Suppr超能文献

用 3 种不同来源的脂肪加工的山羊肉法兰克福香肠的质地和可接受性。

Texture and acceptability of goat meat frankfurters processed with 3 different sources of fat.

机构信息

Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.

出版信息

J Anim Sci. 2011 May;89(5):1429-33. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3398. Epub 2010 Dec 23.

Abstract

The objective of this research was to evaluate the texture and consumer acceptability of goat meat frankfurter formulations with no added fat (NAF), beef fat (BF), or canola oil (CO). Consumer sensory evaluation, fat, and moisture and texture profile analyses were performed on goat meat frankfurters produced with the fat sources BF, CO, and NAF. For sensory evaluations, NAF was less tender (P = 0.007; 4.90 vs. 4.11 and 4.35 for BF and CO, respectively) and the flavor was liked less (P = 0.004; 4.59 vs. 3.83 and 4.30 for BF and CO, respectively); BF was scored as the juiciest (P = 0.003; 3.86 vs. 4.49 and 4.58 for CO and NAF, respectively); and CO had the least amount of flavor (P = 0.029; 3.65 vs. 3.12 and 3.10 for BF and NAF, respectively). Moisture was least (P < 0.001) in CO (46.59%), followed by BF (48.57%) and NAF (55.80%). The amount of fat was not different (P = 0.761) in BF (24.36%) or CO (24.43%) but was less (P < 0.001) in NAF (9.06%), as expected. The NAF had the most protein (P < 0.001; 34.14%), followed by CO (27.98%) and BF (26.07%). For texture profile analyses, NAF had the least hardness value (P = 0.008; 3.92 vs. 4.48 and 4.40 for BF and CO, respectively) and least chewiness value (P = 0.026; 2.89 vs. 3.39 and 3.29 for BF and CO, respectively). Beef fat and CO were not different for hardness (P = 0.596) or chewiness (P = 0.530). No differences were observed in springiness (P = 0.954) or resilience (P = 0.561). The sensory panelists tended to prefer BF for overall acceptability. Results from these data revealed that value-added goat meat products received acceptable sensory scores; therefore, continued research and development will greatly expand the knowledge of goat meat and increase the acceptance of value-added products.

摘要

本研究旨在评估添加牛脂(BF)、菜籽油(CO)或无脂(NAF)的羊肉法兰克福肠的质地和消费者接受度。对添加 BF、CO 和 NAF 的羊肉法兰克福肠进行消费者感官评价、脂肪、水分和质地剖面分析。对于感官评价,NAF 质地更嫩(P = 0.007;分别为 4.90、4.11 和 4.35),风味更差(P = 0.004;分别为 4.59、3.83 和 4.30);BF 被评为最多汁(P = 0.003;分别为 3.86、4.49 和 4.58);CO 风味最小(P = 0.029;分别为 3.65、3.12 和 3.10)。水分含量最低(P < 0.001)的是 CO(46.59%),其次是 BF(48.57%)和 NAF(55.80%)。BF(24.36%)和 CO(24.43%)中的脂肪含量无差异(P = 0.761),但 NAF(9.06%)中的脂肪含量较低(P < 0.001)。NAF 的蛋白质含量最高(P < 0.001;34.14%),其次是 CO(27.98%)和 BF(26.07%)。对于质地剖面分析,NAF 的硬度值最低(P = 0.008;分别为 3.92、4.48 和 4.40),耐嚼性值最低(P = 0.026;分别为 2.89、3.39 和 3.29)。BF 和 CO 的硬度(P = 0.596)或耐嚼性(P = 0.530)无差异。弹性(P = 0.954)和回弹性(P = 0.561)无差异。感官品评员倾向于更喜欢 BF 的总体可接受性。这些数据的结果表明,增值羊肉产品获得了可接受的感官评分;因此,进一步的研究和开发将极大地扩展羊肉知识,并提高对增值产品的接受度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验