Prediction of pork quality at the slaughter line using a portable Raman device

Scheier, Rico; Scheeder, M. R. L.; Schmidt, Heinar

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.01.009

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most promising is Raman and Fourier infrared spectroscopy (Andersen et al, 2017). For example, according to Scheier et al (2015) and Nache et al (2016) Raman spectroscopy is fully applicable in the abattoir for pH monitoring.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

pH measured 24 hours post mortem should not be regarded as ultimate pH in pork meat quality evaluation

Tarczyński¹,

Sieczkowska²,

Zybert³

et al. 2019

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic values of two methods in pork meat quality evaluation, that is, Method I: pH 1 and pH 24 and Method II: electrical conductivity (EC 2 ) and pH 24 , which included pH 24 , and their modifications, that is, Method III: pH 1 and pH 48 and Method IV: EC 2 and pH 48 , which included pH 48 measurement. Five meat quality classes, namely reddish-pink, firm and non-exudative (RFN), high quality (HQ), pale, soft and exudative (PSE), dark, firm and dry (DFD) and acid meat (AM) were assessed in four even-numbered genetic groups of 40 fatteners each, namely (L×Y)×D-A, (L×Y)×D-B, (L×Y)×H and (L×Y)×(D×P). The change of diagnostic method and therefore pH time measurement from 24 hours to 48 hours post mortem caused a major increase in the percentage of acid meat (AM) that was diagnosed. Most differences were observed in (L×Y)×H fatteners, namely 77.5% between Methods I and III and 75% between Methods II and IV. This increase in AM frequency indicates that as a result of significant changes in the post-mortem metabolism that occur in the meat ageing process pH 48 should be regarded as ultimate pH (pH u ). ______________________________________________________________________________________

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

pH measured 24 hours post mortem should not be regarded as ultimate pH in pork meat quality evaluation

Tarczyński¹,

Sieczkowska²,

Zybert³

et al. 2019

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pH parameter is an important factor from the point of view of the qualitative evaluation of post-mortem changes, refrigeration maintenance cycle and the overall freshness of the product during storage (Scheier et al 2015). As shown by the research results presented, the value of this parameter clearly differs between locations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The visual perception of the product is primarily based on color, which is a very important determinant of consumer acceptance (Scheier et al 2015). Rindless belly as a commercial/ market cut is very big, in contrast to the pork loin, so its color rating should be more detailed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability of Fresh Pork Belly Quality Evaluation Results Depends on Measurement Locations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increase in pork demand has led to an especially high increase in demand for precisely quality-defined bellies. The aim of the study was to determine the influence of quality measurement location on the pork belly on the results of qualitative evaluation and then to recommend the main measurement locations required to determine the precise quality evaluation of the whole cut. The research material consisted of 92 fresh pork belly samples, each divided on 12 testing locations. The highest pH values were noted for M2 (5.74), M1 (5.70), and D3 (5.69) locations, as well as A4 (5.53; P ≤ 0.05) generating the most outliers. Location D2 was distinguished by generally obtaining the highest values for parameters L*, b*, C*, and H* and the lowest for a*; this was independent of the measurement side. The highest water holding capacity values were reported for D4 and D3 locations, and the lowest (about 7% lower than the maximal values) were obtained for A4 and A2 locations. The highest values for the cooking loss parameter were noted for D4, D1, and M4 (about 33%) locations, and the lowest values were observed for location M2 (only 22%). In the case of sensory evaluation between the analyzed locations, differences (P ≤ 0.05) were recorded for all parameters. It is recommended to evaluate belly quality using one location: A1 and M3 are most accurate. The highest position in the ranking for processing quality parameters was occupied by the middle locations: M4, M1, and M3. However, when consumers ranked important quality parameters, the highest positions were given to location A1 and then D3 and M2. From a practical point of view, it is highly recommended to take quality parameters from location A1, which is much easier to obtain, and obtaining samples from this location leads to the least damage to the structure of the whole commercial cut.

show abstract

“…Since the pH is of particular importance to meat quality evaluation [63], serveral studies have tried to correlate pH measurements with Raman spectra obtained from handheld devices ready for mobile use [Scheier & Schmidt (2013) [55], Scheier et al (2014, 2015) [56,57], Fowler et al (2015b, 2018) [51,52], Nache et al (2016) [58]]. In the study of Scheier & Schmidt (2013) [55] the pH values from 10 pork samples were recorded with a pH electrode as well as Raman spectra with a handheld device in a period from 30 min to 10 h post mortem.…”

Section: Application Of Raman Spectroscopy In Meat Quality Predictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Review on the Utilization of Handheld and Portable Raman Spectrometry in Meat Science

Beganović¹,

Hawthorne

Bach

et al. 2019

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional methods for the determination of meat quality-relevant parameters are rather time-consuming and destructive, whereas spectroscopic methods offer fast and non-invasive measurements. This review critically deals with the application of handheld and portable Raman devices in the meat sector. Some published articles on this topic tend to convey the impression of unrestricted applicability of mentioned devices in this field of research. Furthermore, results are often subjected to over-optimistic interpretations without being underpinned by adequate test set validation. On the other hand, deviations in reference methods for meat quality assessment and the inhomogeneity of the meat matrix pose a challange to Raman spectroscopy and multivariate models. Nonetheless, handheld and portable Raman devices show considerable potential for some applications in the meat sector.

show abstract

Prediction of pork quality at the slaughter line using a portable Raman device

Cited by 26 publications

References 30 publications

pH measured 24 hours post mortem should not be regarded as ultimate pH in pork meat quality evaluation

pH measured 24 hours post mortem should not be regarded as ultimate pH in pork meat quality evaluation

Variability of Fresh Pork Belly Quality Evaluation Results Depends on Measurement Locations

Critical Review on the Utilization of Handheld and Portable Raman Spectrometry in Meat Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About