Next Article in Journal
Effects of Physical Properties of Konjac Glucomannan on Appetite Response of Rats
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Different Low-Temperature Storage Methods on the Quality and Processing Characteristics of Fresh Beef
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Citrus Fiber on the Gel Properties of Mutton Myofibrillar Protein
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of W/O Nanoemulsion on Improving the Color Tone of Beijing Roast Duck
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/foods12040742
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Establishment of Evaluation Models for the Cooking Suitability of Different Pork Muscles

by
Shengnan Duan
1,2,
Xiaoyan Tang
1,2,*,
Junliang Zhan
2,
Suke Liu
2 and
Yuhui Zhang
2
1
Key Laboratory of Meat Processing and Quality Control, College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
2
Key Laboratory of Agrifood Safety and Quality, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Quality Standards and Testing Technology for Agro-Products, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(4), 742; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040742
Submission received: 19 December 2022 / Revised: 1 February 2023 / Accepted: 1 February 2023 / Published: 8 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Processing Technology of Meat and Meat Products)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pork is the main meat consumed by Chinese people. In this study, the sensory quality of four muscles (loin, shoulder, belly, and ham) under three cooking methods (boiling, scalding, and roasting) was examined, and the edible quality and nutritional quality of fresh meat were determined at the same time. Principal component analysis, cluster analysis, correlation analysis, and analysis of the coefficient of variation were used to determine key quality indicators, from which comprehensive quality evaluation equations were established. The results showed that, when meat was boiled, the comprehensive quality evaluation model was Y = 0.1537 X 1 + 0.1805 X 2 + 0.2145 X 3 + 0.2233 X 4 + 0.2281 X 5 (X1~X5 are a*, fat, odor, tenderness, and flavor, respectively) and the most suitable muscle was belly; when meat slices were scalded in a hot pot, the comprehensive quality evaluation model was Y = 0.1541 X 1 + 0.1787 X 2 + 0.2160 X 3 + 0.2174 X 4 + 0.2337 X 5 (X1~X5 are a*, fat, odor, tenderness, and flavor, respectively) and the most suitable muscle was belly; when meat was roasted, the comprehensive quality evaluation model was Y = 0.1539 X 1 + 0.1557 X 2 + 0.1572 X 3 + 0.1677 X 4 + 0.1808 X 5 + 0.1845 X 6 (X1~X6 are flavor, marbling, elasticity, cooked flesh color, tenderness, and flesh color, respectively), and the most suitable muscles were belly and shoulder.

1. Introduction

Pork has an important place in the human diet [1]. According to the latest forecast of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN(FAO) for 2031 [1,2], the global pork consumption demand averaged 110.5 million metric tons from 2019 to 2021. China is a major pork market, accounting for more than 40% of the world’s pork consumption according to data released by the OECD and FAO. In 2021, global pork production was 106.1 million tons, while China accounted for more than 43% of the total global pork production [3].
Pork has a long history in China. Since the early development of human society, pork has entered the human diet, which reflects the important position of pork in people’s food culture. Pork is the main source of meat for the Chinese people because of its low price, rich oil and high nutrition, which can replenish energy for the human body. There are many traditional pork cooking methods in China, such as steaming, boiling, roasting, frying, and scalding in a hot pot, which can produce good meat flavor and are conducive to human digestion and absorption [4]. For example, roasted pork produces a unique barbecue flavor [5].
Different muscles of pork have varied edible quality, nutritional quality, and processing quality, and the most suitable cooking methods for them are also varied. When different cooking methods are adopted for these muscles, they produce different flavors [6]. To improve life quality, scholars begin to pay more attention to the suitability of meat processing and cooking methods for better flavor and enjoyment. At present, meat processing suitability research mainly focuses on beef and mutton [7,8,9]. For example, it is found that high rib, silverside, striploin, tenderloin, and topside of beef are more suitable for roasting [10], and sirloin, knuckle, and beef tendon are suitable for stewing [11]; shank striploin, knuckle, loin, and silverside of mutton are suitable for roasting, loin, shank, striploin, knuckle, chuck tender, and silverside are suitable for boiling, and loin, striploin, and shank are suitable for scalding [12]. However, there is no relevant report on the cooking and processing suitability of pork muscles, revealing that research on the comprehensive evaluation model for the cooking suitability of different muscles of pork is relatively lacking. Therefore, building a comprehensive evaluation model for the cooking suitability of pork muscles can provide scientific guidance to consumers.
In the process of establishing an evaluation model, there are four common methods for assigning indicator weights: analytic hierarchy process, principal component analysis (PCA), expert scoring, and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. PCA avoids the subjective influence of experts and helps transform multiple complex indicators into a few comprehensive indicators by dimension reduction [13].
In this study, loin, ham, shoulder, and belly from Duroc × (Landrace × Yorkshire) pigs (DLYs) were used to analyze the differences in the edible quality and nutritional quality of fresh meat, and the sensory scores under three cooking methods including boiling, scalding, and roasting. Key quality indexes of pork under different cooking methods were determined, and an evaluation model was established to evaluate the cooking suitability of different muscles of pork, so as to provide guidance on the cooking of different muscles of pork.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Pork muscle samples from six 180-day-old DLY pigs (females) of 80 kg carcass weight fed by the same feeding method were collected from Beijing Shunxin Pengcheng Co., Ltd. (Beijing, China). The slaughtered pigs were cooled for 24 h at 0~4 °C. After 24 h cooling, the four muscles of loin (longissimus), ham, shoulder(trapezius), and belly (obliquus externus abdominis) were cut from the left half of the carcass using specific methodologies: (I) Pork loin was cut parallel to the junction of the fifth and sixth thoracic vertebrae and sacral vertebrae, 4~6 cm away from the backbone, and the fat layer was slightly trimmed. (II) Pork ham was cut perpendicularly from the longissimus dorsi at the junction of the thoracic and sacral vertebrae, leaving it intact. (III) Pork shoulder was cut from the middle of the fifth and sixth ribs. (IV)Pork belly was cut from the fifth and sixth thoracic vertebrae to the lumbar sacral vertebrae junction of the pig, and the rib meat was removed. Then, four muscles were frozen at −20 °C for 48 h.
A total of 37 kinds of mixed fatty acid methyl ester standard and disodium inosinate standard were purchased from Sigma Inc. (St. Louis, MO, USA); the mixed amino acid standard solution was purchased from the Research Center for Agricultural Product Quality Standards of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (Beijing, China), and the cholesterol standard was purchased from the Chinese Academy of Metrology (Beijing, China).

2.2. Experimental Methods

2.2.1. Pork Cooking

Pork samples were thawed at 4 °C. The first cooking method was to cut the pork into 0.5 cm-thick pieces and boil them in 100 °C boiling water for 3 min; the second cooking method was to cut the pork into 0.1 cm-thick pieces and scald them in 100 °C boiling water for 10 s; the third method was to cut the pork into 0.5 cm-thick pieces, roast them at 200 °C for 10 min, and turn them over at 5 min. No seasoning was added in the above cooking methods.

2.2.2. Sensory Evaluation Methods

The descriptive sensory evaluation method adopted the sensory profile examination and was performed by 10 professionals who had been especially trained and examined. According to GB/T 22210-2008 “Standard for the Sensory Assessment of Meat and meat Products” [14], ten professionals who have been specially trained and assessed were selected for sensory evaluation. The color, odor, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, chewability, and overall acceptability of the cooked pork were evaluated. Flesh color and marbling were evaluated by referring to the pig color grading atlas [15] and pork marbling grading atlas [16], and the rest of the sensory scores were given 1~10 points from the worst to the best.

2.2.3. Edible Quality Index Determination

Edible quality indexes of fresh pork were determined by referring to NY/T 2793-2015 “Objective Evaluation Method of Meat Quality” [17]. The shearing force was determined by a digital muscle tenderness meter, the meat color values L*, a*, and b* were determined by a portable color difference meter, and water retention was expressed by drip loss.

2.2.4. Nutritional Quality Index Determination

The protein and fat content of fresh pork were determined according to the national standards GB 5009.5-2016 “Determination of Protein in Food under National Food Safety Standard” [18] and GB 5009.6-2016 “Determination of Fat in Foods under National Food Safety Standard” [19].
The amino acid content of fresh pork was determined by referring to GB 5009.124-2016 “Determination of Amino Acids in Food under National Food Safety Standard “ [20], and calculated by the external standard method through the peak area.
The fatty acid content of fresh pork was determined according to GB 5009.168-2016 “Determination of Fatty Acids in Food under National Food Safety Standard “ [21], which was extracted by acetyl chlorine-methanol, with 37 kinds of mixed fatty acid methyl esters used for external standard quantitative analysis.
The inosinic acid content of fresh pork was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and quantified by the external standard method proposed by Ge et al. [22].
The cholesterol content of fresh pork was determined according to the national standard GB 5009.128-2016 “Determination of Cholesterol in Food under National Food Safety Standard” [23], with slight modification. HPLC was used for determination and the external standard method was used for quantification.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

There were two parallels for sensory evaluation, determination of edible quality indexes, protein and inosinic acid, and three parallel for other indexes. Data were processed by EXCEL 2016 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) to calculate the mean value and standard deviation; SPSS Statistics 26 software (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) was employed for standardization processing, one-way ANOVA, cluster analysis, correlation analysis, and PCA; Duncan’s multiple comparison was used for difference significance tests, and the significance level was α = 0.05. The correlation analysis, cluster analysis, PCA, and coefficient of variation were considered comprehensively, and key evaluation indexes were selected. The range transformation method was applied to the selected indexes for positive processing.

3. Results

3.1. Fresh Meat Quality Analysis for Different Muscles of Pork

Flesh color, elasticity, and marbling of fresh meat are usually used by consumers to make pork purchase decisions [24], which play an important role in meat quality. Water retention has a significant impact on edible quality, nutrient loss, and muscle production [25], and the shearing force reflects the tenderness of meat [26]. Fat, protein, cholesterol, and fatty acid are nutritional indicators of pork, reflecting the nutritional characteristics of pork [27]. Inosine acid and flavor amino acid promote the formation of pork flavor and are important flavor substances of pork [28]. Flavor amino acids generally refer to glutamic acid, aspartic acid, phenylalanine, alanine, glycine, and tyrosine; these six kinds of amino acids can show special flavor.
As can be seen from Table 1, the flesh color score and marbling score of pork shoulder were significantly higher than those of other muscles (p < 0.05). The high flesh color score of the shoulder is due to the high myoglobin content [29]. Marbling can characterize the intramuscular fat content, and an increase in intramuscular fat has a positive significance for pork sensory quality [30].
The L*, a*, and b* values of meat were different among the four muscles of pork. The L* value of pork loin was significantly higher than that of the other muscles (p < 0.05); the a* values of pork belly and shoulder were significantly higher than that of pork loin and ham (p < 0.05), and the b* value of belly was significantly higher than that of loin and ham (p < 0.05). The L* value difference between the loin and other muscles may be caused by different light scattering characteristics resulting from different fiber structures of the muscle surface [10]; the significantly high a* value of the belly and shoulder may be due to the rich myoglobin content [29], and the difference in the b* value may be attributed by the difference in the content of high ferric myoglobin [10,31].
Drip loss of the pork loin was significantly higher than that of other muscles (p < 0.05), and the belly had the best water retention, which is consistent with the research results of Damian Knecht et al. [32]. The fat content of the belly was significantly higher than that of other muscles (p < 0.05). Cholesterol in the shoulder was higher than that in other muscles (p < 0.05), and the inosinic acid, flavored amino acid, and protein content in pork loin were higher than those in other muscles (p < 0.05). The content of unsaturated fatty acids (UFA) in pork ham and belly was higher than that in other muscles (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the content of UFA between pork loin and shoulder, which is consistent with the research results of Huang et al. [33].

3.2. Sensory Analysis for the Cooking Quality of Different Muscles of Pork

The four muscles of pork were cooked by boiling, scalding, and roasting, and the sensory quality differences of the four muscles were analyzed by sensory scoring of the cooked meat products.
As can be seen from Figure 1a, the scores of odor, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and chewiness of belly were significantly higher than those of other muscles under the boiling method (p < 0.05). The high odor and flavor scores of the belly may be due to the high fat content of the belly, which produces rich flavor substances through lipid oxidative degradation [28,34,35]. The high juiciness score of the belly is attributed to its good water retention and rich fat content [36].
It can be seen from Figure 1b that under the scalding method the scores of the odor, tenderness, juiciness, and masticatory indexes of pork belly were also significantly higher than those of other muscles (p < 0.05). Similar to the boiling method, the key factor that makes the sensory score of pork belly superior to other muscles may be its rich fat content.
As shown in Figure 1c, the scores of cooked flesh color, flavor, tenderness, chewiness, and overall acceptability of shoulder and belly were significantly higher than those of other muscles under the roasting method (p < 0.05), and the juiciness scores of belly were significantly higher than those of other muscles (p < 0.05), which was also related to the rich fat content of the belly [36]. The odor score of the belly was significantly higher than that of loin and ham (p < 0.05), because the Maillard reaction would also occur in the process of roasting besides lipid oxidation [37,38,39], and the greater the degree of Maillard reaction the stronger the aroma [40].

3.3. Key Quality Index Screening and Evaluation Model Construction

3.3.1. Principal Component Analysis

To screen the key quality indexes of pork under the methods of boiling, scalding, and roasting, PCA was conducted for each quality index. The results of PCA and the weight of each index under the three cooking methods are shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.
As can be seen from Table 2, under the boiling method, the quality indexes of different pork muscles were separately analyzed for the four principal components, each of which had a characteristic root greater than 1, and the cumulative variance contribution rate reached 81%. The three-dimensional(3D) loading diagram under boiling method can be seen in Figure S1. The absolute weights of flesh color, elasticity, marbling, L*, b*, drip loss, shearing force, cholesterol, inosinic acid, and UFA were lower than others, so they were not considered in the selection of indicators.
As indicated in Table 3, under the scalding method, the quality indexes of different pork muscles were analyzed for the four principal components, each of which had a characteristic root greater than 1, and the cumulative variance contribution rate reached 81%. The 3D loading diagram under scalding method can be seen from Figure S2. The absolute weights of flesh color, elasticity, marbling, L*, drip loss, shearing force, cholesterol, inosinic acid, and UFA were lower than others, so they were not considered in the selection of indicators.
As can be seen from Table 4, the quality indexes of different pork muscles were analyzed for five principal components under the roasting method, each of which had a characteristic root greater than 1, and the cumulative variance contribution rate reached 82%. The 3D loading diagram under roasting method can be seen from Figure S3. The absolute weights of L*, a*, b*, fat, cholesterol, and UFA were lower than others, so they were not considered when indexes were selected.

3.3.2. Cluster Analysis

To determine key quality indicators of pork under different cooking methods, cluster analysis was performed for all the quality indicators and the results were shown in Figure 2.
Under the boiling method, the dendrogram of the quality indexes was shown in Figure 2a. According to the clustering distance, tenderness, chewiness, juiciness, odor, flavor, fat content, a*, b*, and UFA were clustered into a category, while marbling, cholesterol, flesh color, and elasticity were clustered into another. The protein content, flavored amino acid, drip loss, inosinic acid, and L* were classified into a category, while the shearing force was classified into another category alone.
Under the scalding method, the dendrogram of the quality indexes was shown in Figure 2b. According to the clustering distance, tenderness, chewiness, juiciness, flavor, fat content, odor, a*, and b* were grouped into a category, UFA was grouped into a category alone, and marbling, cholesterol, flesh color, and elasticity were grouped into a category. The protein content, flavored amino acid, drip loss, inosinic acid, and L* were classified into a category, while the shearing force was classified into a category alone.
Under the roasting method, the dendrogram of the quality indexes was shown in Figure 2c. According to the clustering distance, tenderness, juiciness, chewiness, cooked flesh color, fat content, odor, flavor, a*, and b* were grouped into a category, UFA was grouped into a category alone, and marbling, cholesterol, flesh color, and elasticity were grouped into a category. Protein, flavored amino acid, drip loss, inosinic acid, and L* were classified into a category, while the shearing force was classified into another category alone.

3.3.3. Correlation Analysis

To determine key quality indicators of pork under different cooking methods, correlation analysis was carried out for each quality index and the results were shown in Figure 3.
As shown in Figure 3a, under the boiling method, tenderness was significantly positively correlated with chewiness and juiciness, with correlation coefficients of 0.967 and 0.868, respectively (p < 0.01). Tenderness is mainly related to myofibrillar protein and connective tissue protein [41]; Sasaki et al. [42] found that tenderness was related to chewiness, juiciness and hardness through experiments. The fat was significantly negatively correlated with the content of flavored amino acid and protein, and the correlation coefficients were −0.920 and −0.904, respectively (p < 0.01). Amino acid are the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are broken down to produce amino acids. The content of flavored amino acid was significantly positively correlated with that of protein, and the correlation coefficient was 0.925 (p < 0.01).
As shown in Figure 3b, under the scalding method, tenderness was significantly positively correlated with chewiness and juiciness, with correlation coefficients of 0.957 and 0.923, respectively (p < 0.01). The content of fat was significantly negatively correlated with the content of flavored amino acid and protein, with the correlation coefficients of −0.920 and −0.904, respectively (p < 0.01). The content of flavored amino acid was significantly positively correlated with that of protein, with the correlation coefficient of 0.925 (p < 0.01).
It can be seen from Figure 3c that, under the roasting method, flavor and odor were significantly positively correlated (r = 0.839, p < 0.01). Tenderness was significantly positively correlated with chewiness (r = 0.921, p < 0.01) and juiciness (r = 0.942, p < 0.01). With the loss of water, myoglobin and soluble pigment in the muscle are lost [43], so drip loss was positively correlated flesh color (r = −0.769, p < 0.01). Drip loss was also positively correlated with inosinic acid (r = 0.899, p < 0.01) and protein (r = 0.832, p < 0.01).

3.3.4. Screening of Key Quality Indicators

Key quality indicators were screened according to the weight, correlation coefficient, and coefficient of variation of each quality indicator obtained by PCA.
When key quality indexes were screened under the boiling method, the first type of index included tenderness, chewiness, juiciness, odor, flavor, fat, a*, b*, and UFA. As b* and UFA had a small weight, they were not considered. Tenderness was positively correlated with chewiness and juiciness, with the correlation coefficients of 0.967 and 0.868 (p < 0.01), coefficient of variation of 18.14%, and weight of 0.2250. Therefore, tenderness was selected as a key index. The weights of odor, flavor, and fat were 0.2162, 0.2298, and 0.1820, respectively, with the coefficients of variation of 11.44%, 14.14%, and 120.57%. Due to the large weights and coefficients of variation of odor, flavor, and fat, the three indexes were also selected. The second type of indicator was marbling, cholesterol, flesh color, and elasticity. Because the weights of the four indicators were relatively low, the second type of indicator was not selected. The third type was the protein content, flavored amino acid, drip loss, inosinic acid, and L*. Due to the low weights of drip loss, inosinic acid, and L*, these indicators were not selected. The weights of protein and flavored amino acid were −0.1517 and −0.1600, their coefficients of variation were 20.26% and 25.71%, and the correlation between them was 0.925 (p < 0.01). Therefore, flavored amino acid was selected as the third representative index. The fourth type of index was the shearing force, whose weight was too low (−0.0996) so it was not considered. Since the fat was significantly correlated with flavored amino acid, with a correlation coefficient of −0.920, the fat with a higher weight and coefficient of variation was selected to replace flavored amino acid. To sum up, a*, fat, odor, tenderness, and flavor were selected as the key quality indexes under the boiling method, and their weights were reshown in Table 5.
In the screening of key quality indexes for scalded pork in a hot pot, the first type of index included tenderness, chewiness, juiciness, flavor, fat content, odor, a*, and b*. Because tenderness was positively correlated with chewiness and juiciness, with correlation coefficients of 0.957 and 0.923 (p < 0.01), weight of 0.2086, and coefficient of variation of 15.29%, tenderness was selected as a key index. The correlation between b* and a* was 0.777 (p < 0.01), the weight of a* was 0.1479, and its coefficient of variation was 27.36%. Therefore, a* was selected as a key index. The correlation between odor and flavor was 0.840 (p < 0.01), and the weights of odor and flavor were 0.2073 and 0.2243, both of which were large. Therefore, odor and flavor were selected as key indicators. In short, tenderness, odor, flavor, fat, and a* were selected to represent the first category. The second type of index was UFA, and because of its low weight of 0.0692 this type of index was deleted. The third category of indicators was marbling, cholesterol, flesh color, and elasticity, and because these four indicators had low weights this category of indicators was not chosen either. The fourth type of index was the protein content, flavored amino acid, drip loss, inosinic acid, and L*. As the weights of L*, drip loss, and inosinic acid were relatively low, 0.0516, −0.1147, and −0.1065, respectively, these three indexes were deleted. In this category, the weights of protein and flavored amino acid were −0.1452 and −0.1481, their coefficients of variation were 20.26% and 25.71%, and the correlation between them was 0.925 (p < 0.01). Therefore, flavored amino acid was selected as the fourth representative index. The fifth index was the shearing force, whose weight was too low at −0.0691, so it was not considered. Since the fat was significantly correlated with flavored amino acid, with a correlation coefficient of −0.920, the fat with a larger weight and coefficient of variation was selected to replace flavored amino acid. In summary, a*, fat, odor, tenderness, and flavor were selected as the key evaluation indexes under the scalding method, as shown in Table 5.
When key quality indexes under the roasting method were screened, the first type of index was tenderness, juiciness, chewiness, cooked flesh color, fat content, odor, flavor, a*, and b*. Due to the low weights of a*, b*, and fat, these indexes were deleted. Tenderness was positively correlated with chewiness (r = 0.921, p < 0.01) and juiciness (r = 0.942, p < 0.01), its weight was 0.1620, and its coefficient of variation was 13.94%. Therefore, tenderness was selected as a key index. There was a significant positive correlation between flavor and odor (r = 0.839, p < 0.01), the weight of flavor was 0.1379, and its coefficient of variation was 11.23%. Therefore, flavor was selected as a key index. In short, tenderness, cooked flesh color, and flavor were selected to represent the first category of indicators. The second type of index was UFA, and this type of index was deleted due to its low weight of 0.0692. The third type was marbling, cholesterol, flesh color, and elasticity. The weight of cholesterol was low, at 0.0963, so this index was excluded. The weight of elasticity was 0.1408, and its coefficient of variation was 11.54%. The weight of marbling was 0.1395, and its coefficient of variation was 14.91%. The weight of flesh color was 0.1653, and its coefficient of variation was 15.3%. Therefore, elasticity, marbling, and flesh color were selected to represent the third type. The fourth type of index was the protein content, flavored amino acid, drip loss, inosinic acid, and L*. Since L* had a low weight of −0.0798, this index was not selected. Drip loss was positively correlated with inosinic acid (r = 0.899, p < 0.01) and the protein content (r = 0.832, p < 0.01). Therefore, drip loss with a larger coefficient of variation was selected to represent the fourth type of index. The fifth type was the shearing force, whose weight, of 0.0111, was too low, so it was not considered. There was a significant negative correlation between cooked flesh color and drip loss (r = −0.769, p < 0.01). In order to avoid a negative comprehensive score, cooked flesh color was chosen to represent drip loss. Therefore, six indexes including flavor, marbling, elasticity, cooked flesh color, tenderness, and flesh color were selected as the key indexes under the roasting method, and the weights were reshown in Table 5.

3.3.5. Model Construction and Suitability Evaluation

According to the selected key quality indicators and weights, an evaluation model for the cooking suitability of different muscles of meat was constructed. According to the comprehensive quality evaluation scores and K-means clustering analysis, the suitability of the four muscles of pork under the three cooking methods was obtained and the results were shown in Table 6. The score of comprehensive quality evaluation was set as Y. Under the boiling method, Y greater than 0.7131 was the most suitable for boiling muscles, 0.3058~0.7131 was relatively suitable for boiling muscles, and less than 0.3058 was unsuitable for boiling muscles. Under the scalding method, Y greater than 0.647 was the most suitable, 0.251~0.647 was relatively suitable, and less than 0.251 was unsuitable. Under the roasting method, Y greater than 0.4469 was the most suitable for roasting, 0.2344~0.4469 was relatively suitable for roasting, and Y less than 0.2344 was not suitable for roasting.
The evaluation model under the boiling method was:
Y = 0.1537 X 1 + 0.1805 X 2 + 0.2145 X 3 + 0.2233 X 4 + 0.2281 X 5
X1~X5 represent a*, fat, odor, tenderness, and flavor, respectively. After the determination results of the key quality indicators for boiling were normalization and standardized, they were substituted into the comprehensive quality model to calculate the scores, as shown in Table 6. The results showed that one of the most suitable muscles for boiling was pork belly.
The evaluation model under the scaling method was:
Y = 0.1541 X 1 + 0.1787 X 2 + 0.2160 X 3 + 0.2174 X 4 + 0.2337 X 5
X1~X5 represent a*, fat, odor, tenderness, and flavor, respectively. The measured results of the key quality indicators for scalding were normalization and standardized into the comprehensive quality model to calculate the scores, as shown in Table 6. The most suitable muscle for scalding was pork belly.
The evaluation model under the roasting method was:
Y = 0.1539 X 1 + 0.1557 X 2 + 0.1572 X 3 + 0.1677 X 4 + 0.1808 X 5 + 0.1845 X 6
X1~X6 represent flavor, marbling, elasticity, cooked flesh color, tenderness, and flesh color, respectively. The measured results of the key quality indicators of roasting were normalized and standardized, and then substituted into the comprehensive quality model to calculate the scores, as shown in Table 6. The most suitable muscles for roasting were pork belly and shoulder.

3.4. Verification of the Comprehensive Quality Evaluation Equation for Different Muscles of Pork

The overall acceptability score in the sensory evaluation experiment was a dependent variable, the score calculated by the comprehensive quality evaluation model was the independent variable, and then a regression equation was established. The validation model under the boiling method was:
y = 1.8236X − 0.3596 (R2 = 0.8862)
The validation model under the scalding method was:
y = 1.8388X − 0.3479 (R2 = 0.9591)
The validation model under the roasting method was:
y = 3.5021X − 0.6924 (R2 = 0.8213)
where R2 is greater than 0.8, indicating that the comprehensive evaluation model can accurately predict the overall acceptability of sensory evaluation and can accurately reflect the suitability of the three cooking methods.

4. Conclusions

This study analyzed the differences in the sensory quality of four muscles of pork in three cooking methods (boiling, scalding, and roasting) and compared the differences in the edible quality and nutritional quality of fresh meat. Through principal component analysis, correlation analysis, and analysis of the coefficient of variation, key quality indexes under different cooking methods were determined and the comprehensive quality evaluation model was established for pork under different cooking methods. Under the boiling method, the comprehensive quality evaluation model was Y = 0.1537 X 1 + 0.1805 X 2 + 0.2145 X 3 + 0.2233 X 4 + 0.2281 X 5 (X1~X5 are a*, fat, odor, tenderness, and flavor, respectively), and the most suitable muscle was belly. Under the scalding method, the comprehensive quality evaluation model was Y = 0.1541 X 1 + 0.1787 X 2 + 0.2160 X 3 + 0.2174 X 4 + 0.2337 X 5 (X1~X5 are a*, fat, odor, tenderness, and flavor, respectively), and the most suitable muscle was belly. Under the roasting method, the comprehensive quality evaluation model was Y = 0.1539 X 1 + 0.1557 X 2 + 0.1572 X 3 + 0.1677 X 4 + 0.1808 X 5 + 0.1845 X 6 (X1~X6 are flavor, marbling, elasticity, cooked flesh color, tenderness, and flesh color, respectively), and the most suitable muscles were belly and shoulder.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods12040742/s1. Figure S1: PCA loading diagram under boiling method; Figure S2: PCA loading diagram under scalding method; Figure S3: PCA loading diagram under roasting method.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.T.; methodology, S.D., J.Z., S.L. and Y.Z.; software, S.D.; resources, X.T.; data curation, S.D.; writing—original draft preparation, S.D.; writing—review and editing, X.T. and S.D.; supervision, X.T.; funding acquisition, X.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the China Agriculture Research System, grant number CARS-35 and the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program of CAAS.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to involving other research content.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the College of Food Science and Technology of Nanjing Agricultural University and the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences for their support of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Yu, W.; Jensen, J.D. Sustainability implications of rising global pork demand. Anim. Front. 2022, 12, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. OECD; Food and Agriculture Organization. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2022–2031; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Tongyu, Y.; Zuli, W.; Xiaohong, L.; Shuihua, X.; Haifeng, Z. Development of the world pig industry in 2021 and Trends in 2022. Swine Ind. Sci. 2022, 39, 34–38. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=TJXM202202013&DbName=CJFQ2022 (accessed on 25 February 2022).
  4. Ruihua, W.; Wanzhou, J.; Qian, W.; Jianchu, C.; Xingqian, Y.; Donghong, L. Effects of Different Cooking Methods on Lipid Oxidation and Volatile Compound Profile of Pork. Mod. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 32, 175–182+312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wei, L.; Min, C.; Yaqian, X.; Qian, Z.; Xing, Q.; Xiaoyan, Z.; Wenzheng, Z. Effects of roasting time on the volatile flavor compounds of Chinese roasted pork belly. Chin. Condiment 2021, 46, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ángel-Rendón, S.V.; Filomena-Ambrosio, A.; Hernández-Carrión, M.; Llorca, E.; Hernando, I.; Quiles, A.; Sotelo-Díaz, I. Pork meat prepared by different cooking methods. A microstructural, sensorial and physicochemical approach. Meat Sci. 2020, 163, 108089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hui, L.; Haifei, L.; Debao, W.; Nan, W.; Jiuru, H.; Rugang, T.; Xiao, W.; Meng, Z.; Ding, Y.; Chunxia, Z.; et al. Analysis of Physical-chemical Quality and Suitability Evaluation for Roast Processing of Beef Cuts from Different Parts of Simmental Cattle. Animal Husb. Feed. Sci. 2021, 42, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wanming, H. Study on the Quality Characteristics and Suitability of Processing Traditional Beef Products in Different Parts of Simmental Hybrid Cattle. Master’s Thesis, Henan Agricultural University, Zheng Zhou, China, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gaiming, Z.; Shanshan, L.; Wenming, C.; Chaozhi, Z.; Jiaqi, L.; Yangyang, J.; Feng, Y.; Xueyuan, B.; Xinglei, Q. Haracteristics of different cuts of Xia-Nan beef and the suitability evaluation for beef jerky. Food Sci. 2021, 42, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, X.; You, J.; Cheng, K.; You, M.; Liu, D. Effects of Different Cooking Methods on Lipid Oxidation and Volatile Compound Profile of Pork. Food Sci. 2021, 42, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, K. Study on Processing Characteristics and Suitability Qinghai Plateau Yak Meat from Different Parts. Master’s Thesis, Henan Agricultural University, Zheng Zhou, China, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Song, J. Research on Processing Suitability of Different Parts of Hybrid Lamb between Bamei Sheep and Small Tailed Han Sheep. Master’s Thesis, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, China, 2016. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201602&filename=1016902534.nh (accessed on 1 June 2016).
  13. Chao, H.; Meng, L.; Tingting, L.; Xue, P.; Jie, L.; Jinhui, Z. Comparison and analysis of the four methods of determining weights in multi-objective comprehensive evaluation. J. Hubei Univ. 2016, 38, 172–178. [Google Scholar]
  14. GB/T 22210-2008; Specification for Sensory Evaluation of Meat and Meat Products. Standardization Administration of China: Beijing, China, 2008.
  15. Wei, W.; Xudong, Z.; Xiaoyan, T.; Guanghong, Z. CN304650416S; Pig Color Grading Atlas; Intellectual Property Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wei, W.; Xudong, Z.; Xiaoyan, T.; Guanghong, Z. CN304612439S; Pork Marbling Grading Atlas; Intellectual Property Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  17. NY/T 2793-2015; Objective Evaluation Methods of Meat Edible Quality. Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2015.
  18. GB 5009.5-2016; Determination of Protein in Food. National Food Safety Standard: Beijing, China, 2016.
  19. GB 5009.6-2016; Determination of Fat in Foods. National Food Safety Standard: Beijing, China, 2016.
  20. GB 5009.124-2016; Determination of Amino Acids in Food. National Food Safety Standard: Beijing, China, 2016.
  21. GB 5009.168-2016; Determination of Fatty Acids in Food. National Food Safety Standard: Beijing, China, 2016.
  22. Qianqian, G.; Xiaoyan, T.; Ting, T.; Junliang, Z. Comparative Study on the Umami Characteristics of Pork from Different Breeds. Meat Res. 2020, 34, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. GB 5009.128-2016; Determination of Cholesterol in Foods. National Food Safety Standard: Beijing, China, 2016.
  24. Li, H.; Xu, C.; Meng, F.; Yao, Z.; Fan, Z.; Yang, Y.; Meng, X.; Zhan, Y.; Sun, Y.; Ma, F.; et al. Genome-Wide Association Studies for Flesh Color and Intramuscular Fat in (Duroc × Landrace × Large White) Crossbred Commercial Pigs. Genes 2022, 13, 2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, D.; Li, H.; Emara, A.M.; Wang, Z.; Chen, X.; He, Z. Study on the mechanism of KCl replacement of NaCl on the water retention of salted pork. Food Chem. 2020, 332, 127414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Coombs, C.E.; Holman, B.W.; Friend, M.A.; Hopkins, D.L. Long-term red meat preservation using chilled and frozen storage combinations: A review. Meat Sci. 2017, 125, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, H.; Guo, T.; Jia, J.; Zhang, P.; Wang, L.; Xia, N.; Qian, Q.; Peng, H.; et al. Comparison of Nutrition and Flavor Characteristics of Five Breeds of Pork in China. Foods 2022, 11, 2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jing, L.; Yuanyuan, Y.; Qingyu, Z.; Chaohua, T.; Yuchang, Q.; Junmin, Z. Research progress on the relationship between meat flavor precursors and flavor quality. Chin. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 55, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Daiwen, C.; Keying, Z.; Zuyu, H. The formation principle of pork quality characteristics. J. Sichuan Ag Ricultural Univ. 2002, 20, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cannata, S.; Engle, T.E.; Moeller, S.J.; Zerby, H.N.; Radunz, A.E.; Green, M.D.; Bass, P.D.; Belk, K.E. Effect of visual marbling on sensory properties and quality traits of pork loin. Meat Sci. 2010, 85, 428–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yangyang, J.; Chaozhi, Z.; Gaiming, Z.; Huilin, W.; Jiaqi, L.; Shanshan, L.; Feng, Y.; Hang, L.; Mingshan, H. Effect of Different Beef Cuts on Quality of Dried Beef Slices. Meat Res. 2019, 33, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Knecht, D.; Duzinski, K.; Jankowska-Makosa, A. Pork ham and belly quality can be estimated from loin quality measurements? Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yechuan, H.; Hongjun, L.; Zhaomin, W.; Li, F. Comparison of Muscle Lipid Content and Fatty acid Composition among Different Positions of Rongchang Pork Carcass. Food Sci. 2011, 32, 216–220. [Google Scholar]
  34. Soncin, S.; Chiesa, L.M.; Cantoni, C.; Biondi, P.A. Preliminary study of the volatile fraction in the raw meat of pork, duck and goose. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2007, 20, 436–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Myers, A.J.; Scramlin, S.M.; Dilger, A.C.; Souza, C.M.; McKeith, F.K.; Killefer, J. Contribution of lean, fat, muscle color and degree of doneness to pork and beef species flavor. Meat Sci. 2009, 82, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Yuan, Z. The Influence of Raw Meat Attributes on Quality of Meat Products. Master’s Thesis, Henan Agricultural University, Zheng Zhou, China, 2013. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201401&filename=1014105488.nh (accessed on 1 June 2013).
  37. Khan, M.I.; Jo, C.; Tariq, M.R. Meat flavor precursors and factors influencing flavor precursors--A systematic review. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chang, C.; Wu, G.; Zhang, H.; Jin, Q.; Wang, X. Deep-fried flavor: Characteristics, formation mechanisms, and influencing factors. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 1496–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Whitfield, F.B. Volatiles from interactions of Maillard reactions and lipids. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1992, 31, 1–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhou, Y.; Xie, F.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Y.; Tang, W.; Xiao, Y. Effects of Maillard reaction on flavor and safety of Chinese traditional food: Roast duck. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 1915–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, C.; Wang, D.; Dong, H.; Xu, W.; Gao, F.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, M. Effects of different cooking regimes on the microstructure and tenderness of duck breast muscle. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 1979–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sasaki, K.; Motoyama, M.; Narita, T.; Hagi, T.; Ojima, K.; Oe, M.; Nakajima, I.; Kitsunai, K.; Saito, Y.; Hatori, H.; et al. Characterization and classification of Japanese consumer perceptions for beef tenderness using descriptive texture characteristics assessed by a trained sensory panel. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 994–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xiying, Z.; Liangliang, Z.; Xuan, Z.; Zhaojun, L.; Jiaqi, Z.; Aiwen, J.; Rongyang, L.; Chengyu, L.; Chao, J.; Wangjun, W. Comparison of methods for measuring drip loss from pork and analysis of its correlation with meat quality traits. Anim. Husb. Vet. Med. 2020, 52, 40–44. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=XMYS202006012&DbName=DKFX2020 (accessed on 9 June 2022).
Foods 12 00742 g001a 550Foods 12 00742 g001b 550
Figure 1. Sensory scores and variation coefficients of each index for four muscles of pork under different cooking methods: (a) boiling; (b) scalding; (c) roasting. Different letters (a, b, c) indicated significant difference (α = 0.05 level).
Figure 1. Sensory scores and variation coefficients of each index for four muscles of pork under different cooking methods: (a) boiling; (b) scalding; (c) roasting. Different letters (a, b, c) indicated significant difference (α = 0.05 level).
Foods 12 00742 g001aFoods 12 00742 g001b
Foods 12 00742 g002 550
Figure 2. Cluster analysis of the quality indexes of pork under different cooking methods: (a) boiling; (b) scalding; (c) roasting.
Figure 2. Cluster analysis of the quality indexes of pork under different cooking methods: (a) boiling; (b) scalding; (c) roasting.
Foods 12 00742 g002
Foods 12 00742 g003 550
Figure 3. Correlation analysis of certain indexes of pork under different cooking methods: (a) boiling; (b) scalding; (c) roasting. * is significantly correlated (α = 0.05 level), ** is extremely significantly correlated (α = 0.01 level).
Figure 3. Correlation analysis of certain indexes of pork under different cooking methods: (a) boiling; (b) scalding; (c) roasting. * is significantly correlated (α = 0.05 level), ** is extremely significantly correlated (α = 0.01 level).
Foods 12 00742 g003
Table
Table 1. Analysis of the fresh pork quality results in different muscles.
Table 1. Analysis of the fresh pork quality results in different muscles.
IndicatorsPork LoinPork HamPork ShoulderPork BellyCoefficient of Variation (%)
Flesh color3.31 ± 0.53 c3.88 ± 0.44 b4.79 ± 0.48 a4.01 ± 0.10 b15.30
Elasticity3.94 ± 0.40 b4.57 ± 0.84 ab5.23 ± 0.44 a4.62 ± 0.41 ab11.54
Marbling2.57 ± 0.27 b2.83 ± 0.53 b3.85 ± 0.42 a2.72 ± 0.28 b14.91
L*52.25 ± 4.97 a46.62 ± 3.06 b46.12 ± 5.32 b45.65 ± 2.71 b6.48
a*11.41 ± 1.25 b13.93 ± 3.07 b19.69 ± 2.82 a20.75 ± 3.64 a27.36
b*3.16 ± 1.65 c4.14 ± 1.25 bc6.00 ± 1.49 ab6.53 ± 1.79 a31.78
Drip loss (%)9.87 ± 1.98 a7.86 ± 1.85 b1.41 ± 1.07 c0.52 ± 0.24 c94.63
Shearing force (kgf)5.25 ± 2.29 a5.70 ± 1.79 a4.11 ± 0.93 a4.26 ± 1.05 a15.92
Protein (%)21.17 ± 0.43 a19.13 ± 1.16 b16.23 ± 1.24 c13.07 ± 1.66 d20.26
Fat (%)1.44 ± 0.54 c2.00 ± 0.73 c13.57 ± 2.82 b34.90 ± 9.96 a120.57
Cholesterol (mg/100 g)50.21 ± 1.61 c57.53 ± 2.55 b60.92 ± 2.36 a49.62 ± 2.51 c10.18
UFA (%)58.02 ± 1.07 b60.12 ± 0.91 a57.19 ± 1.33 b61.21 ± 0.80 a3.14
Inosinic acid (mg/100 g)226.55 ± 21.49 a171.50 ± 32.36 b92.66 ± 16.65 c94.74 ± 25.83 c44.30
Flavored amino acid (g/100 g)9.49 ± 0.36 a8.85 ± 0.17 b6.7 ± 0.48 c5.27 ± 1.05 d25.71
Means in the same row with different letters differ significantly (α = 0.05 level).
Table
Table 2. Principal component analysis results of boiled pork.
Table 2. Principal component analysis results of boiled pork.
IndicatorsPC1PC2PC3PC4Weight
Odor0.7010.462−0.1050.3400.2162
Flavor0.7740.3660.0460.3120.2298
Tenderness0.9210.1680.0960.110.2250
Juiciness0.8310.423−0.0360.1940.2335
Chewiness0.9000.2980.1210.1450.2418
Flesh color0.405−0.752−0.2070.041−0.0277
Elasticity0.311−0.603−0.1210.3870.0034
Marbling0.274−0.7540.2300.289−0.0001
L*−0.2910.3750.6390.3920.0700
a*0.816−0.1650.178−0.0850.1549
b*0.616−0.1160.494−0.0530.1495
Drip loss−0.8670.3180.0830.043−0.1264
Shearing force−0.3680.016−0.6660.44−0.0996
Fat0.9100.160−0.083−0.2440.1820
Cholesterol−0.109−0.8310.0080.151−0.1165
Protein−0.9140.0760.0990.241−0.1517
Inosinic acid−0.8560.4000.1150.043−0.1111
UFA0.3560.491−0.546−0.0180.0870
Flavored amino acid−0.9250.0900.0510.187−0.1600
Characteristic root9.1813.5511.6141.055
Variance contribution rate (%)48.32318.6928.4965.555
Cumulative variance contribution rate (%)48.32367.01575.51181.066
Table
Table 3. Principal component analysis results of scalded pork.
Table 3. Principal component analysis results of scalded pork.
IndicatorsPC1PC2PC3PC4Weight
Odor0.6690.2910.1110.5480.2073
Flavor0.8060.3240.1460.3260.2243
Tenderness0.8890.3040.0250.0460.2086
Juiciness0.8500.3490.1370.2180.2272
Chewiness0.9260.2470.0140.0420.2081
Flesh color0.425−0.757−0.180−0.006−0.0196
Elasticity0.338−0.594−0.0460.3610.0186
Marbling0.333−0.7110.3260.2850.0286
L*−0.3000.3830.6660.1780.0516
a*0.821−0.1280.159−0.0900.1479
b*0.631−0.0570.463−0.1430.1402
Drip loss−0.8630.3020.1050.098−0.1147
Shearing force−0.357−0.018−0.5390.623−0.0691
Fat0.9110.211−0.148−0.1980.1715
Cholesterol−0.084−0.8520.0760.091−0.1001
Protein−0.9200.0280.1590.200−0.1452
Inosinic acid−0.8610.3750.1310.062−0.1065
UFA0.3140.474−0.5960.0440.0692
Flavored amino acid−0.9230.0520.1060.188−0.1481
Characteristic root9.2823.2931.6151.255
Variance contribution rate (%)48.85417.338.4996.607
Cumulative variance contribution rate (%)48.85466.18474.68381.289
Table
Table 4. Principal component analysis results of roasted pork.
Table 4. Principal component analysis results of roasted pork.
IndicatorsPC1PC2PC3PC4PC5Weight
Cooked flesh color0.8380−0.05500.0610−0.09200.27500.1502
Odor0.6060−0.39300.22600.25700.52500.0981
Flavor0.7260−0.22700.13500.42100.31600.1379
Tenderness0.8040−0.04100.05300.4120−0.34400.1620
Juiciness0.8320−0.10800.11500.3020−0.36300.1578
Chewiness0.8470−0.1420−0.00700.3580−0.18600.1523
Flesh color0.55900.63500.2160−0.0440−0.05400.1653
Elasticity0.42400.55800.15500.1080−0.13400.1408
Marbling0.39800.7330−0.11500.19600.22400.1395
L*−0.3490−0.2550−0.50000.58500.0550−0.0798
a*0.78400.0340−0.2870−0.28100.30100.0977
b*0.59600.0020−0.5630−0.05400.24400.0583
Drip loss−0.9170−0.1450−0.02800.07400.0710−0.1655
Shearing force−0.31400.02100.76200.14500.22100.0111
Fat0.8570−0.3590−0.0600−0.2460−0.05100.0917
Cholesterol0.03800.86400.10000.04800.15900.0963
Protein−0.90500.12600.02100.23300.0890−0.1249
Inosinic acid−0.9080−0.2250−0.04400.15000.0570−0.1676
UFA0.2720−0.59100.4500−0.2320−0.00400.0077
Flavored amino acid−0.91600.09900.06100.19600.1100−0.1288
Characteristic root9.6272.8821.6261.3771.065
Variance contribution rate (%)48.13514.4128.1296.8835.325
Cumulative variance contribution rate (%)48.13562.54770.67677.55982.884
Table
Table 5. Weight of key quality indicators.
Table 5. Weight of key quality indicators.
Method of CookingKey IndicatorPCA WeightNormalized Weight
Boilinga* (X1)0.15490.1537
Fat (X2)0.18200.1805
Odor (X3)0.21620.2145
Tenderness (X4)0.22500.2233
Flavor (X5)0.22980.2281
Scaldinga* (X1)0.14790.1541
Fat (X2)0.17150.1787
Odor (X3)0.20730.2160
Tenderness (X4)0.20860.2174
Flavor (X5)0.22430.2337
RoastingFlavor (X1)0.13790.1539
Marbling (X2)0.13950.1557
Elasticity (X3)0.14080.1572
Cooked flesh color (X4)0.15020.1677
Tenderness (X5)0.16200.1808
Flesh color (X6)0.16530.1845
Table
Table 6. Comprehensive quality evaluation scores of four pork muscles under three cooking methods and K-means cluster analysis results.
Table 6. Comprehensive quality evaluation scores of four pork muscles under three cooking methods and K-means cluster analysis results.
Method of CookingMuscleYSuitability
BoilingPork loin0.2774Unsuitable
Pork ham0.2967Unsuitable
Pork shoulder0.5212Relatively suitable
Pork belly0.7841The most suitable
ScaldingPork loin0.2602Relatively suitable
Pork ham0.2505Unsuitable
Pork shoulder0.4965Relatively suitable
Pork belly0.7449The most suitable
RoastingPork loin0.1967Unsuitable
Pork ham0.2573Relatively suitable
Pork shoulder0.4484The most suitable
Pork belly0.4249The most suitable
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Duan, S.; Tang, X.; Zhan, J.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Y. The Establishment of Evaluation Models for the Cooking Suitability of Different Pork Muscles. Foods 2023, 12, 742. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040742

AMA Style

Duan S, Tang X, Zhan J, Liu S, Zhang Y. The Establishment of Evaluation Models for the Cooking Suitability of Different Pork Muscles. Foods. 2023; 12(4):742. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040742

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duan, Shengnan, Xiaoyan Tang, Junliang Zhan, Suke Liu, and Yuhui Zhang. 2023. "The Establishment of Evaluation Models for the Cooking Suitability of Different Pork Muscles" Foods 12, no. 4: 742. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040742

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop