| Literature DB >> 25049769 |
S J Hur1, S K Jin1, J H Park1, S W Jung1, H J Lyu1.
Abstract
Many studies have been carried out with respect to packaging methods and temperature conditions of beef. However, the effects of packaging methods and temperature conditions on the quality characteristics have not been extensively studied in low-grade beef. Low-grade beef samples were divided into 3 groups (C: ziplock bag packaging, T1: vacuum packaging, and T2: modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), CO2/N2 = 3:7) and samples were stored at 4°C for 21 days. The water-holding capacity (WHC) was significantly lower in T1 than in the other samples up to 14 days of storage. The thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and volatile basic nitrogen values were significantly lower in T1 and T2 than in C after 7 to 14 days of storage. The total bacterial counts were significantly lower in T1 and T2 than in C after 14 days of storage. In a sensory evaluation, tenderness and overall acceptability were significantly higher in T1 and T2 than in C at the end of the storage period (21 days). We propose that the MAP method can improve beef quality characteristics of low-grade beef during cold storage. However, the beneficial effects did not outweigh the cost increase to implement MAP.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Low-grade Beef; Meat Quality; Modified Atmosphere Packaging
Year: 2013 PMID: 25049769 PMCID: PMC4092886 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Effects of packaging and aging methods on the pH, WHC, and shear force of low-grade beef during storage
| Items | Treatments | Storage (d)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 14 | 21 | ||
| pH | C | 5.56[ | 5.61 | 5.77[ | 6.38[ |
| T1 | 5.56±0.23 | 5.62±0.69 | 5.53 | 5.54 | |
| T2 | 5.58±0.65 | 5.64±0.18 | 5.60 | 5.47 | |
| WHC (%) | C | 62.20 | 62.01 | 62.29 | 66.06±2.36 |
| T1 | 54.18 | 56.04 | 60.11 | 62.77±3.78 | |
| T2 | 63.31 | 66.57 | 67.62 | 67.12±4.86 | |
| Shear force (kg) | C | 9.09 | 7.80 | 4.65 | 4.76 |
| T1 | 8.05 | 8.89 | 4.71 | 4.83 | |
| T2 | 8.05 | 8.27 | 5.31 | 5.45 | |
C: ziplock bag packaging, T1: vacuum packaging, and T2: MAP (CO2/N2 = 3:7).
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same column differ significantly at p<0.05.
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly at p<0.05.
Effects of packaging and aging methods on the texture properties of low-grade beef during storage
| Items | Treatments | Storage (d)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 14 | 21 | ||
| Hardness (kg) | C | 1.24±0.12 | 2.01±0.65 | 1.24±0.35 | 1.27±0.22 |
| T1 | 1.72±0.56 | 1.05±0.69 | 1.34±0.63 | 1.10±0.18 | |
| T2 | 1.63±0.36 | 1.67±0.48 | 1.11±0.14 | 1.54±0.37 | |
| Cohesiveness (%) | C | 0.40 | 0.42±0.08 | 0.45±0.20 | 0.39±0.19 |
| T1 | 0.54 | 0.39±0.25 | 0.48±0.17 | 0.38±0.11 | |
| T2 | 0.45 | 0.47±0.14 | 0.63±0.32 | 0.41±0.08 | |
| Springiness (mm) | C | 1.03±0.12 | 0.92±0.23 | 1.10±0.18 | 1.03±0.22 |
| T1 | 1.06±0.07 | 1.08±0.54 | 1.00±0.07 | 1.21±0.13 | |
| T2 | 1.00±0.10 | 1.04±0.68 | 1.08±0.20 | 1.02±0.09 | |
| Gumminess (kg) | C | 0.55C±0.02 | 0.83 | 0.55±0.23 | 0.50±0.02 |
| T1 | 0.92 | 0.41 | 0.65±0.25 | 0.41±0.01 | |
| T2 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.61±0.40 | 0.64±0.12 | |
| Chewiness (kg, mm) | C | 0.51C±0.04 | 0.85 | 0.60±0.12 | 0.51±0.08 |
| T1 | 0.97 | 0.44 | 0.65±0.08 | 0.50±0.17 | |
| T2 | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.67±0.07 | 0.65±0.11 | |
| Adhesiveness (%) | C | 0.09 | 0.15±0.02 | 0.17±0.02 | 0.20±0.02 |
| T1 | 0.13 | 0.12±0.05 | 0.12±0.04 | 0.15±0.01 | |
| T2 | 0.09 | 0.16±0.07 | 0.11±0.05 | 0.21±0.11 | |
C: ziplock bag packaging, T1: vacuum packaging, and T2: MAP (CO2/N2 = 3:7).
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same differ column significantly at p<0.05.
Effects of packaging and aging methods on the meat color of low-grade beef during storage
| Items | Treatments | Storage (d)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 14 | 21 | ||
| L* | C | 43.88 | 42.83±1.31 | 44.36±2.02 | 46.00±1.65 |
| T1 | 44.86 | 42.21±0.92 | 43.26±1.08 | 45.72±2.35 | |
| T2 | 38.02 | 43.38±1.05 | 43.67±1.36 | 43.47±3.04 | |
| a* | C | 18.47 | 17.35±3.02 | 15.23±3.56 | 19.22±3.78 |
| T1 | 12.30 | 14.23±1.05 | 18.12±2.45 | 17.44±2.91 | |
| T2 | 13.18 | 19.29±2.89 | 16.09±3.07 | 17.80±3.65 | |
| b* | C | 8.01 | 6.00±2.14 | 5.77±3.01 | 7.11±2.14 |
| T1 | 3.69 | 4.57±3.16 | 5.69±2.12 | 7.07±1.25 | |
| T2 | 3.35 | 6.58±2.87 | 5.80±0.87 | 6.55±2.87 | |
| C* | C | 20.13 | 18.36±5.23 | 16.28±3.65 | 20.49±3.15 |
| T1 | 12.84 | 14.94±4.69 | 19.00±4.56 | 18.82±2.56 | |
| T2 | 15.60 | 20.39±6.54 | 17.53±3.78 | 18.97±417 | |
C: ziplock bag packaging, T1: vacuum packaging, and T2: MAP (CO2/N2 = 3:7).
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same column differ significantly at p<0.05.
Effect of packaging and aging methods on the TBARS of low-grade beef during storage
| Treatments | Storage (d)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 14 | 21 | |
| ------------------------------------------------------- mg MA3/kg ----------------------------------------------------------- | ||||
| C | 0.21[ | 0.50[ | 0.59[ | 0.76[ |
| T1 | 0.13 | 0.28[ | 0.37[ | 0.60[ |
| T2 | 0.14 | 0.24[ | 0.49[ | 0.62[ |
C: ziplock bag packaging, T1: vacuum packaging, T2: MAP (CO2/N2 = 3:7), and MA: malondialdehyde.
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same column differ significantly at p<0.05.
Mean±SD with different superscripts in the same column differ significantly at p<0.05.
Effects of packaging and aging methods on the VBN of low-grade beef during storage
| Treatments | Storage (d)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 14 | 21 | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------ mg % ------------------------------------------------------------- | ||||
| C | 9.43[ | 10.00 | 16.76[ | 19.70[ |
| T1 | 9.24±0.45 | 10.13±0.99 | 12.70 | 12.14 |
| T2 | 8.78±0.65 | 8.92±0.67 | 12.73 | 12.68 |
C: ziplock bag packaging, T1: vacuum packaging, and T2: MAP (CO2/N2 = 3:7).
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same column differ significantly at p<0.05.
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly at p<0.05.
Effects of packaging and aging methods on the microorganisms in low-grade beef during storage
| Items | Treatments | Storage (d)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 14 | 21 | ||
| -------------------------------------------------- CFU/g ---------------------------------------------- | |||||
| Total bacterial counts | C | 3.12[ | 3.46[ | 4.45[ | 6.89[ |
| T1 | 3.01[ | 3.02[ | 4.03[ | 6.40[ | |
| T2 | 2.05[ | 2.15[ | 3.00[ | 6.06[ | |
| Lactic acid bacteria | C | 2.02 | 2.65[ | 3.95[ | 5.65[ |
| T1 | 1.95 | 2.05[ | 2.60[ | 5.46[ | |
| T2 | 2.55 | 3.12[ | 4.32[ | 6.15[ | |
| C | 0.99 | 1.55[ | 1.95[ | 2.85 | |
| T1 | 0.84 | 1.02[ | 1.15[ | 2.66 | |
| T2 | 1.05 | 1.74[ | 2.24[ | 3.25 | |
C: ziplock bag packaging, T1: vacuum packaging, and T2: MAP (CO2/N2 = 3:7).
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same column differ significantly at p<0.05.
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly at p<0.05.
Effects of packaging and aging methods on the sensory evaluation of low-grade beef during storage
| Items | Treatments | Storage (d)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 14 | 21 | ||
| Color | C | 5.78±1.23 | 5.83±0.15 | 6.42±1.87 | 6.69±2.10 |
| T1 | 5.61±2.30 | 5.92±1.29 | 6.83±2.23 | 6.38±1.56 | |
| T2 | 5.61±0.89 | 5.92±0.98 | 6.75±1.12 | 6.44±1.68 | |
| Hardness | C | 5.89±1.56 | 5.67±0.87 | 5.75±0.23 | 5.81±1.35 |
| T1 | 5.72±2.69 | 6.00±2.35 | 6.08±1.25 | 6.31±2.00 | |
| T2 | 6.11±3.12 | 5.92±3.21 | 6.42±1.67 | 5.69±1.74 | |
| Flavor | C | 6.00±1.54 | 6.33±0.87 | 6.08±1.20 | 4.94±2.23 |
| T1 | 5.89±1.36 | 6.08±0.96 | 6.67±1.30 | 6.19±1.87 | |
| T2 | 6.11±1.90 | 5.92±0.11 | 6.67±1.24 | 5.50±1.26 | |
| Off-odor | C | 0.33±0.03 | 1.00±0.08 | 1.52±0.56 | 3.50 |
| T1 | 0.56±0.23 | 1.17±0.29 | 1.25±0.38 | 1.00 | |
| T2 | 0.33±0.21 | 1.00±0.65 | 1.37±0.42 | 1.63 | |
| Tenderness | C | 4.39±1.22 | 5.42±1.25 | 5.42±1.20 | 4.50 |
| T1 | 3.89±1.87 | 5.50±1.10 | 5.83±1.90 | 6.06 | |
| T2 | 4.50±1.39 | 5.92±1.87 | 5.83±1.08 | 5.81 | |
| Juiciness | C | 5.56±1.25 | 5.42±2.01 | 5.75±1.48 | 5.31±1.22 |
| T1 | 5.39±1.48 | 5.58±1.25 | 5.83±1.69 | 6.13±1.31 | |
| T2 | 5.67±1.10 | 5.92±1.36 | 5.92±1.21 | 5.88±1.56 | |
| Overall acceptability | C | 5.88±0.85 | 5.80±0.13 | 5.90±0.89 | 5.29 |
| T1 | 5.56±0.39 | 6.20±1.04 | 6.48±1.08 | 5.93 | |
| T2 | 5.88±1.23 | 6.30±1.36 | 6.50±1.00 | 6.29 | |
C: ziplock bag packaging, T1: vacuum packaging, and T2: MAP (CO2/N2 = 3:7).
Means±SD with different superscripts in the same column differ significantly at p<0.05.
Color (9 = very good and 1 = very bad), hardness (9 = very hard and 1 = very soft), flavor (9 = very good and 1 = very bad), off-odor (9 = very intense and 1 = very weak), tenderness (9 = very tender and 1 = very tough), juiciness (9 = very juicy and 1 = very dry), and overall acceptability (9 = very good and 1 = very bad).