| Literature DB >> 35049754 |
Muhammad Hayat Jaspal1, Iftikhar Hussain Badar1,2, Muhammad Usman Ghani1, Muawuz Ijaz3, Muhammad Kashif Yar3, Adeel Manzoor1, Jamal Nasir1, Kashif Nauman1, Muhammad Junaid Akhtar1, Abdur Rahman3, Faisal Hussnain4, Arfan Ahmad5.
Abstract
The present study determined the effect of the packaging type and aging time on the meat quality of water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) bulls. A total of n = 36 longissimus lumborum (LL) muscles from n = 18 buffalo bulls were obtained. Half LL muscles were packed in modified atmosphere packaging (Hi-O2 MAP), vacuum packaging (VP), and oxygen-permeable packaging (OP) on day 1, while the other half were aged for 7 days. Meat instrumental color, cooking loss, Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), and total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N) of the LL steaks were analyzed, both on unaged and aged buffalo meat. Color CIE L* and C* values on all display days and a* on the first 4 days of the simulated retail display under Hi-O2 MAP packaging were significantly higher than those of the VP and OP. WBSF and TBARS values were also higher under Hi-O2 MAP as compared to the other packaging. Steaks under OP exhibited lower cooking loss but higher TVB-N values than the MAP and VP. The 7-day-aged buffalo meat indicated higher instrumental color (L*, a* and C*), cooking loss, and lower WBSF values than fresh meat. This study concluded that Hi-O2 MAP improved the color; however, it negatively influenced the buffalo meat's WBSF and TBAR values. Furthermore, VP and aging were the most effective in decreasing the WBSF values of buffalo meat.Entities:
Keywords: buffalo beef; meat packaging technologies; meat quality characteristics; meat-eating quality
Year: 2022 PMID: 35049754 PMCID: PMC8772538 DOI: 10.3390/ani12020130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
A brief layout of experimental design.
| Total Animals | Muscle | Ageing Time | Packaging |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buffalo bulls | Both sided | 0 day | MAP (3 steaks) |
| Vacuum packed (3 steaks) | |||
| Overwrapped (3 steaks) | |||
| 7 day | MAP (3 steaks) | ||
| Vacuum packed (3 steaks) | |||
| Overwrapped (3 steaks) |
Effect of packaging and ageing on color CIE L*, a* and C* of buffalo bulls longissimus lumborum steaks during the 7 days of retail display.
| Parameters | Day | Packaging | Ageing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAP | VP | OP | 0 day | 7 day | ||||
| Lightness L* | 1 | 49.37 ± 0.23 a | 42.22 ± 0.18 c | 46.69 ± 0.15 b | * | 45.89 ± 0.44 | 46.29 ± 0.43 | ns |
| 2 | 50.01 ± 0.21 a | 42.32 ± 0.16 c | 46.51 ± 0.12 b | * | 46.18 ± 0.44 | 46.39 ± 0.46 | ns | |
| 3 | 49.98 ± 0.19 a | 42.31 ± 0.16 c | 46.32 ± 0.18 b | * | 46.00 ± 0.43 b | 46.41 ± 0.47 a | * | |
| 4 | 49.86 ± 0.20 a | 42.17 ± 0.21 c | 45.73 ± 0.25 b | * | 45.77 ± 0.44 | 46.07 ± 0.50 | ns | |
| 5 | 49.74 ± 0.23 a | 42.13 ± 0.23 c | 45.58 ± 0.22 b | * | 45.51 ± 0.46 b | 46.12 ± 0.47 a | * | |
| 6 | 48.70 ± 0.23 a | 42.19 ± 0.22 c | 44.98 ± 0.17 b | * | 45.38 ± 0.42 | 45.21 ± 0.39 | ns | |
| 7 | 48.71 ± 0.21 a | 41.84 ± 0.23 c | 44.85 ± 0.16 b | * | 45.21 ± 0.43 | 45.06 ± 0.41 | ns | |
| Redness a* | 1 | 17.98 ± 0.20 a | 15.48 ± 0.13 c | 17.41 ± 0.18 b | * | 16.52 ± 0.15 b | 17.39 ± 0.23 a | * |
| 2 | 17.22 ± 0.15 a | 15.20 ± 0.10 c | 16.40 ± 0.19 b | * | 16.15 ± 0.15 | 16.40 ± 0.18 | ns | |
| 3 | 16.55 ± 0.22 a | 15.23 ± 0.12 b | 15.22 ± 0.15 b | * | 15.53 ± 0.13 | 15.80 ± 0.14 | ns | |
| 4 | 15.72 ± 0.13 a | 15.01 ± 0.09 b | 14.40 ± 0.15 c | * | 14.98 ± 0.12 | 15.11 ± 0.13 | ns | |
| 5 | 14.98 ± 0.15 a | 14.89 ± 0.12 a | 13.45 ± 0.17 b | * | 14.48 ± 0.15 | 14.40 ± 0.16 | ns | |
| 6 | 14.37 ± 0.21 a | 14.80 ± 0.15 a | 12.45 ± 0.20 b | * | 13.95 ± 0.19 | 13.80 ± 0.22 | ns | |
| 7 | 13.49 ± 0.20 b | 14.71 ± 0.13 a | 11.32 ± 0.22 c | * | 13.24 ± 0.23 | 13.11 ± 0.26 | ns | |
| Chroma C* | 1 | 20.61 ± 0.13 a | 15.68 ± 0.10 c | 19.72 ± 0.19 b | * | 18.33 ± 0.29 b | 19.01 ± 0.34 a | * |
| 2 | 19.85 ± 0.11 a | 15.40 ± 0.10 c | 18.69 ± 0.12 b | * | 17.83 ± 0.27 b | 18.14 ± 0.28 a | * | |
| 3 | 19.29 ± 0.10 a | 15.40 ± 0.11 c | 17.50 ± 0.16 b | * | 17.37 ± 0.24 | 17.42 ± 0.24 | ns | |
| 4 | 18.72 ± 0.12 a | 15.15 ± 0.12 c | 15.92 ± 0.18 b | * | 16.66 ± 0.24 | 16.53 ± 0.24 | ns | |
| 5 | 18.23 ± 0.14 a | 15.06 ± 0.14 b | 14.48 ± 0.17 c | * | 16.01 ± 0.25 | 15.83 ± 0.26 | ns | |
| 6 | 17.42 ± 0.19 a | 14.86 ± 0.13 b | 13.65 ± 0.16 c | * | 15.36 ± 0.24 | 15.26 ± 0.27 | ns | |
| 7 | 16.06 ± 0.26 a | 14.83 ± 0.12 b | 12.72 ± 0.14 c | * | 14.63 ± 0.24 | 14.44 ± 0.25 | ns | |
a,b,c Means within a row followed by different superscript differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. MAP: modified atmosphere packaging; VP: vacuum packaging; OP: oxygen permeable. * p ≤ 0.05; ns means non-significant.
Effect of packaging and ageing on cooking loss (%) and tenderness (N/cm2) of buffalo bulls longissimus lumborum steaks after 7 days of retail display.
| Parameters | Packaging | Ageing | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAP | VP | OP | 0 day | 7 day | |||
| Cooking loss | 31.62 ± 0.34 a | 31.52 ± 0.53 a | 29.12 ± 0.40 b | * | 29.08 ± 0.49 b | 30.42 ± 0.49 a | * |
| Tenderness | 44.87 ± 1.03 a | 28.32 ± 0.95 c | 33.97 ± 0.69 b | *** | 39.57 ± 1.10 a | 31.86 ± 1.04 b | *** |
| TBARS | 0.32 ± 0.10 a | 0.20 ± 0.08 c | 0.26 ± 0.12 b | *** | 0.22 ± 0.11 b | 0.25 ± 0.11 a | *** |
| TVB-N | 10.54 ± 0.25 b | 9.14 ± 0.18 c | 14.30 ± 0.28 a | *** | 8.26 ± 0.34 b | 14.96 ± 0.42 a | *** |
a,b,c Means within a row followed by different superscript differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. MAP: modified atmosphere packaging; VP: vacuum packaging; OP: oxygen permeable. * p ≤ 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.001.