Arkansas - Agricultural Communication Services - University of ...

Arkansas Animal Science Department Report 2001
ment was not different (P > 0.05) from C for beef odor
through display, and was only different (P < 0.05) on day 0 of
display for off odor. These results are comparable with those
of Garcia-Zepeda et al. (1994), who found that beef subprimals
treated with chlorine received higher acceptability
scores when compared to water treated subprimals.
Therefore, the use of cetylpyridium chloride and trisodium
phosphate in combination had little effect on ground beef
odor or off odor characteristics.
Implications
Results from this study show that the use of CC on beef
trimmings before grinding had little effect on ground beef
sensory color and odor characteristics. However, the use of
CT multiple interventions enhanced sensory evaluated color
stability of ground beef through refrigerated display, without
affecting aroma qualities.
Literature Cited
AMSA. 1978. Guidelines for cookery and sensory evaluation
of meat. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc. and National Live Stock
and Meat Board, Chicago, IL.
Dickson, J.S. & Anderson, M.E. 1992. J. Food Protection.
55(2):133.
Dorsa, W.J., et al. 1998. J. Food Protection. 61(9):1109.
Garcia-Zepeda, C.M., et al. 1994. J. Food Protection.
57(8):674.
Gill, C.O. & Bandoni, M. 1997. Meat Science. 46(1):67.
Hunt, M.C., et al. 1991. Proceedings 44th annual reciprocal
meat conference (pp3-17), 9-12 July 1991, Kansas State
Univ., Manhattan, KS.
Siragusa, G.R. 1995. J. Food Safety. 15:229.
Acknowledgments
Appreciation is expressed to the Arkansas Beef Council
for funding this research. The authors would like to thank J.
Davis, L. Rakes, A. Ivey, L. McBeth, R. Story and E. Kroger
for their assistance in conducting these trials.
162