Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada.
Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada.
Meat Sci. 2024 Oct;216:109567. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109567. Epub 2024 Jun 8.
This study examined the effects of constant current electrical stimulation (CCES) compared to constant voltage electrical stimulation (CVES), when applied within the same beef carcass (n = 79), on longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) quality and palatability. There was a stimulation method × time interaction for pH, with CCES reducing the 3 h post-mortem pH, but increasing the 72 h post-mortem pH compared to CVES (P < 0.001). The CCES decreased the meat subjective Japanese Meat Grading Agency (JMGA) colour scores (P < 0.05) and increased the objective L (P < 0.01), a (P < 0.05) and b (P < 0.05) colour values at 3 d post-mortem and L and b values (P < 0.05) during retail display compared to CVES, although the objective values from both stimulation methods were above established consumer acceptability thresholds. Additionally, CCES reduced the purge (P < 0.05) and drip (P < 0.01) losses, and tended to reduce shear force values (P = 0.089) compared to CVES, although these did not translate into differences in juiciness or tenderness evaluated by trained panelists (P > 0.1). Regarding flavour, the CCES meat had greater bloody/serumy flavour (P < 0.05) and corn aroma (P < 0.05), less unidentified aroma (P < 0.05), and tended to have greater corn flavour (P = 0.077) and less barnyard aroma (P = 0.079) than CVES meat. There were also increased concentrations of flavour-related volatile compounds including 2-methyl-butanal, 3-methyl-butanal and 2-5-dimethyl pyrazine levels (P < 0.05) with CCES. Overall, the CCES system slightly improved meat quality and flavour compared to CVES when applied to the same beef carcasses. Further consumer studies would be warranted to determine whether these differences translate into more acceptable meat.
本研究比较了恒流电刺激(CCES)和恒压电刺激(CVES)在相同牛肉胴体(n=79)内的应用对胸腰最长肌(LTL)品质和适口性的影响。两种刺激方法对 pH 值的影响存在时间交互作用,CCES 降低了宰后 3 h 的 pH 值,但与 CVES 相比,72 h 的 pH 值增加(P<0.001)。CCES 降低了肉的主观日本肉类评级机构(JMGA)颜色评分(P<0.05),并在宰后 3 天增加了 L 值(P<0.01)、a 值(P<0.05)和 b 值(P<0.05),与 CVES 相比,L 值和 b 值在零售展示期间(P<0.05)。然而,两种刺激方法的客观值都高于消费者可接受的阈值。此外,CCES 降低了渗出(P<0.05)和滴水(P<0.01)损失,与 CVES 相比,剪切力值有降低的趋势(P=0.089),尽管这些变化并没有转化为经过训练的品尝小组评估的多汁性或嫩度差异(P>0.1)。关于风味,CCES 肉的血腥味/血清味(P<0.05)和玉米味(P<0.05)更大,未识别的气味(P<0.05)更少,玉米味(P=0.077)更大,而厩舍味(P=0.079)更小。CCES 还增加了与风味相关的挥发性化合物的浓度,包括 2-甲基丁醛、3-甲基丁醛和 2-5-二甲基吡嗪(P<0.05)。总体而言,与 CVES 相比,CCES 系统略微改善了牛肉的品质和风味。需要进一步的消费者研究来确定这些差异是否转化为更可接受的肉类。