Breast meat quality and consumer sensory properties of broiler carcasses chilled by water, air, or evaporative air

Abstract

Three poultry chilling methods, namely, water chilling (WC), air chilling (AC), and evaporative air chilling (EAC), were compared to evaluate their effects on broiler breast meat quality and consumer sensory characteristics. A total of 189 birds were processed with 1 of the 3 chilling methods. One-third of the birds were hard scalded (57.7°C, 120 s) and subjected to WC (an ice slurry immersion at 0°C). The remaining birds were soft scalded (50°C, 220 s) and randomly assigned to either AC (blowing air, 1.0 m/s) or EAC (blowing air plus each carcass sprayed with 0.5 L of 0.4°C water) in a chilling room (0.9 ± 0.4°C). Water chilling reduced the carcass temperature most efficiently (57 min), whereas AC and EAC were the least (125 min) and intermediate (93 min) in efficiency, respectively. No significant difference was found among the chilling methods in moisture content, cooking yield, and shear force of deskinned breast fillets stored overnight. However, the pH (5.6) of 24-h stored fillets was higher in WC fillets than in AC (5.5) and EAC (5.5) fillets. For the surface color of skinless breasts, WC carcasses showed a higher Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage (CIE) L* value than AC or EAC carcasses, whereas AC carcasses exhibited more redness (higher CIE a*) and yellowness (higher CIE b*) than the other 2 chilling methods. When raw breast meat was made into cooked gels, no significant difference was observed in cooking loss, moisture content, shear stress, and shear strain, regardless of the chilling method. In consumer sensory evaluations, AC breasts had a higher juiciness score than did WC and EAC breasts, but no significant difference was found for flavor, texture, and overall acceptability.

Cold-batter mincing of hot-boned and crust-frozen air-chilled turkey breast allows for reduced sodium content in protein gels

“…During mincing, the meat batter temperature was recorded and batter samples were saved at every 3 min from 6 to 27 min mincing. The minced batters were turned into cooked gels using the method of Jeong et al (2011). Briefly, batters were stuffed into preweighed stainless steel cylindrical tubes, reweighed, and put into a water bath (model 25, Precision Scientific Co., Chicago, IL) at 80°C for 20 min.…”

Poultry Carcasses Chilled by Forced Air, Water Immersion and Combination of Forced Air and Water Immersion

“…Evaporative air chilling can improve heat transfer, minimize mass loss and reduce skin discoloration when compared to air chilling (Barbut ; Jeong et al . ). Air chilling leads to dried carcass appearance, whereas water immersion chilling lead, sometimes, to high carcasses water absorbtion.…”

“…On the contrary, evaporative air chilling has been reported as a method that causes minimal water absorption (±1% of initial carcass mass) by poultry carcasses, depending on the frequency of water spraying and on the cold air conditions (Carciofi and Laurindo , ; Carroll and Alvarado ; Jeong et al . ). James et al .…”

Estudo Do Resfriamento De Carcaças De Frango Combinando Ar Forçado E Imersão Em Água

“…Neste método, durante um processo de resfriamento de carcaças de frango por ar forçado em câmaras frias, utilizando baixas temperaturas (de 1 °C a 4 °C), as carcaças podem ser rapidamente imersas água fria ou pulverizadas por uma fina camada de água (Mielnik et al, 1999). O resfriamento evaporativo aumenta a taxa de transferência de calor, minimiza a perda de massa e reduz o ressecamento da pele das carcaças de frango na comparação com o processo realizado somente por ar forçado (Barbut, 2002;Jeong et al, 2011a). Estudos anteriores avaliaram os efeitos das técnicas de resfriamento em imersão em água e ar forçado; ar forçado e o resfriamento evaporativo com respeito à qualidade, rendimento de resfriamento e extensão da vida útil da carne de frango processada (Mielnik et al, 1999;Young e Smith, 2004;Savell et al, 2005;Huezo et al, 2007;Carroll e Alvarado, 2008;Jeong et al, 2011a;Jeong et al, 2011b).…”

“…O resfriamento evaporativo aumenta a taxa de transferência de calor, minimiza a perda de massa e reduz o ressecamento da pele das carcaças de frango na comparação com o processo realizado somente por ar forçado (Barbut, 2002;Jeong et al, 2011a). Estudos anteriores avaliaram os efeitos das técnicas de resfriamento em imersão em água e ar forçado; ar forçado e o resfriamento evaporativo com respeito à qualidade, rendimento de resfriamento e extensão da vida útil da carne de frango processada (Mielnik et al, 1999;Young e Smith, 2004;Savell et al, 2005;Huezo et al, 2007;Carroll e Alvarado, 2008;Jeong et al, 2011a;Jeong et al, 2011b). Neste contexto, o objetivo deste estudo foi investigar o tempo de resfriamento e a perda de massa de carcaças de frango submetidas ao resfriamento combinado de ar forçado e imersão em água em diferentes velocidades e umidades relativas do ar em um mesmo aparato experimental.…”