4.7 Article

Beef texture characterization using internationally established texture vocabularies in ISO5492:1992: Differences among four different end-point temperatures in three muscles of Holstein steers

期刊

MEAT SCIENCE
卷 86, 期 2, 页码 422-429

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.05.028

关键词

Beef; Texture; ISO5492:1992; Cooking temperature; Warner-Bratzler shear force

资金

  1. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, Japan
  2. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture [21700746]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21700746] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

'Tenderness' has been an important sensory characteristic for beef, although 'tenderness' has not been commonly defined. On the other hand, ISO5492:1992 provides internationally established vocabularies for sensory analysis with simple definition. The aim of this study was texture characterization for three beef muscles cooked to four end-point temperatures using ISO5492:1992 texture terms in Japanese to develop objective sensory evaluation terms for beef texture other than 'tenderness.' Longissimus, semitendinosus, and psoas major muscles harvested from three Holstein steers were cooked to 45, 60, 72, and 92 T end-point temperatures and evaluated by a trained sensory panel. Correspondence analysis indicated that the 'chewiness' and 'hardness' defined in ISO5492 were distinguished in each muscle. Changes in the 'chewiness' and 'hardness' qualities during cooking were different from each other. These findings suggest that both 'chewiness' and 'hardness' as defined in ISO5492:1992 should be evaluated simultaneously to determine the sensory texture of beef. Warner-Bratzler shear force values (WBSFVs) were also correlated with ISO5492 'chewiness.' This finding suggests that WBSFV indicates ISO5492 'chewiness' rather than undefined 'tenderness.' (C) 2010 The American Meat Science Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据