Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Estimation of Sensory Pork Loin Tenderness Using Warner-Bratzler Shear Force and Texture Profile Analysis Measurements

  • Choe, Jee-Hwan (Division of Food Bioscience and Technology, College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University) ;
  • Choi, Mi-Hee (Division of Food Bioscience and Technology, College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University) ;
  • Rhee, Min-Suk (Division of Food Bioscience and Technology, College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Byoung-Chul (Division of Food Bioscience and Technology, College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University)
  • Received : 2015.06.02
  • Accepted : 2015.09.10
  • Published : 2016.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigated the degree to which instrumental measurements explain the variation in pork loin tenderness as assessed by the sensory evaluation of trained panelists. Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBS) had a significant relationship with the sensory tenderness variables, such as softness, initial tenderness, chewiness, and rate of breakdown. In a regression analysis, WBS could account variations in these sensory variables, though only to a limited proportion of variation. On the other hand, three parameters from texture profile analysis (TPA)-hardness, gumminess, and chewiness-were significantly correlated with all sensory evaluation variables. In particular, from the result of stepwise regression analysis, TPA hardness alone explained over 15% of variation in all sensory evaluation variables, with the exception of perceptible residue. Based on these results, TPA analysis was found to be better than WBS measurement, with the TPA parameter hardness likely to prove particularly useful, in terms of predicting pork loin tenderness as rated by trained panelists. However, sensory evaluation should be conducted to investigate practical pork tenderness perceived by consumer, because both instrumental measurements could explain only a small portion (less than 20%) of the variability in sensory evaluation.

Keywords

References

  1. Aaslying, M. D., C. Bejerholm, P. Ertbjerg, H. C. Bertan, and H. J. Andersen. 2003. Cooking loss and juiciness of pork in relation to raw meat quality and cooking procedure. Food Qual. Prefer. 14:277-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00086-1
  2. Aberle, E. D. 2001. Principles of Meat Science. 4th edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA, USA.
  3. AMSA. 1995. Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation, and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Fresh Meat American Meat Science Association in cooperation with National Livestock and Meatboard. Chicago, IL, USA.
  4. Becker, T. 2000. Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis. Br. Food J. 102:158-176. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700010371707
  5. Bindon, B. M. and N. M. Jones. 2001. Cattle supply, production systems and markets for Australian beef. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 41:861-877. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA01052
  6. Boleman, S. J., S. L. Boleman, R. K. Miller, J. F. Taylor, H. R. Cross, T. L. Wheeler, M. Koohmaraie, S. D. Shackelford, M. F. Miller, R. L. West, D. D. Johnson, and J. W. Savell. 1997. Consumer evaluation of beef of known categories of tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 75:1521-1524. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.7561521x
  7. Bourne, M. C. 1978. Texture profile analysis. Food Technol. 32:62-66.
  8. Caine, W. R., J. L. Aalhus, D. R. Best, M. E. R. Dugan, and L. E. Jeremiah. 2003. Relationship of texture profile analysis and Warner-Bratzler shear force with sensory characteristics of beef rib steaks. Meat Sci. 64:333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00110-9
  9. Combes, S., J. Lepetit, B. Darche, and F. Lebas. 2004. Effect of cooking temperature and cooking time on Warner-Bratzler tenderness measurement and collagen content in rabbit meat. Meat Sci. 66:91-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00019-6
  10. Culioli, J. 1995. Meat tenderness: mechanical assessment. In: Expression of Tissue Proteinases and Regulation of Protein Degradation as Related Meat Quality (Eds. A. Ouali, D. I. Demeyer, and F. J. M. Smulders). ECCEAMST, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  11. de Huidobro, F. R., E. Miguel, B. Blazquez, and E. Onega. 2005. A comparison between two methods (Warner-Bratzler and texture profile analysis) for testing either raw meat or cooked meat. Meat Sci. 69:527-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.09.008
  12. Destefanis, G., A. Brugiapaglia, M. T. Barge, and E. Dal Molin. 2008. Relationship between beef consumer tenderness perception and Warner-Bratzler shear force. Meat Sci. 78:153-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.05.031
  13. Dzudie, T., R. Ndjouenkeu, and A. Okubanjo. 2000. Effect of cooking methods and rigor state on the composition, tenderness and eating quality of cured goat loins. J. Food Eng. 44:149-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-8774(99)00173-9
  14. Fortin, A., W. M. Robertson, and A. K. W. Tong. 2005. The eating quality of Canadian pork and its relationship with intramuscular fat. Meat Sci. 69:297-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.011
  15. Glitsch, K. 2000. Consumer perceptions of fresh meat quality: cross-national comparison. Br. Food J. 102:177-194. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700010332278
  16. Hansen, S., T. Hansen, M. D. Aaslying, and D. V. Byrne. 2004. Sensory and instrumental analysis of longitudinal and transverse textural variation in pork longissimus dorsi. Meat Sci. 68:611-629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.05.013
  17. Huff-Lonergan, E., T. J. Baas, M. Malek, J. C. Dekkers, K. Prusa, and M. F. Rothschild. 2002. Correlations among selected pork quality traits. J. Anim. Sci. 80:617-627. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.803617x
  18. Honikel, K. O. 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Sci. 49:447-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00034-5
  19. Jeremiah, L. E. 1982. A review of factors influencing consumption, selection and acceptability of meat purchases. J. Consum. Stud. Home Econ. 6:137-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.1982.tb00593.x
  20. Larmond, E. 1976. Texture measurement in meat by sensory evalution. J. Texture Stud. 7:87-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.1976.tb01384.x
  21. Lawrie, R. A. and D. A. Ledward. 2006. Lawrie's Meat Science. 7th edn. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, Cambridge, UK.
  22. Lee, S. H., J. H. Choe, Y. M. Choi, K. C. Jung, M. S. Rhee, K. C. Hong, S. K. Lee, Y. C. Ryu, and B. C. Kim. 2012. The influence of pork quality traits and muscle fiber characteristics on the eating quality of pork from various breeds. Meat Sci. 90:284-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.07.012
  23. Maltin, C., D. Balcerzak, R. Tilley, and M. Delday. 2003. Determinants of meat quality: tenderness. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 62:337-347. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2003248
  24. Maltin, C. A., C. C. Warkup, K. R. Matthews, C. M. Grant, A. D. Porter, and M. I. Delday. 1997. Pig muscle fibre characteristics as a source of variation in eating quality. Meat Sci. 47:237-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(97)00055-7
  25. Obuz, E., M. E. Dikeman, and T. M. Loughin. 2003. Effects of cooking method, reheating, holding time, and holding temperature on beef longissimus lumborum and biceps femoris tenderness. Meat Sci. 65:841-851. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00289-9
  26. Peachey, B. M., R. W. Purchas, and L. M. Duizer. 2002. Relationships between sensory and objective measures of meat tenderness of beef m. longissimus thoracis from bulls and steers. Meat Sci. 60:211-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00123-1
  27. Platter, W. J., J. D. Tatum, K. E. Belk, P. L. Chapman, J. A. Scanga, and G. C. Smith. 2003. Relationships of consumer sensory ratings, marbling score, and shear force value to consumer acceptance of beef strip loin steaks. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2741-2750. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.81112741x
  28. SAS. 2013. SAS 9.4 SQL Procedure User's Guide SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
  29. Shackelford, S. D., T. L. Wheeler, and M. Koohmaraie. 1995. Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73:3333-3340. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73113333x
  30. Shackelford, S. D., T. L. Wheeler, and M. Koohmaraie. 1999. Evaluation of slice shear force as an objective method of assessing beef longissimus tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 77:2693-2699. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.77102693x
  31. Tarrant, P. V. 1998. Some recent advances and future priorities in research for the meat industry. Meat Sci. 49:S1-S16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)90035-3
  32. van der Wal, P. G., B. Engel, and B. Hulsegge. 1997. Causes for variation in pork quality. Meat Sci. 46:319-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(97)00026-0
  33. van Oeckel, M. J. and N. Warnants. 2003. Variation of the sensory quality within the m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum of PSE and normal pork. Meat Sci. 63:293-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00085-2
  34. Warner, R. D., P. L. Greenwood, D. W. Pethick, and D. M. Ferguson. 2010. Genetic and environmental effects on meat quality. Meat Sci. 86:171-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.042
  35. Warriss. 2010. Meat Science: An Intoroductory Text. 2nd edn. CABI, Wallingford, UK.
  36. Wheeler, T. L., S. D. Shackelford, L. P. Johnson, M. F. Miller, R. K. Miller, and M. Koohmaraie. 1997. A comparison of Warner-Bratzler shear force assessment within and among institutions. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2423-2432. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.7592423x
  37. Wood, J. D., G. R. Nute, R. I. Richardson, F. M. Whittington, O. Southwood, G. Plastow, R. Mansbridge, N. da Costa, and K. C. Chang. 2004. Effects of breed, diet and muscle on fat deposition and eating quality in pigs. Meat Sci. 67:651-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.01.007

Cited by

  1. The effect of selected methods of heat treatment on the chemical composition, colour and texture parameters of longissimus dorsi muscle of wild boars vol.17, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2019.1603172
  2. Ultrasound as a potential process to tenderize beef: Sensory and technological parameters vol.53, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.12.045
  3. Improving growth performance and blood profile by feeding autolyzed yeast to improve pork carcass and meat quality vol.92, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13666
  4. Effects of marbling on physical and sensory characteristics of ribeye steaks from four different cattle breeds vol.34, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.20.0201
  5. Changes in the quality of pork loin after short-term (ten-day) storage in a supercooling refrigerator vol.63, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e67
  6. Relationship between masticatory variables and bolus characteristics of meat with different textures vol.52, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12629