# Flavor Differences of Edible Parts of Grass Carp between Jingpo Lake and Commercial Market
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Evaluation  
The results of the sensory evaluation are shown in Table 5. The tenderness, springiness, and chewiness of JA and JB were higher than those of CA and CB (\(p<0.05\)), and there were no significant differences in tenderness and chewiness between JT and CT (\(p>0.05\)).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**ATP-Associated Compounds**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Content (mg/kg)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **JA** & **CA** & **JB** & **CB** & **JT** & **CT** \\ \hline ATP & 156.39 \(\pm\) 6.86 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 151.62 \(\pm\) 5.12 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 171.55 \(\pm\) 6.51 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 165.04 \(\pm\) 6.43 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 151.61 \(\pm\) 5.27 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 148.07 \(\pm\) 6.11 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ ADP & 272.65 \(\pm\) 108.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 231.94 \(\pm\) 11.23 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 282.26 \(\pm\) 10.22 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 248.25 \(\pm\) 11.36 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 218.52 \(\pm\) 10.13 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 218.21 \(\pm\) 11.38 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ AMP & 84.39 \(\pm\) 5.92 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 68.66 \(\pm\) 5.90 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 87.91 \(\pm\) 5.91 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 60.78 \(\pm\) 5.90 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 81.19 \(\pm\) 4.63 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 66.75 \(\pm\) 6.58 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ IMP & 1951.19 \(\pm\) 36.34 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2009.11 \(\pm\) 43.91 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 2258.22 \(\pm\) 40.46 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2243.75 \(\pm\) 43.26 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2113.24 \(\pm\) 37.20 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2201.44 \(\pm\) 42.98 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ H\(\kappa\) & 202.29 \(\pm\) 12.03 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 212.88 \(\pm\) 11.45 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 264.10 \(\pm\) 11.49 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 200.21 \(\pm\) 11.76 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 258.69 \(\pm\) 11.95 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 231.49 \(\pm\) 10.35 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ H\(\kappa\) & 72.98 \(\pm\) 4.52 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 62.23 \(\pm\) 2.54 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 29.82 \(\pm\) 2.56 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 41.64 \(\pm\) 3.43 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 39.00 \(\pm\) 3.81 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 55.69 \(\pm\) 2.26 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ k & 10.05 \(\pm\) 0.43 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.05 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 9.50 \(\pm\) 0.52 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.17 \(\pm\) 0.99 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.40 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.18 \(\pm\) 0.87 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\end{table}
Table 4: Comparison of ATP-associated compounds and K-values in different parts of JPGC and CGC.  
[PERSON] and [PERSON] [46; 47] also reported that low lipids and high protein also improved meat tenderness, springiness, and chewiness. In terms of odor, the earthy and fishy odor of each part of JPGC was significantly lower than that of each part of CGC (\(p<0.05\)). Similar results were also reported by [PERSON] et al. [48], who found that the fishy flavor in farmed salmon was higher than that of the wild river salmon. In regard to taste, the score of earthy taste in JA, JB, and JT were significantly lower than those of CA, CB, and CT (\(p<0.05\)). The score of fishy in CB was higher than that of JB, and there were neither significant differences between JA and CA, nor between JT and CT (\(p>0.05\)). In summary, JPGC had better texture, odor, and taste, compared to CGC.