No abstract

ObjectivesMeat color is the most important quality attribute that influences consumer purchase decisions. Monitoring color to maximize shelf life and consumer acceptability is routinely used in meat science research. The HunterLab MiniScan EZ (HunterLab) colorimeter is the widely used industry standard for objectively measuring meat color. This device can collect tristimulus values of CIE L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b* (yellowness) for color measurements based on the light reflectance from the meat surface. While the HunterLab colorimeter serves as an accurate measure of meat color, it is relatively expensive and bulky. The Nix Pro Color Sensor (Nix) colorimeter is a less expensive and smaller handheld device that can capture the CIE L*, a*, b* values which can be downloaded to a smartphone app. However, limited research has been performed to compare the efficiency of these colorimeters for measuring beef color. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the capabilities of the Nix colorimeter as an additional resource for objective fresh beef color measurements.Materials and MethodsThe longissimus dorsi muscle from one side of A maturity beef carcasses (n = 200) were evaluated using the HunterLab and Nix colorimeters. Carcasses were allowed approximately 1 h to bloom after being ribbed (between the 12th and 13th rib) prior to color measurements. Three (technical replicate) scans were obtained using the HunterLab colorimeter (illuminant A and 10° standard observer) and the mean readings were recorded. A series of independent technical replication (3, 5, 7, and 9) scans were obtained using the Nix colorimeter with illuminant A and 10° standard observer as well. The differences in color measurements between colorimeters were analyzed by using the Bland Altman Limits of Agreement and CORR (correlation) procedure of SAS with α < 0.05.ResultsCorrelation between the HunterLab and Nix was highest for a* value (redness) with 3 scans (r = 0.85, P < 0.01), followed by 7, 5, and 9 scans (r = 0.84, 0.82, and 0.82, respectively; P < 0.01). Additionally, L* values (lightness) were highly correlated for all the scanning series (r = 0.79–0.81; P < 0.01). Similar to a* values, 3 scans with the Nix for b* values (yellowness) demonstrated the best correlation with HunterLab (r = 0.83; P < 0.01), whereas the 5, 7, and 9 scans were still highly correlated (r = 0.79–0.82; P < 0.01). The Bland Altman Limits of Agreement analysis indicated that the mean difference in a* values using 3 scans of both colorimeters was –1.68, whereas it was –0.91 for L* values and 0.25 for b* values. Moreover, the analysis indicated good agreement between the Nix and the Hunterlab colorimeters for all the color parameters.ConclusionThree replicate scans using the Nix was highly correlated with color measurements using the HunterLab colorimeter and can serve as an acceptable additional resource for objectively measuring beef color. The Nix provides an opportunity for a less expensive, more mobile, and multipurpose device. Although these colorimeters are not equivalent, the Nix could be an adequate method for objective beef color measurements and is comparable to the HunterLab.

The objective of this study was to characterize flavor, fatty acid composition, and volatile compounds of beef treated with common antimicrobial interventions in beef processing facilities. The effect of three pre-chilling antimicrobial interventions (4.5% lactic acid, LA; 400ppm peroxyacetic acid acidified to pH 1.2 with a sulfuric acid and sodium sulfate blend, aPAA; or untreated, CON) and four post-chilling treatments (CON; LA; aPAA; or a 2.5% solution of a commercial blend of lactic and citric acid, LAC) were analyzed. Briskets (n=30/treatment) were treated in a 3x4 factorial arrangement of pre- and post-chilling interventions using a custom-built pilot-sized spray cabinet, ground twice, and formed into patties. Cooked patties were analyzed by a trained sensory panel, and a subset of raw samples (N=72, n=6) were analyzed for fatty acid composition and volatile compounds. Trained taste panelist ratings for sour and chemical were rated highest (P &lt; 0.01) for the LA pre-chilling treatment compared to CON and aPAA. Ratings for browned attributes were greater (P &lt; 0.05) for samples subjected to aPAA than CON or LA samples. No differences (P &gt; 0.05) were found for beef flavor ID, roasted, metallic, fat-like, rancid, warmed over, or liver-like ratings due to the pre-chilling treatments. Post-chilling treatments did not create any significant (P &gt; 0.05) flavor attribute differences. Fatty acid analysis showed minimal differences due to the use of chemical interventions, and only C10:0 was affected by LAC treatment post-chilling, with greater (P &lt; 0.05) concentrations of C10:0 compared to LA-treated samples.&nbsp; Among the volatile compounds, the relative abundance of pentanal was greater (P &lt; 0.05) in LA-treated post-chilling intervention samples than in the other treatments. Overall, these results demonstrated that the pre-chilling antimicrobial interventions impacted ground beef flavor, whereas the pre- and post-chilling antimicrobial treatments had minimal impact on fatty acid and volatile compounds.

No abstract