4.7 Article

Beef longissimus lumborum, biceps femoris, and deep pectoralis Warner-Bratzler shear force is affected differently by endpoint temperature, cooking method, and USDA quality grade

期刊

MEAT SCIENCE
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 243-248

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.03.003

关键词

beef; cooking method; endpoint temperature; Warner-Bratzler shear force

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effects of endpoint temperature, cooking method, and quality grade on Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) of beef longissimus lumborum (LL), biceps femoris (BF), and deep pectoralis (DP) muscles were evaluated. Eighteen of all three subprimals were selected from USDA Select and 18 from USDA Choice (Certified Angus Beef) carcasses for the respective muscles. Muscles were vacuum packaged and held at 1 degreesC for 14 days, frozen (-29 degreesC), sawed into 2.54-cm thick steaks, vacuum packaged, and stored frozen until cooking. Thawed steaks were cooked by either a Magikitch'n((R)) electric belt-grill (BG) at 93 degreesC, or a water-bath at 93 degreesC, to one of nine endpoint temperatures: 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, or 80 degreesC. Belt-grill cooking was much faster and resulted in distinctly less cooking loss than water-bath cooking. Water-bath cooking resulted in higher (P < 0.0001) Instron((R)) WBSF (31.92 N) than BG (28.25 N) for LL. The combination of Select quality grade and higher endpoint temperatures resulted in higher (P < 0.05) WBSF for LL. Two distinct phases of tenderization/toughening occurred for BF. Between 40 and 60 degreesC, WBSF decreased from 43.95 to 38.16 N (P < 0.01), whereas between 60 and 70 degreesC, WBSF increased from 38.16 N to 44.44 N (P < 0.05). Water-bath cooling resulted in higher (P = 0.0001) DP WBSF (71.12 N) than BG (59.25 N). The DP had a distinct (P < 0.0001) decline in WBSF between 45 and 65 degreesC, irrespective of the cooking method, followed by an increase between 65 and 80 degreesC (P < 0.01). (C) 2004 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