4.7 Article

Relationship between consumer ranking of lamb colour and objective measures of colour

Journal

MEAT SCIENCE
Volume 85, Issue 2, Pages 224-229

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.01.002

Keywords

Lamb; Colour; Consumer acceptance; Acceptability thresholds; Instrumental measures; Fresh meat; Aged meat

Funding

  1. NSW Industry and Investment (Primary Industries)
  2. Australian CRC for Sheep Industry Innovation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Given the lack of data that relates consumer acceptance of lamb colour to instrument measures a study was undertaken to establish the acceptability thresholds for fresh and displayed meat. Consumers (n = 541) were asked to score 20 samples of lamb loin (m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum: LL) on an ordinal scale of 1 (very acceptable) to 5 (very unacceptable). A sample was considered acceptable by a consumer if it scored three or less. Ten samples were used for testing consumer response to fresh colour and 10 to test consumer response to colour during display of up to 4 days. The colour of fresh meat was measured using a Minolta chromameter with a closed cone and a Hunter Lab Miniscan was used for measuring meat on display. For fresh meat when the a* (redness) and L* (lightness) values are equal to or exceed 9.5 and 34, respectively, on average consumers will consider the meat colour acceptable. However a* and L* values must be much higher (14.5 and 44, respectively) to have 95% confidence that a randomly selected consumer will consider a sample acceptable. For aged meat, when the wavelength ratio (630/580 nm) and the a* values are equal to or greater than 3.3 and 14.8, respectively, on average consumers will consider the meat acceptable. These thresholds need to be increased to 6.8 for ratio (630/580 nm) and 21.7 for a* to be 95% confident that a randomly selected consumer will consider a sample acceptable. Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available