Marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte meat from a bovine farm: Evaluation of resultant physicochemical and organoleptic attributes

Schematic overview of experimental program

The schematic overview of the experimental program, demonstrating the major stages, from the procurement of beef entrecôte meat samples, preparation of marinade variants, oven-grilling activity, to analytical measurements are shown in Fig. 1. To reiterate, this current work was directed to establish how oven-grilling affected different marinated beef entrecôte meat samples specific to their physicochemical (antioxidants, pH and lipid oxidation, cooking weight loss, L*a*b* color, and textural cutting force), as well as organoleptic (sensory = flavour, appearance, tenderness, taste and flavour; texture = hardness, chewiness, gumminess, graininess, and greasiness) attributes. Added that the beef entrecôte meat has been procured from a bovine farm in Poland, the different marination variants involved cranberry pomace, grape pomace, and Baikal skullcap that subsequently incorporated African spice, and Industrial marinade/pickle. Chemicals and reagents used at this work were of analytical grade standard. Additionally, all the laboratory experimentation adhered to the relevant guidelines set out by the Department of Functional Food Product Development, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences-Poland.

Procurement, and preparation of beef entrecôte meat samples

Freshly processed beef entrecôte meat samples were procured from a reputable local bovine farm/slaughter retailer that supplies the Wroclaw’s Lower Silesia region of Poland. The beef entrecote meat samples (~20 kg) placed in iced packed poly-boxes were transported to the Department of Functional Food Products Development, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences., Poland. Upon arrival, the beef entrecôte meat samples were further cut into equivalent pieces of approximate thickness (9 cm × 9 cm × 3 cm). Afterwards, all samples were subject to cold room refrigeration (~2 °C) and ready for subsequent laboratory activities of marination and oven-grilling.

Preparation of marinades, and marination variants

The preparation of marinades followed the method described by Okpala et al. (2023). This specifically involved Baikal Skullcap (BS), cranberry pomace (CP), as well as grape pomace (GP), that subsequently incorporated constant quantities of either African spice (AS) or Industrial marinade/pickle (IM) (each constituting 4 g), alongside salt (1.6 g). For emphasis, on one hand, the African spice product (Fresh and Tasty Kebab Powder®) had been purchased from Fresh and Tasty Farms Ltd (Accra-North, Ghana), and its preparation followed the quality standards set by Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) Ghana. The label showed that this product comprised such ingredients as peanut, ginger, as well as black/regular pepper. More so, we utilized this AS product for the reason that it is increasingly being used at barbecues across Poland. On the other hand, the industrial marinade/pickle (Marinate do mięs) product had been purchased from Regis® Food Technology (Regis sp. z o.o., Kraków-Poland) and its preparation followed the quality standards set by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), British Retail Consortium (BRC), and International Food Standard (IFS). The label showed that this product comprised such ingredients as marjoram, oregano, parsley, rosemary, and thyme. More so, we utilized this IM product for the reason that it already has an established reputation in Poland and other parts in the EU.

It is important to reiterate that the ground CP, GP, and BS served as antioxidant additives for this current study, using the method previously described (Okpala et al., 2023). The incremental concentrations of CP, GP, and BS made up 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% by volume, which were calculated based on gram per 100 mL. Clean water served as liquid used to make up the marinade. Importantly, the marination variants were implemented as follows: (1) control where the antioxidant additive was not added (0.0%); (2) control with antioxidant additive of 0.5%; (3) control with antioxidant additive of 1.0%; (4) control with antioxidant additive of 1.5%; (5) AS incorporated with no antioxidant additive (0.0%); (6) AS incorporated with antioxidant additive of 0.5%; (7) AS incorporated with antioxidant additive of 1.0%; (8) AS incorporated with antioxidant additive of 1.5%; (9) IM incorporated with no antioxidant additive (0.0%); (10) IM incorporated with antioxidant additive of 0.5%; (11) IM incorporated with antioxidant additive of 1.0%; (12) IM incorporated with antioxidant additive of 1.5%. Following the method described by Sokołowicz et al. (2021) with modifications, the immersion method was adapted. In particular, the amount of marinade was considered adequate to completely immerse the beef entrecôte meat samples, and this applied a 1:2 ratio of weight of meat (g) and marinade volume (mL). Additionally, plastic containers approved for contact with food was used to carry out the immersion process. The beef entrecôte meat samples were dipped sufficiently in the marinade variants for 24 h at 4 °C. Subsequently, after the immersion time had completed, the marinated beef entrecote samples were then allowed to drain (5 min), and placed in folded foiled packages ready for oven-grilling activity.

Oven-grilling procedure

The oven-grilling activity of marinated beef entrecôte meat samples employed an oven facility (CAMRY CR 6018; Serwis Centralny Camry, Warszawa, Poland). The oven-grilling operated with 2,200 W power, and set temperature of 180 °C. The beef entrecôte meat samples were placed evenly spaced in the oven-grill, which remained closed during the cooking process. Importantly, the opening of oven-grill was only when either to remove, or place new samples. Cooking time was kept constant at 5 min. During the cooking period, the internal temperature of the beef entrecote meat samples was routinely checked to ensure it was maintained roughly at about 75 °C. Upon completion of oven-grilling process, the emergent samples were allowed to cool briefly (15 min) at ambient temperature. Afterwards, emergent samples were then placed in foiled packages, submitted to refrigeration (4 °C), and then followed by analytical measurements.

Physicochemical measurements

Organoleptic measurements

Organoleptic measurements of beef entrecôte meat samples comprised sensorial analysis slightly modified from Augustyńska-Prejsnar, Ormian & Sokołowicz (2018), and textural profiling slightly modified from Brambila, Bowker & Zhuang (2016). Sensory panelists constituted ten (10) staff and graduate students of the Department of Functional Food Products Development, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences (Poland), who were already familiar with the evaluation criteria set out to differentiate between the levels of the beef entrecôte meat’s flavor, appearance, tenderness, taste, and off-flavor specific to the sensorial profiling, as well as hardness, chewiness, gumminess, and graininess specific to the textural profiling. Importantly, the verbal consent taken prior to the sensory evaluation. Additionally, the panelists’ participation was voluntary, and no names/gender was reported to ensure privacy. The panelists performed the organoleptic evaluation in a well-ventilated and distraction-free environment of neutral color, and with adequate lighting. The organoleptic assessment involved the evenly cut samples already cooled to 20 ± 2 °C placed in coded white plastic plates before each panelist. Importantly, warm water was made available to each panelist to cleanse taste palates between samples. This was conducted to ensure the previous evaluation did not affect the (taste of the) new one, consistent with the work of Çakmakçı et al. (2015). The coded samples were evaluated using five-point scale (one point being the lowest score and five points being the highest) for the sensory aspects, and using 0 to 15 intensity scale for texture profile, modified from the description given by Civille & Thomas Carr (2015).

Statistical analysis

The data, independently generated from different samples and based on a minimum of two determinations unless stated otherwise, were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 (95% confidence level). The mean differences were resolved post-hoc by way of Turkey’s test. Statistica 13.0 software (StatSoft GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) was used to run the data.

Changes in antioxidant aspects

Notwithstanding that combination of herbs and spices makes marination to produce a promising antioxidant resource, different processing methods would alter its efficacy (Thomas et al., 2010; Viegas et al., 2012). This circumstance would be particularly applicable from the point when the marinated product has just been prepared, and when it is potentially ready for consumption. In this current work, the changes in ABTS, DPPH, and FRAP values of various marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte meat samples compared to control can be seen in Fig. 2. Across CP, GP and BS incorporating either AS or IM, different ABTS, DPPH, and FRAP ranges (for ABTS: from 2.01 ± 0.14 mM/Trolox at IM+GP 1.5% to 3.58 ± 1.89 mM/Trolox at control +BS 1.5%; for DPPH: from 0.09 ± 0.00 mM/Trolox at either AS +BS 1% or control +GP 1% to 0.14 ± 0.00 mM/Trolox at either control or IM+CP 0.5%; for FRAP: from 0.21 ± 0.01 mM/lit at control + CP 0.5% to 0.76 ± 0.00 mM/lit at either AS+BS 1.5% or IM+BS 1.5%) were found. Whereas the control samples obtained a closer DPPH range (~0.12 to 0.14 mM/Trolox), those of marinated oven-grilled beef entrecote meat samples obtained wider ranged ABTS (~2.14 to ~3.38 mM/Trolox) and FRAP (~0.21 to ~0.46 mM/lit).

Figure 2 also depicts that ABTS, DPPH and FRAP values of various marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte meat samples specific to increasing CP, GP, and BS concentrations seems comparable with those that incorporated either AS or IM. Besides, the increasing CP, GP and or BS concentrations may not always go along with ABTS, DPPH and FRAP values given the observed decreasing or increasing fluctuations. Emphasizing the increasing CP, GP and or BS concentrations incorporating either AS or IM likens to a herb mix as strengthening the antioxidant efficacy of the marinade medium (Thomas et al., 2010; Viegas et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2015), the heat temperatures above 120 °C resembling (oven) grilling should be capable of decreasing the antioxidant activity (Barido & Lee, 2022). It is important to understand that thermal processing like oven-grilling could open up the plant cell wall components and make them to become more sensitive so as to allow the progress of Maillard reaction (Moroney et al., 2015). Capably, the amino acids, essential oils, antioxidants, flavones, phenylethanoids, as well as sterols that are available in such herbs like BS and GP herein should scavenge, for instance, the DPPH radicals, which would help to prevent the progress of rancidity (Kim et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2014; Sáyago-Ayerdi, Brenes & Goñi, 2009).

Changes in pH and TBARS

Applicable to beef meat quality, the changes in pH has for long been understood to associate with lower quantities of expressed juice, reflectance values, and cooking losses (Purchas, 1990). Besides pH considered as indicative of the acid concentration present, the use of marinades could eventually influence the physicochemical properties of the meat muscle (Oreskovich et al., 1992). In this current work, the changes in pH and TBARS values of the various marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte compared to control are respectively shown in Figs. 3 and 4, as well as Table 1. Both pH and TBARS data obtained varying values. Specifically, the pH ranged from a minimum of ~5.38 at control GP before oven-grill, to a maximum of ~6.08 at control GP after oven-grill, whereas the TBARS ranged from a minimum of ~9.38 mg MDA/kg at AS+GP 0.5% to a maximum of ~26.36 mg MDA/kg at AS +GP 1%, the latter which resembled (p > 0.05) that of AS +GP 0.5% (~26.27 mg MDA/kg). Further, the oven-grilling seemed to either increase or decrease the TBARS values of some marinated beef entrecôte meat samples. For instance, oven-grilling appeared to noticeably reduce (p < 0.05) the TBARS of control (from ~17.18 to ~16.91 mg MDA/kg), in contrast to the increase when AS (from ~11.73 to 20.45 mg MDA/kg) and IM (from ~14.09 to ~24.91 mg MDA/kg) were incorporated. The detected pH and TBARS differences, which came from the application of either after oven-grilling and or together with marination variants, would most likely have shelf-life implications.

Figure 4 shows variation of pH by difference appears more at different marinated oven-grilled beef entrecote samples especially of GP, before CP, and then BS marination variants. Despite this, the application of oven-grill seemed to generally increase the pH regardless of marination variants. Knowing that pH value reflects the quality of beef meat and its suitability for various processing methods (Korkeala et al., 1986), to keep it reduced promises a positive shelf potential, which should avert off-odor believed to be facilitated by collagenases and other proteolytic enzymes associated with meat tenderisation (Siroli et al., 2020). To employ either increasing concentrations of CP, GP, or BS together with either AS or IM that builds up an herb mix should help to regulate the protein oxidation within the meat muscle (Xiong, 2022). Moreover, higher temperatures that come from oven-grilling should facilitate the release of oxygen, heme, and iron in meat products like beef. This situation might have made the marinated beef entrecôte meat of this current study to appear susceptible to lipid oxidation. If this situation were to progress, however, it would be demonstrated by the induced free radical production followed by undesirable off-odors/flavors (Amaral, Silva & Lannes, 2018). Largely applicable to beef carcasses, the functionality of muscles would corroborate the proportion of either slow-twitch oxidative or fast-twitch glycolytic pathways (Pereira et al., 2017).

Changes in L*a*b* color, and cooking weight loss

The color stability of beef meat has been attributed to the presence of pigments, which ultimately depends on tissue composition and structure (Hashemi Gahruie et al., 2017). In this current work, the changes in L*a*b* color and cooking weight loss values of the various marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte compared to control are respectively shown in Table 2 and Fig. 5. Varying range values of L*a*b* color (L*color: from 29.2 ± 2.4 at AS+GP 0.5% after oven-grill to 41.3 ± 1.7 at control +GP 1.0% after oven-grilling; a* color: from 2.15 ± 1.6 at IM +BS 1.5% after oven-grilling to 17.54 ± 0.82 at AS + BS 1.0%; b* color: from 3.9 ± 0.1 at control+ CP 1.0% to 15.76 ± 1.49 at IM +BS 0.5%) as well as cooking weight loss (for CP = from ~6.05% at IM with 0.5% antioxidant additive to ~46.03% at IM with no antioxidant additive; for GP = from ~29.92% at AS with no antioxidant additive to ~46.03% at IM with no antioxidant additive; for BS: from ~27.79 at control with no antioxidant additive to ~46.03% at IM with no antioxidant additive) were found. To establish a clear link when comparing color and cooking weight loss of different marinated oven-grilled beef entrecote samples seems difficult at this study. Other parameters, for instance, the pH and TBARS levels might corroborate the cooking weight loss of different marinated oven-grilled beef entrecote samples at this study. We opine this because, earlier workers like Oreskovich et al. (1992), by evaluating how marinate pH influenced texture of beef meat, understood that cooking (weight) losses could reach 45% at pH 4.24 and 5.38, but tended to decrease at pH 6.66 and 8.01.

To a large degree, the high temperature of 180 °C and process duration of 5 min set for the oven-grilling at this current study would most likely be contributing to the cooking weight loss outcomes of the different marinated oven-grilled beef entrecote samples. Probably, this heat treatment kickstarted the fibre contractions within the intramuscular connective tissue/muscle, which might have accounted for the differences in the cooking weight loss (Ježek et al., 2020). Besides oven grilling process to bring about some decreases in cooking weight loss, the physical condition of beef entrecôte muscle might not solely depend on the degree of moisture loss influence, but would include the anticipated infiltration of the marination variants. Alongside cooking weight loss, the application of oven-grilling across CP, GP and BS probably brought about some observable color trends, depicted by either increasing or decreasing L*a*b* values. For instance, whilst the oven-grilling largely increased the L* color, and decreased the a* color, it would largely fluctuate the b* color scales of different marinated beef entrecôte meat samples. An enhanced antioxidant effect should not reflect the decreases in a* value, which would be required to stabilize the color (Libera et al., 2018). Feasibly also, the oven-grilling might have facilitated the range values of L*a*b* color as well as cooking weight to expand towards the extreme values, potentially supplemented by increment concentrations of CP, GP and BS, alongside the incorporation of AS or IM.

Changes in textural cutting force

Defined by certain homogeneous attributes and often adapted by food processing, meat texture often instrumentally determined explains key human physiological-psychological awareness of key rheological and associated properties (Novaković & Tomašević, 2017). In this current work, the changes in textural cutting force values of the various marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte compared to control are shown in Table 3. Incorporating either AS or IM, the textural cutting force values showed promising ranges across CP (from 35.2 ± 5.83 N at IM without antioxidant additive, to 84.7 ± 10.28 N at IM +CP 1.5%), GP (from 35.2 ± 5.83 N at IM without antioxidant additive, to 83.8 ± 21.14 N at AS +GP 0.5%) and BS (from 35.2 ± 5.83 N at IM without antioxidant additive, to 70.3 ± 27.92 N at AS + BS 1.0%) samples. Probably, the CP, GP and BS concentrations might be increasing with textural cutting force.

Earlier workers like Oreskovich et al. (1992) understood that textural properties of beef meat are more likely to change in acidic compared to alkaline conditions. In this current work, higher textural cutting force values seemed to corroborate with samples that had more acidic-like pH values. Contextualizing this observation with the composition of muscle tissue, the connective aspects like myofibrillar proteins would help to build up the meat tenderness (Migdał et al., 2020). Moreover, any increase in the cutting force could associate with the cracking phenomena, which could happen within the muscle fibers to negatively influence the muscle tenderness (Xia et al., 2012). At slaughter, the meat structure would be affected as muscle glycogen increases with resistance to stress-induced (glycogen) depletion, alongside severe pH decreases (Olsson & Pickova, 2005). Whilst (beef) entrecôte samples comprise fat, connective tissue, as well as exudative juice, the muscle mass comprise between 35–60% of animal’s total weight (Redefine Meat, 2022), all of which should be among the influential considerations that underpin the textural cutting force values of the various marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte samples.

Changes in organoleptic aspects

Among key organoleptic attributes, it is believed that color, flavor and texture show strong influence on consumers’ overall acceptability of meat products (Hashemi Gahruie et al., 2017). In this current work, the changes in organoleptic aspects of various marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte samples, specifically by way of sensory and textural profiles, are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Either incorporating CP, GP and or BS, and even when involving control, AS and IM, there were minimum and maximum ranges found in sensory (Flavor: from 2.79 ± 1.22 at control+CP 0.5%, to 4.50 ± 0.79 at AS +GP 1%; Appearance: from 3.14 ± 1.35 at IM without antioxidant additive, to 4.43 ± 0.79 at AS without antioxidant additive; Tenderness: from 1.88 ± 0.90 at control + GP 0.5%, to 4.06 ± 0.84 at IM+BS 0.5%; Taste: from 2.38 ± 1.11 at control +GP 1.5%, to 4.36 ± 0.63 at AS + CP 1.0%; Off-flavor: 3.88 ± 1.35 at control +GP 1.5%, to 5.00 ± 0.00 at either control+BS 0.5%, or AS +BS 1.5%), and textural (Hardness: from 3.86 ± 1.35 at control +CP 0.5%, to 8.14 ± 1.77 at control +GP 1.5%; Chewiness: from 3.75 ± 1.57 at IM+BS 0.5%, to 8.00 ± 1.83 at control+GP 1.5%; Gumminess: from 3.71 ± 2.36 at IM+GP 0.5%, to 6.71 ± 2.06 at control+GP 0.5%; Graininess: from 2.43 ± 1.13 at IM +GP 1.5%, to 4.57 ± 2.15 at IM+CP 0.5%; Greasiness: from 2.14 ± 1.07 at IM+ GP 0.5%, to 4.63 ± 1.63 at AS +BS 0.5%) profiles.

The organoleptic attributes obtained some statistical differences (p < 0.05) as well as resemblances (p > 0.05) from sensory and textural standpoints. Specifically, such resemblances might suggest the panelists were unable to differentiate between some specific samples at this study. The fluctuating values would also suggest the increasing the CP, GP and BS concentrations appears not always going along with some of the sensorial and textural profile attributes. Interestingly, the panelists provided somewhat consistently higher off-flavour scores to most evaluated marinated oven-grilled beef entrecôte samples. The application of marinades is believed to have the ability to influence color of meat, yet not negatively when sensorially evaluated by panelists (Siroli et al., 2020). From the combination of instrumental texture and sensory tenderness acceptability, however, it should be possible to detect when beef meat toughness becomes unacceptable (Schilling et al., 2003). More so, differences in flavor, juiciness, and tenderness detectable by organoleptic evaluation may well suggest the preservative potential of marinades (Kim et al., 2010).