Arkansas - Agricultural Communication Services - University of ...

Arkansas Animal Science Department Report 2001
the reduction in redness (a*) values for the AC treatment
caused a corresponding shift in the hue angle value. Ground
beef from the CC treatment also possessed a larger (P < 0.05)
hue angle than C with the exception of day 3 of display.
However, ground beef color (hue angle) did not differ (P >
0.05) between CT and C treatments until day 7 of display,
when CT had a smaller (P < 0.05) hue angle. The difference
in hue angle between CT and C treatments on day 7 of display
was due to the superior redness value (a*) for the CT
treatment.
Ground beef from the AC treatment was less (P < 0.05)
vivid in color (saturation index) than all other treatments
throughout display (Fig. 2, panel D). However, CC ground
beef was not different (P > 0.05) in vividness of color (saturation
index) when compared to C through display. On day 0
of display, ground beef from the CT treatment was slightly
less (P < 0.05) vivid in color than C, however, was not different
(P > 0.05) on days 1 through 3 of display. Conversely,
by day 7 of display, ground beef from the CT treatment had a
brighter, more vivid color (P < 0.05) than C. Therefore, treatment
of beef trimmings before grinding with CT caused
ground beef to maintain higher levels of oxymyoglobin (630
nm/580 nm) through display, which caused stability enhancement
of ground beef color. Advantages in ground beef color
for the CT treatment over C were most likely due to the elevated
pH of this treatment (6.91) compared with C (5.72), due
to the buffering capacity of the trisodium phosphate portion
of the CT treatment. The elevated pH for the CT treatment
had a stabilizing effect on oxymyoglobin (630 nm/580 nm;
Fig. 2, panel B), which in turn extended ground beef vividness
(saturation index) and redness (a* and hue angle) of
color through display.
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.
Literature Cited
Bell, M.F., et al. 1986. J. Food Protection. 49(3):207.
Ellebracht, E.A., et al. 1999. J. Food Science, 64(6):1094.
Phebus, R.K., et al. 1997. J. Food Protection 60(5): 476.
Pohlman, F.W., et al. 2001. Ark. Agri. Expt. Sta. Res. Series.
(In Press).
Strange, E.D., et al. 1974. J. Food Science, 39:988.
Unda, J.R., et al. 1989. J. Food Science, 54(1):7.
Implications
Results from this study show that the use multiple
antimicrobial interventions in the production of ground beef
has the potential to extend retail shelf life and could increase
meat yield and profitability when used as a food safety intervention
under the new retained water rule of the USDA.
Table 1. Effect of multiple antimicrobial treatments a applied to beef trimmings prior to grinding
on least-squares means (± SE) CIE L* b and b* b values of ground beef
through simulated retail display.
Treatment
C AC CC CT SE
CIE L* 48.35yc 47.42x 51.33z 45.73w .28
CIE b* 19.61z 16.75x 20.11z 18.84y .23
a C = Control; AC = 5% acetic acid and 0.5% cetylpyridinium chloride; CC = 200 ppm chlorine dioxide and
0.5% cetylpyridinium chloride; CT = 0.5% cetylpyridinium chloride and 10% trisodium phosphate.
b L*: 0 = black and 100 = white; b*: -60 = blue and +60 = yellow.
c Least-squares means within a row without a common letter differ (P < 0.05).
166