Marinating and Grilling as Methods of Sensory Enhancement of Sous Vide Beef from Holstein-Friesian Bulls

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,
This publication is clear, very good described,

I have only four suggestions:

1. in line 208, I think it better will be written 2,37 and 1,57 (this information is in Table)

2. in text line 208 - .... higher in LL - please add "than in SM."

3. Figure 3 - maybe G instead of Grill will be better?

4. Figure 4. I think it will be clearer if the Authors add value next to the bars

line 357, 366, 377 - editorial correction

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all your comments and the possibility to improve our paper. The manuscript has been corrected according to comments. Below, we enclose responses (A) for your comments (C).

C1: In line 208, I think it better will be written 2,37 and 1,57 (this information is in Table)

A: Corrected

C2. In text line 208 - .... higher in LL - please add "than in SM."

A: Corrected

C3: Figure 3 - maybe G instead of Grill will be better?

A: Perhaps it would be better, but in the methodology we have proposed such acronyms of thermal treatment (line 113-114), that we use later throughout the work and we would like to keep them.

C4: Figure 4. I think it will be clearer if the Authors add value next to the bars

A: In the draft, in Figure 4, we marked 14 numerical values at the appropriate points and the graph was not more readable in our opinion, so we left it as it was.

line 357, 366, 377 - editorial correction

A: Corrected

Reviewer 2 Report

I read with interest your manuscript and I think that it is a paper suitable for publication, however, it has some flaws which should be corrected before publishing. The title of the article is correct and is consistent with its content. The aim of the paper was formulated clearly and succinctly.

I only have a few comments:

L: 224-225 – ‘The differences between LL and SM could be attributed to differences in the colour of raw beef: raw LL muscles were lighter, more red and less yellow than SM.’ - This is not correct conclusion. Statistical analysis of the results does not indicate this. According to Table 2, in the case of L* values, there were no significant differences between raw LL and MS muscles.

L: 228 – change ‘Table 3’ to ‘Table 2’

L: 266-267 – ‘Grilling also decreased WBSF values in SM, and no differences were observed between SM subjected to SVGrill and SVMar.’ – Please completed because, according to Table 3, significant differences, were also observed between LL subjected to SVGrill and SVMar.

L: 272-274 – ‘SM muscles subjected to marinating and SV (SVMar) received higher tenderness scores than SM processed by SV and SVGrill, and similar scores to LL subjected to SVMar.’ – please complete, because according to Table 3, in the case of SM, the tenderness values were also significantly higher in SV compared to SVGrill.

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all your comments and the possibility to improve our paper. The manuscript has been corrected according to comments. Below, we enclose responses (A) for your comments (C).

C1: 224-225 – ‘The differences between LL and SM could be attributed to differences in the colour of raw beef: raw LL muscles were lighter, more red and less yellow than SM.’ - This is not correct conclusion. Statistical analysis of the results does not indicate this. According to Table 2, in the case of L* values, there were no significant differences between raw LL and MS muscles.

A: Thank you for the comment. Indeed the lightness did not differ between these muscles. The sentence was corrected into: “ […] raw LL muscles had more red and less yellow hues than SM”.

C2. 228 – change ‘Table 3’ to ‘Table 2’

A: Thanks for your comment, we didn't notice it. Has been corrected.

C3: 266-267 – ‘Grilling also decreased WBSF values in SM, and no differences were observed between SM subjected to SVGrill and SVMar.’ – Please completed because, according to Table 3, significant differences, were also observed between LL subjected to SVGrill and SVMar.

A: The description was completed by adding a sentence „ In contrast, in LL muscle, it was marinating which produced the lowest WBSF.”

C4: 272-274 – ‘SM muscles subjected to marinating and SV (SVMar) received higher tenderness scores than SM processed by SV and SVGrill, and similar scores to LL subjected to SVMar.’ – please complete, because according to Table 3, in the case of SM, the tenderness values were also significantly higher in SV compared to SVGrill.

A: The description was completed by adding the following information „ Although LL muscles subjected to different treatments did not differ in terms of tenderness, significant differences were noted in SM. The lower tenderness scores were noted in SMGrill samples, whereas ….”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all your comments and the possibility to improve our paper. The manuscript has been corrected according to comments. Below, we enclose responses (A) for your comments (C).

C1: Title The experiments in this manuscript are based on the sous-vide cooking method. So the title should be considered changing to the effect of marinating and grilling on the sensory quality of sous-vide processed meat.

A: Corrected

C2. Introduction The focus of this manuscript is on the effect of marinating and grilling on the sensory quality of Holstein-Friesian beef. But in the introduction, the author discussed more about the nutritional value of beef, the breed, and the effects of different parts. It is suggested that the authors should discuss application of marinating and grilling methods in meat processing and the advances in research on sensory quality.

A: Thanks for your suggestion. Indeed, in the introduction, we focused on the importance of beef in the diet and the mechanisms of the influence of the type of muscle on the quality of products. We took the reviewer's advice and added information on marinating and grilling in the introduction. To familiarize the reader with this topic, we have also provided a link to our work, in which we broadly describe and discuss the marinating process. Also in the discussion of the results in this study, we write more about grilling and the compounds responsible for the specific taste desired by consumers (Line 425-437).

C3.1: Table 1. Thawing loss. A method for the determination of thawing loss should be added to the materials and Method section.

A: Corrected

C3.2: Line 208-209. Water holding capacity. In this manuscript, on what basis is water holding capacity defined, free water and thawing loss, the authors should give a clear statement.

A: The sentence was modified:

“Water-holding capacity, which was determined on the basis of free water content and thawing loss, was higher in LL (as evidenced by a lower content of free water and thawing loss) compared with SM (P<0.05, Table 1).”

C3.3. Line 215. Colour parameters. The author has added vinegar, salt, bay leaf, sugar, black pepper and other seasonings to the marinade treatment. This could make a big difference to the color of the meat. And does grilling have this treatment? If not, is it worth comparing the two.

A: The aim of the study was to compare additional treatments which can be used with sous-vide. In fact, SVMar samples were compared with SVGrill in terms of colour. They differed because of the marinade ingredients and temperature of grilling. Thank you for the comment, in our next studies we plan to make more comparisons with different variations in additional treatments. However, in this work we would prefer to keep the results as they are.

C3.4: For the meat samples after grilling and marinating treatments, it would help the reader to understand the results if the authors could provide photographs of the experiments.

A: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Unfortunately, we have no photos at the moment, but research is continuing, so we'll see to it.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled by Tkacz and Modzelewska-Kapituła "Marinating and grilling as methods of sensory enhancement of beef from Holstein-Friesian bulls " deals with the effect of e sous-vide (SV) method with marinating and grill on physical and sensorial properties of 2 muscle types of beef.

 My main note is: what was the purpose for determination of chemical composition and pH of only on raw status? where you do not used such results (raw status) as control samples for comparison with same parameters (chemical composition and pH) after treatment (SV, SVGrill and SVMar).  

There are some issues need to be considered before publication including:

Line 12: delete words " EthicsEthics"

Line 45: you indicated "To achieve that goal" is one goal or goals?

Line 49: correct the citation style

Lines 144-147: according to which method you determined the pH? Indicate to the citation of pH method.   

Line 151: you indicated that "Colour was evaluated on the cross-sectional area of raw muscles after 25 min" why after 25 min. not at the end of treatment?

Line 225-226: you indicated that " The applied treatments contributed to a darker colour of beef…." But according to the results in table 2 must be lighter because L* values increased.

Line 228: table 2 not 3

Line 233: delete "P<0.05"

Lines 255-256: you indicated that " Marinating and grilling did not induce differences in yield (Figures 1, 2), and the resulting losses did not differ in LL and SM (P>0.05)" but according to figures 1 and 2 there is differ in LL.

Line 260: what is LTLT treatment?

Lines 267-268: you indicated that "In SM processed by SVMar, WBSF values were similar to those noted in SV-treated LL." this information not correspond with results in table 3.

Lines 273-274: you indicated "….. and SVGrill, and similar scores to LL subjected to SVMar" Is this a new sentence? No similar because the different not significant.

Lines 286-288: why you do not SVMar? why you mentioned "losses (%)"? vertical or horizontal? Why do not differ only at P<0.001? what about at P<0.01 and at P<0.05?

Line 306: LTL is abbreviation of what?

Lines 333-334: you indicated that " …, SV beef had the lowest values of a* and C,…" but according to results must be the highest values.

Lines 357, 366 and 377: technical repair related to start of sentences

Line 375: add the word " respectively" at the end of the sentence.

Line 405: Complete the sentence

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all your comments and the possibility to improve our paper. The manuscript has been corrected according to comments. Below, we enclose responses (A) for your comments (C).

C: My main note is: what was the purpose for determination of chemical composition and pH of only on raw status? where you do not used such results (raw status) as control samples for comparison with same parameters (chemical composition and pH) after treatment (SV, SVGrill and SVMar). 

A: The chemical composition was determined only in the raw material and presented as a characteristic of material used. The chemical composition and pH was not analysed in the products because it was not aim of the study. However, we are grateful for you comment and in out further studies we will conduct the analyses to characterized the chemical composition and nutritional value of the products.

C1. Line 12: delete words " EthicsEthics"

A: Corrected

C2: Line 45: you indicated "To achieve that goal" is one goal or goals?

A: “"To achieve that goals" - corrected

C3: Line 49: correct the citation style

A: Corrected

C4. Lines 144-147: according to which method you determined the pH? Indicate to the citation of pH method.   

A: “The pH value of the muscles was measured in middle part of muscles [26]”– changed in the text and added references of pH method.

C5: Line 151: you indicated that "Colour was evaluated on the cross-sectional area of raw muscles after 25 min" why after 25 min. not at the end of treatment?

A: In the previous work titled “The applicability of total color difference ΔE for determining the blooming time in longissimus lumborum and semimembranosus muscles from Holstein-Friesian bulls at different ageing times” we explain the advisability of testing the colour in raw beef after 25 minutes blooming. Indeed, it was not clear how we do it in the processed meat - we added an explanation.

C6: Line 225-226: you indicated that " The applied treatments contributed to a darker colour of beef…." But according to the results in table 2 must be lighter because L* values increased.

A: Thank you for the comment. The description was modified providing more details “The applied SV alone and the combination of marinating and SV contributed to a lighter colour of beef, whereas grilling had diverse effect in different muscles i.e. LL SVGrill did not differ from  raw LL in terms of lightness, whereas SM SVGrill was darker than raw SM. All treatments decreased redness and chroma, and increased hue.”

C7: Line 228: table 2 not 3

A: Thanks for your comment, we didn't notice it. Has been corrected.

C8: Line 233: delete "P<0.05"

A: To compare values in rows Tukey’s HSD test at P=0.05 was used, therefore the information was enclosed in tables footnote.

C9: Lines 255-256: you indicated that " Marinating and grilling did not induce differences in yield (Figures 1, 2), and the resulting losses did not differ in LL and SM (P>0.05)" but according to figures 1 and 2 there is differ in LL.

A: The sentence was deleted. More detailed description was provided: “Generally, the production yield was affected by muscle type (P<0.001), treatment (P<0.001) and interaction between muscle and treatment (P<0.05). Interestingly, LL yield was not affected by treatment, and no significant differences were found between LL muscles subjected to SV, SVGrill, and SVMar. In contrast, SM yields were higher after SV and SVMar than after SVGrill. Moreover, LL muscles showed a higher yield in all treatments than SM, which resulted from lower losses during SV treatment (Fig. 1,2) in SVMar and SVGrill samples. During the additional treatment (marinating or grilling) the losses were similar for LL and SM.”

C10: Lines 267-268: you indicated that "In SM processed by SVMar, WBSF values were similar to those noted in SV-treated LL." this information not correspond with results in table 3.

A: According to statistical analysis results there were no differences between LL SV and SM SVMar (common “c” letter)

C11: Lines 273-274: you indicated "….. and SVGrill, and similar scores to LL subjected to SVMar" Is this a new sentence? No similar because the different not significant.

A: The sentence was rewritten to make it more clear.

C12: Lines 286-288: why you do not SVMar? why you mentioned "losses (%)"? vertical or horizontal? Why do not differ only at P<0.001? what about at P<0.01 and at P<0.05?

A: Thank you very much for the comment. A wrong description for the figure was placed in the first version of the manuscript. We apologize for that mistake. A correct description was added.

C13: Line 306: LTL is abbreviation of what?

A: Longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) – explained in line 58

C14: Lines 333-334: you indicated that " …, SV beef had the lowest values of a* and C,…" but according to results must be the highest values.

A: Supplemented and corrected

 C14: Lines 357, 366 and 377: technical repair related to start of sentences

A: corrected

 C14: Line 375: add the word " respectively" at the end of the sentence.

A: Added

 C14: Line 405: Complete the sentence

A: Corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

It could be accept in present form.