Sensory colour assessment of fresh meat from pigs supplemented with iron and vitamin E

Pork muscle samples (M. longissimus dorsi) were obtained from pigs given one of four dietary treatments: (1) control diet; (2) supplemental iron [7-g iron (II) sulphate/kg feed]; (3) supplemental vitamin E (200-mg dl-α-tocopheryl acetate/kg of feed); and (4) supplemental vitamin E+supplemental iron. Muscle cores were packaged in polythene bags and placed in a retail refrigerated display cabinet at 5±1°C, under fluorescent light (1000 LUX) for up to 5 days. Samples were subjected to visual colour evaluation by a trained sensory panel (n=12) at 0, 1, 3 and 5 days. In addition instrumental L*, a* and b* values and drip loss were measured on each day of analysis. All samples became less red and browner over storage time in the refrigerated display cabinet. The vitamin E treated samples were more red and less brown compared with the other samples on successive days in the cabinet followed by the control, iron/vitamin E and iron treatments. The iron/vitamin E treatment was positioned midway between the vitamin E and iron treatments indicating that the vitamin E in the samples was effective in reducing the pro-oxidative effect of iron in inducing the brown metmyoglobin pigment development. Iron supplementation did not significantly (P<0.05) increase M. longissimus dorsi iron tissue levels, but had a detrimental effect on the visual sensory properties of the iron and iron/vitamin E treatment groups with greater metmyoglobin formation. Vitamin E appears to have promoted non-supplemental iron absorption in the vitamin E treated group without the detrimental sensory colour characteristics associated with ferrous sulphate supplementation. Drip loss increased in all samples during the course of the experiment with no significant (P<0.05) differences between the experimental groups. The panellists were able to differentiate the four experimental groups on each day of the study and were more effective in evaluating the colour quality of samples than instrumental assessment, i.e. the Hunter L* a* b* method.