Next Article in Journal
Exchange of Heat Radiation between Human Body and Urban Environment: Characterization in Visible, Near-Infrared, and Far-Infrared Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Natural Computing-Based Designing of Hybrid UHMWPE Composites for Orthopedic Implants
Previous Article in Special Issue
Determination of Optimum TBARS Conditions for Evaluation of Cow and Sheep Milk Oxidative Stability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 20
10.3390/app122010411
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Marinating and Grilling as Methods of Sensory Enhancement of Sous Vide Beef from Holstein-Friesian Bulls

by
Katarzyna Tkacz
* and
Monika Modzelewska-Kapituła
Department of Meat Technology and Chemistry, Faculty of Food Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Cieszyński 1, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10411; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010411
Submission received: 20 September 2022 / Revised: 8 October 2022 / Accepted: 11 October 2022 / Published: 15 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Processing and Analysis of Animal-Origin Products)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
An attempt was made to identify technological solutions that would improve the quality of products from the meat of Holstein-Friesian (HF) bulls, with particular emphasis on standardising the quality of the longissimus lumborum (LL) and semimembranosus (SM) muscles. Marinating (Mar) and grilling (Grill) were used in combination with the sous vide (SV) method. The effects of the type of muscle (LL or SM) and the applied treatments (SV, SVMar, and SVGrill) on the yield, colour, maximum shear force (WBSF), tenderness, juiciness, and aroma intensity of grilled and marinated meat were determined. The applied treatments had a significant influence on the meat yield (p < 0.001), WBSF (p < 0.001), tenderness (p < 0.01), and juiciness (p < 0.05) assessed in sensory evaluation. Additional treatments supported the optimisation of the aroma and taste of LL and SM and reduced the WBSF. The SVMar method optimised the beef’s tenderness, and therefore, it can be recommended for preparing meat from HF bulls for consumption.

1. Introduction

Beef is an important part of European consumers’ diets [1,2], and it is the third most popular type of meat after pork and poultry [3,4,5]. Beef is characterised by a high nutritional value and exceptional organoleptic properties. It is a valuable source of protein, exogenous amino acids, and micronutrients that are important for human health, such as selenium, zinc, phosphorus, bioavailable iron, and vitamin B12. Beef also contains multiple bioactive nutrients and antioxidants, including creatine, taurine, glutathione, and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) [4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. It is worth noting that red meat such as beef is also a source of beta-alanine, an amino acid that supports the production of carnosine in the human body and plays an important role in muscle function [13]. Research has shown that proteins of animal origins play a vital role in the development and function of the human brain, especially in elderly people and children [13]. Moreover, beef consumption promotes well-being and physical fitness in healthy individuals older than 50 [8]. Despite the health benefits of beef, its consumption in developed countries is affected by numerous factors, including price, as well as environmental (the influence of beef production on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions) and ethical concerns (animal welfare) [4,5,12,14,15,16].
Meat producers face an enormous challenge: they have to supply meat (particularly red meat) that is abundant in protein, helps fight hunger and malnutrition in the world, and improves food security in developing countries while promoting the awareness that beef is an attractive food product in terms of sensory properties, nutritional value, and environmental aspects. To achieve this goal, meat producers, processing companies, and researchers are searching for solutions to improve meat quality through novel breeding strategies and techniques [2,11,12,14,15,17]. Despite the fact that there are numerous beef cattle breeds around the world, in some countries, beef is produced from dairy or dual-purpose cattle breeds [4,18,19,20]. The Holstein-Friesian (HF) bull is one such breed, and it is the most popular breed in Poland (approximately 95% of the cattle population) that is used for the production of milk and meat. Milk production is prioritised, and surplus bulls are more often slaughtered and used in meat production than cows and heifers. Bulls that are slaughtered at 24 months of age or earlier generate the highest profits [9]. Meat from bulls is most commonly sold at retail, which is why its quality attributes, including colour, tenderness, and juiciness, should be optimised.
These quality attributes are largely dependent on the muscle type. Muscle function and anatomical location are particularly important in achieving meat texture acceptable to consumers [7]. Longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) is the largest muscle of the bovine carcass, and it fetches high prices on the market [4,9]. The muscle belongs to the group of deep back muscles which is engaged in maintaining posture and responsible for the extension and lateral flexion of the spine [4,21]. The quality characteristics of LTL are usually similar, which is why LTL is commonly used as a reference muscle in research. However, visible marbling can be observed in LTL cross-sections. Marbling contributes to the tenderness, juiciness, and taste of meat [4,7,16,18,22], but it could be a limiting factor that affects consumer purchasing decisions. Modern consumers have a preference for meat with minimal visible intramuscular and extra-muscular fat, which is chosen as the “healthier” option. Many consumers are not aware that low-fat meat products have lower flavour profiles and lower acceptability [4,16]. The semimembranosus (SM) is a muscle that can meet consumer expectations in terms of appearance and fat content. The SM is a large and thick locomotive muscle that extends from the surface of the carcass to the femur, and it is the main locomotive muscle [23,24]. Due to its function and high loading, the SM is characterised by a darker colour [21,25] and lower fat content [26] than LTL. In light of the above, this study was undertaken to search for technological solutions that would improve the quality of products obtained from the meat of HF bulls, with special emphasis on standardising the quality of the LTL and SM muscles.
Previous research has shown that the sous vide (SV) method increases the tenderness and juiciness of beef products made from both the longissimus lumborum (LL) and SM muscles [27]. The SV technique is often used in the catering sector and the food industry to obtain products with high eating quality and nutritional value [6,17,28,29]. In this processing method, vacuum-packaged raw meat is cooked at low temperatures, and the cooking time is strictly controlled [30,31,32]. In the SV method, red meat is usually processed by the low-temperature long-time (LTLT) technique at a temperature of ≤60 °C [33], and the cooked products are immediately cooled to 0–3 °C [27,29]. The combined effect of the cooking time, temperature, and vacuum ensures microbiological safety and a high cooking yield, and it supports the production of meat with highly acceptable tenderness, juiciness, uniform colour, and appearance [17,29,32,34] without compromising the quality of the protein and the oxidative stability of the lipids [6]. Despite the above, novel methods for improving the intensity and attractiveness of the aroma of beef processed by SV are still required [28,34,35]. One of such methods involves the use of spices before SV or grilling SV products.
Marinating, which is a procedure involving the application (via immersion or injection) of specially selected mixtures of spices and food ingredients to meat, is very popular in the meat industry, gastronomy, and households [1,36]. In a previous work [28], the beneficial impact of marinades on the quality of meat, including its shelf life, and increased safety. The marinating process was characterised, and the ingredients used in marinades were listed. It was found that the marinating process improved the tenderness, taste, and aroma of meat. Noteworthy is the use of fruit vinegars, which have a high antioxidant and antimicrobial potential, as marinade ingredients. Moreover, they reduced the meat pH and weakened the muscle structures, which increased the meat tenderness [36].
Among the known methods of heat treatment, grilling is the one that produces the largest range of compounds responsible for the specific taste and aroma of grilled meat desired by consumers [3]. Many studies have revealed that toxic volatile substances, such as heterocyclic amines, pyrazines, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, may be produced during grilling. However, this can be reduced by using, for example, marinating and electric grills [3,37].
Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the effect of marinating before SV and grilling after SV on the cooking yield, colour, shear force, and eating quality of LL and SM beef muscles. The research hypothesis postulating that the quality of the LL and SM muscles can be standardised through appropriate treatment in combination with SV is tested.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Beef and Sample Preparation

This study involved LL (n = 9) and SM (n = 9) muscles obtained from nine Polish HF bulls reared under controlled conditions at the Agricultural Experiment Station in Bałcyny, Poland. The animal research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (decision no. 8/2020). The animals were fed grass silage and concentrate during a 7-month fattening period, and they were slaughtered at an average age of 730 days (±12 days, standard error of the mean). The average live weight at slaughter was 690 kg (±13 kg, standard error of the mean). Detailed information about the compositions of the bull diets and the slaughter procedure was provided by Modzelewska-Kapituła et al. [38]. After slaughter, the carcasses were cooled for 96 h, and the muscles were cut from the left side of the carcasses. The muscles were transported to the laboratory of the Department of Meat Technology and Chemistry, vacuum-packaged individually, and aged at 4 °C ± 1 °C for 14 days.
Samples of the aged muscles were frozen at −20 °C ± 1 °C until analysis (approximately 3 months). Before the analyses, the samples were thawed at room temperature (first 8 h) and then at 4 °C (±1 °C) for approximately 14 h. The thawing loss was measured immediately after thawing when the internal temperature was appropriately 4 °C as the difference in weight before and after freezing. Each muscle was divided into four steaks. One steak (approximately 300 g) was used for physicochemical analysis (moisture, protein, fat and ash content, free water, and pH) of the raw beef, and three steaks (with a thickness of 2.5 cm each) were subjected to three different thermal treatments: sous vide (SV), sous vide followed by grilling (SVGrill), or marinating followed by sous vide (SVMar). The processed steaks had an average weight of 177 g (1.3 g SEM), and there were no significant differences between the treatments or muscles. Each steak was weighed before and after treatment, and the yield (%) was calculated based on the weight of the raw meat (before treatment) and the final weight after each treatment (the final weight was determined after grilling in the SVGrill samples and after SV cooking in the SVMar samples). In the SVGrill and SVMar samples, the cooking losses resulting from the SV, grilling, and marinating processes were calculated separately as the difference in weight before and after each treatment.

2.2. Cooking Treatments

The steaks for SV processing were vacuum-packaged individually in plastic pouches suitable for food products and were cooked in the SV device (Sous-vide GN 2/3, Hendi Food Service Equipment, Rhenen, Netherlands) at 60 °C for 4 h. The processing temperature was monitored continuously with a digital thermometer integrated into the device. The SVGrill samples were subjected to SV treatment according to the same procedure. After SV cooking, the pouches were opened, and the steaks were dried with a paper towel, weighed, and grilled on the Silex Grill T electric contact grill (Hamburg, Silex Elektrogeräte GmbH) at 270 °C for 2.5 min. The SVMar samples were marinated for 24 h at 4 °C (±1 °C) (marinade composition: water = 250 mL, apple vinegar = 250 mL, salt = 60 g, bay leaf = 0.8 g, fresh garlic = 21.5 g, cloves = 0.4 g, juniper fruit = 2.4 g, allspice = 2.8 g, marjoram = 1.2 g, sugar = 35 g, and black pepper = 3.0 g per 1 kg of beef). Each steak was marinated individually in a plastic container with a lid by submerging the meat in the marinating solution. The marinated steaks were removed from the containers, weighed, dried with a paper towel, vacuum-packaged in individual plastic pouches suitable for SV cooking, and cooked in the SV device using identical parameters.

2.3. Determination of the Chemical Composition and pH of Raw Beef

The pH value of the muscles was measured in the middle part of the muscles [26] with an FC 200 combination electrode and an HI 8314 pH meter (Hanna Instruments Polska, Olsztyn, Poland) in triplicate. Before measurements, the pH meter was calibrated using pH 7 and pH 4 buffers. Then samples of each raw LL and SM muscle were ground separately twice using a meat grinder with 6-mm and 3-mm mesh plates (ZMM4080, Zelmer S.A., Rzeszów, Poland). The ground beef was manually kneaded to obtain a uniform mass. The moisture [39] (drying at 103 ± 2 °C to a constant weight, with three replicates per sample), protein [40] (two replicates per sample), fat [41] (three replicates per sample), and ash [42] (two replicates per sample) contents were determined. The free water content was determined by pressing 0.3-g samples of ground meat with a weight of 2 kg for 5 min, according to the Grau and Hamm method [43,44]. All analyses were performed in triplicate.

2.4. Colour Parameters

The colour was evaluated on the cross-sectional area of the raw muscles after 25 min of blooming at 4 °C [21] in the CIE L*a*b* model [45]. The colour was also measured on the cross-section of cooked meat after the termination of treatments. The measurements were performed with a Konica Minolta CR-400 chroma meter (Sensing Inc., Osaka, Japan) (with a 2° view angle, D65 illuminant, measurement/illumination area φ of 8 mm/φ 11 mm, and a pulsed xenon lamp as the default light source) calibrated with the use of a white tile standard before the analysis. The lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) values were determined during three measurements at randomly selected points (excluding fat and connective tissue deposits). The chroma (C) and hue angle (h) were calculated from the following equations: C = (a*2 + b*2)0.5 and h = atan (b/a)*180/Π, respectively [45]. The changes in the colour parameters between the raw and thermally treated samples were determined by calculating the coefficient ΔE according to the formula ΔE = [(ΔCIE L*)2 + (ΔCIE a*)2+ (ΔCIE b*)2]0.5 [45], where ΔCIE L*, ΔCIE a*, and ΔCIE b* denote differences in the values of lightness, redness, and yellowness, respectively, between the raw muscles and samples processed by SV, SVGrill, and SVMar. To relate the colour difference recorded by the chromameter to a food environment, the data were converted to National Bureau of Standards (NBS) units through the equation NBS unit = ∆E* × 0.92, where the differences of colour were expressed in terms of NBS units. Based on the calculated values, the changes in the analysed colour parameters were classified as negligible (0–0.5), minor (0.5–1.5), noticeable (1.5–3.0), moderate (3.0–6.0), considerable (6.0–12.0), or significant (>12.0) [45,46].

2.5. Warner–Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF)

The Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF) (N) was determined with an Instron 5942 (Instron, Norwood, MA, USA) equipped with a shear blade. Five samples (10 × 10 mm, approximately 40 mm long) were cut out from each thermally processed and chilled (overnight at 4 °C) muscle parallel to the longitudinal axis of the muscle fibres. The muscle samples were equilibrated to room temperature for 1.5 h before the analysis. The samples were cut perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the muscle fibres using a V-shaped shear blade with a triangular aperture of 60° (load of 500 N and head speed of 200 mm/min). The test was performed at room temperature (approximately 20–21 °C). The results were analysed using Bluehill 3 software (Instron, Norwood, MA, USA).

2.6. Sensory Evaluation

The sensory quality of the beef was evaluated immediately after thermal treatment by a team of six panellists according to the standard [47]. The samples were cut into slices (with a thickness of around 2 mm) and evaluated while warm. They were presented to the panellists randomly on white plates. The samples were assessed on a 10-point scale. All samples were scored for juiciness (1 = extremely dry and 10 = extremely juicy) and tenderness (1 = extremely tough and 10 = extremely tender). To determine the differences between the LL and SM muscles processed by the same treatment, the SV samples were scored for the intensity of the meat’s taste and aroma, and the SVGrill samples were scored for the intensity of the grilled meat’s taste and aroma, whereas the SVMar samples were scored for the intensity of the marinated meat’s taste and spice aroma intensity (1 = imperceptible and 10 = extremely intense). The assessment was performed at room temperature (approximately 20 °C) under fluorescent lighting. Water and bread were provided for cleansing the palate. A total of nine sensory analysis sessions were conducted. A maximum of six meat samples were assessed per session by the same panellists.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The experiment had a 2 × 3 factorial design (muscles: LL and SM; treatment: SV, SVMar, and SVGrill), and the results were processed in the Statistica 13.3 program (Tibco Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). The effects of the fixed factors (muscle and cooking treatment) and random factors (carcass and panellist in the sensory analysis) on the studied attributes (yield, losses, WBSF, colour, and sensory attributes) were evaluated by variance component analysis and a mixed ANOVA/ANCOVA model (df was calculated with Satterthwaite’s approximation formula). The results were not affected by the carcass or the panellist (p > 0.05). The mean values in the analysed muscles and treatments were determined in Tukey’s HSD test. A cluster analysis was performed to classify the treatments into clusters based on the yield (%), WBSF (N), and colour attributes (L*, a*, b*, C, and h).

3. Results

3.1. Chemical Composition and pH of Raw Beef

The LL and SM muscles were characterised by a similar pH, moisture, protein, and ash content, but the fat content was higher (p < 0.05) in the LL than in the SM (2.37% vs. 1.59%) (Table 1). The water-holding capacity, which was determined on the basis of the free water content and thawing loss, was higher in the LL (as evidenced by a lower content of free water and thawing loss) compared with the SM (p < 0.05, Table 1).

3.2. Colour Parameters

All colour attributes (L*, a*, b*, C, and h) were affected by the muscle type and treatment, and interactions between these factors were noted for L*, a*, and h (Table 2).
The differences between the LL and SM could be attributed to differences in the colour of the raw beef, as the raw LL muscles had more red and fewer yellow hues than the SM. The applied SV alone and the combination of marinating and SV contributed to a lighter colour of beef, whereas grilling had diverse effects on different muscles (e.g., LL SVGrill did not differ from raw LL in terms of lightness, whereas SM SVGrill was darker than raw SM). All treatments decreased the redness and chroma and increased the hue. The greatest change in colour, expressed by the highest values of the ΔE and NBS values, was induced by SVMar, followed by SVGrill (Table 2).

3.3. Yield, Warner–Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF), and Sensory Quality

The yield, WBSF, juiciness, and tenderness values of the LL and SM muscles subjected to different treatments are presented in Table 3. Generally, the production yield was affected by the muscle type (p < 0.001), treatment (p < 0.001), and interaction between the muscle and treatment (p < 0.05). Interestingly, the LL yield was not affected by the treatment, and no significant differences were found between LL muscles subjected to SV, SVGrill, and SVMar. In contrast, the SM yields were higher after SV and SVMar than after SVGrill. Moreover, the LL muscles showed a higher yield in all treatments than the SM muscles, which resulted from lower losses during SV treatment (Figure 1 and Figure 2) in the SVMar and SVGrill samples. During the additional treatment (marinating or grilling), the losses were similar for the LL and SM muscles. Thus, the differences between LL and SM resulted from their ability to retain moisture during LTLT treatment, whereas the differences in SM yields across treatments resulted from the processing temperature.
The values of WBSF were also affected by the muscle type (p < 0.001) and treatment (p < 0.001), as well as the interaction between these factors (p < 0.05) (Table 3). The WBSF values were generally lower in the LL than the SM. When the SV treatment was preceded by marinating, the WBSF values were reduced in both muscles in comparison with the SV treatment alone. Grilling also decreased the WBSF values in the SM compared with the SV samples, and no differences were observed between the SM subjected to SVGrill and SVMar. In contrast, for the LL muscle, it was marinating which produced the lowest WBSF. In the SM processed by SVMar, the WBSF values were similar to those noted for the SV-treated LL.
The results of the instrumental tenderness analysis were partially confirmed in the sensory evaluation. The tenderness was not affected by muscle type (p > 0.05), but this attribute was affected by the treatment (p < 0.01) and the interaction between the treatment and muscle type (p < 0.05). Although the LL muscles subjected to different treatments did not differ in terms of tenderness, significant differences were noted in the SM. The lower tenderness scores were noted in the SM SVGrill samples, whereas SM muscles subjected to marinating and SV (SVMar) received higher tenderness scores than SM processed by SV and SVGrill. Moreover, the SM SVMar was similar to LL SVMar in terms of tenderness. No differences were observed between the tenderness of the SV-treated SM samples and the LL samples subjected to SV, SVGrill, and SVMar. The samples received similar scores in the evaluation of juiciness, excluding the SVGrill-treated SM samples, which received lower scores (Table 3). The results of the aroma and taste assessments for the LL and SM muscles subjected to the same treatment (SV, SVMar or SVGrill) are presented in Figure 3. The muscles did not differ in the intensity of the meat’s taste and aroma (SV samples), grilled meat taste and aroma intensity (SVGrill samples), or the intensity of the marinated meat’s taste and spice aroma intensity (in SVMar samples).
The results of all measurements, excluding the sensory evaluation, were subjected to a cluster analysis to determine the similarities between LL and SM muscles subjected to different treatments (Figure 4). Two clusters were identified. The first cluster contained all LL treatments and SM SV, and the second cluster contained SM SVGrill and SM SVMar.

4. Discussion

4.1. Chemical Composition and pH of Raw Beef

The recorded pH values and chemical composition of the raw beef indicate its good quality (pH from 5.4 to 5.7 for normal quality beef) and are consistent with the results of other studies on beef [22,48]. The content of intramuscular fat (IMF) was also higher in the LL than the SM muscles in our previous studies on HF beef [28,44] and in other studies [49,50]. The observed difference in IMF content can be attributed to differences in the function, activity, and anatomical location of the LL and SM muscles [26,48,51], which affect not only their chemical composition but also other quality attributes, such as tenderness and juiciness [7,48]. Hwang et al. [49] found that the LTL muscle of Hanwoo cattle contained twice as much IMF as SM, which could result from differences in fibre composition, particularly the proportion of type I fibres (red, slow-twitch oxidative), which was determined to be 33% in LTL and only 12% in SM. Moreover, both the LTL and SM muscles were abundant in type II white fibres, including type IIA fast-twitch oxidative-glycolytic fibres, and type IIB fast-twitch glycolytic fibres. However, the proportion of type II fibres in the total muscle fibres differed between LTL and SM; the proportion of IIA and IIB fibres accounted for around 70% of all muscles in LTL [48,49] and 90% in SM [49]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that a high proportion of oxidative type I fibres increases the content of phospholipids which affect muscle tenderness and taste [7,49,52]. This observation could explain the differences in the chemical composition as well as eating quality of LL and SM in this study.

4.2. Colour Parameters

The colour of cooked meat generally depends on the temperature change rate and cooking time. The final colour of cooked meat depends on the proportions of oxymyoglobin (bright red colour), deoxymyoglobin (purple), and metmyoglobin (brown), which change with the temperature and myoglobin denaturation [30,31,53]. In the present study, SV beef was characterised by higher values of lightness and yellowness, lower values of redness, a higher hue angle, and lower chroma than raw meat. Similar results were reported by other authors [33,34,53]. According to Karki et al. [31], these observations could be attributed to changes in the free water content on the meat’s surface. They found that ribs subjected to SV treatment at a lower temperature (60 °C vs. 65 °C and 70 °C) and shorter cooking time (12 h vs. 24 h and 36 h) were characterised by higher lightness values due to a higher content of free water on the surface, which was consistent with the cooking loss results [30].
The results of this study are consistent with the general knowledge about the colour of SV-treated meat, having the highest a*, b*, and C* values compared with other treatments such as grilling and steaming [51] due to changes in the proteins which determine the colour of the meat [34,53]. In all tested combinations, SV beef had the highest values of a* and C, which points to lower myoglobin degradation relative to the SVMar and SVGrill samples. The a* value was approximately five points lower in the SVGrill samples, which can probably be attributed to the formation of Maillard reaction products (brown melanoidins) at higher grilling temperatures [33,53,54], whereas the eight-point difference between SM SVMar and SM SV might be explained by the presence of acetic acid in the marinade, which lowered the pH of the meat and contributed to the oxidation of muscle pigments [36].

4.3. Yield, Warner–Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF), and Sensory Quality

The free water content, thawing loss, and cooking yield were affected by the muscle type. The SM muscle had a lower IMF content and higher free water content. In lean muscles, most water molecules are distributed between the actin and myosin filaments in sarcomeres. Technological processes such as ageing, freezing, and cooking degrade the bonds between these proteins and push cell fluids into extracellular space [14]. The above could explain the significantly lower yields and higher cooking losses in the SM muscle compared with the LL, which were also noted in our previous studies [28,35]. Similar cooking losses during SV were reported by other authors (approximately 21%) [6,17]. In the work of Karki et al. [31], the SV losses were lower (15–18%) in beef ribs subjected to SV at 60 °C for 12 h and 36 h. Wall et al. [55] analysed the effect of the grilling temperature on the quality of aged ribeye, strip loin, and top sirloin steaks and reported a yield of 78.5%, which is similar to that noted for LL SVGrill (76%) in the present study. The cooking loss noted in the SVMar samples was similar to that reported in studies where acidic marinades were used. This parameter was estimated to be 29% in chicken breast muscles marinated for 48 h in marinades containing fermented beverages [56] and 30% and 37% in pork steaks marinated for 3 h and 12 h, respectively, in kefir, yogurt, and buttermilk [57]. The muscle specificity as well as the water and fat contents (in addition to pre- and post-mortem factors) are closely related to meat tenderness [54,58]. Protein content is one of the key parameters that determines the nutritional value of lean meat and plays an important role in water binding and meat tenderisation [48]. In this study, the protein content was similar (22.5%) in the LL and SM muscles. However, the muscles differed in IMF content, which affected the WBSF values. The IMF content was higher, whereas the WBSF values were lower in the LL compared with the SM muscles, regardless of the applied treatment. Similar results were noted in our previous study [38], and they confirm the relationship between the fat content and tenderness, as observed by Needham et al. [58].
Moreover, each additional technological treatment (marinating and grilling) decreased the WBSF values, where a significant decrease in this parameter (26.8% in LL and 20% in SM) was induced by marinating. A similar result was noted in our previous study, where commercial marinades increased the SM tenderness by 20% [28]. Other authors also reported that SV [6,17] and marinating [59,60] increased meat tenderness by decreasing the WBSF values. Lawrence and Lawrence [61] reported that the shear force was reduced by 24% in beef steaks subjected to blade tenderisation and marinated in lime juice and pineapple puree. In the work of Sengun et al. [36], the WBSF values were determined to be 39.4 N, 25.7 N, 49.0 N, and 42.1 N in beef marinated in blackberry, briar, grenade, and grape vinegars. They concluded that meat marinated in briar vinegar was characterised by the highest tenderness and microbial safety.
In this study, an attempt was made to identify the most effective methods for enhancing the aroma and taste of SV-treated beef. The influence of marinating and grilling on LL and SM quality was evaluated. According to some reports, the SV technique minimises the differences in the tenderness of meat products obtained from cattle of different sexes and slaughter ages, as well as meat that has been aged for different periods of time [17,33]. This observation was confirmed in this study. The LL and SM muscles processed by SV were characterised by similar tenderness and juiciness as well as intensity of their aroma and taste.
Marinating and grilling are commonly used to enhance the taste and aroma of meat products. Grilling involves three simultaneous chemical reactions which are responsible for the desirable aroma and taste of grilled meats. These are the Maillard reaction, lipid oxidation, and hydrolysis of proteins and amino acids. Protein degradation and the condensation of amino acids with the intermediate products of the Maillard reaction in Strecker degradation lead to the formation of carbonyl volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which, together with alcohols, pyrazines, and hydrocarbons, are responsible for the rich aroma of grilled meat [3,54,62], which is significantly influenced by the grilling time and temperature. Wall et al. [55] identified up to 65 volatile aroma compounds which were classified as alcohols (7 compounds), aldehydes (24), alkanes (4), furans (2), ketones (5), pyrazines (11), pyrroles (2), sulphur-containing compounds (5), and other compounds (4). In the cited study, the number of volatile aroma compounds was affected by the contact grill temperature, and it influenced the beef’s taste. In the present study, grilling was an additional thermal treatment in the SV process. In the sensory assessment, both muscles received similar scores for the intensity of the grilled meat’s aroma and taste, which indicates that the objective of this study was achieved. The marinated LL and SM also received high and similar scores for the intensity of the marinated meat’s taste and spice aroma. Vidal et al. [63] also found that beer marinades containing spices and herbs improved the quality, safety, and eating quality of grilled ruminant meats.
Taste, juiciness, tenderness, and overall acceptance are the main attributes that affect the eating quality [10]. From the consumer’s perspective, tenderness is the most important parameter in beef [16,55], whereas pork is most highly valued for its juiciness [7]. In this study, the samples of SM and LL muscles that were marinated before SV processing scored highest for tenderness in the sensory assessment. No significant differences were found between these samples, which validates the research hypothesis. It should be noted that the SM SVMar received the highest tenderness score (across all tested combinations), despite the fact that the IMF content was lower in the SM than in the LL muscles. Therefore, the eating quality of the SV-processed meat was improved by marinating the muscles before treatment. The pH value of the meat approximated the isoelectric point because the acid component of the marinade accelerated proteolysis by stimulating cathepsin activity, weakening the structure of the muscle fibres, and, consequently, enhancing the tenderness and juiciness. Juiciness was similar in all SM and LL samples, excluding SM SVGrill, which was characterised by the highest cooking loss. Juiciness is highly correlated with the water-binding capacity and fat content [7,48,54]. These observations were validated by the results of the cluster analysis, which revealed similarities between all LL treatments and SM SV (cluster 1), as well as between SM SVGrill and SM SVMar (cluster 2). These results indicate that the SV treatment can be effectively applied to obtain SM and LL muscles of comparable quality. It should also be noted that grilling and marinating SV-treated SM offers unique features which might be appreciated by consumers.

5. Conclusions

The quality of beef products processed by the SV method was affected by both the muscle type and the applied treatment (i.e., SV alone or SV in combination with marinating or grilling). These additional treatments eliminated differences in the taste and aroma of LL and SM muscles, thus enhancing the attractiveness of SM for consumers. Despite the fact that the WBSF values were lower in the LL than in SM in all treatments, the LL and SM processed by SV and SVMar did not differ in tenderness, which indicates that these treatments can be recommended for preparing SM for consumption and obtaining beef products that are widely accepted by consumers. Beef that was marinated before SV treatment was characterised by the lowest WBSF values and the highest tenderness score in the sensory evaluation, and therefore this method can be recommended for preparing meat from HF bulls for consumption.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.M.-K. and K.T.; methodology, K.T. and M.M.-K.; formal analysis, M.M.-K. and K.T.; investigation, K.T. and M.M.-K.; resources, M.M.-K. and K.T.; writing—original draft preparation, K.T. and M.M.-K.; visualisation, M.M.-K.; funding acquisition, K.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Local Ethical Committee of The University of Warmia and Mazury (resolution no 8/2020; date of approval: 28 January 2020) for studies involving animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Reasonable requests for datasets generated from the current experiment are available from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Zenon Nogalski for providing the raw material for research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, Y.; Wang, R.; Wen, Q.-H.; Rahaman, A.; Zeng, X.-A. Effects of pulsed electric field pretreatment on mass transfer and quality of beef during marination process. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2022, 80, 103061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Pieniak, Z.; Gutkowska, K.; Wierzbicki, J.; Cieszyńska, K.; Sajdakowska, M.; Kosicka-Gębska, M. Beef consumer segment profiles based on information source usage in Poland. Meat Sci. 2017, 124, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bassam, S.M.; Noleto-Dias, C.; Farag, M.A. Dissecting grilled red and white meat flavor: Its characteristics, production mechanisms, influencing factors and chemical hazards. Food Chem. 2022, 371, 131139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fořtová, J.; Del Mar Campo, M.; Valenta, J.; Needham, T.; Řehák, D.; Lebedová, N.; Bartoň, L.; Klouček, P.; Bureš, D. Preferences and acceptance of Czech and Spanish consumers regarding beef with varying intramuscular fat content. Meat Sci. 2022, 192, 108912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pushkarev, N. Meat Production & Consumption (in Europe) and Public Health. An Exploration. 2021, European Public Health Alliance (EPHA). Available online: https://epha.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/meat-production-consumption-in-europe-and-public-health-an-exploration-final.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  6. Bhat, Z.F.; Morton, J.D.; Zhang, X.; Mason, S.L.; Bekhit, A.E.-D.A. Sous-vide cooking improves the quality and in-vitro digestibility of Semitendinosus from culled dairy cows. Food Res. Int. 2020, 127, 108708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Joo, S.T.; Kim, G.D.; Hwang, Y.H.; Ryu, Y.C. Control of fresh meat quality through manipulation of muscle fiber characteristics. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 828–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hawley, A.L.; Liang, X.; Borsheim, E.; Wolfe, R.R.; Salisbury, L.; Hendy, E.; Wu, H.; Walker, S.; Tacinelli, A.M.; Baum, J.I. The potential role of beef and nutrients found in beef on outcomes of wellbeing in healthy adults 50 years of age and older: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Meat Sci. 2022, 189, 108830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nogalski, Z.; Wielgosz-Groth, Z.; Purwin, C.; Nogalska, A.; Sobczuk-Szul, M.; Winarski, R.; Pogorzelska, P. The effect of slaughter weight and fattening intensity on changes in carcass fatness in young Holstein-Fresian bulls. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 13, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Pogorzelski, G.; Pogorzelska-Nowicka, E.; Pogorzelski, P.; Półtorak, A.; Hocquette, J.-F.; Wierzbicka, A. Towards an integration of pre-and post-slaughter factors affecting the eating quality of beef. Livest. Sci. 2022, 255, 104795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Warner, R.D. Review: Analysis of the process and drivers for cellular meat production. Animal 2019, 13, 3041–3058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Waughray, D. Meat: The Future. Time for a Protein Portfolio to Meet Tomorrows Demand–A White Paper. 2018. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/White_Paper_Meat_the_Future_Time_Protein_Portfolio_Meet_Tomorrow_Demand_report_2018.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2022).
  13. Mann, N.J. A brief history of meat in the human diet and current health implications. Meat Sci. 2018, 144, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Needham, T.; Kotrba, R.; Hoffman, L.C.; Bureš, D. Ante- and post-mortem strategies to improve the meat quality of high-value muscles harvested from farmed male common eland (Taurotragus oryx). Meat Sci. 2020, 168, 108183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pogorzelski, G.; Woźniak, K.; Polkinghorne, R.; Półtorak, A.; Wierzbicka, A. Polish consumer categorisation of grilled beef at 6 mm and 25 mm thickness into quality grades, based on meat standards Australia methodology. Meat Sci. 2020, 161, 107953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Realini, C.E.; Pavan, E.; Johnson, P.L.; Font-i-Furnols, M.; Jacob, N.; Agnew, M.; Craigie , C.R.; Moon , C.D. Consumer liking of M. longissimus lumborum of New Zealand pasture finished lamb is influenced by intramuscular fat. Meat Sci. 2021, 173, 108380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Naqvi, Z.B.; Thomson, P.C.; Ha, M.; Campbell, M.A.; McGill, D.M.; Friend, M.A.; Warner, R.D. Effect of sous vide cooking and ageing on tenderness and water-holding capacity of low-value beef muscles from young and older animals. Meat Sci. 2021, 175, 108435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bown, M.D.; Muir, P.D.; Thomson, B.C. Dairy and beef breed effects on beef yield, beef quality and profitability. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 59, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Martín, N.P.; Schreurs, N.M.; Morris, S.T.; López-Villalobos, N.; McDade, J.H.; Rebecca, E. Meat quality of beef-cross-dairy cattle from Angus or Hereford sires: A case study in a pasture-based system in New Zealand. Meat Sci. 2022, 190, 108840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nogalski, Z.; Pogorzelska-Przybyłek, P.; Sobczuk-Szul, M.; Nogalska, A.; Modzelewska-Kapituła, M.; Purwin, C. Carcass characteristics and meat quality of bulls and steers slaughtered at two different ages. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 17, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tkacz, K.; Modzelewska-Kapituła, M.; Więk, A.; Nogalski, Z. The applicability of total color difference ΔE for determining the blooming time in longissimus lumborum and semimembranosus muscles from Holstein-Friesian bulls at different ageing times. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Frank, D.; Ball, A.; Hughes, J.; Krishnamurthy, R.; Piyasiri, U.; Stark, J.; Watkins, P.; Warner, R. Sensory and Flavor Chemistry Characteristics of Australian Beef: Influence of Intramuscular Fat, Feed, and Breed. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 4299–4311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Belew, J.B.; Brooks, J.C.; McKenna, D.R.; Savell, J.W. Warner-Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat Sci. 2004, 64, 507–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sammel, L.M.; Hunt, M.C.; Kropf, D.H.; Hachmeister, K.A.; Johnson, D.E. Comparison of Assays for Metmyoglobin Reducing Ability in Beef Inside and Outside Semimembranosus Muscle. J. Food Sci. 2002, 67, 978–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gajaweera, C.; Chung, K.Y.; Lee, S.H.; Wijayananda, H.I.; Kwon, E.G.; Kim, H.J.; Cho, S.H.; Lee, S.H. Assessment of carcass and meat quality of longissimus thoracis and semimembranosus muscles of Hanwoo with Korean beef grading standards. Meat Sci. 2020, 160, 107944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wyrwisz, J.; Moczkowska, M.; Kurek, M.; Stelmasiak, A.; Półtorak, A.; Wierzbicka, A. Influence of 21 days of vacuum-aging on color, bloom development, and WBSF of beef semimembranosus. Meat Sci. 2016, 122, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Modzelewska-Kapituła, M.; Pietrzak-Fiećko, R.; Tkacz, K.; Draszanowska, A.; Więk, A. Influence of sous vide and steam cooking on mineral contents, fatty acid composition and tenderness of semimembranosus muscle from Holstein-Friesian bulls. Meat Sci. 2019, 157, 107877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tkacz, K.; Modzelewska-Kapituła, M.; Petracci, M.; Zduńczyk, W. Improving the quality of sous-vide beef from Holstein-Friesian bulls by different marinades. Meat Sci. 2021, 182, 108639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. N’Gatta, K.C.A.; Kondjoyan, A.; Favier, R.; Sicard, J.; Rouel, J.; Gruffat, D.; Mirade, P.-S. Impact of Combining Tumbling and Sous-Vide Cooking Processes on the Tenderness, Cooking Losses and Colour of Bovine Meat. Processes 2022, 10, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Baldwin, D.E. Sous vide cooking: A review. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2012, 1, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Karki, R.; Bremer, P.; Silcock, P.; Oey, I. Effect of Sous vide Processing on Quality Parameters of Beef Short Ribs and Optimisation of Sous vide Time and Temperature Using Third-Order Multiple Regression. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2022, 15, 1629–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kathuria, D.; Dhiman, A.K.; Attri, S. Sous vide, a culinary technique for improving quality of food products: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 119, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dominguez-Hernandez, E.; Salaseviciene, A.; Ertbjerg, P. Low-temperature long-time cooking of meat: Eating quality and underlying mechanisms. Meat Sci. 2018, 143, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Ayub, H.; Ahmad, A. Physiochemical Changes in Sous-Vide and Conventionally Cooked Meat. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2019, 17, 100145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Modzelewska-Kapituła, M.; Tkacz, K.; Więk, A.; Rybaczek, S.; Nogalski, Z. Sida silage in cattle nutrition–effects on the fattening performance of Holstein-Friesian bulls and beef quality. Livest. Sci. 2021, 243, 104383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sengun, I.Y.; Turp, G.Y.; Cicek, S.N.; Avci, T.; Ozturk, B.; Kilic, G. Assessment of the effect of marination with organic fruit vinegars on safety and quality of beef. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 336, 108904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Cordeiro, T.; Viegas, O.; Silva, M.; Martins, Z.E.; Fernandes, I.; Ferreira, I.M.L.P.V.O.; Pinho, O.; Mateus, N.; Calhau, C. Inhibitory effect of vinegars on the formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in charcoal-grilled pork. Meat Sci. 2020, 167, 108083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Modzelewska-Kapituła, M.; Tkacz, K.; Nogalski, Z. The influence of muscle, ageing and thermal treatment method on the quality of cooked beef. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 59, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. PN-ISO1442; Meat and Meat Products. Determination of Water Content (Reference Method). Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2000.
  40. Association of Analytical Communities. Official Methods of Analysis Method 992.15. Proximate Analysis and Calculations Crude Protein Meat and Meat Products Including Pet Foods, 17th ed.; Association of Analytical Communities: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  41. Association of Analytical Communities. Official Method of Analysis Method 991.36. Fat (Crude) in Meat and Meat Products, 18th ed.; Association of Analytical Communities: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  42. PN-ISO 936; Meat and Meat Products–Determination of Total Ash. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2000.
  43. Hamm, R. Functional properties of the myofibrillar system and their measurements. In Muscle as Food; Bechtel, P.J., Ed.; Academic Press, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 135–199. [Google Scholar]
  44. Modzelewska-Kapituła, M.; Tkacz, K.; Nogalski, Z.; Karpińska-Tymoszczyk, M.; Draszanowska, A.; Pietrzak-Fiećko, R.; Purwin, C.; Lipiński, K. Addition of herbal extracts to the Holstein-Friesian bulls’ diet changes the quality of beef. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. AMSA. Meat Color Measurement Guidelines; American Meat Science Association: Champaign, IL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Jeong, K.O.H.; Shin, S.Y.; Kim, Y.S. Effects of different marination conditions on quality, microbiological properties, and sensory characteristics of pork ham cooked by the sous-vide method. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2018, 38, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. PN ISO 4121; Sensory Analysis Methodology–Evaluation of Food Products by Methods using Scales. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1998.
  48. Lebedová, N.; Bureš, D.; Needham, T.; Fořtová, J.; Řehák, D.; Bartoň, L. Histological composition, physiochemical parameters, and organoleptic properties of three muscles from Fleckvieh bulls and heifers. Meat Sci. 2022, 188, 108807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hwang, Y.H.; Kim, G.D.; Jeong, J.Y.; Hur, S.J.; Joo, S.T. The relationship between muscle fiber characteristics and meat quality traits of highly marbled Hanwoo (Korean native cattle) steers. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 456–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lizaso, G.; Beriain, M.J.; Horcada, A.; Chasco, J.; Purroy, A. Effect of intended purpose (dairy/beef production) on beef quality. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 91, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Listrat, A.; Lebret, B.; Louveau, I.; Astruc, T.; Bonnet, M.; Lefaucheur, L.; Picard, B.; Bugeon, J. How muscle structure and composition influence meat and flesh quality. Sci. World J. 2016, 28, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Reardon, W.; Mullen, A.M.; Sweeney, T.; Hamill, R.M. Association of polymorphisms in candidate genes with colour, water-holding capacity, and composition traits in bovine M. longissimus and M. semimembranosus. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kaliniak-Dziura, A.; Domaradzki, P.; Kowalczyk, M.; Florek, M.; Skałecki, P.; Kędzierska-Matysek, M.; Stanek, P.; Dmoch, M.; Grenda, T.; Kowalczuk-Vasilev, E. Effect of heat treatments on the physicochemical and sensory properties of the longissimus thoracis muscle in unweaned Limousin calves. Meat Sci. 2022, 192, 108881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Suleman, R.; Wang, Z.; Aadil, R.M.; Hui, T.; Hopkins, D.L.; Zhang, D. Effect of cooking on the nutritive quality, sensory properties and safety of lamb meat: Current challenges and future prospects. Meat Sci. 2020, 167, 108172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wall, K.R.; Kerth, C.R.; Miller, R.K.; Alvarado, C. Grilling temperature effects on tenderness, juiciness, flavor and volatile aroma compounds of aged ribeye, strip loin, and top sirloin steaks. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Augustyńska-Prejsnar, A.; Sokołowicz, Z.; Hanus, P.; Ormian, M.; Kačániová, M. Quality and Safety of Marinating Breast Muscles of Hens from Organic Farming after the Laying Period with Buttermilk and Whey. Animals 2020, 10, 2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Latoch, A.; Libera, J. Quality and safety of pork steak marinated in fermented dairy products and sous-vide cooked. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Needham, T.; Laubser, J.G.; Kotrba, R.; Bureš, D.; Hoffman, L.C. Influence of ageing on the physical qualities of the longissimus thoracis et lumborum and biceps femoris muscles from male and female free-ranging common eland (Taurotragus oryx). Meat Sci. 2020, 159, 107922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Perez-Juan, M.; Kondjoyan, A.; Picouet, P.; Realini, C.E. Effect of Marination and Microwave Heating on the Quality of Semimembranosus and Semitendinosus Muscles from Friesian Mature Cows. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Żochowska-Kujawska, J.; Lachowicz, K.; Sobczak, M. Effects of fibre type and kefir, wine lemon, and pineapple marinades on texture and sensory properties of wild boar and deer longissimus muscle. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 675–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Lawrence, M.T.; Lawrence, T.E. At-home methods for tenderizing meat using blade tenderization, lime juice and pineapple puree. Meat Sci. 2021, 17, 108487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hu, Y.; Tian, H.; Hu, S.; Dong, L.; Zhang, J.; Yu, X.; Han, M.; Xu, X. The effect of in-package cold plasma on the formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in charcoal-grilled beef steak with different oils or fats. Food Chem. 2022, 371, 131384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vidal, N.P.; Manful, C.; Pham, T.H.; Wheeler, E.; Stewart, P.; Keough, D.; Thomas, R. Novel unfiltered beer-based marinades to improve the nutritional quality, safety, and sensory perception of grilled ruminant meats. Food Chem. 2020, 302, 125326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Applsci 12 10411 g001 550
Figure 1. Sous vide (SV) and grilling (Grill) losses (%) in samples of semimembranosus and longissimus lumborum muscles subjected to sous vide and grilling (SVGrill) treatment. Vertical bars indicate standard error of the mean, and a and b represent values with different letters differing at p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Sous vide (SV) and grilling (Grill) losses (%) in samples of semimembranosus and longissimus lumborum muscles subjected to sous vide and grilling (SVGrill) treatment. Vertical bars indicate standard error of the mean, and a and b represent values with different letters differing at p < 0.001.
Applsci 12 10411 g001
Applsci 12 10411 g002 550
Figure 2. Marinating (Mar) and sous vide (SV) losses (%) in samples of semimembranosus and longissimus lumborum muscles subjected to marinating and sous vide (SVMar) treatment. Vertical bars indicate standard error of the mean, and a and b represent values with different letters differing at p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Marinating (Mar) and sous vide (SV) losses (%) in samples of semimembranosus and longissimus lumborum muscles subjected to marinating and sous vide (SVMar) treatment. Vertical bars indicate standard error of the mean, and a and b represent values with different letters differing at p < 0.001.
Applsci 12 10411 g002
Applsci 12 10411 g003a 550Applsci 12 10411 g003b 550
Figure 3. Comparison between specific aroma and taste characteristics of semimembranosus (SM) and longissimus lumborum (LL) muscles subjected to (1) sous vide (SV), (2) sous vide and grilling (SVGrill), and (3) marinating and sous vide (SVMar). Horizontal bars indicate standard error of the mean, and a represents values with the same letter not differing at p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Comparison between specific aroma and taste characteristics of semimembranosus (SM) and longissimus lumborum (LL) muscles subjected to (1) sous vide (SV), (2) sous vide and grilling (SVGrill), and (3) marinating and sous vide (SVMar). Horizontal bars indicate standard error of the mean, and a represents values with the same letter not differing at p < 0.05.
Applsci 12 10411 g003aApplsci 12 10411 g003b
Applsci 12 10411 g004 550
Figure 4. Cluster analysis of semimembranosus (SM) and longissimus lumborum (LL) muscles subjected to sous vide (SV), sous vide and grilling (SVGrill), and marinating and sous vide (SVMar).
Figure 4. Cluster analysis of semimembranosus (SM) and longissimus lumborum (LL) muscles subjected to sous vide (SV), sous vide and grilling (SVGrill), and marinating and sous vide (SVMar).
Applsci 12 10411 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of raw bovine muscles longissimus lumborum (LL) and semimembranosus (SM) (mean values and standard error of the mean in brackets).
Table 1. Characteristics of raw bovine muscles longissimus lumborum (LL) and semimembranosus (SM) (mean values and standard error of the mean in brackets).
AttributeLLSM
Moisture (%)74.03 a (0.29)74.85 a (0.24)
Protein (%)22.59 a (0.10)22.41 a (0.18)
Fat (%)2.37 a (0.22)1.59 b (0.14)
Ash (%)1.09 a (0.009)1.21 a (0.047)
pH5.67 a (0.009)5.69 a (0.007)
Free water (%)27.5 b (0.6)31.9 a (0.6)
Thawing loss (%)2.02 b (0.21)5.6 a (0.5)
a,b Values in rows with different upper case letters differ at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Effects of muscle (LL: longissimus lumborum; SM: semimembranosus) and treatment (SV =sous vide, SVGrill = sous vide and subsequent grilling, and SVMar = marinating and sous vide) on colour attributes (mean values and standard error of the mean in brackets).
Table 2. Effects of muscle (LL: longissimus lumborum; SM: semimembranosus) and treatment (SV =sous vide, SVGrill = sous vide and subsequent grilling, and SVMar = marinating and sous vide) on colour attributes (mean values and standard error of the mean in brackets).
LLSMp Value
RawSVSVGrillSVMarRawSVSVGrillSVMarMTM × T
L*37.3 d (0.4)42.0 b (0.8)39.1 cd (0.6)46.3 a (0.5)36.7 d (0.6)39.7 c (0.5)31.9 e (0.5)45.6 a (0.3)********
a*22.6 a (0.4)14.3 c (0.1)8.9 ef (0.1)9.2 e (0.2)20.8 b (0.3)12.7 d (0.6)7.8 f (0.2)5.0 g (0.1)********
b*11.8 de (0.3)12.8 c (0.1)12.1 cd (0.2)11.2 e (0.2)13.0 bc (0.3)14.2 a (0.2)13.8 ab (0.2)13.5 abc (0.2)*****NS
C25.5 a (0.5)19.2 b (0.1)15.1 cd (0.2)14.5 d (0.2)24.6 a (0.3)19.2 b (0.4)15.9 c (0.2)14.4 d (0.2)*****NS
h27.6 f (0.3)41.7 d (0.3)53.4 c (0.6)50.4 cd (0.7)31.8 e (0.5)48.7 d (1.5)60.7 b (0.6)69.6 a (0.3)*********
ΔE*-10.0 d (0.6)14.1 c (0.6)16.5 ab (0.5)-9.1 d (0.8)14.3 bc (0.4)18.2 a (0.4)NS****
NBS unit-9.2 d (0.5)13.0 c (0.5)15.2 ab (0.4)-8.4 d (0.7)13.2 bc (0.3)16.7 a (0.3)NS****
a–f Values in rows with different upper case letters differ at p < 0.05. *** Difference significant at p < 0.001. ** Difference significant at p < 0.01. * Difference significant at p < 0.05. NS = no significant difference. ΔE* calculated with respect to the raw meat colour. NBS = National Bureau of Standards.
Table
Table 3. Effects of muscle (LL: longissimus lumborum; SM: semimembranosus) and treatment (SV = sous vide, SVGrill = sous vide and subsequent grilling, and SVMar = marinating and sous vide) on yield, Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF), and sensory-assessed juiciness and tenderness (mean values and standard error of the mean in brackets).
Table 3. Effects of muscle (LL: longissimus lumborum; SM: semimembranosus) and treatment (SV = sous vide, SVGrill = sous vide and subsequent grilling, and SVMar = marinating and sous vide) on yield, Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF), and sensory-assessed juiciness and tenderness (mean values and standard error of the mean in brackets).
AttributeLLSMp Value
SVSVGrillSVMarSVSVGrillSVMarMTM × T
Yield (%)78.7 a (0.7)76.2 a (1.2)75.6 a (1.1)70.7 b (0.3)65.1 c (0.6)69.5 b (0.4)*******
WBSF (N)20.5 cd (0.6)19.1 d (0.5)15.0 e (0.4)28.4 a (0.7)23.2 b (0.8)22.4 bc (0.6)*******
Tenderness (points)7.3 b (0.2)7.3 b (0.2)7.7 ab (0.1)7.3 b (0.2)6.5 c (0.2)8.3 a (0.2)NS***
Juiciness (points)7.5 a (0.2)6.9 a (0.2)7.2 a (0.2)6.7 a (0.3)5.2 b (0.3)6.6 a (0.2)**NS
a–e Values in rows with different upper case letters differ at p < 0.05. *** Difference significant at p < 0.001. ** Difference significant at p < 0.01. * Difference significant at p < 0.05. NS = no significant difference. Sensory assessment on 1–10 scale, juiciness from 1 (extremely dry) to 10 (extremely juicy), and tenderness from 1 (extremely tough) to 10 (extremely tender).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tkacz, K.; Modzelewska-Kapituła, M. Marinating and Grilling as Methods of Sensory Enhancement of Sous Vide Beef from Holstein-Friesian Bulls. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10411. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010411

AMA Style

Tkacz K, Modzelewska-Kapituła M. Marinating and Grilling as Methods of Sensory Enhancement of Sous Vide Beef from Holstein-Friesian Bulls. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(20):10411. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010411

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tkacz, Katarzyna, and Monika Modzelewska-Kapituła. 2022. "Marinating and Grilling as Methods of Sensory Enhancement of Sous Vide Beef from Holstein-Friesian Bulls" Applied Sciences 12, no. 20: 10411. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010411

APA Style

Tkacz, K., & Modzelewska-Kapituła, M. (2022). Marinating and Grilling as Methods of Sensory Enhancement of Sous Vide Beef from Holstein-Friesian Bulls. Applied Sciences, 12(20), 10411. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010411

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop