6.62 ± 0.09  Crunchiness  1.88 ± 0.19a  2.78 ± 0.20b  2.42 ± 0.19  2.23 ± 0.20  Tooth packing  3.36 ± 0.08  3.36 ± 0.08  3.30 ± 0.07  3.41 ± 0.07  Loose particles  2.88 ± 0.08  2.81 ± 0.08  2.88 ± 0.08  2.81 ± 0.08  Fracturability  2.83 ± 0.11a  3.23 ± 0.12b  2.97 ± 0.11  3.09 ± 0.12  Fibrousness  2.01 ± 0.21a  3.19 ± 0.21b  2.68 ± 0.20  2.55 ± 0.21  Chewiness  1.62 ± 0.13a  2.41 ± 0.13b  1.95 ± 0.13  2.08 ± 0.14  1Attributes  NOR  SWB  Grill  Oven  Springiness  3.87 ± 0.12a  4.32 ± 0.13b  4.13 ± 0.12  4.06 ± 0.13  Hardness  4.56 ± 0.13a  4.97 ± 0.13b  4.76 ± 0.12  4.77 ± 0.13  Denseness  4.77 ± 0.12a  5.38 ± 0.12b  5.04 ± 0.12  5.11 ± 0.13  Cohesiveness  4.96 ± 0.10a  5.31 ± 0.10b  5.17 ± 0.10  5.10 ± 0.10  Cohesiveness of mass  6.74 ± 0.09a  6.52 ± 0.09b  6.64 ± 0.09  6.62 ± 0.09  Crunchiness  1.88 ± 0.19a  2.78 ± 0.20b  2.42 ± 0.19  2.23 ± 0.20  Tooth packing  3.36 ± 0.08  3.36 ± 0.08  3.30 ± 0.07  3.41 ± 0.07  Loose particles  2.88 ± 0.08  2.81 ± 0.08  2.88 ± 0.08  2.81 ± 0.08  Fracturability  2.83 ± 0.11a  3.23 ± 0.12b  2.97 ± 0.11  3.09 ± 0.12  Fibrousness  2.01 ± 0.21a  3.19 ± 0.21b  2.68 ± 0.20  2.55 ± 0.21  Chewiness  1.62 ± 0.13a  2.41 ± 0.13b  1.95 ± 0.13  2.08 ± 0.14  a,bTPA values (means ± SE) within a row with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). 1All attributes were rated using a 16-point scale (0 = none, 15 = extremely intense). View Large Texture Profile Analysis Four attributes (Texture Technologies, 2015) were evaluated for TPA (Table 5). There was no interaction among the main effects for the texture attributes, and therefore the data were pooled and analyzed together (P > 0.05). The texture of SWB fillets was harder, more cohesive, springier, and chewier compared to NOR fillets (P < 0.05). Cooking methods did not affect (P > 0.05) TPA values. Soglia et al. (2016) found comparable results for hardness and chewiness in tumble marinated WB fillets. Similar results in texture were found in non-marinated SWB fillets, where Chatterjee et al. (2016) found higher differences in hardness, springiness, and chewiness compared to NOR (P < 0.05). In this regard, these studies confirm that the texture of marinated SWB is different from NOR breast fillets, regardless of the cooking method. As previously mentioned, it can be hypothesized that the overall changes in texture profile could be attributed to several histological and chemical changes in the muscle fibers and connective tissues (Sihvo et al., 2014; Soglia et al., 2016). Table 5. Texture profile analysis (TPA) of marinated NOR and SWB fillets. Attributes  NOR  SWB  Grill  Oven  ¥Hardness (kg)  8.13 ± 0.67a  13.95 ± 0.67b  11.02 ± 0.67  11.05 ± 0.66  §Springiness  0.66 ± 0.008a  0.68 ± 0.008b  0.67 ± 0.008  0.67 ± 0.008  ¤Cohesiveness  0.46 ± 0.01a  0.56 ± 0.01b  0.51 ± 0.01  0.51 ± 0.01  ¶Chewiness  2.50 ± 0.40a  5.85 ± 0.40b  4.02 ± 0.40  4.33 ± 0.40  Attributes  NOR  SWB  Grill  Oven  ¥Hardness (kg)  8.13 ± 0.67a  13.95 ± 0.67b  11.02 ± 0.67  11.05 ± 0.66  §Springiness  0.66 ± 0.008a  0.68 ± 0.008b  0.67 ± 0.008  0.67 ± 0.008  ¤Cohesiveness  0.46 ± 0.01a  0.56 ± 0.01b  0.51 ± 0.01  0.51 ± 0.01  ¶Chewiness  2.50 ± 0.40a  5.85 ± 0.40b  4.02 ± 0.40  4.33 ± 0.40  a,bTPA values (means ± SE) within a row with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). ¥Hardness = Maximum force during the first compression. §Springiness = Distance of the detected height during the second compression divided by the original compression distance. ¤Cohesiveness = Area of work during the second compression divided by the area of work during the first compression. ¶Chewiness = Gumminess * Springiness. View Large Even though TPA is used in meats to assess texture, it is necessary to validate the results with sensory evaluation. To better understand the relation between sensory texture and instrumental texture, the Pearson correlation coefficient was analyzed. Hardness (r = 0.40, P-value <.0001), springiness (r = 0.31, P-value 0.004), cohesiveness (r = 0.31, P-value 0.002), and chewiness (r = 0.51, P-value <.0001) showed positive and significant correlation between both methods (Table 6). Comparable results were found by Ruiz de Huidobro et al. (2004), who reported similar correlation values when comparing these 2 methods using longissimus dorsi muscle. The correlation values could be associated with the complex texture of the meat itself. In this regard, Cavitt et al. (2004) reported that meat was not a homogeneous product due to the variation from fillet to fillet. Another approach to understand the difference in hardness can be the fat deposit and collagen present in the fillets explained above. Future studies are needed to corroborate if these correlation values are considered strong enough when working with meats. Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between sensory texture and instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA). Attributes  Hardness  Springiness  Cohesiveness  Chewiness  Sensory/Instrumental texture  0.40  0.31  0.31  0.51  P-value  <0.0001  0.004  0.002  <0.0001  Attributes  Hardness  Springiness  Cohesiveness  Chewiness  Sensory/Instrumental texture  0.40  0.31  0.31  0.51  P-value  <0.0001  0.004  0.002  <0.0001  r = Pearson correlation coefficient. P-value < 0.05 is significant. View Large In summary, the results in this study showed that injected marinated SWB fillets affected the cook loss yield and the sensory and instrumental TPA. Regardless of the grill and oven cooking methods, SWB was significantly higher in 9 of the 11 attributes tested. Attributes tooth packing and loose particles were not affected by SWB. Sensory texture and instrumental TPA were accurate tools to measure the texture of chicken meat, since similar results were found between them. Additional research and texture attribute validation needs to be done. These data suggest that marination and cooking methods do not improve the quality and texture of SBW. New alternatives need to be investigated in order to reduce the economic impact due to this meat quality problem. REFERENCES Alvarado C., Mckee S.. 2007. Marination to improve functional properties and safety of poultry meat. J. Appl. Poult. Res.  16: 113– 120. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Barbut S. 2002. Poultry Products Processing. An Industry Guide . CRC Press, Florida. Cavitt L. C., Young G. W., Meullenet J. F., Owens C. M., Xiong R.. 2004. Prediction of poultry meat tenderness using razor-blade shear, Allo-Kramer shear, and sarcomere length. J. Food Sci.  69: 3274– 3283. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Chatterjee D., Zhuang H., Bowker B. C., Rincon A. M., Sanchez-Brambila G.. 2016. Instrumental texture characteristics of broiler pectoralis major with the wooden breast condition1. Poult. Sci.  95: 2449– 2454. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dransfield E., Sosnicki A. A.. 1999. Relationship between muscle growth and poultry meat quality. Poult. Sci.  78: 743– 746. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fletcher D. L. 2002. Poultry Meat Quality. World Poult. Sci. J.  58. Guardia S., Lessire M., Corniaux A., Metayer-Coustard S., Mercerand F., Tesseraud S., Bouvarel I., Berri C.. 2014. Short-term nutritional strategies before slaughter are effective in modulating the final pH and color of broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci.  93: 1– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kuttappan V. A., Brewer V. B., Apple J. K., Waldroup P. W., Owens C. M.. 2012. Influence of growth rate on the occurrence of white striping in broiler breast fillets. Poult. Sci.  91: 2677– 2685. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kuttappan V. A., Owens C. M., Coon C., Hargis B. M., Vazquez-Añon M.. 2017. Incidence of broiler breast myopathies at 2 different ages and its impact on selected raw meat quality parameters. Poult. Sci.  96: 3005– 3009. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lee Y., Xiong R., Chang Y. H., Owens C. M., Meullenet J. F.. 2014. Effects of cooking methods on textural properties and water-holding capacity of broiler breast meat deboned at various postmortem times. J. Texture Stud.  45: 377– 386. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lyon B. G., Lyon C. E.. 2001. Meat quality: Sensory and instrumental evaluations. Pages 97– 120 in Poultry Meat Processing . Sams A. R. ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Mazzoni M., Petracci M., Meluzzi A., Cavani C., Clavenzani P., Sirri F.. 2015. Relationship between pectoralis major muscle histology and quality traits of chicken meat. Poult. Sci.  94: 123– 130. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  McKee S. R., Sams A. R.. 1997. The effect of seasonal heat stress on rigor development and the incidence of pale, exudative turkey Meat. Poult. Sci.  76: 1616– 1620. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Meilgaard M. C., Civille G. V., Carr B. T.. 2007. Sensory Evaluation Techniques . 4rd ed. CRC, Press, Boca Raton, FL. Mudalal S., Lorenzi M., Soglia F., Cavani C., Petracci M.. 2014. Implications of white striping and wooden breast abnormalities on quality traits of raw and marinated chicken meat. Anim.  9: 728– 734. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Petracci M., Cavani C.. 2012. Muscle growth and poultry meat quality issues. Nutrients  4: 1. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Petracci M., Sirri F., Mazzoni M., Meluzzi A.. 2013. Comparison of breast muscle traits and meat quality characteristics in 2 commercial chicken hybrids. Poult. Sci.  92: 2438– 2447. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rehfeldt C., Fiedler I., Stickland N. C.. 2004. Number and size of muscle fibers in relation to meat production in muscle development of livestock animals: Physiology, genetics and meat quality . Te Pas M. F. W., Everts M. E., Haagsman H. P. ed. CABI Publ., Cambridge, MA. Richardson R. I. 1995. Poultry meat for further processing. Pages 351– 361 in Proceedings of the XII European Symposium on the Quality of Poultry Meat. , Zaragoza, Spain. Ruiz de Huidobro F., Miguel E., Blázquez B., Onega E.. 2004. A comparison between two methods (Warner-Bratzler and texture profile analysis) for testing either raw meat or cooked meat. Meat Sci.  69: 527– 536. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sanchez Brambila G., Chatterjee D., Bowker B., Zhuang H.. 2017. Descriptive texture analyses of cooked patties made of chicken breast with the woody breast condition1. Poult. Sci.  96: 3489– 3494. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Sandercock D. A., Hunter R. R., Mitchell M. A., Hocking P. M.. 2006. Thermoregulatory capacity and muscle membrane integrity are compromised in broilers compared with layers at the same age or body weight. Poult. Sci.  47: 322– 329. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sihvo H. K., Immonen K., Puolanne E.. 2014. Myodegeneration with fibrosis and regeneration in the pectoralis major muscle of broilers. Vet .Pathol.  51: 619– 623. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Soglia F., Mudalal S., Barbini E., Di Nunzio M., Mazzoni M., Sirri F., Cavani C., Petracci M.. 2016. Histology, composition, and quality traits of chicken Pectoralis major muscle affected by wooden breast abnormality. Poult. Sci.  00: 1– 9. Soglia F., Gao J., Mazzoni M., Puolanne E., Cavani C., Petracci M., Ertbjerg P.. 2017. Superficial and deep changes of histology, texture and particle size distribution in broiler wooden breast muscle during refrigerated storage. Poult. Sci.  96: 3465– 3472. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Texture Technologies. 2015. An overview of texture profile analysis (TPA). Accessed Jan 2016. http://www.texturetechnologies.com/texture-profile-analysis/texture-profile-analysis.php-section-04. Tijare V. V., Yang F. L., Kuttappan V. A., Alvarado C. Z., Coon C. N., Owens C. M.. 2016. Meat quality of broiler breast fillets with white striping and woody breast muscle myopathies. Poult. Sci.  0: 1– 7. Xargayó M., Lagares J., Fernandez E., Ruiz D., Borrell D.. 2001. Fresh meat spray marinating: The influence of spray injection on the quality of marinated products. http://www.metalquimia.com/images/doctecnologic/art13.pdf Accessed Oct. 2006. Zotte A. D., Cecchinato M., Quartesan A., Bradanovic J., Tasoniero G., Poulanne E.. 2014. How does “wooden breast” myodegeneration affect poultry meat quality? Pages 476– 479 in 60th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology , Punta del Este, Uruguay. © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc.

Journal

Poultry ScienceOxford University Press

Published: Apr 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off