3.8 Article

Fatty Acid Profiles of Ten Muscles from High and Low Marbled (Quality Grade 1++ and 2) Hanwoo Steers

期刊

出版社

KOREAN SOC FOOD SCIENCE ANIMAL RESOURCES
DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.5.679

关键词

fatty acid profile; marbling; intramuscular fat; marbled beef; oleic acid

资金

  1. Korean Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (IPET) through (Agri-Bioindustry Technology Development Program)
  2. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) [315017-05-1-SB-140]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this research was to evaluate: 1) the fatty acid profile of ten muscles from high marbled (HM, quality grade 1(++)) and low marbled (LM, quality grade 2) Hanwoo carcass, 2) the relationship between the fatty acid profile and sensory traits. There were significant (p<0.001) differences in fat content and fatty acid composition among the 10 muscles obtained from HM and LM Hanwoo steers. The proportions of SFA (saturated fatty acid), MUFA (monounsaturated fatty acid) and PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acid) were significantly (p<0.001) different among the 10 muscles due to differences in all fatty acids except eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, C20:5n-3). The high-fat muscles had a lower n-6/n-3 ratio compared to the low-fat muscles (p<0.001). LM muscles had a significantly (p<0.05) higher proportion of SFA than HM muscles due to a higher proportion of stearic acid (C18:0). On the contrary, HM muscles had a significantly (p<0.01) higher proportion of MUFA than LM muscles due to higher oleic acid (C18:1n-9) proportion. SFA had a significant correlation with CIE a* (r=0.281; p<0.01) and drip loss (%) (r=-0.233;p<0.001). Cooking loss (%) had a significantly (p<0.05) negative correlation with PUFA (r=-0.233;p<0.05). Overall palatability was positively correlated with SFA (r=0.262;p<0.01), but negatively correlated with PUFA (r=-0.567;p<0.001). There was no significant correlation between oleic acid and any of the sensory traits (p>0.05).

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

3.8
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