Sensory Evaluation of Rabbit Meat from Individuals Fed Functional and More Sustainable Diets Enriched with Freshwater Cladophora glomerata Macroalgal Biomass
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals and Samples Collection
2.2. Physical Analysis of Rabbit Muscles
2.3. Histomorphometric Assay of Rabbit LD Muscles
2.4. Sensory Analysis of Rabbit Muscles
2.4.1. The Preparation and Submission of Samples for Sensory Evaluation
2.4.2. The Procedure for Submitting Samples to Evaluators and Evaluation
2.5. Emotional Response Evaluation of Rabbit Muscles
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Physical Features of Rabbits Muscles
3.2. Histomorphometric Measurements of Rabbit LD Muscles
3.3. Sensory Evaluation of Rabbit Muscles
3.4. Emotional Response to Rabbit Muscles
4. Discussion
4.1. Physical Properties of Rabbit Muscles
4.2. Fibre Length of Rabbit LD Muscles
4.3. Sensory Profile of Rabbit Muscles
4.4. Emotional Response to Rabbit Muscles
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- OECD. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015; OECD: Berlin, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altmann, B.A.; Neumann, C.; Velten, S.; Liebert, F.; Mörlein, D. Meat Quality Derived from High Inclusion of a Micro-Alga or Insect Meal as an Alternative Protein Source in Poultry Diets: A Pilot Study. Foods 2018, 7, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shaaban, M.M.; Kholif, A.E.; Abd El Tawab, A.M.; Radwan, M.A.; Hadhoud, F.I.; Khattab, M.S.A.; Saleh, H.M.; Anele, U.Y. Thyme and celery as potential alternatives to ionophores use in livestock production: Their effects on feed utilization, growth performance and meat quality of Barki lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2021, 200, 106400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasemi-Sadabadi, M.; Ebrahimnezhad, Y.; Maheri-Sis, N.; Shaddel Teli, A.; Ghiasi Ghalehkandi, J.; Veldkamp, T. Supplementation of pomegranate processing waste and waste soybean cooking oil as an alternative feed resource with vitamin E in broiler nutrition: Effects on productive performance, meat quality and meat fatty acid composition. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 75, 355–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altmann, B.A.; Wigger, R.; Ciulu, M.; Mörlein, D. The effect of insect or microalga alternative protein feeds on broiler meat quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 4292–4302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pethick, D.W.; Ball, A.J.; Banks, R.G.; Hocquette, J.F. Current and future issues facing red meat quality in a competitive market and how to manage continuous improvement. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petracci, M.; Soglia, F.; Leroy, F. Rabbit meat in need of a hat-trick: From tradition to innovation (and back). Meat Sci. 2018, 146, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nutautaitė, M.; Vilienė, V.; Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė, A.; Bliznikas, S.; Karosienė, J.; Koreivienė, J. Cladophora glomerata as a potential nutrient source in animal nutrition. In Proceedings of the 1st International PhD Student’s Conference at the University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Poland, 26 April 2022; University of Life Sciences in Lublin: Lublin, Poland, 2022; p. A023. [Google Scholar]
- Nutautaitė, M.; Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė, A.; Bliznikas, S.; Jonuškienė, I.; Karosienė, J.; Koreivienė, J.; Vilienė, V. Evaluation of Phenolic Compounds and Pigments in Freshwater Cladophora glomerata Biomass from Various Lithuanian Rivers as a Potential Future Raw Material for Biotechnology. Water 2022, 14, 1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nutautaitė, M.; Vilienė, V.; Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė, A.; Bliznikas, S.; Karosienė, J.; Koreivienė, J. Freshwater Cladophora glomerata Biomass as Promising Protein and Other Essential Nutrients Source for High Quality and More Sustainable Feed Production. Agriculture 2021, 11, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nutautaitė, M.; Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė, A.; Bliznikas, S.; Vilienė, V. Enhancement of Rabbit Meat Functionality by Replacing Traditional Feed Raw Materials with Alternative and More Sustainable Freshwater Cladophora glomerata Macroalgal Biomass in Their Diets. Foods 2023, 12, 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sasaki, K. Diversity of Japanese consumers’ requirements, sensory perceptions, and eating preferences for meat. Anim. Sci. J. 2022, 93, e13705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pethick, D.W.; Hocquette, J.; Scollan, N.D.; Dunshea, F.R. Review: Improving the nutritional, sensory and market value of meat products from sheep and cattle. Animal 2021, 15, 100356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrington, L.R.; Cheeke, P.R.; Lebas, F.; Lebas, S. Nutrient Requirements of Rabbits, 2nd ed.; National Research Council (NRC): Washington, DC, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Blasco, A.; Ouhayoun, J. Harmonization of criteria and terminology in rabbit meat research. Revised proposal. World Rabbit. Sci. 2010, 4, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honikel, K.O. Water-holding capacity of meat. In Muscle Development of Livestock Animals: Physiology, Genetics and Meat Quality; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2009; pp. 389–400. [Google Scholar]
- Zamorano, J.; Gambaruto, M. Contribution to improving the meat water holding capacity test by the filter paper press method. A comparison of three methods for measuring areas. Meat Sci. 1997, 46, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honikel, K.O. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Sci. 1998, 49, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martínez-Álvaro, M.; Hernández, P. Evaluation of the sensory attributes along rabbit loin by a trained panel. World Rabbit. Sci. 2018, 26, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siddiqui, S.A.; Gerini, F.; Ikram, A.; Saeed, F.; Feng, X.; Chen, Y. Rabbit Meat—Production, Consumption and Consumers’ Attitudes and Behavior. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Fan, L.; Zhou, Q.; Li, J.; Zhao, P.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Yan, S.; Huang, L. Rapid Determination of Meat Moisture Content Using Radio-Frequency Dielectric Measurement. Access 2018, 6, 51384–51391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hafsa, S.H.A.; Khalel, M.S.; El-Gindy, Y.M.; Hassan, A.A. Nutritional potential of marine and freshwater algae as dietary supplements for growing rabbits. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 20, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nollet, L.M.L.; Toldra, F. Handbook of Processed Meats and Poultry Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Varnam, A.H.; Sutherland, J.P. The water of meat. Am. Lab. 1995, 8, 33–37. [Google Scholar]
- Warner, R.D. Chapter 14-The Eating Quality of Meat—IV Water-Holding Capacity and Juiciness. In Lawrie’s Meat Science, 8th ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 419–459. [Google Scholar]
- Hughes, J.M.; Oiseth, S.K.; Purslow, P.P.; Warner, R.D. A structural approach to understanding the interactions between colour, water-holding capacity and tenderness. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 520–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Arner, A.; Puolanne, E.; Ertbjerg, P. On the water-holding of myofibrils: Effect of sarcoplasmic protein denaturation. Meat Sci. 2016, 119, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kondjoyan, A.; Oillic, S.; Portanguen, S.; Gros, J. Combined heat transfer and kinetic models to predict cooking loss during heat treatment of beef meat. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czarniecka-Skubina, E.; Przybylski, W.; Jaworska, D.; Kajak-Siemaszko, K.; Wachowicz, I. Effect of pH24 and intramuscular fat content on technological and sensory quality of pork. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2010, 60, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
- Debrecéni, O.; Lípová, P.; Bučko, O.; Cebulska, A.; Kapelánski, W. Effect of pig genotypes from Slovak and Polish breeds on meat quality. Arch. Für Tierz. 2018, 61, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bocian, M.; Jankowiak, H.; Reszka, P.; Banaszak, S. Pork quality with special emphasis on colour and its changes during storage. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2018, 19, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strzyżewski, T.; Bilska, A.; Krysztofiak, K. Correlation between pH value of meat and its colour. Sci. Nat. Technol. 2008, 2, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Karamucki, T.; Gardzielewska, J.; Jakubowska, M.; Rybak, K.; Garczewska, J. The relationship between colour and pH in cold-stored quail breast muscle/Zależność między barwą a pH w mięśniach piersiowych przepiórek przechowywanych w warunkach chłodniczych. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2013, 13, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jankowiak, H.; Cebulska, A.; Bocian, M. The relationship between acidification (pH) and meat quality traits of polish white breed pigs. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 2813–2820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, D.M.; Martins, C.F.; Costa, M.; Coelho, D.; Pestana, J.; Alfaia, C.; Lordelo, M.; de Almeida, A.M.; Freire, J.P.B.; Prates, J.A.M. Quality Traits and Nutritional Value of Pork and Poultry Meat from Animals Fed with Seaweeds. Foods 2021, 10, 2961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jerez-Timaure, N.; Sánchez-Hidalgo, M.; Pulido, R.; Mendoza, J. Effect of Dietary Brown Seaweed (Macrocystis pyrifera) Additive on Meat Quality and Nutrient Composition of Fattening Pigs. Foods 2021, 10, 1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, N.J.; Whyte, R. Does it look cooked? A review of factors that influence cooked meat color. J. Food Sci. 2006, 71, R31–R40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VAN Laack, R.L.J.M.; Berry, B.W.; Solomon, M.B. Effect of Precooking Conditions on Color of Cooked Beef Patties. J. Food Prot. 1996, 59, 976–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Fan, W.; Xu, Y.; Yu, S.; Liu, W.; Guo, Z.; Huang, W.; Zhou, Z.; Hou, S. Genome-wide association studies demonstrate that TASP1 contributes to increased muscle fiber diameter. Heredity 2021, 126, 991–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiaffino, S.; Dyar, K.A.; Ciciliot, S.; Blaauw, B.; Sandri, M. Mechanisms regulating skeletal muscle growth and atrophy. FEBS J. 2013, 280, 4294–4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sarsenbek, A.; Wang, T.; Zhao, J.K.; Jiang, W. Comparison of carcass yields and meat quality between Baicheng-You chickens and Arbor Acres broilers. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 2776–2782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Soufi, S.; García, J.; Muíños, A.; López-Alonso, M. Marine Macroalgae in Rabbit Nutrition—A Valuable Feed in Sustainable Farming. Animals 2022, 12, 2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aaslyng, M.D.; Jensen, H.; Karlsson, A.H. The gender background of texture attributes of pork loin. Meat Sci. 2018, 136, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabre, R.; Dalzotto, G.; Perlo, F.; Bonato, P.; Teira, G.; Tisocco, O. Cooking method effect on Warner-Bratzler shear force of different beef muscles. Meat Sci. 2018, 138, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Ma, R.; Pan, J.; Lin, X.; Dong, X.; Yu, C. Combined effects of aging and low temperature, long time heating on pork toughness. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Desmet, P.M.A.; Schifferstein, H.N.J. Sources of positive and negative emotions in food experience. Appetite 2008, 50, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartwell, H.J.; Edwards, J.S.A.; Brown, L. The relationship between emotions and food consumption (macronutrient) in a foodservice college setting-a preliminary study. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 64, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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 Sci. 2018, 144, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Diet 2,3,4 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Item (%) | Muscle 1 | SCD | CG4 | CG8 | SEM 5 | p-Value 6 |
Moisture | LD | 74.72 a | 75.40 b | 77.58 c | 0.26 | 0.000 |
HL | 74.37 a | 76.45 b | 77.53 c | 0.31 | 0.000 | |
Drip loss | LD | 1.99 | 2.46 | 2.65 | 0.29 | n.s. |
HL | 2.18 | 2.97 | 1.84 | 0.51 | n.s. | |
Water holding capacity | LD | 62.93 | 64.91 | 70.99 | 3.32 | n.s. |
HL | 70.91 | 69.88 | 64.98 | 4.01 | n.s. | |
Cooking loss | LD | 21.37 | 24.75 | 22.37 | 2.81 | n.s. |
HL | 22.99 ab | 21.37 a | 31.04 b | 3.74 | 0.041 |
Diet 2,3 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Item | Muscle 1 | SCD | CG4 | CG8 | SEM 4 | p-Value |
Fibre length (μm2) | LD | 51.52 a | 52.26 a | 59.09 b | 2.38 | 0.002 |
Diet 2,3,4,5 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evoked Emotion | Muscle 1 | SCD | CG4 | CG8 | SEM 6 | p-Value 7 |
Response to the view Scale 0–1 | ||||||
Neutral | LD | 0.458 a | 0.817 b | 0.812 b | 0.065 | 0.000 |
HL | 0.783 a | 0.826 ab | 0.870 b | 0.035 | 0.017 | |
Happy | LD | 0.434 a | 0.044 b | 0.164 b | 0.083 | 0.000 |
HL | 0.285 a | 0.075 b | 0.053 b | 0.061 | 0.000 | |
Sad | LD | 0.022 a | 0.063 b | 0.043 ab | 0.016 | 0.011 |
HL | 0.039 a | 0.014 b | 0.013 b | 0.011 | 0.017 | |
Angry | LD | 0.041 a | 0.015 b | 0.024 b | 0.009 | 0.004 |
HL | 0.027 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.009 | n.s. | |
Surprised | LD | 0.016 | 0.010 | 0.013 | 0.004 | n.s. |
HL | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.003 | n.s. | |
Scared | LD | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.001 | n.s. |
HL | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.006 | 0.003 | n.s. | |
Disgusted | LD | 0.014 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.006 | n.s. |
HL | 0.023 a | 0.011 ab | 0.005 b | 0.007 | 0.007 | |
Contempt | LD | 0.007 a | 0.019 b | 0.013 ab | 0.005 | 0.009 |
HL | 0.023 a | 0.011 ab | 0.005 b | 0.002 | 0.007 | |
Valence | LD | 0.079 a | 0.014 ab | −0.042 b | 0.042 | 0.005 |
HL | −0.034 a | 0.012 ab | 0.021 b | 0.024 | 0.024 | |
Response to the odor Scale 0–1 | ||||||
Neutral | LD | 0.024 a | 0.870 b | 0.817 c | 0.019 | 0.000 |
HL | 0.811 a | 0.661 b | 0.767 a | 0.047 | 0.002 | |
Happy | LD | 0.839 a | 0.093 b | 0.183 b | 0.062 | 0.000 |
HL | 0.171 a | 0.149 ab | 0.061 b | 0.049 | 0.027 | |
Sad | LD | 0.036 | 0.041 | 0.052 | 0.012 | n.s. |
HL | 0.025 a | 0.043 ab | 0.049 b | 0.011 | 0.038 | |
Angry | LD | 0.024 a | 0.011 b | 0.019 ab | 0.007 | 0.043 |
HL | 0.016 a | 0.009 ab | 0.004 b | 0.004 | 0.007 | |
Surprised | LD | 0.014 a | 0.011 ab | 0.009 b | 0.002 | 0.012 |
HL | 0.009 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.003 | n.s. | |
Scared | LD | 0.005 a | 0.002 b | 0.004 ab | 0.002 | 0.023 |
HL | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.002 | n.s. | |
Disgusted | LD | 0.006 | 0.049 | 0.018 | 0.025 | n.s. |
HL | 0.015 a | 0.001 b | 0.001 b | 0.004 | 0.003 | |
Contempt | LD | 0.020 | 0.028 | 0.028 | 0.006 | n.s. |
HL | 0.009 a | 0.004 b | 0.002 b | 0.001 | 0.000 | |
Valence | LD | 0.125 a | 0.106 a | −0.059 b | 0.033 | 0.000 |
HL | −0.011 a | 0.090 b | 0.005 a | 0.041 | 0.016 | |
Response to the taste Scale 0–1 | ||||||
Neutral | LD | 0.806 | 0.843 | 0.821 | 0.028 | n.s. |
HL | 0.842 | 0.810 | 0.793 | 0.028 | n.s. | |
Happy | LD | 0.032 | 0.015 | 0.016 | 0.014 | n.s. |
HL | 0.006 a | 0.033 ab | 0.040 b | 0.017 | 0.046 | |
Sad | LD | 0.023 | 0.018 | 0.024 | 0.007 | n.s. |
HL | 0.016 | 0.028 | 0.024 | 0.009 | n.s. | |
Angry | LD | 0.046 | 0.036 | 0.037 | 0.010 | n.s. |
HL | 0.041 | 0.039 | 0.034 | 0.012 | n.s. | |
Surprised | LD | 0.018 | 0.013 | 0.018 | 0.005 | n.s. |
HL | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.019 | 0.005 | n.s. | |
Scared | LD | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.001 | n.s. |
HL | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.001 | n.s. | |
Disgusted | LD | 0.021 ab | 0.015 a | 0.025 b | 0.050 | 0.045 |
HL | 0.023 | 0.025 | 0.024 | 0.007 | n.s. | |
Contempt | LD | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.002 | n.s. |
HL | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.010 | 0.005 | n.s. | |
Valence | LD | −0.042 | −0.045 | −0.057 | 0.020 | n.s. |
HL | −0.064 | −0.049 | −0.046 | 0.018 | n.s. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nutautaitė, M.; Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė, A.; Pockevičius, A.; Vilienė, V. Sensory Evaluation of Rabbit Meat from Individuals Fed Functional and More Sustainable Diets Enriched with Freshwater Cladophora glomerata Macroalgal Biomass. Animals 2023, 13, 2179. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13132179
Nutautaitė M, Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė A, Pockevičius A, Vilienė V. Sensory Evaluation of Rabbit Meat from Individuals Fed Functional and More Sustainable Diets Enriched with Freshwater Cladophora glomerata Macroalgal Biomass. Animals. 2023; 13(13):2179. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13132179
Chicago/Turabian StyleNutautaitė, Monika, Asta Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė, Alius Pockevičius, and Vilma Vilienė. 2023. "Sensory Evaluation of Rabbit Meat from Individuals Fed Functional and More Sustainable Diets Enriched with Freshwater Cladophora glomerata Macroalgal Biomass" Animals 13, no. 13: 2179. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13132179