A comparison between two methods (WarnerBratzler and texture profile analysis) for testing either raw meat or cooked

meat
F. Ruiz de Huidobro
,

, E. Miguel, B. Blzquez, E. Onega

IMIA, Apdo, 127, 28800 Alcal de Henares, Spain Received 13 June 2003; revised 4 August 2004; Accepted 22 September 2004. Available online 2 November 2004.

Abstract
Two methods for assessing texture characteristics of meat (WarnerBratzler (WB) and texture profile analysis (TPA)), both performed either on raw or on cooked meat, were tested in 96 samples of m. longissimus dorsi muscle of eight heifers and eight bulls, aged 1, 3 or 6 days post-mortem. A sensory analysis was also performed on 96 samples. Sensory variates were predicted by instrumental variates as follows: hardness was better predicted by TPA than by WB; springiness was only predicted by WB; juiciness was only significantly predicted by TPA; greasiness was always poorly predicted, but the prediction was better with TPA, and the number of chewings was also better predicted with TPA. Results suggested the convenience of performing a TPA for assessing meat texture as, in cooked meat, only TPA furnished highly significant correlations for hardness, for juiciness and for the number of chewings. Although WB could predict hardness and springiness, only the equation for the prediction of the number of chewings was useful (r2 = 0.171, P < 0.004). It seems that texture parameters, assessed by a TPA and performed on cooked meat, are the best predictors of sensory texture in bovine meat.

Article Outline

1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods

o o

2.1. WarnerBratzler shear test 2.2. Texture profile analysis

o

2.2.1. Hardness 2.3. Sensory analysis 3. Results 4. Discussion

o

4.1. Accuracy of sensory tests 4.2. Texture profile analysis versus WarnerBratzler 4.3. Samples of raw meat versus samples of cooked meat 5. Conclusions Acknowledgement References

o o o

Table 1. Classes definition and reference foods used to assess sensory parameters in meat ( [17] and [18] ; Ruiz de Huidobro et al., 2001) Reprinted from Ruiz de Huidobro et al., 2003b, Table 1, page 1441. Table 2. Scattering of values of instrumental texture parameters (in cooked meat) and of sensory parameters CV: coefficient of variation. Table 3. Correlation coefficients between instrumental parameters (in cooked meat) and sensory parameters (n = 48) R: correlation coefficient. P: probability. WB: WarnerBraztler test. TPA: texture profile analysis. Table 4. Regression analysis between WB shear force (x) or TPA variates (x1, x2, x3) and sensory variates (y) (n = 48) R2: regression coefficient. F: Fisher statistic (degrees of freedom are shown in brackets). P: probability. WB: WarnerBraztler test. TPA: texture profile analysis. Table 5. Values of instrumental texture parameters in raw and cooked meat (n = 16) WB: shear force (N); hard: TPA hardness (N); spr: TPA springiness (g); chew: TPA chewiness (g2). Ra: raw meat; Co: cooked meat. Table 6. Values (points) of sensory texture parameters in cooked meat (n = 16)

Table 7. Regression analysis between WB shear force (x) or TPA variates (x1, x2, x3), in raw and in cooked meat, and sensory variates (y) (n = 96) R2: regression coefficient. F: Fisher statistic (degrees of freedom are shown in brackets). P: probability. WB: WarnerBraztler test. TPA: texture profile analysis. Table 8. Regression analysis between WB shear force (x) or TPA variates (x1, x2, x3), in raw meat and sensory variates (y) (n = 48) R2: regression coefficient. F: Fisher statistic (degrees of freedom are shown in brackets). P: probability. WB: WarnerBraztler test. TPA: texture profile analysis. Corresponding author. Fax: +34 91 887 9492 Copyright 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Meat Science Volume 69, Issue 3, March 2005, Pages 527-536