4.4 Article

Effect of muscle type and vacuum chiller ageing period on the chemical compositions, meat quality, sensory attributes and volatile compounds of Korean native cattle beef

期刊

ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL
卷 85, 期 2, 页码 164-173

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/asj.12100

关键词

ageing; meat quality; muscle type; sensory; volatile flavor component

资金

  1. FTA, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ907055, PJ008525]
  2. Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea [PJ008525022014] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study demonstrates the effects of different muscle types and chiller ageing periods on the chemical composition, meat quality parameters, sensory characteristics and volatile compounds of Karean native cattle beed. Longissimus dorsi (LD) and Semitendinosus (ST) muscles aged for 7 days and 28 days were used. Moisture, cooking loss, total collagen and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) values for the ST were higher than the LD muscle regardless of ageing period (P<0.05). The LD muscle had higher intramuscular fat (IMF) (P<0.05). Ageing for 28 days decreased WBSF values whereas it increased thiobarbituric acid of both muscles. Moreover, tenderness, juiciness and flavor scores were significantly higher for the LD muscle at both ageing periods. Increased ageing time improved tenderness of both muscles, and increased juiciness of the LD muscle, whereas there was decreased flavor score of ST muscle (P<0.05). The majority of the volatile compounds formed from the oxidation of lipids showed differences between the two muscles. Ageing for 28 days increased in the amounts of many volatile compounds; however, the amounts of some important volatile compounds were decreased. These results clearly demonstrate that muscle type and ageing have a potential effect on meat quality, sensory characteristics and volatile profile.

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

4.4
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