Muscle Foods pp 333-360 | Cite as

Sensory Methods to Evaluate Muscle Foods

  • Rhonda K. Miller


Muscle foods have properties that are related to the five senses of taste, smell, sight, feel, and sound. The four basic tastes of salty, sweet, bitter, and sour can be readily identified in different muscle foods. Further processed muscle foods, such as frankfurters or summer sausage, usually have salty or sweet tastes. Smell is a very important sensory property, as the detection of aromatics and/or odors by the olfactory nerve comprises the major components of muscle food flavor. The fishy flavor in intensely flavored fish species is an aromatic detected by the olfactory nerve. Texture or feel of food influences perceptions of acceptability. The tenderness of muscle foods has been shown to affect consumer acceptability just as the detection of mouth-coating or a residual substance, usually fat, in the mouth and throat after the consumption of high-fat meat products can influence human perception of acceptability or unacceptability.


Sensory Evaluation Sodium Lactate Descriptive Attribute Ground Beef Sensory Panelist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Selected References

  1. AMSA. 1978. Guidelines of Cookery and Sensory Evaluation of Meat. American Meat Science Association, National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM. 1978. Compilation of odor and taste threshold values data. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  3. Cain, W.S. 1979. To know with the nose: Keys to odor identification. Science 203: 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Civille, G.V. 1991. Food quality: Consumer acceptance and sensory attributes. J. Food Qual. 14: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Civille, G.V., A.M. Munoz, and E. Chambers, IV. 1989. Consumer Testing: A Four Day Intensive Workshop. Sensory Spectrum, East Hanover, NJ.Google Scholar
  6. Cross, H.R., R. Moen, and M.S. Stanfield. 1978. Training and testing of judges for sensory analysis of meat quality. Food Technol. 32: 48.Google Scholar
  7. Desor, J.A. and G.K. Beauchamp. 1974. The human capacity to transmit olfactory information. Percep. Psychophysiol. 16: 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Froning G.W., A.J. Maurer, K.K. Hale, and A.F. Carlin. 1978. Sensory properties of poultry meat. The Agriculture Experimental Station, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. North Central Regional Research Publ. No. 254.Google Scholar
  9. Gower, J.C. 1975. Generalised Procrustes Analysis. Psychometrika 40: 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnsen, P.B. and G.V. Civille. 1986. A standardized lexicon of meat WOF descriptors. J. Sensory Studies 1: 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnsen, P., G.V. Civille, and J.R. Vercellotti. 1987. A lexicon of pond-raised catfish flavor descriptors. J. Sensory Studies 2: 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lawless, Harry. 1991. The sense of smell in food quality and sensory evaluation. J. Food Qual. 14: 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lyon, B.G. 1987. Development of chicken flavor descriptive attribute terms aided by multivariate statistical procedures. J. Sensory Studies 2: 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meilgaard, M., G.V. Civille, and B.T. Carr. 1991. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Vol 3. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  15. Munoz, A.M., G.V. Civille, and B.T. Can’. 1992. Sensory Evaluation in Quality Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stone, H. and J.L. Sidel. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Wasserman, A.E. and F. Tally. 1968. Organoleptic identification of roasted beef, veal, lamb and pork as affected by fat. J. Food Sci. 33: 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weller, M., M.W. Galgam, and M. Jacobson. 1962. Flavor and tenderness of lamb as influenced by agriculture. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 927.Google Scholar
  19. Williams, A.A. and G.M. Arnold. 1984. A new approach to sensory analysis of foods and beverages. In: Progress in Flavour Research, Proc. 4th Weurman Flavour Research Symp. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rhonda K. Miller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations