| Literature DB >> 26760933 |
Min-Sung Choi1, Yun-Sang Choi2, Hyun-Wook Kim1, Ko-Eun Hwang1, Dong-Heon Song1, Soo-Yeo N Lee1, Cheon-Jei Kim1.
Abstract
The effects of replacing pork back fat with brewer's spent grain (BSG) pre-emulsion for physicochemical, textural properties, and sensory evaluations of reduced-fat chicken sausages are evaluated. Control was prepared with 15% pork back fat, and three reduced-fat chicken sausages were formulated with the replacement of 20, 25, and 30% pork back fat with BSG pre-emulsion. The pH level of reduced-fat sausages formulated with BSG pre-emulsion is lower than that of the control (p<0.05). The redness, yellowness, and apparent viscosity of reduced-fat chicken sausages increase proportionally with increasing BSG pre-emulsion (p<0.05). With increasing BSG pre-emulsion concentration, the fat contents and energy values are decreased in reduced-fat chicken sausages (p<0.05). The BSG pre-emulsion improves the hardness, gumminess, and chewiness of reduced-fat chicken sausages (p<0.05), and the reduction in fat and the addition of BSG pre-emulsion had no influence on the cohesiveness of the chicken sausage. And there is no significant difference in the overall acceptability among control, T1 (chicken sausage with 20% of BSG pre-emulsion, 10% of fat addition), and T2 (chicken sausage with 25% of BSG pre-emulsion, 5% of fat addition) (p>0.05). Therefore, our results indicate that BSG is effective dietary fiber source for manufacturing of reduced-fat meat product and suggest that 20-25% of BSG pre-emulsion is suitable for pork back fat in chicken sausages.Entities:
Keywords: brewer’s spent grain; chicken sausage; dietary fiber; reduced-fat
Year: 2014 PMID: 26760933 PMCID: PMC4597837 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2014.34.2.158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 1225-8563 Impact factor: 2.622
Reduced-fat chicken sausage formulations with brewer’s spent grain (BSG) pre-emulsion levels (units: %)
| Ingredients | Treatments1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | T1 | T2 | T3 | |
| Chicken breast meat | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 |
| Pork back fat | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 |
| BSG pre-emulsion | 0 | 20 | 25 | 30 |
| Ice | 15 | (16)2) | (20) | (24) |
| CMC3) | 0 | (1) | (1.25) | (1.5) |
| BSG4)dietary fiber | 0 | (3) | (3.75) | (4.5) |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| NPS5) | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Ascorbic acid | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Sugar | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Garlic powder | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Monosodium L-glutamate | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Spice | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
1)Control: chicken sausage with 15% pork back fat; T1: chicken sausage with 10% pork back fat and 20% BSG pre-emulsion; T2: chicken sausage with 5% pork back fat and 25% BSG pre-emulsion; T3: chicken sausage with 30% BSG pre-emulsion. 2)Figure in parenthesis is calculated as content pre-emulsion ingredients based on total weight. 3)Carboxymethyl cellulose. 4)Brewer’s spent grain. 5)NPS: nitrite pickled salt (99.4:0.6).
Effects of brewer’s spent grain (BSG) pre-emulsion on pH and color (L*˗, a*˗, and b*˗values) of uncooked and cooked reduced-fat chicken sausage
| Treatments1) | Uncooked | Cooked | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | L*-value | a*-value | b*-value | pH | L*-value | a*-value | b*-value | |
| Control | 5.30±0.02b | 76.16±0.64a | 4.03±0.37c | 16.08±0.83b | 5.62±0.02 | 83.21±0.48a | 2.92±0.13c | 13.06±0.34d |
| T1 | 5.34±0.02a | 64.07±1.45b | 4.80±0.20b | 19.91±0.42a | 5.61±0.04 | 74.58±0.84b | 3.42±0.17b | 17.50±0.28c |
| T2 | 5.35±0.02a | 60.18±0.65c | 4.97±0.27b | 20.12±0.64a | 5.61±0.04 | 73.61±0.46c | 3.43±0.17b | 18.05±0.33b |
| T3 | 5.36±0.02a | 54.60±0.77d | 5.68±0.37a | 20.50±0.64a | 5.63±0.03 | 69.97±0.37d | 3.71±0.13a | 19.83±0.32a |
All values are mean±standard deviation of three replicates. a-dMeans within a column with different letters are significantly different (p< 0.05). 1)Control: chicken sausage with 15% pork back fat; T1: chicken sausage with 10% pork back fat and 20% BSG pre-emulsion; T2: chicken sausage with 5% pork back fat and 25% BSG pre-emulsion; T3: chicken sausage with 30% BSG pre-emulsion.
Fig. 1.Fat contents and energy value of reduced-fat chicken sausages formulations with various brewer’s spent grain (BSG) pre-emulsion levels. All values are mean±SD. A-DMean sharing different letters in fat contents are significantly different (p<0.05). a-dMean sharing different letters in Energy value are significantly different (p<0.05). 1) Control: chicken sausage with 15% pork back fat; T1: chicken sausage with 10% pork back fat and 20% BSG pre-emulsion; T2: chicken sausage with 5% pork back fat and 25% BSG pre-emulsion; T3: chicken sausage with 30% BSG pre-emulsion.
Effects of brewer’s spent grain (BSG) pre-emulsion on cooking yield and salt soluble protein solubility of reduced-chicken sausage
| Treatments1) | Cooking yield (%) | Salt soluble protein solubility (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 89.37±2.89b | 8.62±0.48 |
| T1 | 95.74±0.64a | 8.77±0.40 |
| T2 | 95.28±0.99a | 9.11±0.88 |
| T3 | 95.42±0.31a | 9.20±0.29 |
All values are mean±standard deviation of three replicates.
a,bMeans within a column with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).
1)Control: chicken sausage with 15% pork back fat; T1: chicken sausage with 10% pork back fat and 20% BSG pre-emulsion; T2: chicken sausage with 5% pork back fat and 25% BSG pre-emulsion; T3: chicken sausage with 30% BSG pre-emulsion.
Fig. 2.Change in apparent viscosity of uncooked reduced-fat chicken sausages containing brewer’s spent grain (BSG) pre-emulsion stirred for 40 s.(◇) Control: chicken sausage with 15% pork back fat; ( △) T1: chicken sausage with 10% pork back fat and 20% BSG pre-emulsion; (□) T2: chicken sausage with 5% pork back fat and 25% BSG pre-emulsion; (○) T3: chicken sausage with 30% BSG pre-emulsion.
Textural attributes of reduced-fat chicken sausage formulated with varying brewer’s spent grain (BSG) pre-emulsion levels
| Treatments1) | Hardness | Springiness | Cohesiveness | Gumminess | Chewiness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0.23±0.18c | 0.87±0.02a | 0.51±0.02 | 0.12±0.02c | 0.10±0.02b |
| T1 | 0.32±0.02b | 0.84±0.03a | 0.51±0.03 | 0.16±0.03b | 0.14±0.03a |
| T2 | 0.32±0.02b | 0.83±0.04ab | 0.51±0.02 | 0.17±0.02b | 0.14±0.02a |
| T3 | 0.32±0.02a | 0.79±0.03c | 0.51±0.03 | 0.18±0.02a | 0.15±0.02a |
All values are mean±standard deviation of three replicates.
a-cMeans within a column with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).
1)Control: chicken sausage with 15% pork back fat; T1: chicken sausage with 10% pork back fat and 20% BSG pre-emulsion; T2: chicken sausage with 5% pork back fat and 25% BSG pre-emulsion; T3: chicken sausage with 30% BSG pre-emulsion.
Effects of brewer’s spent grain (BSG) pre-emulsion on the sensory evaluation of reduced-chicken sausage
| Treatments1) | Color | Flavor | Off-flavor | Tenderness | Juiciness | Overall acceptability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 8.55±0.52a | 8.40±0.70a | 8.10±1.10 | 7.80±1.03 | 8.80±0.92 | 8.10±0.57a |
| T1 | 8.00±0.77ab | 7.90±0.99ab | 8.10±1.29 | 7.50±1.08 | 8.50±1.08 | 7.70±0.67ab |
| T2 | 8.09±0.70ab | 8.10±0.88ab | 8.20±1.23 | 7.50±1.18 | 8.50±0.71 | 7.60±0.70ab |
| T3 | 7.36±0.92b | 7.50±0.71b | 8.00±1.41 | 7.40±1.43 | 8.30±1.06 | 7.10±0.74b |
All values are mean±standard deviation of three replicates.
a,bMeans within a column with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).
1)Control: chicken sausage with 15% pork back fat; T1: chicken sausage with 10% pork back fat and 20% BSG pre-emulsion; T2: chicken sausage with 5% pork back fat and 25% BSG pre-emulsion; T3: chicken sausage with 30% BSG pre-emulsion.