• Journal of the Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition
• /
• v.37 no.9
• /
• pp.1148-1153
• /
• 2008

For the effective use of red seabream, the texture between red seabream muscles cultured by feeding and starving were compared. Moisture and crude lipid contents of red seabream muscle cultured by starving (RCS) were 72.7% and 3.7%, respectively, which was 3% higher in the moisture compared to that of red seabream muscle cultured by feeding (RCF), while 3% lower in the crude lipid. The hardness of RCS was $0.93\;kg/cm^2$, which was higher than that ($0.47\;kg/cm^2$) of RCF. No differences in total collagen content, acetic acid-solublized collagen content, its thermal denaturation temperature and SDS-PAGE patterns between RCS and RCF were found. The results suggested that the difference in muscle texture between RCS and RCF was probably due to the difference of lipid content.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition
• /
• v.37 no.9
• /
• pp.1142-1147
• /
• 2008

For the effective use of cultured red seabream, the muscle color, taste and nutrition components between red seabreams cultured by feeding and starving were compared. The proximate composition of red seabream muscle cultured by starving (RCS) was 72.7% moisture, 21.1% protein, 3.7% lipid and 1.4% crude ash. In comparison to red seabream muscle cultured by feeding (RCF), moisture and crude lipid of RCS were each 3% higher and 3% lower. No difference was, however, found in the other proximate compositions. The Hunter color value of RCS was 37.52 for L value, -1.47 for a value, 0.71 for b value and 59.33 for ${\Delta}E$ value, which was slightly higher in the L value than that of red seabream muscle cultured feeding (RCF); however, no differences were found in the other Hunter color values. TCA soluble-N content of RCS was 403.8 mg/100 g, which was higher than that of RCF (314.7 mg/100 g). In taste values, the major free amino acids of both RCS and RCF were glutamic acid, alanine, lysine and histidine. Total amino acid content of RCS was 21.2 g/100 g, which was higher than that of RCF. The mineral content of RCS was slightly higher in potassium than that of RCF, while lower in magnesium. According to the result of sensory evaluation, RCS was superior in taste and texture to RCF, while similar in color and flavor.