Meat Science 89 (2011) 15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / m e a t s c i

How is the instrumental color of meat measured?

W.N. Tapp III, J.W.S. Yancey , J.K. Apple
Department of Animal Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, 72701, USA

article info abstract

Article history: Peer-reviewed journal articles (n = 1068) were used to gather instrumental color measurement information in meat science
Received 16 April 2010 research. The majority of articles, published in 10 peer-reviewed journals, originated from European countries (44.8%) and
Received in revised form 19 November 2010 North America (38.5%). The predominant specie was pork (44.2%), and most researchers used Minolta (60.0%) over Hunter
Accepted 22 November 2010
(31.6%) colorimeters. Much of the research was done using illuminant D 65 (32.3%); nevertheless, almost half (48.9%) of the
Keywords: articles did not report the illuminant. Moreover, a majority of the articles did not report aperture size (73.6%) or the number of
Color measurement readings per sample (52.4%). Many factors influence meat color, and a considerable proportion of the peer-reviewed,
Meat color published research articles failed to include information necessary to replicate and/or interpret instrumental color results;
Colorimeter therefore, a standardized set of minimum reportable parameters for meat color evaluation should be identified.
Illuminant
Aperture
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Meat purchasing decisions are influenced more by product appearance
than any other quality factor; color represents perceived freshness and is of
vital importance to the meat industry and meat science research (Mancini &
Hunt, 2005). In turn, it has been beneficial for companies marketing meat
products to objectively measure color. In addition, research has revealed
relationships among instrumental measures of fresh meat color and cooked
meat palatability (Wulf, O'Conner, Tatum, & Smith, 1997; Wulf & Page,
2000; Liu et al., 2003).
It has been established that several factors affect the instrumental color
readings of meat samples. By definition, the illuminant (light source) used has
an effect on the resulting color measurement values of a sample, and the
AMSA (1991) guidelines for meat color evaluation suggest that illuminant A
should be used when measuring meat samples as the higher proportion of
long, red wavelengths associated with that illuminant have resulted in higher
correlations with visual color scores. Illuminants C and D65, which more
closely resemble daylight, are commonly used in meat science articles as
well, especially with the Minolta Instrument. Research has also noted
differences in color values that come from varying instruments (Brewer, Zhu,
Bidner, Meisinger, & McKeith, 2001; Meisinger, Scheller, & Goodwin,
1997), and Yancey and Kropf (2008) reported that reflectance values of meat
products, as well as L*, a*, and b* values, decreased as aperture size (viewing
port) of the colorimeter decreased.
Olsen, and Berg (2004) reported that L*, a*, and b* values of the longissimus
muscle increased up to 12 min after beef carcass ribbing, but no further
increases were observed thereafter. Conversely, Lee, Apple, Yancey, Sawyer,
and Johnson (2008a, 2008b) noted that as much as 90% of the increase in
both instrumental color values and oxymyoglobin percentages was achieved
within the first 60 min after cutting and exposing beef longissimus and gluteus
medius steaks to air. Although bloom time did not alter L* values of pork, the
length of bloom time impacted both a* and b* values of pork longissimus
(Brewer et al., 2001).
Each research institution has its own protocols/procedures for collecting
instrumental color; yet, Brewer et al. (2001) indicated that pre-selection of
relevant muscles and fabrication style, an appropriate bloom time, color
coordinates to address the research objectives, and instrument and appropriate
settings, was necessary to optimize the relationship of instrumental readings
with visual color. Moreover, how authors describe their instrumental color
data collection protocols/procedures impacts both the potential replication of
their study and interpretation of their results. Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to survey the factors reported to affect instrumental color data
collection, and discern if there is a need to establish standards for reporting
and describing instrumental color data parameters and protocols.
2. Materials and methods

The time post-cutting that a measurement is taken (bloom time) may also
affect instrumental color values. Rentfrow, Linville, Stahl,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 479 575 4115; fax: +1 479 575 7294. E-mail
address: jws09@uark.edu (J.W.S. Yancey).
Information was compiled by examining journal articles that measured
meat color (n = 1068) using ten scientific journals from ten years (1998 to
2007) of publication. Data were collected from all articles within each
publication, not limited to merely the Meat Science or Animal Products
sections. Factors, including country of author's institutional origin, journal,
species, instrument, illuminant

0309-1740/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.11.021
2 W.N. Tapp III et al. / Meat Science 89 (2011) 15

(light source), aperture (port size), observation angle, bloom time, number of
readings, and methods of determining lightness, redness, or yellowness, were
recorded. Country of author's origin was based on the country listed on the
paper by the majority of authors and was grouped for analysis into one of six
groups: Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania (including Australia
and New Zealand), and South America. To analyze species, the articles were
combined into the following groups: beef (including veal, young beef, mature
beef, and buffalo), fish, goat, horse, lamb (including young lamb and mutton),
ostrich, pork, poultry (including chicken, turkey, duck, and goose), rabbit,
venison, and other (included species that only appeared in one article). When
considering interaction data, the species were further consolidated into beef,
pork, lamb, poultry, and other. The frequency analysis procedure of SAS
(SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used to analyze the data, and joint
values were found concerning country by illuminant, aperture size by
instrument, and species by illuminant interactions.
3. Results and discussion
color of beef, lamb, and poultry, respectively (Table 1). Other species
represented in meat color research included antelope, camel, caribou, fish,
goat, horse, kongoni, oryn, ostrich, rabbit, reindeer, venison, and zebra.
3.2. Variations in instrument used
The majority of studies (644 articles) used a Minolta-branded instrument
(Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan; Table 2). The Hunter Associates Laboratory
(Reston, VA, USA) apparatus was reported in 339 articles, but 62 articles
reported measuring color with instruments other than Minolta or Hunter
(including Gardner, Colorgard system, Colormet, Color Tech, Denshoku,
Kalnew, Macbeth, Monolight, Perkin Elmer, Spectro, and Uvikon). Only 28
articles did not report the brand of instrument used to measure meat color.
Research has shown that a distinction in color measurement (whether it be
instrument or methodology) can impact instrumental meat color values.
Brewer et al. (2001) demonstrated relevant differences in L*, a*, and b*
values of fresh pork between Minolta and Hunter colorimeters.

3.1. Variations in journal, country, and species 3.3. Variations in the use of illuminant (light source)

Of the articles measuring meat color published in these journals over the
past ten years, it was not surprising that most (594 articles) originated from
Meat Science, whereas 109 were taken from Journal of Animal Science, 87
from the Journal of Food Science, and 84 were from Journal of Muscle Foods
(Table 1). Results indicated that the greatest number of articles (477) came
from European countries, followed by 410 from North America, 82 from
Asia, 66 from Oceania, 24 from Africa, and 7 from South America (Table 1).
Pork (485 articles) was the predominant species upon which instrumental
meat color was reported, whereas 386, 80, and 71 articles reported measuring
the
Almost half (527 articles) of the articles reporting instrumental color
results failed to report what illuminant was used (Table 2). When illuminant
was specified, D65 was the preferred illuminant (348 articles), whereas
illuminants A, C, and other (such as DZA or FCW) were also noted in 93, 93,
and 16 articles, respectively. Considerable research has been done to find the
correct illuminant to use when measuring meat color. The guidelines for
measuring meat color (AMSA, 1991) state that illuminant A was superior to
others due to its greater proportion of wavelengths in the long, red portion of
the visual spectrum and that instrumental measurements made using

Table 1 Table 2
Percentage of articles from each journal, country of research, and species studied for measuring Instrument settings reported in journal articles measuring instrumental meat color
meat color among articles published over a ten-year period. published over a ten-year period.

Percentage of articles Percentage of articles

Journal Machine
Animal and Animal Sciencea 4.5 Hunter 31.6
Canadian Journal of Animal Science 3.8 Minolta 60.0
Food Chemistry 1.5 Other 5.8
Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 1.5 Not Reported 2.6
Journal of Animal Science 10.2 Illuminant
Journal of Food Science 8.1 A 8.6
Journal of Muscle Foods 7.9 C 8.6
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 3.0 D65 32.3
Livestock Science 3.8 Other 1.5
Meat Science 55.6 Not Reported 48.9
Country of research Aperture Size
Africa 2.3 6.4 mm or less 1.5
Asia 7.7 8 mm 7.1
Europe 44.8 10 mm 1.7
North America 38.5 11 mm 1.0
Oceania 6.2 12 mm 0.8
South America 0.7 16 mm 0.3
Species 20 mm 0.4
Beef, veal and buffalo 35.2 22 mm 0.7
Fish 1.3 25 mm 6.6
Goat 1.4 32 mm 3.7
Horse 0.2 44 mm 0.6
Lamb and mutton 7.3 50 mm or larger 3.1
Ostrich 1.1 Not Reported 73.6
Pork 44.2 Observation Angle
Poultry 6.5 0 3.8
Rabbit 1.6 2 5.3
Venison 0.6 8 0.7
Otherb 0.6 10 24.2
a 20 0.1
Animal Science was changed to Animal in 2007.
65 0.1
b
Other species studied included antelope, camel, caribou, kongoni, oryn, reindeer, and Not Reported 65.9
zebra; each represented by one article.
 W.N. Tapp III et al. / Meat Science 89 (2011) 15 3

illuminant A were more highly correlated with visual color. Furthermore, Table 3
Brewer et al. (2001) compared values using a Minolta (8-mm aperture, 2 Bloom times and number of readings per sample reported in articles measuring instrumental
meat color published over a ten-year period.
observer) to a Hunter MiniScan (25-mm aperture, 10 observer) and found
that L*, a*, and b* values differed due to illuminant both between and within Percentage of articles
instruments. Garcia-Esteban, Ansorena, Gimeno, and Astiasarn (2003) Bloom time
reported that, when using a 2 or 10 observation angle, measurements using 0 3.5
illuminant A had the lowest coefficients of variation for color of dry-cured 5 0.3
10 2.4
hams. Oftentimes, the illuminant used is limited by the instrument used, so
15 2.4
choosing an illuminant is not an option for every research trial. Thus, at the 20 2.4
least, researchers should report the illuminant they used for measuring the 30 9.3
color of fresh and/or heat-processed meats. 40 0.2
45 1.4
60 8.6
80 0.1
3.4. Variations in the use of aperture size 90 1.0
120 1.4
The majority (787 articles) of the meat-color articles failed to report the 180 1.0
aperture size of the color-measuring instrument (Table 2). When aperture size Greater than 180 1.3
Not Reported 36.8
was reported, 8-mm (76 articles) and 25-mm (70 articles) aperture sizes were
Not Applicablea 27.8
most popular. Yet, results of this survey indicated that more than 10 different Number of readings per sample
aperture sizes were used to measure meat color over the ten-year period. 1 0.3
Honikel (1998) recommended that the aperture (viewing port) size be as large 2 6.6
as the instrument will allow. Yancey and Kropf (2008) demonstrated that L*, 3 21.9
a*, and b* values, as well as saturation index values, decreased with 4 5.9
5 5.2
decreasing aperture size, when using illuminants A, C, and D 65. These 6 to 10 5.3
authors also noted that hue angles were inversely related to aperture size for 11 to 15 0.7
More than 15 1.8
all three illuminants, and, with illuminants C and D65, the smallest aperture
Not Reported 52.4
size resulted in negative a* values, which skewed the hue angle calculations.
a
Certain studies, such as those on processed meats, cooked meats, some ground meats, or
when color was measured over an extended period of time, do not require a reported bloom
time.

3.5. Variations in the use of an observation angle

Again, a large proportion of articles (705) failed to report the observation
angle (Table 2). Among those reported, 10 was by far the most popular
observation angle, with 259 articles reporting the use of this angle of measure.
Observation angles of 2 and 0 were the next most popular, with 57 and 40
articles, respectively. Observation angle accounts for the visual field of the
average human eye when detecting color (Hunter Laboratory Associates,
2008a, 2008b). Very little research has been conducted on differences in meat
color measure-ment due to the standard observation angle, but HunterLab
suggested using the 10 observer, which was developed in 1964 over the 2
observer, developed in 1931 (Hunter Laboratory Associates, 2008b).
3.6. Variations in the use of bloom time
Lee et al. (2008a, 2008b) observed that over 90% of the change in L*, a*, b*,
and chroma (C*) values, as well as hue angles and calculated oxymyoglobin
percentages, of beef longissimus and gluteus medius steaks occurred during
the first hour after exposure to air.
3.7. Variation in the number of readings per sample
The majority of articles surveyed (560 articles) failed to report the number
of readings that were taken on each sample to find the color measurement
(Table 3). In fact, a great deal of variation in the number of color readings
was noted among the studies, with from one to as many as 30 readings taken
per sample. The most popular choice in number of readings taken was three
(234 articles), which is consistent with the recommendation of Honikel
(1998), who advocated taking color readings in at least triplicate.

Bloom time was not reported in 691 articles when measuring instrumental
meat color, but it was ascertained that in some studies, such as those on
processed meats, cooked meats, some ground meats, or when color was
measured on product in display over an extended period of time, bloom time
was not applicable. Therefore, those articles accounted for 27.8% of the color
articles examined, whereas articles that did not report bloom time on freshly-
cut muscle accounted for 36.8% of articles (Table 3). Most reporting
researchers used a 30- (100 articles) or 60-min (92 articles) bloom time, but
the various bloom times reported ranged from 0 to over 180 min. Bloom time
has the potential to have a large impact on fresh instrumental color readings
because the oxygenation of the myoglobin pigment in the muscle is
responsible for the red color formation and does not occur instantaneously.
Honikel (1998) recommended that bloom last for at least one hour, preferably
two hours, at a maximum temperature of 3 C; however, Rentfrow et al.
(2004) indicated that instrumental color measures of beef longissimus
stabilized within 12 min of carcass ribbing, and Wulf and Wise (1999) noted
that L* values of beef longissimus stabilized after an approximate 30-minute
bloom time and a* and b* values after 78 min of bloom. More recently,
3.8. Variations between color coordinates
Another objective of this survey was to determine the tristimulus methods
that researchers used to measure darkness-to-lightness, as well as well as the
redgreen and yellowblue axes. In 1976, the Commission de Internationale
E Clairage (CIE 1976) revised the original L, a, b tristimulus method
(commonly referred to as the Hunter L a b scale) in an effort to expand from
the two-dimensional to a three-dimensional space (referred to as CIE L* a*
b*). Moreover, the two color coordinate methods are calculated differently,
with Hunter Lab values calculated using the square roots of XYZ values
and CIE L*a*b* values derived from the cube roots of XYZ values
(Hunter Laboratory Associates, 2008a). Most of the research articles reported
using L*, a*, and b* values (902, 880, and 858 articles, respectively) to
measure lightness, redness, and yellowness, respectively. Another 125, 133,
and 120 articles reported using L, a, and b values to measure darkness-to-
lightness, redgreen axis, and yellowblue axis, respectively, whereas
between 3.8 and 8.4% of the articles failed to report the tristimulus method
used to measure meat color. Interestingly, a few articles reported
4 W.N. Tapp III et al. / Meat Science 89 (2011) 15

using the XYZ or Luv coordinates, but typically these articles also
reported using either the L*, a*, b* or L, a, b coordinates as well.
Color may also be evaluated using calculations from the a* (or a) and b*
(or b) in the form of hue angle (tan1(b*/a*)) and chroma
p

( a 2 + b 2). Hue angle is the development of color from red to yellow and
larger angles indicate a less red product. Chroma is used to indicate the
saturation of color, sometimes termed vividness. In some cases, the
reflectance of light at specific wavelengths is measured, and the ratio of
reflectance at 630 nm to that at 580 nm is used to determine redness. Hue
angle and chroma were reported in 24.8 and 25.0% of papers, respectively.
Reflectance values were reported less frequently (13.2 %). This is not entirely
surprising because hue angle and chroma can be calculated from a* and b*,
which is available from most colorimeters, but only spectrophotometers
report reflectance at specific wavelengths, usually at 10-nm increments. Some
researchers are now reporting reflectance at each wavelength and analyzing
meat color in the entire spectrum, concentrating on the long, red wavelengths
(Yancey & Kropf, 2008).

Fig. 2. Interaction of illuminants (light sources) with country of origin to measure meat color
3.9. Interactive variations between country and instrument
reported in articles published over a ten-year period.

Minolta branded instruments were used in 59.7% of all articles surveyed,

and the Minolta was the most popular brand of instrument for measuring meat
color within each of country designation (Fig. 1), with the exception of North
America. In articles from Oceania, Europe, and Asia, Minolta branded
instruments were used for measuring meat color in 80.3, 72.1, and 69.8% of
articles, respectively. European authors were much less likely to use Hunter
(18.2%) or other (6.1%) brands of color measuring instruments. In articles
originating from North American countries, Hunter-branded instruments were
most popular (54.9% of the articles), followed by Minolta (41.2%) and other
(2.3%) instruments. Asian authors were most likely to use the Minolta and
were less likely to use a Hunter (9.3%) than an other (17.4%) instrument.
Authors from Oceania clearly favored the Minolta over Hunter (15.2%) or
other (4.6%) instruments. African authors used Minolta (50.0%) instruments
only slightly more often than other (42.3%) and only reported using Hunter
instruments in one article. Of the seven South American articles, four used
Minolta (57.1%), two used Hunter (28.6%), and one reported using an other
(14.3%) instrument. European authors were most likely to not report the type
of instrument used (62.1% of articles not reporting instrument),
followed by authors from North America (27.1%), Asia (9.0%), and Africa
(3.5%). Several factors can affect the instrument an author chooses, including
the cost of the instrument, its availability in the geographical area, and the
capabilities of the instrument.
3.10. Interactive variations between country and illuminant
Illuminant D65 was the most popular illuminant used when the entire data
set was examined, and this held true within each continent, with the exception
of Africa (Fig. 2). Illuminant C was most popular in North America, from
where 55% of the articles utilizing illuminant C originated. It was clear that
illuminant A was used almost exclusively in North America (in 93% of the
articles). Research articles that reported illuminants other than D 65, C, or A
mostly originated from North America (72%) or Europe (22%). It is highly
probable that the reason for the predominant use of either illuminant C or D 65
is that these are the only illuminant options for Minolta colorimeters, which
were used in the greatest numbers of articles. Articles originating from Africa
were the most likely not to

Fig. 1. Interaction of country of author origin with brand of instrument for measuring Fig. 3. Interaction of aperture size with instrument used to measure meat color reported
meat color reported in articles published over a ten-year period. in articles published over a ten-year period.
 W.N. Tapp III et al. / Meat Science 89 (2011) 15
Fig. 4. Interaction of illuminant used with species studied for measuring meat color reported in
articles published over a ten-year period. Other species included antelope, camel, caribou, fish,
goat, horse, kongoni, oryn, ostrich, rabbit, reindeer, venison, and zebra.
have reported illuminant (80.7%), followed by those from Asia (69.8%),
Europe (56.3%), Oceania (36.4%), North America (34.4%), and South
America (0.2%), where only one of seven articles failed to report the
illuminant.
3.11. Interactive variations between instrument type and aperture
When using a Hunter colorimeter/spectrophotometer, most articles
reported using the 25- (46.0%) or the 32-mm (21.0%) aperture (Fig. 3).
However, when using a Minolta instrument, a wider range in aperture sizes
were reported with the 8- (56.6%), greater than 44- (19.3%), and 10-mm
(11.0%) aperture sizes being the most reported. When using instruments other
than the Hunter or Minolta, the 11- (37.5%), 16-(25.0%), and 20-mm (25.0%)
apertures were most popular. Yancey and Kropf (2008) found differences in
a* and b* due to aperture size when using the Hunter LabScan.
3.12. Interactive variations between species and illuminant used
When measuring the color of pork, D65 was the most commonly reported
illuminant (72.0% of pork articles reporting an illuminant); nevertheless, 31
(11.1%), 39 (14.0%), and 8 (2.9%) articles reported using illuminants A, C, or
a different illuminant, respectively, when measuring pork color (Fig. 4).
However, 44.1% of the articles reporting the instrumental color of pork did
not report the use of any illuminant. In beef studies, the most popular
illuminant was also D65 (53.2% of beef articles reporting an illuminant),
followed by articles reporting the use of illuminants A (27.3%), C (17.1%), or
another illuminant (2.3%); however, 44.6% failed to report which illuminant
was used to measure beef color. When reporting color data collection on
lamb, 9 articles reported using illuminants C (31.0% of lamb articles reporting
an illuminant) and 20 (69.9%) used D65, respectively, but 64.2% of the
articles reporting instrumental lamb color results failed to report the
illuminant used. Even though 48.7% of the articles reporting poultry color did
not report the illuminant used, 12 (31.6 % of poultry article reporting an
illuminant), 8 (21.1%), 13 (34.3%), and 5 (13.2%) articles noted the use of
illuminants A, C, D65, and other when measuring poultry color, respectively.
The AMSA guidelines for instrumental color measurement clearly stated that
illuminant A is suggested for meat color measurement (AMSA, 1991);
however, some instruments can only measure color using certain illuminants.
Illuminant A has a higher intensity of wavelengths in the long, red portion of
the
5
spectrum when compared to C and D65; therefore, it is pertinent that
researchers report which illuminant they used. Abeni and Bergoglio (2000)
noted that different illuminants resulted in vastly different instrumental color
values for fresh poultry, and they also concluded that specifying the
illuminant was essential for the interpretation of poultry instrumental color
results.
4. Conclusions
Considering the multitude and diversity of institutions and researchers
performing meat color evaluations, it would seem only logical to presume that
there would be set rules to follow on how the methodology is described in
research articles. Findings from this review, however, indicated that a large
percentage of the articles failed to include pertinent information (i.e.,
illuminant, aperture size, observation angle, bloom time before data
collection, and number of readings per sample) necessary to replicate and
accurately interpret instrumental color results. In addition, because of the
wide range of methods/protocols/procedures used to measure instrumental
color of meats, the methodology and protocol description for instrumental
color data collection merits a standardized data reporting system. In the
future, authors of manuscripts utilizing instrumental meat color evaluation
should include, and reviewers should require, as a minimum the following
information: instrument, illuminant, aperture size, observation angle, number
of readings taken per sample, and, when measuring freshly-cut samples,
bloom time.
References
Abeni, F., & Bergoglio, G. (2000). Characterization of different strains of broiler chicken
carcass measurements, chemical and physical parameters and NIRS on breast muscle. Meat
Science, 57, 133137.
AMSA (1991). Guidelines for meat color evaluation. Reciprocal Meats Conference
Proceedings, 44. (pp. 117).
Brewer, M. S., Zhu, Z. G., Bidner, B., Meisinger, D. J., & McKeith, F. K. (2001). Measuring
pork color: effects of bloom time, muscle, pH and relationship to instrumental parameters.
Meat Science, 57, 169176.
Garcia-Esteban, M., Ansorena, D., Gimeno, O., & Astiasarn, I. (2003). Optimization of
instrumental colour analysis in dry cured ham. Meat Science, 63, 287292.
Honikel, K. O. (1998). Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of
meat. Meat Science, 49(4), 447457.
Hunter Laboratory Associates (2008a). Hunter L, a, b Versus CIE 1976 L* a* b*.
Applications note: Insight on color, 13(2).
Hunter Laboratory Associates (2008b). Hunter L, a, b Versus CIE 1976 L* a* b*.
Applications Note: Insight on Color, 19(10).
Lee, M. S., Apple, J. K., Yancey, J. W. S., Sawyer, J. T., & Johnson, Z. B. (2008a). Influence of
vacuum-aging period on bloom development of the beef gluteus medius from top sirloin
butts. Meat Science, 80, 592598.
Lee, M. S., Apple, J. K., Yancey, J. W. S., Sawyer, J. T., & Johnson, Z. B. (2008b). Influence of
wet aging on bloom development in the longissimus thoracis. Meat Science, 80, 7037008.
Liu, Y., Lyon, B. G., Windham, W. R., Realini, C. E., Pringle, T. D., & Duckett, S. (2003).
Prediction of color, texture, and sensory characteristics of beef steaks by visible and near
infrared reflectance spectroscopy. A feasibility study. Meat Science, 65, 11071115.
Mancini, R. A., & Hunt, M. C. (2005). Current research in meat color. Meat Science, 71(1),
100121.
Meisinger, D. J., Scheller, K., & Goodwin, R. N. (1997). Differences in pork color
measurements. Reciprocal Meat Conference Proceedings, 50. (pp. 167) (Abstr.).
Rentfrow, G., Linville, M. L., Stahl, C. A., Olsen, K. C., & Berg, E. P. (2004). The effects of the
antioxidant lipoic acid on beef longissimus bloom time. Journal of Animal Science, 82,
30343037.
Wulf, D. M., O'Conner, S. F., Tatum, J. D., & Smith, G. C. (1997). Using objective measures of
color to predict beef longissimus tenderness. Journal of Animal Science, 75, 685692.
Wulf, D. M., & Page, J. K. (2000). Using measurements of muscle color, pH, and electrical
impedance to augment the current USDA beef quality grading standards and improve the
accuracy and precision of sorting carcasses into palatability groups. Journal of Animal
Science, 78, 25952607.
Wulf, D. M., & Wise, J. W. (1999). Measuring muscle color on beef carcasses using the L* a*
b* color space. Journal of Animal Science, 77, 24182518.
Yancey, J. W. S., & Kropf, D. H. (2008). Instrumental reflectance values of fresh pork are
dependent on aperture size. Meat Science, 79, 734739.