Effects of dry and wet ageing on culled goat meat quality

Figures & data

Table 1. Effect of ageing time, ageing technique, and their binary interaction on rheological, colorimetric and oxidative parameters of meat from culled goats (rectus femoris from the entire hind limb) handled for 5 weeks in dry and wet ageing (n = 4 samples for each ageing time in each ageing method).

	Aging technique	Aging time						SEM^d	Analysis of variance
		W0	W1	W2	W3	W4	W5		A^e	T^f	A × T
Rheological parameters
pH	DA^g	6.81^A	5.58^B	5.48^B	5.61^B	5.52^B	5.33^B	0.05	0.5225	<0.0001	0.2268
	WA^h	6.97^A	5.64^B	5.59^B	5.58^B	5.70^B	5.74^B
Water holding capacity (%)	DA	84.50	84.66	84.71	89.08^x	86.97	88.36^x	1.15	0.0121	0.9943	0.4747
	WA	83.42	83.76	82.53	80.91^y	81.13	79.03^y
Cooking loss (%)	DA	44.73^Aa	42.06^A	39.23^ab	36.43^bx	31.89^BXc	38.48	0.98	0.0176	0.1062	0.1303
	WA	44.83	40.7	41.83	43.77^y	42.96^Ya	40.31^b
Warner Bratzler shear force (kg)	DA	5.65^a	5.05^b	4.85^b	5.02^b	5.12^b	5.09^b	0.44	0.5973	0.0161	0.0825
	WA	5.59^a	5.44^a	5.15^b	5.11^b	5.22^b	5.12^b
Colorimetric parameters
L*	DA	38.39	38.14	40.62^a	35.34^b	35.50^bx	34.69^b	0.68	0.1652	0.2423	0.2648
	WA	38.39	35.96	39.93	37.95	40.52^y	38.25
a*	DA	17.04	18.71	18.53	17.32	17.23	18.12	0.25	0.7016	0.2185	0.6709
	WA	17.02	18.41	18.03	18.76	17.81	17.85
b*	DA	1.05	1.65	1.37	0.78	0.85	0.05	0.31	0.5622	0.8162	0.6775
	WA	1.10	0.24	0.34	0.28	1.73	0.45
Chroma	DA	17.15	18.85	18.60	17.35	17.27	18.12	0.26	0.7325	0.2651	0.6653
	WA	17.12	18.42	18.06	18.71	17.91	17.90
Hue (°)	DA	0.46	0.43	1.49	0.48	0.47	0	0.36	0.8893	0.7752	0.5282
	WA	0.46	0.51	−0.54	1.55	1.47	−0.54
Oxidative parameters
TBARS^i (mg MDA/kg of meat)	DA	0.33^A	0.86^BX	1.04^BCX	0.93^BCaX	0.91^BCa	1.16^CbX	0.02	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.0014
	WA	0.43^Aa	0.45^AaY	0.51^abY	0.66^bcY	0.75^Bc	0.76^BcY
Hydroperoxides (mmol/g of meat)	DA	0.56^A	0.89^BX	1.10^CX	0.94^Bx	0.92^B	0.91^BX	0.01	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	0.55^A	0.56^ABY	0.57^AY	0.81^Cy	0.84^C	0.84^BCY
Protein carbonyls (mmol DNPH/mg protein)	DA	1.77^AX	1.80^A	1.82^A	1.86^A	2.89^BaX	3.17^BbX	0.02	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	1.82^aY	1.76^A	1.77^A	1.76^A	1.94^Y	2.06^BbY

Different superscript letters in the same line show statistical differences (A, B, C: p < 0.01; a, b: p < 0.05).

Different superscript letters in the same column, for each investigated pattern, show statistical differences (X, Y: p < 0.01; x, y: p < 0.05).

^d SEM: standard error of mean; ^eA: ageing technique; ^fT: time; ^gDA: dry ageing; ^hWA: wet ageing; ⁱTBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substances.

Table 2. Effect of ageing time, ageing technique, and their binary interaction on the content of the main VOC families in meat from culled goats (rectus femoris from the entire hind limb) handled for 5 weeks in dry and wet ageing, expressed in μg/kg (n = 4 samples for each ageing time in each ageing method).

	Aging technique	Aging time						SEMe	Analysis of variance
		W0	W1	W2	W3	W4	W5		A^f	T^g	A × T
Alcohols	DA^h	15.44^A	47.36^A	150.52^BX	53.51^A	49.76^A	52.87^A	6.79	0.0001	0.0007	0.0001
	WA^i	15.44	16.38	15.80^Y	49.77	21.62	17.93
Aldehydes	DA	177.92^A	378.27^BX	885.25^CX	430.57^BX	183.99^AX	174.56^Ax	11.12	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	157.15^ABCa	146.98^AaY	137.34^ADaY	241.28^BbY	50.61^DbY	52.51^ACDby
Aromatic hydrocarbons	DA	10.53^A	45.77^A	195.65^BX	52.51^A	31.31^Ax	17.23^A	13.92	0.5566	0.0131	0.0005
	WA	10.31^Aa	16.84^a	12.93^aY	113.95^b	121.80^Bby	7.41
Hydrocarbons	DA	4.67^A	10.51^A	28.50^Ba	36.07^Ba	70.56^BCbX	111.29^Cx	5.45	0.0009	<0.0001	0.0890
	WA	4.67^a	7.91^a	15.44	8.27	12.06^Y	53.52^by
Ketones	DA	55.32^Aa	126.48^BCbX	169.20^BX	109.53^ACb	65.38^Aa	54.86^ACa	7.31	<0.0001	0.0030	0.0003
	WA	55.32	33.53^aY	33.23^aY	79.55^b	40.56	23.18
Sulfur compounds	DA	16.65^A	21.06^Ax	23.53^A	69.80^BX	65.19B^X	89.32^CX	1.78	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	16.65^AB	6.65^Aay	21.55^ABb	22.61^AbY	24.86^BY	43.18^CY

Different superscript letters in the same line show statistical differences (A, B, C, D: p < 0.01; a, b: p < 0.05).

Different superscript letters in the same row, for each investigated pattern, show statistical differences (^{X, Y}: p < 0.01).

^e SEM: standard error of mean; ^fA: ageing technique; ^gT: time; ^hDA: dry ageing; ⁱWA: wet ageing.

Table 3. Effect of ageing time, ageing technique, and their binary interaction on the content of the most abundant compounds in meat from culled goats (rectus femoris from the entire hind limb) handled for 5 weeks in dry and wet ageing, expressed in μg/kg (n = 4 samples for each ageing time in each ageing method).

	Aging technique	Aging time						SEMe	Analysis of variance
		W0	W1	W2	W3	W4	W5		A^f	T^g	A × T
Aldehydes
Butanal	DA^h	2.17^A	2.39^A	7.12^B	6.51^B	3.96^X	2.85	0.51	0.2763	0.0002	0.0230
	WA^i	2.57^A	1.50^Aa	4.83^A	5.90^b	9.41B^Y	5.66^b
2-Methyl-butanal	DA	4.66^A	8.38^A	41.44^BX	14.28^A	16.81^A	6.74^A	2.94	0.1672	0.0019	0.0231
	WA	6.66	4.38^a	13.05^Y	20.33^b	5.60^a	7.19
3-Methyl-butanal	DA	4.62^A	4.51^A	39.10^BX	18.77^C	13.85	6.78	1.98	0.0199	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	4.62	4.92	9.90^Y	13.27	8.78	5.84
Hexanal	DA	134.05^A	298.07^BX	665.03^CX	315.38^BX	32.87^D	27.73^D	6.24	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	111.60^A	103.20^AY	113.75^ABaY	163.09^BbY	11.47^B	24.41^B
Nonanal	DA	17.97^A	36.11^ABa	90.52^CX	59.67^Bbx	7.78^Ab	7.84^A	3.76	0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	17.97	17.78	11.28^Y	31.02^y	9.33	3.27
Pentanal	DA	16.02^A	19.14^A	32.91^A	28.28^A	195.53^BX	183.69^BX	7.69	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	16.88	14.78	13.38	7.11	25.00^Y	9.09^Y
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Ethylbenzene	DA	3.16^Aa	8.33^A	67.11^BX	3.81^Ab	18.48^Aa	4.40^A	4.95	0.0067	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	3.16^A	3.86^A	3.67^AY	13.63^A	29.97^B	1.86^A
1,4-Dimethyl-benzene	DA	4.02^Aa	18.55^Ab	50.51^BX	15.49^A	19.76^Ab	9.19^A	5.92	0.1163	<0.0001	0.0001
	WA	4.02^A	13.38	9.31^aY	24.87^Bb	28.46^Bb	4.11^a
Ketones
2-Propanone	DA	11.92^Aa	29.17^bx	42.99^BaX	40.00^BaX	20.06^A	19.50^b	2.23	0.0002	0.0059	0.0102
	WA	11.92	14.24^y	14.43^Y	17.12^Y	21.98	9.97

Different superscript letters in the same line show statistical differences (A, B, C, D: p < 0.01; a, b: p < 0.05).

Different superscript letters in the same column, for each investigated pattern, show statistical differences (X, Y: p < 0.01; x, y: p < 0.05).

^e SEM: standard error of mean; ^fA: ageing; ^gT: time; ^hDA: dry ageing; ⁱWA: wet ageing.

Table 4. Effect of ageing time, ageing technique, and their binary interaction on sensory evaluation of meat (from 1 to 10 scale) from culled goats (vastus medialis from the entire hind limb) handled for 5 weeks in dry and wet ageing (n = 4 samples for each ageing time in each ageing method).

	Aging technique	Aging time						SEM^f	Analysis of variance
		W0	W1	W2	W3	W4	W5		A^g	T^h	A × T
Juiciness	DA^i	7.19^A	7.24	6.86	6.32^BX	5.78^CX	5.14^CX	0.48	0.0082	<0.0001	0.0063
	WA^j	7.13	7.11	7.01	7.13^Y	7.31^Y	7.27^Y
Tenderness	DA	6.21^A	7.65^BX	7.72^B	5.52^C	5.23^CX	4.98^C	0.32	0.0022	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	6.17^A	6.27^AY	7.32^B	7.13^B	6.61^BY	6.98
Sweetness	DA	4.63	4.89	4.81	4.72	4.98	5.12	0.41	0.4866	0.3889	0.6228
	WA	4.58	4.69	4.81	4.89	4.82	4.61
Meaty flavor	DA	6.12^A	7.53^BX	8.54^CX	6.56^A	5.53^DX	5.71^DX	0.52	0.0012	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	6.21^A	6.54^Y	6.25^AY	7.12	6.88^BY	6.28^AY
Off-odors	DA	3.24^A	3.54^A	3.52^A	4.81^BX	5.54^C	5.87^DX	0.68	0.0040	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	3.41^A	3.5^A	3.36^A	3.45^AY	4.21	4.15^BY
Off-flavors	DA	3.32^A	3.57^A	3.47^A	4.92^BX	5.89^BX	6.51^CX	0.31	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
	WA	3.52	3.23	3.47	3.71^Y	4.13^Y	4.83^Y
Overall liking	DA	6.52^A	7.31^B	8.91^CX	7.28^B	5.31^DX	4.12^EX	0.44	<0.0001	0.0011	<0.0001
	WA	6.56^A	6.58^A	7.08^B	6.89	6.93^Y	6.69^Y

Different superscript letters in the same line show statistical differences (A, B, C, D, E: p < 0.01).

Different superscript letters in the same column, for each investigated pattern, show statistical differences (X, Y: p < 0.01).

^f SEM: standard error of mean; ^gA: ageing; ^hT: time; ⁱDA: dry ageing; ^jWA: wet ageing.