Changes in the Physico-Chemical Quality of Red Meat during the Distribution of Carcasses from the Abattoir to the Retailers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting and intends to explain issues that may be of interest in the meat industry. However, there are several aspects of the methodology that should be better explained in order to understand the conclusions that the authors raise in the study.

The methodology to measure pH, Color, cooking loss and textural characteristics were clearly explained, but the sampling of the carcasses is not clear in order to be able to compare with meat samples and attribute some changes to the rest of the stages of the supply chain. How exactly do the authors conclude that the color change was due to the distance and time of display?

In the study and the experimental design, I have doubts on how authors controlled the individual effect of each animal. It is not clear if the animals came from the same farm to the benefit, that is, all the effects associated with the animal production system were blocked? (it means feeding , handling, transportation to the slaughterhouse).

It is also not clear how authors were able to identify the effect of the supply chain on the quality of the meat because the authors do not explain how they took the measurements on the carcass before suffering the effect of transport time (distance) and time in retail.

 

The study reports temperatures of more than 20°C during all stages (even during sale) in which conditions are very different from how meat should be handled and distributed to avoid microbiological spoilage (between 0 and 4°C).  Although it is possible that this is the way meat is marketed in some regions, the study is not consistent with the regulations for the safety and handling of high-risk foods. For what I consider it to become a study of local interest.

 

Some citations are theses and not publications reviewed, what I consider deteriorates the quality of the manuscript.

I could not find the following reference, please review

Ulbricht, T.L. V; Southgate, D.A.T. Coronary Heart Disease: Seven Dietary Factors. Lancet 1991, 338, 985–992, 350 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)91846-M.

 

Lines 30 and 31

It should be explained which quality aspects specifically and what are the efforts to improve it. I do not see that the microbiological quality associated mainly with the cold chain is mentioned at any point.

 

Lines 61 to 65. Is the effect of temperature on the conservation of the characteristics not considered? The importance of temperature should be mentioned, since temperature influences microbial development and this in turn causes changes in carcass quality.

 

Line 67 to 68. Write the idea again, is not clear.

 

Lines 69 to 70. Meat retail outlets are classified as high class, middle class or low class [14].

 It should briefly explain what each of these classifications involves.

 

Lines 84 to 85. Explain if the carcasses are cooled before transportation and how many days after processing they are cooled.

Lines 91 to 94. It is not clear at which points of the carcass the initial measurements were taken (before transport). I suggest that a scheme be made of the points sampled in each carcass depending on the species, it would make it easier to understand the procedure used.

 How the samples were treated until they reached the laboratory to carry out the texture and cooking loss analyses. Or were not the carcasses sampled for texture and cooking loss?

 

Lines 95 to 96. Explain the temperature of the trucks during transport and the storage room.

Line 98. Explain specifically which were the cuts of meat (Although the authors state the cuts of meat below, I believe that to be consistent in the manuscript, each part should be explained as best as possible).

 

Line 99

to which stages does it refer?

 

Line 107

Only pH (pHu) and color coordinates were measured?. What about tenderness and cooking loss measurements?

 

Line 158:

The results begin by talking about the effect of the retailer class on the physicochemical attributes of red meat and shows table 1 with 3 categories (Butcher, Medium, top), but does not explain what these categories mean in the studied market. (were sell vacuum packed? were refrigerate meat? were only lean meats? Do meat handlers follow food safety standards?

Line 169. I believe that it is necessary to be consistent when presenting the results

First authors should show the results of table 2 (the stages after the benefit (in loading), unloading and retail, then shows table 3 where authors talk about the effects of distance and finally shows table 1 where they talk about the characteristics of the meat in each type of retail.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the comments on our manuscript. Please kindly find attached the response note. 

Kind regards

Rani 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections are highlighted in PDF. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the comments on our manuscript. Please kindly find the response note attached.

Kind regards

Rani

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

·   General comments:

Overall, I think the authors submitted a very interesting study that aimed to identify the impact of supply chain distribution on meat quality, which is not really well understood yet. While it is an interesting study, there are several concerns and questions that need to be addressed prior to publication.

The current paper material and methods are confusing and need to include more explanation regarding the factors used in the study. There are multiple instances where it is not clear what samples the authors are using for the analysis. These should be clarified to help readers understand the study and help to interpret the manuscript correctly.  Additionally, there were quite a lot of confounding factors (packaging, aging time, muscle differences) in the study that the authors did not control or address, which will influence the final results observed.

In the discussion sections, a more relevant discussion should be added. In the current stage, the authors often did not discuss the main effect they were observing. For example, in looking at the effect of retailers, the authors did not discuss the differences between the retailer classes and how they would influence the products. The authors, instead, discussed the impact of pH on meat since all samples had a high pH. The discussions were not relevant and should be revised to provide more insightful information.

 

·   Specific comments:

Material & Method:

Retailer class information were never discussed in the material and methods section. Please add the information as it was one of the factors. What samples (muscle, species) were used at what points are not clear in the current paper.

Line 92: Were the meat delivered as a whole carcass? Or was it cut into primal and subprimal? Please provide more detailed information. Please add more information about the sample packaging during transport. Was the same cut collected at each retail location? Or was it different?

Line 95: Please provide more information about the truck. Was it a refrigerated truck? Was the carcass or meat hanging?

Line 103-105: did the authors try to control the storage time? How did the authors take into account that aging time will influence the final meat quality?

Line 105-109: How was the meat packaged by the retailers? How long was it stored prior to analysis? Please add more information

Line 108: please correct the degree symbol

Line 112: Please spell out Tm before abbreviation.

Line 118-130: it is not clear how the authors measured the samples. Were pieces of samples collected an measured? But the samples were the whole carcass? Please provide more information about the samples collection

Line 119: If there the muscle information, please provide the information. Were all these cuts collected from all retailers (50 of each of these cuts)? Please provide more information. Were all these cuts used for WBSF? Or only one muscle? Please provide information. Also why the different muscles were not discussed in the results and discussion?

Line 134-135: Were internal temperatures monitored? Please provide information

Line 146: Were species considered as a treatment? The authors compared the species in one of the discussions

Line 156: duration was not in the equation. The statistical analysis was not really clear as the factors were not clearly defined and each section seems to be analyzed differently.

Result and Discussion:

Line 158: Please add information regarding the retailer class. It was never mentioned in the M&M section. In the current discussion, it was not clear what is the distinction between the retailers and why is it important to do so. Storage condition on each retail condition were never mentioned and should be added. Additionally, it was not clear what samples were analyzed for this section. Were the data include all species? If so, what is the rationale to average all the species together as they are very different?

Line 160: What muscle cut were used? Please add the information.

Line 184-186: while the data showed no differences, I would be hesitant to agree with this statement as the data provided were not clear.

Line 189: Why were the different species compared directly? It would make more sense to compare the difference or changes in the values. The different species will definitely have different color and oxidative stability. Comparing them directly would just show that the species were different on each of the stages, which were shown by the current data. Based on the current data, the different stages were not statistically significant for each of the species.

Line 195-196: The muscle collection procedure is quite confusing and quite difficult to understand the processing. Were the samples packaged? Were there any bloom time if the muscle were just cut from the carcass or removed from the packaging?

Line 240-243: The WBSF data was not available. It is quite confusing and surprising how this condition could be really different in the final WBSF. I assume the transportation occurred within a day and I would have thought that it would not generate such enormous impact in such a short time.

Line 244: how long was the travel time between the retailers? Any information on the length of each stop? I would assume the distance might not accurately reflect the actual travel time since the truck stop on each distance?

Line 270: Again in this section, it is not really clear what species the authors are referring to. I think this portion raised a concern about the other results. Since the authors have different aging time. How did the author control it? Were there any differences between retailers in term of aging/storage time? Were some longer than the others? Or was everyone about the same?

 

Conclusion:

Line 290-292: I would be skeptical of this statement since the storage information about each facility were not provided.

Line 289-299: There were quite a lot of confounding factors in these study that was not clear and would raise questions on the results and conclusion of this study.

 

References:

-

 

Table and Figures:

Table 1, 3, 4: please add information regarding the species of the sample used

Table 2: is the table missing WBSF data? What measurements should be in each of the tables are not clear.

Table 4: is it 0 or 10?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the comments on our manuscript. Kindly find the attached response note.

 

Kind regards

Rani

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved substantially after revision and the clarifications I suggested in the first revision were included.

The authors should review Table 3 because the first column is not clear. (why does it start with 10?)

conclusions need to be improved

Author Response

Dear Editor 

The authors are grateful for the reviewer's comments on our manuscript. Please find the response attached for the reviwers comments as addressed in the manuscript.

Kind regards

Rani

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made significant changes to the manuscript and the effort is greatly appreciated.

Following the revision, there are some questions that need to be addressed. The major issue of the current manuscript is that the methodology is unclear and the sampling methods are difficult to follow and understand. The authors did make some improvements, but overall it was still not clear. 

 

With the samples kept in the refrigerated truck, why are all the sample’s temperatures measured at room temperature (around 20-25C)? this is quite hard to understand. 

I am still very skeptical of the current conclusion and discussion as there are quite a lot of confounding factors and some of the discussions were not really clear.

Author Response

Dear Editor

The authors are grateful for the reviewer's comments on our manuscript. Attached is the response note for the reviewer's comments as addressed in the manuscript. 

Kind regards

Rani 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Reviewer 3 Report

thank you for the authors effort to make the changes