J. Appl. Poult. Res.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J APPL POULT RES 2007. 16:438-447
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huezo, R.
Right arrow Articles by Fletcher, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Huezo, R.
Right arrow Articles by Fletcher, D. L.

Research Reports

Effect of Immersion or Dry Air Chilling on Broiler Carcass Moisture Retention and Breast Fillet Functionality

R. Huezo*, D. P. Smith{dagger},1, J. K. Northcutt{dagger} and D. L. Fletcher{ddagger}

* University of Georgia, Athens 30605; {dagger} Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Athens, GA 30604; and {ddagger} University of Connecticut, Storrs 06269

Correspondence: 1 Corresponding author: dpsmith{at}saa.ars.usda.gov


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
A study was conducted to investigate the effect of chilling method on broiler carcass skin color, moisture retention, breast fillet quality, and functionality. One hundred fifty eviscerated broiler carcasses were removed from a commercial processing line before chilling, transported to the laboratory, weighed, and chilled by dry air or immersion in ice water. Postchill carcasses were weighed for moisture uptake or loss and held on ice at 4°C for 24 h. Carcass skin color was measured immediately after chilling and after storage. After storage, fillets were deboned, marinated, and cooked. Fillet color was measured on the medial surface before marination and after cooking. Cooked fillet shear values were determined using an Allo-Kramer multiple blade. After 150 min of air chilling, carcasses lost 2.5% of prechill weight, and weight loss ranged from 2.2 to 3.5%. Moisture uptake during immersion averaged 9.3% of the prechill weight but varied widely with a range of 3.4 to 14.7%. Immediately after chilling, breast skin for immersion-chilled carcasses was significantly lighter (higher L*), less red (lower a*), and less yellow (lower b*) than the breast skin color for air-chilled carcasses. Storage time improved appearance (lighter skin color) of air-chilled carcasses. Raw and cooked fillet color, fillet marination pickup, and cooked fillet tenderness were not affected by chilling method. Cook yield for fillets deboned from immersion-chilled carcasses was significantly lower than fillets from air-chilled carcasses.

Key Words: broiler • immersion chilling • air chilling • poultry meat color • marination


   DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
During commercial poultry processing, eviscerated carcasses are chilled by immersion or cold-air blast primarily to reduce microbial growth [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. In the United States, immersion chilling has traditionally been the most common method of cooling poultry carcasses, because it is both efficient and economical [2, 6]. However, air chilling is gaining in popularity because of the limited availability of water, wastewater discharge restrictions, and changes in the US federal regulations on carcass moisture retention [7]. In addition, air-chilled poultry may be exported to countries in the European Union (EU), where immersion-chilled poultry is not viewed as favorable [8, 9, 10]. This is important to the United States, because the EU poultry market has been estimated to be worth $1.2 billion, and additional countries are requesting membership every year. Thus, acceptance of US poultry in the EU would have a significant economic effect on the poultry industry.

In 2001, the USDA published a regulation on moisture retention in posteviscerated poultry, which requires establishments to do the following: 1) document the amount of water retained in chilled poultry carcasses and carcass parts, 2) disclose the amount of water in the poultry product as a result of processing on the product label, and 3) demonstrate that absorbed water is "an unavoidable consequence of processing required to meet the pathogen reduction performance standards" [7]. The regulation also emphasizes that livestock carcasses are cooled by evaporative air chilling in which water is misted onto the carcasses to accelerate heat removal, but carcasses do not gain moisture. This same ruling states that retained moisture should be documented to provide consumers with information necessary to make adequate purchase decisions [7].

Previous research on immersion-chilled poultry has shown that the majority of the water is held between the skin and the muscle and drips from the carcass during cut-up and deboning [11, 12, 13]. Young and Smith [14] compared moisture retention of dry air and immersion-chilled broiler carcasses and found that air-chilled carcasses lost 0.68% of their prechill weight, whereas immersion-chilled carcasses gained 11.7% moisture. They also reported that immersion-chilled carcasses lost 5.7% moisture during cut-up and another 2.1% during storage. However, these researchers air-chilled carcasses in individual bags, which likely minimized evaporative weight loss [14].

Research on immersion chilling has reported that although carcass appearance is improved, the excessive drip loss, higher thaw loss, higher transportation cost, and cooking loss have undesirable consequences compared with air chilling [1, 2, 3, 15, 16]. Immersion chilling is also a water-intensive process, requiring about 2.6 L/bird to fill the chill tank at shift startup and additional overflow of 1.9 L/bird. According to recent surveys, the average water usage for poultry processing in the United States is about 26.0 L/bird [17, 18]. With water and sewer costs averaging about $4/3,785 L, immersion chilling of poultry has become an expensive process.

Previous review articles have shown advantages and disadvantages for both air and immersion chilling of poultry; however, in many cases, the details of the methods are incomplete [2, 3, 5, 6, 19, 20, 21]. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the effects of IC and AC of poultry carcasses on weight change, skin color, raw fillet color, marination pickup, fillet cook loss, and fillet tenderness.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Broiler Carcass Procurement
During each of 3 replications, 50 soft-scalded eviscerated broiler carcasses were removed from a commercial processing line before chilling, placed into coolers, and transported (15 min) to the laboratory. Carcasses were tagged on the wing [22] and weighed. After weighing, carcasses were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 chilling treatments: immersion or air chilling (Figure 1Go).


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Experimental design for each of 3 replications. L* = lightness; a* = redness; b* = yellowness.

 
Chilling Treatments
Carcasses were chilled by immersion in ice water or by cold air. Immersion-chilled carcasses were submersed in 133 L of a mixture of ice and tap water (approximately 0.6°C) in a prototype tumble chiller. The paddles in the tumble chiller were operated at 4 rpm for the duration of the 50-min chill. After immersion chilling (IC), carcasses were hung by their hocks in shackles and allowed to drip for 5 min. Air-chill (AC) carcasses were cooled for 150 min. Air was distributed directly into the abdominal cavity of each carcass by specially modified ducts that provided a continuous flow (3.5 m/s) of cold air (approximately –1.1°C).

Postchill carcasses were weighed, and breast skin color was measured using a Minolta colorimeter [23]. Skin color measurements were made in triplicates on the lateral body apterium (the area between the pectoral and lateral body feather tracts). After measuring color, carcasses were individually bagged and held on ice in a 4°C cold room for approximately 24 h. For each treatment and replication, 1 to 3 carcasses were selected for continuous (every min) monitoring of internal breast temperature with a Cox recorder [24].

Deboning, Marination, and Cooking
After 24 h of postchill storage, carcasses were removed from bags, and skin color was measured again using the colorimeter [23]. The left and right breast fillets (pectoralis) were manually removed and individually tagged [22] and weighed. Fillet color was measured, and fillets were pooled for marination. Marination [25] was conducted for 20 min under vacuum (84.7 kPa) at 4°C using a prechilled (4°C) solution (95% water:3% salt:2% sodium tripolyphosphate). Marinade was added to the tumbler at 20% (wt:wt) of the raw weight. After marination, fillets were weighed individually and placed on aluminum trays (medial surface down) for cooking. Fillets were cooked at 95°C in a steam cooker for 15 min. After cooking, fillets were covered with aluminum foil and allowed to cool to room temperature. Cooked fillets were reweighed to determine cooked yield.

Shear Values
Shear values were determined according to the method described by Smith et al. [26] with modifications. Briefly, this method uses an Allo-Kramer multiple-blade shear cell on an Instron [27] universal testing machine. A 25-mm diameter round sample core was removed from the thickest part of each fillet. Sample cores were weighed to the nearest 0.1 g and then placed in the shear cell such that the shear blades would affect the sample perpendicular to the orientation of the surface muscle fibers. Samples were sheared using a 500-kg load cell and crosshead speed of 500 mm/min. Shear values are calculated by dividing the sample core weight by the maximum kilograms of shear and are expressed as kilograms of shear per gram of sample.

Color Measurements
For carcass skin and fillet color, the complete International Commission on Illumination system color profile of lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) was measured using a Minolta Chromameter CR-300 [23]. The colorimeter was calibrated throughout the study using a standard white ceramic tile [28]. Only areas free from obvious defects (bruises, discolorations, hemorrhages, or any other condition that might have affected uniform color reading) were selected for color measurements. For fillet color determination, measurements were made on the medial surface (bone side) to avoid breast fillet surface discolorations due to possible over-scalding in the plant.

Statistical Analysis
All the variables determined during this study are presented in Table 1Go. For marination pickup, cook yield, shear, and color, data were analyzed by ANOVA procedure of the GLM of SAS software using replication and chilling treatment as the main effects [29]. Main effects and their interactions were tested for statistical significance using the residual error (P < 0.05). When the interaction between replication chilling and method was found to be significant, it was used as the error term to test the main effects. A paired t-test from the readings of the same carcass was used to test the significance of the skin color change between time of chilling and 24 h of refrigerated storage.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Parameter descriptions for whole broiler carcasses and breast fillets
 

   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Carcass Temperature, Weight Gain and Loss During Chilling, and Skin Color
The internal temperature of the carcasses before starting the chilling process averaged 32.8°C, measured in the thickest part of the breast. Carcass temperature decreased 2.8 to 5.0°C during transportation from the processing plant to the experimental facility. Figure 2Go shows the temperature decrease curves measured in the thickest part of the breast during air and IC. Under the conditions of the present experiment, the average time to reach an internal temperature of 4.4°C was 35 and 90 min for immersion and air chilling, respectively. The slow chilling rate of the air chilling system allowed the AC carcasses a 55-min period with a slightly higher mean temperature of 8.3°C. Temperature of the breast muscle during rigor development has been demonstrated to affect meat quality [30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. Previous research has indicated that elevated carcass temperatures or slower chilling rates can affect post mortem glycolysis and may result in larger drip and cooking losses, higher meat shear values, and paler (lighter) meat color [35, 36, 37, 38, 39].


Figure 2
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Temperature of breast muscle of broiler carcasses during air and immersion chilling.

 
Table 2Go shows the changes in broiler carcass weight and skin color immediately after AC or IC and after 24 h of refrigerated storage. Chilling method (air or immersion) significantly affected carcass weight (P < 0.05). After 150 min of AC, carcasses lost 2.5% of prechill weight, and values ranged from 3.5 to 2.2% loss. Moisture uptake during immersion was highly variable, averaging 9.3% of the prechill weight, but ranged from 3.4 to 14.7%. These data agree with other publications, in which immersion-chilled carcasses were found to gain 6 to 12% of the prechill carcass weight [4, 12, 13, 14, 40, 41, 42, 43]. Other publications reported that air-chilled carcasses lost up to 3% of their prechill weight [4, 12, 39, 41, 44, 45, 46]. In the present study, yields for immersion and air-chilled carcasses differed by approximately 11.8% (–2.5 to +9.3%), and this was slightly lower than the 12.4% previously reported [14].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Moisture retention and loss immediately after chilling and skin color after chilling and after 24 h of refrigerated storage for immersion and air-chilled broiler carcasses
 
The high variation in weight change between individual carcasses during IC was likely the result of processing parameters, such as evisceration cut and looseness of the skin, degree of exposed flesh, carcass weight, and sex (related to amount of fat) [5, 40, 41, 43, 47]. During AC, variables such as chilling time, temperature, air velocity, skin moisture, and carcass size affect evaporative weight losses [11, 19, 46, 48]. Individual carcass variation is less than with IC, because the small additional weight loss from any individual AC carcass due to processing error is much less than the total amount of water gained by IC carcasses, where processing errors result in a magnified moisture gain.

Immediately after chilling, the breast skin of IC carcasses was significantly lighter (higher L*), less red (lower a*), and less yellow (lower b*) than AC carcasses (P < 0.05). Storage time improved the skin appearance (color) of AC carcasses, but skin color after 24 h of storage still differed for the 2 chilling methods (Table 2Go). Lightness, redness, and yellowness skin values for AC carcasses changed during 24 h of refrigerated storage, but only L* and a* skin values significantly changed for IC carcasses after 24 h of storage. Skin on AC carcasses appeared dried during cooling, and it became more translucent when compared with the IC carcasses. As a result, appearance of the skin of AC carcasses was darker than IC carcasses, because underlying muscle was visible through the skin. Dryness affects carcass light reflectance and skin color, because as the skin becomes thin, the background color (breast muscle) increases the redness and yellowness. Other factors that contribute to the difference in color between chilling methods is the loss of some of the epidermis during IC due to agitation, washing effect, and carcass-to-carcass contact.

Mielnik et al. [45] reported lower L* values and higher b* values for AC carcasses than carcasses cooled with evaporative AC. These authors suggested that water spraying during evaporative AC prevented the carcass skin from becoming dehydrated, thus ensuring a lighter color. Lyon and Cason [49] compared pre- and postimmersion chill carcass skin color and found that chilling significantly increased the skin lightness (L* = 61.6 prechill vs. 64.6 postchill). In the present study, postchill L* was higher than the values reported by Lyon and Cason [49]. This likely occurred because they used a shorter chilling time (30 vs. 50 min) and measured breast skin color on a different carcass location.

Immediately after chilling, the skin of the IC carcasses was 13.5 units lighter than the skin of AC carcasses. After 24 h of refrigerated storage, skin lightness of AC carcasses increased, whereas the opposite was observed in the skin color of IC carcasses (lower L*). The difference in lightness of the skin 24 h postchill (Lskin 24h*) between chilling methods was 6.4 units. When initial postchill redness and yellowness (askin 0h*, bskin 0h*) were compared with values measured after 24 h of storage (askin 24h*, bskin 24h*), AC carcasses were less red and less yellow after storage (lower askin 24h* and bskin 24h*), whereas IC carcasses were more red and more yellow after storage (Table 2Go). The change in color of the IC carcasses agrees with findings reported by Petracci and Fletcher [50], in which a reduction in lightness, a slight decrease in redness, and no significant change in yellowness occurred during storage. Color of AC carcasses changed after storage because of differences in moisture content of the skin. Previous research has shown that AC carcasses immediately after chilling had a lower water activity than IC carcasses, but similar water activity was found between carcasses chilled using either method after 4 h of storage [51]. The increase in moisture after storage affected light reflectance and therefore the skin color measurements.

Fillet Color, Marination Pickup, Cook Yield, and Tenderness
Table 3Go shows the effect of broiler carcass chilling method on raw and cooked breast fillet color. Chilling method did not affect the color of raw or cooked breast fillets (P > 0.05). These data agree with previous research, which reported no significant difference in L*, a*, and b* values of raw breast fillets between AC and IC [52].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Effect of broiler carcass chilling method on raw and cooked breast fillet color
 
Table 4Go shows the effect of chilling method on marination pickup, cook yield, and cooked fillet shear values. Marination pickup was not affected by chilling treatment (P > 0.05). When cook yield was calculated as a percentage of the marinated weight (cook yield 1) or premarination weight (cook yield 2), yield of IC carcasses was significantly lower than that of AC carcasses (P < 0.05). The AC fillets lost 1.3 and 2.2% less weight than IC carcasses from marinated weight to cooked weight (cook yield 1) and from raw weight to cooked weight, respectively (cook yield 2). During IC, fat and body tissue are lost, and moisture is absorbed [53]. This water is then lost during cooking, which reduces cook yield. Hale and Stadelman [41] reported that AC carcasses lost less weight (2.6%) from the time of evisceration to cooking than IC carcasses. Sanders [40] used a dye tracer to demonstrate that the primary route of water entry to areas between the skin and muscle was through carcass openings. In particular, this author noted that water entered the most exposed areas of the carcasses near the keel tip and over the clavicle. When agitation was provided during IC, the extent of dyed muscle surface and water penetration between the skin and the muscle was significantly increased [40].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Effect of broiler carcass chilling method on raw breast fillet marination pickup and cooked fillet yield and shear
 
Allo-Kramer shear values were similar for cooked fillets from carcasses chilled using either method (Table 4Go). Previous research has shown that resolution of rigor and tenderization occurs 4 to 6 h post mortem [33, 54, 55, 56, 57]. De-Fremery and Pool [57] demonstrated that chicken meat aged on the carcass for 4 h or more at 0 to 40°C had comparable tenderness. Dunn et al. [36] compared carcass quality after either fast AC (–12°C for 50 min) or normal AC (80 min at 0°C + 2 h at 4 to 6°C) and reported no significant difference in cooked fillet shear force or cook yield between chilling methods. Data from the present study agrees with this previous research [36]. In more recent studies, Perumalla et al. [58] reported that chilling method (air and immersion) did not affect broiler breast fillet marinade pickup, cook loss, and tenderness. However, these authors used static IC with a reported 4% moisture uptake, compared with the 9.3% of moisture absorption found in the present experiment.

Correlation Analysis
Pearson’s correlation coefficients for initial carcass weight, moisture gain and loss after chilling, marination pickup, raw fillet color, and cook yield are presented in Table 5Go. A significant positive correlation was found for initial carcass weight and weight gain (r = 0.31) during IC and weight loss (r = –0.83) during AC. The changes in weight are related to the initial size and surface area, accounting for moisture gain or loss due to evaporation. Weight gain during IC was also related to cook yield 1 (r = 0.28) and cook yield 2 (r = 0.37), but a similar relationship was not observed for AC carcasses. Moisture gain during IC was negatively correlated with breast fillet lightness (r = –0.31). This is likely due to the removal of water-soluble proteins (myoglobin, hemoglobin, and cytochrome C), which provide color [52]. A significant correlation was found for weight loss of AC carcasses and L*fillet raw (r = 0.29) and for weight loss of AC carcasses and a*fillet raw (r = 0.31). As weight loss of AC carcasses increased, the L*fillet raw value decreased, whereas a*fillet raw increased. This may be attributed to evaporative losses of moisture from carcass components and the negative correlation between lightness and redness previously reported by Qiao et al. [59]. Significant correlations were also found between L*fillet raw and cook yield, a*fillet raw and marination pickup, shear and cook yield, and between marination pickup and cook yield. However, chilling method did not affect the direction of these correlations.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for weight gain and loss during chilling, cooked meat shear force, cook yield, marinade uptake, and color values of raw fillets
 

   CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
  1. Chilling method affects carcass appearance (skin color) and yield, but appearance of AC carcasses is significantly improved during refrigerated storage in plastic bags.
  2. Raw or cooked meat color (deboned 24 h post mortem) is not affected by chilling method.
  3. A slower chilling rate during AC, compared with IC, did not affect meat tenderness after 24 h of aging on the carcass.
  4. Fillets functionality was improved by AC (higher cook yield).
  5. The lower cook yield of IC breast fillets resulted from lost moisture that had previously been absorbed during chilling.
  6. Processors selling whole carcasses or bone-in carcass parts may want to continue to use IC as their primary cooling method, but further-processing operations that debone meat may find that AC is a suitable alternative for cooling poultry carcasses, because fillet color, marination yield, and tenderness are not affected, but cook yield is improved by 2%.


   REFERENCES AND NOTES
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. Grey, T. C. 1988. The chilling of poultry carcasses and its influence on quality. Inst. Food Res., Bristol Lab., Bristol, UK.
  2. Lillard, H. S. 1982. Improved chilling systems for poultry. Food Technol. 36:58–67.
  3. Thomas, N. L. 1977. The continuous chilling of poultry in relation to EEC requirements. J. Food Technol. 12:99–114.
  4. Thomson, J. E., N. A. Cox, W. K. Whitehead, and A. J. Mercuri. 1975. Bacterial counts and weight changes of broiler carcasses chilled commercially by water immersion and air-blast. Poult. Sci. 54:1452–1460.[ISI]
  5. Thomson, J. E., W. K. Whitehead, and A. J. Mercuri. 1974. Chilling poultry meat – A literature review. Poult. Sci. 53:1268–1281.[ISI]
  6. James, C., C. Vincent, T. I. de Andrade Lima, and S. J. James. 2006. The primary chilling of poultry carcasses – A review. Int. J. Refrig. 29:847–862.
  7. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service. 2001. Retained water in raw meat and poultry products; poultry chilling requirements; final rule. 9 CFR Parts 381 and 441. Fed. Regist. 66:1750–1772.
  8. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service. 2006. EU-78: Export requirements for the European Union. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/European_Union_Requirements/index.asp Accessed Mar. 2007.
  9. EEC. 1993. Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 December 1992 amending and updating Directive 71/118/Eec on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat. Off. J. L 062:0001–0037.
  10. EEC. 1971. Council Directive 71/118/Eec of 15 February 1971 on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultry meat. Off. J. L 055:0023–0039.
  11. Veerkamp, C. H. 1990. Chilling of poultry and poultry products. Pages 147–158 in Chilled Foods: The State of Art. T. R. Gormley, ed. Elsevier Appl. Sci., New York, NY.
  12. Klose, A. A., M. F. Pool, D. Defremery, A. A. Campbell, and H. L. Hanson. 1960. Effect of laboratory scale agitated chilling of poultry on quality. Poult. Sci. 39:1193–1198.[ISI]
  13. Bigbee, D. G., and L. E. Dawson. 1963. Some factors that affect change in weight of fresh chilled poultry. 1. Length of chill period, chilling medium and holding temperature. Poult. Sci. 42:457–462.[ISI]
  14. Young, L. L., and D. P. Smith. 2004. Moisture retention by water- and air-chilled chicken broilers during processing and cutup operations. Poult. Sci. 83:119–122.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Wakefield, D. K., E. Dransfield, N. F. Down, and A. A. Taylor. 1989. Influence of post-mortem treatments on turkey and chicken meat texture. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 24:81–92.
  16. Grey, T. C., and G. C. Mead. 1986. The effects of air and water chilling on the quality of poultry carcasses. Pages 95–99 in Proc. Symp. Meat Chilling. Int. Inst. Refrig., Bristol, UK.
  17. Kiepper, B. H. 2003. Characterization of poultry processing operations, wastewater generation, and wastewater treatment using mail survey and nutrient discharge monitoring methods. MS Thesis. Univ. Georgia, Athens.
  18. Northcutt, J. K., and D. R. Jones. 2004. A survey of water use and common industry practices in commercial broiler processing facilities. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 13:48–54.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Veerkamp, C. H., and G. J. P. Hofmans. 1974. Factors influencing cooling of poultry carcasses. J. Food Sci. 39:980–984.[ISI]
  20. James, S. 2000. Poultry refrigeration. Pages 164–181 in Poultry Meat Processing and Quality. G. C. Mead, ed. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.
  21. Veerkamp, C. H. 1989. Chilling, freezing and thawing. Pages 103–125 in Processing of Poultry. G. C. Mead, ed. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
  22. Swiftack poultry identification system, Heartland Animal Health Inc., Fair Play, MO
  23. Chromameter CR-300, Minolta Corp., Ramsey, NJ.
  24. Cox temperature record system, Cox Technologies Co., Belmont, NC.
  25. Lt-40 tumbler, Lyco Sales Ltd., Janesville, WI.
  26. Smith, D. P., C. E. Lyon, and D. L. Fletcher. 1988. Comparison of the Allo-Kramer shear and texture profile methods of broiler breast meat texture analysis. Poult. Sci. 67:1549–1556.[ISI]
  27. Instron Corp., Canton, MA.
  28. Reference number 1353123; Y = 92.7; x = 0.3133; and y = 0.3193.
  29. SAS Institute. 2000. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers. Version 8.2 ed. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
  30. Dutson, T. R., and A. Carter. 1985. Microstructure and biochemistry of avian muscle and its relevance to meat processing industries. Poult. Sci. 64:1577–1590.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Khan, A. W. 1971. Effects of temperature during post-mortem glycolysis and dephosphorylation of high energy phosphates on poultry meat tenderness. J. Food Sci. 36:120–121.[ISI]
  32. Lee, Y. B., and D. A. Rickansrud. 1978. Effect of temperature on shortening in chicken muscle. J. Food Sci. 43:1613–1615.[ISI]
  33. Pool, M. F., D. DeFremery, A. A. Campbell, and A. A. Klose. 1959. Poultry tenderness. II. Influence of processing on tenderness of chicken. Food Technol. 13:25–29.[Medline]
  34. Smith, M. C., Jr., M. D. Judge, and W. J. Stadelman. 1969. A "cold shortening" effect in avian muscle. J. Food Sci. 34:42–46.[ISI]
  35. Alvarado, C. Z., and A. R. Sams. 2002. The role of carcass chilling rate in the development of pale, exudative turkey pectoralis. Poult. Sci. 81:1365–1370.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Dunn, A. A., D. J. Kilpatrick, and N. F. S. Gault. 1995. Contribution of rigor shortening and cold shortening to variability in the texture of pectoralis major muscle from commercially processed broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 36:401–413.[ISI]
  37. Li, Y., T. J. Siebenmorgen, and C. L. Griffis. 1993. Electrical stimulation in poultry: A review and evaluation. Poult. Sci. 72:7–22.[ISI]
  38. Mckee, S. R., and A. R. Sams. 1998. Rigor mortis development at elevated temperatures induces pale exudative turkey meat characteristics. Poult. Sci. 77:169–174.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Skarovsky, C. J., and A. R. Sams. 1999. Tenderness, moisture loss and post-mortem metabolism of broiler pectoralis muscle from electrically stimulated and air chilled carcases. Br. Poult. Sci. 40:622–625.[ISI][Medline]
  40. Sanders, D. H. 1969. Fluorescent dye tracing of water entry and retention in chilling of broiler chicken carcasses. Poult. Sci. 48:2032–2037.[ISI]
  41. Hale, K. K., and W. J. Stadelman. 1973. Effects of electrolyte treatments and dry-chilling on yields and tenderness of broilers. Poult. Sci. 52:244–252.[ISI]
  42. Thomson, J. E., J. S. Bailey, and N. A. Cox. 1984. Weight change and spoilage of broiler carcasses – Effect of chilling and storage methods. Poult. Sci. 63:510–517.[ISI]
  43. Fromm, D., and R. J. Monroe. 1958. Moisture absorption and retention of freshly eviscerated broilers as influenced by holding time in slush ice. Poult. Sci. 37:328–331.[ISI]
  44. Veerkamp, C. H. 1991. Can evaporative air-chilling control weight loss in cooling? Misset World Poult. 7:37–39.
  45. Mielnik, M. B., R. H. Dainty, F. Lundby, and J. Mielnik. 1999. The effect of evaporative air chilling and storage temperature on quality and shelf life of fresh chicken carcasses. Poult. Sci. 78:1065–1073.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Veerkamp, C. H. 1978. Air chilling of poultry. Pages 2037–2043 in Proc. XVI World’s Poult. Congr., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  47. Essary, E. O., and L. E. Dawson. 1965. Quality of fryer carcasses as related to protein and fat levels in the diet. 1. Fat deposition and moisture pick-up during chilling. Poult. Sci. 44:7–15.[ISI][Medline]
  48. Landfeld, A., and M. Houska. 2006. Prediction of heat and mass transfer during passage of the chicken through the chilling tunnel. J. Food Eng. 72:108–112.
  49. Lyon, C. E., and J. A. Cason. 1995. Effect of water chilling on objective color of bruised and unbruised broiler tissue. Poult. Sci. 74:1894–1899.[ISI]
  50. Petracci, M., and D. L. Fletcher. 2002. Broiler skin and meat color changes during storage. Poult. Sci. 81:1589–1597.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. EEC. 1978. Microbiology and shelf-life of chilled poultry carcasses. Information on Agriculture. No. 61. Comm. Eur. Communities, Brussels, Belgium.
  52. Fleming, B. K., G. W. Froning, and T. S. Yang. 1991. Heme pigment levels in chicken broilers chilled in ice slush and air. Poult. Sci. 70:2197–2200.[ISI]
  53. Mulder, R. W. A. W., L. W. J. Dorresteijn, G. J. P. Hofmans, and C. H. Veerkamp. 1976. Experiments with continuous immersion chilling of broiler carcasses according to the code of practice. J. Food Sci. 41:438–442.[ISI]
  54. Papinaho, P. A., D. L. Fletcher, and H. J. Rita. 1996. Relationship of breast fillet deboning time to shear force, pH, cooking loss and color in broilers stunned by high electrical current. Agric. Food Sci. Finl. 5:49–55.
  55. Smith, D. P., and D. L. Fletcher. 1992. Duckling and chicken processing yields and breast meat tenderness. Poult. Sci. 71:197–202.[ISI]
  56. Northcutt, J. K., R. J. Buhr, L. L. Young, C. E. Lyon, and G. O. Ware. 2001. Influence of age and postchill carcass aging duration on chicken breast fillet quality. Poult. Sci. 80:808–812.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. DeFremery, D., and M. F. Pool. 1960. Biochemistry of chicken muscle as related to rigor mortis and tenderization. Food Res. 25:73–87.
  58. Perumalla, A. V. S., A. Saha, Y. Lee, J. F. Meullenet, and C. M. Owens. 2006. Marination properties of air chilled and water chilled broiler breast fillets. Poult. Sci. 85(Suppl. 1):59. (Abstr.)
  59. Qiao, M., D. L. Fletcher, D. P. Smith, and J. K. Northcutt. 2001. The effect of broiler breast meat color on pH, moisture, water-holding capacity and emulsification capacity. Poult. Sci. 80:676–680.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Poult. Res.Home page
R. Huezo, J. K. Northcutt, D. P. Smith, and D. L. Fletcher
Effect of Chilling Method and Deboning Time on Broiler Breast Fillet Quality
J. Appl. Poult. Res., January 1, 2007; 16(4): 537 - 545.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huezo, R.
Right arrow Articles by Fletcher, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Huezo, R.
Right arrow Articles by Fletcher, D. L.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS