Physicochemical Characteristics, Selected Lipid Content and Protein Bioactive Compounds of Lamb Meat Depending on Aging Time and Muscle Type

Abstract

Many factors affect the quality of red meat. The aim of the study, carried out on 44 Polish Merino lambs, was analysis of physicochemical traits (pH, meat color, expressed juice, content of moisture, protein, fat, total collagen and fatty acid ) and content of carnosine, taurine, L-carnitine on fresh and meat aged for 7 and 14 d in the longissimus lumborum (LL) and gluteus medius (GM) muscles., Higher (p<0.05) redness value (a*), lower yellowness (b*) were recorded in meat after of aging in gluteus medius muscle. A lower value (p<0.05) of expressed juice was found in both LL and GM after 7 days of aging. The increase (p<0.05) in protein and fat content in both muscle and collagen content in LL was observed in aged meat. There was no difference in fatty acid groups and C18:2 c9, t11 content between GM and LL muscle and fresh and aging meat. A higher TBARS content (p<0.05) was recorded in meat after aging in both GM and LL. The meat aging process increased (p<0.05) the content of carnitine and taurine, while the content of carnosine decreased. In summary the processes that turn muscles into meat in different types of muscles affect the physicochemical characteristics and the content of bioactive ingredients.

Chemical composition of meat from different species of animals

“…The reason for this could be interpreted as the proportionally higher fat content in the meat composition of Korean Hanwoo cattle. The moisture content in lamb meat was similar (Junkuszew et al, 2020;Khal-Azzawi and Albashr, 2022;Lima et al, 2022), lower (Mioč et al, 2007;Meng et al, 2023;Radzik-Rant et al, 2023) or higher than (Romero-Bernal et al, 2017;Liang et al, 2023) other reported researches. The moisture content reported for chicken meat was similar (Silva Frasao et al, 2021;Xu et al, 2021) to the rates found in the study.…”

“…The protein values found for cattle in the study were similar to some of the values found in the researches (Hamed Hammad Mohammed et al, 2020;Pouzo et al, 2023;Santana et al, 2023), higher than some (Salim et al, 2023) and lower than some (Oliveira et al, 2021;Ngom et al, 2022). While the values reported for sheep were in agreement with (Costa et al, 2009;Romero-Bernal et al, 2017;Radzik-rant et al, 2023) or higher than literature reports and findings (Mioč et al, 2007;Lima et al, 2022;Latoch et al, 2023;Lunesu et al, 2023;Uushona et al, 2023). The rates found for chicken meat were higher than the reported values Xu et al, 2021;Sugiharto et al, 2022;Weng et al, 2022;Fathi et al, 2023).…”