Effects of fillet weight on sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of broiler breast meat 1

Transcription

1 Effects of fillet weight on sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of broiler breast meat 1 H. Zhuang 2 and E. M. Savage USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Russell Research Center, PO Box 5677, Athens, GA ABSTRACT Four replications were conducted to compare sensory descriptive profiles of cooked boneless skinless chicken breast categorized by fillet (pectoralis major) weight or size. In each replication, 20 heavy fillets, 20 medium fillets, and 20 light fillets (deboned at 6 8 h postmortem) were obtained from a commercial processing plant. Fillets were trimmed and weighed before chosen for each of 3 size categories based on their weight as follows: light, average weight 112 g; medium, average weight 153 g; and heavy, average weight 204 g. Descriptive sensory texture and flavor attributes were measured after the frozen samples were thawed for 24 h at a refrigerated temperature (2 C) and cooked to an endpoint temperature of 78 C. Sensory evaluations were performed by trained descriptive panelists using 0 to 15 universal intensity scales for 8 texture and 10 flavor attributes. Our results show that there were differences (P < 0.05) in intensity scores of sensory descriptive texture and flavor attributes cohesiveness, INTRODUCTION Increasing muscle mass (especially breast meat yield) or growth rates has been the focus of chicken genetic selection in meat lines for decades (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999; Havenstein et al., 2003). These practices have resulted in the investigation of the effects of growth rates or BW on sensory quality of broiler breast meat by geneticists and meat scientists (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999). Fanatico et al. (2006) carried out an experiment to assess the impact of growth genotypes on sensory attributes of chicken meat by using one slow-growing genotype, 2 medium-growing genotypes, and one commercial fast-growing genotype that were hardness, juiciness, cardboardy, and sourness, among the 3 weight categories. The average cohesiveness, hardness, and sourness scores of the heavy and light fillets were higher than the medium fillets. The juiciness score of the heavy fillets was higher than that of the light fillets, and the cardboardy score of the light fillets was higher than those of the medium and heavy fillets. The juiciness score of the medium fillets did not differ from that of either the light or heavy fillets, and there was no difference for cardboardy scores between the medium and heavy fillets. These results indicate that fillet weight or size in the range ( g) assessed in this study may influence sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of cooked broiler breast fillets deboned 6 to 8 h postmortem. Current genetic selection of broiler lines based on growth rate and feed efficiency may sacrifice breast meat quality. However, it remains to be determined if the differences in the sensory descriptive evaluation can be perceived by consumers. Key words: broiler breast, fillet weight, sensory, flavor, texture 2012 Poultry Science 91 : /ps Poultry Science Association Inc. Received September 21, Accepted March 14, Mention of a product or specific equipment does not constitute a guarantee or warranty by the US Department of Agriculture and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable. 2 Corresponding author: hong.zhuang@ars.usda.gov raised for 81, 67, or 53 d, respectively. They found that the breast fillets (pectoralis major) of medium-growing genotypes were more tender than those of the other genotypes and concluded that differences in sensory attributes might exist among genotypes with different growth rates. Fanatico et al. (2007a) further compared the effects of different chicken growth rates on the sensory attributes of chicken meat using a slow-growing genotype and a fast-growing genotype that were raised for 91 and 63 d, respectively. Descriptive analysis indicated that there were no significant differences for most basic taste attributes; however, the breast meat of the fast-growing birds tasted saltier than that of the slow-growing birds. Results from the consumer panel showed no significant differences in overall liking, appearance, texture, or flavor of the breast meat. Pragati et al. (2007) studied quality and processing aspects of broilers with different live weights: low (<1,500 g), medium (1,500 2,000 g), and heavy (>2,000 g). They showed that meat sensory tenderness of marinated boneless, skinless breast fillets increased significantly with increasing live weights. Without any explanation 1695

2 1696 Zhuang and Savage of the causes for the texture differences, they concluded that use of broilers of heavy weight (>2000 g live weight) would benefit the quality of further-processed chicken products. These results demonstrate that both chicken growth rates and BW affect the sensory quality of cooked breast meat. However, the chicken meat samples that were used for the evaluation of effects of breast mass on the sensory quality of cooked fillets in these experiments either were from different genotypes with different slaughter ages (Fanatico et al., 2006, 2007a) or were further processed (Pragati et al., 2007). The genotypes, slaughter ages, or further processing techniques by themselves can significantly affect sensory quality and functionality of chicken breast meat (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999; Northcutt et al., 2001; Havenstein et al., 2003; Northcutt, 2006; Alvarado and McKee, 2007; Saha et al., 2009). So the overall differences in the sensory quality reported in the literature might have resulted from combined effects of genotype, slaughter age, and further processing technique (Fanatico et al., 2006, 2007a). There is no published study that directly addresses how weight or size of boneless skinless chicken breast fillets affects sensory quality or profiles of cooked meat in peer-reviewed journals. The objective of the present work was to investigate the effects of raw fillet weights or fillet sizes on sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of cooked boneless skinless chicken breast using 3 categorized weight or size groups. The hypothesis was that, because chicken growth rates or BW can significantly affect the sensory quality of breast meat, the sensory profile of cooked heavier chicken fillets might differ from lighter fillets that were collected from the same processing batch. MATERIALS AND METHODS Broiler Breast Fillet Size, Color, and ph On each of 4 replicate sampling days, breast fillets of 6-wk-old broilers (Cobb 500 meat line), which were processed by following the common practical procedure for broilers used for the US foodservice market (including low-voltage electrical stunning, medium scalding, and immersion chilling; Barbut, 2002; Sams and McKee, 2010), were collected from a deboning line of a local commercial processing plant (Athens, GA). The carcasses that were used for the boneless skinless fillet samples were aged at a refrigerated temperature for 6 to 8 h postmortem before deboning. Within each replication, a total of 60 fillets (20 fillets for each weight category), which were machine-deboned, automatically weighed with electronic scales, and separated into different sorting bins based on their weight, were randomly chosen from the sorting bins on the same deboning line at the same time of the day. Only the same side fillets were collected to avoid using 2 fillets from the same bird for the quality evaluation. Fillets were placed in plastic bags (in bulk by grouping), covered with ice, and transported in 36-L coolers (Igloo, Shelton, CT; internal dimension cm) to the laboratory within 20 min. Fillets were trimmed, and color (dorsal side) and ph were measured according to the method of Zhuang et al. (2009). The trimmed fillets that had extremely high (more than 62.5) or low (less than 51.0) L* values and whose weight fell out of each weight range ( g for light, for medium, and for heavy) were removed, because at the commercial production level, it is not uncommon to see big variations in fillet color lightness (Petracci et al., 2009) and weight from the same broiler flock. A total of 90 (30 per treatment) out of 240 fillets in 4 replications was used for the sensory evaluation. The reasons for the use of the fillets deboned 6 to 8 h postmortem in our experiment were 2-fold. First, the boneless skinless chicken fillets deboned between 6 and 8 h postmortem are one of typical products provided by the US poultry processors. For a safety margin and logistical reason such as shift changes or meeting the requirement for fillet meat tenderness by customers, many broiler processors store the carcasses or breast halve for 6 to 8 h before deboning (Sams, 2002). Second, the experiments conducted by our laboratory have shown that broiler fillets deboned more than 6 h postmortem had much smaller standard deviation values of Warner-Bratzler (WB) shear force measurements (Lyon and Lyon, 1997; Liu et al., 2004; Zhuang and Savage, 2009) compared with the early deboned fillets; therefore, using the 6 to 8 h fillets might reduce variations in sensory analysis results. Packaging and Storage Breast fillets were individually weighed, vacuumpacked (508 mmhg) in cooking bags (Seal-a-Meal bag, The Holmes Group, El Paso, TX), and then stored at 20 C for 2 wk (Zhuang et al., 2007). The frozen samples were then allowed to thaw in a refrigerator (2 C). The meat temperature was measured using a hand-held digital thermometer fitted with a hypodermic needle probe (Doric Digital Thermometer, model 450-ET, Doric Scientific, San Diego, CA) on the next day to ensure it was above 0 C before the fillets were cooked for WB shear, thawing-cooking yield, and sensory evaluation. Cooking, Sampling, and Sensory Evaluation The bagged fillets were cooked in a combi oven to the endpoint temperature of 78 C and sampled by following the same procedures reported by this laboratory in Zhuang and Savage (2008). Samples were prepared for sensory analysis by cutting a 1.9-cm-wide strip parallel to fibers. This strip was then cut into 2 cubes of 1.9 cm. One was used for sensory texture evaluation and the other for sensory flavor evaluation. The bottom of a strip was also trimmed as needed to ensure uniform sample cubes for the panel. The cubes were placed in coded Styrofoam cups and served to the panel imme-

3 WEIGHT ON SENSORY PROFILES OF BROILER FILLETS Table 1. Sensory attributes and definitions used by descriptive analysis panel to evaluate test samples Attribute Definition Texture phase 1. First few bites Cohesiveness Distance you can bite into the sample before it breaks, cracks, crumbles first bite Hardness Force to compress the sample with the molars during first 2 bites Juiciness/dryness Amount of moisture coming from the sample during the first 5 chews Texture phase 2. Chew sample to bolus, evaluate Cohesiveness of mass Degree the chewed sample holds together in a wad Bolus size Change in sample size with formation of bolus or wad Wetness of wad Amount of moisture in the bolus Rate of break-down Rate the sample breaks down, fast to slow Texture phase 3. Evaluate at time of swallow Chewiness Amount of work to chew the sample to the point of swallow (or spit out) Flavor phase 1. Aromatics Aromatic taste sensation associated with: Meaty Combined aromatic taste sensation of meat Chickeny Cooked white or dark chicken muscle Brothy Meat stock Cardboardy Cardboard, wet paper Barnyard/wet feathers A chicken coop; combination of manure, moldy hay, feed, and poultry odors, including wet poultry feathers Bloody/serumy/metallic Raw or rare lean meat, blood, serum, or metal/iron Flavor phase 2. Basic tastes Sweet Sugars and high potency sweeteners Salty Sodium salts, especially sodium chloride (table salt) Sour Acids Bitter Caffeine or quinine 1 The intensity references for individual attributes can be found in Zhuang et al. (2009). diately with serving temperature of about 55 C (Liu et al., 2004). Sensory profiles included 8 texture and 10 flavor attributes (see Table 1 for the attributes and definitions). Samples were evaluated by a 7 to 8 member trained descriptive panel with at least 100 h of training in flavor and texture profiling and extensive experience in chicken fillet descriptive analysis using a spectrum-like method. The lexicon of flavor and texture terms was developed by the trained descriptive sensory panel during previous studies carried out by this lab following the quantitative descriptive analysis method (Lyon, 1987; Meullenet et al., 1998; Lyon and Lyon, 2010). During orientation sessions for this study, the lexicon and panel performance were validated through sampling, discussions, and reference materials in 12 h of panel time. A randomized block design was used for sample serving. Each replication involved one panel day, and within each day, all panelists received samples in the same order. Samples were presented to the panelists in a sequentially, monadic order with a 20-min rest period between samples. The numerical intensity scale for each attribute ranged from 0 = none to 15 = very much, using a universal intensity scale (Meilgaard et al., 2007). For the lexicon used by the spectrum method, the scales were anchored with multiple references (see the report by Zhuang et al., 2009). Testing was done in individual booths under sodium vapor masking lights using Compusense 5 version 4.6 software (Compusense Inc., Guelph, ON, Canada). Filtered water and unsalted crackers were available to the panelists for mouth-cleansing between samples (Zhuang and Savage, 2008). During the training process, we found that the distance you can bite into the sample before it breakups, cracks, or crumbles for sensory attribute cohesiveness was easier to be understood in the same way by all our panelists (Meilgaard et al., 2007). Therefore, we decided to use it instead of the amount of sample that deforms rather than ruptures, which is found in most sensory study references. Thawing-Cooking Yield and WB Shear Force Thawing-cooking yield was calculated as the percentage of weight between the cooked weight and the weight before freezing. The WB shear of the cooked fillets was measured as described in our previous publication (Zhuang and Savage, 2009). Statistics The sensory experiments (a total of 4 replications) were conducted using a randomized complete block design. All instrumental data, including weights, color, ph, thawing-cooking yield, and WB shear force were analyzed using the GLM procedures of SAS (SAS version 9.1, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The main factors that were evaluated for the instrumental data were weight, replication, and weight replication, and means were separated with the Tukey option at a significance level of For the sensory data, 3-way ANOVA was performed using PROC MIXED of SAS. Treating weight was considered as a fixed effect and replication, panelist, and panelist by replication interaction as random effects (if existing). Means were separated using least squares means and the PDIFF option in PROC MIXED at a significance level of 0.05

4 1698 Zhuang and Savage (Lee et al., 2008). There was no significant interaction for each sensory attribute listed between sample weight and panelist (P > 0.05). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2 shows weight and characteristics of raw breast fillets used for our sensory profile study based on their weight. The fillet weight of 3 groupings, light, medium, and heavy, was significantly different from each other. The weight of heavy fillets was about double (1.8 times) that of the light fillets. This result demonstrates that weight differences between the fillet groups were very significant. The average L* values ranged from 55.8 to 57.2 and ph from 5.7 to 5.8. There were no differences between the 3 groups for L* values and ph, suggesting that the differences in the functionalities and sensory quality observed in our study did not result from the differences in meat ph and color lightness of raw breast fillets (Qiao et al., 2002; Zhang and Barbut, 2005; Zhuang and Savage, 2010). There were no differences in a* values between the 3 groups. There was no difference in b* values between the light and medium fillets; however, the average b* value of the heavy fillets was significantly higher than those of the light and medium fillets. The difference in b* value could result from the live bird weight. Bianchi et al. (2006) noticed a significantly higher b* value of broiler breast meat from the birds weighing >3.3 kg than the birds weighing 3.0 to 3.3 kg. Table 3 shows the effect of fillet weight on WB shear force and thawing-cooking yield of broiler fillets. There were significant differences for WB shear and thawingcooking yield among the 3 weight groups. The shear force value of heavy fillets was significantly higher than those of the medium and light fillets, which were not different from each other. The thawing-cooking yield of the heavy fillets was significantly lower than that of the medium fillets. There was no difference in the thawingcooking yield between the light fillets and the medium fillets and no difference between the light fillets and the heavy fillets. Fanatico et al. (2007b) reported that the breast meat of the slow-growing birds showed lower cook loss (or higher cook yield) and shear force than that of the fast-growing birds. Abdullah and Matarneh (2010) showed that fillets from heavier carcasses had significantly higher shear force values than those from lighter ones. However, Pragati et al. (2007) found that the cook yield of the marinated heavy broiler fillets was significantly higher than the marinated medium and lower weight fillets. Our results are in agreement with discoveries published by Fanatico et al. (2007b), and Abdullah and Matarneh (2010) but inconsistent with the finding by Pragati et al. (2007) on the cook yield. The disagreement could be due to the differences in the materials and methods used between the studies. For example, freezing/thawing fillets were used for our evaluation, whereas fresh, marinated fillets were used by Pragati et al. (2007). We cooked the fillets using a combi oven, whereas a microwave method was used in their study. Perumalla et al. (2011) reported that there was no difference in cook loss of nonmarinated fillets between air-chilled and immersion-chilled chicken carcasses; however, the cook loss of the marinated and air-chilled fillets was significantly lower than that of the marinated and immersion-chilled fillets. In a comparison study on cooking methods for buffalo meat patties, Nisar et al. (2010) noted that for the low-fat product, there were no differences in cook yield between the hotair oven method, microwave method, and pressure cook method. However, for high-fat products, the microwave method resulted in significantly higher cook yield than the hot-air oven method. Given that in the study carried out by Fanatico et al. (2007b) the birds used for the evaluation were different genetic strains and raised for different days, the differences in shear force among the different weights of cooked fillets could result from the genetic lines, bird ages, or the interaction of genetic lines and bird ages. In the study published by Abdullah and Matarneh (2010), although the same genetic strain and same-age birds were used, no fillet weight results were provided. The differences in carcass weight may not always guarantee the significant differences in broiler breast fillet weight. Our present results demonstrate that in addition to genetic variations in chicken growing rate and BW, the fillet weight, in the range assessed in this study, by itself can also significantly influence muscle shear force and water-holding capacity of nonmarinated broiler breast fillets deboned 6 to 8 h postmortem. Table 4 shows average intensity scores for 10 sensory flavor and 8 sensory texture attributes of cooked breast fillets categorized by weight. There were no significant differences in the average intensity scores between the 3 weight categories for the 8 out of 10 flavor attributes and the texture attributes evaluated after the first few Table 2. Weight, CIELAB color measurements, and ph of raw broiler breast fillets (pectoralis major; mean ± SD, observation or n = 31, and replication = 4) Fillet weight Raw fillet weight (g) L* a* b* ph Light 113 c ± a ± a ± b ± a ± 0.2 Medium 152 b ± a ± a ± b ± a ± 0.2 Heavy 204 a ± a ± a ± a ± a ± 0.2 a c Mean values with no common superscript in the same column are significantly different from each other (P < 0.05).

5 Table 3. Warner-Bratzler shear force (N) and thawing-cooking yield of broiler breast fillets (pectoralis major) with different weights (mean ± SD, observation or n = 30, and replication = 4) Fillet weight Warner-Bratzler shear force (N) Cook yield 1 (%) Light 27.4 b ± ab ± 2.8 Medium 29.4 b ± a ± 0.6 Heavy 34.3 a ± b ± 3.0 a,b Mean values with no common superscript in the same column are significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). 1 Cook yield = 100 (cooked fillet weight/raw fillet weight immediately after deboning). bites cohesiveness of mass, bolus/wad size, wetness of wad, rate of breakdown, and chewiness. The cooked heavy and light fillets were scored 0.4 to 0.6 points higher than the medium fillets in a 0 to 15 intensity scale for the texture attributes cohesiveness and hardness. There were no significant differences between the light and heavy fillets. For attribute juiciness, the heavy fillets were scored 0.5 points higher than the light fillets; however, the medium fillet score did not differ from either the heavy or the light fillet scores. The average intensity score of flavor attribute cardboardy of the light fillets was 0.2 points higher than those of both the medium and heavy fillets, which were not significantly different from each other. The average sourness scores of the light and heavy fillets, which did not differ significantly, were 0.2 points higher than that of the medium fillets. The WB shear force has been widely used as an indicator for sensory texture quality attributes tenderness, hardness, and cohesiveness for both red meat and poultry breast fillets due to the strong and significant correlations between WB shear force values and the sensory evaluation scores (Lyon and Lyon, 1997; Otremba et al., 1999; Cavitt et al., 2005; Dikeman et al., 2005; Xiong et al., 2006). However, the same relationship was not shown in our present study. The inconsistency might result from the regression methods used for data analysis and the sampling methods for the analysis. For example, in the study on consumer sensory evaluations of aging effect on beef quality, Brewer and Novakofski (2008) found that the linear correlation coefficient (r) was less than 0.42 between sensory tenderness scores and WB shear values if individual raw data were used for the regression. However, the correlation was almost perfectly linear if the same data were grouped before being analyzed. Lyon and Lyon (1997), using broiler fillets deboned 2, 6, and 24 h postmortem, reported Pearson correlation (r) values more than 0.9 for sensory descriptive attributes hardness and cohesiveness. However, Cavitt et al. (2005), using broiler fillets deboned 0.25, 1.25, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 6.0, and 24.0 h postmortem, reported an r value of 0.82 between WB shear and hardness and 0.71 between WB shear and cohesiveness. There was significant reduction in WB shear between the 2 h deboned fillets (9.99 kgf) and the 3 h deboned fillets (6.73 kgf); however, there were no significant differences for the average sensory descriptive attributes hardness (7.5 for the 2 h samples vs. 7.8 for the 3 h samples) and cohesiveness scores (8.5 vs. 9.6) between the 2 samples. Our results demonstrate that the weight of broiler fillets in the range from 95 to 230 g may influence sensory texture characteristics of cooked meat. The mediumweight fillets deboned between 6 to 8 h postmortem are easier to come apart and need less force to compress in Table 4. Sensory mean scores (0 15 scale) of descriptive attributes of cooked broiler breast fillets (pectoralis major) with different weights (mean ± SD, observation or n = 30, and replication = 4) 1 Sensory attribute WEIGHT ON SENSORY PROFILES OF BROILER FILLETS Fillet weight Light Medium Heavy Texture Cohesiveness 5.0 a ± b ± a ± 1.4 Hardness 4.7 a ± b ± a ± 1.0 Juiciness/dryness 5.3 b ± ab ± a ± 1.2 Cohesiveness of mass 5.4 a ± a ± a ± 0.8 Bolus/wad size 4.4 a ± a ± a ± 0.8 Wetness of wad 6.1 a ± a ± a ± 0.8 Rate of breakdown 5.3 a ± a ± a ± 0.7 Chewiness 5.1 a ± a ± a ± 0.6 Flavor Meaty 5.6 a ± a ± a ± 0.4 Chickeny 5.4 a ± a ± a ± 0.8 Brothy 3.8 a ± a ± a ± 0.5 Cardboardy 3.7 a ± b ± b ± 0.7 Barnyard/wet feathers 2.7 a ± a ± a ± 0.5 Bloody/serumy/metallic 2.0 a ± a ± a ± 0.6 Sweet 3.0 a ± a ± a ± 0.9 Salt 2.7 a ± a ± a ± 0.7 Sour 2.7 a ± b ± a ± 0.5 Bitter 1.5 a ± a ± a ± 0.5 a,b Mean values with no common superscript in the same row are significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). 1 Intensities with a higher number are stronger. 1699

6 1700 Zhuang and Savage comparison with the light and heavy fillets, although there are no differences between the 3 weight groups for the texture attributes in the phases 2 and 3 of sensory texture analysis, or fillet weight does not affect chewing the samples to the point of swallowing after the first 5 chews. Fanatico et al. (2006) also found that the breast meat from medium-growing genotypes scored higher in tenderness intensity than the fast- and slow-growing genotypes by a consumer panel, even though there was no effect of genotypes in terms of liking of texture or liking of tenderness. The differences in sensory cohesiveness and hardness between the different fillet weight groups could result from the different responses of birds to the processing and muscle composition and structure. Debut et al. (2005) noticed that compared with heavy line birds with rapid-growing rates and high breast meat yield, slow-growing birds were more prone to shackling stress during processing, which leads to rapid breast muscle acidification. Berri et al. (2005) showed that the breast meat from slow-growing birds was more sensitive to variations in postmortem muscle ph fall than the breast meat from fast-growing birds. The rapid breast muscle acidification can further result in the protein denaturation in muscles and subsequently texture toughness (Duclos et al., 2007). Fanatico et al. (2006) ascribed the differences in sensory tenderness intensity between the medium and heavy genotypes to the larger muscle fibers in heavy bird breast meat, which are associated with tough meat and lower proteolytic potential. Abdullah and Matarneh (2010) attributed the increase in shear force values of breast meat from the heavy broiler carcasses to an increasing amount of connective tissues in the meat. The current study also shows that the heavy fillets may release more fluid or moisture from meat during the first 5 chews than the light fillets, and there is no relationship between the juiciness and hardness or cohesiveness. The heavy fillets that perceived hardest and most cohesive also had a highest juiciness score. Fanatico et al. (2005, 2007a) reported that when the consumer panel was used to evaluate juiciness, the cooked breast meat from slow-growing birds was considered much too dry in Just-About-Right analyses. They attributed the difference in the juiciness between the slowgrowing and fast-growing chicken fillets to the higher drip loss resulting from smaller and thinner fillets from the slow-growing birds and the high fat content in the heavy fillets from the fast-growing birds. Fat content in meat significantly affects the juiciness of cooked products (Winger and Hagyard, 1994). Although fat content was not measured in the fillets used in our experiment, research has shown that heavy chicken breast meat contained significant higher fat content than light breast meat. Fanatico et al. (2007b) found that the breast meat from the fast-growing chicken weighed more than twice as much as the slow-growing chicken and contained more than 1.5 times more fat. Muthukumar et al. (2011) showed that the breast meat from the heavier birds that weighed 435 g had significantly more fat than that from the light weight group that weighed 278 g. Pragati et al. (2007) reported that the deboned breast fillets from the heavy live weight birds weighed more and also contained significantly higher fat content than the fillets from the low live weight birds. In consumer perception, meat juiciness has been often positively associated with meat tenderness. In the other words, there is a negative relationship between juiciness and texture hardness. However, sensory descriptive analysis of cooked broiler fillets very often shows either very poor or positive relationship between sensory descriptive attributes hardness and juiciness (or moisture release). Cavitt et al. (2005) and Xiong et al. (2006) showed that the average hardness scores decreased significantly during postmortem aging up to 24 h; however, the juiciness scores remained the same during the same period of time. Lee et al. (2008) and Zhuang et al. (2007) reported that there were significant differences in hardness among the boneless skinless chicken breast products procured from the US retail markets; however, there were no differences in the moisture release across the samples. Lyon and Lyon (2000), Lyon and Lyon (1997), and Liu et al. (2004) found that the cooked broiler breast fillets that were deboned 2 h postmortem required more force to bite through (harder) and also released more moisture during chewing (juiciness) than the fillets deboned more than 6 h postmortem. Our results are consistent with those observations and further demonstrate that high intensity scores of sensory attribute juiciness are not always associated with lower intensity scores of hardness or cohesiveness in sensory descriptive analysis of cooked chicken breast fillets. Fillet weight might also influence the flavor profiles of cooked broiler breast meat. This result is in agreement with the findings by Fanatico et al. (2007a) and Pragati et al. (2007) that either growth rates or live bird weights affected the sensory flavor intensity or acceptance of breast meat. Fanatico et al. (2007a) reported that the breast meat of the fast-growing birds was saltier than that of the slow-growing birds. Pragati et al. (2007) showed that the flavor acceptance scores of the marinated breast fillets of the medium and heavy birds were significantly higher than that of the low weight birds. Although our experimental results indicate that the cooked light fillets have a negative flavor, or more cardboardy, compared with the heavier fillets, and the medium fillets taste less sour than either the lighter or the heavier fillets, the difference is only 0.2 points in a 0 to 15 intensity scale. Whether this difference can be perceived by consumers or not still remains to be determined. Increasing breast meat yield has benefited poultry production and dominated the genetic selection of meat-type chicken for decades. However, how the weight of broiler breast fillets affects meat functionality and sensory quality remains to be elucidated. Berri et al. (2001) studied the effect of selection for increased breast yield on meat characteristics and found that

7 compared with unselected control, breast weight of a commercial selected line was more than 3 times heavier. The breast meat from the selected line had significant high ph and lower L* values, but there was no difference in water-holding capacity between the 2 lines. They concluded that the selection had no negative effect on meat quality. Berri et al. (2005) investigated the effects of 3 different growing rates, fast, medium, and slow, on functionality of chicken breast meat. The fastgrowing chicken was harvested at the age of 6 wk, the medium-growing chicken was harvested at the age of 8 wk, and the slow-growing chicken was harvested at the age of 12 wk to void the fillet weight effect. Their results showed that although there were no differences for breast fillet weight between the 3 lines, slow-growing chickens had higher breast drip loss, and the processed meat from the slow chicken had lower moisture and the driest texture compared with the fast-growing chickens. It was concluded that fast-growing birds were more adapted to further processing than slow-growing birds. Fanatico et al. (2005, 2006) evaluated the effects of broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access on meat functionality and sensory quality. Four genotypes were used in the study, a slow-growing genotype, 2 medium-growing genotypes, and a commercial fast-growing genotype, and the birds were raised for 81, 67, or 53 d, respectively. They found that there were significant differences in breast weight between the 3 genotypes. The breast meat from the slow-growing genotype had significantly lower water-holding capacity than that from the medium- and fast-growing genotypes, and the breast meat from the medium-growing genotype was more tender than that from the other genotypes. They concluded that differences in breast meat functionality and sensory quality existed among genotypes with different growth rates. Fanatico et al. (2007a,b) compared the breast meat functionality and sensory quality of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed with different diets and raised with different systems. The slow-growing genotype was raised for more than 84 d before harvest. The fast-growing genotype was raised for less than 63 d. They found that even though there was the age difference between the 2 genotypes, the breast meat weight of the fast-growing birds was at least 2.5 times more than that of slowgrowing birds, regardless of raising system, and was at least 1.3 times more regardless of diet. The breast meat from the slow-growing birds showed poorer waterholding capacity and lower shear force and was less salty than that from the fast-growing birds. Pragati et al. (2007) evaluated the sensory quality of marinated breast fillets from 3 live bird weight groups of broilers: low, medium, and heavy. They found that there was a positive relationship between either the sensory juiciness or texture score of the cooked samples and the live bird weight. Muthukumar et al. (2011) made chicken nuggets using meat from the broiler birds with different ages and noticed that broiler live BW and sensory scores of chicken nuggets for attributes texture WEIGHT ON SENSORY PROFILES OF BROILER FILLETS and juiciness were increased with increasing broiler bird age. These results suggest that breast fillet weight may influence both sensory flavor and texture quality of meat. However, the meat used for the evaluation of effects of breast fillet mass on meat functionality and sensory quality in these experiments was from different genotypes or different ages or was further processed. Genotype, age, and further processing technique by itself (without weight differences) can significantly affect meat functionality and sensory quality. So the overall differences in the functionality and sensory quality reported might result from a combined effect of genotype, slaughter age, and further processing technique, as pointed out by Fanatico et al. (2006, 2007a). So the present study attempted to void the interaction between genotypes, ages, and further processing variables in the evaluation of growth effect on meat quality by using the broiler breast fillets grouped based on their weights and from the same product batch. Our results show that fillet weight, in the range assessed in this study, by itself can result in differences in the sensory profiles as well as the functionalities of cooked broiler pectoralis major muscle deboned at 6 to 8 h postmortem, and current genetic selection of broiler lines based on growth rate and feed efficiency may sacrifice breast meat quality, although such small differences perceived in a sensory descriptive evaluation may not be important to overall consumer acceptance of cooked chicken breast meat. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors express their sincere thanks to Joseph Stanfield with the Quality and Safety Assessment Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service (Athens, GA) for his technical assistance during the study. We also thank our sensory panelists for their valuable participation. REFERENCES 1701 Abdullah, A. Y., and S. K. Matarneh Broiler performance and the effects of carcass weight, broiler sex, and postchill carcass aging duration on breast fillet quality characteristics. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 19: Alvarado, C., and S. McKee Marination to improve functional properties and safety of poultry meat. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16: Barbut, S Poultry Products Processing An Industry Guide. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Berri, C., E. Le Bihan-Duval, E. Baéza, P. Chartrin, L. Picgirard, N. Jehl, M. Quentin, M. Picard, and M. J. Duclos Further processing characteristics of breast and leg meat from fast-, medium- and slow-growing commercial chickens. Anim. Res. 54: Berri, C., N. Wacrenier, N. Millet, and E. Le Bihan-Duval Effect of selection for improved body composition on muscle and meat characteristics of broilers from experimental and commercial lines. Poult. Sci. 80: Bianchi, M., M. Petracci, and C. Cavani The influence of genotype, market live weight, transportation, and holding conditions prior to slaughter on broiler breast meat color. Poult. Sci. 85:

8 1702 Zhuang and Savage Brewer, S., and J. Novakofski Consumer sensory evaluations of aging effects on beef quality. J. Food Sci. 73:S78 S82. Cavitt, L. C., J. F. Meullenet, R. K. Gandhapuneni, G. W. Youm, and C. M. Owens Rigor development and meat quality of large and small broilers and the use of Allo-Kramer shear, needle puncture, and razor blade shear to measure texture. Poult. Sci. 84: Debut, M., C. Berri, C. Arnould, D. Guemene, V. Sante-Lhoutellier, N. Sellier, E. Baeza, N. Jehl, Y. Jego, C. Beaumont, and E. Le Bihan-Duval Behavioural and physiological response of three chicken breeds to pre-slaughter shackling and acute heat stress. Br. Poult. Sci. 46: Dikeman, M. E., E. J. Pollak, Z. Zhang, D. W. Moser, C. A. Gill, and E. A. Dressler Phenotypic ranges and relationships among carcass and meat palatability traits for fourteen cattle breeds, and heritabilities and expected progeny differences for Warner-Bratzler shear force in three beef cattle breeds. J. Anim. Sci. 83: Dransfield, E., and A. A. Sosnicki Relationship between muscle growth and poultry meat quality. Poult. Sci. 78: Duclos, M. J., C. Berri, and E. Le Bihan-Duval Muscle growth and meat quality. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16: Fanatico, A. C., L. C. Cavitt, P. B. Pillai, J. L. Emmert, and C. M. Owens Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Meat quality. Poult. Sci. 84: Fanatico, A. C., P. B. Pillai, L. C. Cavitt, J. L. Emmert, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Sensory attributes. Poult. Sci. 85: Fanatico, A. C., P. B. Pillai, J. L. Emmert, E. E. Gbur, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens. 2007a. Sensory attributes of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult. Sci. 86: Fanatico, A. C., P. B. Pillai, J. L. Emmert, and C. M. Owens. 2007b. Meat quality of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult. Sci. 86: Havenstein, G. B., P. R. Ferket, and M. A. Qureshi Carcass composition and yield of 1957 vs broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82: Lee, Y. S., C. M. Owens, and J. F. Meullenet On the quality of commercial boneless skinless broiler breast meat. J. Food Sci. 73:S253 S261. Liu, Y., B. G. Lyon, W. R. Windham, C. E. Lyon, and E. M. Savage Principal component analysis of physical, color, and sensory characteristics of chicken breasts deboned at two, four, six, and twenty-four hours postmortem. Poult. Sci. 83: Lyon, B. G Development of chicken flavor descriptive attribute terms aided by multivariate statistical procedures. J. Sens. Stud. 2: Lyon, B. G., and C. E. Lyon Sensory descriptive profile relationships to shear values of deboned poultry. J. Food Sci. 62: Lyon, B. G., and C. E. Lyon Meat quality: Sensory and instrumental evaluations. Pages in Poultry Meat Processing. C. M. Owens, C. Z. Alvarado, and A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Lyon, C. E., and B. G. Lyon Sensory differences in broiler breast meat due to electrical stimulation, deboning time, and marination. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 9: Meilgaard, M., G. V. Civille, and B. T. Carr Sensory evaluation techniques. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Meullenet, J.-F., B. G. Lyon, J. A. Carpenter, and C. E. Lyon Relationship between sensory and instrumental texture profile attributes. J. Sens. Stud. 13: Muthukumar, M., A. R. Sen, B. M. Naveena, S. Vaithiyanathan, and S. G. Patil Carcass traits and meat quality attributes of broilers grown to different body weights. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 81: Nisar, P. U. M., M. K. Chatli, D. K. Sharma, and J. Sahoo Effect of cooking methods and fat levels on the physic-chemical, processing, sensory and microbial quality of buffalo meat patties. Asian-australas. J. Anim. Sci. 23: Northcutt, J. K Factors affecting poultry meat quality. Accessed Sep. 2, Northcutt, J. K., R. J. Buhr, L. L. Young, C. E. Lyon, and G. O. Ware Influence of age and postchill carcass aging duration on chicken breast fillet quality. Poult. Sci. 80: Otremba, M. M., M. E. Dikeman, and E. A. E. Boyle Refrigerated shelf life of vacuum-packaged, previously frozen ostrich meat. Meat Sci. 52: Perumalla, A. V. S., A. Saha, Y. Lee, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens Marination properties and sensory evaluation of breast fillets from air-chilled and immersion-chilled broiler carcasses. Poult. Sci. 90: Petracci, M., M. Bianchi, and C. Cavani The European perspective on pale, soft, exudative conditions in poultry. Poult. Sci. 88: Pragati, H., N. Kondaiah, A. S. R. Anjaneyulu, and P. Saikia Meat yields and sensory quality of products from broilers of three live weight groups. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 77: Qiao, M., D. L. Fletcher, D. P. Smith, and J. K. Northcutt Effect of raw broiler breast meat color variation on marination and cooked meat quality. Poult. Sci. 81: Saha, A., A. V. S. Perumalla, Y. Lee, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens Tenderness, moistness, and flavor of pre- and postrigor marinated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel. Poult. Sci. 88: Sams, A. R Post-mortem electrical stimulation of broilers. World s Poult. Sci. J. 58: Sams, A. R., and S. R. McKee First processing: Slaughter through chilling. Pages in Poultry Meat Processing. C. M. Owens, C. Z. Alvarado, and A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Winger, R. J., and C. J. Hagyard Juiciness Its importance and some contributing factors. Pages in Quality Attributes and their Measurement in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products. A. M Pearson and T. R. Dutson, ed. Chapman & Hall, London, UK. Xiong, R., L. C. Cavitt, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens Comparison of Allo-Kramer, Warner-Bratzler and razor blade shears for predicting sensory tenderness of broiler breast meat. J. Texture Stud. 37: Zhang, L., and S. Barbut Rheological characteristics of fresh and frozen PSE, normal and DFD chicken breast meat. Br. Poult. Sci. 46: Zhuang, H., and E. M. Savage Validation of a combi oven cooking method for preparation of chicken breast meat for quality assessment. J. Food Sci. 73:S424 S430. Zhuang, H., and E. M. Savage Variation and Pearson correlations of Warner-Bratzler shear force measurements within broiler breast fillets. Poult. Sci. 88: Zhuang, H., and E. M. Savage Comparisons of sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of cooked broiler breast fillets categorized by raw meat color lightness values. Poult. Sci. 89: Zhuang, H., E. M. Savage, S. E. Kays, and D. S. Himmelsbach A survey of the quality of six retail brands of boneless, skinless chicken breast fillets obtained from retail supermarkets in the Athens, Georgia area. J. Food Qual. 30: Zhuang, H., E. M. Savage, D. P. Smith, and M. E. Berrang Effect of dry-air chilling on sensory descriptive profiles of cooked broiler breast fillets. Poult. Sci. 88: