4.7 Article

Fillet colour correlates with biochemical status in Australasian snapper (Pagrus auratus) during storage in refrigerated seawater

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 356, 期 -, 页码 256-263

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.05.008

关键词

Australasian snapper; Color; Refrigerated seawater; Rested harvesting; Storage; Muscle translucency

资金

  1. Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST) [C02X0811]
  2. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) [C02X0811] Funding Source: New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We demonstrate that two commonly used chilled storage temperatures (4.15 and 0.3 degrees C) differ in their effects on whole rested harvested Australasian snapper (Pagrus auratus) stored in refrigerated seawater (RSW) with respect to white muscle biochemistry and skin and fillet colour. Whitemuscle pH decreased from 7.64 to ca. 6.4 over 48 h at both temperatures, but remained significantly (P<0.05) elevated at 4.15 degrees C compared to 0.3 degrees C until 24 h post-mortem. This corresponded with significantly elevated potential energy and concentrations of ATP, ADP and glycogen. Depletion of these metabolites occurred by 24 h at both temperatures and was mirrored by rises in lactate and inosine monophosphate (IMP). At 24 h snapper stored at 4.15 degrees C remained in partial rigor, whereas animals at 0.3 degrees C were in firm rigor. After 72 h significantly higher inosine and hypoxanthine concentrations were present in the 4.15 degrees C group, demonstrating temperature related mass action. Tissue biochemistry significantly correlated with changes in fillet colour, particularly redness and yellowness, and we propose that fillet colour can be used as a non-destructive indicator of muscle biochemistry. We link these data with muscle ultrastructure and translucency through histology and with use of a novel laser penetration method. (C) 2012 Elsevier B. V. 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