Back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage I. A. Fedotenko, M. L. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage I. A. Fedotenko, M. L. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jul 16, 2023 370 likes •530 views

Back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage I. A. Fedotenko, M. L. Andersen, A. Hanner, D. A. Brggemann Department of Safety and Quality of Meat Project sponsor Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food Background Back fat substitution in raw

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage

  • I. A. Fedotenko, M. L. Andersen, A. Hanner, D. A. Brüggemann

Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Project sponsor Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • Goals: innovative strategies for back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage
  • Challenges by raw sausage:
  • traditional appearance (visible fat particles)
  • technological necessity during the production
  • sensory properties of end products such as texture or mouthfeel as well as

taste delivery

Back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage

3/21/2018 2

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Background

slide-3
SLIDE 3

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

21.03.2018 3

Water-based commercial BFR

Water- based BFR Proteins Carbohydrates

Cellulose 4% in water Inulin 40% in water Collagen hydrolysate 10% in water

Advantages:

  • lower nutritional energy compared to oil-

containing BFR

  • existing recipes

Drawbacks:

  • higher water content in raw sausage

(technologically challenging)

  • microbiologically unfavorable
  • loss of specific taste and aroma

Protein isolates Alginate Choice of back fat replacers - BFR

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Commercial and experimental BFR: oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions

O/W BFR

Protein emulsions Carbohydrates

Protein isolate Alginate Collagen hydrolysate Carrageenan Konjac gel

Advantages:

  • Texture, taste delivery, mouthfeel
  • Unsaturated fatty acids

Drawbacks:

  • High water content in raw sausage

(technologically challenging) Mikrobiologically unfavorable

  • Oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids
  • Oil leakage

21.03.2018 4

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Choice of back fat replacers - BFR

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Experimental production

BFR acceptancy TBARS mg MDA/kg

  • Perox. value

1. Control Yes 0.145 2. 50% Alginate (O/W 1/1) No

  • 3.

100% Alginate (O/W 1/1) No 0.208 4. 50% Collagen hydrolysate (O/W1/1) Yes

  • 5.

100% Collagen hydrolysate (O/W1/1) No

  • 21.03.2018

5

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Dry edges at treatment 3 and considerable oxidation

3 1

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Raw fermented sausage production according to producer‘s recommendations

BFR Acceptancy

pH aW-value 1.

Control Yes 4.99 0.893

2.

50% Rapeseed oil as BFR No 4.94 0.885

3.

50% Alginate 1 (water) Yes 4.92 0.913

4.

50% Alginate 2 (W/O 11/9) Yes 4.73 0.924

5.

50% Alginate 3 (water) Yes 4.63 0.919

21.03.2018 6

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Hard fats and oleogels

Hard fats and

  • leogel BFR

hard fats

  • leogels

low-molecular weight gels (waxes) hydrogenated fats polymer gels (from ethylcellulose and

  • il)

palm fat

Advantages :

  • Texture, taste delivery,

mouthfeel – similar to back fat

  • Technological similarity to

back fat

  • Unsaturated fatty acids

Drawbacks :

  • Oxidation of unsaturated

fatty acids

  • Weak gels: oil leakage
  • Oleogels from

ethylcellulose are transparent

coconut butter

21.03.2018 7

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Choice of back fat replacers - BFR

Advantages:

  • Texture, taste delivery,

mouthfeel – similar to back fat

  • Technological similarity to

back fat Drawbacks :

  • Saturated fatty acids
slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • 1. Oleogels were prepared from ethylcellulose (Dow Chemicals) 100 cP and

45 cP (7% and 10%) by heating above 130°C with rapeseed oil (Zetzl 2013

  • Ph. D. thesis)
  • 2. The optimal emulsification of oleogels in TWEEN 80 phosphate buffer was

reached by using high-speed homogenizer (Bühler)

  • 3. The formed mixture of oleogel-in-water (OG/W) and water-in-oleogel (W/OG)

emulsions has been separated. The emulsions are physically stable within months

Production of novel oleogel emulsions 30% OG + buffer

Bühler 3 min RT Decantation or fitration

Ready-to-use back fat replacer!

21.03.2018 8

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

W/OG OG/W

+

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Oleogel emulsions: comparison with back fat

21.03.2018 9

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Back fat

(Wood et al. Livestock Prod Science 22 (1989) 351-362)

Oleogel emulsions (W/OG) Water 14 - 22% 10 - 22% Fibers Collagen 2 – 4.5% Ethylcellulose 5.5 - 9% Lipids 69 - 82% 70 - 84%

OG Em. 1 OG Em. 2 OG Em. 3 OG Em. 4

OG1 Em OG2 Em OG3 Em OG4 Em Oil 81% 83.7% 70.2% 72.5% Ethylcellulose 9% 100 cP 6.3% 100 cP 7.8% 45 cP 5.5% 45 cP Water 10% 10% 22% 22%

slide-10
SLIDE 10

21.03.2018 10

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Oxidative stability of oleogel emulsions

spin-trapping method:

  • Detection of primary oxidation products by detection of free radicals in

the 1st oxidation phase

Oxidation of oleoegel emulsion with 22% water, 5.5% EC and 72.5% rapeseed oil

slide-11
SLIDE 11

21.03.2018 11

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Batch

OG1 Em OG2 Em OG3 Em OG4 Em Rapeseed

  • il

Water in rapeseed oil 10% Water in rapeseed oil 20% Rapeseed oil 81% 83,7% 70,2% 72,5% 100% 90% 80% Ethylcellulose 9% 100 cP 6,3% 100 cP 7,8% 45 cP 5,5% 45 cP Water 10% 10% 22% 22% 10% 20%

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2 4 6 8 Signal intensity Time, hours

Accelerated oxidation of oil and emulsions

OG1-3 OG2-3 OG3-3 OG4-3 OIL3 10-3 20-3 OG1 Em OG2 Em OG3 Em OG4 Em Oil W-in-oil 10% W-in-oil 20%

Oxidative stability of oleogel emulsions

spin-trapping method

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Physical stability and structure

200 nm OG/W emulsion OG3 OG/W emulsion OG1 500 nm 500 nm W/OG emulsion OG1 500 nm W/OG emulsion OG3

100 200 300 400 500 600 2 4 6 8 10

Z Average OG/W emulsion OG1

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2 4 6 8 10 Z av, nm Time, hours

Z Average OG/W emulsion OG3

21.03.2018 12

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Time, days Z-av., nm

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Still to do‘s…

Evaluation of oxidative stability of oleogels versus oleogel emulsions also after longer storage time:

Determination of vitamin E by HPLC

TBARS

Application of antioxidants (with regard to the prooxidative ferrous compounds in meat)

Production of raw fermented sausages containing oleogel emulsions as BFR for sensory evaluation

21.03.2018 13

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Acknowledgements

MRI of Safety and Quality of Meat

  • Dr. Dagmar Brüggemann
  • Dr. Irina Dederer
  • Dr. Siegfried Münch
  • Dr. Lothar Kröckel

Enrico Schlimp Joseph Haida Marco Zäh Manfred Behrschmidt Siegmar Eckl Ruth Kolb Monika Korpilla Dominik Künzel MRI Institute of Food Technology and Bioprocess Engineering Volker Gräf Fabian Mohr Copenhagen University

  • Prof. Mogens L. Andersen

Henriette R. Erichsen Royal Institute of Technology (Stockholm)

  • Dr. Anna Hanner

21.03.2018 14

MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat

Project sponsor Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food