中草药腊肉与贵州传统腊肉的对比研究  

Comparison of Sensory and Physico-chemical Properties of Traditional Guizhou Bacon and Bacon with Added Chinese Medicinal Herbs

作　　者：安玉红[1] 任廷远[1] 刘嘉[2] 黄燕[1] 徐毅[1] 

机构地区：[1]毕节职业技术学院农业工程系,贵州毕节551700 [2]西南大学食品学院,重庆400716

出　　处：《肉类研究》2014年第7期1-4,共4页Meat Research

基　　金：毕节职业技术学院项目(毕职院科合字(2013)04)

摘　　要：对比研究中草药腊肉与贵州传统腊肉在感官评分、水分含量、含盐量、亚硝胺、过氧化值和酸价的差异。结果表明:中草药腊肉4项感官指标评分都高于传统腊肉,其中咸度下降,咸度感官评分提高了64.00%,干硬程度感官评分提高了9.52%;传统腊肉水分含量为40.67%,中草药腊肉水分含量在50.33%左右;中草药腊肉比传统腊肉含盐量低4.4%;传统腊肉中的亚硝胺含量在6 mg/kg以上,中草药腊肉亚硝胺的含量为3.53 mg/kg;传统腊肉过氧化值是中草药腊肉的3.6倍;在相同贮藏时间,中草药腊肉酸价比传统腊肉低。A comparative study between traditional Guizhou bacon and bacon with added Chinese medicinal herbs （CMH） was carried out to find the differences in sensory attributes, water content, salt content, nitrosamine content, peroxide value （POV）, and acid value （AV）. The results showed that the CMH-fortified bacon scored higher for all four investigated sensory attributes than traditional Guizhou bacon; the salinity was reduced, resulting in a 64.00% increase in sensory score, and the sensory score for hardness was increased by 9.52%. Water content was 40.67% in traditional Guizhou bacon and about 50.33% in the CMH-fortified bacon. The latter contained 4.4% less salt than the former. Nitrosamine content in traditional Guizhou bacon was more than 6 mg/kg compared to 3.53 mg/kg for the CMH-fortified bacon. Traditional Guizhou bacon showed 3.6 times higher POV than the CMH-fortified bacon. After storage for the same time, the CMH-fortified bacon exhibited a lower AV than traditional Guizhou bacon.

关 键 词：中草药腊肉 贵州传统腊肉 感官分析 理化分析 亚硝胺 

分 类 号：TS251.6[轻工技术与工程—农产品加工及贮藏工程]