Share This Article:

Sensory analysis of Creole turkey meat with flash profile method

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:486KB) PP. 1-10
DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2012.21001    5,364 Downloads   11,128 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Different kind of feed can result in development of new meat odors, aroma and texture. The aim of the study was to use flash profile method to determine differences; if any, in sensory traits of Creole turkey meat with different alimentation programs. Treatments were kitchen leftovers + fresh forage, commercial feed, kitchen leftovers, commercial feed + fresh forage, and broken maize + fresh forage. Cooked thighs, drumstick and breast were used. For the meat evaluation two different groups of people were recruited. In order to perform the sensory profile of breast six persons were recruited, in a second group nine persons; in both cases they did not know what kind of meat they were evaluating. Each sensory profile had three replicas, previously three training sessions and establishment of sensory attributes criteria were held. Attribute discrimination was evaluated one-way ANOVA. To obtain consensus and treatment mean position, attributes of the subjects a Generalized Procrustes Analysis was used and comparison of treatments through an ascendant hierarchy classification. Thirty five different sensory descriptive were generated. There were differences in meat sensory profile, it can be said that different treatments influenced in different ways the muscle development of Creole turkey, creating new sensory attributes.

Cite this paper

Ramírez-Rivera, E. , Camacho-Escobar, M. , García-López, J. , Reyes-Borques, V. and Rodríguez-Delatorre, M. (2012) Sensory analysis of Creole turkey meat with flash profile method. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 2, 1-10. doi: 10.4236/ojas.2012.21001.

References

[1] Camacho-Escobar E.M.A., Lira, T.I., Ramírez, C.L., López, P.R. and Arcos, G.J.L. (2006) La avicultura de traspatio en la Costa de Oaxaca, México. Revista Ciencia y Mar, 10, 3-11.
[2] Hernández, S.V. (2006) Evaluación de los factores socioculturales, económicos y productivos de la crianza del guajolote doméstico en la región Costa de Oaxaca. Informe Final de Servicio Social Legal, Licenciatura en Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
[3] Poste, L.M. (1990) A sensory perspective of effects on flavor in meats: Poultry meats. Journal of Animal Science, 68, 4414-4420.
[4] Lyon, B., Smith, D., Lyon, C. and Savage, E. (2004) Effects of diet and fee withdrawal on the sensory descriptive and instrumental profiles of boiler breast fillets. Poultry Science, 83, 275-281.
[5] Chartrin, P., Méteau, K., Juin, H., Bernardet, M.D., Guy, G., Larzul, C., Remignon, H., Mourot, J., Duclos, M.J. and Baéza, E. (2006) Effects of intramuscular fat levels on sensory characteristics of duck breast meat. Poultry Science, 85, 914-922.
[6] DeLa Rue, J. and Siefferman, J. (2003) Sensory mapping using profile flash. Comparison with conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of flavor of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and Preferences, 15, 383-389. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00085-5
[7] Cairncross, S.E. and Sjostrom, L.B. (1950) Flavor profiles—A new approach to flavor problems. Food Technology, 4, 308-311.
[8] Brandt, M.A., Skuber, E. and Coleman, J. (1963) Texture profile method. Journal of Food Science, 28, 404-410. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1963.tb00218.x
[9] Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woosley, A. and Singleton, R.C. (1974) Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology, 28, 24-34.
[10] Meilgaard, M., Civille, G.V. and Carr, B.T. (1999) Sensory evaluation techniques. 3rd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton. doi:10.1201/9781439832271
[11] Williams, A.A. and Arnold, G.M. (1985) A comparison of the aromas of 6 coffees characterized by conventional profiling, free-choice profiling, and similarity scaling methods. Journal of Sciences in Food Agriculture, 36, 204-214. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740360311
[12] Gower, C.J. (1975) Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33-51. doi:10.1007/BF02291478
[13] Qammari, M.E., Courcoux, P.H., Lejeune, M. and Maystre, O. (1997) Comparaison de trois de determina- tion d’ un compromis en évaluation sensorielle. Revue de Statisque Appliquée, 45, 61-74.
[14] Tarea, S., Civelier, G. and Sieffermann, J.M. (2007) Sensory Evaluation or the Texture of 49 Commercial Apple and Pear Purees. Journal of Food Quality, 30, 1121-1131. doi:10.1111/j.1745-4557.2007.00174.x
[15] Lassoued, N., DeLa Rue, J., Launay, B. and Michon, C. (2008) Baked product texture: Correlations instrumental and sensory characterization using Flash profile. Journal of Cereal Science, 48, 133-143. doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2007.08.014
[16] Camacho-Escobar, M.A., Hernández-Sánchez, V., Ramí- rez-Cancino, L., Sánchez-Bernal, E.I. and Arroyo-Le- dezma, J. (2008) Characterization of backyard guajolotes (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) in tropical zones of Mexico. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 20, Article #50. http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd20/4/cama20050.htm
[17] Fortín, J. and Desplancke, C. (2001) Guía de selección y entrenamiento de un panel de catadores. ACRIBIA, Espa?a.
[18] Dairou, V. and Sieffermann, J.M. (2002) A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the Flash profile. Journal of Food Science, 67, 826-834. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb10685.x
[19] Nogueira, H., Tinet, C., Curt, C. Trystram, G. and Hossenlop, J. (2006) Using the internet for descriptive sensory analysis: Formation, training and follow-up a taste-test panel over the web. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 180-202. doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00060.x
[20] Statgraphics plus Software Version 5.1. (1994) Statistical Graphics Corporation, Warrenton, VA.
[21] XLSTAT? for Microsoft Excel? version 7.5. (2005) Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Washington DC.
[22] Sheldon, B.W., Curtis, P.A., Dawson, P.L. and Ferket, P.R. (1997) Effect of dietary vitamin E on the oxidative stability, flavor, color, and volatile profiles of refrigerated and frozen turkey breast meat. Poultry Science, 76, 634-341.
[23] Ruiz, J.A., Guerrero, L., Arnau, J., Guardia, M.D. and Esteve-García, E. (2001) Descriptive sensory analysis of meat from broilers fed diets containing vitamin E or β-carotene as antioxidants and different supplemental fats. Poultry Science, 80, 976-982.
[24] Salmon, R.E., Stevens, V.I., Poste, L.M., Agar, V. and Butler, G. (1988) Effect of roasting breast up or breast down and dietary canola meal on the sensory quality of turkeys. Poultry Science, 67, 680.
[25] Savage, T.F., Nakaue, H.S., Holmes Z.A. and Taylor, T.M. (1986) Feeding value of yellow peas (Pisum sativum L. Variety Miranda) in market turkeys and sensory evaluation of carcasses. Poultry Science, 65, 1383.
[26] Savage, T.F., Nakaue, H.S. and Holmes, Z.A. (1985) Effects of feeding live yeast culture on market turkey performance and cooked meat characteristics. Nutrition Reports International, 31, 695-703.
[27] Savage, T.F., Holmes, Z.A., Nilipour, A.H. and Nakaue, H.S. (1987) Evaluation of cooked breast meat from male turkeys fed diets containing varying amounts of triticale, variety flora. Poultry Science, 66, 450.
[28] Reyes, B.V., Rodríguez delaT.M., Ramírez, R.E.J., Franco, Z.D. and Camacho-Escobar, M.A. (2009-2010) Smartketing sensorial, elemento estratégico para generar valor agregado a la meleagricultura de traspatio. Ciencias Agrícolas Informa, 19, 62-66.
[29] Poole, G.H., Lyon, C.E., Buhr, R.J., Young, L.L., Alley, A., Hess, J.B., Bilgili, S.F. and Northcutt, J.K. (1999) Evaluation of age, gender, strain, and diet on the cooked yield and shear values of broilers breast fillets. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 8, 170-176.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2017 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.