Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

  • 제17권4호
  • /
  • Pages.564-568
  • /
  • 2004
  • /
  • 1011-2367(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1976-5517(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of Milk Co-precipitates on the Quality of Restructured Buffalo Meat Blocks

  • Kumar, Sunil (Department of LPT, College of Vety Sci. & A.H., Narendra Deva University of Agriculture & Technology) ;
  • Sharma, B.D. (Division of Livestock Products Technology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute) ;
  • Biswas, A.K. (Division of Livestock Products Technology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute)
  • 투고 : 2003.06.20
  • 심사 : 2003.12.11
  • 발행 : 2004.04.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Restructuring had made it possible to utilize lower value cuts and meat trimmings from spent animals by providing convenience in product preparation besides enhancing tenderness, palatability and value. Milk co-precipitates (MCP) have been reported to improve the nutritional and functional properties of certain meat products. This study was undertaken to evaluate the influence of incorporation of milk co-precipitates at four different levels viz. 0, 10, 15 and 20% on the quality of restructured buffalo meat blocks. Low-calcium milk co-precipitates were prepared from skim milk by heat and salt coagulation of milk proteins. Meat chunks were mixed with the curing ingredients and chilled water in a Hobart mixer for 5 minutes, followed by addition of milk co-precipitates along with condiments and spice mix and again mixed for 5 minutes. Treated chunks were stuffed in aluminium moulds and cooked in steam without pressure for 1.5 h. After cooking, treated meat blocks were compared for different physico-chemical and sensory attributes. Meat blocks incorporated with 10% MCP were significantly better (p<0.05) than those incorporated with 0, 15 and 20% MCP in cooking yield, percent shrinkage and moisture retention. Sensory scores were also marginally higher for meat blocks incorporated with 10% MCP than product incorporated with 15 and 20% MCP, besides being significantly higher than control. On the basis of above results 10% MCP was considered optimum for the preparation of restructured buffalo meat blocks. Instrumental texture profile analysis revealed that meat blocks incorporated with 10% MCP were significantly better (p<0.05) in hardness/ firmness than control although, no significant (p>0.05) differences were observed in cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess and chewiness of both type of samples.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC.
  2. Bhoyar, A. M., N. K. Pandey, S. K. Anand and S. S. Verma. 1998. Effect of extending restructured chicken steaks with milk coprecipitates. J. Food Sci. Technol. 35(1):90-92.
  3. Brady, P. L., F. K. Mckeith and M. E. Hunence. 1985. Comparison of sensory and instrumental texture profile techniques for the evaluation of beef and beef-soy loaves. J. Food Sci. 50:15-37.
  4. Ensor, S. A., R. W. Mandigo, C. R. Calkins and L. N. Quint. 1987. Comparative evaluation of whey protein concentrate, soy protein isolate and calcium reduced non-fat dry milk as binders in an emulsion type sausage. J. Food Sci. 52:1155-58.
  5. Hynd, J. 1970. Utilization of milk proteins. J. Soc. Dairy Technol. 23(2):95-99.
  6. Kesava Rao, V., B. N. Kowale, B. D. Sharma and P. L. Yadav. 1998. Incorporation of low-calcium milk co-precipitates in low fat mutton balls. National symposium on changing role of biochemistry and biotechnology in livestock health and production. IVRI, Izatnagar. April 16-17, 1998. Souvenir, P.
  7. Kulikova, V. V., S. N. Osipov, N. K. Zhuruvskaya and A. E. Vasil. 1981. Increasing the stability of properties of chopped meat semi manufactured product during low temperature action of protein additions. Kholodilnaya-Tekhnika. 6:45-48.
  8. Muller, L. L. 1982. Manufacture of casein, caseinates and coprecipitates. In: Developments in Dairy Chemistry (Ed. P. Fox). Applied Science Publishers London. p. 315.
  9. Paleari, M., S. Camisasea, G. Beretta, P. Renon, L. Tessuto, G. Benedetti and G. Bertoto. 1997. Comparison of physicochemical characteristics of buffalo and bovine meat. Fleischwirtsclaft, 77(11):1027-1029.
  10. Patil, G. S. 2000. Quality of chicken patties incorporated with different milk proteins. M.V.Sc. Thesis, Deemed University, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, U.P. India.
  11. Rudolph, U. and R. Hansen. 1986. Use of milk proteins in mixed meat products - a contribution towards finding substrates for meat. Mathe. Naturis. Schaft. Reihe, 35 (7):671-672.
  12. Sanderson, W. B. 1988. Dairy ingredients for the food industry. Bull. Indian Dairy Federation 224:33-35.
  13. Santos, R., J. Gonzalez, J. Yanez, M. Toledo, R. D. Hombre and Z. Frometa. 1994. Use of milk co-precipitates in meat products: Effect on sensory, nutritional and microbiological quality. Alimentaria. 31:179-185.
  14. Sen, A. R., B. D. Sharma and P. L. Yadav. 1994. Effect of milk coprecipitates on physico-chemical and sensory quality of chicken loaf. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 29 (2):201-203.
  15. Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa
  16. Strange, E. D., R. C. Benedict, J. L. Smith and C. E. Swift. 1977. Evaluation of rapid tests for monitoring alterations in meat quality during storage. I. Intact meat. J. Food Protect. 40:843-847.
  17. Thomas, M. A., P. A. Baumagartner and K. A. Hyde. 1976. Milk co-precipitate in sausage manufacture. Proc. Eur. Meet. Meat Res. Workers 20:142-144.

피인용 문헌

  1. The Effects of High Pressure and Various Binders on the Physico-chemical Properties of Restructured Pork Meat vol.19, pp.10, 2004, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.1484
  2. The Effect of Tumbling Time on the Quality and Binding Ability of Restructured Beef M. Pectoralis profundus with Alginate Binder vol.20, pp.3, 2007, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.418