基于消费者喜好性评价宰后不同阶段羊肉食用品质差异

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.18.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】基于消费者喜好性评价,探究宰后不同阶段羊肉食用品质差异,明确僵直前期、最大僵直期、解僵成熟期羊肉涮制、烤制、煮制、炒制特性,为我国羊肉食用品质科学评价和优质羊肉生产提供参考。【方法】选取8月龄小尾寒羊僵直前期、最大僵直期、解僵成熟期的牡蛎、外脊、霖肉、米龙4个部位肉,经涮制、烤制、煮制、炒制后进行消费者喜好性评价,对羊肉的嫩度、多汁性、风味、总体喜好性进行评分,利用线性判别分析确定羊肉食用品质综合评价方程（Meat Quality,4 variables,MQ4）和等级划分方法,分析不同烹饪方式下宰后不同阶段羊肉消费者喜好性评分和食用品质等级。【结果】羊肉涮制后,僵直前期的外脊和米龙嫩度、风味、总体喜好性、食用品质综合得分（MQ4）高于最大僵直期和解僵成熟期的样品（P<0.05）,宰后不同阶段的牡蛎和霖肉消费者评分差异不显著（P>0.05）。羊肉烤制后,僵直前期的牡蛎和解僵成熟期米龙的嫩度、总体喜好性、MQ4评分高于最大僵直期的样品（P<0.05）,宰后不同阶段的外脊和霖肉消费者评分差异不显著（P>0.05）。羊肉煮制后,解僵成熟期的霖肉多汁性、总体喜好性评分高于僵直前期和最大僵直期的样品（P<0.05）,宰后不同阶段的牡蛎、外脊、米龙消费者评分差异不显著（P>0.05）。羊肉炒制后,僵直前期和解僵成熟期的牡蛎嫩度、总体喜好性、MQ4评分高于最大僵直期的样品（P<0.05）,僵直前期的外脊嫩度、风味、总体喜好性、MQ4评分高于最大僵直期和解僵成熟期的样品（P<0.05）,宰后不同阶段的霖肉和米龙消费者评分差异不显著（P>0.05）。僵直前期（5星级：0%—8.33%;4星级：47.83%—72.22%）与解僵成熟期（5星级：0%—8.70%;4星级：52.78%—58.33%）的羊肉经涮制、烤制、煮制、炒制后优级（5星级）和良好级（4星级）的比例高于最大僵直期的样品（5星级：0%;4星级：35.90%—47.83%）,僵直前期与解僵成熟期的羊肉没有出现消费者不满意（2星级）的样品,最大僵直期的羊肉烤制和煮制后分别有4.17%和4.35%的样品为2星级。【结论】基于消费者喜好性评价研究,僵直前期和解僵成熟期的羊肉经涮制、烤制、煮制、炒制烹饪后的食用品质得分、优级和良好级肉的比例高于最大僵直期的样品,僵直前期和解僵成熟期的羊肉均受消费者的青睐。

关键词: 羊肉, 食用品质, 消费者评价, 宰后不同阶段, 烹饪方式

Abstract:

【Objective】The eating quality of lamb in pre-rigor, rigor mortis and post-rigor phases was investigated by using consumers’ sensory evaluation to understand the differences of eating quality characteristics of lamb in different postmortem phases under instant boiling, roasting, boiling and stir-frying conditions, which was expected to provide the reference for lamb quality evaluation and high-quality meat production.【Method】The oyster cut, short loin, knuckle and silverside in per-rigor, rigor mortis and post-rigor phases were obtained from small-tail Han sheep (male, 8 months old). The sensory attributes (including tenderness, juiciness, flavor and overall liking) of lamb after instant boiling, roasting, boiling and stir-frying were evaluated by consumers. The MQ4 (Meat Quality, 4 variables) equation and the grades boundaries were determined by linear discriminant analysis, which were used to analyze the preference score and eating quality grade of lamb.【Result】After instant boiling, the short loin and silverside in pre-rigor had higher tenderness, flavor and MQ4 scores than those in rigor mortis and post-rigor phases (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in consumers’ scores of oyster cut and knuckle in different postmortem phases (P>0.05). After roasting, the oyster cut in per-rigor and the silverside in post-rigor phase had higher tenderness, juiciness, overall liking and MQ4 scores than those in rigor mortis (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in consumers’ scores of short loin and knuckle in different postmortem phases (P>0.05). After boiling, the juiciness and overall liking scores of knuckle in post-rigor were higher than those in per-rigor and rigor mortis phases (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in consumers’ scores of oyster cut, short loin and silverside in different postmortem phases (P>0.05). After stir-frying, the tenderness, overall liking and MQ4 scores of oyster cut in pre-rigor and post-rigor were higher than those in rigor mortis, while the tenderness, flavor, overall liking and MQ4 scores of short loin in pre-rigor were higher than those in rigor mortis and post-rigor (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in consumers’ scores of knuckle and silverside in different postmortem phases (P>0.05). The premium quality (4star) and good quality (5star) samples were higher in pre-rigor (5star: 0%-8.33%; 4star: 47.83%-72.22%) and post-rigor (5star: 0%-8.70%: 4star: 52.78%-58.33%). There were no unsatisfactory quality (2star) samples in pre-rigor and post-rigor phases, while 4.17% and 4.35% of the samples in rigor mortis were 2star after roasting and boiling, respectively. 【Conclusion】In general, the pre-rigor and post-rigor lamb had a superior eating quality to rigor mortis lamb based on consumers’ sensory evaluation, and the pre-rigor and post-rigor lamb were preferred by Chinese consumers.

Key words: lamb, eating quality, consumers’ sensory evaluation, different postmortem phases, cooking methods

葛岳,张德权,李少博,陈丽,郑晓春,梁策,颜统晶,李金活,王振宇. 基于消费者喜好性评价宰后不同阶段羊肉食用品质差异[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(18): 3640-3651.

Yue GE,DeQuan ZHANG,ShaoBo LI,Li CHEN,XiaoChun ZHENG,Ce LIANG,TongJing YAN,JinHuo LI,ZhenYu WANG. Eating Quality Evaluation of Lamb in Different Postmortem Phases Based on Consumers’ Sensory Preferences[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(18): 3640-3651.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.18.013

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2022/V55/I18/3640

图/表 7

图1

表1

宰后不同阶段羊肉消费者喜好性评分"

烹饪方式 Cooking method	部位 Cut	宰后阶段 Postmortem phase	嫩度 Tenderness	多汁性 Juiciness	风味 Flavor	总体喜好 Overall liking
涮制 Instant boiled	牡蛎 Oyster cut	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	60.39±6.78Aa	57.75±5.3Aa	59.70±5.21Aa	63.28±6.93Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	57.20±7.42Aa	54.87±7.85Aa	54.59±6.06Aa	58.65±5.82Aa
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	61.96±6.43Aa	60.90±3.48Aa	57.05±3.84Aa	60.23±4.05Aa
	外脊 Short loin	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	55.05±9.34Aab	53.33±7.24Aab	56.99±6.37Aa	57.18±11.28Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	42.78±9.42Bb	46.71±8.95Aa	45.77±6.84Bc	47.35±6.71Bc
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	36.44±3.78Bb	44.25±7.32Ac	42.66±7.30Bb	41.95±8.09Bc
	霖肉 Knuckle	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	55.49±8.75Aab	50.53±7.43Aab	57.30±9.39Aa	59.70±6.83Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	49.11±5.68Ab	51.49±6.74Aa	52.75±5.61Aab	55.19±5.01Aab
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	54.04±10.21Aa	51.72±8.11Ab	55.17±4.29Aa	58.73±7.11Aa
	米龙 Silverside	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	51.27±10.01Ab	48.66±8.22Ab	57.88±6.48Aa	59.91±5.35Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	48.66±5.57ABb	50.45±7.58Aa	47.80±6.91Bbc	51.00±7.51Bbc
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	41.34±8.10Bb	45.27±3.18Ac	46.60±5.93Bb	48.83±5.21Bb
烤制 Roasted	牡蛎 Oyster cut	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	68.28±5.26Aa	64.22±4.28Aa	67.24±4.53Aa	70.41±4.10Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	54.33±8.98Ba	51.59±6.03Ba	63.76±2.13Aa	65.01±2.42Ba
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	65.16±5.65Aa	61.32±5.55Aa	64.45±2.72Aa	66.27±4.01ABa
	外脊 Short loin	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	48.32±7.09Ab	37.35±5.35Ac	57.67±4.07Abc	56.92±7.33Abc
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	40.38±4.61Ab	40.37±7.75Ab	51.05±5.87Ab	49.52±7.50Ab
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	49.65±7.08Ab	45.69±5.81Ac	56.69±5.25Ab	55.93±6.21Ab
	霖肉 Knuckle	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	61.28±3.59Aa	55.64±7.77Aab	64.01±6.62Aab	63.87±7.29Aab
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	51.26±4.52Ba	50.11±3.43Aa	57.95±4.24Aa	58.81±3.57Aa
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	62.44±10.67Aa	54.13±6.49Ab	59.47±6.22Aab	63.10±7.63Aab
	米龙 Silverside	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	39.24±8.7Bb	48.92±7.99Ab	55.65±4.73Ac	54.45±6.61ABc
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	40.66±3.94Bb	46.98±7.50Aab	50.94±7.48Ab	47.25±7.57Bb
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	52.53±3.39Ab	52.24±4.67Abc	53.82±6.35Ab	57.05±6.33Ab
煮制 Boiled	牡蛎 Oyster cut	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	51.59±7.97Aa	54.41±5.25Aa	60.71±3.98Aa	60.12±5.62Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	61.23±14.21Aa	61.90±9.69Aa	61.43±5.97Aa	60.27±6.69Aa
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	65.22±8.24Aa	61.06±5.46Aa	63.04±3.06Aa	66.16±2.50Aa
	外脊 Short loin	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	34.63±6.51Bb	43.77±3.55Ab	57.64±3.77Aa	53.56±3.08Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	44.22±7.03Ab	44.3±6.18Ab	54.14±4.00Aa	51.12±9.58Aa
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	42.72±9.27ABb	46.41±7.06Ab	56.95±4.52Aab	54.22±8.57Ab
	霖肉 Knuckle	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	39.56±6.33Ab	42.49±3.29Bb	58.93±7.59Aa	52.59±7.22Ba
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	49.49±6.39Ab	44.63±6.94Bb	56.20±7.48Aa	53.80±7.63Ba
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	57.07±11.77Aa	53.52±5.69Aab	62.71±6.79Aa	65.11±8.41Aa
	米龙 Silverside	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	38.73±10.16Ab	45.04±9.37Ab	56.59±6.52Aa	54.41±8.73Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	39.57±5.09Ab	44.27±4.73Ab	53.77±5.76Aa	52.13±6.87Aa
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	41.45±4.82Ab	45.87±6.87Ab	55.75±3.66Ab	53.15±4.92Ab
炒制 Stir-fried	牡蛎 Oyster cut	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	70.97±6.32Aa	58.81±8.18Aa	63.13±8.65Aab	67.78±7.71Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	51.28±5.99Ba	50.92±6.67Aa	56.69±4.84Aa	56.28±4.04Bab
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	61.57±8.09Aa	58.80±4.27Aa	62.03±5.94Aa	64.80±4.85Aa
	外脊 Short loin	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	59.62±6.87Ab	55.42±7.32Aa	62.95±8.18Aab	64.25±7.15Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	40.54±6.75Cb	45.04±6.47Ba	52.03±6.70Ba	49.28±8.57Bb
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	48.78±6.27Bbc	53.36±7.33ABa	54.06±4.73Bbc	55.67±4.89ABbc
	霖肉 Knuckle	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	59.18±5.58Ab	56.43±7.34Aa	64.41±5.87Aa	67.18±7.36Aa
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	48.72±6.68Ba	49.85±6.05Aa	55.65±5.21Ba	57.49±3.42Ba
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	54.62±9.37ABab	52.20±7.80Aa	60.32±6.50ABab	61.03±8.60ABab
	米龙 Silverside	僵直前期 Pre-rigor	47.18±8.30Ac	46.65±5.80Ab	54.53±5.31Ab	52.74±6.60Ab
		最大僵直期 Rigor mortis	46.56±5.52Aab	51.08±5.37Aa	54.13±4.25Aa	51.7±4.97Aab
		解僵成熟期 Post-rigor	40.68±1.18Ac	53.67±5.39Aa	53.29±4.66Ac	51.50±5.66Ac

表1

表2

表3

图2

图3

图4

参考文献 36

[1]	张德权, 侯成立. 热鲜肉与冷却肉品质差异之管见. 肉类研究, 2020, 34(5): 83-90. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20200220-041. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20200220-041
	ZHANG D Q, HOU C L. Humble opinion on the quality difference between hot meat and chilled meat. Meat Research, 2020, 34(5): 83-90. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20200220-041. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20200220-041
[2]	XIAO X, HOU C L, ZHANG D Q, LI X, REN C, IJAZ M, HUSSAIN Z, LIU D Y. Effect of pre- and post-rigor on texture, flavor, heterocyclic aromatic amines and sensory evaluation of roasted lamb. Meat Science, 2020, 169: 108220. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108220. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108220
[3]	COLLE M J, RICHARD R P, KILLINGER K M, BOHLSCHEID J C, GRAY A R, LOUCKS W I, DAY R N, COCHRAN A S, NASADOS J A, DOUMIT M E. Influence of extended aging on beef quality characteristics and sensory perception of steaks from the biceps femoris and semimembranosus. Meat Science, 2016, 119: 110-117. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.028. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.028
[4]	KIM Y H B, MA D, SETYABRATA D, FAROUK M M, LONERGAN S M, HUFF-LONERGAN E, HUNT M C. Understanding postmortem biochemical processes and post-harvest aging factors to develop novel smart-aging strategies. Meat Science, 2018, 144: 74-90. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.031. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.031
[5]	GEESINK G, SUJANG S, KOOHMARAIE M. Tenderness of pre- and post rigor lamb longissimus muscle. Meat Science, 2011, 88(4): 723-726. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.03.003. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.03.003
[6]	LANG Y M, SHA K, ZHANG R, XIE P, LUO X, SUN B Z, LI H, ZHANG L, ZHANG S, LIU X. Effect of electrical stimulation and hot boning on the eating quality of Gannan yak longissimus lumborum. Meat Science, 2016, 112: 3-8. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.10.011. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.10.011
[7]	SUKUMARAN A T, HOLTCAMP A J, CAMPBELL Y L, BURNETT D, SCHILLING M W, DINH T T N. Technological characteristics of pre- and post-rigor deboned beef mixtures from Holstein steers and quality attributes of cooked beef sausage. Meat Science, 2018, 145: 71-78. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.001. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.001
[8]	GE Y, ZHANG D Q, ZHANG H M, LI X, FANG F, LIANG C, WANG Z Y. Effect of postmortem phases on lamb meat quality: A physicochemical, microstructural and water mobility approach. Food Science of Animal Resources, 2021, 41(5): 802-815. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2021.e37. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2021.e37
[9]	郭兆斌, 余群力, 陈骋, 韩玲, 孔祥颖, 石红梅. 宰后牦牛肉水分分布变化与持水性能关系研究. 农业机械学报, 2019, 50(10): 343-351.
	GUO Z B, YU Q L, CHEN C, HAN L, KONG X Y, SHI H M. Relationship between water distribution change and water retention properties of yak meat during postmortem aging. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2019, 50(10): 343-351. (in Chinese)
[10]	DEVINE C, WELLS R, LOWE T, WALLER J. Pre-rigor temperature and the relationship between lamb tenderisation, free water production, bound water and dry matter. Meat Science, 2014, 96(1): 321-326. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.024. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.024
[11]	ONOPIUK A, PóŁTORAK A, WIERZBICKA A. The impact of muscle and aging time on meat tenderness in the carcasses of Limousin×Holstein-Friesian crossbred bulls. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 2018, 42(6): e13619. doi: 10.1111/jfpp.13619
[12]	WHEELER T L, KOOHMARAIE M. Prerigor and postrigor changes in tenderness of ovine longissimus muscle2. Journal of Animal Science, 1994, 72(5): 1232-1238. doi: 10.2527/1994.7251232x. doi: 10.2527/1994.7251232x
[13]	LI K, ZHANG Y M, MAO Y W, CORNFORTH D, DONG P C, WANG R H, ZHU H, LUO X. Effect of very fast chilling and aging time on ultra-structure and meat quality characteristics of Chinese Yellow cattle M. Longissimus lumborum. Meat Science, 2012, 92(4): 795-804. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.07.003. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.07.003
[14]	肖雄, 侯成立, 李欣, 郑晓春, 张德权, 任驰, 摆玉蔷, 颜统晶, 刘登勇. 宰后贮藏过程中羔羊肉食用品质的变化. 肉类研究, 2019, 33(9): 53-58. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20190625-145. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20190625-145
	XIAO X, HOU C L, LI X, ZHENG X C, ZHANG D Q, REN C, BAI Y Q, YAN T J, LIU D Y. Changes in eating quality of lamb during postmortem storage. Meat Research, 2019, 33(9): 53-58. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20190625-145. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-20190625-145
[15]	YU P G, LOW M Y, ZHOU W B. Design of experiments and regression modelling in food flavor and sensory analysis: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2018, 71: 202-215.
[16]	TORRICO D D, HUTCHINGS S C, HA M, BITTNER E P, FUENTES S, WARNER R D, DUNSHEA F R. Novel techniques to understand consumer responses towards food products: a review with a focus on meat. Meat Science, 2018, 144: 30-42. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.006. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.006
[17]	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 Science, 2020, 161: 107953. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107953. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107953
[18]	BONNY S P F, O'REILLY R A, PETHICK D W, GARDNER G E, HOCQUETTE J F, PANNIER L. Update of Meat Standards Australia and the cuts based grading scheme for beef and sheepmeat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2018, 17(7): 1641-1654. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(18)61924-0
[19]	LEGRAND I, HOCQUETTE J F, POLKINGHORNE R J, PETHICK D W. Prediction of beef eating quality in France using the Meat Standards Australia system. Animal, 2013, 7(3): 524-529. doi: 10.1017/s1751731112001553. doi: 10.1017/s1751731112001553
[20]	BREWER S, NOVAKOFSKI J. Consumer sensory evaluations of aging effects on beef quality. Journal of Food Science, 2008, 73(1): S78-S82. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00575.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00575.x.
[21]	POLKINGHORNE R J, NISHIMURA T, NEATH K E, WATSON R. A comparison of Japanese and Australian consumers' sensory perceptions of beef. Animal Science Journal, 2014, 85(1): 69-74. doi: 10.1111/asj.12081. doi: 10.1111/asj.12081
[22]	张德权, 李淑荣, 张洪恩, 李庆鹏, 周洪杰, 王锋, 哈益明, 杨远剑. NY/T 1564-2007羊肉分割技术规范. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007.
	ZHANG D Q, LI S R, ZHANG H E, LI Q P, ZHOU H J, WANG F, HA Y M, YANG Y J. NY/T 1564-2007 Cutting technical specification of mutton. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2007. (in Chinese)
[23]	高玲玲, 王振宇, 张彩霞, 李铮, 张德权. 欧拉型藏羊肉的涮制加工特性. 肉类研究, 2017, 31(2): 16-20. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-201702004. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-201702004
	GAO L L, WANG Z Y, ZHANG C X, LI Z, ZHANG D Q. Instant boiling characteristics of oula Tibetan sheep meat. Meat Research, 2017, 31(2): 16-20. doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-201702004. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/rlyj1001-8123-201702004
[24]	宋洁, 侯成立, 王振宇, 余群力, 张德权. 不同月龄羊肉原料肉品质与涮食羊肉品质的关系. 食品科学, 2017, 38(5): 154-159. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201705025. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201705025
	SONG J, HOU C L, WANG Z Y, YU Q L, ZHANG D Q. Relationship between raw mutton quality and instant-boiled mutton quality from sheep at different months of age. Food Science, 2017, 38(5): 154-159. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201705025. (in Chinese) doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201705025
[25]	王振宇, 纪建新, 张德权. 欧拉型藏羊肉的炖煮加工特性. 肉类研究, 2017, 31(5): 1-4.
	WANG Z Y, JI J X, ZHANG D Q. Water boiling properties of Tibetan oula sheep meat. Meat Research, 2017, 31(5): 1-4. (in Chinese)
[26]	CHEN R X, ZHANG D Q, LIU H, WANG Z Y, HUI T. Potential alternative to nitrite in roasted lamb for sensory attributes: Atmospheric nonthermal plasma treatment. Foods, 2021, 10(6): 1234. doi: 10.3390/foods10061234. doi: 10.3390/foods10061234
[27]	WATSON R, POLKINGHORNE R, THOMPSON J M. Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2008, 48(11): 1368-1379. doi: 10.1071/EA07184
[28]	肖雄, 张德权, 李铮, 李欣, 任驰, Zubair Hussain, 刘登勇, 侯成立. 宰后僵直和解僵过程羊肉风味品质分析. 现代食品科技, 2019, 35(6): 287-294. doi: 10.13982/j.mfst.1673-9078.2019.6.038. doi: 10.13982/j.mfst.1673-9078.2019.6.038
	XIAO X, ZHANG D Q, LI Z, LI X, REN C, HUSSAIN Z, LIU D Y, HOU C L. Analysis of flavor quality of pre-and post-rigor lamb. Modern Food Science and Technology, 2019, 35(6): 287-294. doi: 10.13982/j.mfst.1673-9078.2019.6.038. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13982/j.mfst.1673-9078.2019.6.038
[29]	WU J Y, MILLS E W, HENNING W R. Postmortem delay time and heating rate affect tenderness and ultrastructure of pre-rigor cooked bovine muscle. Journal of Food Science, 1995, 60(3): 565-570. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1995.tb09828.x
[30]	ERTBJERG P, PUOLANNE E. Muscle structure, sarcomere length and influences on meat quality: A review. Meat Science, 2017, 132: 139-152. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.261. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.261
[31]	PEARCE K L, ROSENVOLD K, ANDERSEN H J, HOPKINS D L. Water distribution and mobility in meat during the conversion of muscle to meat and ageing and the impacts on fresh meat quality attributes: a review. Meat Science, 2011, 89(2): 111-124. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.04.007. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.04.007
[32]	IJAZ M, LI X, ZHANG D, HUSSAIN Z, REN C, BAI Y, ZHENG X. Association between meat color of DFD beef and other quality attributes. Meat Science, 2020, 161: 107954. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107954. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107954
[33]	KHAN M I, JO C, TARIQ M R. Meat flavor precursors and factors influencing flavor precursors: A systematic review. Meat Science, 2015, 110: 278-284. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.08.002. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.08.002
[34]	BELDARRAIN L R, SENTANDREU M Á, BARRON L J R, ALDAI N. Effect of ageing time on the volatile compounds from cooked horse meat. Meat Science, 2021, 184: 108692. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108692. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108692
[35]	MCCARTHY S N, HENCHION M, WHITE A, BRANDON K, ALLEN P. Evaluation of beef eating quality by Irish consumers. Meat Science, 2017, 132: 118-124. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.05.005. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.05.005
[36]	LI G X, LI Z, LI X, WANG Y, ZHU J, ZHANG D Q. Postmortem ageing influences the thawed meat quality of frozen lamb loins. Food Chemistry, 2019, 275: 105-112. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.095. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.095

烹饪方式 Cooking method	指标 Attribute	P值 P value
烹饪方式 Cooking method	指标 Attribute	宰后阶段 Postmortem phase	部位 Cut	宰后阶段×部位 Postmortem phases×cuts
涮制 Instant boiled	嫩度 Tenderness	0.023	0.000	0.093
	多汁性 Juiciness	0.481	0.003	0.427
	风味 Flavor	0.000	0.001	0.398
	总体喜好 Overall liking	0.000	0.000	0.334
烤制 Roasted	嫩度 Tenderness	0.001	0.000	0.319
	多汁性 Juiciness	0.027	0.000	0.516
	风味 Flavor	0.028	0.000	0.986
	总体喜好 Overall liking	0.025	0.000	0.479
煮制 Boiled	嫩度 Tenderness	0.002	0.000	0.216
	多汁性 Juiciness	0.037	0.000	0.761
	风味 Flavor	0.107	0.179	0.311
	总体喜好 Overall liking	0.000	0.009	0.221
炒制 Stir-fried	嫩度 Tenderness	0.002	0.001	0.168
	多汁性 Juiciness	0.042	0.121	0.146
	风味 Flavor	0.011	0.033	0.320
	总体喜好 Overall liking	0.000	0.000	0.229

烹饪方式 Cooking method		MQ4方程 MQ4 function
涮制 Instant boiled		MQ4=0.14嫩度+0.09多汁性+0.05风味+0.72总体喜好性
涮制 Instant boiled		MQ4 = 0.14 Tenderness + 0.09 Juiciness + 0.05 Flavor + 0.72 Overall liking
烤制 Roasted		MQ4=0.10嫩度+0.04多汁性+0.20风味+0.66总体喜好性
烤制 Roasted		MQ4 = 0.10 Tenderness + 0.04 Juiciness + 0.20 Flavor + 0.66 Overall liking
煮制 Boiled		MQ4=0.14嫩度+0.06多汁性+0.28风味+0.52总体喜好性
煮制 Boiled		MQ4 = 0.14 Tenderness + 0.06 Juiciness + 0.28 Flavor + 0.52 Overall liking
炒制 Stir-fried		MQ4=0.10嫩度+0.11多汁性+0.19风味+0.60总体喜好性
炒制 Stir-fried		MQ4 = 0.10 Tenderness + 0.11 Juiciness + 0.19 Flavor + 0.60 Overall liking