Effect of ultrasound on <i>Biceps femoris</i> muscle tenderization in Nellore cattle

Schuch, Alexia Francielli; Kalschne, Daneysa Lahis; Menegotto, Anne Luize Lupatini; Almeida, Fernanda Salbego Colombari de; Corso, Marinês Paula; Buzanello, Rosana Aparecida da Silva; Torquato, Alex Sanches; Flores, Eder Lisandro de Moraes; Barin, Juliano Smanioto; Canan, Cristiane

doi:10.1590/0103-8478cr20220612

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

FOOD TECHNOLOGY • Cienc. Rural 54 (2) • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20220612 copy

Effect of ultrasound on Biceps femoris muscle tenderization in Nellore cattle

Efeito do ultrassom no amaciamento do músculo Biceps femoris em bovinos Nelore

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT:

The effect of ultrasound on Biceps femoris muscle tenderness was investigated using a 2² Central Composite Rotatable Design (CCRD) with triplicates at the central point. We evaluated the following independent variables: ultrasound intensity ranging from 11.30 to 33.90 W cm^-2 and exposure time between 35 and 205 s. The ultrasound bath’s frequency (80 kHz) and temperature (10 ºC) were the fixed ones. To validate the model, the muscle was treated at the CCRD’s optimized condition (80 kHz, 22.60 W cm^-2, 120 s, 10 ºC) evaluated, and compared with the muscle control sample (non-treated). A 22% shear force reduction was observed compared to the control sample (no ultrasound treatment) after 144 h, and stored at 5 ºC. Moreover, a sarcoplasmic calcium concentration increase was noted for ultrasound-treated muscle, probably activating the calpain enzyme system. In contrast, no significant influence (P > 0.05) was observed for pH, color index, lipid oxidation, water holding capacity, and drip loss by ultrasound treatment at the optimized conditions. Therefore, ultrasound application is promising and suitable for improving muscle tenderness without losing meat quality. This study highlighted the ultrasound effect on the tenderness of a less studied muscle (Biceps femoris) by combining short ultrasound exposure (120 s) and an 80 kHz frequency.

Key words:
central composite rotatable design; shear force; emerging technology; lipid oxidation; sarcoplasmic calcium content

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Centro de Ciências Rurais , 97105-900 Santa Maria RS Brazil , Tel.: +55 55 3220-8698 , Fax: +55 55 3220-8695 - Santa Maria - RS - Brazil
E-mail: cienciarural@mail.ufsm.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] E-mail: daneysa@hotmail.com. ^*Corresponding author.

			---------------------------------------------Shear force (N)----------------------------------------------
Runs	x₁	x₂	24 h	72 h	144 h	Predicted values for 144 h
1	-1 (15.07)	-1 (60)	70.85 ± 5.88	55.43 ± 5.69	65.65 ± 3.04	54.42
2	-1 (15.07)	+1 (180)	78.36 ± 1.54	55.08 ± 2.87	52.10 ± 3.26	43.75
3	+1 (30.13)	-1 (60)	69.71 ± 1.30	68.29 ± 5.14	59.40 ± 4.68	62.72
4	+1 (30.13)	+1 (180)	57.36 ± 5.42	55.94 ± 3.19	49.82 ± 3.19	51.96
5	-α (11.30)	0(120)	63.61 ± 4.10	57.09 ± 0.39	52.61 ± 3.08	40.16
6	+α (33.90)	0(120)	69.47 ± 4.82	57.92 ± 2.70	56.71 ± 3.37	51.74
7	0 (22.60)	-α (35)	67.28 ± 2.18	56.70 ± 0.29	67.77 ± 1.39	67.86
8	0 (22.60)	+α (205)	59.38 ± 1.77	67.07 ± 4.14	54.00 ± 5.51	52.81
9	0 (22.60)	0(120)	62.17 ± 5.79	57.13 ± 1.81	47.98 ± 3.57	45.95
10	0 (22.60)	0(120)	64.59 ± 4.91	60.82 ± 5.75	45.04 ± 6.57	45.95
11	0 (22.60)	0(120)	63.35 ± 5.32	60.36 ± 4.16	44.82 ± 4.48	45.95

Factors	------------------------------------------------------Shear force (N) - 24 h-------------------------------------------------------------
	Regression coefficient	Standard error	t(5)	P-value
Mean	63.35^*	3.24^*	19.56^*	0.0000^*
x₁ (L)	-1.74	1.99	-0.88	0.4212
x₁ (Q)	2.64	2.37	1.11	0.3160
x₂ (L)	-2.00	1.99	-1.01	0.3595
x₂ (Q)	1.03	2.37	0.43	0.6833
x₁ . x₂	-4.96	2.80	-1.77	0.1370
---------------------------------------------------------------------Shear force (N) - 72 h--------------------------------------------------------------------
	Regression coefficient	Standard error	t(5)	P-value
Mean	59.44^*	2.87^*	20.73^*	0.0000^*
x₁ (L)	1.87	1.76	1.06	0.3370
x₁ (Q)	-1.23	2.10	-0.58	0.5838
x₂ (L)	0.24	1.76	0.14	0.8964
x₂ (Q)	0.97	2.10	0.46	0.6617
x₁ . x₂	-3.00	2.48	-1.21	0.2810
------------------------------------------------------------------Shear force (N) - 144 h----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Regression coefficient	Standard error	t(5)	P-value
Mean	45.95^*	1.55^*	29.70^*	0.0000^*
x₁ (L)	-0.34	0.95	-0.36	0.7312
x₁ (Q)	4.10^*	1.13^*	3.62^*	0.0151^*
x₂ (L)	-5.33^*	0.95^*	-5.62^*	0.0025^*
x₂ (Q)	7.23^*	1.13^*	6.39^*	0.0014^*
x₁ . x₂	0.99	1.34	0.74	0.4921

Run	--------------------------------------------------Biceps femoris shear force (N)---------------------------------------------------------
	Ultrasound-treated	Control sample
1	48.53^a ? 3.55	59.27^a ? 5.25
2	48.02^a ? 5.37	63.02^a ? 0.73
3	47.67^a ? 0.97	63.45^a ? 2.13

Time	Sample	pH	--------------------Color index--------------------			WHC (%)	Drip Loss (%)	Sarcoplasmic calcium (µg g^-1)
Time	Sample	pH	L^*	a^*	b^*
24 h	Ultrasound-treated	5.53^b ± 0.02	45.73^a ± 3.90	15.80^a ± 1.73	10.16^a ± 2.85	68.21^a ± 1.78	1.99^bc ± 0.93	6.86^c ± 0.41
24 h	Control	5.54^b ± 0.05	44.56^ab ± 2.86	16.29^a ± 1.46	9.42^a ± 1.21	69.50^a ± 1.55	1.62^b ± 0.29	5.49^d ± 0.16
72 h	Ultrasound-treated	5.59 ^ab ± 0.05	41.39^bc ± 2.06	14.57^a ± 2.05	12.12^a ± 1.96	69.19^a ± 2.13	2.97^ac ± 0.94	10.22^a ± 0.26
72 h	Control	5.59^ab ± 0.02	40.51^c ± 1.04	16.79^a ± 1.61	10.75^a ± 2.28	68.03^a ± 1.84	2.85^abc ± 0.93	7.66^bc ± 0.20
144 h	Ultrasound-treated	5.62^a ± 0.06	40.34^c ± 2.31	15.91^a ± 1.92	12.22^a ± 1.75	68.07^a ± 1.69	4.10^a ± 0.73	9.97^a ± 0.31
Control	5.64^a ± 0.03	39.65^bc ± 1.09	15.07^a ± 1.58	11.47^a ± 2.72	68.40^a ± 1.93	3.98^a ± 1.37	7.83^b ± 0.42