| Literature DB >> 32726956 |
María José Beriain1, María Teresa Murillo-Arbizu1, Kizkitza Insausti1, María Victoria Sarriés1, Inmaculada Gómez2.
Abstract
The aim of this work was to set the quality standards of the chistorra de Navarra, a raw-cured Spanish traditional meat product, through the study of its sensory and physicochemical features. The quality of chistorra samples, coming from 50 different artisan producers, were assessed during three sessions by expert assessors (n = 15). In the first session, instrumental colour (L*, a*, and b*) and appearance and odour parameters were evaluated in the raw products. In the second session, texture and flavour attributes were determined in cooked products. Finally, in the third session, the best 10 classified chistorras from the first and second sessions were sensorially evaluated and sampled for further analysis: texture (Warner Bratzler and texture profile analysis (TPA)), chemical composition, and fatty acid profile. The chistorras with the highest sensory scores had high shear force values, flavour intensity, and fat/hydroxyproline ratio. The average fatty acid profile obtained for chistorra de Navarra was: 42% saturated fatty acids (SFA), 45% monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), and 13% polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), which was similar to the one found in other raw-cured sausages. Considering the sensory evaluation, chistorra was defined as a product with an intense orange colour, and with high resistance value in the initial bite. It was also characterised by a high juiciness and tenderness, aroma, and meat flavour. In mouth, the pork fat, one of the ingredients of chistorra, was balanced without any of the ingredients dominating. Chemically, the chistorra was characterised by a fat content close to 67% (dry matter), low hydroxyproline occurrence (≤0.6), and protein amount ranging 18-38%.Entities:
Keywords: chemical composition; chistorra; fatty acid profile; raw-cured meat product; sensory quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 32726956 PMCID: PMC7466305 DOI: 10.3390/foods9081006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1chistorra selection methodology.
Means and standard deviation (SD) of sensory attribute values obtained for chistorras in steps 1 and 2 of the contest. Data were grouped in the 10 best scored and the 30 worst scored chistorras.
| Step | Parameters | Lowest Scored | Highest Scored | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Sd | Mean | Sd | ||
| 1 (raw) | Raw global score | 14.57 | 0.25 | 15.83 | 0.43 |
| 2 (cooked) | Texture | 6.04 | 0.13 | 8.00 | 0.23 |
| Flavour and odour | 5.72 | 0.14 | 7.46 | 0.25 | |
| Residual flavour | 5.54 | 0.14 | 7.20 | 0.24 | |
| Gristle absence | 6.53 | 0.14 | 8.00 | 0.25 | |
| Visual colour | 6.44 | 0.14 | 8.10 | 0.24 | |
| Cooked global score | 30.28 | 0.56 | 38.76 | 0.96 | |
Note: in order to provide these results, the mean individual values from each assessor for each chistorra were positioned in ‘lowest scored’ or ‘highest scored’ groups and afterwards a mean value per group was obtained.
Figure 2Results of the sensory evaluation for the chistorras in step 3 (n = 10).
Raw composition of chistorra samples.
| Moisture (%) | Protein (%) | Fat (%) | Hydroxyproline (%) | Nitrates (mg/kg) | Far/Hydroxyproline Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | 50.2 | 37.6 | 56.3 | 0.30 | 20.3 | 187.7 |
| B2 | 45.0 | 24.0 | 70.7 | 0.57 | 3.5 | 124.0 |
| B3 | 33.9 | 19.6 | 73.4 | 0.55 | 25.0 | 133.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B5 | 55.4 | 33.3 | 61.0 | 0.42 | 38.9 | 145.2 |
| B6 | 44.8 | 30.2 | 63.2 | 0.41 | 37.0 | 154.2 |
| B7 | 47.4 | 27.4 | 67.1 | 0.37 | 9.9 | 181.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B9 | 44.2 | 24.2 | 70.7 | 0.42 | 111.2 | 168.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean | 44.9 | 26.9 | 67.3 | 0.4 | 31.6 | 174.2 |
| SD | 5.9 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 0.09 | 28.9 | 34.1 |
| CV | 13.2 | 20.7 | 8.2 | 22.6 | 91.3 | 19.6 |
| Range | 33.9–55.4 | 18.2–37.6 | 56.3–75.5 | 0.28–0.57 | 3.5–111.2 | 124.0–237.5 |
SD: standard deviation; CV: coefficient of variation. B4, B8, and B10 are in bold because they were the 3-best scored chistorras.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) between sensory evaluation scores and the raw composition analysis in the samples of the step 3 (n = 10).
| Step | Parameters | Moisture (%) | Protein (%) | Fat (%) | Hydroxyproline (%) | Nitrates (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (raw product) | Raw “appearance” | −0.193 | −0.102 | 0.084 | −0.434 | 0.099 |
| 3 (cooked product) | Texture | −0.276 | −0.355 | 0.394 | −0.400 | −0.097 |
| Flavour and odour | −0.244 | −0.312 | 0.349 | −0.439 | −0.119 | |
| Residual flavour | −0.215 | −0.246 | 0.273 | −0.495 | −0.126 | |
| Gristle absence | −0.123 | −0.105 | 0.125 | −0.643 * | 0.152 | |
| Colour | −0.361 | −0.223 | 0.234 | −0.397 | 0.126 | |
| Cooked global score | −0.271 | −0.277 | 0.306 | −0.506 | −0.023 |
* p < 0.05.
Mean, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV) and maximum and minimum values of the fatty acid profile of chistorras in step 3.
| Fatty Acid | Mean | SD | CV | Max | Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C12:0 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 16.92 | 0.13 | 0.08 |
| C14:0 | 1.43 | 0.09 | 6.43 | 1.65 | 1.34 |
| C14:1 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 20.92 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| C15:0 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 20.07 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| C16:0 | 24.63 | 1.03 | 4.36 | 26.50 | 23.17 |
| C16:1 | 2.31 | 0.32 | 13.98 | 2.66 | 1.80 |
| C17:0 | 0.34 | 0.06 | 16.58 | 0.46 | 0.25 |
| C17:1 | 0.31 | 0.05 | 15.13 | 0.36 | 0.21 |
| C18:0 | 12.71 | 1.21 | 9.62 | 14.71 | 10.83 |
| C18:1 | 42.13 | 1.75 | 4.21 | 45.55 | 39.54 |
| C18:2 | 12.14 | 2.44 | 20.93 | 16.32 | 8.53 |
| C18:3 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 44.29 | 0.16 | 0.03 |
| C18:3 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 50.15 | 0.25 | 0.01 |
| C20:0 | 0.66 | 0.15 | 23.20 | 0.81 | 0.40 |
| C20:1 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 59.89 | 0.16 | 0.01 |
| C21:0 | 0.74 | 0.12 | 14.04 | 0.84 | 0.51 |
| C20:2 | 0.48 | 0.10 | 20.62 | 0.64 | 0.36 |
| C22:0 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 28.67 | 0.12 | 0.03 |
| C20:4 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 15.35 | 0.54 | 0.32 |
| C23:0 | 0.96 | 0.19 | 18.59 | 1.34 | 0.67 |
| C22:2 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 16.47 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
| C24:1 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 22.89 | 0.11 | 0.05 |
| SFA | 41.72 | 2.18 | 5.40 | 44.55 | 38.12 |
| MUFA | 44.92 | 2.03 | 4.58 | 48.75 | 41.87 |
| PUFA | 13.20 | 2.55 | 20.04 | 17.67 | 9.41 |
| 0.16 | 0.08 | 50.15 | 0.25 | 0.01 | |
| 12.62 | 2.47 | 20.35 | 16.92 | 8.94 | |
| PUFA/SFA | 0.32 | 0.07 | 24.04 | 0.45 | 0.21 |
| AI | 0.52 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| TI | 1.32 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
SFA: Sum of saturated fatty acids: C12:0 + C14:0 + C15:0 + C16:0 + C17:0 + C18:0 + C20:0 + C21:0 + C22:0 + C23:0; MUFA: Sum of monounsaturated fatty acids: C14:1c9 + C16:1c9 + C18:1c9 + C20:1c11 + C24:1; PUFA: Sum of polyunsaturated fatty acids: C18:2n-6 +C18:3n-6 + C18:3n-3 + C20:2c11,c14 + C20:4n-6 + C22:2c13,c16; n-3: Sum of n-3 fatty acids: C18:3n-3; n6: Sum of n-6 fatty acids: C18:2n-6 +C18:3n-6 + C20:4n-6. AI. Atherogenicity index. TI: thrombogenicity index. NA: non-applicable. AI and TI calculated according to Ulbricht and Southgate [36]: atherogenicity index: AI = ((C12:0 + 4 × C14:0 + C16:0))/(ΣMUFA +ΣPUFA-n-6 +ΣPUFA-n-3); thrombogenicity index: TI = (C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0)/((0.5 × ΣMUFA + 0.5 × n-6PUFA + 3 × n-3PUFA + (n-3PUFA/n-6PUFA)).
Instrumental colour results of chistorras in step 1. Data were grouped in: 40 best scored chistorras (selected to pass on to step 2), and 10 worst scored chistorras (withdrawn).
| Colour Parameters | Signification | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| L* | 46.50 | 0.27 | 44.50 | 0.51 | *** |
| a* | 28.79 | 0.20 | 27.33 | 0.38 | *** |
| b* | 30.47 | 0.31 | 28.98 | 0.60 | + |
*** p < 0.001; + p < 0.1.
Instrumental colour results of chistorras in phase 2. Data were grouped in: 10 best scored chistorra (selected to pass on to step 3) and 30 worst scored chistorras (withdrawn).
| Colour Parameters | The Best | Signification | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| L* | 46.50 | 0.30 | 46.46 | 0.52 | ns |
| a* | 29.05 | 0.23 | 28.00 | 0.41 | * |
| b* | 30.47 | 0.34 | 30.44 | 0.59 | ns |
* p < 0.05; ns p > 0.05.
Figure 3Warner Bratzler Shear Force texture results for the chistorras scored at step 3. Red bar refers to the winner chistorra; green bars, refer to the finalist ones.
Results of texture profile analysis (TPA) from the ten best scored chistorras (step 3).
| Hardness (g) | Adhesiveness | Cohesiveness | Springiness | Chewiness (g) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | 942.90 | −151.92 | 0.41 | 1.00 | 385.76 |
| B2 | 739.30 | −176.50 | 0.30 | 1.01 | 222.30 |
| B3 | 1457.35 | −154.80 | 0.36 | 1.01 | 531.45 |
| B4 | 1074.08 | −86.41 | 0.30 | 1.01 | 325.50 |
| B5 | 1622.87 | −46.15 | 0.40 | 1.00 | 645.09 |
| B6 | 1770.21 | −28.86 | 0.35 | 1.01 | 622.48 |
| B7 | 880.29 | −220.37 | 0.33 | 1.01 | 287.97 |
| B8 | 1113.87 | −62.45 | 0.31 | 1.01 | 349.41 |
| B9 | 951.42 | −113.41 | 0.27 | 1.01 | 259.60 |
| B10 | 1582.65 | −157.86 | 0.36 | 1.00 | 570.59 |
| Mean | 1213.49 | −119.87 | 0.34 | 1.01 | 420.02 |
| SD | 362.16 | 62.52 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 157.79 |
| CV | 29.84 | −52.15 | 13.37 | 0.48 | 37.57 |
Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) between sensory evaluation scores and the instrumental textural analysis (TPA and Warner-Bratzler shear force test WBSF) in the samples selected for step 3 (n = 10).
| Parameter | Hardness (g) | Adhesiveness | Cohesiveness | Springiness | Chewiness (g) | WBSF (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texture | −0.013 | 0.085 | −0.604 + | 0.285 | −0.212 | 0.275 |
| Flavour | −0.226 | 0.078 | −0.666 * | 0.457 | −0.400 | 0.295 |
| Residual flavour | −0.107 | 0.159 | −0.550 + | 0.403 | −0.270 | 0.372 |
| Gristle absence | 0.076 | 0.330 | −0.458 | 0.254 | −0.099 | 0.249 |
| Colour | 0.091 | 0.262 | −0.446 | 0.056 | −0.093 | 0.177 |
| Cooked global score | −0.047 | 0.190 | −0.596 + | 0.319 | −0.241 | 0.298 |
* p < 0.05; + p < 0.1.
Figure 4Cohesiveness measured by texture profile analysis (TPA) for selected chistorras at step 3. Red bar, refers to the winner chistorra; green bars, refer to the finalist ones; mean value is represented by a dotted line.
Parameters evaluated on the raw-cured product at step 1 of the contest visual evaluation.
| Parameters | Definition |
|---|---|
| Natural casing | Use of lamb casing. |
| Craftsman tied | The piece must have its two ends tied manually with rope, leaving a small portion of it outside the knot. |
| Uniformity in filling | It is appreciated that the pieces present a regular filling throughout the casing, without changes in calibre. |
| Absence of stains | Stains due to clots or other alterations or abnormalities in the content or on the skin are penalized. |
| Colour | Orange hue. The tendency to reddish hue is penalized. |
| Texture | Resulting from a correct ripening. Tactile stimuli perceived with the surface of the fingers. |
Parameters evaluated on the cooked product at step 2 and step 3 of the contest.
| Parameters | Definition |
|---|---|
| Texture | Juiciness and tenderness perception; balanced feeling between meat and fat. |
| Flavour and odour | The characteristic flavour of the |
| Residual flavour | Persistence of the characteristic flavour. |
| Gristle absence | The presence of gristle is penalized. |
| Colour | More intense orange. The |