| Literature DB >> 26761864 |
Kwang-Il Kim1, Sang-Yoon Lee1, In-Guk Hwang2, Seon-Mi Yoo2, Sang-Gi Min3, Mi-Jung Choi1.
Abstract
Blanching beef for use in home meal replacements (HMR) is an important process that determines the final quality of the beef after the cooking process. Thermal pretreatment also minimizes the change in quality during the main cooking process or storage. In this study, beef samples were washed and sliced, then treated by immersion in boiling water (1-10 min), steaming (1-10 min), or pan-frying in oil (30-240 s). The color after each thermal treatment showed higher L* and b* values and lower a* values compared with the raw beef, except for the pan-frying thermal treatment. The total color difference (∆E) and pH value were significantly increased by panfrying (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the shear force of the beef samples, except for the sample pan-fried for 210 s. The nutritional content of beef was measured as the moisture, protein, fat, and ash contents, which were 69.96, 16.64, 3.49, and 1.13%, respectively, in raw beef. After thermal treatment, the crude protein and fat contents were increased, whereas the moisture and ash contents decreased. The mineral content, including Na, Mg, Fe, and Ca was highest after pan-frying. The heat treatment decreased microorganisms in all the samples. The total bacteria count in raw beef was 4.5-4.7 Log CFU/g, whereas the bacteria count decreased to 2.2-2.8 Log CFU/g after blanching. Thermophilic bacteria, coliform, mold, and yeast not detected in any thermally treated sample.Entities:
Keywords: beef; blanching method; home meal replacement; quality characteristics
Year: 2015 PMID: 26761864 PMCID: PMC4662125 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2015.35.4.441
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 1225-8563 Impact factor: 2.622
Quantitative changes in the color in beef using different blanching treatments
| Treatments1) | Time (s) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 120 | 180 | 240 | 300 | 360 | 420 | 480 | 540 | 600 | ||
| Boiling-water | L | 42.50±3.75a | 47.05±2.15a | 39.35±0.35c | 41.00±1.70c | 41.60±1.10bc | 42.60±1.50bc | 41.65±0.15bc | 40.35±1.55c | 43.15±3.15bc | 35.30±2.10e |
| a | 13.45±0.45c | 14.80±0.90bc | 14.25±1.25bc | 14.35±0.05bc | 15.50±0.55b | 14.35±0.05bc | 15.15±1.65bc | 13.70±1.20c | 15.10±0.20bc | 15.55±0.15b | |
| b | 15.70±0.50ef | 16.45±0.35bcde | 15.90±0.60def | 16.20±0.30cdef | 18.25±0.55a | 16.10±0.80def | 17.35±1.65abc | 16.10±0.40def | 17.55±0.15ab | 17.10±0.01abcd | |
| Steaming | L | 46.60±2.01ab | 46.10±1.10bc | 44.75±4.05bc | 45.25±2.05bc | 49.25±1.75a | 47.90±0.80ab | 47.05±1.95ab | 42.70±0.80c | 47.20±0.20ab | 45.40±0.80bc |
| a | 24.10±0.60a | 14.90±1.30bc | 13.70±2.10c | 15.90±0.10b | 15.70±0.40b | 15.55±0.05b | 15.30±0.01bc | 15.50±0.90b | 14.90±0.30bc | 14.55±0.25bc | |
| b | 18.60±0.90a | 17.05±1.45ab | 16.20±2.60bc | 17.80±0.10ab | 18.30±0.30a | 17.90±0.10ab | 18.00±0.10ab | 17.95±0.55ab | 17.95±0.25ab | 17.40±0.40ab | |
| 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 | 150 | 180 | ||||||
| Pan-frying | L | 40.20±1.40a | 40.45±4.25a | 36.50±0.80a | 27.70±2.90b | 22.20±5.50c | 16.95±0.35c | - | - | - | - |
| a | 15.85±0.55c | 16.95±1.35bc | 18.45±0.05b | 16.80±0.20bc | 12.75±1.15d | 13.30±0.60d | - | - | - | - | |
| b | 18.05±0.35b | 20.30±0.70a | 20.45±1.45a | 14.90±1.90c | 11.60±0.50c | 9.85±0.15d | - | - | - | - | |
a-fMeans within the same row with different superscript letters are different (p<0.05).
1)The color of raw beef: L*, 36.54±2.01; a*, 24.47±1.47; b*, 15.10±0.1.
Fig. 1.Quantitative changes in the total color difference (∆E) of beef using different blanching treatments. Mean±standard deviation of triplicate determinations (n=3).
Quantitative changes in the pH in beef using different blanching treatments
| Treatments1) | Time (s) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 120 | 180 | 240 | 300 | 360 | 420 | 480 | 540 | 600 | |
| Boiling-water | 5.81±0.02b | 5.84±0.01ab | 5.86±0.02ab | 5.91±0.04a | 5.86±0.02ab | 5.88±0.02a | 5.91±0.01a | 5.89±0.02a | 5.88±0.01ab | 5.89±0.03a |
| Steaming | 5.79±0.02a | 5.84±0.01a | 5.80±0.01a | 5.83±0.01a | 5.80±0.04a | 5.81±0.02a | 5.84±0.01a | 5.83±0.01a | 5.82±0.02a | 5.80±0.01a |
| 30 | 60 | 90 | 120 | 150 | 180 | - | - | - | - | |
| Pan-frying | 5.83±0.01c | 5.84±0.01bc | 5.85±0.02b | 5.87±0.01b | 5.92±0.01a | 5.94±0.01a | - | - | - | - |
a-cMeans within the same row with different superscript letters are different (p<0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
1)pH of raw beef: 5.63±0.05.
Fig. 2.Quantitative changes in the shear force of beef using different blanching treatments. Mean±standard deviation of triplicate determinations (n=3).
Quantitative changes in the general composition of beef using different blanching treatments
| Treatments | Time (s) | Cooking loss (%) | Moisture (%) | Crude protein (%) | Crude fat (%) | Crude ash (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0 | - | 69.96±0.95a1) | 16.64±0.75e | 3.49±0.14b | 1.13±0.09a |
| Boiling-water | 120 | 37.17 | 61.10±0.60c | 24.52±0.73ab | 3.34±0.16b | 0.57±0.01d |
| 240 | 39.20 | 61.68±1.26c | 25.26±1.34a | 3.37±0.09b | 048±0.01e | |
| Steaming | 180 | 35.60 | 61.26±0.49c | 23.92±0.56ab | 3.28±0.40b | 0.75±0.02c |
| 300 | 38.04 | 61.46±0.31c | 23.21±0.84bc | 3.27±0.11b | 0.68±0.02c | |
| Pan-frying | 60 | 31.23 | 63.93±0.35b | 21.72±0.21d | 4.66±0.22a | 0.92±0.02b |
| 120 | 35.61 | 62.27±1.11c | 22.32±0.03cd | 4.74±0.21a | 0.88±0.07b |
a-eMeans within the same column with different superscript letters are different (p<0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Quantitative changes in the mineral composition of beef using different blanching treatments
| Treatments | Time (s) | Na (mg%) | Mg (mg%) | Fe (mg%) | Ca (mg%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0 | 63.44±3.52a | 25.24±0.46a | 2.95±0.36c | 5.28±0.10c |
| Boiling-water | 120 | 54.39±6.51ab | 19.73±0.46c | 3.88±0.07a | 5.73±0.63bc |
| 240 | 52.16±3.51b | 17.54±0.14e | 3.76±0.12ab | 5.28±0.47c | |
| Steaming | 180 | 57.49±2.82ab | 18.81±0.29d | 2.83±0.15c | 5.71±0.27bc |
| 300 | 54.62±7.06ab | 18.49±0.77d | 2.85±0.33ab | 5.43±0.08c | |
| Pan-frying | 60 | 54.49±4.75ab | 21.55±0.74b | 3.08±0.15c | 6.30±0.20ab |
| 120 | 58.04±0.05ab | 21.75±0.02b | 3.46±0.00b | 6.53±0.01a |
a-eMeans within the same column with different superscript letters are different (p<0.05).
Quantitative changes of the microbial count in beef using different blanching treatments
| Treatments | Time (s) | Microorganism (Log CFU/g) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thermophilic bacteria | Total bacteria | Psychrophilic bacteria | Coliform | Mold | Yeast | ||
| Control | 0 | ND1) | 4.54±0.03a | 4.74±0.06a | ND | ND | ND |
| Boiling-water | 120 | ND | 2.44±0.05c | 2.56±0.03de | ND | ND | ND |
| 240 | ND | 2.27±0.09d | 2.45±0.10ef | ND | ND | ND | |
| Steaming | 180 | ND | 2.47±0.08c | 2.42±0.13f | ND | ND | ND |
| 300 | ND | 2.21±0.08d | 2.61±0.05cd | ND | ND | ND | |
| Pan-frying | 60 | ND | 3.51±0.09b | 2.71±0.05bc | ND | ND | ND |
| 120 | ND | 2.47±0.08c | 2.84±0.05b | ND | ND | ND | |
a-fMeans within the same column with different superscript letters are different (p<0.05).
1)ND, Not detected.