Document1

Global Veterinaria 2 (5): 219-224, 2008ISSN 1992-6197 IDOSI Publications, 2008

Corresponding Author: Dr. S. Wilfred Ruban, Department of Livestock Products Technology, Veterinary College , Hebbal,Banngalore - 24, India E-mail: [email protected]

219

Effect of Tapioca Starch and Potato Flour on Physico - Chemical, Sensory and Microbial Characteristics of Pork Sausage During Refrigerated Storage (41C)

S. Wilfred Ruban, V. Appa Rao and A. Kalaikannan 1 2 3

Department of Livestock Products Technology, Veterinary College, Hebbal, Banngalore-24, India1

Directorate of Extension, TANUVAS, Chennai, India2

Department of Meat Science, Madars Veterinary College, India3

Abstract: A study to compare the effectiveness of Tapioca Starch (TS) and Potato Flour (PF) for preparationof pork sausage with 50 per cent lean and 30 per cent low value meat (Head, Heart and Tongue in the ratio of70:15:15) was carried out. Preliminary studies were conducted to decide upon the suitable level of inclusion ofTS and PF. Sausages prepared were subjected to physico-chemical and sensory analysis. Analysis revealedthat sausages with 5 per cent level of PF and 7 per cent of TS as optimum. Sausages were prepared withthese optimum levels and were subjected to physico-chemical (pH, shear force, TBARS and TV), Sensory(appearance, flavor, texture, juiciness and overall palatability) and microbial analysis (TVC, Staphylococcus,Psychrophils, Yeast and mould, Lactobacillus, Streptococcus and Anaerobes) to study the keeping quality atrefrigerated storage (41C) for 30 days. The results revealed that during storage there was a highly significant(P

Global Veterinaria, 2 (5): 219-224, 2008

220

removed. The epithelial layer of tongue was scrapped off (9 point hedonic scale) and microbial analysis byand then cut into small pieces. The lean meat, head meat, following the method described by [17] using readymadetongue, fat and heart were packed in polyethylene bags media from HIMEDIA over a period of 30 days. Dataseparately and frozen at -20C until use. Commercially generated from each trial was analyzed by followingavailable Tapioca starch was used in this study. Potato standard procedure described by [18]. Flour was prepared by scalding fresh potatoes at 80C for10 minutes and then peeling off the skin. Scalded potatoes RESULTSwere cut into small pieces and dried in an oven at 60Covernight. The dried potatoes were ground into a fine The mean values on physicochemical sensorypowder using a Cyclotec of 1 mm sieve. and Microbiological characteristics of sausages with

Preparation of Sausages: Frozen meat, (LVM- Head, potato flour upto 30 days of storage at (41C) areHeart and Tongue) and fat were tempered at 4C and were presented in Tables (1-3).cut into small pieces and minced using 4.5 mm plate inElectrolux mincer (Omas, Model-16789). LVM was minced Physicochemical Characteristics: The pH of sausagestwice in order to remove additional connective tissues. and the interaction between treatments and storageThe minced meat lean meat (50%), lean meat (30%) along days showed a highly significant (P


221

Table 1: MeanS.E for Physico-chemical (pH, Shear force value, TBARS and Tyrosine Value) and of Pork sausage with 7 per cent Tapioca starch and

5 per cent Potato flour during Refrigerated Storage at 41C

Storage Days

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parameter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 MeanS.E

pH

Tapioca Starch 6.320.01 6.400.01 6.490.01 6.520.01 6.600.01 6.550.02 6.510.01 6.480.01a b c cd f def cd x

Potato Flour 6.320.01 6.420.01 6.530.02 6.560.01 6.590.02 6.730.01 6.540.01 6.530.01a b cd def ef g cde y

Days meanS.E. 6.320.01 6.410.01 6.510.01 6.540.01 6.590.01 6.640.01 6.530.01A B C C D E C

Shear Force Value

Tapioca Starch 0.570.02 0.560.05 0.550.08 0.550.06 0.540.08 0.520.12 0.510.05 0.540.07a b b b b c c x

Potato Flour 0.600.13 0.590.07 0.580.09 0.580.12 0.570.09 0.550.06 0.530.05 0.570.09a a a a ab abc c y

Days meanS.E. 0.590.08 0.570.06 0.560.09 0.560.09 0.560.09 0.530.05 0.520.08A B B B B C C

TBARS (mg of malanoldehyde/Kg)

Tapioca Starch 0.290.05 0.340.06 0.540.05 0.590.06 0.690.08 0.860.09 1.140.07 0.630.07b c e g h i j x

Potato Flour 0.220.03 0.240.06 0.450.16 0.500.08 0.560.08 0.660.05 0.890.10 0.500.09a a d ef fg h i y

Days meanS.E. 0.250.04 0.290.06 0.490.06 0.540.07 0.620.08 0.760.07 1.010.09A B C D E F G

Tyrosine Value (mg/100g of sample)

Tapioca Starch 2.290.10 3.170.10 4.290.20 6.580.19 8.580.07 11.130.06 18.080.38 7.730.16x

Potato Flour 2.500.06 3.460.03 4.500.15 7.580.17 9.080.15 11.290.05 18.330.44 8.110.15y


Overall means bearing different superscripts between rows (x,y) and between columns (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) differ significantly (P


222

Table 3: MeanS.E for Microbiological Characteristics of Pork sausage with 7 per cent Tapioca starch and 5 per cent potato flour during Refrigerated Storage

at 41C for 30 days (Counts expressed as log cfu/g)

Storage Days

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parameter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 MeanS.E

TVC (log cfu/g)

Tapioca Starch 2.010.05 2.220.08 2.400.05 2.640.06 3.000.12 3.490.09 4.000.12 2.820.08NS

Potato Flour 1.980.05 2.160.12 2.340.13 2.630.05 2.920.07 3.520.06 4.050.06 2.800.08NS


Psychrophilic Count

Tapioca Starch 2.100.09 2.250.05 2.410.12 2.910.01 3.120.05 3.840.08 4.290.06 2.990.07x

Potato Flour 2.070.03 2.160.05 2.380.06 2.850.12 3.050.04 3.750.08 4.230.05 2.930.06y


Staphylococcal Count

Tapioca Starch 1.460.06 1.530.06 2.060.09 2.290.08 2.610.12 2.800.09 3.020.07 2.250.08NS

Potato Flour 1.520.05 1.660.06 2.060.05 2.310.03 2.550.12 2.800.08 3.030.02 2.280.06NS


Lactic acid bacteria

Tapioca Starch 1.840.04 1.930.08 2.090.08 2.350.03 2.660.05 2.710.09 2.910.07 2.360.06x

Potato Flour 1.840.06 2.020.13 2.090.04 2.400.02 2.710.01 2.720.05 2.980.06 2.390.05y


Yeast and Mould Count

Tapioca Starch 1.690.05 2.010.06 2.150.06 2.410.09 2.650.08 3.100.04 3.550.06 2.490.06x

Potato Flour 1.630.07 1.920.04 2.160.03 2.360.05 2.630.05 2.960.04 3.470.06 2.450.05y


Overall means bearing different superscripts between rows (x,y) and between columns (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) differ significantly ((P


223

The linear and the obvious increase in all the 5. Kondiah, N. and A.S.R. Anjaneyulu, 2003. Potentialmicrobial counts irrespective of the treatments withincrease in storage days coincide with [26,27]. Thedifference in TVC values between treatments. was inaccordance with [28]. The sporadic occurrence ofstreptococcus, anaerobes and coliforms, were inconcurrence [26].

CONCLUSION

Sausages incorporated with TS were economical interms of cost involved compared to that of PFincorporated sausages, but in spite of economical reasonsthe results of sensory and microbial analysis has revealedthat PF incorporated sausages had higher score fortexture, juiciness and overall palatability, whereas therewas no significant difference in appearance and flavorscores between treatments. Since, lipid oxidation andmicrobial profile are the major components whichdetermine the keeping quality and shelf life of the meatproducts, sausages with potato flour had values lowerthan that of tapioca starch incorporated sausages.Sausages prepared with both TS and PF were acceptabletill 25 days at (41C). Hence, it is concluded thatsausages with 5 per cent potato flour is consideredsuperior for preparing pork sausages with 70 per centlean meat and 30 per cent low value meat (Head, Heartand Tongue) compared to that of sausages incorporatedwith tapioca starch in terms of sensory, microbial andstorage stability.

REFERENCES

1. Verma, M.M., D.A. Ledward and R.A. Lawrie, 1984.Utilization of chickenpea flour in sausages. MeatSci., 11: 109-121.

2. Mir Salahuddin, N.N. Kondaiah andA.S.R. Anjaneyulu, 1991. Effect of maida,potatoand textured soya as binders on the quality ofchicken and mutton kababs. J. Fd. Sci. Technol.,28(5): 301-303.

3. Rao, K.H., A.S.R. Anjaneyulu, R.R.B. Singh,P.C. Dubey and P.L. Yadav, 1999. Effect of wheyprotein concentrate on the quality of smokedchicken sausage from broiler spent hens.Indian J.Ani. Sci., 69(6): 441-444.

4. Hendrick, H.B., E.D. Aberle, M.D. Judge andJ.C. Forrest, 1994. Principles of Meat Science.W.H.Freeman and Co, San Francisco, pp: 198.

of buffalo meat for processing to different products.In: Proceedings of the 4 Asian Buffalo Congress onth

Buffalo for food security and Rural develpoment,Feb 25-28, New Delhi, pp: 200.

6. Ambrosiadis, I. and F. Wirth, 1984. Comminutionof Connective tissue and temperature pattern inmanufacture of frankfurter type sausages.Fleishwirtsh, 64(8): 945-950.

7. Bawa, A.S., W.R. Usborne and H.L. Orr, 1988.Interaction among meat, fillers, extenders in an meatemulsion system. J. Food Sci. Technol., 25(2): 78-83.

8. Berry, B.W., 1997. Sodium Alginate plus modifiedtapioca starch improves properties of low fat beefpatties. J. Food Sci., 62(6): 1245-1249.

9. Bushway, A.A., P.R. Belyea, R.H. True, T.M. Work,D.O. Russell and D.F. McGann, 1982. Potato starchand flour in frankfurters: Effcet on chemical andsensory properties and total viable count. J. FoodSci., 47: 402-404,408.

10. Hughes, E., A.M. Mullen and D.J. Tray, 1998. Effectof fat level, tapioca starch and whey protein onfrankfurters formulated with 5 and 12 per cent fat.Meat Sci., 48: 169-180.

11. Skerde, G., 1989. Comparision of various types ofstarches when used in meat sausages. Meat Sci.,25: 21-36.

12. Lyon, P.H., J.F. Kerry, P.A. Morrissey andD.J. Buckley, 1999. The influence of added wheyprotein/ Carrageenan gels and tapioca starch ontextural properties of low fat pork sausage. Meat Sci.,51: 43-52.

13. Trout, E.S., N.C. Hunt, D.E. Johnson, J.R. Claus,C.L. Kashner and O.H. Krolpf, 1992. Chemical,physical and sensory Characteristics of ground beefcontaining 5-30 per cent fat. J. Food Sci., 57(1): 25-29.

14. Baliga, B.R. and N. Madaiah, 1971. Preparation ofmutton sausages. J. Food Sci., 36: 607-610.

15. Tarladgis, B.G., B.M. Walts, M.T. Mounatham,L.R. Dugan, 1960. A distillation method for thequantitative determination of malonaldehyde inrancid foods. J. Am. Oil Chem. Sec., 37: 44.

16. Strange, E.D., R.C. Benedict, J.L. Smith and G.E. Swift,1977. Evaluation of rapid tests for monitoringalteration in meat quality during storage. I IntactMeat. J. Food Prot., 40: 843-847.

17. APHA 1994. Compendium of Methods ForMicrobiological Examination of Foods, Washington.

18. Snedecor, G.W., Cochran 1994. Statistical Methods.First East West Press Edition, New Delhi.


224

19. Mittal, G.S. and J.L. Blaisdell, 1982. Kinetics of pH 25. Awonrin, S.G., 1993. Quality of smokedand colour of meat emulsion containing various chicken+guinea fowl sausage as affectd byfillers. J. Food Process Engineering, 6: 59. processing conditions and cold storage.

20. Puolanne, E.J., M.H. Ruusunnen and J.I. Vainionpaa, Lebensmittel- Wissenschaft- und -Technol.,2001. Combined effect of Nacl and raw pH on water 24(4): 285-290.holding in cooked sausage with or without added 26. Gnanasambandam, R. and J.F. Zayas, 1994. Chemicalphosphates. Meat Sci., 58: 1-7. and bacteriological stability of frankfurters extended

21. Hamm, R. and F.E. Deatherage, 1960. Food Res., with wheat germ, corn germ and soyprotein. J. Food25: 587. [cf.Correia and Mittal, 1991]. Processing and Preservation, 18: 159-171.

22. Drerup, D.L., M.D. Judge and E.D. Aberle, 1981. 27. Krishnan, K.R. and N. Sharma, 1993. Studies onSensory properties and lipid oxidation in chilled and frozen ready to eat buffalo beef sausageprerigor processed fresh pork sausage. J. Food Sci., prepared by incorporating skeletal and offal meat46: 1659-61. with 20 per cent pork fat. J. Food Sci. Technol.,

23. Bentley, D.S., J.O. Regan, N.A. Cox and J.S. Bailley, 30(4): 301-302.1987. Effect of meat type, storage time and 28. Lee, T.G., S.K. Williams, D. Sloan and R. Little, 1997.temperature on various physical, chemical and Development and evaluation of chicken breakfastmicrobial characteristics of ground pork. J. Food sausage with mechanically deboned chicken meat.Protection, 50(11): 948-951. Poultry Sci., 76(2): 415-421.

24. Reddy, K.P. and B.J. Rao, 1997. Influence ofbinders and refrigerated storage on certain quality (Received: 30/05/2008; Accepted: 30/07/2008)characteristics of chicken and duck meat patties. J.Food Sci. Technol., 34(5): 446-449.

Documents

Document1