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

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

Background Back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage Goals: innovative strategies for back fat substitution in raw fermented sausage o Challenges by raw sausage: o traditional appearance (visible fat particles) o technological necessity during the production o sensory properties of end products such as texture or mouthfeel as well as o taste delivery MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 3/21/2018 2

Choice of back fat replacers - BFR Water-based commercial BFR Water- based BFR Carbohydrates Proteins Protein Alginate isolates Advantages: - lower nutritional energy compared to oil- containing BFR - existing recipes Cellulose 4% in water Drawbacks: - higher water content in raw sausage (technologically challenging) Collagen hydrolysate 10% in water - microbiologically unfavorable - loss of specific taste and aroma Inulin 40% in water MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 3

Choice of back fat replacers - BFR Commercial and experimental BFR: oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions O/W BFR Protein Carbohydrates emulsions Alginate Protein isolate Advantages: - Texture, taste delivery, mouthfeel - Unsaturated fatty acids Collagen Carrageenan Drawbacks: hydrolysate - High water content in raw sausage (technologically challenging) Mikrobiologically unfavorable Konjac gel - Oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids - Oil leakage MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 4

Experimental production TBARS BFR acceptancy Perox. value mg MDA/kg 0.145 0 1. Control Yes 1 50% Alginate 2. No - - (O/W 1/1) 100% Alginate 3. No 0.208 0 (O/W 1/1) 50% Collagen 4. hydrolysate Yes - - 3 (O/W1/1) 100% Collagen 5. hydrolysate No - - (O/W1/1) Dry edges at treatment 3 and considerable oxidation MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 5

Raw fermented sausage production according to producer‘s recommendations pH a W -value BFR Acceptancy 1. Control Yes 4.99 0.893 50% Rapeseed oil as 2. No 4.94 0.885 BFR 50% Alginate 1 3. Yes 4.92 0.913 (water) 50% Alginate 2 4. Yes 4.73 0.924 (W/O 11/9) 50% Alginate 3 5. Yes 4.63 0.919 (water) MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 6

Choice of back fat replacers - BFR Hard fats and oleogels Hard fats and oleogel BFR Advantages : Advantages: - Texture, taste delivery, - Texture, taste delivery, mouthfeel – similar to back oleogels mouthfeel – similar to back hard fats fat fat - Technological similarity to - Technological similarity to back fat back fat hydrogenated polymer gels (from fats - Unsaturated fatty acids ethylcellulose and Drawbacks : oil) Drawbacks : - Saturated fatty acids - Oxidation of unsaturated palm fat fatty acids - Weak gels: oil leakage low-molecular weight gels (waxes) - Oleogels from coconut butter ethylcellulose are transparent MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 7

Production of novel oleogel emulsions 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 Decantation or Bühler 3 min fitration + W/OG OG/W 30% OG + buffer RT Ready-to-use back fat replacer! MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 8

Oleogel emulsions: comparison with back fat Back fat Oleogel emulsions (Wood et al. Livestock Prod Science 22 (W/OG) (1989) 351-362) Water 14 - 22% 10 - 22% Collagen Ethylcellulose Fibers 2 – 4.5% 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% 6.3% 7.8% 5.5% 100 cP 100 cP 45 cP 45 cP Water 10% 10% 22% 22% MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 9

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 MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 10

Oxidative stability of oleogel emulsions spin-trapping method Accelerated oxidation of oil and emulsions 800 700 600 Signal intensity OG1 Em OG1-3 500 OG2-3 OG2 Em OG3-3 400 OG3 Em OG4-3 OG4 Em 300 OIL3 Oil 200 10-3 W-in-oil 10% 100 20-3 W-in-oil 20% 0 0 2 4 6 8 Time, hours Water in Water in Rapeseed Batch OG1 Em OG2 Em OG3 Em OG4 Em rapeseed oil rapeseed oil oil 10% 20% Rapeseed oil 81% 83,7% 70,2% 72,5% 100% 90% 80% Ethylcellulose 9% 6,3% 7,8% 5,5% 0 0 0 100 cP 100 cP 45 cP 45 cP Water 10% 10% 22% 22% 0 10% 20% MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 11

Physical stability and structure W/OG emulsion OG1 OG/W emulsion OG1 Z Average OG/W emulsion OG1 600 500 400 Z-av., nm 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 500 nm Time, days 500 nm OG/W emulsion OG3 W/OG emulsion OG3 Z Average OG/W emulsion OG3 350 300 250 Z av, nm 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time, hours 200 nm 500 nm MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 12

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 MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 13

Acknowledgements MRI of Safety and Quality of Meat MRI Institute of Food Technology and Bioprocess Engineering Dr. Dagmar Brüggemann Dr. Irina Dederer Volker Gräf Dr. Siegfried Münch Fabian Mohr Dr. Lothar Kröckel Copenhagen University Enrico Schlimp Prof. Mogens L. Andersen Joseph Haida Henriette R. Erichsen Marco Zäh Manfred Behrschmidt Royal Institute of Technology Siegmar Eckl (Stockholm) Ruth Kolb Dr. Anna Hanner Monika Korpilla Dominik Künzel Project sponsor Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food MRI – Department of Safety and Quality of Meat 21.03.2018 14