| Literature DB >> 26732452 |
Endy Triyannanto, Keun Taik Lee.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of natural humectants such as honey and rice syrup to replace sorbitol in the production of restructured duck jerky. Each humectant was mixed at 3%, 6%, and 10% (wt/wt) concentrations with the marinating solution. The values of water activity and the moisture-to-protein ratio of all of the samples were maintained below 0.75. Jerky samples treated with honey retained more moisture than those exposed to other treatments. Among all samples, those treated with 10% sorbitol produced the highest processing yield and the lowest shear force values. The highest L* value and the lowest b* value were observed for the sorbitol-treated sample, followed by the rice syrup- and honey-treated samples. Duck jerky samples treated with 10% honey showed the highest scores for the sensory parameters evaluated. The overall acceptability scores of samples treated with rice syrup were comparable with those of samples treated with sorbitol. Microscopic observation of restructured duck jerky samples treated with honey showed stable forms and smaller pores when compared with other treatments.Entities:
Keywords: Honey; Restructured Duck Jerky; Rice Syrup; Sorbitol
Year: 2016 PMID: 26732452 PMCID: PMC4698708 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.15.0431
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Figure 1Manufacturing process of restructured duck jerky.
Recipe for restructured duck jerky
| Ingredients | Formulation (%, wt/wt) |
|---|---|
| Duck meat | 100.00 |
| Water | 2.60 |
| Salt | 1.32 |
| White pepper | 0.19 |
| All spices | 0.09 |
| Garlic powder | 0.22 |
| Ginger powder | 0.14 |
| Ascorbic acid | 0.08 |
| Soybean sauce | 3.78 |
| Sugar | 1.89 |
| Paprika powder | 0.43 |
| Smoke oil | 0.05 |
| Onion powder | 0.24 |
| Red pepper | 0.31 |
| Black pepper | 0.14 |
| Celery powder | 0.28 |
| Tartaric acid | 0.03 |
| Nucleotide powder | 0.07 |
| Flavouring powder | 0.60 |
| Humectants | 3.0/6.0/10.0 |
Humectants treatments: addition of 3%, 6%, and 10% concentrations of honey, rice syrup, and sorbitol based on raw meat weight (wt/wt).
Comparison of water activity, moisture content, and moisture-to-protein ratio of restructured duck jerkies prepared with honey, rice syrup, and sorbitol
| Treatments | Concentration (%) | Moisture content (%) | Moisture-to-protein ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honey | 3 | 0.744±0.00 | 36.15±0.04 | 0.745±0.01 |
| 6 | 0.733±0.00 | 35.01±0.28 | 0.730±0.03 | |
| 10 | 0.709±0.00 | 34.66±1.00 | 0.720±0.03 | |
| Rice syrup | 3 | 0.733±0.00 | 33.93±1.26 | 0.745±0.02 |
| 6 | 0.729±0.00 | 33.93±1.24 | 0.720±0.04 | |
| 10 | 0.725±0.00 | 32.76±0.74 | 0.720±0.00 | |
| Sorbitol | 3 | 0.735±0.00 | 33.93±0.64 | 0.740±0.03 |
| 6 | 0.732±0.00 | 32.84±0.01 | 0.735±0.01 | |
| 10 | 0.713±0.00 | 30.87±0.31 | 0.705±0.04 |
Means±standard deviation in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05.
Comparison of pH, processing yield, shear force, and TBARS of restructured duck jerkies prepared with honey, rice syrup, and sorbitol
| Treatments | Concentration (%) | pH | Processing yield (%) | Shear force (N/cm2) | TBARS (mg MDA/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honey | 3 | 6.04±0.02 | 45.27±1.42 | 25.46±3.54 | 0.82±1.00 |
| 6 | 5.99±0.03 | 46.34±1.71 | 22.06±3.67 | 0.96±0.00 | |
| 10 | 5.97±0.00 | 46.96±1.27 | 20.05±2.57 | 0.98±0.01 | |
| Rice syrup | 3 | 6.02±0.00 | 44.12±1.04 | 29.31±3.49 | 0.73±0.08 |
| 6 | 6.00±0.01 | 44.18±1.11 | 26.75±3.58 | 0.56±0.42 | |
| 10 | 5.99±0.02 | 47.62±1.03 | 18.48±3.68 | 0.43±0.50 | |
| Sorbitol | 3 | 6.05±0.02 | 45.46±0.74 | 26.66±1.16 | 0.43±0.31 |
| 6 | 6.01±0.00 | 47.58±1.54 | 17.70±1.44 | 0.43±0.16 | |
| 10 | 6.01±0.02 | 49.39±1.14 | 16.62±2.36 | 0.43±0.16 |
TBARS, 2-Thiobarbituric acid reactive substance.
Means±standard deviation in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05.
Comparison of surface color of restructured duck jerkies prepared with honey, rice syrup, and sorbitol
| Treatments | Concentration (%) | L* | a* | b* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honey | 3 | 24.51±0.70 | 5.08±0.53 | 3.83±0.31 |
| 6 | 25.03±0.59 | 4.23±0.57 | 2.83±0.44 | |
| 10 | 27.15±0.53 | 4.22±0.41 | 2.01±0.34 | |
| Rice syrup | 3 | 28.23±0.25 | 4.66±0.44 | 2.57±0.23 |
| 6 | 28.34±0.47 | 4.36±0.31 | 1.97±0.42 | |
| 10 | 28.70±0.41 | 4.04±0.51 | 1.75±0.16 | |
| Sorbitol | 3 | 29.10±0.52 | 4.18±0.27 | 1.65±0.16 |
| 6 | 29.20±0.30 | 4.06±0.37 | 1.58±0.22 | |
| 10 | 29.47±0.30 | 3.97±0.64 | 1.51±0.60 |
Means±standard deviation in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05.
Figure 2Typical scanning electron microscope pictures of restructured duck jerkies prepared with 6% honey (T1), 6% rice syrup (T2), and 6% sorbitol (T3) (wt/wt). Samples were coated with platinum (Pt) at 20.000 magnification.
Sensory evaluations of restructured duck jerkies prepared with honey, rice syrup, and sorbitol
| Treatments | Concentration (%) | Colour | Flavour | Tenderness | Sweetness | Overall acceptability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honey | 3 | 8.00±0.48 | 7.50±0.46 | 7.60±0.20 | 7.00±0.52 | 7.60±0.25 |
| 6 | 8.50±0.46 | 8.00±0.43 | 8.20±0.46 | 8.00±0.63 | 8.03±1.24 | |
| 10 | 8.50±0.41 | 8.50±0.55 | 8.60±0.29 | 8.50±0.35 | 8.27±0.23 | |
| Rice syrup | 3 | 8.00±0.55 | 6.50±0.27 | 7.40±0.20 | 6.50±0.27 | 7.08±0.51 |
| 6 | 7.50±0.30 | 7.00±0.36 | 7.50±0.29 | 7.00±0.27 | 7.42±0.19 | |
| 10 | 7.40±0.24 | 7.50±0.33 | 8.00±0.31 | 7.50±0.50 | 7.55±0.50 | |
| Sorbitol | 3 | 7.50±0.28 | 6.40±0.30 | 7.50±0.29 | 6.40±0.21 | 7.10±0.47 |
| 6 | 7.30±0.35 | 7.00±0.17 | 8.00±0.31 | 6.50±0.45 | 7.42±0.19 | |
| 10 | 7.00±0.37 | 7.50±0.33 | 8.50±0.36 | 7.00±0.27 | 7.53±0.47 |
Means±standard deviation in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05.