Boar taint detection: A comparison of three sensory protocols.

While recent studies state an important role of human sensory methods for daily routine control of so-called boar taint, the evaluation of different heating methods is still incomplete. This study investigated three common heating methods (microwave (MW), hot-water (HW), hot-iron (HI)) for boar fat evaluation. The comparison was carried out on 72 samples with a 10-person sensory panel. The heating method significantly affected the probability of a deviant rating. Compared to an assumed 'gold standard' (chemical analysis), the performance was best for HI when both sensitivity and specificity were considered. The results show the superiority of the panel result compared to individual assessors. However, the consistency of the individual sensory ratings was not significantly different between MW, HW, and HI. The three protocols showed only fair to moderate agreement. Concluding from the present results, the hot-iron method appears to be advantageous for boar taint evaluation as compared to microwave and hot-water.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  F. Tuyttens,et al.  Evaluation of various boar taint detection methods. , 2012, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[3]  J-E Haugen,et al.  Review of analytical methods to measure boar taint compounds in porcine adipose tissue: the need for harmonised methods. , 2012, Meat science.

[4]  A. B. Turner,et al.  Convenient synthesis of monomeric steroids from steroidal oxalate dimers using flash vacuum pyrolysis (FVP) , 2010 .

[5]  L Vanhaecke,et al.  Evaluation of different heating methods for the detection of boar taint by means of the human nose. , 2013, Meat science.

[6]  A. Perosa,et al.  Chemoselective reactions of dimethyl carbonate catalysed by alkali metal exchanged faujasites: the case of indolyl carboxylic acids and indolyl-substituted alkyl carboxylic acids , 2007 .

[7]  B. Harlizius,et al.  Inter-laboratory comparison of methods to measure androstenone in pork fat. , 2011, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[8]  R. Morrison,et al.  Comparison of the accuracies of chemical and sensory tests for detecting taint in pork , 1996 .

[9]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  THE USE OF CONFIDENCE OR FIDUCIAL LIMITS ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASE OF THE BINOMIAL , 1934 .

[10]  Patricia Stefanowicz,et al.  Sensory evaluation of food principles and practices , 2013 .

[11]  J. Lundström,et al.  Individual differences in the chemical senses: is there a common sensitivity? , 2012, Chemical senses.

[12]  Carla Kuesten,et al.  INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (ICC): A FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING AND ASSESSING PERFORMANCE OF TRAINED SENSORY PANELS AND PANELISTS , 2012 .

[13]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  M. Bücking,et al.  Development of a candidate reference method for the simultaneous quantitation of the boar taint compounds androstenone, 3α-androstenol, 3β-androstenol, skatole, and indole in pig fat by means of stable isotope dilution analysis-headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography/mass spectromet , 2011, Analytical chemistry.

[15]  R. L. S. Patterson,et al.  5α-androst-16-ene-3-one:—Compound responsible for taint in boar fat , 1968 .

[16]  R. Herz,et al.  A naturalistic analysis of autobiographical memories triggered by olfactory visual and auditory stimuli. , 2004, Chemical senses.

[17]  P. Jeffs,et al.  Aromatic oxygenation patterns of some trioxyl-aryl amaryllidaceae alkaloids belonging to the hemi-acetal and lactone group , 1963 .

[18]  E. Knol,et al.  A human nose scoring system for boar taint and its relationship with androstenone and skatole. , 2012, Meat science.

[19]  J. Schooler,et al.  A naturalistic study of autobiographical memories evoked by olfactory and visual cues: testing the Proustian hypothesis. , 2002, The American journal of psychology.

[20]  Daniel Mörlein,et al.  Evaluating the performance of sensory quality control: the case of boar taint. , 2015, Meat science.

[21]  A. Minnaar,et al.  Temporal aspects related to the perception of skatole and androstenone, the major boar odour compounds. , 2001, Meat science.

[22]  Johan N Lundström,et al.  Central Processing of the Chemical Senses: an Overview. , 2011, ACS chemical neuroscience.

[23]  Henk Maarse,et al.  Volatile Compounds in Foods and Beverages , 1991 .

[24]  Kerstin Lundström,et al.  Effects of raw potato starch and live weight on fat and plasma skatole, indole and androstenone levels measured by different methods in entire male pigs , 2007 .

[25]  M. Wicke,et al.  Effects of context and repeated exposure on food liking: The case of boar taint , 2015 .

[26]  M. Wicke,et al.  Sensory evaluation of boar loins: trained assessors' olfactory acuity affects the perception of boar taint compounds. , 2013, Meat science.

[27]  J. Wood,et al.  Comparison of heating methods and the use of different tissues for sensory assessment of abnormal odours (boar taint) in pig meat. , 2011, Meat science.

[28]  W. Revelle.  psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research , 2017 .

[29]  Daniel Mörlein,et al.  How olfactory acuity affects the sensory assessment of boar fat: a proposal for quantification. , 2014, Meat science.

[30]  Howard R. Moskowitz,et al.  Food quality: Conceptual and sensory aspects , 1995 .

[31]  E. Köster,et al.  A “Misfit” Theory of Spontaneous Conscious Odor Perception (MITSCOP): reflections on the role and function of odor memory in everyday life , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[32]  D. Bates,et al.  Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4 , 2015 .

[33]  L. Zalkow.  The occurrence of 5a-androstane-3,16a,17a-triol in rayless goldenrod (? ? ?) , 1964 .

[34]  Peter Dalgaard,et al.  R Development Core Team (2010): R: A language and environment for statistical computing , 2010 .

[35]  B. Egelandsdal,et al.  Norwegian consumers' acceptability of boar tainted meat with different levels of androstenone or skatole as related to their androstenone sensitivity. , 2010, Meat science.

[36]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices , 1998 .