| Literature DB >> 35053924 |
Yuanyuan Yang1,2, Jing Li1,2, Xueting Jia1,2, Qingyu Zhao1,2, Qing Ma3, Yanan Yu1,2, Chaohua Tang1,2, Junmin Zhang1,2.
Abstract
Tan sheep are greatly preferred by consumers in China because of their nutritional value and unique flavor. However, the meat quality of Tan sheep has decreased due to the change in feeding systems from grazing to indoor. Studies investigating the mechanisms for the decrease in meat quality are limited. A total of 28 Tan sheep were randomly allocated to two treatments, receiving a concentrated diet, or pasture. Flavor precursors and volatile compounds were analyzed with foodomics. E-nose and E-tongue analyses suggested that the aroma and taste profiles differed between the feeding systems. The grazing lambs had higher levels of linoleic acid and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (p < 0.01). Metabolomics indicated that 25 hydrophilic metabolites active in glycolipid and amino acid metabolisms were changed by the feeding system. Among the 57 volatile compounds identified, methional, γ-butyrolactone, benzaldehyde, and ethyl acetate were at concentrations significantly higher in the grazing lambs than the indoor-fed lambs (p < 0.01). These results reveal key changes in flavor precursors and flavor profiles affected by the feeding system, which may provide an initial view of the reason for consumer preference for the grazing Tan sheep.Entities:
Keywords: Tan sheep; fatty acid; feeding system; hydrophilic metabolite; volatile compound
Year: 2022 PMID: 35053924 PMCID: PMC8774584 DOI: 10.3390/foods11020191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Meat quality characteristics and intramuscular fat content in concentrate-fed (CF) and pasture-fed (PF) groups (n = 14).
| Item | CF | PF | |
|---|---|---|---|
| pH45 min | 6.54 ± 0.22 | 6.71 ± 0.18 | 0.038 |
| pH24 h | 5.79 ± 0.12 | 5.89 ± 0.08 | 0.023 |
| 36.42 ± 2.61 | 36.74 ± 2.00 | 0.718 | |
| 17.93 ± 2.51 | 20.27 ± 1.98 | 0.011 | |
| 6.20 ± 1.43 | 7.00 ± 0.90 | 0.088 | |
| 39.70 ± 2.62 | 45.04 ± 2.10 | <0.01 | |
| 18.77 ± 1.40 | 22.06 ± 1.64 | <0.01 | |
| 9.15 ± 1.48 | 8.64 ± 0.81 | 0.215 | |
| Drip loss (%) | 2.50 ± 0.47 | 2.24 ± 0.22 | 0.085 |
| Cooking loss (%) | 31.18 ± 2.26 | 32.60 ± 4.40 | 0.461 |
| Shear force ( | 63.81 ± 11.61 | 82.02 ± 4.64 | <0.01 |
| Texture profile analysis | |||
| Hardness (g) | 9605.81 ± 639.48 | 11,437.96 ± 1082.00 | <0.01 |
| Chewiness (g) | 2755.01 ± 553.16 | 3892.81 ± 944.91 | 0.016 |
| Gumminess (g) | 5530.03 ± 498.46 | 6208.93 ± 963.46 | 0.151 |
| Cohesiveness (%) | 58.24 ± 1.20 | 64.40 ± 3.18 | <0.01 |
| Springiness (%) | 53.94 ± 3.19 | 49.77 ± 4.07 | 0.071 |
| Intramuscular fat content (%) | 3.96 ± 1.06 | 1.50 ± 0.31 | <0.01 |
Figure 1Aroma and taste profiles in concentrate-fed (CF) and pasture-fed (PF) groups (n = 5). Principal component analysis score plots and radar charts of the E-nose response values (A,B) and the E-tongue taste values (C,D).
Figure 2Comparison of fatty acid composition in concentrate-fed (CF) and pasture-fed (PF) groups (n = 8). (A–E) Concentrations of the fatty acids detected. (F) Contents of SFA, MUFA, PUFA, n-6 and n-3 PUFA in lamb. (G) The ratio of n-6 to n-3 PUFA. SFA, saturated fatty acids, MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 3Hydrophilic metabolites in concentrate-fed (CF) and pasture-fed (PF) groups (n = 8). (A) Score plots of principal component analysis of the identified metabolites. (B) Heatmap and (D–G) bar graphs present the significant metabolites between the CF and PF groups. The significantly increased and decreased levels of metabolites were represented as the red and green cells, respectively, in the heatmap. (C) Pathway analysis of significantly different metabolites by means of MetaboAnalyst 5.0 online. QC, quality control samples. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 4Volatile compound profiles in concentrate-fed (CF) and pasture-fed (PF) groups (n = 5). (A) Two-dimensional topographic plots for lamb with different feeding systems. The darker color indicates greater intensity (red represents to high levels of volatiles and white represents to low levels). (B) Gallery plot of the selected signal intensities collected with different feeding systems.
Figure 5Comparison of the identified volatile compounds in concentrate-fed (CF) and pasture-fed (PF) groups (n = 5). (A) Principal component analysis score plots of volatile compounds in lamb with different feeding systems. (B) Comparison of volatile categories identified in the CF and PF groups. (C–F) Bar graphs present the significant volatile compounds between the CF and PF groups. M, monomer; D, dimer. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.