Effect of different electrical stimulation systems on beef quality and palatability: Constant current compared to constant voltage.

Autor: Leighton PLA; Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada., López-Campos Ó; Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada., Chabot B; Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada., Scott HR; Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada., Schmidt B; Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada., Zawadski S; Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada., Prieto N; Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 6000 C&E Trail, Lacombe, Alberta, T4L 1W1, Canada. Electronic address: nuria.prietobenavides@agr.gc.ca.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Meat science [Meat Sci] 2024 Oct; Vol. 216, pp. 109567. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 08.
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109567
Abstrakt: 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.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
(Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: