4.7 Article

Analysis of the physical meat quality in partridge (Alectoris chukar) and its relationship with intramuscular fat

Journal

POULTRY SCIENCE
Volume 99, Issue 2, Pages 1225-1231

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2019.09.009

Keywords

partridge; meat quality; IMF; shear force; WHC

Funding

  1. major scientific and technological projects for breeding new varieties of Zhejiang in the 13th Five-Year [2016C02054-15]
  2. science and technology plan projects of Taishun county (2018)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was undertaken to assess the effect of various levels of intramuscular fat (IMF: <0.5%, 0.5-0.99%, 1.0-1.49%, 1.5-1.99%, 2.0-2.49%, and >2.5%) on the physical meat quality of partridge. Physical characteristics such as moisture, pH, shear force, water-holding capacity (WHC), and color, along with IMF, were measured on 414 partridges (pectoral muscle). In this study, partridge meat was described as a kind of tender and moderately juicy meat with a nice color. Additionally, tenderness was significantly different between IMF < 0.5% and IMF > 0.5% levels (P < 0.01). IMF >0.5% also obtained higher value of WHC than IMF <0.5% although the difference was statistically nonsignificant. IMF levels did not affect pH or color. The results showed that IMF content was not significantly correlated with physical meat quality. However, in terms of eating experience, the minimum IMF level for better meat quality for consumer was 0.5%. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that IMF content had significant negative correlations with moisture content but not with pH (r = -0.066), shear force (r = -0.072), WHC (r = 0.085), or color (L*(r = -0.049), a*(r = -0.028) and b*(r = 0.045)). Besides, meat pH had significant negative correlations with WHC (r = -0.036; P < 0.01) and lightness (L*) (r = -0.292; P < 0.01). Consequently, we consider pH to be one of the most important factors in evaluating meat quality of partridge.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available