Effects of packaging conditions on some functional and sensory attributes of goose meat

Effects of packaging conditions on some functional and sensory attributes of goose meat ABSTRACT The objective of the work was to investigate the effect of modified atmosphere (MA) packaging (high oxygen modified atmosphere and vacuum) on pH, water holding capacity and cooking loss of raw goose meat, and on the sensory assessment and shear force of roasted meat. Samples refrigerated at 1°C were tested within 24 h after slaughter (unpacked meat) and on d 4, 7, 11, and 14 of storage (modified atmosphere or vacuum packed meat). The type of atmosphere used in packaging determined the functional properties of goose meat such as: pH, WHC, cooking loss and shear force. This is important from both the culinary and technological viewpoint. At the end of storage the meat packed in MA (consisting of 80% O2, 20%CO2) had higher cooking loss, lower pH values, and water holding capacity in comparison to samples stored in vacuum. The type of atmosphere influenced the sensory descriptors (characteristic odor and flavor, tenderness, juiciness and general evaluation) of roasted meat. Samples packed in MA did worse during sensory assessment with respect to odor and flavor, tenderness, juiciness and general assessment. Thus meat stored under modified atmosphere showed lower productivity and was less tender and juicy The goose breast muscles packed in vacuum proved to be better suited for consumption and processing as compared to those packed in high oxygen MA. INTRODUCTION The taste values of goose meat are prized on Euromarkets. White Kołuda® goose is regarded as one of the specialties of Polish farming, and over 90% of its production goes to the German market. Polish goose meat is produced in Poland with the use of W-31 hybrids; in particular, orginating from the breed combination of ♂ W-33 x ♀ W-11. White Kołuda® goose is characterized by good meat rates, e.g., high percentage of protein in meat or its satisfactory tenderness (Biesiada-Drzazga et al., 2011). Goose meat shows a high nutritional and sensory quality due to its specific nutrition, including whole oat grain feeding, as well as conditions in which the geese are kept, i.e., with the use of open-air runs and grassland (Buzała et al., 2014). Goose meat is generally consumed as various roasted or grilled products. It is generally known that the functional and sensory attributes of meat are influenced by the following factors: microorganisms, pH, muscle type and its biochemical state, chemical and environmental parameters, especially temperature and atmosphere composition. For the customers, appearance is the major factor for purchase selection and initial evaluation of meat quality. Other quality attributes, such as pH, cooking losses, water holding capacity, taste, smell, tenderness and juiciness are important for the consumers after purchasing the product, as well as for the processors when producing meat products. This is because, none of these parameters are visible to the consumer in the shop, prior to buying. Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) is commonly used in the food industry to maintain the quality and extend the shelf life of fresh chilled meat. MAP can be classified into two main categories, namely, low oxygen modified atmosphere (MA), including vacuum packaging and high oxygen modified atmosphere. For meat packaging in high oxygen modified atmosphere a gas composition of 70% to 80% oxygen and 20% to 30% carbon dioxide is generally used (Fernandes et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2015). In Europe and North America, approximately 80% of fresh and processed meats are packed under vacuum or modified atmosphere (Brody, 2007). Vacuum packaging provides anaerobic conditions which extend both the microbiological and the oxidative shelf life of goose meat, whereas packing in the high oxygen modified atmosphere caused loss of sensory quality of meat, and thus shortened its shelf life (Orkusz, 2017). According to many authors, the use of high concentrations of oxygen can promote protein oxidation which reduces the tenderness and juiciness of the meat (Lund et al., 2007, 2008; Clausen et al., 2009; Zakrys-Waliwander et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2015). Few studies have been published on the possibility of using modified atmosphere to extend the shelf life of refrigerated goose cuts (Krala, 1985; Orkusz et al., 2013, 2015, 2017; Damaziak et al., 2016; Orkusz, 2016, 2017). Up till now, research performed on goose meat packed and stored in MA (including vacuum) focused in particular on the color evaluation, lipid oxidation changes and determination of microbiological quality. There is little data on the effect of prolonged storage in modified atmosphere on the functional properties of goose meat. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the effect of MAP (vacuum and high oxygen modified atmosphere) on pH, water holding capacity and cooking loss of raw goose meat, and on the sensory assessment and sheer force of roasted meat. MATERIAL AND METHODS Meat Preparation The experimental material constituted the breast (pectoralis major) muscles (with skin and without bones, average weight ± 0.5 kg) deboned 24 h after slaughter from the 17-week-old industrially slaughtered White Kołuda® female goose. All birds came from one farm and were bred under the same conditions. White Kołuda® geese were fed in a semi-intensive system up to the 17th week of age. Their nutritional intake up to the 14th week was mostly green forage and cereal grain with a small addition of concentrate feeds. Up to the 17th week of age geese were fed only with oats provided ad libitum (Czechlowska and Bielińska, 1993). The randomly chosen samples were individually packaged on site using the Multivac packaging machine type R-230 (Multivac, Germany) in vacuum (99% vacuum is equal to 1.3 KPa) or modified atmosphere consisting of 80% O2, 20% CO2 in polyamide/polyethylene film (permeability: O2 = 25 cm3/m2·24h·0.1 MPa; CO2 = 85 cm3/m2·24h·0.1 MPa; N2 = 7 cm3/m2·24h·0.1 MPa; moisture vapor < 3 g/m2·24 h). All samples refrigerated at 1°C. Goose breast muscles were examined and divided into the following groups: Control group—fifty unpacked muscles were used for fresh sample analysis carried out 24 h after slaughter, and were used as initial values for both atmosphere types; Vacuum packed samples—which included muscles packed under vacuum (99% vacuum is equal to 1.3 KPa); MA packed samples—which included muscles packed under modified atmosphere consisting of 80% O2, 20% CO2. Four terms of analyses were applied in groups (2) and (3) depending on the storage time: T4 - after 4 days; T7 - after 7 days; T11 - after 11 days; T14 - after 14 days. In this way 9 groups with 5 replications were obtained, i.e., one control group (T0 - storage time 0) and eight experimental groups: MAT4; MAT7; MAT11; MAT14; VT4; VT7; VT11; VT14. For storage time: 4, 7, 11 and 14 days twenty five muscles were investigated. The pH values of muscles were measured using a digital Metrohm pH-meter 654 series (Metrohm Ltd. CH-9100 Harisau, Switzerland), equipped with a combination type of pH spearhead electrode—Double Pore Slim (Hamilton Company, Reno, USA). The water holding capacity (WHC) was determined according to the procedure described by Wierbicki et al. (1962). It was expressed as a percentage of water absorbed by meat. The cooking loss was determined according to a procedure described by Kotter et al. (1968). It was expressed as a percentage with respect to the initial muscle weight. The roasted muscles were prepared in the following way: whole breast muscles were wrapped in aluminum foil and roasted at 180oC to 85oC in the center of samples. Next they were cooled and stored at 4°C for 24 h until examination. Texture was determined as shear force as follows: cylindrical pieces (2.54 cm diameter and 1 cm height) were cut from roasted muscles, and cores were sheared once through the center using the Warner Bratzler head (speed 50 mm/min.) attached to an Instron 5543 universal testing machine (Instron, England). The shear force value was the mean of the maximum force required to shear test each core sample. Results were expressed in Newtons (N). Initial total counts of bacteria in samples packed in MA reached the value of 7 log CFU/g, which is considered the upper acceptability limit for fresh poultry meat (ICMSF, 1986) on the 14th storage day (Orkusz, 2017). Therefore, the sensory assessment of samples packed in modified atmosphere was given only to the 11th day. Sensory assessment of roasted goose breast meat was carried out at the sensory laboratory with all requirements according to the international standard (ISO, 1988). Seven trained assessors participated in sensory evaluation. A 10-point scale was used, where 0 means “not at all” and 10 means “very much so”. The intensity of descriptors was expressed in conventional units (CU) (Stone et al., 1974 and 1980). The following descriptors were determined: characteristic odor and flavor for roasted meat, tenderness (easiness whereby the meat is divided during chewing), juiciness (amount of juice in the mouth after five chews) and general evaluation. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis of the obtained data was performed using the Statistica software program, version 12.0 (Statsoft, Inc 2012) by calculating arithmetic means and standard errors. The effects of the packaging atmosphere and particular storage time within analyzed atmospheres were determined by ANOVA two-way analysis. In the two-way analysis of variance for all variables, both main effects (atmosphere type, storage time) and interaction between them were significant. Therefore, the averages were analyzed using the Duncan`s post hoc test (P < 0.05) comparing all subgroups created from the intersection of rows (atmosphere type) and columns (storage time). RESULTS Changes with advancing storage time and effect of packaging method on pH, water holding capacity, and cooking loss are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Mean values (± standard error) of pH, water holding capacity (WHC), cooking loss of the goose breast muscles packed in modified atmosphere and vacuum and stored at +1°C for up to 14 days.   Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  pH    MA  5.92a ± 0.02  5.94a,b,x ± 0.01  5.96b,c,x ± 0.01  5.98c,x ± 0.01  6.01d,x ± 0.02    Vacuum  5.92a ± 0.02  5.97b,y ± 0.02  6.01c,y ± 0.01  6.02c,y ± 0.01  6.07d,y ± 0.01  WHC (%)    MA  57.83a ± 1.77  57.11a ± 1.43  61.04a,b ± 0.97  63.90b,x ± 1.50  64.97b,x ± 1.68    Vacuum  57.83a ± 1.77  59.02a,b ± 1.58  63.90b ± 1.32  69.26c,y ± 2.20  73.92d,y ± 2.31  Cooking loss (%)    MA  23.38 ± 0.27  22.64 ± 0.26  22.49 ± 0.39  22.88x ± 0.41  23.66x ± 0.35    Vacuum  23.38a ± 0.27  22.58a,b ± 0.47  22.01b ± 0.44  20.06c,y ± 0.63  18.42d,y ± 0.42    Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  pH    MA  5.92a ± 0.02  5.94a,b,x ± 0.01  5.96b,c,x ± 0.01  5.98c,x ± 0.01  6.01d,x ± 0.02    Vacuum  5.92a ± 0.02  5.97b,y ± 0.02  6.01c,y ± 0.01  6.02c,y ± 0.01  6.07d,y ± 0.01  WHC (%)    MA  57.83a ± 1.77  57.11a ± 1.43  61.04a,b ± 0.97  63.90b,x ± 1.50  64.97b,x ± 1.68    Vacuum  57.83a ± 1.77  59.02a,b ± 1.58  63.90b ± 1.32  69.26c,y ± 2.20  73.92d,y ± 2.31  Cooking loss (%)    MA  23.38 ± 0.27  22.64 ± 0.26  22.49 ± 0.39  22.88x ± 0.41  23.66x ± 0.35    Vacuum  23.38a ± 0.27  22.58a,b ± 0.47  22.01b ± 0.44  20.06c,y ± 0.63  18.42d,y ± 0.42  *The data are average values of 50 tests for storage time 0; 25 tests for storage time 4, 7, 11, 14 days. a–dMeans with different letters in the same row, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the time of storage. x,yMeans with different letters in the same column, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the packaging atmosphere. View Large Table 1. Mean values (± standard error) of pH, water holding capacity (WHC), cooking loss of the goose breast muscles packed in modified atmosphere and vacuum and stored at +1°C for up to 14 days.   Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  pH    MA  5.92a ± 0.02  5.94a,b,x ± 0.01  5.96b,c,x ± 0.01  5.98c,x ± 0.01  6.01d,x ± 0.02    Vacuum  5.92a ± 0.02  5.97b,y ± 0.02  6.01c,y ± 0.01  6.02c,y ± 0.01  6.07d,y ± 0.01  WHC (%)    MA  57.83a ± 1.77  57.11a ± 1.43  61.04a,b ± 0.97  63.90b,x ± 1.50  64.97b,x ± 1.68    Vacuum  57.83a ± 1.77  59.02a,b ± 1.58  63.90b ± 1.32  69.26c,y ± 2.20  73.92d,y ± 2.31  Cooking loss (%)    MA  23.38 ± 0.27  22.64 ± 0.26  22.49 ± 0.39  22.88x ± 0.41  23.66x ± 0.35    Vacuum  23.38a ± 0.27  22.58a,b ± 0.47  22.01b ± 0.44  20.06c,y ± 0.63  18.42d,y ± 0.42    Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  pH    MA  5.92a ± 0.02  5.94a,b,x ± 0.01  5.96b,c,x ± 0.01  5.98c,x ± 0.01  6.01d,x ± 0.02    Vacuum  5.92a ± 0.02  5.97b,y ± 0.02  6.01c,y ± 0.01  6.02c,y ± 0.01  6.07d,y ± 0.01  WHC (%)    MA  57.83a ± 1.77  57.11a ± 1.43  61.04a,b ± 0.97  63.90b,x ± 1.50  64.97b,x ± 1.68    Vacuum  57.83a ± 1.77  59.02a,b ± 1.58  63.90b ± 1.32  69.26c,y ± 2.20  73.92d,y ± 2.31  Cooking loss (%)    MA  23.38 ± 0.27  22.64 ± 0.26  22.49 ± 0.39  22.88x ± 0.41  23.66x ± 0.35    Vacuum  23.38a ± 0.27  22.58a,b ± 0.47  22.01b ± 0.44  20.06c,y ± 0.63  18.42d,y ± 0.42  *The data are average values of 50 tests for storage time 0; 25 tests for storage time 4, 7, 11, 14 days. a–dMeans with different letters in the same row, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the time of storage. x,yMeans with different letters in the same column, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the packaging atmosphere. View Large Storage time and the atmosphere type influenced the pH values of goose meat (Table 1). An increase in pH values was noticed within 14 days of storage for samples packed both in MA and in vacuum. A significant increase of pH in muscles packed in vacuum and MA was noticed, respectively on the 4th and 7th day of storage, in relation to the values noticed in unpacked samples. The differences in pH values between these 2 types of packaging were noticed on the 4th day of storage. At the end of storage, meat packed in MA had the lower pH values, compared to the meat stored in vacuum (Table 1). The water holding capacity gradually increased in the meat up to the 14th day, by 12.35% stored in MA and 26.56% stored in vacuum (Table 1). The WHC after 24 h amounted to 57.83%. On the 14th day of storage WHC for samples packed in MA and in vacuum was respectively on the level: 64.97% and 73.92%. The increase of WHC in muscles packed in vacuum and MA was noticed respectively on the 7th and 11th day, in relation to values denoted in unpacked samples. A significant influence of the packaging atmosphere on WHC was registered on the 11th day. The storage time and atmosphere type had an effect on the cooking loss in the samples during storage. The changes of cooking loss in vacuum packed muscles depended on the WHC. From the 7th to the 14th day, with the increase of WHC in muscles, the decrease of cooking loss was observed in the samples. There was no change in cooking loss in samples packed in MA through the storage time. At the end of storage, meat packed in MA was characterized by the higher cooking loss compared to the samples stored in vacuum (Table 1). Similarly to WHC, the effect of packaging atmosphere on the cooking loss was noticed on the 11th day of storage in the examined muscles. Shear force and sensory assessment of roasted goose breast meat stored in modified atmosphere and vacuum are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Mean value (± standard error) of shear force (N) and sensory evaluation (CU) of the roasted goose breast muscles packed in modified atmosphere and vacuum and stored at +1°C for up to 14 days.   Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  Shear force (N)    MA  45.86a ± 1.00  49.00a,b,x ± 1.10  50.40b,x ± 0.99  51.64b,c,x ± 0.59  54.76c,x ± 0.87    Vacuum  45.86 ± 1.00  43.69y ± 2.08  45.50y ± 2.30  44.26y ± 1.27  40.85y ± 1.55  Odor and flavor    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.75a ± 0.13  8.44b,x ± 0.12  8.00b,x ± 0.15      Vacuum  10.00a ± 0.00  10.00a ± 0.00  9.83a,y ± 0.11  9.67a,y ± 0.14  9.15b ± 0.10  Tenderness    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.07b,x ± 0.14  7.72c,x ± 0.14  7.64c,x ± 0.19      Vacuum  10.00 ± 0.00  9.58y ± 0.15  9.50y ± 0.14  9.67y ± 0.13  9.54 ± 0.14  Juiciness    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  7.58b,x ± 0.15  7.36b,c,x ± 0.15  6.92c,x ± 0.23      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.58a,b,y ± 0.15  8.50b,y ± 0.15  8.42b,y ± 0.15  8.37b ± 0.14  General assessment    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  8.42b ± 0.15  7.00c,x ± 0.00  7.25c,x ± 0.25      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.67a,b ± 0.14  8.40b,y ± 0.15  8.33b,y ± 0.14  8.23b ± 0.20    Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  Shear force (N)    MA  45.86a ± 1.00  49.00a,b,x ± 1.10  50.40b,x ± 0.99  51.64b,c,x ± 0.59  54.76c,x ± 0.87    Vacuum  45.86 ± 1.00  43.69y ± 2.08  45.50y ± 2.30  44.26y ± 1.27  40.85y ± 1.55  Odor and flavor    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.75a ± 0.13  8.44b,x ± 0.12  8.00b,x ± 0.15      Vacuum  10.00a ± 0.00  10.00a ± 0.00  9.83a,y ± 0.11  9.67a,y ± 0.14  9.15b ± 0.10  Tenderness    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.07b,x ± 0.14  7.72c,x ± 0.14  7.64c,x ± 0.19      Vacuum  10.00 ± 0.00  9.58y ± 0.15  9.50y ± 0.14  9.67y ± 0.13  9.54 ± 0.14  Juiciness    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  7.58b,x ± 0.15  7.36b,c,x ± 0.15  6.92c,x ± 0.23      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.58a,b,y ± 0.15  8.50b,y ± 0.15  8.42b,y ± 0.15  8.37b ± 0.14  General assessment    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  8.42b ± 0.15  7.00c,x ± 0.00  7.25c,x ± 0.25      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.67a,b ± 0.14  8.40b,y ± 0.15  8.33b,y ± 0.14  8.23b ± 0.20  *The data are average values of 50 tests for storage time 0; 25 tests for storage time 4, 7, 11,14 days. a–cMeans with different letters in the same row, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the time of storage. x,yMeans with different letters in the same column, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the packaging atmosphere. CU—conventional unit. View Large Table 2. Mean value (± standard error) of shear force (N) and sensory evaluation (CU) of the roasted goose breast muscles packed in modified atmosphere and vacuum and stored at +1°C for up to 14 days.   Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  Shear force (N)    MA  45.86a ± 1.00  49.00a,b,x ± 1.10  50.40b,x ± 0.99  51.64b,c,x ± 0.59  54.76c,x ± 0.87    Vacuum  45.86 ± 1.00  43.69y ± 2.08  45.50y ± 2.30  44.26y ± 1.27  40.85y ± 1.55  Odor and flavor    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.75a ± 0.13  8.44b,x ± 0.12  8.00b,x ± 0.15      Vacuum  10.00a ± 0.00  10.00a ± 0.00  9.83a,y ± 0.11  9.67a,y ± 0.14  9.15b ± 0.10  Tenderness    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.07b,x ± 0.14  7.72c,x ± 0.14  7.64c,x ± 0.19      Vacuum  10.00 ± 0.00  9.58y ± 0.15  9.50y ± 0.14  9.67y ± 0.13  9.54 ± 0.14  Juiciness    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  7.58b,x ± 0.15  7.36b,c,x ± 0.15  6.92c,x ± 0.23      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.58a,b,y ± 0.15  8.50b,y ± 0.15  8.42b,y ± 0.15  8.37b ± 0.14  General assessment    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  8.42b ± 0.15  7.00c,x ± 0.00  7.25c,x ± 0.25      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.67a,b ± 0.14  8.40b,y ± 0.15  8.33b,y ± 0.14  8.23b ± 0.20    Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  Shear force (N)    MA  45.86a ± 1.00  49.00a,b,x ± 1.10  50.40b,x ± 0.99  51.64b,c,x ± 0.59  54.76c,x ± 0.87    Vacuum  45.86 ± 1.00  43.69y ± 2.08  45.50y ± 2.30  44.26y ± 1.27  40.85y ± 1.55  Odor and flavor    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.75a ± 0.13  8.44b,x ± 0.12  8.00b,x ± 0.15      Vacuum  10.00a ± 0.00  10.00a ± 0.00  9.83a,y ± 0.11  9.67a,y ± 0.14  9.15b ± 0.10  Tenderness    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.07b,x ± 0.14  7.72c,x ± 0.14  7.64c,x ± 0.19      Vacuum  10.00 ± 0.00  9.58y ± 0.15  9.50y ± 0.14  9.67y ± 0.13  9.54 ± 0.14  Juiciness    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  7.58b,x ± 0.15  7.36b,c,x ± 0.15  6.92c,x ± 0.23      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.58a,b,y ± 0.15  8.50b,y ± 0.15  8.42b,y ± 0.15  8.37b ± 0.14  General assessment    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  8.42b ± 0.15  7.00c,x ± 0.00  7.25c,x ± 0.25      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.67a,b ± 0.14  8.40b,y ± 0.15  8.33b,y ± 0.14  8.23b ± 0.20  *The data are average values of 50 tests for storage time 0; 25 tests for storage time 4, 7, 11,14 days. a–cMeans with different letters in the same row, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the time of storage. x,yMeans with different letters in the same column, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the packaging atmosphere. CU—conventional unit. View Large Shear force of meat packed in MA rose gradually up to 14 storage day. The shear force increased by 19.41% on the 14th day, in comparison to unpacked samples. This parameter remained stable with storage time in vacuum conditions. The differences in the shear force between these two types of investigated atmospheres were noticed on the 4th day of storage (Table 2). The storage time and the type of atmosphere influenced the sensory descriptors (characteristic odor and flavor, tenderness, juiciness and general evaluation) of roasted muscles (Table 2). It was noticed that odor and flavor, juiciness and general evaluation decreased gradually in the muscles up to the 11th and 14th day of storage, for MA and vacuum packed samples respectively. Tenderness did not change during storage for vacuum packed samples. The significant effect of packaging atmosphere on the tenderness and juiciness was observed on the 4th day of storage. The differences in the odor and flavor and general evaluation between these two types of packaging atmosphere were noticed on the 7th day. On the 7th day, the general evaluation was higher for vacuum packed muscles than for samples stored in MA. The lower general evaluation of MA packed samples resulted from the lower tenderness and juiciness (Table 2). DISCUSSION The type of protective atmosphere and storage time influenced the pH values of goose meat. During storage, samples packed in vacuum had higher pH values than samples stored in MA. The pH of goose muscles packed both in MA and in vacuum increased gradually up to the 14th day of storage (Table 1). The increase of pH in muscles stored in protective atmospheres could be associated with increase of the total number of bacteria and the number of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas spp. (Orkusz, 2017). Many types of bacteria produce alkaline compounds, such as ammonia which leads to progressive alkalizing of stored muscle, and thus to pH increase. Several other authors reported pH increase in poultry meat stored both in MA and in vacuum as well (Wongwicharn et al., 2009; Orkusz and Haraf, 2011; Marcinkowska-Lesiak et al., 2015). It is well known that meat storage in modified atmosphere with CO2 concentration causes pH to drop. Carbon dioxide degrades to carbonic acid, thus causing slight acidification of meat (Fraqueza and Barreto, 2009; Wongwicharn et al., 2009). Differences in the pH of samples stored in MA and vacuum could also be due to a higher stage of oxidative changes in lipids. In the muscles stored in MA, compared to samples packaged in vacuum, a higher content of malondialdehyde was found (Orkusz et al., 2017). Therefore, lower pH of muscles packed in MA could be caused by the accumulation of higher amount of acidic products in these samples, which resulted from lipolysis, lipid oxidation and accumulation of bacterial metabolites. The WHC increased gradually up to the 14th day, in samples packed in these two atmospheres. From the 11th day of storage, meat packed in vacuum was characterized by a higher WHC, in comparison to the samples packed in MA (Table 1). Water holding capacity determines the loss or increase of weight during meat processing and storage. Meat with a high WHC loses less meat juice during cooking and roasting, thus retaining better juiciness. This in turn affects its flavor which is undoubtedly one of the most significant qualities of cooked meat as far as the consumer is concerned. For economic reasons, the meat industry works hard to minimize all types of water loss. Changes in cooking loss in vacuum packed muscles depended on the pH and the WHC. As the pH and WHC increased throughout the time of storage, a decrease in cooking loss was observed. Significant differences in cooking loss muscles packed in MA were not observed during storage (Table 1). The shear force showed a tendency to rise with storage for MA, whereas under vacuum the shear force did not change with storage time. Significantly greater shear force values for muscles held in high oxygen MA were noticed from 4th storage day compared to the vacuum packed samples (Table 2). Thus, goose meat was tougher in high oxygen MA in comparison to vacuum stored meat. The sensory results for tenderness agree with the results for the shear force analysis. The sensory panel noticed that from the 4th day of storage, vacuum packed goose samples were more tender in comparison to the MA packed muscles. Tenderness of the meat stored in high oxygen MA decreased significantly during storage and the difference in tenderness between MA and vacuum increased during storage (Table 2). The oxygen levels used in MA (80% O2) probably affected the promoting of protein oxidation. Similar effects of high oxygen atmosphere packaging on pork meat tenderness have been reported by Zakrys-Waliwander et al. (2012) and Muhlisin et al. (2014). These authors noticed lower protein deterioration in vacuum packed muscles than in samples stored in high oxygen MA. Lund et al. (2007) stated that a high oxygen level in modified atmosphere can result in protein cross-linking, inactivation of proteolytic enzyme systems, or a combination of both, and thus reduces tenderness and juiciness of the meat. According to Muhlisin et al. (2014), the fact that vacuum packed meat shows lower protein deterioration than modified atmosphere packaging samples contributes to the lower counts of bacteria in vacuum packed meat. Previous work of Orkusz (2017) also indicates that vacuum packaging is more effective in inhibiting the total number of bacteria, Pseudomonas spp. and Enterobacteriaceae in goose meat, than MA packaging. Oliete et al. (2005) also noticed no effect of vacuum packaging of calf meat on shear force, which agrees with the present study. Filgueras et al. (2010) showed the absence of protein oxidation in vacuum packed Rhea Americana meat. On the 11th storage day, meat packed in MA had poorer sensory quality with respect to odor and flavor, juiciness and general evaluation in comparison to vacuum (Table 2). According to Lagerstedt et al. (2011) the difference in flavor might be influenced by the scores for tenderness and juiciness, because it is difficult to disregard the perception of the other attributes at testing. From the 4th day, samples stored in vacuum had better sensory evaluation of juiciness than those packed in high oxygen MA. On the 11th day, in comparison with unpacked samples, the sensory evaluation of juiciness fell by 23.11% for MA and 6.44% for vacuum. Lower juiciness of MA packed meat (Table 2) was possibly due to the higher cooking loss (Table 1). The high cooking loss may cause the sensation of meat dryness (Clausen et al. (2009), Marcinkowska-Lesiak et al., 2015) and Lagerstedt et al. (2011) also showed that the high concentration of O2 in packaging atmosphere was the determining factor for the worse sensory results of meat compared to atmosphere without oxygen. In conclusion, the study showed that meat stored in vacuum was characterized by higher WHC and pH, lower cooking loss and shear force, than meat stored under high oxygen MA. Samples packed in MA did worse during sensory assessment with respect to odor and flavor, tenderness, juiciness and general assessment. Thus meat stored under vacuum showed higher productivity and was more tender and juicy. And it is well known that tenderness is the most important for consumers. REFERENCES Biesiada-Drzazga B., Janocha A., Koncerewicz A.. 2011. Effect of genotype and rearing system on fitness and fat quality in geese of White Koluda breed. Post. Nauk.Technol. Przem. Rol. Spoż.  61: 19– 31 (in Polish). Buzała M., Adamski A., Janicki B.. 2014. Characteristics of performance traits and the quality of meat and fat in Polish oat geese. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.  70: 531– 542. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Brody A. L. 2007. Case-ready packaging for red meat. Food Technol . 61: 70– 72. Clausen I., Jakobsen M., Ertbjerg P., Madsen N. T., 2009. Modified atmosphere packaging affects lipid oxidation, myofibrillar fragmentation index and eating quality of beef. Packag. Technol. Sci.  22: 85– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Czechlowska T., Bielińska H., 1993. Pages 1– 27 Technology of Rearing and Fattening of White Kołuda Geese . National Research Institute of Animal Production, Kraków. Damaziak K., Stelmasiak A., Michalczuk M., Wyrwisz J., Moczkowska M., Marcinkowska-Lesiak M., Niemiec J., Wierzbicka A., 2016. Analysis of storage possibility of raw and smoked breast meat of oat-fattened White Kołuda® goose based on their quality characteristics. Poult. Sci.  95: 2186– 2197. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fernandes R. P. P., Freire M. T. A., Paula E. S. M., Kanashiro A. L. S., Catunda F. A. P., Rosa A. F., Balieiro J. C. C., Trindade M. A., 2014. Stability of lamb loin stored under refrigeration and packed in different modified atmosphere packaging systems. Meat Science . 96: 554– 561. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Filgueras R. S., Gatellier P., Aubry L., Thomas A., Bauchart D., Durand D., Zambiazi R. C., Sante-Lhoutellier V., 2010. Colour, lipid and protein stability of Rhea americana meat during air- and vacuum-packaged storage: Influence of muscle on oxidative processes. Meat Science . 86: 665– 673. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fraqueza M. J., Barreto A. S., 2009. The effect on turkey meat shelf life of modified-atmosphere packaging with an argon mixture. Poultry Science  88: 1991– 1998. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  ICMSF. 1986. International commission on microbiological specifications for foods. Microorganisms in foods 2. Sampling for microbiological analysis. Principles and specific applications, second edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 127– 278. ISO. 1988. International standard 8589. Sensory Analysis – General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms . Ref. No, ISO 8589:1988, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Kotter L., Prandll O., Terplan G., 1968. Checking of the juice retaining ability of meat during heating. Fleischwirtschaft  14: 984 (in German). Krala L. 1985. Possibility of using controlled atmosphere to extend shelf life of chilled geese. Chłodnictwo . 20: 11– 13 (in Polish). Lagerstedt A., Lundström K., Lindahl G., 2011. Influence of vacuum or high-oxygen modified atmosphere packaging on quality of beef M. longissimus dorsi steaks after different ageing times. Meat Science . 87: 101– 106. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lund M. N., Lametsch R., Hviid M. S, Jensen O. N., Skibsted L. H., 2007. High-oxygen packaging atmosphere influences protein oxidation and tenderness of porcine longissimus dorsi during chill storage. Meat Science . 77: 295– 303. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lund M. N., Christensen M., Fregil L., Hviid M. S, Skibsted L. H., 2008. Effect of high-oxygen atmosphere packaging on mechanical properties of single muscle fibres from bovine and porcine longissimus dorsi. Eur Food Res Technol  227: 1323– 1328. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marcinkowska-Lesiak M., Zdanowska-Sąsiadek Ż., Stelmasiak A., Damaziak K., Michalczuk M., Poławska E., Wyrwisz J., Wierzbicka A., 2015. Effect of packaging method and cold storage time on chicken meat quality, CyTA. J. Food  14: 41– 46. Muhlisin P., Kim D. S., Song Y. R., Lee S. J., Lee J. K., Lee S. K., 2014. Effects of gas composition in the modified atmosphere packaging on the shelf life of Longissimus dorsi of Korean Native Black Pigs-Duroc Crossbred during refrigerated storage. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci.  27: 1157– 1163. Oliete B., Moreno T., Carballo J. A., Varela A., Monserrat L., Sánchez L., 2005. Influence of ageing time on the quality of yearling calf meat under vacuum. Eur Food Res Technol  220: 489– 493. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Orkusz A., Haraf G., 2011. Influence of packaging material on pH, water binding capacity, drip loss and cooking loss of turkey thigh muscles packed and stored under modified atmosphere. Pages 70– 78 in Novel Operations and Materials in Food Processing . University of Life Science, Wrocław, Poland. Orkusz A., Wołoszyn J., Haraf G., Okruszek A.. 2013. Effect of protective atmosphere on color of goose meat. Poultry Science  92: 2188– 2194. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Orkusz A., Wołoszyn J., Grajeta H., Haraf G., Okruszek A., 2015. Changes in the fatty acid profile of intramuscular fat in goose meat packed in different atmospheres. Europ. Poult. Sci.  79: 1– 10. Orkusz A. 2016. Changes in subcutaneous goose fat stored under different atmospheres. Europ. Poult. Sci.  80: 1– 10. Orkusz A., Haraf G., Okruszek A., Wereńska-Sudnik M., 2017. Lipid oxidation and color changes of goose meat stored under vacuum and modified atmosphere conditions. Poult. Sci.  96: 731– 737. Google Scholar PubMed  Orkusz A. 2017. Quality changes of goose breast meat during cold storage under modified atmosphere and vacuum. Europ. Poult. Sci.  81: 1– 9. Santos P. R., Donado-Pestana C. M., Delgado E. F., Tanaka F. O., Contreras-Castillo C. J.. 2015. Tenderness and oxidative stability of Nellore bulls steaks packaged under vacuum or modified atmosphere during storage at 2°C. Food Packaging and Shelf Life  4: 10– 18. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Statsoft, Inc. 2012. Statistica (data analysis software system), version 12.0. Stone H., Sidel J., Oliver S., Woolsey A., Singleton R., 1974. Sensory evaluation by descriptive analysis. Food Technol.  11: 23– 34. Stone H., Sidel J., Bloomquist M., 1980. Quantitative descriptive analysis. Cereal Food World.  10: 24– 26. Wierbicki E., Tiede M. G., Burrell R. C., 1962. The determination of the meat swelling as method for the investigation of the water binding capacity of muscle proteins with small juice retaining ability. Fleischwirtschaft.  10: 948– 951 (in German). Wongwicharn A., Phoolphund S., Vongsawasdi P., Bomrungnok W.. 2009. Shelf-life of roasted red chicken meat coloured with red mould rice by modified atmosphere packaging, As. J. Food Ad-Ind.  2: 183– 193. Zakrys-Waliwander P. I., O`Sullivan M. G., O`Neil E. E., Kerry J. P., 2012. The effects of high oxygen modified atmosphere packaging on protein oxidation of bovine M. longissimus dorsi muscle during chilled storage. Food Chemistry  131: 527– 532. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Poultry Science Oxford University Press

Effects of packaging conditions on some functional and sensory attributes of goose meat

Poultry Science , Volume Advance Article – Apr 20, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/effects-of-packaging-conditions-on-some-functional-and-sensory-pdxXxP9Dmd
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc.
ISSN
0032-5791
eISSN
1525-3171
D.O.I.
10.3382/ps/pey139
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ABSTRACT The objective of the work was to investigate the effect of modified atmosphere (MA) packaging (high oxygen modified atmosphere and vacuum) on pH, water holding capacity and cooking loss of raw goose meat, and on the sensory assessment and shear force of roasted meat. Samples refrigerated at 1°C were tested within 24 h after slaughter (unpacked meat) and on d 4, 7, 11, and 14 of storage (modified atmosphere or vacuum packed meat). The type of atmosphere used in packaging determined the functional properties of goose meat such as: pH, WHC, cooking loss and shear force. This is important from both the culinary and technological viewpoint. At the end of storage the meat packed in MA (consisting of 80% O2, 20%CO2) had higher cooking loss, lower pH values, and water holding capacity in comparison to samples stored in vacuum. The type of atmosphere influenced the sensory descriptors (characteristic odor and flavor, tenderness, juiciness and general evaluation) of roasted meat. Samples packed in MA did worse during sensory assessment with respect to odor and flavor, tenderness, juiciness and general assessment. Thus meat stored under modified atmosphere showed lower productivity and was less tender and juicy The goose breast muscles packed in vacuum proved to be better suited for consumption and processing as compared to those packed in high oxygen MA. INTRODUCTION The taste values of goose meat are prized on Euromarkets. White Kołuda® goose is regarded as one of the specialties of Polish farming, and over 90% of its production goes to the German market. Polish goose meat is produced in Poland with the use of W-31 hybrids; in particular, orginating from the breed combination of ♂ W-33 x ♀ W-11. White Kołuda® goose is characterized by good meat rates, e.g., high percentage of protein in meat or its satisfactory tenderness (Biesiada-Drzazga et al., 2011). Goose meat shows a high nutritional and sensory quality due to its specific nutrition, including whole oat grain feeding, as well as conditions in which the geese are kept, i.e., with the use of open-air runs and grassland (Buzała et al., 2014). Goose meat is generally consumed as various roasted or grilled products. It is generally known that the functional and sensory attributes of meat are influenced by the following factors: microorganisms, pH, muscle type and its biochemical state, chemical and environmental parameters, especially temperature and atmosphere composition. For the customers, appearance is the major factor for purchase selection and initial evaluation of meat quality. Other quality attributes, such as pH, cooking losses, water holding capacity, taste, smell, tenderness and juiciness are important for the consumers after purchasing the product, as well as for the processors when producing meat products. This is because, none of these parameters are visible to the consumer in the shop, prior to buying. Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) is commonly used in the food industry to maintain the quality and extend the shelf life of fresh chilled meat. MAP can be classified into two main categories, namely, low oxygen modified atmosphere (MA), including vacuum packaging and high oxygen modified atmosphere. For meat packaging in high oxygen modified atmosphere a gas composition of 70% to 80% oxygen and 20% to 30% carbon dioxide is generally used (Fernandes et al., 2014; Santos et al., 2015). In Europe and North America, approximately 80% of fresh and processed meats are packed under vacuum or modified atmosphere (Brody, 2007). Vacuum packaging provides anaerobic conditions which extend both the microbiological and the oxidative shelf life of goose meat, whereas packing in the high oxygen modified atmosphere caused loss of sensory quality of meat, and thus shortened its shelf life (Orkusz, 2017). According to many authors, the use of high concentrations of oxygen can promote protein oxidation which reduces the tenderness and juiciness of the meat (Lund et al., 2007, 2008; Clausen et al., 2009; Zakrys-Waliwander et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2015). Few studies have been published on the possibility of using modified atmosphere to extend the shelf life of refrigerated goose cuts (Krala, 1985; Orkusz et al., 2013, 2015, 2017; Damaziak et al., 2016; Orkusz, 2016, 2017). Up till now, research performed on goose meat packed and stored in MA (including vacuum) focused in particular on the color evaluation, lipid oxidation changes and determination of microbiological quality. There is little data on the effect of prolonged storage in modified atmosphere on the functional properties of goose meat. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the effect of MAP (vacuum and high oxygen modified atmosphere) on pH, water holding capacity and cooking loss of raw goose meat, and on the sensory assessment and sheer force of roasted meat. MATERIAL AND METHODS Meat Preparation The experimental material constituted the breast (pectoralis major) muscles (with skin and without bones, average weight ± 0.5 kg) deboned 24 h after slaughter from the 17-week-old industrially slaughtered White Kołuda® female goose. All birds came from one farm and were bred under the same conditions. White Kołuda® geese were fed in a semi-intensive system up to the 17th week of age. Their nutritional intake up to the 14th week was mostly green forage and cereal grain with a small addition of concentrate feeds. Up to the 17th week of age geese were fed only with oats provided ad libitum (Czechlowska and Bielińska, 1993). The randomly chosen samples were individually packaged on site using the Multivac packaging machine type R-230 (Multivac, Germany) in vacuum (99% vacuum is equal to 1.3 KPa) or modified atmosphere consisting of 80% O2, 20% CO2 in polyamide/polyethylene film (permeability: O2 = 25 cm3/m2·24h·0.1 MPa; CO2 = 85 cm3/m2·24h·0.1 MPa; N2 = 7 cm3/m2·24h·0.1 MPa; moisture vapor < 3 g/m2·24 h). All samples refrigerated at 1°C. Goose breast muscles were examined and divided into the following groups: Control group—fifty unpacked muscles were used for fresh sample analysis carried out 24 h after slaughter, and were used as initial values for both atmosphere types; Vacuum packed samples—which included muscles packed under vacuum (99% vacuum is equal to 1.3 KPa); MA packed samples—which included muscles packed under modified atmosphere consisting of 80% O2, 20% CO2. Four terms of analyses were applied in groups (2) and (3) depending on the storage time: T4 - after 4 days; T7 - after 7 days; T11 - after 11 days; T14 - after 14 days. In this way 9 groups with 5 replications were obtained, i.e., one control group (T0 - storage time 0) and eight experimental groups: MAT4; MAT7; MAT11; MAT14; VT4; VT7; VT11; VT14. For storage time: 4, 7, 11 and 14 days twenty five muscles were investigated. The pH values of muscles were measured using a digital Metrohm pH-meter 654 series (Metrohm Ltd. CH-9100 Harisau, Switzerland), equipped with a combination type of pH spearhead electrode—Double Pore Slim (Hamilton Company, Reno, USA). The water holding capacity (WHC) was determined according to the procedure described by Wierbicki et al. (1962). It was expressed as a percentage of water absorbed by meat. The cooking loss was determined according to a procedure described by Kotter et al. (1968). It was expressed as a percentage with respect to the initial muscle weight. The roasted muscles were prepared in the following way: whole breast muscles were wrapped in aluminum foil and roasted at 180oC to 85oC in the center of samples. Next they were cooled and stored at 4°C for 24 h until examination. Texture was determined as shear force as follows: cylindrical pieces (2.54 cm diameter and 1 cm height) were cut from roasted muscles, and cores were sheared once through the center using the Warner Bratzler head (speed 50 mm/min.) attached to an Instron 5543 universal testing machine (Instron, England). The shear force value was the mean of the maximum force required to shear test each core sample. Results were expressed in Newtons (N). Initial total counts of bacteria in samples packed in MA reached the value of 7 log CFU/g, which is considered the upper acceptability limit for fresh poultry meat (ICMSF, 1986) on the 14th storage day (Orkusz, 2017). Therefore, the sensory assessment of samples packed in modified atmosphere was given only to the 11th day. Sensory assessment of roasted goose breast meat was carried out at the sensory laboratory with all requirements according to the international standard (ISO, 1988). Seven trained assessors participated in sensory evaluation. A 10-point scale was used, where 0 means “not at all” and 10 means “very much so”. The intensity of descriptors was expressed in conventional units (CU) (Stone et al., 1974 and 1980). The following descriptors were determined: characteristic odor and flavor for roasted meat, tenderness (easiness whereby the meat is divided during chewing), juiciness (amount of juice in the mouth after five chews) and general evaluation. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis of the obtained data was performed using the Statistica software program, version 12.0 (Statsoft, Inc 2012) by calculating arithmetic means and standard errors. The effects of the packaging atmosphere and particular storage time within analyzed atmospheres were determined by ANOVA two-way analysis. In the two-way analysis of variance for all variables, both main effects (atmosphere type, storage time) and interaction between them were significant. Therefore, the averages were analyzed using the Duncan`s post hoc test (P < 0.05) comparing all subgroups created from the intersection of rows (atmosphere type) and columns (storage time). RESULTS Changes with advancing storage time and effect of packaging method on pH, water holding capacity, and cooking loss are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Mean values (± standard error) of pH, water holding capacity (WHC), cooking loss of the goose breast muscles packed in modified atmosphere and vacuum and stored at +1°C for up to 14 days.   Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  pH    MA  5.92a ± 0.02  5.94a,b,x ± 0.01  5.96b,c,x ± 0.01  5.98c,x ± 0.01  6.01d,x ± 0.02    Vacuum  5.92a ± 0.02  5.97b,y ± 0.02  6.01c,y ± 0.01  6.02c,y ± 0.01  6.07d,y ± 0.01  WHC (%)    MA  57.83a ± 1.77  57.11a ± 1.43  61.04a,b ± 0.97  63.90b,x ± 1.50  64.97b,x ± 1.68    Vacuum  57.83a ± 1.77  59.02a,b ± 1.58  63.90b ± 1.32  69.26c,y ± 2.20  73.92d,y ± 2.31  Cooking loss (%)    MA  23.38 ± 0.27  22.64 ± 0.26  22.49 ± 0.39  22.88x ± 0.41  23.66x ± 0.35    Vacuum  23.38a ± 0.27  22.58a,b ± 0.47  22.01b ± 0.44  20.06c,y ± 0.63  18.42d,y ± 0.42    Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  pH    MA  5.92a ± 0.02  5.94a,b,x ± 0.01  5.96b,c,x ± 0.01  5.98c,x ± 0.01  6.01d,x ± 0.02    Vacuum  5.92a ± 0.02  5.97b,y ± 0.02  6.01c,y ± 0.01  6.02c,y ± 0.01  6.07d,y ± 0.01  WHC (%)    MA  57.83a ± 1.77  57.11a ± 1.43  61.04a,b ± 0.97  63.90b,x ± 1.50  64.97b,x ± 1.68    Vacuum  57.83a ± 1.77  59.02a,b ± 1.58  63.90b ± 1.32  69.26c,y ± 2.20  73.92d,y ± 2.31  Cooking loss (%)    MA  23.38 ± 0.27  22.64 ± 0.26  22.49 ± 0.39  22.88x ± 0.41  23.66x ± 0.35    Vacuum  23.38a ± 0.27  22.58a,b ± 0.47  22.01b ± 0.44  20.06c,y ± 0.63  18.42d,y ± 0.42  *The data are average values of 50 tests for storage time 0; 25 tests for storage time 4, 7, 11, 14 days. a–dMeans with different letters in the same row, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the time of storage. x,yMeans with different letters in the same column, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the packaging atmosphere. View Large Table 1. Mean values (± standard error) of pH, water holding capacity (WHC), cooking loss of the goose breast muscles packed in modified atmosphere and vacuum and stored at +1°C for up to 14 days.   Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  pH    MA  5.92a ± 0.02  5.94a,b,x ± 0.01  5.96b,c,x ± 0.01  5.98c,x ± 0.01  6.01d,x ± 0.02    Vacuum  5.92a ± 0.02  5.97b,y ± 0.02  6.01c,y ± 0.01  6.02c,y ± 0.01  6.07d,y ± 0.01  WHC (%)    MA  57.83a ± 1.77  57.11a ± 1.43  61.04a,b ± 0.97  63.90b,x ± 1.50  64.97b,x ± 1.68    Vacuum  57.83a ± 1.77  59.02a,b ± 1.58  63.90b ± 1.32  69.26c,y ± 2.20  73.92d,y ± 2.31  Cooking loss (%)    MA  23.38 ± 0.27  22.64 ± 0.26  22.49 ± 0.39  22.88x ± 0.41  23.66x ± 0.35    Vacuum  23.38a ± 0.27  22.58a,b ± 0.47  22.01b ± 0.44  20.06c,y ± 0.63  18.42d,y ± 0.42    Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  pH    MA  5.92a ± 0.02  5.94a,b,x ± 0.01  5.96b,c,x ± 0.01  5.98c,x ± 0.01  6.01d,x ± 0.02    Vacuum  5.92a ± 0.02  5.97b,y ± 0.02  6.01c,y ± 0.01  6.02c,y ± 0.01  6.07d,y ± 0.01  WHC (%)    MA  57.83a ± 1.77  57.11a ± 1.43  61.04a,b ± 0.97  63.90b,x ± 1.50  64.97b,x ± 1.68    Vacuum  57.83a ± 1.77  59.02a,b ± 1.58  63.90b ± 1.32  69.26c,y ± 2.20  73.92d,y ± 2.31  Cooking loss (%)    MA  23.38 ± 0.27  22.64 ± 0.26  22.49 ± 0.39  22.88x ± 0.41  23.66x ± 0.35    Vacuum  23.38a ± 0.27  22.58a,b ± 0.47  22.01b ± 0.44  20.06c,y ± 0.63  18.42d,y ± 0.42  *The data are average values of 50 tests for storage time 0; 25 tests for storage time 4, 7, 11, 14 days. a–dMeans with different letters in the same row, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the time of storage. x,yMeans with different letters in the same column, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the packaging atmosphere. View Large Storage time and the atmosphere type influenced the pH values of goose meat (Table 1). An increase in pH values was noticed within 14 days of storage for samples packed both in MA and in vacuum. A significant increase of pH in muscles packed in vacuum and MA was noticed, respectively on the 4th and 7th day of storage, in relation to the values noticed in unpacked samples. The differences in pH values between these 2 types of packaging were noticed on the 4th day of storage. At the end of storage, meat packed in MA had the lower pH values, compared to the meat stored in vacuum (Table 1). The water holding capacity gradually increased in the meat up to the 14th day, by 12.35% stored in MA and 26.56% stored in vacuum (Table 1). The WHC after 24 h amounted to 57.83%. On the 14th day of storage WHC for samples packed in MA and in vacuum was respectively on the level: 64.97% and 73.92%. The increase of WHC in muscles packed in vacuum and MA was noticed respectively on the 7th and 11th day, in relation to values denoted in unpacked samples. A significant influence of the packaging atmosphere on WHC was registered on the 11th day. The storage time and atmosphere type had an effect on the cooking loss in the samples during storage. The changes of cooking loss in vacuum packed muscles depended on the WHC. From the 7th to the 14th day, with the increase of WHC in muscles, the decrease of cooking loss was observed in the samples. There was no change in cooking loss in samples packed in MA through the storage time. At the end of storage, meat packed in MA was characterized by the higher cooking loss compared to the samples stored in vacuum (Table 1). Similarly to WHC, the effect of packaging atmosphere on the cooking loss was noticed on the 11th day of storage in the examined muscles. Shear force and sensory assessment of roasted goose breast meat stored in modified atmosphere and vacuum are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Mean value (± standard error) of shear force (N) and sensory evaluation (CU) of the roasted goose breast muscles packed in modified atmosphere and vacuum and stored at +1°C for up to 14 days.   Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  Shear force (N)    MA  45.86a ± 1.00  49.00a,b,x ± 1.10  50.40b,x ± 0.99  51.64b,c,x ± 0.59  54.76c,x ± 0.87    Vacuum  45.86 ± 1.00  43.69y ± 2.08  45.50y ± 2.30  44.26y ± 1.27  40.85y ± 1.55  Odor and flavor    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.75a ± 0.13  8.44b,x ± 0.12  8.00b,x ± 0.15      Vacuum  10.00a ± 0.00  10.00a ± 0.00  9.83a,y ± 0.11  9.67a,y ± 0.14  9.15b ± 0.10  Tenderness    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.07b,x ± 0.14  7.72c,x ± 0.14  7.64c,x ± 0.19      Vacuum  10.00 ± 0.00  9.58y ± 0.15  9.50y ± 0.14  9.67y ± 0.13  9.54 ± 0.14  Juiciness    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  7.58b,x ± 0.15  7.36b,c,x ± 0.15  6.92c,x ± 0.23      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.58a,b,y ± 0.15  8.50b,y ± 0.15  8.42b,y ± 0.15  8.37b ± 0.14  General assessment    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  8.42b ± 0.15  7.00c,x ± 0.00  7.25c,x ± 0.25      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.67a,b ± 0.14  8.40b,y ± 0.15  8.33b,y ± 0.14  8.23b ± 0.20    Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  Shear force (N)    MA  45.86a ± 1.00  49.00a,b,x ± 1.10  50.40b,x ± 0.99  51.64b,c,x ± 0.59  54.76c,x ± 0.87    Vacuum  45.86 ± 1.00  43.69y ± 2.08  45.50y ± 2.30  44.26y ± 1.27  40.85y ± 1.55  Odor and flavor    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.75a ± 0.13  8.44b,x ± 0.12  8.00b,x ± 0.15      Vacuum  10.00a ± 0.00  10.00a ± 0.00  9.83a,y ± 0.11  9.67a,y ± 0.14  9.15b ± 0.10  Tenderness    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.07b,x ± 0.14  7.72c,x ± 0.14  7.64c,x ± 0.19      Vacuum  10.00 ± 0.00  9.58y ± 0.15  9.50y ± 0.14  9.67y ± 0.13  9.54 ± 0.14  Juiciness    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  7.58b,x ± 0.15  7.36b,c,x ± 0.15  6.92c,x ± 0.23      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.58a,b,y ± 0.15  8.50b,y ± 0.15  8.42b,y ± 0.15  8.37b ± 0.14  General assessment    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  8.42b ± 0.15  7.00c,x ± 0.00  7.25c,x ± 0.25      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.67a,b ± 0.14  8.40b,y ± 0.15  8.33b,y ± 0.14  8.23b ± 0.20  *The data are average values of 50 tests for storage time 0; 25 tests for storage time 4, 7, 11,14 days. a–cMeans with different letters in the same row, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the time of storage. x,yMeans with different letters in the same column, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the packaging atmosphere. CU—conventional unit. View Large Table 2. Mean value (± standard error) of shear force (N) and sensory evaluation (CU) of the roasted goose breast muscles packed in modified atmosphere and vacuum and stored at +1°C for up to 14 days.   Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  Shear force (N)    MA  45.86a ± 1.00  49.00a,b,x ± 1.10  50.40b,x ± 0.99  51.64b,c,x ± 0.59  54.76c,x ± 0.87    Vacuum  45.86 ± 1.00  43.69y ± 2.08  45.50y ± 2.30  44.26y ± 1.27  40.85y ± 1.55  Odor and flavor    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.75a ± 0.13  8.44b,x ± 0.12  8.00b,x ± 0.15      Vacuum  10.00a ± 0.00  10.00a ± 0.00  9.83a,y ± 0.11  9.67a,y ± 0.14  9.15b ± 0.10  Tenderness    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.07b,x ± 0.14  7.72c,x ± 0.14  7.64c,x ± 0.19      Vacuum  10.00 ± 0.00  9.58y ± 0.15  9.50y ± 0.14  9.67y ± 0.13  9.54 ± 0.14  Juiciness    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  7.58b,x ± 0.15  7.36b,c,x ± 0.15  6.92c,x ± 0.23      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.58a,b,y ± 0.15  8.50b,y ± 0.15  8.42b,y ± 0.15  8.37b ± 0.14  General assessment    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  8.42b ± 0.15  7.00c,x ± 0.00  7.25c,x ± 0.25      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.67a,b ± 0.14  8.40b,y ± 0.15  8.33b,y ± 0.14  8.23b ± 0.20    Packaging  Storage time (days)    atmosphere  0*  4  7  11  14  Shear force (N)    MA  45.86a ± 1.00  49.00a,b,x ± 1.10  50.40b,x ± 0.99  51.64b,c,x ± 0.59  54.76c,x ± 0.87    Vacuum  45.86 ± 1.00  43.69y ± 2.08  45.50y ± 2.30  44.26y ± 1.27  40.85y ± 1.55  Odor and flavor    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.75a ± 0.13  8.44b,x ± 0.12  8.00b,x ± 0.15      Vacuum  10.00a ± 0.00  10.00a ± 0.00  9.83a,y ± 0.11  9.67a,y ± 0.14  9.15b ± 0.10  Tenderness    MA  10.00a ± 0.00  9.07b,x ± 0.14  7.72c,x ± 0.14  7.64c,x ± 0.19      Vacuum  10.00 ± 0.00  9.58y ± 0.15  9.50y ± 0.14  9.67y ± 0.13  9.54 ± 0.14  Juiciness    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  7.58b,x ± 0.15  7.36b,c,x ± 0.15  6.92c,x ± 0.23      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.58a,b,y ± 0.15  8.50b,y ± 0.15  8.42b,y ± 0.15  8.37b ± 0.14  General assessment    MA  9.00a ± 0.00  8.42b ± 0.15  7.00c,x ± 0.00  7.25c,x ± 0.25      Vacuum  9.00a ± 0.00  8.67a,b ± 0.14  8.40b,y ± 0.15  8.33b,y ± 0.14  8.23b ± 0.20  *The data are average values of 50 tests for storage time 0; 25 tests for storage time 4, 7, 11,14 days. a–cMeans with different letters in the same row, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the time of storage. x,yMeans with different letters in the same column, differ at P ≤ 0.05 in view of the packaging atmosphere. CU—conventional unit. View Large Shear force of meat packed in MA rose gradually up to 14 storage day. The shear force increased by 19.41% on the 14th day, in comparison to unpacked samples. This parameter remained stable with storage time in vacuum conditions. The differences in the shear force between these two types of investigated atmospheres were noticed on the 4th day of storage (Table 2). The storage time and the type of atmosphere influenced the sensory descriptors (characteristic odor and flavor, tenderness, juiciness and general evaluation) of roasted muscles (Table 2). It was noticed that odor and flavor, juiciness and general evaluation decreased gradually in the muscles up to the 11th and 14th day of storage, for MA and vacuum packed samples respectively. Tenderness did not change during storage for vacuum packed samples. The significant effect of packaging atmosphere on the tenderness and juiciness was observed on the 4th day of storage. The differences in the odor and flavor and general evaluation between these two types of packaging atmosphere were noticed on the 7th day. On the 7th day, the general evaluation was higher for vacuum packed muscles than for samples stored in MA. The lower general evaluation of MA packed samples resulted from the lower tenderness and juiciness (Table 2). DISCUSSION The type of protective atmosphere and storage time influenced the pH values of goose meat. During storage, samples packed in vacuum had higher pH values than samples stored in MA. The pH of goose muscles packed both in MA and in vacuum increased gradually up to the 14th day of storage (Table 1). The increase of pH in muscles stored in protective atmospheres could be associated with increase of the total number of bacteria and the number of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas spp. (Orkusz, 2017). Many types of bacteria produce alkaline compounds, such as ammonia which leads to progressive alkalizing of stored muscle, and thus to pH increase. Several other authors reported pH increase in poultry meat stored both in MA and in vacuum as well (Wongwicharn et al., 2009; Orkusz and Haraf, 2011; Marcinkowska-Lesiak et al., 2015). It is well known that meat storage in modified atmosphere with CO2 concentration causes pH to drop. Carbon dioxide degrades to carbonic acid, thus causing slight acidification of meat (Fraqueza and Barreto, 2009; Wongwicharn et al., 2009). Differences in the pH of samples stored in MA and vacuum could also be due to a higher stage of oxidative changes in lipids. In the muscles stored in MA, compared to samples packaged in vacuum, a higher content of malondialdehyde was found (Orkusz et al., 2017). Therefore, lower pH of muscles packed in MA could be caused by the accumulation of higher amount of acidic products in these samples, which resulted from lipolysis, lipid oxidation and accumulation of bacterial metabolites. The WHC increased gradually up to the 14th day, in samples packed in these two atmospheres. From the 11th day of storage, meat packed in vacuum was characterized by a higher WHC, in comparison to the samples packed in MA (Table 1). Water holding capacity determines the loss or increase of weight during meat processing and storage. Meat with a high WHC loses less meat juice during cooking and roasting, thus retaining better juiciness. This in turn affects its flavor which is undoubtedly one of the most significant qualities of cooked meat as far as the consumer is concerned. For economic reasons, the meat industry works hard to minimize all types of water loss. Changes in cooking loss in vacuum packed muscles depended on the pH and the WHC. As the pH and WHC increased throughout the time of storage, a decrease in cooking loss was observed. Significant differences in cooking loss muscles packed in MA were not observed during storage (Table 1). The shear force showed a tendency to rise with storage for MA, whereas under vacuum the shear force did not change with storage time. Significantly greater shear force values for muscles held in high oxygen MA were noticed from 4th storage day compared to the vacuum packed samples (Table 2). Thus, goose meat was tougher in high oxygen MA in comparison to vacuum stored meat. The sensory results for tenderness agree with the results for the shear force analysis. The sensory panel noticed that from the 4th day of storage, vacuum packed goose samples were more tender in comparison to the MA packed muscles. Tenderness of the meat stored in high oxygen MA decreased significantly during storage and the difference in tenderness between MA and vacuum increased during storage (Table 2). The oxygen levels used in MA (80% O2) probably affected the promoting of protein oxidation. Similar effects of high oxygen atmosphere packaging on pork meat tenderness have been reported by Zakrys-Waliwander et al. (2012) and Muhlisin et al. (2014). These authors noticed lower protein deterioration in vacuum packed muscles than in samples stored in high oxygen MA. Lund et al. (2007) stated that a high oxygen level in modified atmosphere can result in protein cross-linking, inactivation of proteolytic enzyme systems, or a combination of both, and thus reduces tenderness and juiciness of the meat. According to Muhlisin et al. (2014), the fact that vacuum packed meat shows lower protein deterioration than modified atmosphere packaging samples contributes to the lower counts of bacteria in vacuum packed meat. Previous work of Orkusz (2017) also indicates that vacuum packaging is more effective in inhibiting the total number of bacteria, Pseudomonas spp. and Enterobacteriaceae in goose meat, than MA packaging. Oliete et al. (2005) also noticed no effect of vacuum packaging of calf meat on shear force, which agrees with the present study. Filgueras et al. (2010) showed the absence of protein oxidation in vacuum packed Rhea Americana meat. On the 11th storage day, meat packed in MA had poorer sensory quality with respect to odor and flavor, juiciness and general evaluation in comparison to vacuum (Table 2). According to Lagerstedt et al. (2011) the difference in flavor might be influenced by the scores for tenderness and juiciness, because it is difficult to disregard the perception of the other attributes at testing. From the 4th day, samples stored in vacuum had better sensory evaluation of juiciness than those packed in high oxygen MA. On the 11th day, in comparison with unpacked samples, the sensory evaluation of juiciness fell by 23.11% for MA and 6.44% for vacuum. Lower juiciness of MA packed meat (Table 2) was possibly due to the higher cooking loss (Table 1). The high cooking loss may cause the sensation of meat dryness (Clausen et al. (2009), Marcinkowska-Lesiak et al., 2015) and Lagerstedt et al. (2011) also showed that the high concentration of O2 in packaging atmosphere was the determining factor for the worse sensory results of meat compared to atmosphere without oxygen. In conclusion, the study showed that meat stored in vacuum was characterized by higher WHC and pH, lower cooking loss and shear force, than meat stored under high oxygen MA. Samples packed in MA did worse during sensory assessment with respect to odor and flavor, tenderness, juiciness and general assessment. Thus meat stored under vacuum showed higher productivity and was more tender and juicy. And it is well known that tenderness is the most important for consumers. REFERENCES Biesiada-Drzazga B., Janocha A., Koncerewicz A.. 2011. Effect of genotype and rearing system on fitness and fat quality in geese of White Koluda breed. Post. Nauk.Technol. Przem. Rol. Spoż.  61: 19– 31 (in Polish). Buzała M., Adamski A., Janicki B.. 2014. Characteristics of performance traits and the quality of meat and fat in Polish oat geese. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.  70: 531– 542. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Brody A. L. 2007. Case-ready packaging for red meat. Food Technol . 61: 70– 72. Clausen I., Jakobsen M., Ertbjerg P., Madsen N. T., 2009. Modified atmosphere packaging affects lipid oxidation, myofibrillar fragmentation index and eating quality of beef. Packag. Technol. Sci.  22: 85– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Czechlowska T., Bielińska H., 1993. Pages 1– 27 Technology of Rearing and Fattening of White Kołuda Geese . National Research Institute of Animal Production, Kraków. Damaziak K., Stelmasiak A., Michalczuk M., Wyrwisz J., Moczkowska M., Marcinkowska-Lesiak M., Niemiec J., Wierzbicka A., 2016. Analysis of storage possibility of raw and smoked breast meat of oat-fattened White Kołuda® goose based on their quality characteristics. Poult. Sci.  95: 2186– 2197. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fernandes R. P. P., Freire M. T. A., Paula E. S. M., Kanashiro A. L. S., Catunda F. A. P., Rosa A. F., Balieiro J. C. C., Trindade M. A., 2014. Stability of lamb loin stored under refrigeration and packed in different modified atmosphere packaging systems. Meat Science . 96: 554– 561. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Filgueras R. S., Gatellier P., Aubry L., Thomas A., Bauchart D., Durand D., Zambiazi R. C., Sante-Lhoutellier V., 2010. Colour, lipid and protein stability of Rhea americana meat during air- and vacuum-packaged storage: Influence of muscle on oxidative processes. Meat Science . 86: 665– 673. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fraqueza M. J., Barreto A. S., 2009. The effect on turkey meat shelf life of modified-atmosphere packaging with an argon mixture. Poultry Science  88: 1991– 1998. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  ICMSF. 1986. International commission on microbiological specifications for foods. Microorganisms in foods 2. Sampling for microbiological analysis. Principles and specific applications, second edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 127– 278. ISO. 1988. International standard 8589. Sensory Analysis – General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms . Ref. No, ISO 8589:1988, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Kotter L., Prandll O., Terplan G., 1968. Checking of the juice retaining ability of meat during heating. Fleischwirtschaft  14: 984 (in German). Krala L. 1985. Possibility of using controlled atmosphere to extend shelf life of chilled geese. Chłodnictwo . 20: 11– 13 (in Polish). Lagerstedt A., Lundström K., Lindahl G., 2011. Influence of vacuum or high-oxygen modified atmosphere packaging on quality of beef M. longissimus dorsi steaks after different ageing times. Meat Science . 87: 101– 106. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lund M. N., Lametsch R., Hviid M. S, Jensen O. N., Skibsted L. H., 2007. High-oxygen packaging atmosphere influences protein oxidation and tenderness of porcine longissimus dorsi during chill storage. Meat Science . 77: 295– 303. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lund M. N., Christensen M., Fregil L., Hviid M. S, Skibsted L. H., 2008. Effect of high-oxygen atmosphere packaging on mechanical properties of single muscle fibres from bovine and porcine longissimus dorsi. Eur Food Res Technol  227: 1323– 1328. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marcinkowska-Lesiak M., Zdanowska-Sąsiadek Ż., Stelmasiak A., Damaziak K., Michalczuk M., Poławska E., Wyrwisz J., Wierzbicka A., 2015. Effect of packaging method and cold storage time on chicken meat quality, CyTA. J. Food  14: 41– 46. Muhlisin P., Kim D. S., Song Y. R., Lee S. J., Lee J. K., Lee S. K., 2014. Effects of gas composition in the modified atmosphere packaging on the shelf life of Longissimus dorsi of Korean Native Black Pigs-Duroc Crossbred during refrigerated storage. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci.  27: 1157– 1163. Oliete B., Moreno T., Carballo J. A., Varela A., Monserrat L., Sánchez L., 2005. Influence of ageing time on the quality of yearling calf meat under vacuum. Eur Food Res Technol  220: 489– 493. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Orkusz A., Haraf G., 2011. Influence of packaging material on pH, water binding capacity, drip loss and cooking loss of turkey thigh muscles packed and stored under modified atmosphere. Pages 70– 78 in Novel Operations and Materials in Food Processing . University of Life Science, Wrocław, Poland. Orkusz A., Wołoszyn J., Haraf G., Okruszek A.. 2013. Effect of protective atmosphere on color of goose meat. Poultry Science  92: 2188– 2194. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Orkusz A., Wołoszyn J., Grajeta H., Haraf G., Okruszek A., 2015. Changes in the fatty acid profile of intramuscular fat in goose meat packed in different atmospheres. Europ. Poult. Sci.  79: 1– 10. Orkusz A. 2016. Changes in subcutaneous goose fat stored under different atmospheres. Europ. Poult. Sci.  80: 1– 10. Orkusz A., Haraf G., Okruszek A., Wereńska-Sudnik M., 2017. Lipid oxidation and color changes of goose meat stored under vacuum and modified atmosphere conditions. Poult. Sci.  96: 731– 737. Google Scholar PubMed  Orkusz A. 2017. Quality changes of goose breast meat during cold storage under modified atmosphere and vacuum. Europ. Poult. Sci.  81: 1– 9. Santos P. R., Donado-Pestana C. M., Delgado E. F., Tanaka F. O., Contreras-Castillo C. J.. 2015. Tenderness and oxidative stability of Nellore bulls steaks packaged under vacuum or modified atmosphere during storage at 2°C. Food Packaging and Shelf Life  4: 10– 18. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Statsoft, Inc. 2012. Statistica (data analysis software system), version 12.0. Stone H., Sidel J., Oliver S., Woolsey A., Singleton R., 1974. Sensory evaluation by descriptive analysis. Food Technol.  11: 23– 34. Stone H., Sidel J., Bloomquist M., 1980. Quantitative descriptive analysis. Cereal Food World.  10: 24– 26. Wierbicki E., Tiede M. G., Burrell R. C., 1962. The determination of the meat swelling as method for the investigation of the water binding capacity of muscle proteins with small juice retaining ability. Fleischwirtschaft.  10: 948– 951 (in German). Wongwicharn A., Phoolphund S., Vongsawasdi P., Bomrungnok W.. 2009. Shelf-life of roasted red chicken meat coloured with red mould rice by modified atmosphere packaging, As. J. Food Ad-Ind.  2: 183– 193. Zakrys-Waliwander P. I., O`Sullivan M. G., O`Neil E. E., Kerry J. P., 2012. The effects of high oxygen modified atmosphere packaging on protein oxidation of bovine M. longissimus dorsi muscle during chilled storage. Food Chemistry  131: 527– 532. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc.

Journal

Poultry ScienceOxford University Press

Published: Apr 20, 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