Journals / Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2

Effect of different slaughter weights, genotype and sex on sensory attributes of chicken breast meat

Farklı kesim ağırlığı, genotip ve cinsiyetin etlik piliçlerde göğüs eti duyusal özelliklerine etkisi

Pages
103–112
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that meat comes from female was more tender compared to male (P<0.01).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to asses the impact of slaughter weights, genotype and sex on sensory attributes of breast meat.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Slow- (SG) and fast-growing (FG) broilers (Sasso and Cobb-308) were raised indoor pens (12 chickens/m2).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that meat comes from female was more tender compared to male (P<0.01).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:etlik piliç · genotip · duyusal değerlendirme

Abstract

This study aimed to asses the impact of slaughter weights, genotype and sex on sensory attributes of breast meat. Slow- (SG) and fast-growing (FG) broilers (Sasso and Cobb-308) were raised indoor pens (12 chickens/m2). The birds were slaughtered at light, medium and heavy (1.5, 2 and 2.5 kg) body weight. Slaughter ages were 41, 53, or 58 days for FG and 62, 73, or 82 days for SG. Twenty carcasses (10 female, 10 male) were randomly selected for sensory evaluations from both genotypes in different slaughter weights. The right skinless breast fillets of them were manually dissected and stored at -18ºC until consumer panel. A total 120 breast fillets were thawed and cooked between aluminum foil in two sided grill. Cooked samples were served to 80 consumer panelists. The panelists evaluated samples for odor, tenderness, taste and acceptance on ten-point scales (1=dislike extremely and 10=like extremely). It was observed that the heavy group was most preferred group according to odour scores (P<0.05). Slaughter weight also affected tenderness and acceptability (P<0.05), the lowest scores were obtained for light groups. It was found that meat comes from female was more tender compared to male (P<0.01). Genotype and its interaction with slaughter weight had significant effects (P<0.01) on tenderness, flavour and acceptability; SG in the heavy weight group, FG in the light and medium weight groups performed higher scores.

Özet

Bu çalışma; farklı kesim ağırlığı, genotip ve cinsiyet faktörlerinin etlik piliçlerde göğüs eti duyusal özellikleri üzerine etkilerini saptamayı hedeflemiştir. Yavaş- (YG) ve hızlı-gelişen (HG) etçi civcivler (Sasso ve Cobb-308) yer bölmelerinde (12 piliç/m2) beslenmiştir. Piliçler düşük, orta ve yüksek canlı ağırlıkta (1.5, 2 ve 2.5 kg) kesime sevk edilmişlerdir. Söz konusu ağırlıklara HG’ler 41., 53. ve 58.; YG’ler ise 62., 73. ve 82. günlerde ulaşmışlardır. Farklı kesim ağırlığındaki her iki genotipten 20’şer (10 erkek, 10 dişi) karkas lezzet paneli için rasgele seçilmiştir. Bunların sağ göğüs etleri derisiz olarak ayrılmış ve tüketici paneline dek -18ºC’de tutulmuştur. Toplam 120 adet göğüs eti çözdürülmüş ve iki taraflı pişirme özelliğine sahip ızgarada, alüminyum folyo arasında pişirilmiştir. Pişirilen örnekler 80 kişiden oluşan bir tüketici paneline sunulmuştur. Panelistler, örnekleri koku, yumuşaklık, tat ve genel beğeni bakımından 10 puan üzerinden (1=aşırı kötü, 10=mükemmel) değerlendirmişlerdir. Koku bakımından yüksek kesim ağırlığına sahip grup daha fazla beğenilmiştir (P<0.05). Kesim ağırlığı, etin yumuşaklığı ile genel beğeniyi de etkilemiştir (P<0.05), en düşük ortalamalar 1.5 kg’lık gruplarda saptanmıştır. Dişilerden elde edilen etler daha yumuşak bulunmuştur (P<0.01). Hem genotip, hem de kesim yaşı ile interaksiyonu; yumuşaklık, tat ve genel beğeniyi etkilemiştir (P<0.01); yüksek kesim ağırlığında YG’ler, düşük ve orta kesim ağırlığında HG’ler daha yüksek değerler göstermişlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, T., ÖNENÇ, A., NARİNÇ, D., ÇÜREK, D. İ., YAPICI, N., BAYLAN, D. (2010). Effect of different slaughter weights, genotype and sex on sensory attributes of chicken breast meat. Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2, 103–112. https://ajindex.com/articles/326041

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Anonymous, 2003. The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate, http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf
  2. Appleby, M.C. 2004. Public Attitudes and Expectations. In “Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare” Edited by C. Weeks and A. Butterworth, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Based on papers from a conference held in Bristol, UK, May 2003. ISBN 0-85199-805-4, CABI Publishing. Beltrán, J. A., I. Jaime, P. Santolaria, C. Sanudo, P.Alberti and P. Roncales. 1997. Effect of stree-induced high post-mortem pH on protease activity and tenderness of beef. Meat Science, 45(2): 201-207.
  3. Berri, C. 2000. Variability of sensory and processing qualities of poultry meat. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 56: 209-224.
  4. Bianchi, M., M. Petracci, F. Sirri, E. Folegatti, A. Franchini and A. Meluzzi. 2007. The influence of season and market class of broiler chickens on breast meat quality traits. Poultry Science, 86(5): 959-963.
  5. Brown, S.N., G.R. Nute, A. Baker, S.I. Hughes and P.D. Warriss. 2008. Aspects of meat and eating quality of broiler chickens reared under standard, maize-fed, free-range or organic systems. British Poultry Science, 49(2): 118-124.
  6. Düzgüneş, O., Kesici, T., Gürbüz, F. 1993. İstatistik Metotları (II. Baskı). Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları No:1291, Ders Kitabı: 369, Ankara.
  7. Fanatico, A.C., P.B. Pillai, L.C. Cavitt, C.M. Owens and J.L. Emmert. 2005a. Evaluation of slow-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Growth performance and carcass yield. Poultry Science, 84(8): 1321-1327.
  8. Fanatico, A.C., L.C. Cavitt, P.B. Pillai, J.L. Emmert and C.M. Owens. 2005b. Evaluation of slower growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Meat quality. Poultry Science, 84(11): 1785-1790.
  9. Fanatico, A.C., P.B. Pillai, L.C. Cavitt, J.L. Emmert, J.F. Meullenet and C.M. Owens. 2006. Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Sensory attributes. Poultry Science, 85(2): 337-343
  10. Fanatico, A.C., P.B. Pillai, J.L. Emmert and C.M. Owens. 2007a. Meat quality of slowand fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poultry Science, 86(10): 2245-2255.
  11. Fanatico, A.C., P.B. Pillai, J.L. Emmert, E.E. Gbur, J.F. Meullenet and C.M. Owens. 2007b. Sensory attr