不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品品质的影响

孟祥忍; 刘宗振; 吴鹏; 许志诚; 王恒鹏; 高子武; 吴丹璇; 高苏敏; 张桓; 张泰立

doi:10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022060245

不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品品质的影响

doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022060245

孟祥忍^{1, 2,},
刘宗振¹,
吴鹏^{1, 2},
许志诚^{1, 2},
王恒鹏^{1, 2},
高子武¹,
吴丹璇¹,
高苏敏¹,
张桓¹,
张泰立¹

1.
扬州大学旅游烹饪学院·食品科学与工程学院，江苏扬州 225127
2.
中餐非遗技艺传承文化和旅游部重点实验室，江苏扬州 225127

基金项目: 中国营养学会百胜餐饮健康基金项目（CNS-YUM2020A17）；扬州市“绿扬金凤计划”领军人才资助项目；扬州大学“青蓝工程”资助项目。

详细信息

作者简介:
孟祥忍（1976−）（ORCID：0000−0003−1255−1216），男，博士，教授，研究方向：动源性食品加工技术，E-mail：xrmeng@yzu.edu.cn

中图分类号: TS251.5⁺5
计量
- 文章访问数: 19
- HTML全文浏览量: 11
- PDF下载量: 0
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-06-27
- 刊出日期: 2023-05-01

Effects of Different Pickling Methods on the Quality of Yangzhou Salted Geese Pre-products

1.
School of Tourism and Cuisine School of Food Science and Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Chinese Cuisine Intangible Cultural Heritage Technology Inheritance, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Yangzhou 225127, China

摘要

摘要: 为改进盐水鹅预制品的品质，试验设置以下处理组：滚揉超声复合腌制法（G+C处理组）、滚揉腌制法（G处理组）、超声腌制法（C处理组）、加盐滚揉腌制法（G+NaCl处理组）和常规湿腌法（常规处理组），以肉色、持水力、脂肪氧化值、质构、感官评价、微观结构、脂肪酸等为评价指标，探究超声处理、滚揉处理对盐水鹅预制品品质的影响。结果表明：G+NaCl处理组的肉色鲜亮，持水力最好。常规处理组TBARS值最低，经过滚揉、超声处理的其他处理组的脂肪氧化程度均高于常规处理组。感官评价及质构结果表明G+NaCl处理组的弹性和咀嚼性为最佳。各处理组共检测出8种脂肪酸，饱和脂肪酸（SFA）2种、不饱和脂肪酸（UFA）6种；单不饱和脂肪酸（MUFA）和多不饱和脂肪酸（PUFA）各为3种。其中C处理组、G+NaCl处理组和G+C处理组的脂肪酸总量相近，且G+C的脂肪酸总量最小。综上，G+NaCl处理组是最优组。
- 扬州盐水鹅 /
- 滚揉腌制 /
- 超声波腌制 /
- 脂肪氧化 /
- 质构 /
- 脂肪酸
Abstract: To improve the quality of brine goose pre-products, the following treatment groups were set up in the experiment: Tumbling ultrasonic compound marination method (G+C treatment group), tumbling marination method (G treatment group), ultrasonic marination method (C treatment group), tumbling marination method with salt (G+NaCl treatment group), and conventional wet marination method (conventional treatment group) to investigate the effects of ultrasonic treatment and tumbling treatment on the quality of brine goose pre-products with meat color, water holding capacity, fat oxidation value, texture, sensory evaluation, microstructure, and fatty acid as evaluation indexes. The results showed that the G+NaCl treated group had bright meat color and the best water holding capacity. The conventional treatment group had the lowest TBARS value, and the fat oxidation in the other treatment groups after tumbling and ultrasonic treatment was higher than that of the conventional treatment group. The results of sensory evaluation and texture showed that the elasticity and chewiness of the G+NaCl treated group were the best. A total of eight fatty acids were detected in each treatment group, two saturated fatty acids (SFA), six unsaturated fatty acids (UFA), three monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), and three polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) each. The total fatty acids of the C treatment group, G+NaCl treatment group and G+C treatment group were similar, and the total fatty acids of G+C were the smallest. In conclusion, the G+NaCl treatment group was the optimal group.
- Yangzhou salted goose /
- rolling curing /
- ultrasonic curing /
- fat oxidation /
- texture /
- fatty acid

HTML全文

图 1 不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品持水力的影响

Figure 1. Effects of different pickling methods on water holding capacity of Yangzhou salted geese pre-products

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品TBARS的影响

Figure 2. Effects of different pickling methods on TBARS of Yangzhou salted geese pre-products

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品感官的影响

Figure 3. Effects of different pickling methods on senses of Yangzhou salted geese pre-products

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品微观结构的影响

Figure 4. Effects of different pickling methods on microstructure of Yangzhou salted geese pre-products

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 感官评价标准

Table 1. Sensory evaluation criteria

指标	评分标准	分值
色泽	切面有光泽，表面深红	16~25
	切面光泽一般，表面暗红	9~15
	切面无光泽，表面暗红，颜色暗沉	0~8
香味	香味浓郁，有鹅肉及香料特有香气	16~25
	香味较淡，仅有香料的香气	9~15
	略有腐味或无香味	0~8
质地	用手按压质地紧密，有弹性	16~25
	质地较紧密，弹性较低	9~15
	质地松散，没有弹性	0~8
组织状态	取鹅肉切开，鹅肉完整，组织紧密	16~25
	鹅肉较完整，不松散	9~15
	鹅肉不完整，边缘松散	0~8

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品肉色的影响

Table 2. Effects of different pickling methods on meat color of Yangzhou salted geese pre-products

腌制方式	L^*	b^*	a^*
G+C	55.76±0.01^d	5.33±0.03^d	12.92±0.03^b
G	58.73±0.02^c	5.26±0.01^e	10.73±0.02^e
C	60.62±0.03^b	5.90±0.02^c	12.28±0.01^d
G+NaCl	61.48±0.02^a	5.98±0.01^b	12.51±0.01^c
常规	53.92±0.03^e	6.34±0.01^a	14.47±0.12^a
注: 不同字母表示不同腌制方式下指标差异显著（P<0.05）；图1~图3，表3~表4同。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品质构的影响

Table 3. Effects of different curing methods on the texture of Yangzhou salted geese pre-products

	硬度（N）	粘附性（mJ）	内聚性（ratio）	弹性（mm）	胶粘性（N）	咀嚼性（mJ）
G+C	42.77±0.31^b	1.47±0.31^ab	0.01±0.01^c	9.17±0.95^b	0.50±0.10^c	4.54±0.49^c
G	38.27±2.02^c	1.67±0.16^a	0.02±0.01^ab	10.08±0.71^ab	0.97±0.23^ab	9.60±2.35^b
C	54.67±0.87^a	1.26±0.10^b	0.02±0.00^bc	9.36±1.00^b	1.03±0.15^ab	9.60±1.83^b
G+NaCl	42.43±0.68^b	1.47±0.07^ab	0.03±0.01^ab	11.55±0.73^a	1.37±0.06^a	15.97±1.30^a
常规	17.60±1.11^d	1.33±0.10^ab	0.03±0.00^a	10.29±0.59^ab	0.70±0.35^bc	5.45±0.44^c

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品脂肪酸组成（mg/g）

Table 4. Fatty acid composition of Yangzhou salted geese pre-products with different curing methods (mg/g)

脂肪酸	G+C	G	C	G+NaCl	常规
棕榈酸（C16:0）	9.22±0.88^ab	3.77±5.32^b	6.75±2.23^ab	7.30±0.46^ab	11.84±1.19^a
硬脂酸（C18:0）	2.22±3.14^b	3.81±0.18^b	3.27±0.42^b	3.51±0.28^b	8.72±1.44^a
SFA	7.58±5.51^b	11.44±2.26^b	10.81±0.74^b	10.02±2.65^b	20.56±0.25^a
十五碳烯酸甲酯（C15:1）	0.12±.16^a	0.33±0.14^a	0.23±0.33^a	0.52±0.13^a	−
十七碳烯酸（C17:1）	0.10±0.14^a	−	−	−	−
油酸（C18:1n9c）	14.55±1.79^ab	10.14±1.20^b	10.45±4.51^b	10.80±0.91^b	19.84±0.42^a
MUFA	10.47±1.34^b	14.75±1.81^ab	11.31±1.04^b	10.68±4.84^b	19.84±0.42^a
亚油酸（C18:2n6c）	0.28±0.10^ab	0.41±0.01^ab	0.52±0.21^a	0.19±0.10^ab	0.13±0.177^b
反-亚油酸（C18:2n6t）	2.64±3.73^a	5.40±0.63^a	4.16±1.61^a	2.67±3.78^a	4.13±5.57^a
花生四烯酸（C20:4n6）	1.59±0.16^b	1.49±0.04^b	0.38±0.53^c	1.35±0.17^bc	3.32±0.67^a
PUFA	7.29±0.60^a	4.51±3.98^a	4.21±3.51^a	5.05±1.92^a	7.58±5.08^a
SFA/UFA	0.41±0.27^a	0.59±0.05^a	0.71±0.16^a	0.66±0.12^a	0.77±0.16^a
ΣFFA	25.33±7.45^b	30.70±4.43^b	26.33±1.72^b	25.75±9.41^b	47.97±5.26^a

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(35)

[1]	陈立立, 章红. 中国农村食品腌制刍议[J]. 农业考古,2009(3):20−24. [CHEN L L, ZHANG H. Discussion on the salting of Chinese rural food[J]. Agricultural Archaeology,2009(3):20−24.
[2]	陆炀, 邵俊锋, 胡舰, 等. 盐水鹅复合调料包的研制[J]. 中国调味品,2019,44(7):85−89. [LU Y, SHAO J F, HU J, et al. Development of salted goose compound seasoning package[J]. China Condiment,2019,44(7):85−89. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9973.2019.07.018
[3]	陈志炎, 任俊. 酱鹅加工工艺优化[J]. 江苏农业科学,2013,41(12):274−276. [CHEN Z Y, REN J. Optimization of processing technology for sauced goose[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2013,41(12):274−276. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1302.2013.12.100
[4]	周光宏. 肉品学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1999 ZHOU G H. Meat science[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1999.
[5]	史培磊. 风鹅腌制工艺改进及其品质变化规律的研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2011 SHI P L. Studies on the processing improvement of dry-cured and their quality variations[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2011.
[6]	付丽, 郑宝亮, 高雪琴, 等. 牛肉的超声波快速腌制与嫩化工艺优化[J]. 肉类研究,2017,31(12):23−29. [FU L, ZHENG B L, GAO X Q, et al. Optimization of rapid ultrasonic-assisted curing and tenderization of beef[J]. Meat Research,2017,31(12):23−29.
[7]	LEAL-RAMOS M Y, ALARCON-ROJO A D, MASON T J, et al. Ultrasound-enhanced mass transfer in Halal compared with non-Halal chicken[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,2011,91(1):130−133. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4162
[8]	ANACRISTINA S, MAR V. Effect of ultrasound on the technological properties and bioactivity of food: A review[J]. Trends in Food Science and Technology,2010,21(7):323−331. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgs.2010.04.003
[9]	MASON T J, PETERS D. Practical sonochemistry: Power ultrasound uses and applications[M]. Second Ed, Elsevier, London, UK, 2003: 1−155.
[10]	VARELA P, FISZMAN S M. Hydrocolloids in fried foods: A review[J]. Food Hydrocolloids,2011,25(8):1801−1812. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.01.016
[11]	FAYYAZA A, ASBI B A, GHAZALI H M, et al. Pectinesterase extraction from papaya[J]. Food Chemistry,1993,47(2):183−185. doi: 10.1016/0308-8146(93)90241-7
[12]	周秀丽, 董福凯, 查恩辉. 调理牛排腌制液配方的响应面优化及其品质测定[J]. 食品工业科技,2017,38(24):194−200. [ZHOU X L, DONG F K, CHA E H. Response surface optimization of pickled liquid formulation and quality determination of conditioning steak[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry,2017,38(24):194−200. doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2017.24.038
[13]	扬州大学. 一种盐水鹅生坯的制作方法: CN202210046970. X[P]. 2022-04-29 Yangzhou University. A method for making raw brine goose: CN202210046970. X[P]. 2022-04-29.
[14]	陈雪, 罗欣, 梁荣蓉, 等. 不同冰温条件对长期贮藏牛肉品质和货架期的影响[J]. 农业工程学报,2019,35(23):305−311. [CHEN X, LUO X, LIANG R R, et al. Effects of super-chilled conditions on quality and shelf life of beef during long term storage[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering,2019,35(23):305−311. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.23.037
[15]	中华人民共和国国家标准化管理委员会. 肉的食用品质客观评价方法: NY/T 2793-2015[S]. 2015 National Standardization Administration Committee of the People's Republic of China. Objective evaluation method of meat eating quality: NY/T 2793-2015[S]. 2015.
[16]	中华人民共和国国家标准化管理委员会. 食品安全国家标准食品中丙二醛的测定: GB 5009.181−2016[S]. 2016. Standardization Administration. National food safety standard Determination of malondialdehyde in food: GB 5009.181−2016[S]. 2016.
[17]	NEVES M P, DE OLIVEIRA P M M, FONTES P R, et al. Effect of pork quality and salt replacer KCl on technological and sensorial characteristics of restructured cooked hams[J]. Food Sci Technol Int,2020,26(8):676−684. doi: 10.1177/1082013220923889
[18]	曾习, 曾思敏, 龙维贞. 食品感官评价技术应用研究进展[J]. 中国调味品,2019,44(3):198−200. [ZENG X, ZENG S M, LONG W Z. Research progress of application of food sensory evaluation technology[J]. China Condiment,2019,44(3):198−200.
[19]	高子武, 王恒鹏, 陈胜姝, 等. 不同宰后时间下调理猪肉片品质特性及挥发性风味物质比较[J]. 现代食品科技,2020,36(11):263−272, 312. [GAO Z W, WANG H P, CHEN S S, et al. Comparison of quality characteristics and volatile flavor compounds of pork slices at different post-slaughter time[J]. Modern Food Science and Technology,2020,36(11):263−272, 312. doi: 10.13982/j.mfst.1673-9078.2020.11.0525
[20]	王恒鹏. 牛排烹调时机的优选及其品质评价[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2017 WANG H P. Optimization of cooking time and quality evaluation of steak[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2017.
[21]	GUO Y, HUANG J, SUN X, et al. Effect of normal and modified atmosphere packaging on shelf life of roast chicken meat[J]. Journal of Food Safety,2018,38(5):1−8.
[22]	刘英丽, 毛慧佳, 李福芳, 等. 微生物发酵法在肉制品护色中的应用[J]. 中国食品学报,2017,17(9):182−188. [LIU Y L, MAO H M, LI F F, et al. Applying of microbial fermentation on colorizing cured meat products[J]. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology,2017,17(9):182−188. doi: 10.16429/j.1009-7848.2017.09.023
[23]	梁荣蓉, 许宝琛, 张一敏, 等. 蛋白质组学在生鲜肉肉色变化机制研究中的应用[J]. 农业工程学报,2020,36(16):283−292. [LIANG R R, XU B C, ZHANG Y M, et al. Application of proteomics in mechanism research of fresh meat color changes[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering,2020,36(16):283−292. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2020.16.034
[24]	SARANYA S, KALAIKANNAN A, SANTHI D, et al. Effect of ginger oil on tenderization of spent goat meat[J]. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants (The),2017,23(1):68−72. doi: 10.5958/0973-9718.2017.00026.5
[25]	张坤生, 瞿执谦. 肉的持水能力及其测定方法[J]. 天津商学院学报,1989(1):24−30. [ZHANG K S, QU Z Q. The water-capacity of meat and its determination method[J]. Journal of Tianjin University of Commerce,1989(1):24−30.
[26]	于楠楠. 盐和多糖对鱼糜凝胶形成的影响与机制[D]. 无锡: 江南大学, 2017 YU N N. Effect of salts and polysaccharides on the formation of surimi gel and the mechanism[D]. Wuxi: Jiangnan University, 2017.
[27]	黄业传, 李凤, 苟兴能. 猪肉加工中KCl部分替代NaCl对肌内脂肪氧化的动力学研究[J]. 食品与发酵工业,2022,48(13):211−217. [HUANG Y C, LI F, GOU X N. Kinetic study of partial replacement of NaCl with KCl on intramuscular lipid oxidation in pork processing[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries,2022,48(13):211−217. doi: 10.13995/j.cnki.11-1802/ts.028648
[28]	汪踔. 加工方式及冷藏对四川白兔肌内脂肪酸组成的影响研究[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2017 WANG C. Study on the effects of processing methods and refrigeration on the intramuscular fatty acid composition of Sichuan white rabbits[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2017.
[29]	MARTIN A H, NIEUWLAND M, DE JONG G A. Characterization of heat-set gels from rubisco in comparison to those from other proteins[J]. Agric Food Chem,2014,62(44):10783−10791. doi: 10.1021/jf502905g
[30]	王会锋, 冯书惠, 周其芳, 等. 基于气相色谱-质谱联用技术测定脂肪酸的方法研究进展[J]. 农产品质量与安全,2022(3):43−49. [WANG H F, FENG S H, ZHOU Q F, et al. Progress in determination of fatty acids based on gas chromatography-mass spectrometry[J]. Quality and Safety of Agro-Products,2022(3):43−49. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8255.2022.03.007
[31]	彭聪. 不同成熟时期干腌火腿的品质变化及安全性研究[D]. 大连: 大连工业大学, 2015 PENG C. Quality changes and safety of dry cured ham at different maturation periods[D]. Dalian: Dalian University of Technology, 2015.
[32]	佟荟全, 杨丽芳, 肖志超, 等. 超声联合滚揉腌制对鸡胸肉品质的影响研究[J]. 核农学报,2022,36(4):777−787. [TONG H Q, YANG L F, XIAO Z C, et al. Effect of ultrasonic combined with rolling curing on the quality of chicken breast meat[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences,2022,36(4):777−787. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2022.04.0777
[33]	张飞, 柏云爱, 鲁海龙. 饱和脂肪酸与健康研究进展[J]. 中国油脂,2012,37(4):29−33. [ZHANG F, BAI Y A, LU H L. Research advances in saturated fatty acid and health[J]. China Oils and Fats,2012,37(4):29−33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-7969.2012.04.007
[34]	王芳, 杨晓玲, 席斌, 等. 滩羊不同部位肌肉脂肪酸分析及特征风味指纹图谱的构建[J]. 食品科学,2021,42(24):191−198. [WANG F, YANG X L, XI B, et al. Analysis of fatty acid composition and characteristic flavor fingerprinting of muscles from different anatomical locations of Tan sheep[J]. Food Science,2021,42(24):191−198. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20200819-253
[35]	BECKER W, ANDERSSEA S A, FOGELHOLM M, et al. NNR 2012: Nordic nutrition recommendations-integrating nutrition and physical activity[J]. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism,2013,63:897−897.

施引文献

资源附件(0)

访问统计

点击查看大图

图(4) / 表(4)

计量

文章访问数: 19
HTML全文浏览量: 11
PDF下载量: 0
被引次数: 0

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

留言板

不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品品质的影响

doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022060245

作者简介:
孟祥忍（1976−）（ORCID：0000−0003−1255−1216），男，博士，教授，研究方向：动源性食品加工技术，E-mail：xrmeng@yzu.edu.cn

计量

Effects of Different Pickling Methods on the Quality of Yangzhou Salted Geese Pre-products

计量

目录

留言板

不同腌制方式对扬州盐水鹅预制品品质的影响

doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2022060245

作者简介: 孟祥忍（1976−）（ORCID：0000−0003−1255−1216），男，博士，教授，研究方向：动源性食品加工技术，E-mail：xrmeng@yzu.edu.cn

计量

出版历程

Effects of Different Pickling Methods on the Quality of Yangzhou Salted Geese Pre-products

计量

出版历程

目录

作者简介:
孟祥忍（1976−）（ORCID：0000−0003−1255−1216），男，博士，教授，研究方向：动源性食品加工技术，E-mail：xrmeng@yzu.edu.cn