Assessing the meat quality of venison short-loin from farmed red deer using visible-near infrared spectroscopy

Venison from red deer (Cervus elaphus) is marketed as a premium quality, healthy red meat. Ideally, meat-quality attributes need to be measured prior to sale. Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) has potential for the measurement of sensory, nutritional and technological parameters in beef, but its use on venison has not yet been considered. The aim was to evaluate NIRS for predicting Warner-Bratzler shear-force parameters, meat colour, ultimate pH, sarcomere length and water holding capacity of venison short-loins. Samples were halved, vac-packed, aged for either 3 or 42 d at 1±1°C and frozen, then defrosted for meat-quality assessment and acquisition of spectral data. In total, 154 samples (3 and 42 d aged) were divided into calibration (75%) and validation datasets (25%). Using partial-least squares regression, calibration equations were tested on the validation dataset. Prediction accuracies ranged from R2 =8.3%, (SEpred =2.42) for meat lightness to R2 =66.6%, (SEpred =0.10) for ultimate pH, suggesting that NIRS may be useful for predicting some venison quality parameters

Quality assessment of included studies based on Drummond et al (1997).

<p>Quality assessment of included studies based on Drummond et al (1997).</p

Outcomes of age-based and precision screening compared with no screening.

Outcomes of age-based and precision screening compared with no screening.</p

Model parameters.

Model parameters.</p

PRISMA flow chart.

<p>PRISMA flow chart.</p

Incremental cost and QALYs of precision and age-based screening compared with no screening.

Results based on 10,000 simulations. The solid lines describe the incremental costs incurred and QALYs gained of precision screening versus no screening, whilst the dashed lines represent the incremental costs and QALYs of age-based versus no screening. QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.</p

Overdiagnosed cases and prostate cancer deaths prevented with precision screening as compared to age-based screening.

Results based on 10,000 simulations.</p

MMSE and ACE scores.

<p>MMSE and ACE scores.</p

Secondary outcomes for intervention groups versus control in the year after intervention.

<p>Secondary outcomes for intervention groups versus control in the year after intervention.</p

CONSORT flow diagram.

<p>CONSORT flow diagram.</p