Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing chemical, microbiological and sensorial shelf-life markers to study chicken meat quality within divergent production systems (organic vs. conventional)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, the increasing interest in healthier and more sustainable food behaviours led to a greater demand for organic products, especially in animal foods. This study aims to increase knowledge on the organic meat quality through a comparative shelf-life analysis of organic and conventional broiler (Ross 308) breast meat. A total of 11 biogenic amines and 21 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were monitored combining the results with meat pH and microbiological and sensorial analyses during 10 days of storage (days 0, 3, 6 10). The organic meat showed generally a lower value in spoilage markers than the conventional one. Meat spoilage-related VOC concentrations underlined important differences, especially on day 10. The same trend emerged by the total biogenic amines concentration on day 10 with values of 853.24 mg kg−1 in organic and 354.12 mg kg−1 in conventional meat. Microbiological analysis reported a delayed bacterial proliferation in organic meat. Conventional meat maintains a better aspect, but odour and elasticity scores were higher in organic ones. In conclusion, chicken breast meat from organic production systems showed overall higher shelf-life than chicken meat from conventional inside-ground farms.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yenilmez F, Emine URUK (2014) Organic poultry in Turkey poultry industry. TURKJANS 1:1043–1048

    Google Scholar 

  2. FAO (2020) Gateway to poultry production and products. http://www.fao.org/poultry-production-products/production/en/. Accessed 11 Jan 2022

  3. Nguyen HV, Nguyen N, Nguyen BK, Lobo A, Vu PA (2019) Organic food purchases in an emerging market: the influence of consumers’ personal factors and green marketing practices of food stores. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061037

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaygisiz F, Bolat BA, Bulut D (2019) Determining factors affecting consumer’s decision to purchase organic chicken meat. Braz J Poult Sci. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2019-1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rabadán A, Díaz M, Brugarolas M, Bernabéu R (2020) Why don’t consumers buy organic lamb meat? A Spanish case study. Meat Sci 162:108024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.108024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Śmiglak-Krajewska M, Wojciechowska-Solis J (2021) Consumer versus organic products in the COVID-19 pandemic: opportunities and barriers to market development. Energies 14:5566. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175566

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ćirić M, Ilić DS, Ignjatijević SD, Brkanlić SD (2020) Consumer behaviour in online shopping organic food during the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia. Food Feed Res 47(2):149–158. https://doi.org/10.5937/ffr47-28815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Castellini G, Savarese M, Graffigna G (2021) The impact of COVID-19 outbreak in Italy on the sustainable food consumption intention from a “one health” perspective. Front Nutr 8:90. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.622122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Muresan IC, Harun R, Arion FH, Brata AM, Chereches IA, Chiciudean GO, Dumitras DE, Oroian CF, Tirpe OP (2021) Consumers’ attitude towards sustainable food consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania. Agriculture 11:1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111050

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fanatico A, Pillai PB, Emmert JL, Owens C (2007) Meat quality of slow-and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult Sci 86(10):2245–2255

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Deek A, El-Sabrout K (2019) Behaviour and meat quality of chicken under different housing systems. Worlds Poult Sci J 75(1):105–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bogosavljević-Bošković S, Rakonjac S, Dosković V, Petrović M (2012) Broiler rearing systems: a review of major fattening results and meat quality traits. Worlds Poult Sci J 68(2):217–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W, Van Poucke E, Pieniak Z, Nijs G, Tuyttens F (2012) The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J Agric Environ Ethics 25(1):79–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Çapan B, Bağdatli A (2021) Investigation of physicochemical, microbiological and sensorial properties for organic and conventional retail chicken meat. Food Sci Hum Wellness 10(2):183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stopforth JD (2017) Preservation methods for meat and poultry. In: Juneja VK, Dwivedi HP, Sofos JN (eds) Microbial control and food preservation. Springer, Berlin, pp 225–254

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Alessandroni L, Caprioli G, Faiella F, Fiorini D, Galli R, Huang X, Marinelli G, Nzekoue F, Ricciutelli M, Scortichini S, Silvi S, Tao J, Tramontano A, Turati D, Sagratini G (2021) A shelf-life study for the evaluation of a new biopackaging to preserve the quality of organic chicken meat. Food Chem 371(5):131134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cygan-Szczegielniak D, Bogucka J (2021) Growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of organically reared broiler chickens depending on sex. Animals 11(11):3274

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sirocchi V, Caprioli G, Cecchini C, Coman MM, Cresci A, Maggi F, Papa F, Ricciutelli M, Vittori S, Sagratini G (2013) Biogenic amines as freshness index of meat wrapped in a new active packaging system formulated with essential oils of Rosmarinus officinalis. Int J Food Sci Nutr 64(8):921–928. https://doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2013.809706

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. CeIRSA - Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerca e Documentazione sulla Sicurezza alimentare, Regione Piemonte. Linee Guida per l’analisi del Rischio nel campo della microbiologia degli alimenti (allegato B). In: Protocollo tecnico della Regione Piemonte per l’effettuazione dei controlli microbiologici ufficiali sugli alimenti e l’interpretazione e gestione degli esiti analitici. Updated 21 Aug 2017

  20. Yimenu SM, Koo J, Kim BS, Kim JH, Kim JY (2019) Freshness-based real-time shelf-life estimation of packaged chicken meat under dynamic storage conditions. Poult Sci 98(12):6921–6930. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez461

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Baston O, Barna O (2010) Raw chicken leg and breast sensory evaluation. Food Sci Technol Ann 11:25–30

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kreyenschmidt J (2003) Modeling of the loss of freshness of meat as well as the defoliation process of temperature-time integrators to define requirement profiles for temperature monitoring accompanying the product. PhD Thesis. Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bergen/Dumme, Germany. AgriMedia

  23. Hammer F, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  24. Douny C, Benmedjadi S, Brose F, Afé OHI, Igout A, Hounhouigan DJ, Anihouvi V, Scippo M (2019) Development of an analytical method for the simultaneous measurement of 10 biogenic amines in meat: application to beninese grilled pork samples. Food Anal Methods 12:2392–2400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-019-01587-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yusoff MNM, Jaffri MH, Azhari S (2021) Biogenic amines as freshness indicator in halal and non-halal slaughtered chicken meat using chromatographic approach. Malays J Sci. https://doi.org/10.33102/mjosht.v7i.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wójcik W, Łukasiewicz M, Puppel K (2021) Biogenic amines: formation, action, and toxicity—a review. J Sci Food Agric 101(7):2634–6062640. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10928607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vinci G, Antonelli ML (2002) Biogenic amines: quality index of freshness in red and white meat. Food Control 13(8):519–524

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ruiz-Capillas C, Jiménez-Colmenero F (2005) Biogenic amines in meat and meat products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 44(7–8):489–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mikš-Krajnik M, Yoon YJ, Yuk HG (2015) Detection of volatile organic compounds as markers of chicken breast spoilage using HS-SPME-GC/MS-FASST. Food Sci Biotechnol 24(1):361–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-015-0048-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Casaburi A, Piombino P, Nychas GJ, Villani F, Ercolini D (2015) Bacterial populations and the volatilome associated to meat spoilage. Food Microbiol 45:83–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2014.02.002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ioannidis A, Walgraeve C, Vanderroost M, Van Langenhove H, Devlieghere F, De Meulenaer B (2018) Non-destructive measurement of volatile organic compounds in modified atmosphere packaged poultry using SPME-SIFT-MS in tandem with headspace TD-GC-MS. Food Anal Methods 11:848–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Alexandrakis D, Brunton NP, Downey G, Scannell AGM (2011) Identification of spoilage marker metabolites in Irish chicken breast muscle using HPLC, GC–MS coupled with SPME and traditional chemical techniques. Food Bioprocess Technol 5(5):1917–1923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-010-0500-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zareian M, Böhner N, Loos HM, Silcock P, Bremer P, Beauchamp J (2018) Evaluation of volatile organic compound release in modified atmosphere-packaged minced raw pork in relation to shelf-life. Food Package Shelf Life 18:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2018.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mancinelli AC, Silletti E, Mattioli S, Dal Bosco A, Sebastiani B, Menchetti L, Koot A, Van Ruth S, Castellini C (2020) Fatty acid profile, oxidative status, and content of volatile organic compounds in raw and cooked meat of different chicken strains. Poult Sci 100(2):1273–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Grashorn MA, Serini C (2006) Quality of chicken meat from conventional and organic production. In: Proceedings of the 12th European poultry conference, Verona. Italy

  36. Kim HJ, Kim HJ, Jeon J, Nam KC, Shim KS, Jung JH, Kim KS, Choi Y, Kim SH, Jang A (2020) Comparison of the quality characteristics of chicken breast meat from conventional and animal welfare farms under refrigerated storage. Poult Sci 99(3):1788–1796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.12.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Berna C, Bağdatli A (2021) Investigation of physicochemical, microbiological and sensorial properties for organic and conventional retail chicken meat. Food Sci Hum Wellness 10:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mattioli S, Mancinelli AC, Menchetti L, Dal Bosco A, Madeo L, Amato MG, Moscati L, Cotozzolo E, Ciarelli C, Angelucci E, Castellini C (2021) How the kinetic behavior of organic chickens affects productive performance and blood and meat oxidative status: a study of six poultry genotypes. Poult Sci 100(9):101297

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Çiftçi R, Güran HŞ (2019) Microbiological quality of organic chicken meat. Kocatepe Vet J 12(4):463–468

    Google Scholar 

  40. Adzitey F, Nurul H (2011) Pale soft exudative (PSE) and dark firm dry (DFD) meats causes and measures to reduce these incidences-a mini review. Int Food Res J 18:11–20

    Google Scholar 

  41. Le Bihan-Duval E, Debut M, Berri CM, Sellier N, Santé-Lhoutellier V, Jégo Y, Beaumont C (2008) Chicken meat quality: genetic variability and relationship with growth and muscle characteristics. BMC Genet 9(1):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  42. Castellini C, Mugnai C, Dal Bosco A (2002) Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci 60(3):219–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mach N, Bach A, Velarde A, Devant M (2008) Association between animal, transportation, slaughterhouse practices, and meat pH in beef. Meat Sci 78(3):232–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Braghieri A, Napolitano F (2009) Organic meat quality. In: Kerry J (ed) Improving the sensory and nutritional quality of fresh meat. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 387–417

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Brown SN, Nute GR, Baker A, Hughes SI, Warriss PD (2008) Aspects of meat and eating quality of broiler chickens reared under standard, maize-fed, free-range or organic systems. Br Poult Sci 49(2):118–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660801938833

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Husak RL, Sebranek JG, Bregendahl K (2008) A survey of commercially available broilers marketed as organic, free-range, and conventional broilers for cooked meat yields, meat composition, and relative value. Poult Sci 87(11):2367–2376. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Castromán G, Del Puerto M, Ramos A, Cabrera MC, Saadoun A (2013) Organic and conventional chicken meat produced in Uruguay: colour, pH, fatty acids composition and oxidative status. AJFSN 1(2):12–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Marche Region through the “Programma di Sviluppo Rurale (PSR) 2014/2020 Misura 16.1” (ID 29057) for financially supporting the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, Chemistry Interdisciplinary Project (ChIP), University of Camerino, Via Madonna delle Carceri, 62032, Camerino, Italy

    Laura Alessandroni, Giovanni Caprioli & Gianni Sagratini

  2. School of Science and Technology, Chemistry Interdisciplinary Project (ChIP), University of Camerino, Via Madonna delle Carceri, 62032, Camerino, Italy

    Serena Scortichini & Dennis Fiorini

  3. School of Bioscience and Veterinary Medicine, University of Camerino, Via Gentile III da Varano, 62032, Camerino, Italy

    Xiaohui Huang & Stefania Silvi

  4. Fileni S.p.A., Località Cerrete Collicelli 8, 62011, Cingoli, Italy

    Renzo Galli

Authors
  1. Laura Alessandroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Serena Scortichini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanni Caprioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dennis Fiorini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaohui Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefania Silvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Renzo Galli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gianni Sagratini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LA conceived the article, curated the data and administered the project. LA, SS and XH investigated and wrote the original draft. RG collected the resources. GC, DF, SSi and GS supervised the data; wrote, reviewed and edited the manuscript; and also acquired the funding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianni Sagratini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 139 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alessandroni, L., Scortichini, S., Caprioli, G. et al. Assessing chemical, microbiological and sensorial shelf-life markers to study chicken meat quality within divergent production systems (organic vs. conventional). Eur Food Res Technol 250, 771–783 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-023-04419-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-023-04419-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation