Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA03174
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 45(5)

Development of a sensory protocol for testing palatability of sheep meats

J. M. Thompson A G , A. Gee B , D. L. Hopkins C , D. W. Pethick D , S. R. Baud E and W. J. O’Halloran F
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A School of Rural Science and Agriculture, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.

B Cosign, Eleventh Avenue, Sawtell, NSW 2452, Australia.

C NSW Department of Primary Industries, Centre for Sheep Meat Development, PO Box 129, Cowra, NSW 2794, Australia.

D Division of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia.

E Department of Primary Industries, 600 Sneydes Road, Werribee, Vic. 3030, Australia.

F NSW Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 991, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.

G Corresponding author. Email: jthompso@metz.une.edu.au

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45(5) 469-476 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA03174
Submitted: 5 September 2003  Accepted: 22 October 2004   Published: 27 June 2005

Abstract

A total of 108 grill and 108 roast samples were prepared from lamb (n = 10) and mutton (n = 8) carcasses for sensory testing using a consumer taste panel. Grill and roast samples were prepared from the left and right sides of the carcass, respectively, using longissimus, biceps femoris, gluteus medius, serratus ventralis and semimembranosus. Due to size constraints, muscle from both sides was used to form grill samples for the vastus lateralis, and roast samples from the triceps brachii. Grill and roast samples were sensory tested using 360 untrained consumers. Each consumer was given a total of 6 experimental samples and each sample was tested by 10 different consumers.

Sensory scores for tenderness, juiciness, like flavour and overall liking from both the grilled and roasted samples were highly correlated (P<0.05). For grilling, the different muscles were correlated for tenderness and overall liking scores (P<0.05), with the exception of the semimembranosus (P>0.05). In contrast, juiciness and like flavour scores were poorly correlated between grilled muscles. For the roasted samples, sensory scores were generally uncorrelated between muscles. The statistical significance of the age category and muscle effects was greater in grill samples, but stimulation effects were of similar significance using either cooking method. It was proposed that roasting reduced treatment effects that affected sensory via differences in connective tissue toughness, due to gelatinisation of connective tissue during cooking. For testing production and processing effects on palatability, grilling was more sensitive for detecting treatment effects, than roasting.

Additional keywords: consumer testing, cooking method, age category, stimulation, individual muscles, cuts.


Acknowledgments

Peter Walker and Matt Kerr (DPI Victoria) are thanked for assistance with the slaughter and data collection. Meat and Livestock Australia provided the funding for this study.


References


Anon  (1992) ‘AUS-MEAT language.’ 4th edn. (Authority for Uniform Specification Meat and Livestock: Sydney)

Anon  (1998) ‘Handbook of Australian meat.’ 6th edn. (Authority for Uniform Specification Meat and Livestock: Brisbane)

Belew JB, Brooks JC, McKenna DR, Savell JW (2003) Warner-Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat Science 64, 507–512.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Forrest JC, Aberle ED, Hedrick HB, Judge MD, Merkel RA (1975) ‘Principles of meat science.’ (W.H. Freeman & Co.: San Francisco)

Hwang IH, Devine CE, Hopkins DL (2003a) The biochemical and physical effects of electrical stimulation on beef and sheep meat tenderness. Meat Science 65, 677–691.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Hwang IH, Park BY, Lee JM, Kim YG, Kim JH, Thompson JM (2003b) Relationships between WB-shear force and sensory tenderness scores for three muscles prepared using different cooking methods in tenderstretch and normally hung sides. In ‘Proceedings of the 49th international congress of meat science and technology’. pp. 266–267.

Millward Brown (2001) ‘Meat expectations study, 2001 for Meat and Livestock Australia.’ (Meat and Livestock Australia: Sydney)

Perry D, Thompson JM, Hwang IH, Butchers A, Egan AF (2001) Relationship between objective measurements and taste panel assessment of beef quality. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 981–990.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Resurreccion AVA (1994) Cookery of muscle foods. In ‘Muscle foods; meat poultry and seafood technology’. (Eds. DM Kinsman, AW Kotula, BC Breidenstein) pp. 406–429. (Chapman and Hall: New York)

SAS (1996) ‘Applied statistics and the SAS programming language.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC)

Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M (1995) Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3333–3340.
| PubMed |
open url image1

Shorthose WR, Harris PV (1991) Effects of growth and composition on meat quality. In ‘Growth regulations in farm animals — advances in meat research. Vol. 7’. (Eds AM Pearson, TR Dutson) pp. 515–554. (Elsevier Applied Science: London)

Thompson JM (2002) Managing meat tenderness. Meat Science 62, 295–308.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Thompson JM (2004) The effects of marbling on flavour and juiciness scores of cooked beef, after adjusting to a constant tenderness. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 645–652.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1