Chicken is appreciated by consumers because it is a very versatile meat, affordable, and generally recognized as healthier and more environmentally friendly than red meats. Currently, chicken cuts are mostly sold packaged; thus, the adequate establishment of shelf life is fundamental. Our aim was to evaluate the potential of using an online consumer test to determine the freshness of chicken breast and the extension of shelf life based on viewing photographs. The results showed that the use of images of chicken breasts, vacuum packed, and modified atmosphere packaged (MAP), for an online consumer test is an interesting strategy. The results are consistent with those obtained from a group of consumers performing the test live with images and odor evaluation and with the counts of spoilage microorganisms. The relationship between microbial counts and acceptability was unclear, particularly in the MAP samples, which presented counts considered acceptable but were rejected by the consumers.
Practical applicationsThe use of consumer tests to define the shelf-life of perishable products is a method currently used by the industry. Since consumer tests are expensive, and especially with perishable products, it is quite difficult to operationalize, and, consumer in the purchasing situation values essentially the product aspect, we organized a research work to evaluate the potential of using an online consumer test on the freshness of chicken breast and the extension of shelf life based on viewing photographs of the product as a replacement for the product itself. The results suggest that use of images to perform an online consumer test was revealed to be an adequate and useful strategy.
Sensory Studiesvacuum packaged accepted samples observed. When the comparison is made only between samples in MAP, the total psychotropic microorganisms and Pseudomonas spp. had higher counts in the rejected samples. Utilizing the criteria currently used to define the spoilage limit based on the MTVC, or PTVC of 7 Log cfu/g, the present results show that it can be risky, since it was observed that the MAP chicken breasts that were not accepted by the consumers had a mean MTVC lower than that limit (Figure 3). Analyzing the results for each time studied (Table 3), chicken breasts at ESL+3, which were clearly rejected by the consumers, presented an MTVC of 5.59 ± 0.21Log cfu/g and PTVC 5.91 ± 0.14 Log cfu/g. Conversely, vacuum packaged samples stored at ESL+5 and ESL+10, which were accepted by the consumers, had MTVCs near 7 Log cfu/g. In the present work, the counts did not reach values above 7 Log cfu/g, which could allow us to understand whether the relationship with consumer acceptance needs more clarity.
| CONCLUSIONThe use of images of chicken breasts to perform an online consumer test was revealed to be an adequate strategy. Despite the smaller number of consumers used in the live test, which allowed consumers to evaluate the aspect through the image and smell of a piece of chicken breast at the given storage time, the results are coh...