4.7 Article

Extensively reared Iberian pigs versus intensively reared white pigs for the manufacture of frankfurters

期刊

MEAT SCIENCE
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 356-364

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.08.003

关键词

frankfurters; Iberian pigs; white pigs; iron; vitamin E; colour; texture profile; fatty acids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physico-chemical characteristics and different quality traits of the raw material (meat and adipose tissue) and the frankfurters elaborated from extensively reared Iberian pigs (IF) and intensively reared white pigs (WF) were evaluated. Hybrid frankfurters (HF) made with meat from white pigs and adipose tissue from Iberian pigs were also studied. The differences found between muscles and adipose tissues from Iberian and white pigs largely influenced the characteristics displayed by the frankfurters. Particularly remarkable are the higher amounts of substances with proven antioxidant activity such as tocopherols and phenolic compounds in tissues from Iberian pigs than in those from white pigs. No significant differences were found amongst frankfurters for their proximate composition though IF presented a higher iron content than WF and HF. IF exhibited a redder and darker colour than WF and HF. The latter were paler and showed higher hue values than IF. Concerning their fatty acid composition, IF had higher proportions of oleic acid and MUFA and smaller proportions of SFA and PUFA than WF. From a nutritional point of view, IF had a lower n-6/n-3 value than WF. The addition of adipose tissue from Iberian pigs to the HF modified its fatty acid composition compared to that of WF, significantly increasing the percentages of MUFA and reducing the proportions of PUFA, SFA and the n-6/n-3 value. Though no significant differences were found amongst frankfurters for their texture profile, a clear trend was detected, with the HF showing intermediate texture characteristics between IF and WF. (c) 2005 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