1 / 22

Technical Challenges – Controlling Texture when Reducing Salt and Fat in Processed Meat Products

Technical Challenges – Controlling Texture when Reducing Salt and Fat in Processed Meat Products . Aarti Tobin CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences. Why Reduce Salt and Fat?. Obesity is a global problem - impacts public health budgets

daw
Download Presentation

Technical Challenges – Controlling Texture when Reducing Salt and Fat in Processed Meat Products

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Technical Challenges – Controlling Texture when Reducing Salt and Fat in Processed Meat Products Aarti Tobin CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences

  2. Why Reduce Salt and Fat? • Obesity is a global problem - impacts public health budgets • In Australia 68% of adult men and 55% of adult women are overweight or obese (National Health Survey 2007-08) • Adverse publicity on meat and processed meat products • Meat is one of the main sources of saturated fat in Australian diet (the other is dairy) – coronary heart disease • Salt – high blood pressure – coronary heart disease But…… • Processed meats offer portion control and convenience

  3. Fat Reduction in Meat Products

  4. Role of Fat in Meat Products • Texture - perception of texture is directly related to the amount of fat in the product • Flavour – responsible for the flavour • Mouthfeel – lubricates the food – easier to swallow • Juiciness – dryness in the mouth is avoided • Satiety - the digestion of the lipids is slow and it delays the perception of a need to eat more food.

  5. Approach / Criteria Goal To reduce the energy content of selected processed meat products by at least 25% without affecting the sensory properties, safety or stability Approach • Use leaner meat (cost implications) • Replace the meat and fat with water • Add fruit and vegetable fibres and water to replace the fat • Maintain texture using gums – esp. carrageen • Maintain water holding with gums and starches • Combination of ingredients • No food allergens • Commercial viability

  6. Fruit and Vegetable Fibres as Fat Replacers • Fibres can bind 10-25 times their weight in water • Extra moisture in the product lubricates the product and the mouth, giving the perception of the product being juicy/fatty • Can impart flavour of the “origin” raw material • Has over 4 times less energy than fat Component Energy Content (KJ/gram) Fat 37 Carbohydrate 16 Protein 17 Water 0 Dietary Fibre 8 FSANZ – nutritional calculation values

  7. Structure of Protein and Fat in a Stable Meat Emulsion • Structure of emulsion allows for a lot more water addition while still maintaining a stable emulsion Meat Emulsion Fat Protein Andersson, Andersson and Tornberg, J.Sci. Food Agric 80:555-560, (2000) Structuring for fat in reduced fat and reduced energy processed meat products

  8. Structure of Protein and Fat in a Reduced Fat Meat Emulsion • Finely comminuted – meat fibres are separated into fibrils and the fat has been replaced with water Reduced fat emulsion W/P ratio – 8.3 W/P ratio – 5.1 Andersson, Andersson and Tornberg, J.Sci. Food Agric 80:555-560, 2000

  9. Fat Replacement in a Reduced Fat Frankfurter Approaches used: • Standard meat – 85CL (chemical lean) • Added water – 25% to 41% • Hydrated fibre systems to bind the water • Fibres can binds 10-25 times their weight in water • Some fibres give a fatty mouthfeel • Starches • Bind water that is not bonded to the matrix • Carrageenan Gum • Firm sausage snap

  10. Results – Beef Frankfurters *Values are based on FSANZ Nutritional Calculator or taken from the packaging of commercial products

  11. Effect of fat reduction on sensory perception of frankfurters • The prototype (CSIRO) FF/RF pair were closer in sensory characteristics than the commercial FF/RF pair

  12. Conclusions – Fat Reduction • Fruit and vegetable fibres can be used to replace fat and meat in processed meat products. • Fibres and products types need to be matched properly to maximise the effect of the fibre. • Some fibres can impart juiciness and fatty mouthfeel. • Fibres can be used reduce both the fat and the energy content of processed meat products. • When fat is replaced with a higher water content: MUST review microbial hurdles

  13. Salt Reduction in Meat Products

  14. Role of Salt in Meat Products • Extraction of salt soluble proteins and swelling of the protein network – binds water • Gelation (binding) of these proteins during cooking gives the expected Texture • Flavour – typical processed meat taste/flavour • Juiciness – binding of water gives juiciness to the product • Shelf-life – salt assists with increasing the shelf-life: inhibits microbial growth

  15. Current salt reduction techniques • Reduce salt • Depending on reduction level can affect texture and cook loss • Replace salt with Potassium chloride • Reported to give metallic and bitter taste • Yeast extracts • Savoury flavours to enhance the meaty taste • Salt reduction can be achieved with • Ingredients • Technology - HPP

  16. High Pressure Processing – reduced salt sausages • High Pressure Processing (HPP) – up to 800MPa • Modifies protein functionality • Enhances binding without additions of high levels of salt • Traditional comminuted meat products • 1.8 – 3% salt • Goal • Determine if HPP could enhance the binding and texture of reduced salt, cooked beef sausages.

  17. Approach • Control beef emulsion • 75% lean meat • 0-2% salt • 23-25% water • HPP Treatment • 0, 100, 200, and 400MPa pressure for 2 minutes • Cooking • Control: No HPP • Following HPP treatment • Analysis • Cook loss • Texture – Texture profile analysis (TPA) and informal sensory HPP unit at Cooper Plains

  18. Results • Preliminary data showed that 200MPa resulted in best texture and least cook loss Texture Cook Loss HPP No HPP

  19. Results • 1% Salt in batter • without HPP 28% cook loss • with 200MPa HPP 5% cook loss • Sensory • without HPP dry and crumbly • with 200MPa HPP firm, sausage snap and texture, juicy Without HPP With 200 MPa HPP

  20. Conclusions - HPP • HPP can be used to improve texture and cook loss in reduced salt comminuted meat products. • Use of technology such as HPP reduces the need to use binders and additives in the products. • Solubilisation of proteins using HPP increases the water holding capacity enhance reduces cook loss and improves the juiciness of the product: opportunities for fat reduction • HPP provides a additional safety hurdle for low salt and low fat meat products

  21. Summary – fat and salt reduction • Salt and fat both play a very important role in comminuted meat products. • Texture, Flavour • Appearance • Impact water activity (aw) • A combination of ingredients and technology can be used to achieve both • Fat replacers e.g. fruit and vegetable fibres • HPP technology – improves bind strength, juiciness, reduces cook loss • HPP acts as a microbial hurdle • Microbial challenge testing required to ensure food safety if there is significant salt and fat reduction

  22. Thank you Aarti Tobin Senior Food Technologist CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences Mobile 0414305493 Email: aarti.tobin@csiro.au

More Related