EFFECfOFCARRAGEENANANDSODIUMALGINATE ON PROCESSING AND SENSORY QUAlifY OF LOW-FAT GROUND PORK PATrIES

Transcription

1 Indian J. Anim. Res., 38 (2): 79 84, 2004 EFFECfOFCARRAGEENANANDSODIUMALGINATE ON PROCESSING AND SENSORY QUAlifY OF LOW-FAT GROUND PORK PATrIES Manish Kumar l, B.D.Sharma, R.B.Sharma l and Sushi! Kumar2 Division of Livestock Products Technology, NRI - Bareilly, India ABSTRACf Low-fat grotmd pork patties (<10% total fat), fonnulated with 15%water, 4% added fat, 1.5%salt and different combination of carrageenan and sodium alginate (group Icarrageenan 0.75% + sodium alginate 0.1%; group ncarrageenan ').50% + sodium alginate 0.2%; groupill carrageenan 0.25% + sodium alginate 0.3%), were evaluated for proximate composition, processing and sensory characteristics and compared with control patties with 15% added fat. The moisture content of raw and cooked lowfat patties was significantly (P<0.05) higher than control patties. Cooking yield, fat and moisture retention improved significantly (p<0.05) in all the three combination groups from the control product. 1be dimensions of low-fat patties were maintained better than high-fat patties. The shear force value of group I was comparable to control, however, it increased with increase in added level of sodium alginate in the formulation. The calorie content was reduced by 35-37% in low-fat patties. The f1avcur and texture scores followed a declining trend with increase in sodium alginate in.the formulation. The sensory quality along with overall acceptability was highest for group I and comparable to high-fat control patties. INTRODUCTION Processed meats traditionally have higher fat content. Frankfurters and bologna may have as much as 30 per cent fat while fresh pork sausage is allowed to contain up to 50 per cent fat. Traditional pork patties have fat content in the range of 20-25% (Padda et aj., 1985). Fat is a rich source of calorie, saturated fatty acids and cholesterol which are implicated to contribute in the heart diseases, hypertension and obesity. Therefore, the processed meat products have the gre~test opportunities for fat reduction and/or modification by reformulation with fat replacers. Fat replacers are the ingredients that contribute minimum calories to formulated meatsand retain the desirable sensoryattributes of fat in the product. Various non meat ingredients have been evaluated as fat replacers in processed meats. Hydrocolloids or gums are considered to be widely acceptable fat replacer because they regulate viscosity, form gels, stabilize emulsions inhibit syneresis and contribute <1 cal/g on dry weight basis (Keeton, 1994). Carrageenan and alginate are high molecular weight polysaccharides extracted from red and brown sea weeds respectively. These are approved for use in meat products as binder and extender (USDA, 1973). Wallingford and Labuza (1983) used carrageenantoimprovewaterbinding capacity of low~fat emulsions. Bloukas et al. (1997) fouj;1d the reduction in hardness, improved moisture retention and overall acceptability of low-fat frankfurters. Means et al. (1987) used % sodium alginate to low-fat restructured beefsteakswith similar palatability attributes as control. Park et ai. (2000) formulated low-fat pork patties «10 % fat) with sodium alginate and found improvement in cooking yield, moisture retention, sensory and textural properties. Therefore, the present study was carried out to select the optimum combination I DepartmentofLivestock ProductsTechnology, College ofvetennaryandanimal Sciences, CSKHPKV- Palampur. 2ICAR- New Delhi.

2 80 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH of carrageenan and sodium alginate in the formulation of low-fat ground pork patties on the basis of compositional, processing and sens~ry qualities. MATERIAL AND METHODS Formulation and Processing: Market age crossbred (Landrace x local) hogs (n=3) weighing kg were humanely slaughtered at the Divisional Experimental Abattoir of the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bareilly. Prerigor raw materials were brought to laboratory within 1 hr post mortem after fabricating each carcass into boston butt, picnic shoulder, loin and ham. In the laboratory, skin, subcutaneousfat, bone, seam fat and necessary connective tissue were manually removed. Leantrimmingsandbackfat were frozen stored separatlaly at -18±2~.c in low density polyethylene (LDPE) packs till use and after partial thawing at 5 C for 12hr were used for the preparation of ground pork patties. The spice mixture, condiments and otheradditives were purchased from the local market. The refined wheat flour used as binder contained 18.73±2.11 per cent moisture and 74.43±0.85 percent carbohydrates. Carrageeenanand sodium alginate were purchased from Hi-Media Laboratories, Mumbai and Central Drug House Private Limited, Mumbai respectively. The lean meat and back fat were minced separately through a 3mm plate in an Electrolux meat mincer (Model 9512). The formulation andprocessing of control and lowfat patties were standardized on the basis of literature and series of standardization experiments conducted by Manish Kumar (2001). All the ingredients and minced meat constituents (Table 1) were thoroughly mixed in an electrically operated meat mixer (Hobart Paddle Mixer, N-50) for 3min. Immediately after mixing, the 75g of patty mixture was molded to a defined size with the help of a Petri dish of 75mm x 15mm internal size. The. molded patties were cooked in a preheated hot air oven at 190±5 C to an internal end point temperature of 75±2 C recorded at the geometrical center of each patty using a probe. thermometer. The patties were turned upside down twice at 5min intervals for better color and texture. Samples from each batch were analyzed on the same day. Cooking Characteristics: Cooking yield of patties was determined by measuring the weight of 9 patties for each treatment and was calculated as the ratio of cooked weight to raw weight expressed as a percentage. The per cent cooking loss was calculated as the differential weight between individual raw and cooked patties. The moisture and fat retention were calculated according to the following equations: ). n.t Cooked weight x Per cent fat in cooked patties Fat Retention (%) = x 100 Raw weight x Per cent fat in raw patties Moisture Retention (%) = Per cent yield x Per cent moisture in cooked patties 100

3 Vol. 38, No.2, Ingredients Lean meat Added fat Added water Refined wheat flour (Maida) Table salt Spice mix. Condiment mix. Sodium nitrite Carrageenan Sodium alginate Table 1. Formulation of ground pork patties Control (%w/w) ppm Low-fat ground pork patties (%w/w) I II III ppm 150 ppm 150 ppm The moisture retention value per cent gain in height and per cent decrease represents the amount of moisture retained in in diameter were calculated in accordance with the cooked product per 100g of raw sample. the methods of Chowdhary et ai. (1994). The The diameters and heights of the cooked patties shrinkage was determined according to the were. recorded with the help of vernier caliper equadon of El-Magoli et ai. (1996):. at three different points on each patty. The (Raw thickness - Cooked thickness) + (Raw diameter - Cooked diameter) Shrinkage (%) = Raw Thickness + Raw Diameter Physico-Chemical Analysis: Composition: Moisture, fat (ether extractable) and protein content of raw and cooked patties were determined according to standard AOAC (1995) procedures using a hot air oven, a soxhlet extraction apparatus and a Kjeldahl assembly, respectively. All analyses were performed in triplicate. ph Determination: Homogenates were prepared by blending 20g of raw or cooked patties with 80ml of distilled water in Ultra Turrex T25 tissue homogenizerat 7,000 10,000 rpm for 1 min. The ph of the suspension was measured using a digital ph meter (Model CP901 Century Instruments Limited, India). Shear Force Value: The shear force value of cooked patties cut into 1 cm 2 size pieces was recorded as per method of Berry and Stiffler (1981) using Warner- Bratzler Shear press (Model: G.R. Elect. Mfg. Co. USA) and expressed as kg/cm 2 Calorific Value: Total calorie estimates of raw and cooked sausages were calculated on the basis of 100g portion using Atwater values for fat (9.0 kqal/g), protein (4.02 kcal/ g) and carbohydrates (4.0 kcal/g) calories contributed by carrageenanand sodium alginate were based on level of incorporation (0.25, 0.50 and 0.75%; 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3%) and composition. Since analysis of per cent carbohydrates in the meat samples was not performed, the calorie values were estimates and not actual values. Sensory Evaluation: Patties at a temperature of C were assessed underincandescent light for their appearance and color, flavour, juiciness, texture and overall acceptability by a seven member experienced panel of judges using an '8-point hedonic scale, where 8 denoted extremely desirable and 1 denoted extremely poor. Tap

4 82 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL. RESEARCH water was provided between samples to cleanse the palate. Statistical Analysis: The statistical design of this study was 4 (treatments) x 3 (replications) randomized block design. All chemical and physical determinations were conducted in triplicate. There were seven sensory determinations (judges) for each treatment x replication combination. Data were subjected to one way analysis of variance. Duncan'sMultiple Range test and critical difference were determined at 5% significance level (Snedecor and Cochran, 1989). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Proximate analysis of raw formulation of pork patties (Table 2) revealed that moisture content varied from to 69.59%. The moisture content was inversely propotional to the fat content Le. higher moisture in low-fat products. Thiswas the result of fat substitution by moisture in low-fat product. The added water content was 15 per cent in low-fat patties whereas it was 5 per cent in control group (Table1). Thefat contentwhichvaried in a very narrow range % amongst treatment groups (4% added fat) was significantly (P<0.05) lower than control (15 % added fat) patties and well below the permissible limits «10% total fat) for low-fat products as prescribed by Keeton (1994).The moisture protein ratio, as expected was higher in lowfat product due to higher moisture content. The calorie content of low-fat patties was reducedby per centfrom control patties. On cooking, there was slight increase in fat content of low-fat (Table 3) patties due to moisture loss and binding ability of carrageenan and sodium alginate (Huffman et al., 1992; Park et al., 2000), whereas fat contentdecreased in control group due to more cooking losses. Reitmeir (1989) also reported higherfat losses in drip on cooking of high-fat pork patties. There was an increasing trend in the cooking yield of the product from combination group I (0.75% carrageenan and 0.1% sodium alginate) to group III (0.25% carrageenan and 0.3% sodium alginate), although differences were not found to be statistically significant. Cooking yield improved significantly (P<0.05) in all combinationgroups as compared to control. Synergistic action of sodium alginate and carrageenan in water binding, thickening, gelling and stabilizing could be the reason for the difference in the cooking yield. Lin and Keeton (1998) also observed significantly (P<0.05) higher cooking yield in low-fat ground beef pattiescontaining alginate (0.15%) and carrageenan (0.5%) as compared to low-fat beef patties without any fat replacer as well as high-fat regular beef patties. Calorie content of cooked low-fat patties was reduced by per cent from control patties. Dimensional parameters (Table 3) such as decrease in diameter and shrinkage showed a decreasing trend from combination group I to group III, although all the three groups differed significantly (P<0.05) from control. The values of percent shrinkage and decrease in diameter were maximum in case of high-fat control patties. This might be due to absence of water binding action of hydrocolloids in control. Shear force value was recorded maximum in combination group Iand it varied significantly (P<0.05) from group II and group III. It could probably be due to comparatively better binding and increase in compactness of meat particles at this combination level of carrageenan and sodium alginate. Mean sensory scores (Table 4) revealed that appearance scores in treated combination groups and control were comparable. AClvour scores of the product with combination group I was comparable to control. However, the flavour scoresdecreased significantly (P<0.05) in low-fat ground porkpattiesincorporated with group II and group III, which could be attributed to comparatively high level of sodium alginate '1

5 Vol. 38, No.2, Table 2. Effect of incorporation of combinations of carrageenan and sodium alginate on physico-chemical properties of raw low-fat ground pork patties (n=6, Mean+S.E.)* Parameters Control Group I Group II Group III Carrageenan (0.75%) Carrageenan (0.50%) Carrageenan (0.25%) Sodium Alginate (0.1%) Sodium Algi"ate (0.2%) Sodium Alginate (0.3%) ph 5.93± ± ± ±0.005 Moisture (%) b ± ± "± "±0.06 Fat(%) 19.82"± b ± b ±0.1l 8.79 b ±0.14 Protein (%) 15.45± ± ± ±0.15 Moisture protein ratio 3.8P± "±O "± "±O.06 Calorie content ±1.l ± ± ±1.l5 *Mean±S.E with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P<O.05). Table 3. Effect of incorporation of combination of carrageenan and sodium alginate on physico-chemical properties of cooked low-fat ground pork patties (n=6, Mean±S.E.)* Parameters Control Group I Group II Group III Carrageenan (0.75%) Carrageenan (0.50%) Carrageenan (0.25%) Sodium Alginate (0.1%) Sodium Alginate (0.2%) Sodium Alginate (0.3%) ph 6.16±0.01 b 6.20±0.02" 6.19±0.01" 6.18±0.0l" Moisture (%) 55.36±0.21 b 61.88±0.32" 61.93±0.18" 62.51±0.14' Fat(%) 18.75±0.17" 9.28±0.07 b 9. 17±0.02 b 9. 12±0.07 b Protein (%) 18.59±0.15" 18.81±0.06 b 18.76±0.llb 18.69±0.17 b Moisture protein ratio 2.98±0.03 b 3.29±0.02" 3.32±0.02" 3.34±0.04 Cooking yield (%) 75.30±0.22 b 80.49±O.07" 80.91±0.19" 81.l4±0.44" Cooking loss (%) 24.70±O.22" 19.51±0.07 b 19.09±0.19 b 18.86±0.44 b Decrease in diameter (%) " 17.91±1.21 b 16.95±0.76 b 16.87±0.64 b Gain in height (%) 34.3~±O.38" 21.20±0.94 b 22.25±O.65 b 24.99±0.6P Shrinkage (%) 13.73±O.38" 1l.39±0.94' 10.41±0.74 b 10.39±0.66 b Moisture retention (%) 41.69±O.12 b 49.80±0.27" 50.42±0.16" 50.73±O.47 Fat retention (%) 71.64±0.88 b 82.55±0.68" 84.80±1.l8" 84.27±0.82" Shear force value (kg/cm 2 ) 0.44±O.01 b 0.45±0.OP 0.48±0.0l" O.49±0.0l" Calorie content 259.1l± ± ± ±1.l7 *Mean±S.E with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P<0.05). Table 4. Effect of combinations of carrageenan and sodium alginate on sensory attributes of low-fat ground pork patties (n=21, Mean±S.E.)* Parameters Control Group I Group II Group III Carrageenan (0.75%) Carrageenan (0.50%) Carrageenan (0.25%) Sodium Alginate (0.1%) Sodium Alginate (0.2%) Sodium Alginate (0.3%) Appearance 7.14±O.1l 7.07±O.O9 7.00± ±0.08 Aavour 7.05"± "± b ± c ±0.1l Juiciness 6.95± ± ± ±0.1l Texture 7.10"±0.O ab ±O b ± b ±0.10 Overall acceptability 7.08 ±O "± b ±0.1l 6.36 c ±0.13 * Mean±S.E. with same superscript in a row do not differ significantly (P<0.05).

6 84 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH causing slippery mouthfeel (Means et al., 1987). Juiciness scores showed an increasing trend from combination group I to group m, but the differences were not statistically significant. The texture scores were comparable in patties with combination group I and control. However, the scores reduced significantly W<O.05) in patties with combination group III. These results are in conformity of results of shear force value. Higher texture scores of low-fat ground pork patties incorporated with combination groupicould be due to comparatively better texture modifying and stabilizing actionof carrageenan and sodium alginate at this combination level. The overall acceptability of low-fat ground pork patties with combination group I was comparable to control which could be due to their similar scores for most sensory attributes. The results of the study indicated that carrageenan and sodium alginate in combination improved cooking yield and maintained dimensional structure of low-fat ground pork patties. The shrinkage losses were minimized. Since, low-fat ground pork patties incorporated with combination of 0.75 per cent carrageenan and 0.1 per cent sodium alginate were rated as comparable in sensory attributes viz., flavour, texture and overall acceptability to high-fat control, therefore this combination is recommended to the processors. REFERENCES AOAC (1995). Official Methods ofanalysis. 16th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C. Beny, B.W and Stiffler, D.M. (1981) J Food Sci., 46: Bioukas, J.G. et a/. (1997). J. Muscle Foods, 8: Chowdhary, J. etal. (1994). IndianJ. Poultry Sci., 29: El-Magoli, S.B. et a/. (1996). Meat Sci., 42: Huffman, D.L. et aj. (1992). Cereal Foods World, 37: Keeton, J.T. (1994). Meat Sci., 36: Un, K.W and Keeton, J.T. (1998,. J. Food Sci., 64: 571. Manish Kumar (2001). Ph.D. Thesis, IVRI, Bareilly. Means, WJ. et a/. (1987). J. Food Sci., 52: Padda, G.S. et a/. (1985). J. Food Sci. Technol., 22: Park, CK et a/. (2000). J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr., 29: Reitmeier, CA (1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 849 (9), 3526 Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, WG. (1989). Statistical Methods, 8th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. USDA (1973). Meatand PoultryInspectionReguiation. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Wallingford, L.W and Labuza, T.P. (1983). J Food Science, 48: 1-5. i~