MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4249247857 · doi:10.22175/mmb.10825

Quality Differences in Wooden Breast Meat Marinated with Commercial Ingredients

2019· article· en· W4249247857 sur OpenAlexaff
Tessa Jarvis, M. D. Byron, M. E. Von Staden, Courtney Crist, M. Wes Schilling, X. Zhang, C. W. Rowe, B. Holly Smith

Notice bibliographique

RevueMeat and Muscle Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Établissements canadiensSmiths Detection (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBroilerRandomized block designChicken breastPectoralis major muscleMarinationFood scienceMedicineChemistryBiologyHorticultureSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ObjectivesWooden breast (WB) is a Pectoralis major muscle myopathy that impacts the quality of broiler breast meat, which is a current significant challenge for the poultry industry. While WB has been thoroughly researched in recent years, there has not been a resolution to this issue. Therefore, it is necessary to explore potential solutions to mitigate the undesirable characteristics of WB. The objective of this research was to evaluate differences in quality between chicken breasts classified as normal (NOR), moderately woody (MOD), and severely woody (SEV) that were marinated with control (water), traditional (sodium phosphate and salt), or clean label (potassium carbonate and salt) marinades.Materials and MethodsChicken breasts from broilers were graded NOR, MOD, SEV based on the severity of WB. Breasts were sized to 30 ± 2 mm to control variability in breast thickness. Three separate treatment marinades were applied to 40 lb batches of each WB severity 24 h postmortem. Treatments were tumbled for 30 min at 12 rpm under vacuum (20–25 mmHg). Tumble yields were measured. The breasts were individually frozen in a CO2 cabinet to –62.2°C and stored at –17.8°C. A 3 × 3 factorial structure within a randomized complete block design with 3 replications of 40 lbs (Day 1, Day 2, Day 3) were used to evaluate the impact of marinade (control, traditional, clean label) and WB severity (NOR, MOD, SEV) on tumble yields. Similarly, a 2 × 3 factorial structure was used to analyze the effect of marinade (traditional and clean label) and WB severity (NOR, MOD, SEV) on sensory attributes.ResultsWhen averaged over WB severity, the clean label marinade had a greater tumble yield (P < 0.05) than the traditional marinade. When averaged over marinade, the NOR had a greater tumble yield (P < 0.05) than the MOD and SEV treatments, which did not differ from each other (P > 0.05).Descriptive sensory results revealed that both marinated SEV were crunchier and less tender (P < 0.05) than MOD and NOR, and MOD was less tender (P < 0.05) than NOR. The clean SEV was chewier (P < 0.05) than all MOD and NOR treatments, but the traditional SEV was only chewier (P < 0.05) than the NOR. Interaction was significant (P < 0.05) for mushy, initial juiciness, and overall juiciness. These attributes differed (P < 0.05) for WB severity but not marinade treatment. When averaged over marinade, NOR was mushier than the MOD, which was mushier than the SEV, and the SEV and MOD were juicier than NOR.Consumer acceptability results indicated that clean and traditional SEV were less acceptable (P < 0.05) than MOD and traditional NOR; no difference (P > 0.05) existed between MOD and NOR for both marinades. In addition, when averaging over WB severity, the traditional marinade was preferred (P < 0.05) over the clean label marinade. Thus, differences in WB severities were more apparent in the clean label than the traditional marinade, which indicates that even though the clean label samples were tender, it may not be advisable to utilize that marinade formulation in place of traditional marinades with SEV woody breast meat.ConclusionThe use of salt and sodium phosphate or potassium carbonate in a marinade improves eating quality characteristics of MOD and SEV woody breast. However, differences remain between NOR and SEV in tenderness, gumminess and crunchiness that negatively impact the consumer acceptability of broiler breast meat.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,100
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,419

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,239
Écart entre enseignants0,211 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMeat and Muscle BiologyMême sujetAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyTravaux en français237 207