Developing and Understanding Olfactory Evaluation of Boar Taint.
androstenone
boar taint
indole
olfactory detection
panel
pigs
skatole
Journal
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
Titre abrégé: Animals (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101635614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Sep 2020
17 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
18
08
2020
revised:
04
09
2020
accepted:
11
09
2020
entrez:
22
9
2020
pubmed:
23
9
2020
medline:
23
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Trained expert panels are used routinely in boar taint research, with varying protocols for training of panelists and scoring methods. We describe a standardized process for training and scoring, to contribute to standardize the olfactory detection of boar taint. Three experiments are described in which we (1) evaluate the importance of training and the effect of the previous sample, (2) determine detection thresholds on strips and in fat for our panel, and (3) test priming panelists before boar taint evaluation. For the final evaluation of boar taint, we propose a consistent three-person evaluation scoring on a 0-4 scale using a final mean score of 0.5 as the cut-off for boar taint. This gave an optimal sensitivity of 0.81 and a specificity of 0.56 compared to chemical cut-offs. Even limited training proved useful, but priming assessors with strips did not improve the evaluation of fat samples. Detection thresholds were higher in fat compared to strips, except for indole. We recommend panelists to always smell a non-tainted control sample after a tainted one as a 'reset' mechanism, before continuing. For longitudinal studies, we additionally advise to set up an expert panel with a fixed number of assessors performing each evaluation in duplicate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32957708
pii: ani10091684
doi: 10.3390/ani10091684
pmc: PMC7552758
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie
ID : IWT120767
Références
Meat Sci. 2015 Jan;99:1-7
pubmed: 25280356
Meat Sci. 2001 Nov;59(3):285-91
pubmed: 22062783
Meat Sci. 2011 May;88(1):67-74
pubmed: 21196087
Animal. 2017 Nov;11(11):2084-2093
pubmed: 28514973
Meat Sci. 2011 Jun;88(2):249-55
pubmed: 21251766
Meat Sci. 2002 May;61(1):33-40
pubmed: 22063910
Meat Sci. 2000 Mar;54(3):261-9
pubmed: 22060696
Meat Sci. 2003 Mar;63(3):381-8
pubmed: 22062392
Meat Sci. 2000 Mar;54(3):251-9
pubmed: 22060695
Meat Sci. 1997 May;46(1):45-55
pubmed: 22061844
Meat Sci. 2016 Jan;111:92-100
pubmed: 26348414
Meat Sci. 1997 Sep;47(1-2):49-61
pubmed: 22062617
Meat Sci. 2001 Jan;57(1):61-70
pubmed: 22061168
Meat Sci. 2012 Aug;91(4):414-22
pubmed: 22436660
Meat Sci. 2013 May;94(1):19-26
pubmed: 23357575
Meat Sci. 1994;38(2):289-305
pubmed: 22059666
Res Vet Sci. 2018 Jun;118:508-516
pubmed: 29758535
BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):716-9
pubmed: 14512479
Meat Sci. 2015 Feb;100:73-84
pubmed: 25310880
Meat Sci. 2014 Oct;98(2):255-62
pubmed: 24976560
J Chromatogr A. 2012 May 25;1239:49-55
pubmed: 22498353
Chem Senses. 2001 Mar;26(3):247-51
pubmed: 11287384
Food Chem. 2017 Sep 15;231:301-308
pubmed: 28450010
Chem Senses. 2003 Jun;28(5):423-32
pubmed: 12826538
Meat Sci. 2013 Aug;94(4):425-31
pubmed: 23611883
J Anim Sci. 1991 Jun;69(6):2472-9
pubmed: 1885363
Meat Sci. 2011 Jul;88(3):548-52
pubmed: 21396787
J Agric Food Chem. 2016 Jun 8;64(22):4556-65
pubmed: 27180946