MacDonald Cluff, H. Steyn, I. Kobane, P. Zacharia, C. Bothma, C. … · 2018-12-19 · MacDonald...

T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | info@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac.za

MacDonald Cluff, H. Steyn, I. Kobane, P. Zacharia, C. Bothma, C. Hugo & A. Hugo

21st SAAFoST BIENNIAL INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS AND EXHIBITION

6 – 9 September 2015, Tsogo Sun Elangeni Maharani Complex, Durban, South Africa

THE EFFECT OF SODIUM REDUCTION ON THE CHEMICAL, MICROBIAL AND SENSORY

QUALITY OF PROMINENT SOUTH AFRICAN PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS

Food Science Division,

Department of Microbial, Biochemical and Food Biotechnology

PRESENTATION LAYOUT

Introduction

Research Question

Materials and Methods

Results and Discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

INTRODUCTION…

Processed foods with high salt levels = potential heath threat

Hypertension in individuals,

↑ Prevalence of hypertension directly correlatable to Na intake

Local study by Charlton et al. (2005):

• Only 23% of South Africans urinary Na below 2400mg/day

• NaCl equivalent to ± 6g/day

• Calcium, Magnesium & Potassium intake very low!

Institute of Medicine, 2004; Charlton et al., 2005; Kearney et al., 2007; WHO, 2007; Androqué & Madidas, 2008; Doyle, 2008

…INTRODUCTION…

Discretionary salt use – important contributor in South Africa

• 33 – 46 % of all Na consumed vs. 5 -10 % in NA / EU

• Significant problem on its own

Prevention of non-fatal strokes = R 300 million per annum!!!

Department of Health wants:

• ↓ 8 – 10 g/day to ≤ 5 g/day

• Regulations published (2012; updated 2013) to limit Na in certain foodstuffs

Mattes & Donelly, 1991; Charlton et al., 2005; Bertram et al., 2012

INTRODUCTION…

Elimination not straight-forward:

– SODIUM CHLORIDE IS: Preservative

Nutrient source

Colour enhancer

Flavour enhancer

Texture enhancer

Binder

Bulking agent

Desmond, 2006; Searby, 2006; Dötsch et al., 2009

INTRODUCTION…

Nutrient source

Colour enhancer

Flavour enhancer

Texture enhancer

Binder

Bulking agent

CHEAP!!!!

INTRODUCTION…

Nutrient source

Colour enhancer

Flavour enhancer

Texture enhancer

Binder

Bulking agent

CHEAP!!!! Consumers & retailers uncomfortable with new ingredient names and

E-numbers

RESEARCH QUESTION

Reductions in total sodium content

Use of salt / sodium replacers

Possible aversion to their use

Question:

Could intermediate added salt levels, in compliance with the

regulations (@ 2016 & 2019 limits) alone, be sufficient in

maintaining the quality and stability of three types of

processed meat products ?

To determine the effect of using the sodium limits set out in the

regulations* as intermediate Na levels compared to positive (normal Na

level) and negative (no added Na from NaCl) controls on the microbial,

chemical and sensory quality of:

1. Bangers as comminuted and non-heat treated meat products

2. Bacon as a whole muscle, cured and non-heat treated meat products

3. Polony as emulsion and heat-treated meat products

High volume and available to most consumers

SANS 885:2011; *Government Gazette 11 July 2012; *Government Gazette 20 March 2013

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Positive Control 2016 Target 2019 Target Negative Control

BANGERS

2 % NaCl 1.5 % NaCl 1 % NaCl 0 % NaCl

980 mg Na/100g 800 mg Na/100g 600mg Na/100g 200mg Na/100g*

POLONY

2.5 % NaCl 1.84 % NaCl 1.33 % NaCl 0 % NaCl

1110 mg Na/100g 850 mg Na/100g 650 mg Na/100g 126 mg Na/100g*

FORMULATIONS: SODIUM AS ADDED SODIUM CHLORIDE

*inherent Na contributed by other components in the formulations

BACON (@ 20% pump)

BANGERS

POLONY

BACON (@ 20% pump)

BANGERS

POLONY

BACON (@ 20% pump)

Theoretical values!

METHODS OF ANALYSIS

(Method 935.47, AOAC 1990; Parker & Pearl, 1982; Harrigan, 1998; Ke et al., 2006)

Microbial: • Total Bacterial

• Coliforms & Escherichia coli

• Staphylococcus aureus

• Yeasts & Moulds

Chemical: • pH

• aw

• Moisture content

• TBARS (secondary lipid oxidation)

• Salt content (Volhard titration)

• Sodium content (Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy)

Physical: Banger & Bacon Polony

Colour – redness (a*) Warner-Braztler Shear Force

Yield & losses

SENSORY ANALYSIS

Bangers

75 Member consumer panel

Nine-point hedonic scale

Dislike extremely

Dislike very much

Dislike moderately

Dislike slightly

Neither like nor dislike

Like slightly Like moderately

Like very much

Like extremely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Taste Texture Saltiness Overall liking

Polonies Bacon

Moretti et al., 2004; Herrero et al., 2007; Todorov et al., 2007; Del Nobile et al., 2009; Spaziani et al., 2009;

Ruiz et al., 2010; Van Schalkwyk et al., 2011

2 % 1.5 % 1 %

and 0% added NaCl

2.5 % 1.84 % 1.33 %

and 0 % added NaCl

2 % 1.66 % 0.83 %

and 0% added NaCl

Each meat product type:

• 4 Treatments per replicate (Positive Control, 2016 target, 2019 target, Negative Control)

• 3 Replicates for microbial, chemical and physical analyses

• 4th Replicate for sensory analysis

• Sampling intervals: Bangers → Day 0, 3, 6 & 9 (fresh)

Day 0, Month 3 & 6 (frozen)

Bacon → Day 0, 15 & 30

Polony → Day 0, Month 3 & 6

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine differences between different

treatments

Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test used to identify differences between

treatment means (α=0.05)

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN & STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Number Cruncher Statistical System, 2007

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

PRODUCT SALT CONTENT RESULTS COMPARED TO POSITIVE CONTROL

Microbial counts pH aw Lipid stability

BANGERS 1.5 % NaCl

(2016) = = = = / =

1 % NaCl

(2019) = = = = / =

BACON 1.66 % NaCl

(2016) = = = =

0.83 % NaCl

(2019) = ≠ ↓ ≠ ↑ ≠ ↑

POLONY 1.84 % NaCl

(2016) = = = =

1.33 % NaCl

(2019) = = ≠ ↑ =

= → Not significantly different from positive control

≠ → Significantly different from positive control

↑ → Increased

↓ → Decreased

SODIUM CONTENT

BANGER

Treatment 0 % NaCl 1 % NaCl 1.5 % NaCl 2 % NaCl

Estimated Na Content 203.36 mg/100g 596.10 mg/100g 792.47 mg/100g 988.84 mg/100g

Actual Na Content 140.32 ± 31.86a 493.68 ± 9.04b 610.82 ± 193.02c 853.45 ± 25.36d

SODIUM CONTENT

Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly

p < 0.001

Treatment 0 % NaCl 0.83 % NaCl 1.66 % NaCl 2.5 % NaCl

POLONY

BANGER

Treatment 0 % NaCl 1 % NaCl 1.5 % NaCl 2 % NaCl

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

SODIUM CONTENT

p < 0.001

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

POLONY

↓ ↑ ↑ ↑

YIELDS AND LOSSES:

BANGERS & BACON

Treatment 0 % Salt 1 % Salt 1.5 % Salt 2 % Salt

Sign. Level

% Refrigeration loss* 3.83 ± 0.28a 1.92 ± 0.14b 1.57 ± 0.07c 1.57 ± 0.29bc

p < 0.001

% Thaw loss* 1.84 ± 0.26a 0.76 ± 0.10b 0.74 ± 0.07b 0.61 ± 0.07b

p < 0.001

% Cooking loss* 12.26 ± 1.20a 8.32 ± 0.51b 7.07 ± 0.73c 7.76 ± 0.71bc

p < 0.001

% Total loss* 13.88 ± 1.10a 9.02 ± 0.50b 7.76 ± 0.75c 8.32 ± 0.74bc

p < 0.001

*n = 12

BANGERS:

REFRIGERATION, THAW, COOKING & TOTAL LOSSES

Sign. Level

p < 0.001

% Thaw loss* 1.84 ± 0.26a 0.76 ± 0.10b 0.74 ± 0.07b 0.61 ± 0.07b

p < 0.001

% Total loss* 13.88 ± 1.10a 9.02 ± 0.50b 7.76 ± 0.75c 8.32 ± 0.74bc

p < 0.001

*n = 12

BANGERS:

Sign. Level

p < 0.001

% Thaw loss* 1.84 ± 0.26a 0.76 ± 0.10b 0.74 ± 0.07b 0.61 ± 0.07b

p < 0.001

% Total loss* 13.88 ± 1.10a 9.02 ± 0.50b 7.76 ± 0.75c 8.32 ± 0.74bc

p < 0.001

*n = 12

BANGERS:

Sign. Level

p < 0.001

% Thaw loss* 1.84 ± 0.26a 0.76 ± 0.10b 0.74 ± 0.07b 0.61 ± 0.07b

p < 0.001

% Total loss* 13.88 ± 1.10a 9.02 ± 0.50b 7.76 ± 0.75c 8.32 ± 0.74bc

p < 0.001

*n = 12

BANGERS:

Sign. Level

p < 0.001

% Thaw loss* 1.84 ± 0.26a 0.76 ± 0.10b 0.74 ± 0.07b 0.61 ± 0.07b

p < 0.001

% Total loss* 13.88 ± 1.10a 9.02 ± 0.50b 7.76 ± 0.75c 8.32 ± 0.74bc

p < 0.001

*n = 12

BANGERS:

Water binding and water holding capacity not greatly reduced!

Sign. Level

p < 0.001

% Thaw loss* 1.84 ± 0.26a 0.76 ± 0.10b 0.74 ± 0.07b 0.61 ± 0.07b

p < 0.001

% Total loss* 13.88 ± 1.10a 9.02 ± 0.50b 7.76 ± 0.75c 8.32 ± 0.74bc

p < 0.001

*n = 12

BANGERS:

Water binding and water holding capacity not greatly reduced!

25 % reduction resulted in lowest cooking loss!

Treatment 0 % Salt 0.83 % Salt 1.66 % Salt 2.50 % Salt

Sign. Level

% Yield on raw* 112.45 ± 2.63a 115.65 ± 1.87b 114.35 ± 0.68ab 115.02 ± 2.02ab

p = 0.031

% Shrink after smoking* 6.29 ± 2.19b 3.63 ± 1.56a 4.71 ± 0.57ab 4.15 ± 1.68ab

p < 0.001

% Refrigeration loss** 11.18 ± 2.37c 3.63 ± 0.55b 0.75 ± 0.27a 0.66 ± 0.49a

p < 0.001

% Cooking loss** 42.24 ± 0.78b 40.16 ± 2.58b 39.71 ± 4.50b 32.92 ± 1.53a

p < 0.001

% Total loss** 48.70 ± 1.53c 42.33 ± 2.42b 40.16 ± 4.57b 33.37 ± 1.64a

p < 0.001

*n = 3

**n = 6

BACON:

YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES

Sign. Level

p = 0.031

p < 0.001

% Total loss** 48.70 ± 1.53c 42.33 ± 2.42b 40.16 ± 4.57b 33.37 ± 1.64a

p < 0.001

*n = 3

**n = 6

BACON:

Sign. Level

p = 0.031

p < 0.001

% Total loss** 48.70 ± 1.53c 42.33 ± 2.42b 40.16 ± 4.57b 33.37 ± 1.64a

p < 0.001

*n = 3

**n = 6

BACON:

Sign. Level

p = 0.031

p < 0.001

% Total loss** 48.70 ± 1.53c 42.33 ± 2.42b 40.16 ± 4.57b 33.37 ± 1.64a

p < 0.001

*n = 3

**n = 6

BACON:

Sign. Level

p = 0.031

p < 0.001

% Total loss** 48.70 ± 1.53c 42.33 ± 2.42b 40.16 ± 4.57b 33.37 ± 1.64a

p < 0.001

*n = 3

**n = 6

BACON:

Sign. Level

p = 0.031

p < 0.001

% Total loss** 48.70 ± 1.53c 42.33 ± 2.42b 40.16 ± 4.57b 33.37 ± 1.64a

p < 0.001

*n = 3

**n = 6

BACON:

Sign. Level

p = 0.031

p < 0.001

% Total loss** 48.70 ± 1.53c 42.33 ± 2.42b 40.16 ± 4.57b 33.37 ± 1.64a

p < 0.001

*n = 3

**n = 6

BACON:

Sign. Level

p = 0.031

p < 0.001

% Total loss** 48.70 ± 1.53c 42.33 ± 2.42b 40.16 ± 4.57b 33.37 ± 1.64a

p < 0.001

*n = 3

**n = 6

BACON:

SENSORY ANALYSIS

SENSORY ANALYSIS: BANGERS

p < 0.001 for all four attributes

n = 75

8Taste

Texture

Saltiness

Overall liking

0 % NaCl

1 % NaCl

1.5 % NaCl

2 % NaCl

(p < 0.001)

SENSORY ANALYSIS: BACON

8Taste

Saltiness

Texture

Overall liking

0 % NaCl

0.83 % NaCl

1.66 % NaCl

2.50 % NaCl

(p < 0.001)

n = 75

SENSORY ANALYSIS: POLONY

8Taste

Saltiness

Texture

Overall liking

0 % NaCl

1.33 % NaCl

1.84 % NaCl

2.5 % NaCl

n = 75

PHYSICAL PARAMETERS:

COLOUR AND TEXTURE

BANGERS:REDNESS STABILITY

0 3 6 9

0 % NaCl

1 % NaCl

1.5 % NaCl

2 % NaCl

NS = Not significant

n = 24

BACON:REDNESS STABILITY

Day 0 Day 15 Day 30

0 % NaCl

0.83 % NaCl

1.66 % NaCl

2.50 % NaCl

p < 0.001

Means with different superscripts on the same day differ significantly

n = 24

POLONY: SHEAR FORCE AS FIRMNESS

Means with different superscripts on the same month differ significantly

n = 72

0 Months 3 Months 6 Months

0 % NaCl

1.33 % NaCl

1.84 % NaCl

2.50 % NaCl

n = 72

p < 0.001 p < 0.05 p < 0.05

CONCLUSIONS

Salt / sodium content significantly reduced

Meet first reduction target (2016) without replacement

Depending on the type of product!

Jump to 2019 limits: • large differences,

• may introduce defects

• replacement strategy essential

Consumers did not notice 25-36 % reduction!

Aim for lower equivalent salt level (2.5 % to 2 %)

Adjust replacer-sodium combinations to meet this level:

• Less dependant on possibly costly replacers

• Keep down costs, maintain quality

CONCLUSIONS

Supervisors: Prof. A. Hugo & Prof. C.J. Hugo

Co-workers: Mr. H. Steyn, Ms. I. Kobane & Ms. P. Zacharia

South African Pork Producers Association (SAPPO)

Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP)

Meat Industry Trust (MIT-BWC)

National Research Foundation (NRF)

South African Association for Food Science and Technology (SAAFoST)

DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security (DST-NRF CoE-FS)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

THANK YOU

DANKIE

T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | info@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac.za

MacDonald Cluff, H. Steyn, I. Kobane, P. Zacharia, C. Bothma, C. … · 2018-12-19 · MacDonald...

Documents

CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR Facilitator: Neels Bothma Email: bothmch@unisa.ac.za

Enhancer additivity and non-additivity are determined by ...tglab.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bothma+al_15.pdfelifesciences.org RESEARCH ARTICLE Enhancer additivity and

17 June 2019 CLUFF NATURAL RESOURCES PLC (CLNR)allenbycapital.com/research/research-cluff-nat--resources_32_2328349787.pdfSHARE PERFORMANCE 1m 3m 12m ... North Sea oil and gas exploration

Marion aMling SYlVia BEYErlE Vod Er MaYEr (MoM BEE)extrasalon.de/.../10/EXTRA-KatalogANGEGRABEN-2017-A3-10s-03_ANSICHT.pdf · are callinG koBane iii – eManciPation – soul Brother

Cluff Word Template€¦ · Cluff Commercial for themselves and for the vendors or lessors of this property, whose agents they are, give notice that; (i) the particulars are produced

ProgramaPDF Summerschool2015#2.indd 1 11/06/15 10:24s3.observador.pt/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/programapdf_srschool20154.pdf · to Kobane: Zerocalcare’s experience in the graphic

Cluff, K.D., et. al. Electronic Packaging Technologies ... ENGINEERING...Cluff, K.D., et. al. “Electronic Packaging Technologies” Mechanical Engineering Handbook Ed. Frank Kreith

Cluff Natural Resources Plc - Deltic Energy...Cluff Natural Resources Plc Annual Report & Accounts 2016 01 While the market for oil and gas companies remains challenging I believe

Tsunamis: Nature’s Misunderstood natural disaster€¦ · Web view2018. 10. 10. · Tsunamis: Nature’s Misunderstood natural disaster. Physics 1010 – Section 010. Megan Cluff,

CORPORATE PRESENTATION - Cluff Natural Resources · This Corporate Presentation may contain “forward-looking statements” that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, and

Kobane Reconstruction Report

IRON COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING December 7, 2009 · Von Cluff asked wh

Ben Bothma Profile

Dispatches rojava - noblogs.org · or to the Siege of Kobane in November of 2012. It lies directly on the road to Kobane, sits right on the Turkish border, and if it had been taken

Scan - Jennifer Cluff · Title: Scan Author: Garry Created Date: 11/27/2009 11:21:04 AM

Role of Heat Conduction in a Jominy End Quench Design Project ME EN 340 Fall 2010 Stephen Cluff Dikshya Prasai

Jeff Cluff, UHSAA Assistant Director ◦ Supervisor of Officials ◦ jeffcluff@uhsaa.org jeffcluff@uhsaa.org ◦ 801-566-0681

POPULATION OF September 2015 CONCERN HIGHLIGHTSreporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/Inter... · returnees were mostly to Kobane (approx. 45%), Qamishli and Al-Malkeyia. Reasons

recruitDC presentation by Gary Cluff

Farming In South Africa Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005 Photo: G C Bothma By Sue Bothma