Quality Attributes of Crude Papain Injected Beef

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF MEAT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Journal homepage: Quality Attributes of Crude Papain Injected Beef ORIGINAL ARTICLE I. P. Akpan 1* and A.B. Omojola 2 1 Department of Animal Science, University of Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, ²Meat Science Laboratory, Department of Animal Science, University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. *Corresponding Author: I.P. Akpan realidy4u@yahoo.com Received: 10/11/2015 Revised: 22/12/2015 Accepted: 25/12/2015 Abstract Papain, an enzyme from the papaya (Carica papaya) fruit was used at different concentrations (0%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8%, and 1.0%) to tenderize cow meat in a completely randomized design. The meat samples were subjected to six treatments (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6) with three replicates. Cooking loss was seen to increase as the concentrations of the enzyme increased. in WHC of injected and non-injected samples. Shear force linearly decreased with increase in enzyme concentration. Sensorially, there were no significant (P>0.05) differences in flavour, juiciness, ease of fragmentation, residue after chewing and overall acceptability but the meat treated with 0.6% of papain was rated better than other treated meats. Papain up to 0.6% is recommended from this experiment for tenderization of cow meat as levels exceeding this may have adverse effect on the texture and quality of the Key words: Papain, Tenderization, Plant enzyme, Papaya, Cow 1. Introduction Cow, which refers to the female cattle, is usually used for breeding purposes. After the physiological life of this animal, it is being disposed as Cows that have undergone these physiological functions and are slaughtered at the end of their productive lives produce meats which are very tough and are not appreciated by the consumers. The perception of beef from the consumer s point of view is affected by quality characteristics such as meat tenderness (Lawrie, 1985; Morgan et al., 1991; Calkins et al., 2007; Li et al., 2007; Ionescu et al., 2008). Many factors have been reported to affect the meat tenderness such as animal age (Smith et al., 1982), gender (Albaugh et al., 1975), muscle type, storage temperature and others. Tenderness is a complex trait which is influenced by two primary structural features of muscle namely: integrity of myofibrils (termed actomyosin effect) and the connective tissue contribution (termed background effect). To be successful in tenderizing meat, one should target one or both of the main structural constraints. Differences in tenderness exist among muscles differing in location and function in the live animal. These differences are generally attributed to differences in collagen content and/or differences in contraction or stretching during rigor mortis (King et al., 2003). Several techniques, including mechanical tenderization, elevated-temperature storage, calcium chloride injection, electrical stimulation, muscle stretching, shock-wave pressure, and enzymatic tenderization, have either been investigated or applied to improve meat tenderness (Savell et al., 1981; Koohmaraie, 1992; Koohmaraie et al., 1988; Cheftel and Culioli, 1997). Although several works have been carried out on the ante-mortem tenderization of beef (Huffman et al., 1961, 1967; Kang et al., 1970), using of commercially available papain in combination with other proteases (Naveena et al., 2004; Annah Anandh et al., 2008). It is necessary thus, to use this enzyme which is abundant in our environment to proffer solution to the problem of variation of tenderness in the carcass of Cow meat which is punished with low price as a result of its inherent toughness. With the knowledge that there is increase connective tissue with age and sex of the animal, consumers will offer low price for the cow on hoof but would gladly pay a premium for tender meat and will satisfactorily repeat their purchase and these will be of advantage to the meat industry. 2. Materials and Method A total of eighteen chunks of meat weighing approximately 100 grams from the Semitendinosus muscle of a matured bred cow were used in a

2 Completely Randomized Design. The samples were allotted to six treatments -T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6 with 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0% of crude papain respectively and were replicated thrice. 2.1 Extract Preparation The papain was collected by scoring matured unripe fruits with longitudinal incisions and then collecting the copious latex in containers set underneath the fruit still on the tree. The latex was immediately taken to the Meat laboratory in the Department of Animal Science and diluted with distilled water into the required concentrations to prevent it from coagulating. 2.2 Meat Preparation Each of the eighteen chunks were cleaned of connective tissue, weighed and labeled in a polyethene bag, closed loosely with string. The carefully labeled meat bags were cooked in a water bath pre-heated to 100oC. The meat samples were cooked for 20 minutes. 2.3 Measured to be Parameters Cooking Loss Cooking Loss was determined by the procedure of Mahendrakar et al. (1988). The injected chunks of meat were weighed and packed into a thin layered polyethylene bags which were labeled according to the treatment and broiled for 20 minutes at a temperature of 100oC in a water bath. After 20 minutes, the released water was manually separated from the meat samples and allowed to cool at room temperature (270C) for 30 minutes. The samples were weighed to determine the cooking loss. Cooking loss was determined by the following equations: Cooking loss = (weight of raw sample) (weight of cooked sample) X 100 Weight of raw sample Shear Force The cooked meat sample was cored in the muscle fibre direction with an electric coring device of about 1.0 cm diameter after which the cores were transferred to the Warner-Bratzler shear force machine (Chatillon Spec S. capacity 25kg X 50 GMS). The cored sample was placed into the V shaped blade and sheared perpendicular to the muscle fibre at three places then the force required to shear the samples were recorded and averaged Water Holding Capacity WHC was determined using the Filter Paper Press Method (FPPM) as modified by Suzuki et al. (1991). Approximately 1g of the cooked meat sample was weighed and placed on a 12.5 cm diameter Whatman No. 1 filter paper (Schleicher and schuell. cat N ) and pressed between two 13 cm x 14 cm plexi-glass at approximately 35.2 kg/cm3 for 1 minute. The pressed sample was oven dried at 100oC for 24 hours in order to determine moisture content (the pressed sample was removed from the filter paper and wrapped in a foil before putting into the oven). The amount of water released from the sample was measured indirectly by measuring the area of the filter paper wetted relative to the area of pressed sample (the filter paper was placed on a tracing paper and the two areas were traced out- areas wetted on the paper and area of the pressed sample. The tracing paper was then placed on a graph sheet to determine the areas in figures). The water holding capacity (WHC) of the meat was then calculated according to Suzuki et al. (1991), as follows: WHC = 100 [(Ar-Am) X 9.47] (Wm X Wo) Where Ar = Area of water released from meat cm3 Am = Area of meat sample cm3 Wm = Weight of meat sample in mg Wo = Moisture content of meat 9.47 = Constant factor 2.4 Sensory Evaluation The cooked sample was served to a 10-member panel of post-graduate students of the department of Animal science for the evaluation of the palatability attributes. The panelists were pre-trained on the general procedure for evaluating the samples and were served with seven coded samples. Each served sample was about 1g. A 9-point hedonic scale (1= extremely poor, undesirable extremely dry extremely difficult, extremely tight, extremely present, extremely dislike, dark respectively and 9 = extremely desirable extremely juicy extremely easy extremely loose, extremely absent, extremely like, extremely light, respectively) was used to evaluate flavour, juiciness, tenderness and overall acceptability of the meat and colour. Panelists were required to cleanse their palate between samples with water (Naveena et al., 2004). 2.5 Statistical Analysis All the data were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) by the procedure of Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 1999 in a Completely Randomized Design. The means were separated using Duncan s Multiple Range Test of the same procedure. 3. Result and Discussion 43

3 3.1 Cooking Loss The percentage cooking loss (Table 1) was least (P 0.05) in the non- injected group (T1) and highest in the group injected with 0.6% crude papain (T4). There was no significant difference (P>0.05) between the enzyme injected groups. These high losses may be attributed to the effect of the enzyme on the meat as papain degrades the myofibrillar proteins. Although the cooking loss values are within the same range, physically it was observed that T6 which had the highest concentration produced thicker broth with many fibre fragments. This finding agrees with the works of Pawar et al. (2003) who reported an increase in cooking loss of chevon treated with Papain and Anna Anandh et al. (2008) who reported increased cooking loss with increased concentration of papain on buffalo tripe. 3.2 Water Holding Capacity (WHC) Table 1 shows that the injected samples T2, T3, T5 and T6 were not significantly (P>0.05) different from T1 which was not injected with the enzyme with the exception of T4. T4 had the highest value of WHC and was significantly (P<0.05) different from T1. The values for the samples treated with the enzyme were higher numerically than that of T1 probably due to ph of papain (Anna Anandh et al., 2008). This variation in figures may have been caused by the action of the enzyme on the structural organization of the muscle proteins as it is decisive for the distribution of the water within the meat which directly affects the WHC characteristics of This result agrees with the finding of Anna Anandh et al. (2008) who reported that there was an increase in WHC of Papain treated buffalo tripe as the levels of concentrations increased. 3.3 Shear Force The result in Table 1 shows the shear force values of the Papain treated meat samples. There was a linear decrease in the force that was required to shear through the samples across the treatments as the concentration of the injected enzyme increase. Miller et al. (2001) classified beef with Warner-Bratzler shear force values over 5.7 as being very tough, above 3.0 to 4.9 as intermediate and below 3.0 as tender. It could be seen that the meat in T1 (5.45 kg/cm3) was tough as it was not treated with the enzyme while T2 and T3 (4.35 kg/cm3 and 3.09 kg/cm3 respectively) were intermediate probably due to the lower concentration of the enzyme and T4, T5 and T6 (2.40 kg/cm3, 1.67 kg/cm3 and 0.92 kg/cm3 respectively) were tender due to increase concentration of the enzyme. So as the force decreases, tenderness increased with increased concentration of Papain. This result agrees with the findings of Takagi et al. (1992) who reported a reduction in shear value of beef treated with Papain and also with Anna Ananadh et al. (2008) who reported a decrease in shear force values with increasing levels of papain on buffalo tripe. Nayga-Marcado (1984) reported that incorporation of 1%, 1.5% and 2% papain powder in roasted pork produced significantly (P<0.01) more tender 3.4 Sensory Evaluation Flavour The results in Table 2 showed that there was no significant (P>0.05) difference among the treatments in terms of flavour. T1 which had no treatment and T4 were slightly desirable while others were intermediate. This implies that the panelist slightly desired the treatment of meat with Papain at 0.6% concentration as well as the actual cooked beef Juiciness among the treatments. T2, T3, T4 and T6 were intermediate- neither juicy nor dry while T5 was slightly dry and T1 was slightly juicy. This variation in juiciness could be seen in cooking loss (Table 1). T1 which is slightly juicy, had the lowest percentage cooking loss (32.80%) which means that it did not loose much juice while cooking and this enhanced its juiciness. It was significantly (P<0.05) different from other treatments Ease of Fragmentation This explains how easily the fibres fragment as chewing continued. The results in Table 2 shows the ease at which the chunks of meat fragmented during mastication. There was no significant (P>0.05) difference among treatments. The ease of fragmentation was rated slightly easy for T1 which was not injected with the enzyme and T2, T3, andt4 which had 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6% of papain respectively. T5 and T6 were intermediate- neither difficult nor easy. This could have resulted from the degradation effect of the enzyme on the meat as it was gradually becoming mushy Apparent Adhesion The results on Table 2 show the apparent adhesion of the T5 which had 0.8% of papain was significantly (P>0.05) different from T1 which was the control. These two treatment were not significantly (P<0.05) different from other treatments (T2, T3, T4, T6). The panel adjudged T1 to be slightly loose and T5 to be slightly tight, this probably may have been due to mushy degradation of the fiber, thereby making the - 44

4 Table 1: Cooking loss, Water Holding Capacity and Shear force of papain treated meat Parameters T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 SEM Cooking Loss % b a a a a a 1.49 WHC b ab ab a ab ab 0.31 Shear Force 5.45 a 4.35 b 3.09 c 2.40 c 1.67 d 0.92 e 0.14 (kg/cm 3 ) abcde means with the same superscript on the same row are not significantly (P> 0.05) different; WHC = Water Holding Capacity. Table 2: Sensory Evaluation of the Papain treated meat Parameters T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 SEM Flavour Juciness Ease of Fragmentation Apparent Adhesion 6.44 a 6.63 a 6.20 ab 5.22 b 4.60 b 5.50 ab 2.80 Residue after Chewing Overall Acceptability Colour 3.56 b 6.75 b 6.40 a 6.00 a 6.20 a 5.50 ab 4.36 ab means with the same superscript on the same row are not significantly (P > 0.05) different; (1=extremely undesirable and 9= extremely desirable) teeth to stick without easy release of the palates from the Residue after Chewing among the treatments. The panelist adjudged remnant of the meat to be slightly absent in T2 and T3, slightly present in T4 and T5 and intermediate in T6 and T Colour The result for colour shows that T1 (0% papain) was significantly (P<0.05) different from T2, T3, T4, which had 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 % of papain. The least colour rating was given to the T1 which was not injected with the enzyme while the enzyme treated groups were rated the same (P>0.05) by the panelists. The variation may be due to effect of enzyme on the References Albaugh A, Carroll FD Ellis KW and Albaugh R (1975). Comparison of carcasses and meat from steers, shortscrotum bulls and intact bulls. Journal of Animal Science, 41: Anna Anandh M and Lakshmanan V (2008). Use of Papain as tenderizing agent for buffalo tripe. Livestock Products Technology Division, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar , Bareilly (UP). Calkin CR and Sullivan G (2007). Adding enzymes to improve beef tenderness. Beef fact. Product enhancement. University of Nebraska Overall acceptability among the treatments. The panelist adjudged that they slightly liked T4 which had 0.6% of Papain and T1 that had no treatment. Their acceptability assessments on other treatments were intermediate and none of the treatments were disliked. The acceptance of these two treatments- T1 and T4 is obvious in other sensory parameters such as flavour, ease of fragmentation and apparent adhesion. 4. Conclusion The quality attributes of papain treated cow meat revealed that concentration of papain up to 0.6% can be used to tenderize cow meat as levels exceeding this may adversely affect the texture and quality of the Cheftel JC and Culioli J (1997). Effects of high pressure on meat: a review. Meat Science, 5: Huffman DL, Palmer AZ, Carpenter JW and Shirley RL (1961). The effect of ante-mortem injection of papain on tenderness of chickens. Poultry Science, 40: Huffman DL, Palmer AZ, Carpenter JW, Hentges Jr JF and Shirley RL (1967). Effect of ante mortem injection of sodium chloride, papain and papain derivatives on the tenderness of beef. Journal of Animal Science, 26: Ionescu A, Aprodu I, Pascaru G, Aprodu I and Pascaru G (2008). Effect of papain and bromelin on muscle and 45

5 collagen proteins in beef The Annals of the University Dunarea de Jos of Galati Fascicle VI Food Technology, New Series Year II (XXXI). Kang CK and Rice EE (1970). Degradation of various meat fractions by tenderizing enzymes. Journal of Food Science, 35: King DA, Dikeman ME, Wheeler TL, Kastner CL and Koohmaraie M (2003). Chilling and cooking rate effects on some myofibrillar determinants of tenderness of beef. Journal of Animal Science, 81: Koohmaraie M (1992). The role of calcium-dependent proteases calpains in post-mortem proteolysis and meat tenderness. Biochimie, (Paris), 74: #ohmaraie M, Babiker AS, Merkel RA and Dutson TR (1988). Role of Ca-dependent proteases and lysosomal enzymes in post-mortem changes in bovine skeletal muscle. Journal of Food Science, 53: Lawrie RA (1985). In Meat Science, pp , 4th Ed. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK. Li CB, Zhou GH and Xu XL (2007). Comparisons of meat quality characteristics and intramuscular connective tissue between beef longissimus dorsi and semitendinosus muscles from chinese yellow bulls. Journal of Muscle Foods, 18: Mahendrakar NS, Khabade US and Dam NP (1988). Studies on the effect of fattening on carcass characteristics and quality of meat from Bannur lambs. Journal of food Science and Technology, 25: Miller MF, Carr MA, Ramsey CB, Crockett KL and Hoover LC (2001). Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science, 79(12): Morgan JB, Savell JW, Hale DS, Miller RK, Griffin DB, Cross HR and Shackelford SD (1991). National Beef tenderness survey. Journal of Animal Science, 69: s Naveena BM and Mendiratta SK (2004). The tenderization of buffalo meat using ginger extract. Journal of Muscle Foods, 15: Nayga-Marcado LC (1984). Effect of varying levels of powdered papain and internal meat temperatures on the tenderness, cooking loss, drip loss and cooking time of roasted pork muscle CMU. Journal of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition, 6(3): Pawar VD, Surve VD and Machewad GM (2003). Tenderization of chevon by papain and trypsin treatments. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 40(3): SAS (1999). SAS/STAT User s Guide (release 6.03) Statistical Institute. Cary, North Carolina. Savell JW, McKeith FK and Smith GC (1981). Reducing postmortem aging time of beef with electrical stimulation. Journal of Food Science, 46: Smith GC, Cross HR, Carpenter ZL, Murphey CE, Savell JW, Abraham HC and Davis GW (1982). Relationship of USDA maturity groups to palatability of cooked beef. Journal of Food Science, 47: Suzuki A, Kojima Y, Ikaraski S, Moriyama N, Ishizuka T and Tokushige H (1991). Carcass composition and meat quality of Chinese purebred and European x Chinese cross breeds pigs. Meat Science, 29: Takagi H, Arafuka S, Inonye M and Yamasaki M (1992). The effect of amino acid depletion in substilisin -E, based on structural comparison with a microbial specificity and catalysis. Journal of Biochemistry, 111: