Dependence of the nutritional value of meat on the quality category

In the literature data, information about the nutritional value of meat of different quality categories is mainly represented by its assessment in the presence of PSE and DFD defects either in pork or beef. There are practically no studies on the nutritional value of meat with the quality category RSE, RFN, PFN. Therefore, the assessment of the nutritional value of meat, depending on the quality categories, is of both scientific and practical interest.
The purpose of the research was to study the dependence of the nutritional value of meat on the quality category.
The research was carried out in the conditions of the educational and research center for the examination of food and animal feed of the St. Petersburg State University of Veterinary Medicine in the period 2020-2022.
The materials for the study were 107 samples of meat of various quality categories obtained from different types of slaughter animals.
The nutritional value of meat samples was determined according to GOST 34567-2019 "Meat and meat products. Method for determination of moisture, fat, protein, sodium chloride and ash using near-infrared spectroscopy (with Correction)" using infrared analyzer "InfraLUM FT-12". Processing of the received data was carried out using the software "Spectrum/Pro".
As a result of determining the nutritional value of meat of different quality categories, it was found that the content of protein, fat and moisture depended on the category. It should be noted that information about the nutritional value of meat of various quality categories should be taken into account when conducting input control and processing meat raw materials at processing enterprises.

1. Chulayo, A.Y. Tada O., Mucyenje V., Research on pre — slaughter stress and meat quality: A review of challenges faced under practical conditions. Appl. Anim. Husb. Rural Develop. 2012; 5: 1-6.

2. Kalyuzhnaya, T. V. On the question of the nutritional value of nutria meat. 2018;3: 197-199. Doi 10.17238/issn2072-6023.2018.3.197 [in Russ.]

3. Lisitsyn,A. Pork quality: standards and evaluation methods. 2013; S2: 35-36 [in Russ.]

4. Orlova, D. A. Veterinary and sanitary examination of duck meat / [International bulletin of Veterinary Medicine]. 2021;2: 99-102. doi 10.17238/issn2072-2419.2021.2.99 [in Russ.]

5. Rosenvold K, Andersen HJ. Factors of significance for pork quality-a review. Meat Sci. 2003 Jul;64(3):219-37. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00186-9.

6. Slozhenkina, M.I., Gorlov, I.F., Baranikov, V.A., Mosolova, N.I., Surkova, S.A. Lodyanov, V.V., Kulikovskii, ABiological and food value muscle tissue depending from qualitative defects of pork. 2018;4: 37-44. Doi 10.31208/2618-7353-2018-4-37-44 [in Russ.]

7. Nasonova, V. V. Formation of pork quality indicators. 2016; 4:22-26 [in Russ.]

8. D’Souza, D.N., Trezona Murray, M., Dunshea, F.R., and Mullan, B.P. Enhancing pork product quality and consistency: A pathway approach. Proceedings of 58th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, August 12–17, 2012, Montreal, Canada:104-110.