The Determination of the Effect of Different Salting Times on the Sensory Properties of Beef Striploin

Abstract

This study examines the effects of salting beef striploin at different stages on sensory properties. Salt is critically important in meat products not only as a preservative but also as a flavor enhancer and texture improver. Four different salting times were compared in the research (control group with no salt, salting at the marination stage 24 hours before cooking, salting during cooking, and salting after cooking). Sensory analyses were conducted with 12 trained panelists using a 9-point hedonic scale to evaluate appearance, aroma, flavor, texture properties, and overall acceptability. The findings showed that samples salted at the marination stage received the highest scores in all sensory parameters except saltiness. These samples were found superior to other salting methods in terms of color, brightness, meat aroma intensity, meat flavor intensity, flavor balance, juiciness, tenderness, and overall acceptability. Correlation analysis revealed a very strong positive relationship (r = 0,94, P <0,01) between salting at the marination stage and overall acceptability. Samples salted after cooking showed the highest value only in the saltiness parameter but received low scores in other sensory properties. The results demonstrate that the long-term interaction of salt with meat causes positive changes in protein structure, increasing water-holding capacity, supporting the development of aroma compounds, and creating a more balanced flavor profile. This study scientifically establishes that salting during the marination stage is the most effective method for optimizing the sensory quality of meat products..

Keywords

• Beef striploin
• salting time
• sensory properties
• marination
• meat quality

Farklı Tuzlama Zamanlarının Sığır Kontrfilesinin Duyusal Özellikleri Üzerindeki Etkisinin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, sığır kontrfilesinin farklı evrelerde tuzlanmasının duyusal özellikler üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Tuz, et ürünlerinde sadece koruyucu değil, aynı zamanda lezzet geliştirici ve tekstürel özellikleri iyileştirici olarak da kritik öneme sahiptir. Araştırmada dört farklı uygulama (tuzsuz hazırlanan kontrol grubu, pişirmeden 24 saat önce marinasyon aşamasında tuzlama, pişirme sırasında tuzlama ve pişirme sonrası tuzlama) karşılaştırılmıştır. Eğitimli 12 panelistin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilen duyusal analizlerde 9 puanlık hedonik skala kullanılarak görünüş, koku, lezzet, tekstür özellikleri ve genel kabul edilebilirlik değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, marinasyon aşamasında tuzlanan örneklerin tuzluluk dışındaki tüm duyusal parametrelerde en yüksek puanları aldığını göstermiştir. Bu örnekler renk, parlaklık, et kokusu yoğunluğu, et tadı yoğunluğu, lezzet dengesi, sululuk, yumuşaklık ve genel kabul edilebilirlik açısından diğer uygulamalara göre üstün bulunmuştur. Korelasyon analizi, marinasyon aşamasında tuzlama ile genel kabul edilebilirlik arasında çok güçlü pozitif bir ilişki (r=0,94) olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Pişirme sonrası tuzlanan örnekler sadece tuzluluk parametresinde en yüksek değeri göstermiş, ancak diğer duyusal özelliklerde düşük puanlar almıştır. Sonuçlar, tuzun etle uzun süre etkileşiminin protein yapısında olumlu değişikliklere neden olarak su tutma kapasitesini artırdığını, aroma bileşenlerinin gelişimini desteklediğini ve daha dengeli bir lezzet profili oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, et ürünlerinin duyusal kalitesini optimize etmek için tuzlama işleminin marinasyon aşamasında yapılmasının en etkili yöntem olduğunu bilimsel verilerle ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Dana kontrfile
• tuzlama zamanı
• duyusal özellikler
• marinasyon
• et kalitesi

References

1. American Meat Science Association. (2016). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of meat (2. baskı). https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/research-guide/amsa-research-guidelines-for-cookery-and-evaluation-1-02.pdf?sfvrsn=4c6b8eb3_2
2. Bejerholm, C., Tørngren, M. A., Aaslyng, M. D. (2014). Cooking of meat. M. Dikeman, C. Devine (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences içinde (s. 370–376). Academic Press. Bowers, J. A., Craig, J. A., Kropf, D. H., Tucker, T. J. (1987). Flavor, color, and other characteristics of beef longissimus muscle heated to seven internal temperatures between 55° and 85°C. Journal of Food Science, 52(3), 533–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb06668.x
3. Desmond, E. (2006). Reducing salt: A challenge for the meat industry. Meat Science, 74(1), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.014
4. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications.
5. Fuke, S., Ueda, Y. (1996). Interactions between umami and other flavor characteristics. Trends in Food Science Technology, 7(12), 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(96)10042-X
6. Güner, A., Atasever, M. (2010). Et ürünleri üretim teknolojisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Yayın Ünitesi.
7. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice.
8. ISO. (2007). ISO 8589:2007 Sensory analysis – General guidance for the design of test rooms. International Organization for Standardization.

9. ISO. (2012). ISO 8586:2012 Sensory analysis — General guidelines for the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
10. ISO. (2016). ISO 13299:2016 Sensory analysis—Methodology—General guidance for establishing a sensory profile. International Organization for Standardization.
11. Kemp, S. E., Hollowood, T., Hort, J. (2009). Sensory evaluation: A practical handbook. Wiley-Blackwell.
12. Kerry, J. P., Kerry, J. F., Ledward, D. (2009). Meat Processing: Improving Quality. Woodhead Publishing.
13. Köster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14(5–6), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00017-X
14. Lawless, H. T., Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices. Springer.
15. Lawrie, R. A., Ledward, D. A. (2014). Lawrie's meat science (8. baskı). Woodhead Publishing.
16. MacFie, H. J., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, K., Vallis, L. V. (1989). Designs to balance the effect of order presentation and first-order carryover effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 4(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1989.tb00463.x
17. Mancini, R. A., Hunt, M. C. (2005). Current research in meat color. Meat Science, 71(1), 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.03.003
18. McAfee, A. J., McSorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J. M., Bonham, M. P., Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Science, 84(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.029
19. Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V., Carr, B. T. (2016). Sensory evaluation techniques. CRC Press.
20. Næs, T., Brockhoff, P. B., Tomic, O. (2010). Statistics for sensory and consumer science. Wiley.
21. OECD/FAO (2021). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030 içinde (s. 163-177). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19428846-en
22. O'Mahony, M. (2017). Sensory evaluation of food: Statistical methods and procedures. Routledge.
23. Peryam, D. R., Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology, 11(S1), 9–14.
24. Razali, N. M., Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33.
25. Ruusunen, M., Puolanne, E. (2005). Reducing sodium intake from meat products. Meat Science, 70(3), 531-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.016
26. Sans, P., Combris, P. (2015). World meat consumption patterns: An overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011). Meat Science, 109, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.012
27. Sebranek, J. G. (2009). Basic curing ingredients. R. Tarté (Dü.) içinde, Handbook of meat processing (s. 79-90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71327-4_1
28. Shapiro, S. S., Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples) . Biometrika, 52(3-4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
29. Stone, H., Sidel, J. L. (2004). Sensory evaluation practices. Elsevier.
30. Stone, H., Bleibaum, R., Thomas, H. (2012). Sensory evaluation practices. Academic Press.
31. Toldrá, F. (2021). Handbook of meat processing. Wiley-Blackwell.
32. Toldrá, F., Reig, M. (2011). Innovations for healthier processed meats. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(9), 517–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.08.007
33. Troy, D. J., Kerry, J. P. (2010). Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry. Meat Science, 86(1), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.05.009
34. United States Department of Agriculture. (2020). Safe minimum internal temperature chart. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/safe-temperature-chart
35. Verbeke, W., Pérez-Cueto, F. J., Barcellos, M. D., Krystallis, A., Grunert, K. G. (2010). European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science, 84(2), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.05.001
36. Williams, P. (2007). Nutritional composition of red meat. Nutrition & Dietetics, 64(s4), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00197.x
37. World Medical Association. (2013). World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053