Marination and cooking performance of portioned broiler breast fillets with the wooden breast condition

Marination and cooking performance of portioned broiler breast fillets with the wooden breast... Abstract The wooden breast (WB) condition in broiler breast meat negatively influences technological meat quality. However, it is unknown if the WB effects are uniform throughout the Pectoralis major. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of WB on the marination and cooking performance of the dorsal and ventral portions of broiler breast fillets. Sixty butterfly breast fillets were collected from the deboning line of a commercial plant and sorted into normal (no WB) and severe WB categories. Each fillet was horizontally portioned into dorsal and ventral halves. Portions from one side of each butterfly were used as non-marinated controls, while portions from the other side were vacuum-tumble marinated (16 rpm, −0.6 atm, 4°C, 20 min) with 20% (wt/wt) marinade to meat ratio. Marinade was formulated to target a final concentration of 0.75% salt and 0.45% sodium tripolyphosphate in the final product. Samples were cooked to 78°C in a combination oven. Marinade uptake and retention were lower (P < 0.001) in both the ventral and dorsal portions of the WB fillets. The dorsal portions had greater (P < 0.001) marinade uptake and retention than the ventral portions in both normal and WB fillets. For non-marinated samples, cook loss was greater (P < 0.05) in both the ventral and dorsal portions of WB fillets. In marinated samples, however, cook loss was similar between the dorsal portions of normal and WB fillets. Final cooked product yield was calculated based on pre-marination and post-cook weights. Non-marinated WB samples exhibited lower (P < 0.001) cooked product yields than normal samples in both portions. For marinated samples, cooked product yields were greater (P < 0.001) in the dorsal portions. Data demonstrated that the dorsal portion of the Pectoralis major more readily absorbs and retains marinade during vacuum tumbling and storage than the ventral portion. Although the WB condition negatively influenced marination and cooking performance in both fillet portions, the effects were less severe in the dorsal portion. INTRODUCTION Wooden breast (WB) is a myopathy of the Pectoralis major muscle in modern broiler lines that negatively influences meat quality. Raw breast fillets with the WB condition exhibit abnormally hardened areas on the muscle surface, muscle rigidity, and a distinct ridge-like bulge on the caudal end (Sihvo et al., 2014). Additionally, the white striping (WS) condition is often observed in breast fillets with the WB myopathy (Sihvo et al., 2014; Tijare et al., 2016). The WB condition alters meat texture (Chatterjee et al., 2016; Tasoniero et al., 2016; Soglia et al., 2016b) and reduces the water holding capacity of the breast meat (Mudalal et al., 2015; Tijare et al., 2016; Kuttappan et al., 2017). Due to the widespread occurrence of WB within the industry, a thorough understanding of its effects on processing strategies and final product quality are needed. Moisture-enhancement with a salt-phosphate based marinade is commonly used throughout the poultry industry to improve meat tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and product yield. Unfortunately, the WB condition negatively impacts technological meat quality. Previous reports have shown that breast meat with the WB condition has decreased marinade uptake with vacuum-tumbling marination and increased cook loss (Mudalal et al., 2015; Tijare et al., 2016). Many of these differences are likely due to the altered composition of WB fillets as they have increased lipid and connective tissue accumulation and reduced protein content (Soglia et al., 2016a, b). The WB condition seems to be most prevalent in breast fillets from large broilers. Due to the size and asymmetrical shape of the Pectoralis major, breast fillets from large broilers are often portioned to provide products of uniform size, shape, and thickness for the retail and foodservice sectors. The distinct tactile characteristics and myopathic lesions associated with WB are typically more evident on the ventral surface of the cranial end of the Pectoralis major muscle (Sihvo et al., 2014; Clark and Velleman, 2016; Soglia et al., 2016b). Similarly, it has been shown that the negative effects of the white striping myopathy on water-holding capacity and protein functionality are more severe on the cranial-ventral portion of the breast fillet (Bowker and Zhuang, 2016). It is hypothesized that the influence of the WB condition on technological meat quality may not be uniform throughout the breast fillet. Thus, the current study was conducted to determine the influence of the WB myopathy on the marination and cooking performance of the ventral (skin-side) and dorsal (bone-side) portions of broiler breast fillets. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sample Selection and Physical Measurements Boneless, skinless butterfly breast fillets were collected from the deboning line of a commercial broiler processing plant at approximately 3 h postmortem. Samples were placed in plastic bags and transported (∼45 min) on ice to the U.S. National Poultry Research Center (Athens, GA) where they were assigned identification numbers, trimmed, and separated into left and right halves. Individual breast fillets were then categorized as normal (no WB) or severe WB based on palpable hardness and muscle rigidity throughout the fillet, and the presence of a ridge-like bulge, similar to previously published criteria (Tijare et al., 2016). Samples were also scored for white striping based on the prevalence and thickness of white striations on the ventral surface of the muscle (Kuttappan et al., 2012). Over 3 separate trial runs (replications), a total of 120 individual breast fillets from 60 butterfly fillets (30 normal and 30 severe WB) were utilized in this study. Only butterfly fillets that exhibited equal WB scores between the left and right Pectoralis major muscles were selected for use. For each butterfly fillet, samples from one side (left or right) were marinated while the samples from the opposite side served as non-marinated controls. Thus, samples from 10 fillets per category (normal and WB) were assigned to each treatment (control and marinated) for each of the 3 experimental replications. At approximately 6 h postmortem, fillet weight, color, and pH were recorded. Color measurements (L*a*b* values) were measured on the dorsal surface (bone side) of fillets with a Minolta spectrophotometer (CM-700, Konica Minolta, Ramsey, NJ). Muscle pH in the cranial end of the fillets was measured with a Hach H280 GB pH meter equipped with a spear tip probe (EW-5998–20, Cole-Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL). Samples were then stored at 4°C overnight in sealed plastic bags and reweighed for calculating drip loss. Sample Portioning and Marination At 24 h postmortem both the left and right fillets from each butterfly were horizontally portioned into ventral (skin-side) and dorsal (bone-side) portions using a deli slicer (Berkel X13E-PLUS, Illinois Tool Works Inc., Glenview, IL) such that the dorsal portions were approximately 2.5 cm thick. The ventral and dorsal portions from one side of each butterfly were designated as non-marinated controls and the ventral and dorsal portions from the other side of each butterfly were marinated. Portions were individually tagged to maintain their identification throughout the experiment. Marinated samples were vacuum-tumbled (model: DVTS 30 V.S, Daniels Food Equipment, Parkers Prairie, MN) for 20 min at 16 rpm, −0.6 atm, and 4°C with marinade at a 20% (wt/wt) marinade to meat ratio. Marinade contained 5% NaCl and 3% sodium tripolyphosphate (Innophos, Inc., Cranbury, NJ) and was formulated with a targeted final concentration of 0.75% NaCl and 0.45% phosphate in the final product. After vacuum tumbling or 4°C storage (controls), samples were placed on a covered wire rack and stored overnight. Portions were weighed immediately before and after vacuum tumbling and 24 h post-marination for the calculation of marinade uptake, marinade retention, and final raw product yield. Sample Cooking Portioned fillets were weighed, individually vacuum sealed in cook bags (Model S-19,800, Uline, Pleasant Prairie, WI), and cooked to an internal temperature of 78°C in a combi-steam oven (MCS-6, Henny Penny Corporation, Eaton, OH). The internal temperatures were monitored in the thickest part of each portioned fillet with a hand-held digital thermometer fitted with hypodermic needle probes (Doric Digital Thermometer, Model 450-ET; Doric Scientific, San Diego, CA). Cooked samples were drained of liquid, patted dry, and reweighed for calculating cook loss and final cooked product yield. Statistical Analysis Data for control and marinated samples were subjected to a two-way ANOVA using the mixed model procedure in SAS (Version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Fillet portion, WB category, and their interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, and experimental replication and butterfly fillet were treated as random effects. Least square means were separated statistically with the Tukey's HSD method and significance level was set at P < 0.05. The relationships between the response variables were also analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The physical properties and initial meat quality of breast fillets used in this study are shown in Table 1. Fillets with the WB myopathy exhibited increased white striping, pH, and drip loss, with only minor changes in raw meat color (a* and b*). These results were consistent with previous reports (Mudalal et al., 2015; Chatterjee et al., 2016; Tasoniero et al., 2016; Kuttappan et al., 2017) and verify the adequacy of the samples for the objectives of this study. Table 1. Physical and meat quality characteristics of raw breast fillets (means ± SD). Trait Normal Severe WB Fillet wt. (g) 497 ± 59 523 ± 69 White Striping Score1 1.2 ± 0.3b 2.3 ± 0.6a pH6h 5.92 ± 0.16b 6.07 ± 0.18a Drip Loss % 1.10 ± 0.45b 1.48 ± 0.54a L* 60.4 ± 3.7 59.4 ± 5.0 a* −0.6 ± 0.8b 0.2 ± 1.0a b* 11.5 ± 2.0b 13.2 ± 2.8a Trait Normal Severe WB Fillet wt. (g) 497 ± 59 523 ± 69 White Striping Score1 1.2 ± 0.3b 2.3 ± 0.6a pH6h 5.92 ± 0.16b 6.07 ± 0.18a Drip Loss % 1.10 ± 0.45b 1.48 ± 0.54a L* 60.4 ± 3.7 59.4 ± 5.0 a* −0.6 ± 0.8b 0.2 ± 1.0a b* 11.5 ± 2.0b 13.2 ± 2.8a a,bMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). 1White Striping Score (1 = normal, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). View Large Table 1. Physical and meat quality characteristics of raw breast fillets (means ± SD). Trait Normal Severe WB Fillet wt. (g) 497 ± 59 523 ± 69 White Striping Score1 1.2 ± 0.3b 2.3 ± 0.6a pH6h 5.92 ± 0.16b 6.07 ± 0.18a Drip Loss % 1.10 ± 0.45b 1.48 ± 0.54a L* 60.4 ± 3.7 59.4 ± 5.0 a* −0.6 ± 0.8b 0.2 ± 1.0a b* 11.5 ± 2.0b 13.2 ± 2.8a Trait Normal Severe WB Fillet wt. (g) 497 ± 59 523 ± 69 White Striping Score1 1.2 ± 0.3b 2.3 ± 0.6a pH6h 5.92 ± 0.16b 6.07 ± 0.18a Drip Loss % 1.10 ± 0.45b 1.48 ± 0.54a L* 60.4 ± 3.7 59.4 ± 5.0 a* −0.6 ± 0.8b 0.2 ± 1.0a b* 11.5 ± 2.0b 13.2 ± 2.8a a,bMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). 1White Striping Score (1 = normal, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). View Large The marination performance of normal and WB fillets are shown in Table 2. With regards to marinade uptake, there was a significant interaction (P < 0.001) between WB category and portion. The WB samples exhibited less marinade uptake than normal samples in both fillet portions (P < 0.001), although the absolute difference was greater in the dorsal portions. This is consistent with previous data measured in fillet sub-samples (60 g) from the middle portion of the breast muscle showing that marinade absorption is impaired in WB meat (Mudalal et al., 2015). In all fillets the dorsal portion of the muscle had a much greater marinade uptake than the ventral portion (P < 0.001). Table 2. Marination performance of broiler breast fillet portions (lsmeans, n = 30). Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Marinade Uptake %1 8.4c 19.1a 5.2d 10.8b 0.6 *** *** *** Marinade Retention %2 66.1b 80.6a 47.0c 70.4b 2.2 *** *** ** Final Raw Product Yield %3 105.6c 115.3a 102.4d 107.6b 0.5 *** *** *** Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Marinade Uptake %1 8.4c 19.1a 5.2d 10.8b 0.6 *** *** *** Marinade Retention %2 66.1b 80.6a 47.0c 70.4b 2.2 *** *** ** Final Raw Product Yield %3 105.6c 115.3a 102.4d 107.6b 0.5 *** *** *** a–dMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; NS = not significant. 1Marinade Uptake % = 100 × (post-marination wt—pre-marination wt)/pre-marination wt. 2Marinade Retention % = 100 × (24 h post-marination wt—pre-marination wt)/(post-marination wt—pre-marination wt). 3Final Raw Product Yield % = 100 × 24 h post-marination wt/pre-marination wt. View Large Table 2. Marination performance of broiler breast fillet portions (lsmeans, n = 30). Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Marinade Uptake %1 8.4c 19.1a 5.2d 10.8b 0.6 *** *** *** Marinade Retention %2 66.1b 80.6a 47.0c 70.4b 2.2 *** *** ** Final Raw Product Yield %3 105.6c 115.3a 102.4d 107.6b 0.5 *** *** *** Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Marinade Uptake %1 8.4c 19.1a 5.2d 10.8b 0.6 *** *** *** Marinade Retention %2 66.1b 80.6a 47.0c 70.4b 2.2 *** *** ** Final Raw Product Yield %3 105.6c 115.3a 102.4d 107.6b 0.5 *** *** *** a–dMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; NS = not significant. 1Marinade Uptake % = 100 × (post-marination wt—pre-marination wt)/pre-marination wt. 2Marinade Retention % = 100 × (24 h post-marination wt—pre-marination wt)/(post-marination wt—pre-marination wt). 3Final Raw Product Yield % = 100 × 24 h post-marination wt/pre-marination wt. View Large The effects of fillet portion and WB on marinade retention during 24 h of post-marination cold storage were similar to marinade uptake (Table 2). Portions from normal fillets had greater (P < 0.001) marinade retention than WB samples. In both normal and severe WB samples, the dorsal portions exhibited greater (P < 0.001) marinade retention than the ventral portions. The differences in marinade retention between the dorsal and ventral portions were greater in WB fillets compared to normal fillets. In a previous study, no WB effects were observed regarding the amount of purge loss during 48 h of refrigerated storage post-marination (Mudalal et al., 2015). Differences between studies with regards to marinade retention may be due to variations in muscle sampling, marinade composition, and methodology. Final raw product yield was used as a measure to describe the combined effects of initial marinade absorption and marinade retention upon storage (Table 2). Due to having both a lower marinade uptake and retention, WB samples had a lower (P < 0.001) final raw product yield than normal samples. Similarly, for both WB and normal fillets, the dorsal portions exhibited a greater (P < 0.001) final raw product yield than the ventral portions. The final raw product yield was more closely correlated to marinade uptake (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) than marinade retention (r = 0.71, P < 0.001). These relationships indicated that initial marinade absorption in both normal and WB fillets had a stronger impact on raw product yield than marinade retention during storage. Marinade uptake and retention were slightly better in the dorsal portion of WB fillets than the ventral portion of normal fillets. The poorest overall marination performance was observed in the ventral portion of the WB fillets. Although the WB condition generally impaired overall marination performance, these data suggest that the dorsal portion of WB fillets may be able to achieve more acceptable levels of marination performance and raw product yield. The effects of cooking on non-marinated and marinated breast fillets are shown in Table 3. Marination of breast meat with salt and phosphate is known to increase tissue ionic strength and pH which in turn enhances the ability of the meat to retain water during cooking (Smith and Acton, 2010). This phenomenon can be seen in the reduced cook loss values and increased final cooked product yield in marinated samples compared to non-marinated controls (Table 3). Past studies have shown that the WB condition results in greater cook loss in both fillet sub-samples (Mudalal et al., 2015; Zambonelli et al., 2016) and whole intact fillets (Tasoniero et al., 2016; Sanchez-Brambila et al., 2017). In the current study, there was a significant interaction effect between the WB condition and fillet portion on the cook loss values of marinated samples (P < 0.001) but not the control samples (P = 0.396). Overall, the WB condition increased cook loss in both non-marinated and marinated samples, however, the effects of fillet portion varied. In non-marinated controls, the cook loss was greater in WB samples than normal samples in both the ventral and dorsal portions. In marinated samples, however, the WB condition only increased cook loss in the ventral portion of the fillet. In the marinated dorsal portions, cook loss was similar between normal and WB samples. In the WB fillets, the dorsal portions exhibited greater cook loss than the ventral portions in non-marinated samples. Conversely, in marinated WB samples more cook loss was observed in the ventral portions than the dorsal portions. This is likely due to the greater marinade uptake and retention in the dorsal portions of WB fillets. As expected, the amount of marinade that is absorbed and retained within the breast muscle during processing and storage seemed to play a key role in determining cook loss. A direct comparison of non-marinated and marinated samples using a 3-way ANOVA (data not shown) indicated that the ventral portions of the WB fillets, which had the least marinade uptake, exhibited the lowest reduction in cook loss with marination as compared to the ventral and dorsal portions of normal fillets and the dorsal portion of WB fillets. Table 3. Cooking performance of broiler breast fillet portions (lsmeans, n = 30). Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Treatment Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Cook Loss %1 Control 20.0c 21.8b,c 23.4b 26.9a 2.9 ** * NS Marinated 11.8c 15.9b 22.4a 17.0b 1.8 *** NS *** Final Cooked Control 79.6a 77.7a,b 74.2b,c 73.0c 2.6 *** NS NS Product Yield %2 Marinated 93.1b 97.0a 79.4d 89.3c 1.7 *** *** ** Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Treatment Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Cook Loss %1 Control 20.0c 21.8b,c 23.4b 26.9a 2.9 ** * NS Marinated 11.8c 15.9b 22.4a 17.0b 1.8 *** NS *** Final Cooked Control 79.6a 77.7a,b 74.2b,c 73.0c 2.6 *** NS NS Product Yield %2 Marinated 93.1b 97.0a 79.4d 89.3c 1.7 *** *** ** a–dMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; NS = not significant. 1Cook Loss % = 100 × (pre-cook wt—post-cook wt)/pre-cook wt. 2Final Cooked Product Yield % = 100 × post-cook wt/pre-marination wt. View Large Table 3. Cooking performance of broiler breast fillet portions (lsmeans, n = 30). Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Treatment Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Cook Loss %1 Control 20.0c 21.8b,c 23.4b 26.9a 2.9 ** * NS Marinated 11.8c 15.9b 22.4a 17.0b 1.8 *** NS *** Final Cooked Control 79.6a 77.7a,b 74.2b,c 73.0c 2.6 *** NS NS Product Yield %2 Marinated 93.1b 97.0a 79.4d 89.3c 1.7 *** *** ** Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Treatment Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Cook Loss %1 Control 20.0c 21.8b,c 23.4b 26.9a 2.9 ** * NS Marinated 11.8c 15.9b 22.4a 17.0b 1.8 *** NS *** Final Cooked Control 79.6a 77.7a,b 74.2b,c 73.0c 2.6 *** NS NS Product Yield %2 Marinated 93.1b 97.0a 79.4d 89.3c 1.7 *** *** ** a–dMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; NS = not significant. 1Cook Loss % = 100 × (pre-cook wt—post-cook wt)/pre-cook wt. 2Final Cooked Product Yield % = 100 × post-cook wt/pre-marination wt. View Large Final cooked product yield was used as a measure to describe the combined effects of the marination, overnight cold storage, and cooking performance of the breast fillet portions (Table 3). Correlation analysis revealed that final cooked product yield was more closely related to cook loss (r = −0.85, P < 0.001) than marinade uptake (r = 0.51, P < 0.001) and retention (r = 0.52, P < 0.001). In non-marinated controls, final cooked product yield was greater (P < 0.001) in normal samples than WB samples, but it was not influenced by fillet portion (P = 0.238). In marinated samples there was an interaction between the WB condition and fillet portion (P = 0.006). In both the ventral and dorsal fillet portions, the WB samples had significantly lower product yield than normal samples. For all fillets, the dorsal portion exhibited greater cooked product yield than the ventral portion. However, the difference between the fillet portions was more extreme in the WB samples. In order to minimize potential portion size effects on marination and cooking performance, normal fillets similar in size to WB fillets were selected for use in this study. As shown in Table 1, intact WB fillets were on average slightly heavier than normal fillets (523 g vs. 497 g) but the difference was not significant (P = 0.102). After horizontally portioning the breast muscles, average portion weights were similar between normal and WB samples (245 ± 36 g and 257 ± 50 g, respectively). Average weights of the ventral and dorsal fillet portions were also similar (240 ± 44 g and 262 ± 41 g, respectively). Correlation analysis was conducted to investigate potential relationships between technological quality attributes and sample weights. Only the pre-marination weights of the dorsal portions were found to be significantly correlated to marinade uptake (r = −0.62, P < 0.001) and retention (r = −0.30, P = 0.02) percentages. Ventral portion weights were not significantly correlated to marination performance. Across all samples (normal and WB, ventral and dorsal), final raw and cooked product yields were not significantly correlated with sample weight. Thus, it was concluded that over the range of sample types and sizes used in this study, sample weights had minimal impact on marination and cooking performance. The reduced technological quality of WB fillets in this study was likely due to alterations in the proximate chemical composition of the muscle tissue due to the myopathy. Past research has shown that WB meat exhibits increased fat and connective tissue content and reduced muscle protein content (Soglia et al., 2016a, b). Myofibrillar proteins play a key role in the ability of muscle to bind water, and their reduced content in WB meat likely accounts for the reduced salt-induced water uptake observed in WB meat (Bowker et al., 2016). In all fillets (normal and WB), marination uptake and retention were greater in the dorsal portions of the fillets. This was likely a result of the dorsal portions having greater areas of exposed muscle fibers than the ventral portions due to the deboning and portioning procedures creating two cut surfaces. The ventral portions, on the other hand, only had a single cut muscle surface due to the horizontal portioning and the skin-side of the portion was covered by the epimysium which likely impaired marinade absorption. Previous research reported that marinade was more readily absorbed through the exposed dorsal surfaces of boneless turkey breast meat than the epimysium covered ventral surfaces of the meat during vacuum-tumbling (Bowker et al., 2010). In this study, the negative effects of the WB myopathy on marination performance were more severe on the ventral portions of the fillets. Altered surface properties on the skin-side of WB fillets may have contributed to the intramuscular location effects observed in this study. This is consistent with previous observations that the myopathic lesions associated with WB are more evident on the ventral surface of the breast muscle (Clark and Velleman, 2016). The ventral surface of Pectoralis major muscles with the WB myopathy typically exhibit hardened areas, white striations, petechial hemorrhages, viscous material, and increased deposition of loose connective tissue (Sihvo et al., 2014; Soglia et al., 2016b). Morphological tissue imaging data suggest that broiler breast fillets with the WB condition may even have a slightly thicker epimysial connective tissue layer on the ventral surface of the muscle (Yoon et al., 2016). Thus, altered muscle surface characteristics may have further impaired the ability of the ventral portion of WB fillets to take up and retain marinade. CONCLUSION Data from this study demonstrate that the WB myopathy impairs technological meat quality throughout the Pectoralis major muscle. Overall the WB condition decreases marinade uptake and retention and increases cook loss in both the dorsal and ventral portions of the breast fillet. However, intramuscular location plays a key role in both marination and cooking performance in portioned breast fillets as these properties are not uniform throughout the Pectoralis major muscle. In WB fillets, the negative effects of the myopathy on marination uptake and retention seem to be less severe in the dorsal portion. Even in normal fillets without WB, raw and cooked product yields are greater in the dorsal portions of the muscles. These data suggest that breast fillet portioning and portion specific marination strategies may potentially be useful to help manage processing and meat quality problems associated with the WB condition and to improve product uniformity in broiler breast fillets. Notes The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the United States Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. REFERENCES Bowker B. C. , Callahan J. A. , Solomon M. B. . 2010 . Effects of hydrodynamic pressure processing on the marination and meat quality of turkey breasts . Poult. Sci. 89 : 1744 – 1749 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Bowker B. C. , Zhuang H. . 2016 . Impact of white striping on functionality attributes of broiler breast meat . Poult. Sci. 95 : 1957 – 1965 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Bowker B. , Zhuang H. , Barton E. , Alvarez-Manilla Sanchez J. . 2016 . White striping and wooden breast defects influence meat quality and muscle protein characteristic in broiler breast meat . Proc. 62nd Int. Cong. Meat Sci. Tech . Bangkok, Thailand . August 14–19, 2016 . 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 condition . Poult. Sci. 95 : 2449 – 2454 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Clark D. L. , Velleman S. G. . 2016 . Spatial influence on breast muscle morphological structure, myofiber size, and gene expression associated with the wooden breast myopathy in broilers . Poult. Sci. 95 : 2930 – 2945 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Kuttappan V. A. , Lee Y. S. , Erf G. F. , Meullenet J. F. C. , McKee S. R. , Owens C. M. . 2012 . Consumer acceptance of visual appearance of broiler breast meat with varying degrees of white striping . Poult. Sci. 91 : 1240 – 1247 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Kuttappan V. A. , Owens C. M. , Coon C. , Hargis B. M. , Vazquez-Anon 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 Mudalal S. , Lorenzi M. , Soglia F. , Cavani C. , Petracci M. . 2015 . Implications of white striping and wooden breast abnormalities on quality traits of raw and marinated chicken meat . Animal 9 : 728 – 734 . 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 condition . Poult. Sci. 96 : 3489 – 3494 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 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 Smith D. P. , Acton J. C. . 2010 . Marination, cooking, and curing of poultry products . Pages 311 – 336 in Poultry Meat Processing , 2nd Edition . Owens C. M. , Alvarado C. Z. , Sams A. R. , eds. CRC Press , Boca Raton, FL . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Soglia F. , Laghi L. , Canonico L. , Cavani C. , Petracci M. . 2016a . Functional property issues in broiler breast meat related to emerging muscle abnormalities . Food Res. Int. 89 : 1071 – 1076 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Soglia F. , Mudalal S. , Babini E. , Di Nunzio M. , Mazzoni M. , Sirri F. , Cavani C. , Petracci M. . 2016b . Histology, composition, and quality traits of chicken pectoralis major muscle affected by wooden breast abnormality . Poult. Sci. 95 : 651 – 659 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Tasoniero G. , Cullere M. , Cecchinato M. , Puolanne E. , Dalle Zotte A. . 2016 . Technological quality, mineral profile, and sensory attributes of broiler chicken breasts affected by white striping and wooden breast myopathies . Poult. Sci. 95 : 2707 – 2714 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 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. 95 : 2167 – 2173 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Yoon S. C. , Bowker B. C. , Zhuang H. . 2016 . Toward a fusion of optical coherence tomography and hyperspectral imaging for poultry meat quality assessment . Electronic Imaging. Image Processing: Machine Vision Applications IX , pp. 1 – 5 . Available at https://doi.org/10.2352/ISSN.2470-1173.2016.14.IPMVA-380 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Zambonelli P. , Zappaterra M. , Soglia F. , Petracci M. , Sirri F. , Cavani C. , Davoli R. . 2016 . Detection of differentially expressed genes in broiler pectoralis major muscle affected by White Striping – Wooden Breast myopathies . Poult. Sci. 95 : 2771 – 2785 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Poultry Science Association 2018. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Poultry Science Oxford University Press

Marination and cooking performance of portioned broiler breast fillets with the wooden breast condition

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/marination-and-cooking-performance-of-portioned-broiler-breast-fillets-RiqwK3vzAv
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Poultry Science Association 2018.
ISSN
0032-5791
eISSN
1525-3171
D.O.I.
10.3382/ps/pey144
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The wooden breast (WB) condition in broiler breast meat negatively influences technological meat quality. However, it is unknown if the WB effects are uniform throughout the Pectoralis major. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of WB on the marination and cooking performance of the dorsal and ventral portions of broiler breast fillets. Sixty butterfly breast fillets were collected from the deboning line of a commercial plant and sorted into normal (no WB) and severe WB categories. Each fillet was horizontally portioned into dorsal and ventral halves. Portions from one side of each butterfly were used as non-marinated controls, while portions from the other side were vacuum-tumble marinated (16 rpm, −0.6 atm, 4°C, 20 min) with 20% (wt/wt) marinade to meat ratio. Marinade was formulated to target a final concentration of 0.75% salt and 0.45% sodium tripolyphosphate in the final product. Samples were cooked to 78°C in a combination oven. Marinade uptake and retention were lower (P < 0.001) in both the ventral and dorsal portions of the WB fillets. The dorsal portions had greater (P < 0.001) marinade uptake and retention than the ventral portions in both normal and WB fillets. For non-marinated samples, cook loss was greater (P < 0.05) in both the ventral and dorsal portions of WB fillets. In marinated samples, however, cook loss was similar between the dorsal portions of normal and WB fillets. Final cooked product yield was calculated based on pre-marination and post-cook weights. Non-marinated WB samples exhibited lower (P < 0.001) cooked product yields than normal samples in both portions. For marinated samples, cooked product yields were greater (P < 0.001) in the dorsal portions. Data demonstrated that the dorsal portion of the Pectoralis major more readily absorbs and retains marinade during vacuum tumbling and storage than the ventral portion. Although the WB condition negatively influenced marination and cooking performance in both fillet portions, the effects were less severe in the dorsal portion. INTRODUCTION Wooden breast (WB) is a myopathy of the Pectoralis major muscle in modern broiler lines that negatively influences meat quality. Raw breast fillets with the WB condition exhibit abnormally hardened areas on the muscle surface, muscle rigidity, and a distinct ridge-like bulge on the caudal end (Sihvo et al., 2014). Additionally, the white striping (WS) condition is often observed in breast fillets with the WB myopathy (Sihvo et al., 2014; Tijare et al., 2016). The WB condition alters meat texture (Chatterjee et al., 2016; Tasoniero et al., 2016; Soglia et al., 2016b) and reduces the water holding capacity of the breast meat (Mudalal et al., 2015; Tijare et al., 2016; Kuttappan et al., 2017). Due to the widespread occurrence of WB within the industry, a thorough understanding of its effects on processing strategies and final product quality are needed. Moisture-enhancement with a salt-phosphate based marinade is commonly used throughout the poultry industry to improve meat tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and product yield. Unfortunately, the WB condition negatively impacts technological meat quality. Previous reports have shown that breast meat with the WB condition has decreased marinade uptake with vacuum-tumbling marination and increased cook loss (Mudalal et al., 2015; Tijare et al., 2016). Many of these differences are likely due to the altered composition of WB fillets as they have increased lipid and connective tissue accumulation and reduced protein content (Soglia et al., 2016a, b). The WB condition seems to be most prevalent in breast fillets from large broilers. Due to the size and asymmetrical shape of the Pectoralis major, breast fillets from large broilers are often portioned to provide products of uniform size, shape, and thickness for the retail and foodservice sectors. The distinct tactile characteristics and myopathic lesions associated with WB are typically more evident on the ventral surface of the cranial end of the Pectoralis major muscle (Sihvo et al., 2014; Clark and Velleman, 2016; Soglia et al., 2016b). Similarly, it has been shown that the negative effects of the white striping myopathy on water-holding capacity and protein functionality are more severe on the cranial-ventral portion of the breast fillet (Bowker and Zhuang, 2016). It is hypothesized that the influence of the WB condition on technological meat quality may not be uniform throughout the breast fillet. Thus, the current study was conducted to determine the influence of the WB myopathy on the marination and cooking performance of the ventral (skin-side) and dorsal (bone-side) portions of broiler breast fillets. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sample Selection and Physical Measurements Boneless, skinless butterfly breast fillets were collected from the deboning line of a commercial broiler processing plant at approximately 3 h postmortem. Samples were placed in plastic bags and transported (∼45 min) on ice to the U.S. National Poultry Research Center (Athens, GA) where they were assigned identification numbers, trimmed, and separated into left and right halves. Individual breast fillets were then categorized as normal (no WB) or severe WB based on palpable hardness and muscle rigidity throughout the fillet, and the presence of a ridge-like bulge, similar to previously published criteria (Tijare et al., 2016). Samples were also scored for white striping based on the prevalence and thickness of white striations on the ventral surface of the muscle (Kuttappan et al., 2012). Over 3 separate trial runs (replications), a total of 120 individual breast fillets from 60 butterfly fillets (30 normal and 30 severe WB) were utilized in this study. Only butterfly fillets that exhibited equal WB scores between the left and right Pectoralis major muscles were selected for use. For each butterfly fillet, samples from one side (left or right) were marinated while the samples from the opposite side served as non-marinated controls. Thus, samples from 10 fillets per category (normal and WB) were assigned to each treatment (control and marinated) for each of the 3 experimental replications. At approximately 6 h postmortem, fillet weight, color, and pH were recorded. Color measurements (L*a*b* values) were measured on the dorsal surface (bone side) of fillets with a Minolta spectrophotometer (CM-700, Konica Minolta, Ramsey, NJ). Muscle pH in the cranial end of the fillets was measured with a Hach H280 GB pH meter equipped with a spear tip probe (EW-5998–20, Cole-Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL). Samples were then stored at 4°C overnight in sealed plastic bags and reweighed for calculating drip loss. Sample Portioning and Marination At 24 h postmortem both the left and right fillets from each butterfly were horizontally portioned into ventral (skin-side) and dorsal (bone-side) portions using a deli slicer (Berkel X13E-PLUS, Illinois Tool Works Inc., Glenview, IL) such that the dorsal portions were approximately 2.5 cm thick. The ventral and dorsal portions from one side of each butterfly were designated as non-marinated controls and the ventral and dorsal portions from the other side of each butterfly were marinated. Portions were individually tagged to maintain their identification throughout the experiment. Marinated samples were vacuum-tumbled (model: DVTS 30 V.S, Daniels Food Equipment, Parkers Prairie, MN) for 20 min at 16 rpm, −0.6 atm, and 4°C with marinade at a 20% (wt/wt) marinade to meat ratio. Marinade contained 5% NaCl and 3% sodium tripolyphosphate (Innophos, Inc., Cranbury, NJ) and was formulated with a targeted final concentration of 0.75% NaCl and 0.45% phosphate in the final product. After vacuum tumbling or 4°C storage (controls), samples were placed on a covered wire rack and stored overnight. Portions were weighed immediately before and after vacuum tumbling and 24 h post-marination for the calculation of marinade uptake, marinade retention, and final raw product yield. Sample Cooking Portioned fillets were weighed, individually vacuum sealed in cook bags (Model S-19,800, Uline, Pleasant Prairie, WI), and cooked to an internal temperature of 78°C in a combi-steam oven (MCS-6, Henny Penny Corporation, Eaton, OH). The internal temperatures were monitored in the thickest part of each portioned fillet with a hand-held digital thermometer fitted with hypodermic needle probes (Doric Digital Thermometer, Model 450-ET; Doric Scientific, San Diego, CA). Cooked samples were drained of liquid, patted dry, and reweighed for calculating cook loss and final cooked product yield. Statistical Analysis Data for control and marinated samples were subjected to a two-way ANOVA using the mixed model procedure in SAS (Version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Fillet portion, WB category, and their interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, and experimental replication and butterfly fillet were treated as random effects. Least square means were separated statistically with the Tukey's HSD method and significance level was set at P < 0.05. The relationships between the response variables were also analyzed using Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The physical properties and initial meat quality of breast fillets used in this study are shown in Table 1. Fillets with the WB myopathy exhibited increased white striping, pH, and drip loss, with only minor changes in raw meat color (a* and b*). These results were consistent with previous reports (Mudalal et al., 2015; Chatterjee et al., 2016; Tasoniero et al., 2016; Kuttappan et al., 2017) and verify the adequacy of the samples for the objectives of this study. Table 1. Physical and meat quality characteristics of raw breast fillets (means ± SD). Trait Normal Severe WB Fillet wt. (g) 497 ± 59 523 ± 69 White Striping Score1 1.2 ± 0.3b 2.3 ± 0.6a pH6h 5.92 ± 0.16b 6.07 ± 0.18a Drip Loss % 1.10 ± 0.45b 1.48 ± 0.54a L* 60.4 ± 3.7 59.4 ± 5.0 a* −0.6 ± 0.8b 0.2 ± 1.0a b* 11.5 ± 2.0b 13.2 ± 2.8a Trait Normal Severe WB Fillet wt. (g) 497 ± 59 523 ± 69 White Striping Score1 1.2 ± 0.3b 2.3 ± 0.6a pH6h 5.92 ± 0.16b 6.07 ± 0.18a Drip Loss % 1.10 ± 0.45b 1.48 ± 0.54a L* 60.4 ± 3.7 59.4 ± 5.0 a* −0.6 ± 0.8b 0.2 ± 1.0a b* 11.5 ± 2.0b 13.2 ± 2.8a a,bMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). 1White Striping Score (1 = normal, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). View Large Table 1. Physical and meat quality characteristics of raw breast fillets (means ± SD). Trait Normal Severe WB Fillet wt. (g) 497 ± 59 523 ± 69 White Striping Score1 1.2 ± 0.3b 2.3 ± 0.6a pH6h 5.92 ± 0.16b 6.07 ± 0.18a Drip Loss % 1.10 ± 0.45b 1.48 ± 0.54a L* 60.4 ± 3.7 59.4 ± 5.0 a* −0.6 ± 0.8b 0.2 ± 1.0a b* 11.5 ± 2.0b 13.2 ± 2.8a Trait Normal Severe WB Fillet wt. (g) 497 ± 59 523 ± 69 White Striping Score1 1.2 ± 0.3b 2.3 ± 0.6a pH6h 5.92 ± 0.16b 6.07 ± 0.18a Drip Loss % 1.10 ± 0.45b 1.48 ± 0.54a L* 60.4 ± 3.7 59.4 ± 5.0 a* −0.6 ± 0.8b 0.2 ± 1.0a b* 11.5 ± 2.0b 13.2 ± 2.8a a,bMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). 1White Striping Score (1 = normal, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). View Large The marination performance of normal and WB fillets are shown in Table 2. With regards to marinade uptake, there was a significant interaction (P < 0.001) between WB category and portion. The WB samples exhibited less marinade uptake than normal samples in both fillet portions (P < 0.001), although the absolute difference was greater in the dorsal portions. This is consistent with previous data measured in fillet sub-samples (60 g) from the middle portion of the breast muscle showing that marinade absorption is impaired in WB meat (Mudalal et al., 2015). In all fillets the dorsal portion of the muscle had a much greater marinade uptake than the ventral portion (P < 0.001). Table 2. Marination performance of broiler breast fillet portions (lsmeans, n = 30). Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Marinade Uptake %1 8.4c 19.1a 5.2d 10.8b 0.6 *** *** *** Marinade Retention %2 66.1b 80.6a 47.0c 70.4b 2.2 *** *** ** Final Raw Product Yield %3 105.6c 115.3a 102.4d 107.6b 0.5 *** *** *** Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Marinade Uptake %1 8.4c 19.1a 5.2d 10.8b 0.6 *** *** *** Marinade Retention %2 66.1b 80.6a 47.0c 70.4b 2.2 *** *** ** Final Raw Product Yield %3 105.6c 115.3a 102.4d 107.6b 0.5 *** *** *** a–dMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; NS = not significant. 1Marinade Uptake % = 100 × (post-marination wt—pre-marination wt)/pre-marination wt. 2Marinade Retention % = 100 × (24 h post-marination wt—pre-marination wt)/(post-marination wt—pre-marination wt). 3Final Raw Product Yield % = 100 × 24 h post-marination wt/pre-marination wt. View Large Table 2. Marination performance of broiler breast fillet portions (lsmeans, n = 30). Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Marinade Uptake %1 8.4c 19.1a 5.2d 10.8b 0.6 *** *** *** Marinade Retention %2 66.1b 80.6a 47.0c 70.4b 2.2 *** *** ** Final Raw Product Yield %3 105.6c 115.3a 102.4d 107.6b 0.5 *** *** *** Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Marinade Uptake %1 8.4c 19.1a 5.2d 10.8b 0.6 *** *** *** Marinade Retention %2 66.1b 80.6a 47.0c 70.4b 2.2 *** *** ** Final Raw Product Yield %3 105.6c 115.3a 102.4d 107.6b 0.5 *** *** *** a–dMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; NS = not significant. 1Marinade Uptake % = 100 × (post-marination wt—pre-marination wt)/pre-marination wt. 2Marinade Retention % = 100 × (24 h post-marination wt—pre-marination wt)/(post-marination wt—pre-marination wt). 3Final Raw Product Yield % = 100 × 24 h post-marination wt/pre-marination wt. View Large The effects of fillet portion and WB on marinade retention during 24 h of post-marination cold storage were similar to marinade uptake (Table 2). Portions from normal fillets had greater (P < 0.001) marinade retention than WB samples. In both normal and severe WB samples, the dorsal portions exhibited greater (P < 0.001) marinade retention than the ventral portions. The differences in marinade retention between the dorsal and ventral portions were greater in WB fillets compared to normal fillets. In a previous study, no WB effects were observed regarding the amount of purge loss during 48 h of refrigerated storage post-marination (Mudalal et al., 2015). Differences between studies with regards to marinade retention may be due to variations in muscle sampling, marinade composition, and methodology. Final raw product yield was used as a measure to describe the combined effects of initial marinade absorption and marinade retention upon storage (Table 2). Due to having both a lower marinade uptake and retention, WB samples had a lower (P < 0.001) final raw product yield than normal samples. Similarly, for both WB and normal fillets, the dorsal portions exhibited a greater (P < 0.001) final raw product yield than the ventral portions. The final raw product yield was more closely correlated to marinade uptake (r = 0.97, P < 0.001) than marinade retention (r = 0.71, P < 0.001). These relationships indicated that initial marinade absorption in both normal and WB fillets had a stronger impact on raw product yield than marinade retention during storage. Marinade uptake and retention were slightly better in the dorsal portion of WB fillets than the ventral portion of normal fillets. The poorest overall marination performance was observed in the ventral portion of the WB fillets. Although the WB condition generally impaired overall marination performance, these data suggest that the dorsal portion of WB fillets may be able to achieve more acceptable levels of marination performance and raw product yield. The effects of cooking on non-marinated and marinated breast fillets are shown in Table 3. Marination of breast meat with salt and phosphate is known to increase tissue ionic strength and pH which in turn enhances the ability of the meat to retain water during cooking (Smith and Acton, 2010). This phenomenon can be seen in the reduced cook loss values and increased final cooked product yield in marinated samples compared to non-marinated controls (Table 3). Past studies have shown that the WB condition results in greater cook loss in both fillet sub-samples (Mudalal et al., 2015; Zambonelli et al., 2016) and whole intact fillets (Tasoniero et al., 2016; Sanchez-Brambila et al., 2017). In the current study, there was a significant interaction effect between the WB condition and fillet portion on the cook loss values of marinated samples (P < 0.001) but not the control samples (P = 0.396). Overall, the WB condition increased cook loss in both non-marinated and marinated samples, however, the effects of fillet portion varied. In non-marinated controls, the cook loss was greater in WB samples than normal samples in both the ventral and dorsal portions. In marinated samples, however, the WB condition only increased cook loss in the ventral portion of the fillet. In the marinated dorsal portions, cook loss was similar between normal and WB samples. In the WB fillets, the dorsal portions exhibited greater cook loss than the ventral portions in non-marinated samples. Conversely, in marinated WB samples more cook loss was observed in the ventral portions than the dorsal portions. This is likely due to the greater marinade uptake and retention in the dorsal portions of WB fillets. As expected, the amount of marinade that is absorbed and retained within the breast muscle during processing and storage seemed to play a key role in determining cook loss. A direct comparison of non-marinated and marinated samples using a 3-way ANOVA (data not shown) indicated that the ventral portions of the WB fillets, which had the least marinade uptake, exhibited the lowest reduction in cook loss with marination as compared to the ventral and dorsal portions of normal fillets and the dorsal portion of WB fillets. Table 3. Cooking performance of broiler breast fillet portions (lsmeans, n = 30). Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Treatment Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Cook Loss %1 Control 20.0c 21.8b,c 23.4b 26.9a 2.9 ** * NS Marinated 11.8c 15.9b 22.4a 17.0b 1.8 *** NS *** Final Cooked Control 79.6a 77.7a,b 74.2b,c 73.0c 2.6 *** NS NS Product Yield %2 Marinated 93.1b 97.0a 79.4d 89.3c 1.7 *** *** ** Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Treatment Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Cook Loss %1 Control 20.0c 21.8b,c 23.4b 26.9a 2.9 ** * NS Marinated 11.8c 15.9b 22.4a 17.0b 1.8 *** NS *** Final Cooked Control 79.6a 77.7a,b 74.2b,c 73.0c 2.6 *** NS NS Product Yield %2 Marinated 93.1b 97.0a 79.4d 89.3c 1.7 *** *** ** a–dMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; NS = not significant. 1Cook Loss % = 100 × (pre-cook wt—post-cook wt)/pre-cook wt. 2Final Cooked Product Yield % = 100 × post-cook wt/pre-marination wt. View Large Table 3. Cooking performance of broiler breast fillet portions (lsmeans, n = 30). Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Treatment Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Cook Loss %1 Control 20.0c 21.8b,c 23.4b 26.9a 2.9 ** * NS Marinated 11.8c 15.9b 22.4a 17.0b 1.8 *** NS *** Final Cooked Control 79.6a 77.7a,b 74.2b,c 73.0c 2.6 *** NS NS Product Yield %2 Marinated 93.1b 97.0a 79.4d 89.3c 1.7 *** *** ** Normal Fillets Severe WB Fillets Factor Significance Trait Treatment Ventral Dorsal Ventral Dorsal SEM Category Portion Category × Portion Cook Loss %1 Control 20.0c 21.8b,c 23.4b 26.9a 2.9 ** * NS Marinated 11.8c 15.9b 22.4a 17.0b 1.8 *** NS *** Final Cooked Control 79.6a 77.7a,b 74.2b,c 73.0c 2.6 *** NS NS Product Yield %2 Marinated 93.1b 97.0a 79.4d 89.3c 1.7 *** *** ** a–dMeans within a row lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; NS = not significant. 1Cook Loss % = 100 × (pre-cook wt—post-cook wt)/pre-cook wt. 2Final Cooked Product Yield % = 100 × post-cook wt/pre-marination wt. View Large Final cooked product yield was used as a measure to describe the combined effects of the marination, overnight cold storage, and cooking performance of the breast fillet portions (Table 3). Correlation analysis revealed that final cooked product yield was more closely related to cook loss (r = −0.85, P < 0.001) than marinade uptake (r = 0.51, P < 0.001) and retention (r = 0.52, P < 0.001). In non-marinated controls, final cooked product yield was greater (P < 0.001) in normal samples than WB samples, but it was not influenced by fillet portion (P = 0.238). In marinated samples there was an interaction between the WB condition and fillet portion (P = 0.006). In both the ventral and dorsal fillet portions, the WB samples had significantly lower product yield than normal samples. For all fillets, the dorsal portion exhibited greater cooked product yield than the ventral portion. However, the difference between the fillet portions was more extreme in the WB samples. In order to minimize potential portion size effects on marination and cooking performance, normal fillets similar in size to WB fillets were selected for use in this study. As shown in Table 1, intact WB fillets were on average slightly heavier than normal fillets (523 g vs. 497 g) but the difference was not significant (P = 0.102). After horizontally portioning the breast muscles, average portion weights were similar between normal and WB samples (245 ± 36 g and 257 ± 50 g, respectively). Average weights of the ventral and dorsal fillet portions were also similar (240 ± 44 g and 262 ± 41 g, respectively). Correlation analysis was conducted to investigate potential relationships between technological quality attributes and sample weights. Only the pre-marination weights of the dorsal portions were found to be significantly correlated to marinade uptake (r = −0.62, P < 0.001) and retention (r = −0.30, P = 0.02) percentages. Ventral portion weights were not significantly correlated to marination performance. Across all samples (normal and WB, ventral and dorsal), final raw and cooked product yields were not significantly correlated with sample weight. Thus, it was concluded that over the range of sample types and sizes used in this study, sample weights had minimal impact on marination and cooking performance. The reduced technological quality of WB fillets in this study was likely due to alterations in the proximate chemical composition of the muscle tissue due to the myopathy. Past research has shown that WB meat exhibits increased fat and connective tissue content and reduced muscle protein content (Soglia et al., 2016a, b). Myofibrillar proteins play a key role in the ability of muscle to bind water, and their reduced content in WB meat likely accounts for the reduced salt-induced water uptake observed in WB meat (Bowker et al., 2016). In all fillets (normal and WB), marination uptake and retention were greater in the dorsal portions of the fillets. This was likely a result of the dorsal portions having greater areas of exposed muscle fibers than the ventral portions due to the deboning and portioning procedures creating two cut surfaces. The ventral portions, on the other hand, only had a single cut muscle surface due to the horizontal portioning and the skin-side of the portion was covered by the epimysium which likely impaired marinade absorption. Previous research reported that marinade was more readily absorbed through the exposed dorsal surfaces of boneless turkey breast meat than the epimysium covered ventral surfaces of the meat during vacuum-tumbling (Bowker et al., 2010). In this study, the negative effects of the WB myopathy on marination performance were more severe on the ventral portions of the fillets. Altered surface properties on the skin-side of WB fillets may have contributed to the intramuscular location effects observed in this study. This is consistent with previous observations that the myopathic lesions associated with WB are more evident on the ventral surface of the breast muscle (Clark and Velleman, 2016). The ventral surface of Pectoralis major muscles with the WB myopathy typically exhibit hardened areas, white striations, petechial hemorrhages, viscous material, and increased deposition of loose connective tissue (Sihvo et al., 2014; Soglia et al., 2016b). Morphological tissue imaging data suggest that broiler breast fillets with the WB condition may even have a slightly thicker epimysial connective tissue layer on the ventral surface of the muscle (Yoon et al., 2016). Thus, altered muscle surface characteristics may have further impaired the ability of the ventral portion of WB fillets to take up and retain marinade. CONCLUSION Data from this study demonstrate that the WB myopathy impairs technological meat quality throughout the Pectoralis major muscle. Overall the WB condition decreases marinade uptake and retention and increases cook loss in both the dorsal and ventral portions of the breast fillet. However, intramuscular location plays a key role in both marination and cooking performance in portioned breast fillets as these properties are not uniform throughout the Pectoralis major muscle. In WB fillets, the negative effects of the myopathy on marination uptake and retention seem to be less severe in the dorsal portion. Even in normal fillets without WB, raw and cooked product yields are greater in the dorsal portions of the muscles. These data suggest that breast fillet portioning and portion specific marination strategies may potentially be useful to help manage processing and meat quality problems associated with the WB condition and to improve product uniformity in broiler breast fillets. Notes The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the United States Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. REFERENCES Bowker B. C. , Callahan J. A. , Solomon M. B. . 2010 . Effects of hydrodynamic pressure processing on the marination and meat quality of turkey breasts . Poult. Sci. 89 : 1744 – 1749 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Bowker B. C. , Zhuang H. . 2016 . Impact of white striping on functionality attributes of broiler breast meat . Poult. Sci. 95 : 1957 – 1965 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Bowker B. , Zhuang H. , Barton E. , Alvarez-Manilla Sanchez J. . 2016 . White striping and wooden breast defects influence meat quality and muscle protein characteristic in broiler breast meat . Proc. 62nd Int. Cong. Meat Sci. Tech . Bangkok, Thailand . August 14–19, 2016 . 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 condition . Poult. Sci. 95 : 2449 – 2454 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Clark D. L. , Velleman S. G. . 2016 . Spatial influence on breast muscle morphological structure, myofiber size, and gene expression associated with the wooden breast myopathy in broilers . Poult. Sci. 95 : 2930 – 2945 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Kuttappan V. A. , Lee Y. S. , Erf G. F. , Meullenet J. F. C. , McKee S. R. , Owens C. M. . 2012 . Consumer acceptance of visual appearance of broiler breast meat with varying degrees of white striping . Poult. Sci. 91 : 1240 – 1247 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Kuttappan V. A. , Owens C. M. , Coon C. , Hargis B. M. , Vazquez-Anon 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 Mudalal S. , Lorenzi M. , Soglia F. , Cavani C. , Petracci M. . 2015 . Implications of white striping and wooden breast abnormalities on quality traits of raw and marinated chicken meat . Animal 9 : 728 – 734 . 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 condition . Poult. Sci. 96 : 3489 – 3494 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 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 Smith D. P. , Acton J. C. . 2010 . Marination, cooking, and curing of poultry products . Pages 311 – 336 in Poultry Meat Processing , 2nd Edition . Owens C. M. , Alvarado C. Z. , Sams A. R. , eds. CRC Press , Boca Raton, FL . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Soglia F. , Laghi L. , Canonico L. , Cavani C. , Petracci M. . 2016a . Functional property issues in broiler breast meat related to emerging muscle abnormalities . Food Res. Int. 89 : 1071 – 1076 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Soglia F. , Mudalal S. , Babini E. , Di Nunzio M. , Mazzoni M. , Sirri F. , Cavani C. , Petracci M. . 2016b . Histology, composition, and quality traits of chicken pectoralis major muscle affected by wooden breast abnormality . Poult. Sci. 95 : 651 – 659 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Tasoniero G. , Cullere M. , Cecchinato M. , Puolanne E. , Dalle Zotte A. . 2016 . Technological quality, mineral profile, and sensory attributes of broiler chicken breasts affected by white striping and wooden breast myopathies . Poult. Sci. 95 : 2707 – 2714 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 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. 95 : 2167 – 2173 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Yoon S. C. , Bowker B. C. , Zhuang H. . 2016 . Toward a fusion of optical coherence tomography and hyperspectral imaging for poultry meat quality assessment . Electronic Imaging. Image Processing: Machine Vision Applications IX , pp. 1 – 5 . Available at https://doi.org/10.2352/ISSN.2470-1173.2016.14.IPMVA-380 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Zambonelli P. , Zappaterra M. , Soglia F. , Petracci M. , Sirri F. , Cavani C. , Davoli R. . 2016 . Detection of differentially expressed genes in broiler pectoralis major muscle affected by White Striping – Wooden Breast myopathies . Poult. Sci. 95 : 2771 – 2785 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Poultry Science Association 2018. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

Journal

Poultry ScienceOxford University Press

Published: Jul 11, 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