What does beef taste like?
Today, there is no general terminology to describe the sensory properties of beef. Hence, the aim of this study was to develop a terminology to describe the sensory texture, flavour and appearance properties of beef. Attributes describing beef were chosen from earlier studies and a qualitative open...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Second cycle, A2E |
| Lenguaje: | sueco Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/15331/ |
| _version_ | 1855572560748478464 |
|---|---|
| author | Samuelsson, Sara |
| author_browse | Samuelsson, Sara |
| author_facet | Samuelsson, Sara |
| author_sort | Samuelsson, Sara |
| collection | Epsilon Archive for Student Projects |
| description | Today, there is no general terminology to describe the sensory properties of beef. Hence, the aim of this study was to develop a terminology to describe the sensory texture, flavour and appearance properties of beef. Attributes describing beef were chosen from earlier studies and a qualitative open discussion. The sensory quantitative method that were used to validate the words chosen from the open discussion were CATA, “Catch-all-that-apply” with 30 respondents. Colour- and pH measurements were also performed to see if there were any significant differences between the meat samples and if there were any correlations between pH and colour values and the generated terminology. The muscle that was analyzed were Strip Loin (M. longissimus dorsi) from four cattle.
The terminology established by the 30 respondents generated 7 texture-, 7 flavour- and 9 appearance attributes. The most common flavour attributes, that over 50 percent of the panelists seemed to perceive in at least one of the four meat samples during the sensory method CATA, were umami, mineral, moderate meaty, nutty, buttery, mellow and mature. The texture and appearance attributes generated in the same way was juicy, tough, tender, firm, soft, dense- and porous fiber structure, clear and dark red, homogeneous colour, poorly-, moderate- and richly marbled, fibery, moist and smooth. The pH analysis showed no statistical difference between the samples. The colour analysis on the other hand did show a statistical difference. Any correlation between the terminology and the obtained values from pH and colour measurements could not be found. |
| format | Second cycle, A2E |
| id | RepoSLU15331 |
| institution | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences |
| language | Swedish Inglés |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publishDateSort | 2020 |
| record_format | eprints |
| spelling | RepoSLU153312020-02-20T02:02:07Z https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/15331/ What does beef taste like? Samuelsson, Sara Food science and technology Food composition Today, there is no general terminology to describe the sensory properties of beef. Hence, the aim of this study was to develop a terminology to describe the sensory texture, flavour and appearance properties of beef. Attributes describing beef were chosen from earlier studies and a qualitative open discussion. The sensory quantitative method that were used to validate the words chosen from the open discussion were CATA, “Catch-all-that-apply” with 30 respondents. Colour- and pH measurements were also performed to see if there were any significant differences between the meat samples and if there were any correlations between pH and colour values and the generated terminology. The muscle that was analyzed were Strip Loin (M. longissimus dorsi) from four cattle. The terminology established by the 30 respondents generated 7 texture-, 7 flavour- and 9 appearance attributes. The most common flavour attributes, that over 50 percent of the panelists seemed to perceive in at least one of the four meat samples during the sensory method CATA, were umami, mineral, moderate meaty, nutty, buttery, mellow and mature. The texture and appearance attributes generated in the same way was juicy, tough, tender, firm, soft, dense- and porous fiber structure, clear and dark red, homogeneous colour, poorly-, moderate- and richly marbled, fibery, moist and smooth. The pH analysis showed no statistical difference between the samples. The colour analysis on the other hand did show a statistical difference. Any correlation between the terminology and the obtained values from pH and colour measurements could not be found. Idag finns det ingen generell terminologi för att beskriva de sensoriska egenskaperna för nötkött. Målet med denna studie var att utveckla en terminologi för att beskriva den sensoriska texturen, smaken och utseendet av nötkött. Attributen som valdes för att beskriva köttet hade sitt ursprung från tidigare studier och en kvalitativ öppen diskussion. Den sensoriska kvantitativa metoden som användes för att validera orden valda från den öppna diskussionen var CATA, ”Catch-all-that-apply” med 30 respondenter. pH- och färgmätningar utfördes även för att se om det var några signifikanta skillnader mellan proven och om det fanns några korrelationer mellan pH- och färgresultat samt den genererade terminologin. Muskeln som analyserades var ryggbiff (M. longissimus dorsi) från fyra nötkreaturdjur. Terminologin som fastställdes av de 30 respondenterna genererade 7 textur-, 7 smak- och 9 utseendeattribut. De vanligaste smakattributen som över 50 procent av panellisterna tyckte sig känna i minst ett av de fyra köttproven under den sensoriska CATA-metoden var umami, mineral, måttlig köttsmak, nötig, smörig, mogen och mustig. De texturattribut som genererades på samma sätt var saftig, seg, mör, fast, mjuk, tät- och gles/porös fiberstruktur. Utseendeattributen som genererades var klarröd, mörkröd, homogen färg, svagt-, måttligt-, och rikligt marmorerad, fuktig, fibrig och slät. pH analysen visade inte på någon statistiskt signifikant skillnad mellan köttet från de olika proverna, medan färganalysen gjorde det. Någon korrelation mellan terminologin och de erhållna pH- och färgvärdena kunde inte hittas. 2020-02-10 Second cycle, A2E NonPeerReviewed application/pdf sv https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/15331/7/samuelsson_s_200205.pdf Samuelsson, Sara, 2020. What does beef taste like? : a sensory study for development of beef terminology. Second cycle, A2E. Uppsala: (NL, NJ) > Department of Molecular Sciences <https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/view/divisions/OID-425.html> urn:nbn:se:slu:epsilon-s-15331 eng |
| spellingShingle | Food science and technology Food composition Samuelsson, Sara What does beef taste like? |
| title | What does beef taste like? |
| title_full | What does beef taste like? |
| title_fullStr | What does beef taste like? |
| title_full_unstemmed | What does beef taste like? |
| title_short | What does beef taste like? |
| title_sort | what does beef taste like? |
| topic | Food science and technology Food composition |
| url | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/15331/ https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/15331/ |