Open Access

Bioimpedance as an alternative tool for subjective, visual scoring of a prevalent ham quality defect


Cite

Fig. 1.

The two different muscles, for which bioimpedance, ultimate meat pH and CIELAB color values were measured. AD: adductor muscle, SM: semimembranosus muscle.
The two different muscles, for which bioimpedance, ultimate meat pH and CIELAB color values were measured. AD: adductor muscle, SM: semimembranosus muscle.

Fig. 2.

Visual DES defect scoring results of the two observers for N = 111 pork ham samples. A) the average visual scores for the two observers (note the 0.5 steps instead of integers). B, C) The distribution of the visual DES scores for the two observers separately. Both the average and individual score data sets show a sufficiently heterogeneous distribution, with all DES ranks being represented by a larger number of individuals and no heavily skewed distribution.
Visual DES defect scoring results of the two observers for N = 111 pork ham samples. A) the average visual scores for the two observers (note the 0.5 steps instead of integers). B, C) The distribution of the visual DES scores for the two observers separately. Both the average and individual score data sets show a sufficiently heterogeneous distribution, with all DES ranks being represented by a larger number of individuals and no heavily skewed distribution.

Fig. 3.

Bioimpedance response (Py parameter) distribution for two ham muscles, which were also included with the more global visual DES evaluation. A) Py parameter distribution for the AD muscle location. B) Py parameter distribution for the central SM location. C) Correlation plot of Py values scores for SM and AD testing indicating a strong correlation (r = 0.8).
Bioimpedance response (Py parameter) distribution for two ham muscles, which were also included with the more global visual DES evaluation. A) Py parameter distribution for the AD muscle location. B) Py parameter distribution for the central SM location. C) Correlation plot of Py values scores for SM and AD testing indicating a strong correlation (r = 0.8).

Fig. 4.

Correlation coefficients between visual destructured (DES) score and bioimpedance (BI) measurements, pHu, and CIELAB for the AD muscle. All shown correlations were found to be significant at (P < 0.05), except Py vs L* with P = 0.39.
Correlation coefficients between visual destructured (DES) score and bioimpedance (BI) measurements, pHu, and CIELAB for the AD muscle. All shown correlations were found to be significant at (P < 0.05), except Py vs L* with P = 0.39.

Estimated coefficients of the model statistics with P values.

Estimate SE tSTAT P - Value
(Intercept) −82.022 74.573 −1.0999 0.274
pHu 17.343 13.121 1.3217 0.189
L* 2.3323 1.5671 1.4883 0.139
a* 0.85357 0.38534 2.2151 0.029
b* 0.21135 0.089393 2.3643 0.02
Py −0.83391 0.27336 −3.0506 0.003
pHu x L* −0.54006 0.2669 −2.0235 0.045
pHu x Py 0.11651 0.045719 2.5484 0.012
L* x Py 0.0033977 0.0011399 2.9807 0.003
L*2 0.0054231 0.0029521 1.837 0.069
a*2 −0.035111 0.013828 −2.5392 0.012

The four-rank visual DES scoring scheme for destructured ham cuts, including the semimembranosus and adductor muscle. Scoring was based on evaluating structural disintegration and visual color (adapted from [19, 24]).

Score
Visual colour Reddish (> 3) From pale to reddish (1 - 3) Very pale (1 - 2)
Muscle structure defect Compact fibre structure

Absence of fibrillar structure in the affected area

Destructured meat

Absence of fibrillar structure in the affected area

Soft and doughy, destructured meat Fluid exudate

Area affected None Small areas on the surface with single patches of destructured zones More than 50% of both muscle areas Lesions beneath the surface
Observations No visible defects Small, pale areas on the surface Lesion less than approx. 2cm in depth Lesion more than approx. 2cm in depth