臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來大眾對於食肉品質愈加重視，牛肉及豬肉品質評定已行之多年，常以物化分析及感官品評等方式來測定多汁性、質地及風味等肉質特性；相較之下，雞肉則較少有客觀評定之標準。在臺灣，豬肉的販賣仍有部分以常溫模式販售，購買時消費者常以感官特性來作為選擇之依據。主成分分析法 (principal components analysis, PCA) 常用來縮減並得到較少且最主要之變數，且可解釋原有資料中大部分之變異，達到減化數據分析之目的；另一方面，感官品評中常以三角試驗 (triangle test) 等許多不同之測試方式來達成其測定目的。因此，本研究擬結合物化分析、感官品評及統計方法來評估畜禽肉品質之表現。試驗一，水煮紅羽公雞胸肉中心溫度達85°C後，持續烹煮0、20及40分鐘，分別代表不同多汁性之樣品，並測定其烹煮失重、水分含量及保水性等物化特性與描述性感官品評 (descriptive sensory)，再以PCA分析樣品之多汁性表現；試驗二，以12及16週齡紅羽公雞胸肉代表不同質地之樣品，並測定其截切值、總膠原蛋白含量及水溶性膠原蛋白含量等物化特性與描述性感官品評，再以PCA分析樣品之質地表現；試驗三，以三角試驗判別不同溫度貯放之溫體豬里脊肉的感官品質，並探討品評員用以判別的感官依據。
試驗一多汁性結果顯示，PCA分析中前4個主成分可以解釋80.0%之總變異，主成分計分圖 (score plot) 顯示，樣品可大致分為三個群集，由檢測項目負荷 (loading) 得知，影響PC1之主要項目為烹煮失重、水分含量及保水性；PC2重要之項目為保水性；PC3重要之項目為肌纖維外觀、食團中肉顆粒大小及雞肉風味強度等感官特性；PC4重要之項目為初嚼硬度 (initial hardness)、吞嚥後樣品殘留量 (residual loose particles) 及總接受度等感官特性。試驗二質地結果顯示，PCA分析中前4個主成分可以解釋84.6%之總變異，主成分計分圖顯示，樣品可大致分為兩個群集，由檢測項目負荷得知，影響PC1之重要項目為水溶性膠原蛋白含量；PC2重要之項目為總膠原蛋白含量與硬度、雞肉風味強度及總接受度等感官特性；PC3重要之項目為濕潤度 (moisture release)、吞嚥後樣品於口腔中滑順程度 (oily mouthcoat) 及雞肉風味強度等感官特性；PC4重要之項目為總膠原蛋白含量。試驗三豬肉三角試驗感官品評結果顯示，溫體豬肉於23±2°C貯放8小時及33±2°C貯放6小時與冷藏豬肉的感官特性上有顯著差異 (P < 0.05)。此外，費雪精確檢定 (Fisher’s exact test) 結果顯示，色澤、滲水、氣味、黏液及質地等5項品評員用以判斷及選擇的感官因素，與品評員是否正確答題皆無顯著之關係 (P > 0.05)，顯示品評員並非僅依賴單一感官品評因素來區分樣品之差異。進一步觀察各項品評感官因素，以23±2°C貯放8小時組而言，正確答題者中有42.1%選擇質地為其判斷因素，然而無法正確答題者中亦有80%選擇質地為其主要判斷因素，此結果顯示，對於相對較有經驗的品評員而言，質地可能是一項較佳之判斷依據；但反之，對於相對較無經驗的品評員而言，反而可能亦容易造成其誤判，上述結果顯示，利用三角試驗感官品評，有助於判斷豬肉之品質特性，且可進一步瞭解品評員判別樣品的感官原因。此外，探討不同貯放條件下之溫體豬肉時，除了本試驗中所瞭解感官特性之差異性外，肉品之安全性，例如微生物之生長情形等亦應列入參考。綜上所述，適當地結合物化分析、感官品評及統計分析，除了可以瞭解與判定不同肉品之品質特性，更可以從中選取最重要之判定因子，更正確且有效率地評估畜禽肉的品質。

Emphasis of the importance in meat qualities has been increased continuously recently. Evaluation the qualities of beef and pork has been conducted for years. Some characteristics, such as juiciness, texture and flavor of pork and beef are often determined using physicochemical analysis and sensory evaluation. In contrast, there is less an objectively assessed standard for chicken meat. In Taiwan, some pork is sold at the ambient temperature. Consumers choose and purchase meat according to the sensory characteristics of products. A multivariate statistical method namely principal component analysis (PCA) has been used to identify the most critical variables in a multivariate data matrix, thus analyze data more effectively and efficiently. Additionally, some methods including the triangle test have been applied in the sensory evaluation. Therefore, this study was intended to utilize of physicochemical analysis, sensory evaluation and statistical methods to evaluate pork and chicken meet quality. In the 1st experiment, Taiwan native chicken (TNC) breast was cooked in a 95°C water bath until the internal temperature of the meat reached 85°C for 0, 20 and 40 minutes. Cooking loss, moisture content, water holding capacity (WHC) and some descriptive sensory parameters were determined, followed by a PCA analysis, thus to determine the juiciness of meat samples. In the 2nd experiment, shear force, total collagen content, and soluble collagen content as well as some descriptive sensory parameters of breast from TNC which fed for 12 and 16 weeks were determined, followed by a PCA analysis to analyze the texture of samples. In the 3rd experiment, sensory panelists attempted to apply the triangle test to differentiate the pork loins stored at 23±2°C for 4, 6, and 8 h (M4h, M6h, and M8h) as well as at 33±2°C for 2, 4, and 6 h (H2h, H4h, and H6h) to the one stored at 7°C (COM).
The results of the 1st experiment showed that the four major principal components explained about 80.0% of the total variation. The PCA score plot showed a clear separation into the three clusters. According to the loadings, cooking loss, moisture content and WHC, as well as some sensory characteristics including moisture release, cohesiveness and oily mouthcoat were considered as the most effective variables for PC1, while WHC was most effectively to PC2. Sensory attributes including fiber texture, meat particle size, and chicken flavor intensity were effectively to PC3, while initial hardness, residual loose particles, and total acceptance were effectively to PC4. The results of the 2nd experiment showed that the four major principal components explained about 84.6% of the total variation. The PCA score plot showed a clear separation in two clusters. Base on the loadings, the soluble collagen content was effectively to PC1, while the total collagen content as well as some sensory characteristics including chew down hardness, chicken flavor intensity and total acceptance were the most effective variables to determine PC2. Three sensory attributes including moisture release, oily mouthcoat and chicken flavor intensity were effectively to PC3, while the total collagen content was effectively to PC4. The results of the 3rd experiment showed that the sensory characteristics of M8h and H6h samples significantly differed than those of COM (P < 0.05) base on the result of triangle test. According to the Fisher’s exact test, the chooses of 5 sensory characteristics including color, exudative, odor, mucus, and texture did not significantly relate to the correct answering and differentiation the samples (P > 0.05), thus more than one sensory characteristics was applied by the panelist to differentiate the samples. For M8h samples, texture was chosen by the 42.1% of the panelists who successfully differentiate samples, while texture was also chosen by the 80% of the panelist who differentiate samples fail. The results implied texture might be an appropriate judge criterion for those experienced panelists to functionally successfully while texture might be the possible cause leading to the failure for those inexperienced panelists. In summary, PCA can be applied to select a number of physicochemical and sensory parameters to determine the juiciness and texture characteristics of Taiwan native chicken breast effectively. Triangle test can be applied to evaluate the qualities of pork stored at ambient temperatures for 6 to 8 hours. In addition to the sensory characteristics that evaluated in the current study, the safety of product (i.e., the microbiological) should be also addressed. In conclusion, it is promising to apply physicochemical analysis, sensory evaluation and statistical methods appropriately to evaluate meat quality more effectively and efficiently.

中文摘要 i
Abstract iii
目次 v
表目次 ix
圖目次 x
附錄目次 xi
壹、前言 1
貳、文獻探討 2
一、影響生鮮畜禽肉品質之因子 2
(一)、品種 2
(二)、年齡 2
(三)、飼養方式 2
(四)、加熱處理 3
(五)、保存狀況 3
二、肉質評定 4
(一)、肉質評定之目的及重要性 4
(二)、豬肉及雞肉評定之概況 4
三、常用評定肉質之方法 5
(一)、物化分析 5
(二)、感官品評 6
四、主成分分析法 8
(一)、主成分分析法之基本概念 8
(二)、主成分分析法於動物與食品科學及肉品科學之應用 10
參、試驗一：以主成分分析法結合物化特性分析及感官品評來評估紅羽土雞 胸肉多汁性之表現 11
一、摘要 11
二、緒言 11
三、材料與方法 12
(一)、樣品來源、採樣及處理 12
(二)、檢測項目 13
(三)、統計分析 15
四、結果與討論 15
(一)、物化分析 15
(二)、描述性感官品評 16
(三)、相關性分析 17
(四)、主成分分析 18
五、結論 30
六、參考文獻 31
肆、試驗二：以主成分分析法結合物化特性分析及感官品評來評估紅羽土雞 胸肉質地之表現 34
一、摘要 34
二、緒言 34
三、材料與方法 35
(一)、試驗動物與採樣 35
(二)、檢測項目 36
(三)、統計分析 39
四、結果與討論 39
(一)、物化分析 39
(二)、描述性感官品評 40
(三)、相關性分析 41
(四)、主成分分析 42
五、結論 54
六、參考文獻 55
伍、試驗三：以三角試驗評估及判定不同溫度保存之溫體豬里脊肉的感官品質..58
一、摘要 58
二、緒言 58
三、材料方法 59
(一)、樣品來源及前處理 59
(二)、三角試驗感官品評 60
(三)、統計分析 61
四、結果討論 64
(一)、二項式分佈統計分析結果 64
(二)、Fisher’s exact test 分析結果 66
(三)、三角試驗感官因素百分比 67
五、結論 84
六、參考文獻 85
陸、總結 86
柒、參考文獻 87
捌、附錄 93

王勝德。1993。臺灣土雞與白肉雞生長性能、屠體性狀與肌肉品質差異之研究。國立中興大學碩士論文。臺中。
周才藝。1988。臺灣區肉品發展基金會技術服務中心簡介。現代肉品。第九期。臺北：臺灣區肉品發展基金會。
吳明隆。2007。SPSS操作與應用問卷統計分析實務。臺北市：五南出版社。
林亮全。2004。土雞屠體分級分切標準手冊。行政院農業委員會輔導處，臺北市。
林師模、陳苑欽。2004。多變量分析–管理上的應用。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
陳欣怡。2015。外觀體型、飼養週齡及飼料種類對雞隻屠體、肉質及感官品評之影響。國立中興大學碩士論文。臺中。
陳明造。1911。鮮肉的性質與管理。臺北：淑馨出版社。
陳明造。1993。肉雞屠體分級標準方法。臺北：藝軒。
陳順宇。2004。多變量分析。第三版。臺北：華泰書局。
張俊瑋。2014。肉豬屠體分級與部位肉資訊系統。國立中興大學碩士論文。台中。
楊正護、陳義雄、黃隆風。2001。屠體分級與分切。畜牧要覽養豬篇 (增修版)。第435-455頁。臺北：華香園出版社。
趙鐳、劉文。2011。感官分析技術應用指南。第3-9頁。北京：中國輕工業出版社。
劉伯康、莊朝琪。2014。食品感官品評–理論與實務。第294-295、308-309、351。新北市：新文京開發出版社。
戴湲婷。2014。台灣不同雜交土雞屠體性狀、胸肉物化組織特性與描述性感官品評之比較。國立中興大學碩士論文。台中。
Alvarez, C., I. Couso, and M. Tejada. 1999. Thermal gel degradation (Modori) in sardine surimi gels. Journal of Food Science 64(4): 633-637.
Anthony, N. B. 1998. A review of genetic practices in poultry: Efforts to improve meat quality. Journal of Muscle Foods 9: 25-33.
AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.
Bailey, A. J., and N. D. Light. 1989. Connective tissue in meat and meat products. Page 3-8, 148-169, 205-208. Elsevier Science Publishers LTD., London, England.
Bedford, M. R., and J. D. Summers. 1985. Influence of the ratio of essential to non essential amino-acids on performance and carcass composition of the broiler chick. British Poultry Science 26: 483-491.
Castellini, C., C. Mugnai, and B. Dal, A. 2002. Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Science 60: 219-225.
Chang, H. J., X. L. Xu, C. B. Li, M. Huang, D. Y. Liu, and G. H. Zhou. 2011. A comparison of heat-induced changes of intramuscular connective tissue and collagen of beef semitendinosus muscle during water bath and microwave heating. Journal of Food Process Engineering 34: 2233-2250.
Chumngoen, W, and F. J. Tan. 2015. Relationships between descriptive sensory attributes and physicochemical analysis of broiler and Taiwan native chicken breast meat. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 28: 1028-1037.
Chumngoen, W, C. F. Chen, H. Y. Chen, and F. J. Tan. 2016. Influences of end-point cooked temperature on the quality attributes of chicken meat. British Poultry Science 57: 740-750.
Chumngoen, W., C. F. Chen and F. J. Tan. 2017. Effects of moist- and dry-heat cooking on the meat quality, microstructure and sensory characteristics of native chicken meat. Animal Science Journal (In press).
Combes, S., J. Lepetit, B. Darche, and F. Lebas. 2003. Effect of cooking temperature and cooking time on Warner-Bratzler tenderness measurement and collagen in rabbit meat. Meat Science 66: 91-96.
Davey, K. R. 1983. An instrument for the measurement of the hardness of fat on sides of chilled beef. Journal of Texture Studies 14: 419-430.
Dawson, P. L., B. W. Sheldon, and J. J. Miles. 1991. Effect of aseptic processing on the texture of chicken meat. Poultry Science 70: 2359-2367.
Destefanis, G., M. T. Barge, A. Brugiapaglia, and S. Tassone. 2000. The use of principal component analysis (PCA) to characterize beef. Meat Science 56: 255-259.
Douglas, F. B., G. ElMasry, D. W. Sun, and P. Allen. 2012. Predicting quality and sensory attributes of pork using near-infrared hyperspectral imaging. Analytica Chimica Acta 719: 30-42.
Fanatico, A. C., P. B. Pillai, L. C. Cavitt, C. M. Owens. and J. L. Emmert. 2005. Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Growth performance and carcass yield. Poultry Science 84: 1321-1327.
Fletcher, D. L. 1999. Broiler breast meat color variation, pH, and texture. Poultry Science 78: 1323-1327.
Foegeding, E. A., T. C. Lanier, and H. O. Hultin. 1996. Characteristics of edible muscle tissue. Food Chemistry 3: 879-942.
Friedman, H. H., J. E. Whitney, and A. S. Szczesniak. 1963. The texturometer–A new instrument for objective texture measurement. Journal of Food Science 28: 390-396.
Furukawa, H. 1991. Synergistic effects in the taste of alpha-amino-dicarboxylates and L-homocysteinate with 5'-inosinate. Journal of the Agricultural Chemical Society of Japan 65: 163-169.
Gabriela, P., and A. Buculei. 2010. The evaluation of sensorial characteristics of meat in vacuum packaging. Journal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies 16(1): 49-53.
Gacula, M. C. 1997. Descriptive Sensory Analysis in Practice. Trumbull, Conn: Food and Nutrition press, Inc.
Harman, H. H. 1976. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Honikel, K. O. 1997. International meat research news – Meat quality and the biochemistry of meat. Fleischwirtschaft 77: 833-836.
ISO 4120: 2004. Sensory analysis – Methodology –Triangle test. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2004.
Jaturasitha, S., T. Srikanchai, M. Kreuzer, and M. Wicke. 2008. Differences in carcass and meat characteristics between chicken indigenous to northern Thailand (Black-Boned and Thai native) and imported extensive breeds (Bresse and Rhode Island Red). Poultry Science 87: 160-169.
Jeremial, L. E., and L. L. Gibson. 2001. The influence of storage temperature and storage time on color stability, retail properties and case-life of retail-ready beef. Food Research International 34(9): 815-826.
Judge, M. D., E. D. Aberle, J. C. Forest, H. B. Hedrick, and R. A. Merkel. 1989. Principles of Meat Science. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Iowa, U.S.A.
Kim, H. W., F. F. Yan, J. Y. Hu, H. W. Cheng, and Y. H. B. Kim. 2016. Effects of probiotics feeding on meat quality of chicken during postmortem storage. Poultry Science 95: 1457-1464.
Kirmaci B. and R. K. Singh. 2012. Quality of chicken breast meat cooked in a pilot-scale radio frequency oven. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 14: 77-84.
Kong, F. B., J. Tang, M. S. Lin, and B. Rasco. 2008. Thermal effects on chicken and salmon muscles: Tenderness, cook loss, area shrinkage, collagen solubility and microstructure. LWT-Food Science and Technology 41: 1210-1222.
Kreil, D. P., and C. A. Ouzounis. 2001. Identification of thermophilic species by the amino acid compositions deduced from their genomes. Nucleic Acids Research 29(7): 1608-1615.
Kurihara, K. 1987. Recent progress in the taste receptor, in: Kawamura, Y. and M. R. Kare. (Eds) Umami: A Basic Taste, (New York, Marcel Dekker), 3-39.
Lawless, H. T., and H. Heymann. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. New York, USA: Springer Pub.
Lawrie, R. 1989. Connective tissue in meat and meat products. Meat Science 26: 325-326.
Lee, Y., Xiong, R., Chang, Y. H., Owens, C. M. and Meullenet, J. F. 2014. Effects of cooking methods on textural properties and water-holding capacity of broiler breast meat deboned at various postmortem times. Journal of Texture Studies 45: 337-386.
Liu, Y., B. G. Lyon, W. R. Windham, C. E. Lyon, and E. M. Savage. 2004. Principal component analysis of physical, color, and sensory characteristics of chicken breasts deboned at two, four, six, and twenty-four hours postmortem. 2004. Poultry Science 83: 101-108.
Lonergan, S. M., N. Deeb, C. A. Fedler, and S. J. Lamont. 2003. Breast meat quality and composition in unique chicken populations. Poultry Science 82: 1990-1994.
Lyon, C. E., and B. G. Lyon. 1990. Texture profile of broiler pectoralits major as influenced by post-mortem deboning time and heat method. Poultry Science 69: 329-340.
Lyon, B. G., D. P. Smith, C. E. Lyon, and E. M. Savage. 2004. Effects of diet and feed withdrawal on the sensory descriptive and instrumental profiles of broiler breast fillets. Poultry Science 83: 275-281.
Mudalal, S., M. Lorenzi, F. Soglia, C. Cavani, and M. Petracci. 2015. Implications of white striping and wooden breast abnormalities on quality traits of raw and marinated chicken meat. Animal 9(4): 728-734.
Norman, J. L., E. P. Berg, H. Heymann, and C. L. Lorenzen. 2003. Pork loin color relative to sensory and instrumental tenderness and consumer acceptance. Meat Science 65: 927-933.
Petracci, M., M. Betti, M. Bianchi, and C. Cavani. 2004. Color variation and characterization of broiler breast meat during processing in Italy. Poultry Science 83: 2086-2092.
Schilling, M. W., V. Battula, R. E. Loar, V. Jackson, S. Kin, and A. Corzo. 2010. Dietary inclusion level effects of distillers dried grains with solubles on broiler meat quality. Poultry Science 89: 752-760.
Troy, D. J., and J. P. Kerry. 2010. Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry. Meat Science 86: 214-226.
Tsai, T. C. and H. W. Ockerman. 1981. Water binding measurement of meat. Food Science 46(3): 697-701.
USDA. 1985. Official States Standards for grades of Pork Carcass. AMS, USDA, Washington, D C.
Vainionpaa, J., M. Smolander, H. L. Alakomi, T. Ritvanen, T. Rajamaki, M. Rokka, R. Ahvenainen. 2004. Comparison of different analytical methods in the monitoring of the quality of modified atmosphere packaged broiler chicken cuts using principal component analysis. Journal of Food Engineering 65: 273-280.
Vasanthi, C., V. Venkataramanujam, and K. Dushyanthan. 2007. Effect of cooking temperature and time on the physico-chemical, histological and sensory properties of female carabeef (buffalo) meat. Meat Science 76: 274-280.
Wang, K. H., S. R. Shi, T. C. Dou, and H. J. Sun. 2009. Effect of a free-range raising system on growth performance, carcass yield, and meat quality of slow-growing chicken. Poultry Science 88: 2219-2223.
Wattanachant, S., S. Benjakul, and D. A. Ledward. 2004. Composition, color, and texture of Thai indigenous and broiler chicken muscles. Poultry Science 83: 123-128.
Wood, J. D., G. R. Nute, G. A. J. Fursey, and A. Cuthbertson. 1995. The effect of conditions on the eating quality of pork. Meat Science 40: 127-135.
Zhuang, H., and E. M. Savage. 2010. Comparisons of sensory descriptive flavor and texture profiles of cooked broiler breast fillets categorized by raw meat color lightness values. Poultry Science 89: 1049-1055.