Skip to main content
ARS Home » Southeast Area » Athens, Georgia » U.S. National Poultry Research Center » Quality and Safety Assessment Research Unit » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #420031
Research Project: Smart Optical Sensing of Food Hazards and Elimination of Non-Nitrofurazone Semicarbazide in Poultry

Location: Quality and Safety Assessment Research Unit

Title: Evaluation of sensory characteristics and consumer acceptance of electrical and gas stunned broilers during chilled storage

Author
item JESSUP, AINSLEY - Auburn University
item JONES, JODIE - Auburn University
item BARAHONA, LINDA - Auburn University
item DEES, JACOB - Auburn University
item HAYDEN, MICHELLE - Auburn University
item CHO, SUNGEUN - Auburn University

Submitted to: Meeting Abstract
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 6/17/2024
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: N/A

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: Electrical-stunning is the preferred method of stunning in the American poultry industry due to its affordability and effectiveness; however, gas-stunning is deemed an effective alternative that has a higher regard to animal welfare due to no live-shackling prior to the stun. This study investigated the effect of electrical and gas-stunning on the sensory characteristics and consumer acceptance of chicken breast meat as well as the impact of packaging type during chilled storage (15 days at 4°C). A consumer acceptance test was conducted on both day 0 and 3. On day 0 (n=90), participants were asked to taste oven-baked (165°F and ~40 min) gas and electric-stunned chicken breasts and evaluate overall liking and sensory attribute liking (texture, appearance, aroma, and flavor) on a 9-point hedonic scale and intensities of chicken flavor, aftertaste, and juiciness on a 15 cm line scale. On day 3 (n=93) participants tasted oven-baked electric-stunned non-vacuum packaged chicken (EN), electric-stunned vacuum-packaged chicken (EV), gas-stunned non-vacuum packaged chicken (GN), and gas-stunned vacuum packaged chicken (GV). For electronic-nose (e-nose, Alpha MOS) analysis, the raw and oven baked breast meat was ground, 2 grams were measured, placed into a 20-mL vile, and sealed for analysis. Samples were analyzed on days 0, 3, and 15 and completed in triplicate. The consumer panel (n=90) found there were no significant differences in any of the ratings between different stunned chicken breast samples of day 0. On day 3 consumer panel (n=93) did not show any significant differences in the ratings, except juiciness. The significant differences in juiciness were between EV and EN (P= 0.002, EV=6.70 plus or minus 3.89, EN=8.48 plus or minus 3.93) and GV and GN (P= 0.036, GV= 7.91 plus or minus 3.56, GN= 9.13 plus or minus 3.69). Vacuum-packaged products had, on average, a lower juiciness level than the non-vacuum-packaged products. Although the consumer panels did not find a significant difference in aroma-liking between treatments, the E-Nose showed different volatile profiles between cooked electric- and gas-stunned treatments. GN produced less off-odor volatiles through day 15 than EN. This was indicated by EN producing hydroperoxides (e.g., p-menthadienhydroperoxide), suggesting lipid oxidation initiated, and the ketone butane-2,3-dione, indicating an off-odor. Meanwhile, GN did not produce these volatiles. A similar occurrence was found in EV and GV samples through day 15. GV produced volatiles such as nonan-2-one (hot-milk and musty), creating an off-aroma, while EV did not. This indicates EV produced less off-odor volatiles. It can be suggested that in terms of consumer perception neither stunning method creates a higher quality product based on sensory characteristics. However, vacuum-packaged products electric-stunned chicken maintained fewer off-odors, but in non-vacuum-packaged products gas-stunned chicken maintained less off-odors.