Principal component analysis of sensory properties of chicken breast muscle supplemented with different feed additives
Keywords:chicken meat, sensory attribute, dietary supplement, PCA
The objective of the present study was to examine the effect of different dietary supplements (bee pollen, propolis, and probiotic) on sensory quality of chicken breast muscle. The experiment was performed with 180 one day-old Ross 308 broiler chicks of mixed sex. The dietary treatments were as follows: 1. basal diet with no supplementation as control (C); 2. basal diet plus 400 mg bee pollen extract per 1 kg of feed mixture (E1); 3. basal diet plus 400 mg propolis extract per 1 kg of feed mixture (E2); 4. basal diet plus 3.3 g probiotic preparation based on Lactobacillus fermentum added to drinking water (E3). Sensory properties of chicken breast muscle were assessed by a five-member panel that rated the meat for aroma, taste, juiciness, tenderness and overall acceptability. The ANOVA results for each attribute showed that at least one mean score for any group differs significantly (p ≤0.05). Subsequent Tukey's HSD revealed that only C group had significantly higher mean score (p ≤0.05) for each attribute compared with E2 group. As regards the E1 and E3 groups, there were not significant differences (p >0.05) in aroma, taste and tenderness when compared to C group, with the significantly lowest juiciness value (p ≤0.05) found in E3 group and significantly lower values of overall acceptability in both groups (p ≤0.05). In addition, it is noteworthy that control group received the highest raking scores for each sensory attribute, i.e. the supplements did not influence positively the sensory quality of chicken breast meat. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the sensory data showed that the first 3 principal components (PCs) explained 69.82% of the total variation in 5 variables. Visualisation of extracted PCs has shown that groups were very well represented, with E2 group clearly distinguished from the others.
Addinsoft. 2016. XLSTAT, Analyse de données et statistique avec MS Excel. Addinsoft, NY, USA.
Adeyemo, I. A., Sani, A. 2013. Physical appearance and organoleptic properties of poultry meat fed Aspergillus niger hydrolyzed cassava peel meal based diet. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research, vol. 1, no. 6, p. 166-171.
Bartlett, J, R., Beckford, R. C. 2015. Sensory Characteristics and Skin Color Evaluation of Meat from Broiler Chickens Fed Sweet Potato Root Meal. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, vol. 5, no. 8, p. 47-58.
Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic. 2004. Decree of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic No. 2145/2004-100 of 23 August 2004 changing and amending Decree of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic No. 1497/1/1997-100 of 7 October 1997 regulating laboratory testing and feed assessment as amended by Decree of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic No. 149/2/2003-100 of 12 February 2003.
Choe, J., Choi, M., Rhee, M., Kim, B. 2016. Estimation of Sensory Pork Loin Tenderness Using Warner-Bratzler Shear Force and Texture Profile Analysis Measurements. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 27, no. 7, p. 1029-1036. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0482
Chulayo, A. Y., Muchenje, V., Mwale, M., Masika, P. J. 2011. Effects of some medicinal plants on consumer sensory characteristics of village chicken meat. African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 815-820.
Chumngoen, W., Tan, F. 2015. Relationships between Descriptive Sensory Attributes and Physicochemical Analysis of Broiler and Taiwan Native Chicken Breast Meat. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 28, no. 7, p. 1028-1037. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0275 PMid:26104409
De Lourdes Pérez-Chabela, M., Totosaus, A. 2012. Poultry Quality and Tainting. In Nollet, L. M. L. Handbook of Meat, Poultry and Seafood Quality. Blackwell : John Wiley & Sons. p. 360-372. ISBN 978-0-470-95832-2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118352434.ch24
Dinçer, E., Parlak, S. U., Engin, B., Yüceer, Y. K., Mendeş, M. 2014. Effect of Feed Restriction on Some Chemical and Sensory Properties of Chicken Meat. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 48-56.
Fanatico, A. C., Pillai, P. B., Emmert, J. L., Gbur, E. E., Meullenet, J. F., Owens, C. M. 2007. Sensory attributes of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poultry Science, vol. 86, no. 11, 2441-2449. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00092 PMid:17954596
Font-i-Furnols, M., Guerrero, L. 2014. Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat Science, vol. 98, no. 3, p. 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.025 PMid:25017317
Haščík, P., Garlík ml., J., Kačániová, M., Čuboň, J., Mellen, M., Mihok, M., Eliman, I. 2012. Sensory evaluation of meat chickens ROSS 308 after application of propolis in their nutrition. Potravinárstvo, vol. 6, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.5219/158
Haščík, P., Elimam, I., Garlík, J., Bobko, M., Kročko, M. 2013. Sensory evaluation for broiler meat after addition Slovak bee pollen in their feed mixture. Potravinarstvo, vol. 7, no. 1. p. 107-110. https://doi.org/10.5219/280
Horsted, K., Allesen-Holm, B. H., Hermansen, J, E., Kongsted, A. G. 2011. Sensory profiles of breast meat from broilers reared in an organic niche production system and conventional standard broilers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 92, no. 2, p. 258-265. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4569 PMid:21800323
Ivanović, S., Savić, S., Baltić, M., Teodorović, V., Žujović, M. 2008. Dependence of lamb sensory properties on meat ripening level. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, vol. 24, no. 3-4, p. 93-100.
Krell, R. 1996. Value-added products from bee keeping. Rome : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 395 p. ISBN 92-5-103819-8.
Listrat, A., Lebret, B., Louveau, I., Astruc, T., Bonnet, M., Lefaucheur, L., Picard, B., Bugeon, J. 2016. How Muscle Structure and Composition Influence Meat and Flesh Quality. The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2016, 14 p. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2016/3182746/ PMid:27022618
Liu, Y., Lyon, B. G., Windham, W. R., Lyon, C. E., Savage, E. M. 2004. Principal Component Analysis of Physical, Color, and Sensory Characteristics of Chicken Breasts Deboned at Two, Four, Six, and Twenty-Four Hours Postmortem. Poultry Science, vol. 83, no. 1, p. 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.1.101 PMid:14761091
Maltin, C., Balcerzak, D., Tilley, R., Delday, M. 2003. Determinants of meat quality: tenderness. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, vol. 62, no. 2, p. 337-347. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2003248 PMid:14506881
Markus, S. B., Aalhus, J. L., Janz, J. A. M., Larsen, I. L. 2011. A survey comparing meat quality attributes of beef from credence attribute-based production systems. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, vol. 91, no. 2, p. 283-294. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas10082
Mellen, M., Pavelková, A., Haščík, P., Bobko, M., Čuboň, J. 2014. Sensory evaluation of coob 500 chicken meat after application of different additives in their nutrition. Potravinárstvo, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 184-189. https://doi.org/10.5219/373
Miezeliene, A., Alencikiene, G., Gruzauskas, R., Barstys, T. 2011. The effect of dietary selenium supplementation on meat quality of broiler chickens. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment, vol. 15, no. S1, 61-69.
Ntzimani, A. G., Giatrakou, V. I., Savvaidis, I. N. 2010. Combined natural antimicrobial treatments (EDTA, lysozyme, rosemary and oregano oil) on semi cooked coated chicken meat stored in vacuum packages at 4 °C: Microbiological and sensory evaluation. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2009.09.004
Ramachandraiah, K., Han, S. G., Chin, K. B. 2015. Nanotechnology in Meat Processing and Packaging: Potential Applications - A Review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 290-302. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0607 PMid:25557827
Saha, A., Perumalla, A. V., Lee, Y., Meullenet, J. F., Owens, C. M. 2009. Tenderness, moistness, and flavor of pre- and postrigor marinated broiler breast fillets evaluated by consumer sensory panel. Poultry Science, vol. 88, no. 6, p. 1250-1256. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00236 PMid:19439637
Sow, T. M. A., Grongnet, J. F. 2010. Sensory characteristics and consumer preference for chicken meat in Guinea. Poultry Science, vol. 89, no. 10, p. 2281-2292. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00679 PMid:20852120
Teye, M., Apori, S. O., Ayeida, A. A. 2015. Carcass Parameters and Sensory Characteristics of Broiler Chicken Fed Diets Containing Palm (Elaeis guineensis) Kernel Oil Residue. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, vol. 4, no. 6, p. 1030-1038.
Watson, R., Gee, A., Polkinghorne, R., Porter, M. 2008. Consumer assessment of eating quality - development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 48, no. 11, p. 1360-1367. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07176
How to Cite
LicenseAuthors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).