Animal Bioscience

  • 제37권1호
  • /
  • Pages.116-122
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2765-0189(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-0235(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of citrus fiber as a natural alternative to sodium tripolyphosphate in marinated boneless broiler chicken breast and inside beef skirt (transversus abdominis)

  • Kendal R. Howard (Department of Animal Science, Tarleton State University) ;
  • Cheyenne L. Runyan (Department of Animal Science, Tarleton State University) ;
  • Allen B. Poe (Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, Tarleton State University) ;
  • Andrew M. Cassens (Department of Animal Science, Tarleton State University) ;
  • Lea A. Kinman (Department of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Human Ecology, Prairie View A&M University)
  • 투고 : 2022.04.12
  • 심사 : 2022.09.13
  • 발행 : 2024.01.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: This research was conducted to evaluate the effects of citrus fiber (CF) as a natural alternative to sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) in marinated broiler boneless chicken breast and inside beef skirt on overall retention rate, shear force, and consumer sensory attributes. Methods: Five different marinade formulations were targeted to include 0.9% salt, either 0.25% or 0.50% STPP or CF and water on a finished product basis. Water and salt only were considered the negative control (CON). Chicken breasts (n = 14) and inside beef skirt (n = 14) were randomly assigned to a treatment, raw weights recorded and then placed in a vacuum tumbler. Marinated weights were recorded, individually packed, and randomly assigned to either retail display for 10-day retention rate, shear force analysis, cook loss, or consumer sensory panel. Results: Pickup percentage, and overall retention was similar among treatments for chicken breast and inside beef skirt. Citrus fiber treatments resulted in higher cooking loss compared to the CON in chicken breast; though, CF050 resulted in similar cooking loss compared to STPP025 in inside beef skirt. No differences were found in sensory attributes for chicken breast, however, WBSF data showed CF025 was tougher than CF050, STPP050, and CON. Inside beef skirt with CF050 were least liked overall by the consumer panel. Conclusion: Citrus fiber included in marinades at a lower percentage rate can produce similar texture characteristics, and sensory properties compared with those marinated with STPP.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Magrinya N, Bou R, Rius N, Codony R, Guardiola F. Use of tocopherol extract and different nitrite sources and starter cultures in the production of organic botifarra catalana, a cooked cured sausage. Food Sci Technol Int 2015;22:221-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013215586915
  2. Sebranek JG, Bacus JN. Cured meat products without direct addition of nitrate or nitrite: what are the issues? Meat Sci 2007;77:136-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.03.025
  3. Mahmoud MH, Abou-Arab AA, Abu-Salem FM. Quality characteristics of beef burgers as influenced by different levels of orange peel powder. Am J Food Technol 2017;12:262-70. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajft.2017.262.270
  4. Trowell H, Burkitt D, Heaton K. Definitions of dietary fibre and fibre-depleted foods and disease. London, UK: Academic Press; 1985.
  5. Lundberg B, Pan XJ, White A, Chau H, Hotchkiss A. Rheology and composition of citrus fiber. J Food Eng 2014;125:97-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.10.021
  6. Marin FR, Soler-Rivas C, Benavente-Garcia O, Castillo J, Perez-Alvarez JA. By-products from different citrus processes as a source of customized functional fibers. Food Chem 2007;100:736-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.04.040
  7. Fiberstar. Citri-Fi Benefits in Meat Products Webinar [Internet]. c2018 [cited 2021 October 15]. Available from: https://www.fiberstar.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Citri-Fi-in-Meat-Products_FEB2018.pdf
  8. Casco GG, Veluz A, Alvarado CZ. SavorPhos as an all-natural phosphate replacer in water- and oil-based marinades for rotisserie birds and boneless-skinless breast. Poult Sci 2013;92:3236-43. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03142
  9. Baublits RT, Pohlman FW, Brown AH, Johnson ZB. Effects of sodium chloride, phosphate type and concentration, and pump rate on beef biceps femoris quality and sensory characteristics. Meat Sci 2005;70:205-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.12.011
  10. Choi Y, Choi J, Han D, et al. Characteristics of low-fat meat emulsion systems with pork fat replaced by vegetable oils and rice bran fiber. Meat Sci 2009;82:266-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.01.019
  11. Jiminez-Colmenero F. Technologies for developing low-fat meat products. Trends Food Sci Technol 1996;7:41-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-2244(96)81327-6
  12. Fernandez-Gines JM, Fernandez-Lopez J, Sayas-Barbera E, Sendra E, Perez-Alvarez JA. Lemon albedo as a new source of dietary fiber: application to bologna sausages. Meat Sci 2004;67:7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2003.08.017
  13. Lario Y, Sendra E, Garcia-Perez J, et al. Preparation of high dietary fiber powder from lemon juice by-products. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 2004;5:113-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2003.08.001
  14. Meseguer A. Characterization of by-products of the citrus juice manufacturing industries. [B.S. thesis]. Alicante, Spain: Universidad Miguel Hernandez (Orihuela); 2002.
  15. Wood JD, Nute GR, Fursey GAJ, Cuthbertson A. The effect of cooking conditions on the eating quality of pork. Meat Sci 1995;40:127-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(94)00051-8
  16. Bouton PE, Harris PV, Ratcliff D. Effect of cooking temperature and time on the shear properties of meat. J Food Sci 1981;46:1082-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1981.tb02996.x
  17. Christensen M, Purslow PP, Larsen LM. The effect of cooking temperature on mechanical properties of whole meat, single muscle fibres and perimysial connective tissue. Meat Sci 2000;55:301-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00157-6
  18. Laakkonen E, Wellington GH, Sherbon JW. Low-temperature, long-time heating of bovine muscles. 1. Changes in tenderness, water-binding capacity, pH and amount of water-soluble components. J Food Sci 1970;35:175-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1970.tb12131.x
  19. Lawrence TE, King DA, Obuz E, Yancey EJ, Dikeman ME. Evaluation of electric belt grill, forced-air convection oven, and electric broiler cookery methods for beef tenderness research. Meat Sci 2001;58:239-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(00)00159-5
  20. Obuc E, Dikeman ME, Loughin TM. Effects of cooking method, reheating, holding time, and holding temperature on beef longissimus lumborum and biceps femoris tenderness. Meat Sci 2003;65:841-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00289-9
  21. Grunert KG. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Sci 2006;74:149-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.016
  22. Garcia A, de Magristris T. Preferences for lamb meat: a choice experiment for Spanish consumers. Meat Sci 2013;95:396-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.006
  23. Ngapo TM, Martin JF, Dransfield E. International preferences for pork appearance: I. Consumer choices. Food Qual Prefer 2007;18:26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.001
  24. Verbeke W, De Smet S, Vackier I, Van Oeckel MJ, Warnants N, Van Kenhove P. Role of intrinsic search cues in the formation of consumer preferences and choice for pork chops. Meat Sci 2005;69:343-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.08.005
  25. Mancini RA, Hunt MC. Current research in meat color. Meat Sci 2005;71:100-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.03.003
  26. Miller R. Functionality of non-meat ingredients used in enhanced pork- Pork quality facts. Des Moines, IA, USA: National Pork Board; 1998. p. 1-12.
  27. Powell MJ, Sebranek JG, Prusa KJ, Tarte R. Effect of citrus fiber addition on quality attributes of fully cooked deli-style turkey breast. Meat Muscle Biol 2021;5:35. https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.12283
  28. Young LL, Lyon BG. Effect of sodium tripolyphosphate in the presence and absence of calcium chloride and sodium chloride on water retention properties and shear resistance of chicken breast meat. Poult Sci 1986;65:898-902. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0650898
  29. Woelfel RL, Sams AR. Marination performance of pale broiler breast meat. Poult Sci 2001;80:1519-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/80.10.1519
  30. Savell JW, Branson RE, Cross HR, et al. National consumer retail beef study: palatability evaluations of beef loin steaks that differed in marbling. J Food Sci 1987;52:517-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb06664.x
  31. Miller MF, Hoover LC, Cook KD, et al. Consumer acceptability of beef steak tenderness in the home and restaurant. J Food Sci 1995;60:936-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1995.tb06271.x
  32. Savell JW, Lorenzen CL, Neely TR, et al. Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top sirloin steak. J Anim Sci 1999;77:645-52. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.773645x
  33. Egan AF, Ferguson DM, Thompson JM. Consumer sensory requirements for beef and their implications for the Australian beef industry. Aust J Exp Agric 2001;41:855-9. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA00065
  34. McKee L, Cobb E, Padilla S. Quality indicators in poultry products. In: Nollet LML, editor, Handbook of meat, poultry, and seafood quality. Ames, IA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. pp. 390-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118352434.CH26