Division of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211, USA.
J Anim Sci. 2011 Apr;89(4):1173-9. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3382. Epub 2010 Nov 26.
Consumers are concerned with fat consumption from meat products, and the ability to determine fat has changed with recent technological advances. The objective of this study was to predict fat percentage within marbling scores and compare 3 fat analysis procedures. Steaks (n = 119) were selected by USDA grading system using an E + V Vision Grading camera at a commercial beef plant during 1 d. Two samples per carcass were cut from the 13th rib, both sides, and transported to the University of Missouri meat laboratory. The sample from the right side of the carcass was allotted to Warner-Bratzler shear force, and the sample from the left side, which was graded by the camera, was allotted to fat extraction. Warner-Bratzler shear force samples were cut into 2.54-cm steaks and aged for 14 d. Steaks allotted to fat extraction were trimmed of all external fat and twice ground using 8- and 4-mm grinding plates. The finely ground beef was then split into its allotted fat-extraction methods. The 3 methods used in fat extraction were 2:1 chloroform/methanol (Folch), ether-extractable fat (ether), and microwave drying and nuclear magnetic resonance (CEM). Warner-Bratzler shear force values were not different between marbling scores (P > 0.05). Regardless of fat extraction method, fat percentage increased as marbling score increased (P < 0.05). All regression equations for fat percentage, regardless of extraction method, were linear. Prediction equation for fat percentage using CEM was -3.46 + 0.016 (marbling score), R(2) of 0.824 (P < 0.0001). Prediction equation for fat percentage using ether was -3.08 + 0.017 (marbling score), R(2) of 0.859 (P < 0.0001). Prediction equation for fat percentage using Folch was -3.42 + 0.019 (marbling score), R(2) of 0.816 (P < 0.0001). When the CEM, Folch, and ether methods were compared, CEM and Folch regression lines had different slopes (P < 0.05). The slope of the regression line for ether was not different (P > 0.05) from CEM or Folch. Overall, ether is the most accurate method based on the R(2) value, but CEM is environmentally safe and the fastest method for determining total crude fat percentage.
消费者关注肉类产品中的脂肪含量,并且随着最近技术的进步,确定脂肪的能力也发生了变化。本研究的目的是预测大理石花纹评分内的脂肪百分比,并比较 3 种脂肪分析程序。在商业牛肉加工厂的 1 天内,使用 USDA 分级系统通过 E + V Vision 分级相机选择牛排(n = 119)。从第 13 根肋骨的两侧各切取 2 个样本,运送到密苏里大学肉类实验室。从胴体右侧分配的样本用于 Warner-Bratzler 剪切力,从相机分级的左侧样本用于脂肪提取。Warner-Bratzler 剪切力样本切成 2.54 厘米的牛排,陈化 14 天。分配用于脂肪提取的牛排从所有外部脂肪中修剪,并用 8 毫米和 4 毫米的研磨板两次研磨。然后将精细研磨的牛肉分成各自分配的脂肪提取方法。脂肪提取中使用的 3 种方法是 2:1 氯仿/甲醇(Folch)、乙醚可提取脂肪(乙醚)和微波干燥和核磁共振(CEM)。Warner-Bratzler 剪切力值在大理石花纹评分之间没有差异(P > 0.05)。无论脂肪提取方法如何,脂肪百分比随着大理石花纹评分的增加而增加(P < 0.05)。无论提取方法如何,脂肪百分比的所有回归方程均为线性。使用 CEM 的脂肪百分比预测方程为-3.46 + 0.016(大理石花纹评分),R²为 0.824(P < 0.0001)。使用乙醚的脂肪百分比预测方程为-3.08 + 0.017(大理石花纹评分),R²为 0.859(P < 0.0001)。使用 Folch 的脂肪百分比预测方程为-3.42 + 0.019(大理石花纹评分),R²为 0.816(P < 0.0001)。当比较 CEM、Folch 和乙醚方法时,CEM 和 Folch 回归线的斜率不同(P < 0.05)。乙醚的回归线斜率与 CEM 或 Folch 没有差异(P > 0.05)。总体而言,基于 R² 值,乙醚是最准确的方法,但 CEM 是一种安全环保的方法,也是测定总粗脂肪百分比的最快方法。