Sensory acceptability of buffalo meat compared to beef
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the sensory acceptability of buffalo meat regarding beef. The study was conducted at the Dietary Techniques Laboratory of the Universidad del Valle de México (UVM), Mexico City. Three Longissimus thoracis et lumborum samples 2.5 cm thick were compared: 1) select beef (slight marbling); 2) select buffalo meat (slight marbling); and 3) prime beef (abundant marbling). The samples were evaluated by 76 students (non-trained panelists) enrolled in the food quality and safety course of the Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics career, UVM. A seven-point hedonic scale assessed the appearance, odor, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability. Analysis of variance was conducted (PROC GLM; SAS®), considering the sensory characteristics as dependent variables and the types of meat as independent variables. When statistical differences were noticed, a multiple comparison Tukey test was utilized (p<0.05). Panelists were mainly women (72.36%/n=55), followed by men (22.36%/n=17) and another gender (5.2%/n=4). They were between 19-24 years old (84%/n= 64), followed by 25-30 (10.52%/n=8) and >31 years(5.26%/n=4). The results indicated that the prime beef presented better appearance (5.32±0.18; 4.65±0.16; 4.57±0.16 points, p=0.0042) and tenderness (5.77±0.17; 4.38±0.20; 4.09±0.18 points, p<0.0001) compared to select buffalo and select beef, respectively. Similarly, a higher score was observed in juiciness for prime beef (5.52±0.19 points), but a better score for buffalo meat (4.52±0.18 points) compared to select beef was identified (3.86±0.19 points) (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed in odor (p=0.67) and flavor (p=0.88), and the overall acceptability showed a positive trend for prime beef (p=0.06). Most of the panelists indicated that before the study, they had not consumed buffalo meat (89%/n=68). However, they noted that buffalo meat was like select beef (71%/n=54). Additionally, 47% (n=36) indicated that “maybe” they could include buffalo meat in their diets, followed by 37% (n=28) who indicated that
“yes” they would include buffalo meat at least once or twice a week. The panelist highlighted various reasons why buffalo meat is not commonly consumed, such as there is no information on buffalo meat (93.42%/n=71), there are not many products made with buffalo meat (60.52%/n =46), and that it is not available at supermarkets (73.69%/n=56). We conclude that buffalo meat can be a good option for consumers. However, it is vital to increase the information about buffalo meat characteristics (chemical, nutritional, sensory properties, and technological quality) and improve marketing channels that ensure the availability of buffalo products.
Downloads
