LAUSR

PurposeThe aim of the paper is to compare consumer acceptance, sensory analysis and volatile compounds of caiman meat with regard to surubí fish and chicken meat.Design/methodology/approachCaiman tail, chicken thigh and surubí meats' cuts were cooked in a pan with little oil and salt. The affective tests of acceptance (9-points hedonic scale) and preference ranking were evaluated by 80 consumers. Sensory analysis carried out by eight trained panelists described attributes' intensities on an unstructured linear scale (0–150 mm). Volatile compounds were analysed by solid-phase micro-extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry GC–MS.FindingsCaiman meat had good acceptance values of 6–7 (“like slightly” to “like moderately”), being similarly preferred to surubí but less than chicken. The ratings of bitterness, hardness, fibrous appearance, fibrous texture and cohesiveness were higher and raw colour, characteristic flavour and oiliness were lower in caiman's meat than in the others. Caiman meat had lower juiciness than chicken but similar to surubí. Caiman showed lower levels of aldehydes than chicken, lower level of hydrocarbons and higher levels of acids and esters than the other meats. Alcohols, mainly found in caiman and chicken meat, were positively associated to aroma acceptance. Hydrocarbons, mainly found in surubí meat, were positively associated with the characteristic flavour and negatively correlated with aroma acceptance. Volatile composition of meats was related to their sensory attributes and consumer acceptance.Originality/valueGiven that caiman meat showed similar acceptance and preference to that of surubí, it could be considered a good quality meat, helping promote current programmes of sustainable use of natural resources.