Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | [email protected] | 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
Aim
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
etc.
Desmond, 2006; Searby, 2006; Dötsch et al., 2009
INTRODUCTION…
Elimination not straight-forward:
– SODIUM CHLORIDE IS: Preservative
Nutrient source
Colour enhancer
Flavour enhancer
Texture enhancer
Binder
Bulking agent
etc.
CHEAP!!!!
Desmond, 2006; Searby, 2006; Dötsch et al., 2009
INTRODUCTION…
Elimination not straight-forward:
– SODIUM CHLORIDE IS: Preservative
Nutrient source
Colour enhancer
Flavour enhancer
Texture enhancer
Binder
Bulking agent
etc.
CHEAP!!!! Consumers & retailers uncomfortable with new ingredient names and
E-numbers
Desmond, 2006; Searby, 2006; Dötsch et al., 2009
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
AIM
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)
2.5 % NaCl 1.66 % NaCl 0.83 % NaCl 0 % NaCl
1200 mg Na/100g 800 mg Na/100g 600 mg Na/100g 210 mg Na/100g*
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
BACON (@ 20% pump)
2.5 % NaCl 1.66 % NaCl 0.83 % NaCl 0 % NaCl
1200 mg Na/100g 800 mg Na/100g 600 mg Na/100g 210 mg Na/100g*
*inherent Na contributed by other components in the formulations
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
BACON (@ 20% pump)
2.5 % NaCl 1.66 % NaCl 0.83 % NaCl 0 % NaCl
1200 mg Na/100g 800 mg Na/100g 600 mg Na/100g 210 mg Na/100g*
Theoretical values!
*inherent Na contributed by other components in the formulations
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
BACON
Treatment 0 % NaCl 0.83 % NaCl 1.66 % NaCl 2.5 % NaCl
Estimated Na Content 210.15 mg/100g 536.59 mg/100g 863.03 mg/100g 1193.40 mg/100g
Actual Na Content 190.83 ± 62.93a 399.50 ± 81.79b 662.83 ± 116.25c 980.83 ± 143.94d
POLONY
Treatment 0 % NaCl 1.33 % NaCl 1.84 % NaCl 2.5 % NaCl
Estimated Na Content 126.52 mg/100g 649.69 mg/100g 850.32 mg/100g 1109.94 mg/100g
Actual Na Content 166.42 ± 15.94a 575.08 ± 54.84b 773.33 ± 59.29c 910.83 ± 85.44d
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
BACON
Treatment 0 % NaCl 0.83 % NaCl 1.66 % NaCl 2.5 % NaCl
Estimated Na Content 210.15 mg/100g 536.59 mg/100g 863.03 mg/100g 1193.40 mg/100g
Actual Na Content 190.83 ± 62.93a 399.50 ± 81.79b 662.83 ± 116.25c 980.83 ± 143.94d
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
POLONY
Treatment 0 % NaCl 1.33 % NaCl 1.84 % NaCl 2.5 % NaCl
Estimated Na Content 126.52 mg/100g 649.69 mg/100g 850.32 mg/100g 1109.94 mg/100g
Actual Na Content 166.42 ± 15.94a 575.08 ± 54.84b 773.33 ± 59.29c 910.83 ± 85.44d
↓ ↑ ↑ ↑
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 12
BANGERS:
REFRIGERATION, THAW, COOKING & TOTAL LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 12
BANGERS:
REFRIGERATION, THAW, COOKING & TOTAL LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 12
BANGERS:
REFRIGERATION, THAW, COOKING & TOTAL LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 12
BANGERS:
REFRIGERATION, THAW, COOKING & TOTAL LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 12
BANGERS:
REFRIGERATION, THAW, COOKING & TOTAL LOSSES
Water binding and water holding capacity not greatly reduced!
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 12
BANGERS:
REFRIGERATION, THAW, COOKING & TOTAL LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 3
**n = 6
BACON:
YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 3
**n = 6
BACON:
YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 3
**n = 6
BACON:
YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 3
**n = 6
BACON:
YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 3
**n = 6
BACON:
YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 3
**n = 6
BACON:
YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 3
**n = 6
BACON:
YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES
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
Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly
*n = 3
**n = 6
BACON:
YIELD, SHRINKAGE, REFRIGERATION & COOKING LOSSES
SENSORY ANALYSIS
SENSORY ANALYSIS: BANGERS
p < 0.001 for all four attributes
n = 75
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Taste
Texture
Saltiness
Overall liking
0 % NaCl
1 % NaCl
1.5 % NaCl
2 % NaCl
(p < 0.001)
SENSORY ANALYSIS: BACON
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Taste
Saltiness
Texture
Overall liking
0 % NaCl
0.83 % NaCl
1.66 % NaCl
2.50 % NaCl
(p < 0.001)
p < 0.001 for all four attributes
n = 75
SENSORY ANALYSIS: POLONY
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8Taste
Saltiness
Texture
Overall liking
0 % NaCl
1.33 % NaCl
1.84 % NaCl
2.5 % NaCl
n = 75
p < 0.001 for all four attributes
n = 75
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS:
COLOUR AND TEXTURE
BANGERS:REDNESS STABILITY
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 3 6 9
Re
dn
ess (
a*)
co
ord
ina
te
Day
0 % NaCl
1 % NaCl
1.5 % NaCl
2 % NaCl
NS
NS = Not significant
n = 24
BACON:REDNESS STABILITY
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Day 0 Day 15 Day 30
Re
dn
ess (
a*)
co
ord
ina
te
0 % NaCl
0.83 % NaCl
1.66 % NaCl
2.50 % NaCl
p < 0.001
a
a a
b b
b
b b b
ab
bc c
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
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0 Months 3 Months 6 Months
kg
f
0 % NaCl
1.33 % NaCl
1.84 % NaCl
2.50 % NaCl
n = 72
bc
ab
a
a
a b
b b
b
bc c
c
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