4.5 Article

Quality traits of raw and cooked cupped oysters

Journal

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 246, Issue 2, Pages 349-353

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-019-03348-3

Keywords

Cupped oyster; Cooking process; Proximate composition; Fatty acid profile; Sensory attributes

Funding

  1. FAR 2014-2018 Improvement of quality traits of oysters (Crassostrea gigas, Ostrea edulis), reared in long-line plants and stored in closed circuit system (OYSTAR), UNICAM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Proximate composition and fatty acid profile of raw cupped oysters (RA) were compared to conspecific submitted to two different cooking preparations (SA: cooking using extra virgin olive oil in a pan; GR: gratin). Moister content was significantly higher in RA (81.7%) with respect to SA (81.1%) and GR (81%). Protein rate significantly decreased from RA (8.8%) to SA (8.3%) and GR (8.4%). Lipids significantly increased in the two cooked GR (2.8%) and SA (2.7%) with respect to RA (2%). Ashes ranged from GR (1.98%) to RA (2%). In the two cooking methods, 18:0 was significantly higher (GR 6.99% and SA 6.15%) than in the raw oysters (RA 4.87%). C18:1 was largely doubled in GR (14.43%) and SA (13.77%) with respect to RA (6.81%). Among n-3 PUFA, 22:6 showed the highest percentage in all the three samples with a significant decrease passing from RA (21.39%) to SA (18.45%) and GR (17.95%). 20:5n-3 had the highest content in RA (17.53%) and significantly decreases in SA (14.09%) and GR (14.54%). Considering the trend of n-3 PUFA and n-6 PUFA, the n-3/n-6 ratio significantly decreased from RA (5.33) to SA (3.58) and GR (3.29). Although proximate composition and fatty acid profile changed after the cooking process, as consequence of the heat treatment and extra virgin olive oil added to the plates, the culinary preparations did not negatively compromise the quality traits of the cooked and gratin oysters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available