Sensory and Instrument-Measured Ground Chicken Meat Color
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sensory and Instrument-Measured Ground Chicken Meat Color C. L. SANDUSKY1 and J. L. HEATH2 Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742 ABSTRACT Instrument values were compared to scores were compared using each of the backgrounds. sensory perception of ground breast and thigh meat The sensory panel did not detect differences in yellow- color. Different patty thicknesses (0.5, 1.5, and 2.0) and ness found by the instrument when samples on white background colors (white, pink, green, and gray), and pink backgrounds were compared to samples on previously found to cause differences in instrument- green and gray backgrounds. A majority of panelists (84 measured color, were used. Sensory descriptive analysis of 85) preferred samples on white or pink backgrounds. scores for lightness, hue, and chroma were compared to Red color of breast patties was associated with fresh- instrument-measured L* values, hue, and chroma. ness. Sensory ordinal rank scores for lightness, redness, and Reflective lighting was compared to transmission yellowness were compared to instrument-generated L*, lighting using patties of different thicknesses. Sensory a*, and b* values. Sensory descriptive analysis scores evaluation detected no differences in lightness due to and instrument values agreed in two of six comparisons breast patty thickness when reflective lighting was used. using breast and thigh patties. They agreed when thigh Increased thickness caused the patties to appear darker hue and chroma were measured. Sensory ordinal rank when transmission lighting was used. Decreased trans- scores were different from instrument color values in the mission lighting penetrating the sample made the patties ability to detect color changes caused by white, pink, appear more red. Reflective lighting made thigh patties green, and gray background colors. Instrument values appear lighter. Lightness decreased when thigh patty agreed with sensory scores for lightness only when thickness increased with both reflective and transmis- white and pink backgrounds were used. Instrument and sion lighting. Transmission lighting made the thigh sensory methods agreed when a* values and redness patties appear more yellow as patty thickness increased. (Key words: color, breast, thigh, sensory evaluation, sample thickness) 1998 Poultry Science 77:481±486 INTRODUCTION No research was found that compared sensory evaluation to instrument-measured ground chicken Ground chicken meat color is subject to critical meat color. Most of the ground meat color research has appraisal in the processing plant and is important in been done using red meat and pork. Research on retail sales. The effect of reflectance and transmission ground meat from other species indicated that color is lighting on product appearance are important in deter- perhaps the most important influence in consumer mining product display and marketing strategies. Sen- decision-making regarding acceptability of fresh meat sory evaluation is the best method of measuring products for consumption (Brewer and Harbers, 1991; consumer response to product color but it is slow and Hunt et al., 1993). Lynch et al. (1986) reported that 74% of requires a large investment in people and facilities. consumers indicated that color was important in ground Efficient, cost-effective, and highly sensitive instrumen- meat purchase decisions. Mugler and Cunningham tation is available to measure color and is often used (1972) reviewed factors affecting poultry meat color, instead of sensory measurement. Sensory perception of including sex, age, strain, processing procedures, chemi- color is multidimensional and may be difficult to cals, cooking, irradiation, and freezing. Patty thickness, measure with an instrument. Instrument-measured color background color, and tissue type also affect instrument must accurately predict sensory response to be useful in measured ground chicken meat color (Sandusky and most quality and all consumer preference evaluations. Heath, 1996). The first objective of the present studies was to determine whether instrument-measured color of Received for publication June 5, 1997. ground chicken meat would predict color differences Accepted for publication October 20, 1997. perceived by a sensory panel. The second objective was 1Present address: Protein Technologies International, Annapolis, to compare the effect of reflective and transmission MD 21401. 2 To whom correspondence should be addressed: lighting on sensory evaluation of ground chicken meat [email protected] color. 481 482 SANDUSKY AND HEATH MATERIALS AND METHODS Descriptive analysis was chosen as one sensory method used to measure patty color. This method has been used to Broiler chicken breast and thigh meat were obtained determine how specific product differences are related to from a commercial processing plant immediately after differences in instrumental measures (Stone et al., 1974). A deboning. Fresh breast and thigh meat were obtained for 15-cm line scale (Anderson, 1970) with two descriptive each study and each replication within a study. The anchors as described in the spectrum descriptive proce- Pectoralis superficialis, Illiotibialis, and Quadraceps femoris dure (Meilgaard et al. 1991) was used. A middle anchor muscles were used to prepare breast and thigh meat was not used on the line scale because its use has been patties as described by Sandusky and Heath (1996). The reported to increase variability in panel response by 10 to ground tissue was mixed thoroughly and the patties 15% (Stone and Sidel, 1985). Panelists were not told that were randomly assigned to treatments to randomize the scale had numerical context because this could induce possible differences due to preparation. bias (Stone and Sidel, 1985). Panelists were asked to make a vertical line across the horizontal line scale at the point Instrument Color Measurement that best represented the relative intensity or hue of a particular sample. The distance of the panelist's mark Color measurements were made with a Model CS-53 from the left anchor was measured and converted to dual beam scanning spectrophotometer as described by percentage of line length to obtain a numerical value for Sandusky and Heath (1996). Instrument calculated repeat- statistical analysis. Red and yellow anchors were used to ± ± ability and accuracy of data were 0.05 and 0.3 nm, measure hue. Previous work (Sandusky and Heath, 1996) respectively. Specular reflectance was included in the showed that instrument measured hue angles for ground instruments program and added approximately 4% to the chicken meat were in the quadrant bordered by the red percentage reflectance of the sample at any wavelength. and yellow axes of the color space model. Light and dark Illuminant F representing three band fluorescent with a anchors were used to measure lightness and dull and color temperature of 4,200 K was used as the light source. bright anchors were used to measure chroma. Hunter4 standard white (6550), pink (6551), green (6552), Ordinal ranking was another sensory method used to and gray (6555) tiles were used to provide background measure color. Ordinal ranking measures perceived color for the samples during measurement. The CIELAB intensities of product color and works well within the color space model (CIE, 1978) was chosen to numerically cognitive limits of most panelists. Samples were ranked describe color. L* (lightness) describes the relationship from least to most using the numbers 1 to 4 (Meilgaard et between reflected and absorbed light, without regard to al., 1991). Patty lightness, redness, and yellowness were specific wavelength. Positive a* values are red and evaluated using this procedure. In addition to ranking the negative a* values are green. Positive b* values are yellow samples, panelists were asked which sample they and negative b* values are blue. Chroma is a measure of preferred and they were asked to write descriptive color saturation and hue is the color angle (CIE, 1978). comments on the evaluation form. Samples were evalu- ated by the panelists in a specific order randomly selected Sensory Panel Evaluation by the researchers. Panelists were required to demonstrate normal color Study 1 vision as suggested by Billmeyer and Saltzman (1981). Normal color vision was defined as the ability to Sensory measurement of hue, lightness, and chroma discriminate between red, green, blue, and yellow colors using descriptive color analysis was compared to and the ability to sort colored samples into a regular series instrument-measured hue, L*, and chroma. Patty thick- involving a gradual change in hue. Panelist were trained nesses of 0.5, 1.5, and 2.0 cm were used to provide breast in the Munsell hue, value, and chroma order system and thigh samples that produced statistically different (Munsell, 1963) to reduce observer variability within a instrument values in previous research (Sandusky and group with normal color vision (Billmeyer and Saltzman, Heath, 1996). Each of the 10 to 12 panelist evaluated the 1980). Panelists were given a verbal explanation of the color of each patty (three thicknesses) three times for a definition of hue, value, and chroma and a Munsell total of nine observations per panelist for each tissue type teaching chart was used to help panelists visually (breast and thigh). Breast and thigh patties were tested differentiate color (hue), shades (value), and intensity separately to avoid color bias. Patties were placed on a (chroma). After the