In-Bag Dry- Vs. Wet-Aged Lamb: Quality, Consumer Acceptability, Oxidative Stability and In Vitro Digestibility

Overview

Journal Foods

Specialty Biotechnology

Date 2020 Dec 30

PMID 33375684

Citations 3

Authors

Renyu Zhang

Michelle J Y Yoo

Carolina E Realini

Maryann Staincliffe

Mustafa M Farouk

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to produce in-bag dry-aged lamb and compare its meat quality, consumer acceptability, oxidative stability and in vitro digestibility to the wet-aged equivalents. Significantly higher pH, weight loss and reduced cook loss were observed in dry-aged lamb compared to the wet-aged ( < 0.0001). Dry-aged lamb had harder and chewier texture profiles and lower colour attributes (L*, a* and b*) than the wet-aged ( < 0.001). The dry-aged and wet-aged lamb were equally preferred (around 40% each) by the consumer panel, underpinning the niche nature of dry-aged meat. Significantly ( < 0.05) higher yeast and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TABRS) levels were observed in dry-aged lamb compared to the wet-aged. There was no difference in fatty acid profile, protein carbonyl content and pattern of proteolysis between ageing regimes ( > 0.05). Ageing regimes had no impact on overall digestibility; however, a greater gastric digestibility was observed in dry-aged lamb through the increased release of free amino acids (FAAs) compared to the wet-aged. Outcomes of this study demonstrated for the first time the possibility of producing dry-aged lamb legs of acceptable quality, oxidative stability and superior digestibility compared to the equivalent wet-aged lamb.

Citing Articles

Microbiological safety of aged meat.

Koutsoumanis K, Allende A, Alvarez-Ordonez A, Bover-Cid S, Chemaly M, De Cesare A EFSA J. 2023; 21(1):e07745.

PMID: 36698487 PMC: 9850206. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7745.

Active Packaging for the Extended Shelf-Life of Meat: Perspectives from Consumption Habits, Market Requirements and Packaging Practices in China and New Zealand.

Li X, Zhang R, Hassan M, Cheng Z, Mills J, Hou C Foods. 2022; 11(18).

PMID: 36141031 PMC: 9506090. DOI: 10.3390/foods11182903.

Effect of In Vitro Gastrointestinal Digestion on Amino Acids, Polyphenols and Antioxidant Capacity of Tamarillo Yoghurts.

Diep T, Yoo M, Rush E Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(5).

PMID: 35269670 PMC: 8910476. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23052526.

References

OQuinn T, Woerner D, Engle T, Chapman P, Legako J, Brooks J . Identifying consumer preferences for specific beef flavor characteristics in relation to cattle production and postmortem processing parameters. Meat Sci. 2015; 112:90-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.11.001. View

Khan M, Jo C, Tariq M . Meat flavor precursors and factors influencing flavor precursors--A systematic review. Meat Sci. 2015; 110:278-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.08.002. View

Oh H, Lee H, Lee J, Jo C, Yoon Y . Identification of Microorganisms Associated with the Quality Improvement of Dry-Aged Beef Through Microbiome Analysis and DNA Sequencing, and Evaluation of Their Effects on Beef Quality. J Food Sci. 2019; 84(10):2944-2954. DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.14813. View

Ahnstrom M, Seyfert M, Hunt M, Johnson D . Dry aging of beef in a bag highly permeable to water vapour. Meat Sci. 2011; 73(4):674-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.03.006. View

Estevez M . Protein carbonyls in meat systems: a review. Meat Sci. 2011; 89(3):259-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.04.025. View

McLafferty I . Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. J Adv Nurs. 2004; 48(2):187-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x. View

Brad Kim Y, Ma D, Setyabrata D, Farouk M, Lonergan S, Huff-Lonergan E . Understanding postmortem biochemical processes and post-harvest aging factors to develop novel smart-aging strategies. Meat Sci. 2018; 144:74-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.031. View

Silvester K, Cummings J . Does digestibility of meat protein help explain large bowel cancer risk?. Nutr Cancer. 1995; 24(3):279-88. DOI: 10.1080/01635589509514417. View

Lee H, Choe J, Kim M, Kim H, Yoon J, Oh S . Role of moisture evaporation in the taste attributes of dry- and wet-aged beef determined by chemical and electronic tongue analyses. Meat Sci. 2019; 151:82-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.02.001. View

10.

Brad Kim Y, Meyers B, Kim H, Liceaga A, Lemenager R . Effects of stepwise dry/wet-aging and freezing on meat quality of beef loins. Meat Sci. 2016; 123:57-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.09.002. View

11.

Zhang R, Yoo M, Farouk M . Oxidative stability, proteolysis, and in vitro digestibility of fresh and long-term frozen stored in-bag dry-aged lean beef. Food Chem. 2020; 344:128601. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128601. View

12.

Resconi V, Bueno M, Escudero A, Magalhaes D, Ferreira V, Campo M . Ageing and retail display time in raw beef odour according to the degree of lipid oxidation. Food Chem. 2017; 242:288-300. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.09.036. View

13.

Buege J, Aust S . Microsomal lipid peroxidation. Methods Enzymol. 1978; 52:302-10. DOI: 10.1016/s0076-6879(78)52032-6. View

14.

Berger J, Brad Kim Y, Legako J, Martini S, Lee J, Ebner P . Dry-aging improves meat quality attributes of grass-fed beef loins. Meat Sci. 2018; 145:285-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.004. View

15.

Rabiee F . Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc Nutr Soc. 2005; 63(4):655-60. DOI: 10.1079/pns2004399. View

16.

Brad Kim Y, Kemp R, Samuelsson L . Effects of dry-aging on meat quality attributes and metabolite profiles of beef loins. Meat Sci. 2015; 111:168-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.09.008. View

17.

Fricker G, Drewe J . Current concepts in intestinal peptide absorption. J Pept Sci. 1996; 2(4):195-211. DOI: 10.1002/psc.66. View

18.

Berardo A, Claeys E, Vossen E, Leroy F, De Smet S . Protein oxidation affects proteolysis in a meat model system. Meat Sci. 2015; 106:78-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.04.002. View

19.

Powell R, Single H . Focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 1996; 8(5):499-504. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/8.5.499. View

20.

Zhang R, Yoo M, Gathercole J, Reis M, Farouk M . Effect of animal age on the nutritional and physicochemical qualities of ovine bresaola. Food Chem. 2018; 254:317-325. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.02.031. View