Fatty Acid Composition, Proximate Analysis, and Consumer Sensory Evaluation of United States Retail Grass-Fed Ground Beef

F. Najar-Villarreal, E. Boyle, R. Danler, T. O’Quinn, T. Houser, J. Gonzalez
{"title":"Fatty Acid Composition, Proximate Analysis, and Consumer Sensory Evaluation of United States Retail Grass-Fed Ground Beef","authors":"F. Najar-Villarreal, E. Boyle, R. Danler, T. O’Quinn, T. Houser, J. Gonzalez","doi":"10.22175/mmb2019.06.0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this study was to evaluate the chemical composition, consumer liking, and consumer acceptability of ground beef with 2 finishing diets. Three ground beef treatments were used in this study and included grass-fed, grain-fed Angus, and grain-fed commodity beef. Ground beef samples were evaluated for consumer sensory response, pH, proximate composition, and fatty acid composition. Grain-fed samples were rated higher (P < 0.01) for overall liking compared to grass-fed samples. Consumers found tenderness and juiciness similar (P > 0.05) for all 3 types of ground beef. Consumers preferred (P < 0.05) Angus over grass-fed ground beef with a flavor acceptability of 83.3 and 73.9%, respectively; and 94.9 and 82.5%, respectively, for overall acceptability. Commodity ground beef had a similar (P > 0.05) flavor acceptability and overall acceptability to Angus and grass-fed ground beef. Grass-fed, Angus, and commodity ground beef were similar (P > 0.05) for moisture, fat, and protein content. Commodity ground beef had a higher pH (P < 0.05) than Angus and grass-fed ground beef. Samples of ground beef from the 2 grain-fed treatments had greater (P < 0.05) total saturated fatty acids (SFA) than grass-fed samples; however, ground beef from grass-fed cattle had higher monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA; P < 0.01) than the grain-fed treatments. Total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) was similar (P > 0.01) across all treatments. Omega-3 fatty acids were found in the greatest (P < 0.05) proportions in samples from grass-fed beef. Additionally, the omega-6:omega-3 ratio for grass-fed ground beef was lower (P < 0.05) than grain-fed source. Angus and commodity ground beef were more palatable, and there was no evidence of higher PUFA in grass-fed ground beef.","PeriodicalId":18316,"journal":{"name":"Meat and Muscle Biology","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Meat and Muscle Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb2019.06.0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the chemical composition, consumer liking, and consumer acceptability of ground beef with 2 finishing diets. Three ground beef treatments were used in this study and included grass-fed, grain-fed Angus, and grain-fed commodity beef. Ground beef samples were evaluated for consumer sensory response, pH, proximate composition, and fatty acid composition. Grain-fed samples were rated higher (P < 0.01) for overall liking compared to grass-fed samples. Consumers found tenderness and juiciness similar (P > 0.05) for all 3 types of ground beef. Consumers preferred (P < 0.05) Angus over grass-fed ground beef with a flavor acceptability of 83.3 and 73.9%, respectively; and 94.9 and 82.5%, respectively, for overall acceptability. Commodity ground beef had a similar (P > 0.05) flavor acceptability and overall acceptability to Angus and grass-fed ground beef. Grass-fed, Angus, and commodity ground beef were similar (P > 0.05) for moisture, fat, and protein content. Commodity ground beef had a higher pH (P < 0.05) than Angus and grass-fed ground beef. Samples of ground beef from the 2 grain-fed treatments had greater (P < 0.05) total saturated fatty acids (SFA) than grass-fed samples; however, ground beef from grass-fed cattle had higher monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA; P < 0.01) than the grain-fed treatments. Total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) was similar (P > 0.01) across all treatments. Omega-3 fatty acids were found in the greatest (P < 0.05) proportions in samples from grass-fed beef. Additionally, the omega-6:omega-3 ratio for grass-fed ground beef was lower (P < 0.05) than grain-fed source. Angus and commodity ground beef were more palatable, and there was no evidence of higher PUFA in grass-fed ground beef.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国零售草饲碎牛肉的脂肪酸组成、近似分析和消费者感官评价
本研究的目的是评估两种育肥日粮中碎牛肉的化学成分、消费者的喜爱程度和消费者的接受程度。本研究采用3种处理方式,分别为草饲、谷饲安格斯和谷饲商品牛肉。对碎牛肉样品进行了消费者感官反应、pH值、近似组成和脂肪酸组成的评估。饲粮对整体喜欢度的评分高于草饲(P < 0.01)。消费者发现这三种碎牛肉的嫩度和多汁性相似(P > 0.05)。消费者对安格斯牛肉的偏好高于草饲碎牛肉(P < 0.05),风味可接受度分别为83.3%和73.9%;总体可接受度分别为94.9%和82.5%。商品牛肉的风味可接受度和总体可接受度与安格斯牛肉和草饲牛肉相似(P > 0.05)。草饲牛肉、安格斯牛肉和商品碎牛肉的水分、脂肪和蛋白质含量相似(P > 0.05)。商品牛肉的pH值高于安格斯牛肉和草饲牛肉(P < 0.05)。2个粗粮处理牛肉的总饱和脂肪酸(SFA)高于草食处理(P < 0.05);然而,草饲牛的碎牛肉含有更高的单不饱和脂肪酸(MUFA;P < 0.01)。各处理间总多不饱和脂肪酸(PUFA)差异无统计学意义(P > 0.01)。草饲牛肉样品中Omega-3脂肪酸的比例最高(P < 0.05)。此外,草饲牛的omega-6:omega-3比值低于谷物饲牛(P < 0.05)。安格斯牛肉和商品牛肉更美味,没有证据表明草饲牛肉中多聚脂肪酸含量更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Title Pending 17698 Characterization of Pork Loin Chop Color Stability Using Loin Quality Traits and Instrumental Discoloration Measures Supranutritional Supplementation of Vitamin E Influences Myoglobin Post-Translational Modifications in Postmortem Beef Longissimus Lumborum Muscle Determination of the impact of labeling terms on consumer sensory evaluation Product yield and color of fresh beef transported at different refrigerated temperatures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1