Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractBiochemical correlates of illness and recovery in Reye's syndrome    Next AbstractAero-dispersed mutagenicity attributed to particulate and semi volatile phase in an urban environment »

Meat Sci


Title:Boar taint detection: A comparison of three sensory protocols
Author(s):Trautmann J; Meier-Dinkel L; Gertheiss J; Morlein D;
Address:"Department of Animal Sciences, Meat Science Group, University of Gottingen, D-37075 Gottingen, Germany. Electronic address: johanna.trautmann@agr.uni-goettingen.de. Department of Animal Sciences, Meat Science Group, University of Gottingen, D-37075 Gottingen, Germany. Department of Animal Sciences, Biometrics & Bioinformatics Group, University of Gottingen, D-37075 Gottingen, Germany. Department of Animal Sciences, Meat Science Group, University of Gottingen, D-37075 Gottingen, Germany; isi GmbH & Co. KG, D-37124 Rosdorf, Gottingen, Germany. Electronic address: daniel.moerlein@agr.uni-goettingen.de"
Journal Title:Meat Sci
Year:2016
Volume:20150820
Issue:
Page Number:92 - 100
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.08.011
ISSN/ISBN:1873-4138 (Electronic) 0309-1740 (Linking)
Abstract:"While recent studies state an important role of human sensory methods for daily routine control of so-called boar taint, the evaluation of different heating methods is still incomplete. This study investigated three common heating methods (microwave (MW), hot-water (HW), hot-iron (HI)) for boar fat evaluation. The comparison was carried out on 72 samples with a 10-person sensory panel. The heating method significantly affected the probability of a deviant rating. Compared to an assumed 'gold standard' (chemical analysis), the performance was best for HI when both sensitivity and specificity were considered. The results show the superiority of the panel result compared to individual assessors. However, the consistency of the individual sensory ratings was not significantly different between MW, HW, and HI. The three protocols showed only fair to moderate agreement. Concluding from the present results, the hot-iron method appears to be advantageous for boar taint evaluation as compared to microwave and hot-water"
Keywords:Androstenes/analysis Animals Dietary Fats/*analysis *Food Contamination Food Handling/instrumentation/methods Food Inspection/instrumentation/*methods *Food Quality Germany Hot Temperature Humans Logistic Models Male Meat/*analysis Microwaves Odorants Phe;
Notes:"MedlineTrautmann, Johanna Meier-Dinkel, Lisa Gertheiss, Jan Morlein, Daniel eng Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't England 2015/09/09 Meat Sci. 2016 Jan; 111:92-100. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.08.011. Epub 2015 Aug 20"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 27-12-2024