Applications in Meat Products

C H A P T E R

10 Applications in Meat Products Federica Balestra*, Maurizio Bianchi†, Massimiliano Petracci* *

Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy †Prodotti Gianni srl, Milan, Italy

O U T L I N E 10.1 General Overview of World Meat Production 313 10.2 Role of Functional Ingredients in Meat Products

316

10.3 Functional Properties of Dietary Fibers

321

10.4 Main Dietary Fibers for Meat Processing 10.4.1 Classification

324 324

10.4.2 Sources

325

10.5 Main Applications in Meat Products 10.5.1 Minced Meat and Finely Comminuted Meat Products 10.5.2 Chicken Nuggets and Poultry Breaded Items 10.5.3 Marinated or Injected Meats References

329 338 339 339 340

10.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WORLD MEAT PRODUCTION Demand for meat has been increasing during the last decades because of population growth, rising income, and urbanization. Poultry meat has shown the fastest growth over the last years (Smil, 2013, Fig. 10.1). In 2016, the total yearly production of meat has been estimated to be approximately 350 million tons, and dominant livestock types are poultry, bovine, pig, and sheep. The species produced is quite variable, based on the region with the United States (17.4% and 17.9%), Brazil (14.1% and 12.1%), and China (10.6% and 15.0%) leading the production of beef and poultry, respectively. China (45.8%) also leads in pork production (OECD/FAO, 2018). In addition, the production of all major meat types has been increasing in absolute terms as well as in relative terms. The share of global meat types has changed significantly over the last 40 years. In 1970, poultry meat accounted for only

Dietary Fiber: Properties, Recovery, and Applications https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816495-2.00010-1

313 # 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

300

FIG. 10.1 250

Beef and buffalo meat

200

Pigmeat

150

100

50 10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Production (millions of tons)

314

350

Others

Poultry meat

0

Evolution of global meat production from 1970 to 2016. (Own authorship, data source: FAOSTAT.)

Year

315

10.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WORLD MEAT PRODUCTION

kg/person/year 40 35 30

Poultry

25

Pork Sheep

20

Beef 15 10 5 0 2015–17

2027

FIG. 10.2

Annual growth in world consumption of meat 2015–2017 and 2027. (Own authorship, data source: OECD/ FAO (2018). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook, OECD Agriculture statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/agr-outldata-en.)

15% of global meat production; by 2017, its share has approximately tripled to around 37%. In comparison, bovine meat’s share of total meat production has nearly halved, now accounting for around 22%. Pork share has remained more constant at approximately 35%–40%. The total meat production is projected to expand by slightly more than 48 million tons by 2027, reaching nearly 367 million tons with developing countries being projected to account for majority of the total increase (OECD/FAO, 2018). Poultry meat is the primary driver of the growth in total meat production in response to expanding global demand. As a more affordable animal protein compared to red meats, poultry meat has low production costs, and its lower product prices have contributed to making poultry the meat of choice both for producers and consumers in developing countries (Windhorst, 2017). In context of consumption, the global meat apparent consumption per capita is expected to stagnate at 35.4 kg by 2027. Within this, the consumption of poultry meat is expected to increase regardless of region or income level. Per capita consumption will grow, even in the developed world, but the growth rates will remain slightly higher in developing regions. Worldwide, poultry has grown rapidly and surpassed pork as the preferred animal protein in 2016. This should remain the case until 2027 and, of all the additional meat consumed over the next decade, poultry is expected to account for almost 45% (Fig. 10.2, OECD/FAO, 2018). In recent years, the meat industry in general is moving toward the introduction of even more attractive and convenient product formulations, especially for consumers having limited time for meal preparation (Font-i-Furnols and Guerrero, 2014; Leroy & Degreef, 2015). Indeed, the way in which the meat is marketed and consumed has been dramatically modified, and therefore, technologies have become part of the meat industry. Most of the present meat production is marketed in the form of ready-to-eat and ready-to-cook products (Barbut, 2015; Petracci, Soglia, & Leroy, 2018). Currently in the United States, almost half of poultry meat is marketed as further-processed products, and there has been a concomitant increase of out-of-home food consumption as proven by the increase of food-service market share (Table 10.1, US NCC, 2018).

316

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.1 Evolution of Market Segments and Forms of Chicken Meat in the United States of America Market Segments

Market Forms

Year

Retail Grocery (%)

Food-Service (%)

Whole Carcass (%)

Cut-up Parts (%)

Further Processed (%)

1965

–

–

78

19

3

1975

75

25

61

32

7

1985

71

29

29

53

18

1995

58

42

10

53

36

2005

55

45

11

43

46

2015

55

45

11

40

49

(Data source: US NCC (2018). US National Chicken Council, (accessed 31.10.2018).)

10.2 ROLE OF FUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS IN MEAT PRODUCTS Changes in consumer demand and growing market competition have prompted a need to improve the quality and image of meat. This is not only to prevent the loss of market share based on a negative perception of meats, but also to achieve a much-needed diversification in the activity sector through the development of products with health-benefits. Over the past few decades, the meat and poultry industries have been very active in introducing new meat products. The continuous success of marketing meat depends on the innovation and consistent production of high-quality products (Fletcher, 2004; Henchion, McCarthy, Resconi, & Troy, 2014; Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). Consumers are looking for convenient meat products with new/exciting flavors, textures, etc. (Font-i-Furnols & Guerrero, 2014; Leroy & Degreef, 2015). Fiber-enriched meat products are an opportunity to improve “meat image” as well as to update the recommendations related to dietary fiber goals ( Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). All these developments created a market for various innovative further-processed meat products. Based on the final destination of meat muscle and the degree of size reduction applied on the muscle, processed meat products could be grouped in four categories: (i) whole muscle products such as marinated/injected whole muscles, cut-ups, or carcass where the cyto-architectural design and geometric distribution of intra- and extracellular water are maintained intact; (ii) formed/restructured products manufactured by chunks or pieces of meat bonded together such as rolls and hams; (iii) ground products made of coarse-minced meat, such as burgers and sausages where meat fibrous structure is still detectable to some extent; (iv) emulsified products such as frankfurters that are made of finely comminuted meat slurry in which meat fiber structure is not intact (Fig. 10.3, Petracci et al., 2013). The functional properties of raw meats depend mainly on chemical composition, which vary according to the anatomical position of the muscle, genotype and age of animal, and feed composition, which have great impact on the quality of processed meat products (Barbut,

Formed/restructured

Coarse ground

Finely minced/emulsified

Intact muscle cells with water entrapped in cellular and extracellular spaces

Chunks or pieces of meat that are bonded or glued together

Ground meat with still recognizable meat fibrous structure

Meat batters are complex systems consisting of solubilized muscle proteins, muscle fibers, fragmented myofibrils, fat cells and droplets

Main goals to achieve with the addition of technofunctional ingredients • Brine retention during marination/injection • Increase cooking yield • Optimal texture

FIG. 10.3

• Binding among meat pieces • Brine retention during marination/injection • Increase cooking yield • Optimal texture

• Binding among meat pieces • Water retention during processing • Optimal texture

• Stabilize water/fat components in meat emulsion during processing • Optimal texture

Classification of meat products according to raw meat materials used in its manufacturing and different roles played by technofunctional ingredients. (Modified from Petracci, M., Bianchi, M., Mudalal, S., & Cavani, C. (2013). Functional ingredients for poultry meat products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 33(1), 27–39.)

10.2 ROLE OF FUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

Whole muscle

317

318

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

2015; Givens, Gibbs, Rymer, & Brown, 2011). The quality of raw meat can vary also due to preslaughter, post-mortem, and processing factors (Chauhan & England, 2018; Petracci, Bianchi, & Cavani, 2009; Petracci, Bianchi, & Cavani, 2010) along with increasing rates of meat defects or abnormalities, especially in pork as well as in broiler and turkey meat. These defects, like pale, soft, and exudative (PSE) meat, acid meat, muscle-growth abnormalities (i.e., white striping, wooden breast, and spaghetti meat), and destructuration that impairs waterbinding capacity, color and appearance of meat, are mainly due to the improvements used for growth rate and muscle yield (Matarneh, Eric, England, Scheffler, & Gerrard, 2017; Petracci, Mudalal, Soglia, & Cavani, 2015; Petracci, Soglia, & Berri, 2017). Integrated approaches can be employed to manage the aforementioned obstacles and challenges to alleviate their consequences on functional properties of processed meat products. The employment of functional ingredients to optimize the functional properties of processed meat can reduce the effect of natural quality variability in meat origin. Simultaneously, they can provide more flexibility for the processed meat producers to introduce a broad spectrum of products to meet consumer demands and to optimize costs formulation (Barbut, 2017; Petracci et al., 2013). In order to develop healthier foods, different strategies can be used to increase the presence of beneficial compounds and limit those with negative health implications in meat and meat products. These strategies may basically affect animal production (genetic and nutritional) and meat-processing strategies (reformulation). Through the changes affected in the ingredients (raw meat material and non-meat ingredients) used in the making of meat products, the reformulation process offers an excellent opportunity to remove, reduce, increase, add, and/ or replace different components, including those with health implications ( Jim
enezColmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). Various types of non-meat ingredients and additives are used by meat processors to achieve different technological requirements and to meet consumer expectations (Table 10.2). Raw, partially or fully cooked, ready-to-eat, fermented, dried, injected, marinated, and dry-cured meat products are those that all derive characteristic properties from usage of non-meat ingredients. Further, most of the non-meat ingredients are used in processed meats, resulting in a wide variety of products. While water is a major component of lean meat, it is also commonly added to many processed meat products, and, as such, becomes a non-meat ingredient. Water plays an important functional role in processed meats, which is likely to be modified if other ingredients are changed (Sebranek, 2015). Non-meat ingredients include a variety of inorganic salts and organic compounds of vegetable, animal, and microbial origins playing different roles. These include meat protein functionality enhancers (i.e., sodium chloride, phosphates), fillers (i.e., starches and flours), binders and extenders (i.e., vegetable and animal proteins), gums (i.e., carrageenan), curing salts (i.e., nitrates/nitrites), sweeteners (i.e., dextrose, corn syrup solids), antioxidants (i.e., ascorbic acid, tocopherols), antimicrobials (i.e., lactates, acetates), flavor enhancers (i.e., hydrolyzed proteins, sodium glutamate), colorants (i.e., red cochineal), spices, and flavoring (Feiner, 2006a, 2006b; Keeton, 2001; Xiong, 2012). Plant and animal proteins, starches or modified starches, hydrocolloids and gums alone or coupled with other common cheap fillers (bread crumbs, potato flakes, cereal flours, texturized proteins, and protein-rich flours) are the most frequently used ingredients in the meat industry ( Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). However, due to increasing marketing requests for more natural perceived formulations and nutrition-related claims, a new

10.2 ROLE OF FUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.2

319

Main Non-meat Ingredients Used in Meat and Poultry Processing

Non-meat Category

Examples

Functional salts (able to enhance meat protein functionality)

• • • •

Protein-rich extenders and binders/Gelling agents (substances of vegetable or animal origin with substantial high protein content that can serve for partial replacement of meat and/or improve binding, water, and fat holding capacity)

• Leguminous plant (pulse) flours, concentrates, and isolates (i.e., soy, pea) • Cereal proteins (i.e., wheat, barley, rice) • Oilseed proteins (i.e., sunflower, rapeseed) • Dairy proteins (i.e., sodium caseinate, whey proteins) • Meat proteins (i.e., gelatin, collagen rich derivates, blood plasma) • Egg proteins (i.e., albumen)

Fillers (substances of vegetable origin with substantial high carbohydrate content used to lower the amount of meat without restoring the protein content of the recipe)

• • • •

Cereal flours (i.e., wheat, corn, rye) Rusk and breadcrumbs Starches (i.e., wheat, rice, corn, potato, cassava) Cereal and pulses brans

Hydrocolloids (gums) (heterogeneous group of long chain polymers mostly of vegetable origin used as thickening and gelling agents)

• • • • • • •

Carrageenan Alginate Agar-agar Locust bean gum Guar gum Xantan gum Konjac gum

Vegetable fibers (soluble and insoluble indigestible parts of plants foods with multifunctional properties such as water bind ability and texture modulators)

• Cereal fibers (i.e., oat, wheat, rye) • Leguminous plant fibers (i.e., soy, pea) • Other vegetables fibers (i.e., carrot, potato, bamboo, sugar cane, psyllium, sugar beet, inulin, etc.) • Fruit fibers (i.e., citrus, apple)

Curing agents and accelerators

• Nitrates and nitrites • Ascorbate/erythorbate

Preservatives

• Organic acids (i.e., lactates, acetates, sorbates) • Nitrates and nitrites

Flavor enhancers

• • • • •

Sodium and potassium chloride Phosphates Citrates Carbonates

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) Inosinate + guanylate (I + G) Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins (HVP) Yeast extracts Flavors Continued

320

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.2 Main Non-meat Ingredients Used in Meat and Poultry Processing—cont’d Non-meat Category

Examples

Colorants and coloring foodstuff

• • • • •

Paprika extracts Red beet juice/betaine Turmeric Beta-carotene Cochineal extract

Sweeteners

• • • • •

Sucrose Lactose Dextrose Corn syrup Sorbitol

Antioxidants

• Ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate • Butylated hydroxyl anisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxyl toluene (BHT) • Vitamin E and tocopherols rich extracts • Plant natural extracts (i.e., rosemary, mint, green tea, sage, lemon balm, etc.)

Herbs, spices and plant extracts (used for flavoring, and to exploit antioxidant and/or antimicrobial effect)

• Root and rhizomes (i.e., ginger, turmeric, horseradish) • Bulb (i.e., onion, garlic) • Fruit (i.e., chili peppers, bell peppers, paprika, caraway, pimento) • Leaves and herbs (i.e., sage, marjoram, rosemary, oregano, mint, thyme, basil) • Flowers (i.e., clove, saffron) • Bark (i.e., cinnamon, cassia) • Berry (i.e., black pepper, juniper) • Seeds (i.e., mustard, coriander, cardamom, nutmeg)

trend in food ingredients has also emerged. This new trend, which is often summarized under the umbrella of “clean label,” is defined as being free of “chemical” additives, displaying easy-to-understand ingredient lists and being produced by the use of traditional techniques with limited processing (Asioli et al., 2017; Cheung et al., 2016). In addition, the use of nonmeat ingredients in industrialized societies is also strongly affected by sustainability concerns (Balestra & Petracci, 2018). Sustainability concerns originated due to the growing awareness of environmental pollution caused especially by meat production and processing. These trends of health consciousness and sustainability push consumers to consider which ingredients are present in the food products (Asioli et al., 2017). The use of dietary fibers for their technological properties and health benefits opens up interesting possibilities in functional meat product development ( Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013; Talukder, 2015). Within this context, functional vegetable fibers offer significant texture and nutritional functionality (Ponnampalam et al., 2017). Modern consumers, increasingly

10.3 FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF DIETARY FIBERS

321

concerned with their wellness, prefer foods to be beyond tasty and attractive, but also safe and healthy. Meat products are known as valuable sources for essential amino acids, fats, certain vitamin and minerals, and some minor nutrients. Recently, healthier meat products have been answering consumer demands, including low fat, well balanced fatty acids composition, and € lower levels of both sodium chloride and nitrite in meat products worldwide (Ozbaş & Ardic¸, 2016). The nutritional profile of meat products could be further improved by the addition of potentially health-promoting ingredients. Dietary fiber as a functional ingredient can be incorporated with meat products to improve the health view of meat products (Kim & Paik, 2012; Ponnampalam et al., 2017; Talukder, 2015). Furthermore, there are not special sustainability issues concerning the use of food fibers in the meat sector because they are usually obtained by sources that also include by-products and renewable materials (Balestra & Petracci, 2018). The addition of dietary fibers in product formulation is useful to improve meat’s functional properties (Ahmad & Khalid, 2018). In particular, dietary fiber can be incorporated in processed meat products as binders, extenders, and fillers. They can significantly replace the unhealthy fat component from the products, increase acceptability by improving nutritional components, water-holding capacity, emulsion stability, texture, sensory characters, etc., of finished products. The addition of dietary fiber in the meat products can increase the cooking yield, contributing to economic gain as well (Ponnampalam et al., 2017; Talukder, 2015). In this context, the rest of the chapter deals with the main dietary fibers used in the meat industry to retain moisture and modify texture. We also examine their implications on product quality as well as their usage according to current market trends.

10.3 FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF DIETARY FIBERS From a technological point of view, the use of vegetable fibers from different botanical origins to improve the quality of meat products is a promising trend. Supplementation of dietary fibers in meat products has acquired higher prestige. Due to perceived advantages, € dietary-fiber supplementation in foods is rising. (Ozbaş & Ardic¸, 2016). Fibers have multifunctional properties: (i) improves the water holding capacity and retain extra added water thus acting as a kind of extender (i.e., in meat batters for patties or sausages); (ii) improves binding and forming of comminuted meat products (i.e., burgers and breaded patties); (iii) improves the emulsion stability and fat retention of emulsified meats (i.e., frankfurters and bologna style products), as well is a powerful tool to modulate texture and sensory properties of finished product toward the desired profile (i.e., to add bite and knack to frankfurters or increase tenderness and juiciness of lean meat burgers). Moreover, some soluble fractions can be useful for the formulation of low-fat meat products because of their “fat mimetic” behavior. In recent decades, fiber manufacturers have offered new tailor-made products for processed meat applications and have promoted additional ways to nutritionally enrich processed meats ´ l(Bodner & Sieg, 2009; Ferna´ndez-Gin
es, Ferna´ndez-Lo´pez, Sayas-Barbera´, Sendra, & P
erez-A varez, 2004; Ponnampalam et al., 2017; Toldra´ & Reig, 2011). In addition to the nutritive aspects

322

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

of fat reduction or fiber enrichment, the second model is driven by economics. High water binding and significant water retention can help decrease cooking losses or purge in vacuum packages (Bodner & Sieg, 2009). Variable chemical composition and physical characteristics of dietary fiber are the major hindrance in defining dietary fiber. The variability in composition is also responsible for variability in physicochemical parameters of dietary fibers, such as viscosity, water-holding capacity, foaming capacity, solubility, fat-holding capacity, swelling, and fermentation capacity (Ahmad & Khalid, 2018). Some dietary fibers can be incorporated into meat products as noncaloric bulking agents because they are sourced from common agricultural by-products that are relatively cheap, and their incorporation in meat products may reduce overall production costs (e.g., cereal bran) (Han & Bertram, 2017; Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). Along with health and nutritional benefits, dietary fiber has various functional properties that affect the quality and characteristics of food products (Kim & Paik, 2012). Dietary fibers provide technological functions such as water binding and water retention, thereby reducing cooking and drip loss during storage, minimizing production costs, and offsetting the undesired textural changes of formula alterations without affecting sensory properties of the final product (Han & Bertram, 2017; Ponnampalam et al., 2017). The following functional properties should be considered when various sources of dietary fiber are incorporated into meat products (Kim & Paik, 2012). Water-holding capacity is the ability of meat to hold fast onto its own or added water during processing. Good waterholding capacity is essential as it provides desirable characteristics to meat products (Petracci et al., 2013). Fiber is suitable for addition to meat products and has been widely used in raw and cooked meat products to increase the water-holding capacity (Mehta, Ahlawat, Sharma, & Dabur, 2015; Talukder, 2015). The hydration properties of dietary fibers are related to the chemical structure of the polysaccharide components and to other factors such as porosity, particle size, ionic form, pH, temperature, ionic strength, type of ions in solution, and stresses upon fibers. Depending on type and conditions of use, fibers can bind considerable amounts of water (Fig. 10.4, Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). By hydrating a fiber, the water occupies the fiber pores and increases cooking yield, possibly reducing the caloric content of meat products. The length, particle size, and porosity of dietary fiber components may affect the water-holding capacity, and these can contribute to the mouthfeel of the final products (Kim & Paik, 2012). As well as their hydration properties, fibers possess the capacity to hold oil. The ability of fibers to bind water and fat has been used in the manufacture of processed meat products. These properties contribute to final cooking yield. In addition, a high water-holding capacity can control moisture migration and ice crystal formation. This increases the stability during the freezing/thawing process and can also contribute to the final quality of the product (appearance, texture, color, juiciness, and flavor) ( Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013; Kim & Paik, 2012). Both properties, in turn, also affect the possibility of fibers’ use as ingredients in meat products. For example, dietary fiber with high oil-holding capacity allows the stabilization of fat in emulsion-based products. The dietary fibers with high waterholding capacity can be used as functional ingredients to avoid syneresis and to modify the viscosity and texture of some formulated meats (Mehta et al., 2015). Moreover, dietary fibers have been used by the meat industry for their gelling properties. Many soluble fibers (e.g., carrageenans, pectins, konjac, and similar compounds) form gels. Their capacity to form a gel and the characteristics of that gel will depend on several factors, including concentration, temperature, presence of certain ions, and pH ( Jim
enez-Colmenero

10.3 FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF DIETARY FIBERS

323

FIG. 10.4

Example of water effect on the structure of citrus fiber, causing the fiber structures to expand. The different times indicate the time after the water was added. (Modified from Lundberg, B., Pan, X., White, A., Chau, H., & Hotchkiss, A. (2014). Rheology and composition of citrus fiber. Journal of Food Engineering, 125, 97–104.)

& Delgado Pando, 2013). Fiber’s gel-forming ability can contribute to the increased thickness or viscosity of products, thus stabilizing or modifying the physical structure of meat products and helping to minimize shrinkage and improve product density (Kim & Paik, 2012). Because of their ability to form highly viscous solutions, fibers have been used as thickeners in meat systems, with plant-derived gums being the most widely used ( Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). As the molecular weight or chain length of the fiber increases, the

324

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

viscosity of fiber in the solution increases (Kim & Paik, 2012). Fibers can help modify textural properties in meat processing, including restructured meats. Thermo-irreversible gels, which form sodium alginate in the presence of calcium ions, are used to bind comminuted or diced meat pieces and make restructured meat products ( Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). Fat reduction in processed meats is another area where the functional properties of fibers can make important nutritional contributions (Bodner & Sieg, 2009). Fat reduction has generally been considered an important strategy to produce healthier products. This aspect is especially relevant to the meat industry since some meat products contain high proportions of fat, and fat from meats has often been assumed to be a risk factor in consumer health ( Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). As fat is not just a simple caloric filler hidden in a protein matrix, a fat-replacement strategy for processed meats must hence address the diverse influence of fat on structure, texture, and mouthfeel. Fat reduction in meat products is usually based on two main criteria: the use of leaner raw meat materials and the reduction of fat density (dilution) by adding water at higher levels than traditional products and adding other ingredients with little or no caloric content. Using dietary fiber, alone or in combination, as a fat replacer not only reduces the fat content but also enhances the nutritional attributes of the product while also reducing caloric content by fat substitution (Han & Bertram, 2017; Ponnampalam et al., 2017). Since the addition of a single fiber cannot solve the problem, combinations of fibers and other ingredients with unique and complementary properties may be used in order to take advantage of synergistic effects, in terms of water binding, creaminess, and structure (Bodner & Sieg, 2009).

10.4 MAIN DIETARY FIBERS FOR MEAT PROCESSING 10.4.1 Classification A plethora of vegetable fibers are available in the market as single vegetable source (e.g., bamboo, wheat, pea, potato, citrus) as well as proprietary fibers blends developed to better perform in the final application by exploiting the synergies among different fiber fractions (i.e., insoluble and soluble). The functional properties of vegetable fibers are strongly influenced by the vegetable source (i.e., bamboo, pea, carrot), the botanical part used for extraction (i.e., husk/peel vs inner part), physical status (i.e., granule size/fiber length), and production technology (e.g., isolation of selected fractions, physical modification). Each commercial product has to some extent a special functional behavior, and therefore it is not easy to find different commercial products having the same fingerprint of functional properties. In some cases, they are also produced under patented technologies so that they are quite unique materials (Petracci et al., 2013). Citri-Fi® branded product by Fiberstar, Inc., an example of these innovative fibers, patented a unique technology to physically increase the citrus fibers functionality by expanding the natural structure of fibers and obtaining an innovative functional clean label as citrus fiber (also defined citrus flour or dried citrus pulp according to the country legislation) with increased capabilities to bind water and emulsify fats.

325

10.4 MAIN DIETARY FIBERS FOR MEAT PROCESSING

The most common fibers available in the market include: • Insoluble purified cellulose fibers, mainly obtained from bamboo, wheat, oat, and sugar cane by extracting and purifying the cellulose parts and grinding this material at different particle sizes (i.e., from 30 to 200 μm). • Insoluble “not purified” cellulose fibers obtained with a simple grinding of pulse hulls (i.e., pea hulls) or cereal brans (i.e., oat, rice, wheat bran) grinded or finely micronized (i.e., to yield a very fine material with 10–20 μm particle size). • Insoluble fibers with a minor content of soluble fibers and residual native starch, obtained from pea (after removal of starch and proteins) and potato (obtained from the by-products of starch production and composed of both inner cell walls and external potato peel). • Citrus fibers (i.e., from lemon, orange, lime, mandarin, and tangerine) with different levels of residual soluble fibers (mainly pectin) according to the production technology and raw material used for their fabrication (i.e., juice cells, albedo, segment, or external peels). • Carrot fibers obtained as by-product of carrot juice production and composed of a mix of insoluble and soluble fractions. • Psyllium (Plantago ovata) husk, obtained by finely grinding (i.e., to 80–100 mesh) the psyllium seed husk in order to obtain a soluble fiber very rich in mucilage fractions. • Inulin and fructooligosaccharides (FOS) commercially extracted from chicory roots and agave to yield a family of different products with different technological behavior (i.e., from short chains and weak gelling behavior to longer chains and stronger gelling behavior used for fat replacement and mouthfeel improvement). • Other fibers derived from soy, beetroot, apple, and other vegetables.

10.4.2 Sources Various types of fibers have been studied singularly or in combination with other ingredients to formulate mainly minced meat products. These products include burgers and sausages, coarse ground/restructured products (i.e., restructured deli meats and roasts), marinated or injected parts, emulsified meat products like frankfurters and bologna style products as well as reduced-fat meat products (Table 10.3). TABLE 10.3

Main Applications of Vegetable Fibers Used in Meat and Poultry Processing

Type

Fiber Size

Main Applications

Typical Dosages

Insoluble fibers (i.e., bamboo, wheat, oat)

30–40 μm

Injected products

0.5%–2%

90–200 μm

Restructured, coarse/ground or emulsified products

0.5%–2%

Soluble fibers (i.e., inulin)

Not relevant (fully soluble)

All categories

up to 6% for fiber enrichment and fat mimetic

Intermediate fibers (i.e., pea, potato)

100–400 μm

Restructured, coarse/ground or emulsified products

0.5%–2%

Soluble rich citrus fibers (i.e., lemon, orange)

40–100 μm

Injected products (40 μm)

0.3%–0.5%

All granular size

Restructured, coarse/ground or emulsified products

0.3%–1.0%

326

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.4 Chemical Composition of Various Fibers Commonly Used in Processed Meats Dietary Fiber (%) Food Groups Cereals

Purified cellulose

Legumes

Fruit and vegetables

Type

Total

Insoluble

Soluble

Oat fiber (minimal extraction)

85

81

<5

Oat fiber (fully extracted)

93

90

<3

Wheat fiber

93

91

<3

Cellulose (300 μm)

95

95

<1

Cellulose (20 μm)

95

95

<1

Soy fiber (from hulls)

90

89

<1

Soy fiber (cotyledon)

70

62

8

Pea fiber (cotyledon)

70

65

5

Carrot fiber

85

65

20

Citrus fiber

88

68

20

Potato fiber

69

56

6

Sugar beet fiber

68

48

20

(Modified from Bodner, J. M., & Sieg, J. (2009). Fiber. In: Tart
e, R. (Ed.), Ingredients in meat products, Springer, New York, pp. 83–109.)

Dietary fiber and fiber-rich ingredients from cereals (e.g., oat, rice, wheat), fruits (like apple, lemon, orange), legumes (e.g., soy, peas), roots (like carrot, sugar beet, konjac), and tubers (potato) have been used as ingredients in the manufacture of meat products essentially for technological purposes ( Jim
enez-Colmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). The main differences in chemical composition of fibers used in meat products are reported in Table 10.4. 10.4.2.1 Cereals Most usable dietary fiber sources for meat products are obtained from cereals, such as oat, wheat, rye, and rice. Due to the potential health benefits of oat fiber, with regard to β-glucans, there is an increasing interest toward its use as a functional ingredient in common meat products. Functional characteristics of oat fiber, especially water-holding capacity, could potentially benefit meat products by decreasing cooking losses and reducing fat content, such as in frankfurters and low-fat bologna, without loss of sensory acceptability in meat products (Kim & Paik, 2012; Talukder, 2015). When considering oat fiber, it is important to differentiate between milled oat bran, refined insoluble oat fiber extracted from oat hulls, and purified betaglucan (Bodner & Sieg, 2009). Following the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006: “Oat beta-glucan has been shown to lower/reduce blood cholesterol. Blood cholesterol lowering may reduce the risk of (coronary) heart disease”. In order to bear the claim, foods should provide at least 3 g of oat β-glucan per day. By including the proper amount of this fiber a meat producer could exploit not only the general claim about fiber content but also a specific health beneficial effect.

10.4 MAIN DIETARY FIBERS FOR MEAT PROCESSING

327

The water absorption capacity of oat fiber ranges from 250% to over 800%, depending upon the level of extraction applied in the manufacturing process. Oat fiber is available in colors from light tan to white. The more extracted versions have very little taste (Bodner & Sieg, 2009). Oat bran seems to be a proper fat substitute in ground beef and pork sausage products because of oat bran’s ability to gain water and compete for particle defi€ nition in ground meat in terms of texture and color (Ozbaş & Ardic¸, 2016). The decline in cooking loss is due to the absorbent nature of oat bran’s β-glucan, a component of oat bran that is hydrophilic and binds water. There is a great interest in increasing the consumption of oat-based products that contain both soluble dietary fiber and insoluble dietary fiber (Talukder, 2015). Barley is another excellent source of insoluble/soluble dietary fiber including β-glucan. Wheat bran, known as the best source of insoluble dietary fiber, was used to replace fat partially in the production of different meat products such as meatballs and beef patties, thereby decreasing the levels of cholesterol and improving their cooking yield, texture, and diameter € (Kim & Paik, 2012; Ozbaş & Ardic¸, 2016). In meat product development, wheat fiber binds water to give very stable emulsion, which remains so throughout the product processing and storage period. This property enables water to be added to emulsion for low-fat meat product development (Talukder, 2015). In Europe, an insoluble wheat fiber made from wheat straw has been widely used in meat products. This wheat fiber has very similar characteristics to fully extracted oat fiber. In fact, in most applications, wheat fiber and oat fiber with the same fiber length can be used interchangeably with little formula alteration as wheat fiber is bright in color with very little taste (Bodner & Sieg, 2009). Another source of bran incorporated in meat products is obtained from rye and rice bran (Kim & Paik, 2012). Generally when bran is added to meat products, it affects their composition since its composition is entirely different from meat. During thermal processing, bran undergoes changes in chemical composition and functional properties like water- and oilholding capacity, density, hydration time, and swelling. Thermal treatment of wheat bran caused an increase in soluble dietary fiber and a decrease in insoluble dietary fiber content (2.7% in raw to 5.6% in microwaved-drum dries-extruded bran). An increase of 20%–75% was observed in water-holding capacity. The addition of bran to meat products is known to increase the yield of the products due to uptake of free water by soluble dietary fiber (Talukder, 2015). 10.4.2.2 Legumes Soybeans and peas are both legumes and have very similar properties relative to the fibers produced from them (Bodner & Sieg, 2009). The extracted fibers from soybean and pea hulls are shorter and more cube-like rather than the long thread-like structures observed in oat and wheat fiber. As a result, the water absorption capability of soybean and pea fiber tends to be lower than that of oat and wheat fiber (Kim & Paik, 2012). Inner pea fiber is identified as an ingredient capable of retaining water and manufactured from the inner cell wall of yellow field peas. It contains approximately 48% fiber with a residual starch content from 20% to 40%. Moreover, this source was used in dry form to lower fat content in beef patties, which resulted in improved tenderness and cooking yield (Talukder, 2015).

328

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

10.4.2.3 Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and vegetables are good sources of dietary fiber, making fruit and vegetable waste a good option to recover dietary fiber (Ahmad & Khalid, 2018). Dietary fiber fractions of fruits and vegetable by-products have a great potential in the preparation of meat products as health promoting functional food (Kim & Paik, 2012). The apple and pear juice industries produce tons of waste material that contain valuable fiber sources and may be used as a valuable food ingredient. These materials mainly comprise cellulosic and hemicellulosic substances, along with lignin and pectin. If used in food products, they have great water-holding capacity (Ahmad & Khalid, 2018). The dietary fiber from citrus fruits contains a high proportion of soluble dietary fiber, as compared to conventional alternative sources of fiber like cereals (Kim & Paik, 2012; Lundberg et al., 2014; Mehta et al., 2015). As a vegetable fiber, carrot fiber is a relatively new fiber to find the application in meat products. Its high-water absorption capability makes it useful for many meat applications, but like many mixtures of soluble and insoluble fibers, the oil absorptions are relatively modest (Bodner & Sieg, 2009; Kim & Paik, 2012). Peach fiber incorporation as a fat replacer might be a good way to produce fiber-rich and lower fat products. Peach fiber has shown higher water-holding capacity in low-fat products with higher added water retention. No changes were observed in the textural attributes with € the addition of lower levels of peach fiber (Ozbaş & Ardic¸, 2016). Moreover, when peach fiber was incorporated in frankfurters, it reduced their pH, and it further decreased as the level of incorporation increased (Mehta et al., 2015; Talukder, 2015). Introduced in food manufacturing as a dietary fiber source, sugar beet fiber has been produced from sugar beet pulp collected from the saccharose extraction process. Generally, the introduction of sugar beet fiber significantly increased the level of total dietary fiber and € water-holding capacity (Ozbaş and Ardic¸, 2016). 10.4.2.4 Soluble Dietary Fibers The functionality and application of soluble fibers in meat products include a wide range of fiber ingredients (Kim & Paik, 2012). The development of new sources of dietary fiber has opened up new prospects in the field of fiber-enriched fresh meat products ( Jim
enezColmenero & Delgado Pando, 2013). € Inulin has been used as a functional ingredient in meat and poultry products (Ozbaş & Ardic¸, 2016; Yousefi, Khorshidian, & Hosseini, 2018). Inulin is an oligosaccharide that belongs to a group of carbohydrates known as fructans (Mensink, Frijlink, van der Voort Maarschalk, & Hinrichs, 2015; Meyer & Blaauwhoed, 2009; Yousefi et al., 2018). Inulin is a soluble fiber extracted by a washing process from chicory roots (Kim & Paik, 2012). Another commercial source for inulin is agave, which is usually available as an organic ingredient since agave can easily grow in its natural environment without the use of any chemicals. Commonly, inulin is used as a prebiotic, fat replacer, sugar replacer, texture modifier, and for the development of functional foods in order to improve health due to its beneficial role in gastric health. The wide use of inulin in the food sector is based on its techno-functional attributes. Healthproduct developers are interested in inulin because it concurrently responds to a range of consumer requirements: fiber-enriched, prebiotic, low fat, and low sugar (Shoaib et al., 2016).

10.5 MAIN APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

329

Inulin and FOS showed prebiotic properties, especially bifidogenic effect, by improving the growth of advantageous bacteria, principally bifidobacterial, and by suppressing growth of detrimental the ones (Yousefi et al., 2018). Inulin has a linear structure consisting mainly of fructose units linked by β (2–1) glycosidic linkage, and it is added to meat products mainly for fat replacement because it forms a stable network that can mimic some textural properties of fat in low-fat meat products. By this mode of fat substitution, it is possible to achieve acceptable textural and sensory properties because they can develop a particulate gel in the presence of water, and thus alter the product texture and provide a fat-like mouthfeel (Kim & Paik, 2012; Shoaib et al., 2016; Yousefi et al., 2018). The inulin gel properties, regardless of structure, depend on temperature, concentration, and the degree of polymerization. In total, inulin gel provides a spreadable creamy texture that mimics the oral sensation of fat in products (Yousefi et al., 2018). With the use of fat replacers in meat products, more less-fat meat products are available, offering a juicy, creamy mouthfeel with an enhanced firmness due to water control. The addition of inulin to meat products like sausages could be an attraction to health-conscious consumers. The addition of inulin to sausages results in reduced fat content, improved texture, and sensorial appraisal. Fructan analysis suggested that the inulin remained stable during processing and successive heat treatment (Shoaib et al., 2016; Yousefi et al., 2018). Another soluble dietary fiber used for meat products is FOS, recognized as a natural food ingredient and considered as a prototype prebiotic that stimulates the growth of colonic microflora (Kim & Paik, 2012). Psyllium, a mucilaginous material prepared from seed husks of Plantago genus plants, is an excellent source of soluble fiber (Farahnaky, Askari, Majzoobi, & Mesbahi, 2010). Dietary fiber from psyllium has been extensively used both as pharmacological supplements to control weight, regulate glucose levels for diabetic patients, and reduce serum lipids levels in hypolipidemics. There are still other utilizations of this polysaccharide due to its special physicochemical and rheological properties (Nie, Cui, & Xie, 2018). Interestingly, psyllium polysaccharide could form a gel when it is dissolved in aqueous solutions, so it can be used as a powerful gelling agent and viscosifier in meat product development. In production of meat analogue from plant protein, addition of psyllium mucilloid aids in modifying the texture to impart a meat-like chewiness (Talukder, 2015).

10.5 MAIN APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS During the last decades, many studies have been conducted on the use of dietary fibers as alternative functional ingredients in meat product formulation (Table 10.5). Most of the studies have aimed to improve the nutritional profile of meat products by reducing fat and cholesterol content as well as ameliorating consumer perception by replacing nonclean label ingredients. From the literature and practical experience, the main technical issues related to the use of fibers in meat products can be summarized according to the application as follows: (i) for minced meat and finely comminuted meat products (i.e., sausages, hamburgers, and meat balls), fiber is used to improve water-holding capacity during processing and

330

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.5 Main Published Studies on the Applications of Dietary Fibers Included as Ingredient in Meat and Poultry Products Food Group

Dietary Fiber Source

Meat Product

Impact on Product

References

Cereals

Barley

Pork sausages and beef meatballs

Increase frying losses (only in pork sausages) and modify texture (lower firmness and compactness)

Petersson, Godard, Eliasson, and Tornberg (2014a)

Oat flour

Beef patties

Increase moisture and fat retention, modify color (higher lightness and yellowness and lower redness), increase juiciness

Serdaroglu (2006)

Cooked chicken kofta

Increase yield and moisture retention, modify texture (higher hardness, springiness and gumminess), increase oxidative stability

Prasad, Rashmi, Yashoda, and Modi (2011)

Chinesestyle pork sausages

Modify color (higher lightness) and texture (higher hardness and lower gumminess)

Huang, Tsai, and Chen (2011)

Chicken burger

Slight impact on color, good swelling, and emulsifying capacities

Huber, Francio, Biasi, Mezzomo, and Ferreira (2016)

Oat (β-glucans)

Beef patties

Improve cooking yield, moisture and fat retention, and juiciness

Pin˜ero et al. (2008)

Oat bran

Chicken meat patties

Improve water holding capacity and emulsion stability, reduce overall sensory acceptability

Talukder and Sharma (2010)

Pork sausages and beef meatballs

Maintain/control frying losses and texture (same firmness only in pork sausages)

Petersson et al. (2014a)

Oatmeal (hydrated)

Pork sausage

Reduce cooking loss, modify texture (lower hardness, cohesiveness, and gumminess), increase overall sensory acceptability

Yang, Choi, Jeon, Park, and Joo (2007)

Rice bran

Meatballs (veal)

Modify texture (increase firmness), reduces sensory overall acceptability

Hu and Yu (2015)

Meatballs (pork)

Increase water holding capacity, impacts sensory profile

Kehlet, Pagter, Aaslyng, and Raben (2017)

Oat

331

10.5 MAIN APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.5 Main Published Studies on the Applications of Dietary Fibers Included as Ingredient in Meat and Poultry Products—cont’d Food Group

Dietary Fiber Source

Meat Product

Impact on Product

References

Frozen beef patties

Improve moisture and fat retention, cooking yield, modify sensory traits (higher juiciness and tenderness)

Yi et al. (2012)

Ground pork patties

Improve moisture and fat retention, cooking yield, modify texture (lower harness and cohesiveness), improve sensory traits

Gao, Zhang, and Zhou (2014)

Rice by-products (makgeolli lees)

Frankfurter pork sausage

Improve moisture and fat retention, modify texture (increase hardness and gumminess) and sensory traits (increase juiciness and tenderness)

Choi et al. (2014)

Rye bran

Pork sausages and beef meatballs

Increase total frying losses and modify texture (lower firmness)

Petersson et al. (2014a)

Rye bran (after enzymatic treatment)

Pork sausages and beef meatballs

Decrease total frying losses when compared with untreated rye bran, water holding capacity and texture not improved

Petersson, Godard, Eliasson, and Tornberg (2014b)

Wheat

Chinesestyle pork sausage

Modify color (higher lightness and yellowness) and texture (higher hardness and lower gumminess)

Huang et al. (2011)

Frankfurter sausage

Improve water holding capacity and emulsion stability, modify texture (higher hardness, gumminess and cohesiveness, and lower springiness) and color (lower lightness and higher yellowness), sensory traits not affected

Choe, Kim, Lee, Kim, and Kim (2013)

Chicken burger

Slight impact on color, high swelling, and emulsifying capacities

Huber et al. (2016)

Meatballs (veal)

Modify texture (higher hardness) and color (higher lightness and lower yellowness), reduce overall sensory acceptability if inclusion rate is greater than 2%

Yılmaz (2005)

Rice (glutinous)

Wheat bran

Continued

332

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.5 Main Published Studies on the Applications of Dietary Fibers Included as Ingredient in Meat and Poultry Products—cont’d Food Group

Legumes

Dietary Fiber Source

Meat Product

Impact on Product

References

Cooked beef patties

Modify texture (higher hardness, gumminess, lower springiness)

Sarıc¸oban, Yılmaz, and Karakaya (2009)

Chicken meat patties

Reduce cholesterol, improve water holding capacity and emulsion stability, reduce overall sensory acceptability

Talukder and Sharma (2010)

Chicken sausages

Increase cook yield, modify texture (higher hardness and gumminess, lower cohesiveness), reduce overall sensory acceptability if inclusion rate is greater than 6%

Yadav, Pathera, Islam, Malik, and Sharma (2018)

Wheat sprout powder

Beef burgers

Increase oxidative stability, modify color (lower lightness, higher redness, and yellowness), decrease overall sensory acceptability

Ozturk, Sagdic, Tornuk, and Yetim (2014)

Bambara nut flour

Beef patties

Reduce moisture, fat and cooking loss, microbial shelf-life and sensory properties not affected

Alakali, Irtwange, and Mzer (2010)

Pea

Bologna pork sausages

Reduce cooking and purge losses, modify texture (lower hardness and springiness) and color (lower lightness) and higher redness), lower overall sensory acceptability

Pietrasik and Janz (2010)

Beef patties

Improve water holding capacity, cooking yield, and sensory quality

Besbes, Attia, Deroanne, Makni, and Blecker (2008)

Bologna pork sausages

Reduce cooking and purge losses, modify color (lower lightness and higher redness), texture, and overall sensory acceptability maintained

Pietrasik and Janz (2010)

Chicken burger

Slight impact on color, high swelling capacity, and moderate emulsifying capacity

Huber et al. (2016)

Meatballs (pork)

Increase water holding capacity, impact sensory profile

Kehlet et al. (2017)

333

10.5 MAIN APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.5 Main Published Studies on the Applications of Dietary Fibers Included as Ingredient in Meat and Poultry Products—cont’d Food Group

Fruits and vegetables

Dietary Fiber Source

Meat Product

Impact on Product

References

Pea hull

Chicken nuggets

Modify color (reduce lightness and redness) and texture (lower hardness and higher cohesiveness), decrease overall sensory acceptability if inclusion rate is greater than 8%

Verma, Banerjee, and Sharma (2015)

Soybean hulls

Chicken nuggets

Increase emulsion stability and cooking yield, modify texture (higher hardness, springiness and gumminess) and color (higher lightness and lower redness), reduce overall sensory acceptability, microbial shelflife, and lipid oxidation are not affected

Kumar, Biswas, Sahoo, Chatli, and Sivakumar (2013)

Banana (green) (used together with pork skin as replacement of pork back fat)

Chicken nuggets

Improve emulsion stability and cooking yield

Kumar et al. (2013)

Frankfurter pork sausage

Improve water holding capacity and emulsion stability, modify texture (reduced hardness, springiness, and gumminess) sensory traits are not affected until 60% replacement rate

dos Santos Alves et al. (2016)

Chicken nuggets

Increase emulsion stability and cooking yield, modify texture (higher hardness, cohesiveness, and gumminess) and color (higher lightness and yellowness and lower redness), reduce overall sensory acceptability, microbial shelflife and lipid oxidation are not affected

Kumar et al. (2013)

Beet root

Cooked chicken products

Modify texture (higher hardness and gumminess), while color and lipid oxidation are not affected

Cava, Ladero, Cantero, and Rosario Ramı´rez (2012)

Carrot

Dry pork fermented sausage

Increase color variation during ripening, modify texture (increase hardness), reduce overall sensory acceptability if inclusion rate is greater than 3%–5%

Eim, Simal, Rossello´, and Femenia (2008); Eim, Simal, Rossello´, Femenia, and Bon (2013)

Continued

334

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.5 Main Published Studies on the Applications of Dietary Fibers Included as Ingredient in Meat and Poultry Products—cont’d Food Group

Meat Product

Impact on Product

References

Pork sausages

Improve emulsion stability and texture

Grossi, Søltoft-Jensen, Knudsen, Christensen, and Orlien (2011)

Carrot pomace

Chicken sausages

Increase cook yield and emulsion stability, modify texture (higher hardness and gumminess, lower cohesiveness, and springiness), reduce overall sensory acceptability if inclusion rate is greater than 6%

Yadav et al. (2018)

Cashew apple (washed)

Chicken patties

Increase cooking yield

Guedes-Oliveira, Salgado, Costa-Lima, Guedes-Oliveira, and Conte-Junior (2016)

Grape

Chicken burgers

Modify texture (higher hardness, springiness, and gumminess) and color (lower lightness and yellowness and higher redness), reduce lipid oxidation

Sa´yago-Ayerdi, Brenes, and Gon˜i (2009)

Inulin

Chinesestyle pork sausages

Modify color (higher lightness), texture is not affected

Huang et al. (2011)

Dry fermented chicken sausages

Modify color (lower lightness, higher redness) and texture (higher hardness and adhesiveness, lower springiness and cohesiveness)

Menegas, Pimentel, Garcia, and Prudencio (2013)

Beef minced meat

Modify texture (lower hardness) and reduce sensory consistency

Rodriguez Furla´n, Padilla, and Campderro´s (2014)

Pork sausages

Decrease cook loss and improve emulsion stability, modify instrumental and sensory tenderness (higher hardness)

Keenan, Resconi, Kerry, and Hamill (2014)

Pork meat batter

Texture and water holding capacity are not affected

Han and Bertram (2017)

Pork sausages

Contribute to reduce impact on sensory traits following fat reduction

Tomaschunas et al. (2013)

Dietary Fiber Source

Inulin + citrus

TABLE 10.5 Main Published Studies on the Applications of Dietary Fibers Included as Ingredient in Meat and Poultry Products—cont’d Food Group

Dietary Fiber Source

Meat Product

Impact on Product

References

Lemon albedo

Bologna pork sausages

Improve cooking yield, slight color modification when raw albedo is used, sensory traits no affected until 5%/7.5% substitution level

Ferna´ndez-Gin
es et al. (2004)

Linseed flour

Beef burgers

Reduce cook loss, modify color (lower lightness and redness) and texture (lower hardness, elasticity, and cohesiveness), decrease overall sensory acceptability

Valenzuela Melendres et al. (2014)

Olive (destoned) cake powder

Beef patties

Increase protein and fat, improve moisture and fat retention and oxidative stability, sensory traits are reduced

Hawashin, Al-Juhaimi, Ahmed, Ghafoor, and Babiker (2016)

Orange

Dry sheep fermented sausage (sucuk)

Reduce cooking loss, modify color (higher lightness and yellowness), reduce oxidative stability, overall sensory acceptability reduced if inclusion rate is greater than 2%

Yalınkılıc¸, Kaban, and Kaya (2012)

Pineapple

Beef sausages

Increase purge loss, affected, modify texture (lower hardness, gumminess, and springiness) and color (higher lightness and yellowness and lower redness)

Henning, Tshalibe, and Hoffman (2016)

Pineapple (peel and pomace)

Beef burgers

Improve moisture and fat retention, modify texture (higher hardness) and color (lower lightness and redness)

Selani et al. (2016)

Potato

Beef sausages

Decrease cook loss, modify texture (lower hardness, springiness, adhesiveness, and cohesiveness)

Ktari, Smaoui, Trabelsi, Nasri, and Salah (2014)

Chicken burger

Slight impact on color, low swelling, and emulsifying capacities

Huber et al. (2016)

Pork meat batter

Increase moisture and fat retention, modify texture (higher hardness and gumminess, lower springiness, and cohesiveness) and color (higher lightness and yellowness and lower redness), decrease overall sensory

Zhuang et al. (2016)

Sugar cane

Continued

336

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

TABLE 10.5 Main Published Studies on the Applications of Dietary Fibers Included as Ingredient in Meat and Poultry Products—cont’d Food Group

Dietary Fiber Source

Meat Product

Impact on Product

References

acceptability if inclusion rate is greater than 2% Tiger nut

Pork burgers

Increase moisture and fat retention, modify texture (lower hardness and gumminess, higher springiness) and color (higher lightness and yellowness and lower redness)

Sa´nchez-Zapata et al. (2010)

Tomato

Cooked emulsifiedtype chicken products

Modify texture (higher hardness and gumminess), while color and lipid oxidation are not affected

Cava et al. (2012)

Tomato peel powder

Pork sausages

Modify texture (reduce hardness) and color depending on technology used for crashing tomato peel, reduce lipid oxidation

Wang et al. (2016)

Yellow fruit passion albedo

Pork burgers

Increase moisture and fat retention, modify texture (higher hardness and gumminess) and lightness (higher in raw burgers and lower in cooked burgers), lipid oxidation, microbial shelf-life, and sensory traits slightly affected

Lo´pez-Vargas, Ferna´ndez-Lo´pez, ´ lvarez, and P
erez-A Viuda-Martos (2014)

Short-chain fructooligosaccharides

Dry fermented pork sausage

Modify color (increase lightness) and texture (increase hardness)

Salazar, Garcı´a, and Selgas (2009)

shelf-life of raw products as well as to improve the sensory traits after cooking (i.e., increasing the juiciness and tenderness). For this kind of application, some of the most frequently used products are complex balanced fibers with insoluble and soluble fractions or residual starch that can assist the water-holding capacity during both shelflife and final cooking by end-users; (ii) for chicken nuggets and poultry-breaded patties, different types of fibers can be used in order to increase water-holding capacity, enhance the bite in mechanically deboned meatbased formulations, increase juiciness and tenderness of lean products (i.e., breast meat products), and also retard the migration of water from the cooked meat matrix to the coating system (i.e., predust/battering/breading);

10.5 MAIN APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

337

(iii) for marinated or injected meats, fine fibers with good dispersion ability (i.e., citrus and inulin) to enhance water-holding capacity, juiciness, tenderness and overall acceptability after cooking are mainly used; (iv) for emulsified meat products like frankfurters and bologna-style products, both complex insoluble/soluble fibers (i.e., citrus, potato, pea, carrot) are used to increase cooking yield and fat emulsification; also, simple insoluble fibers (i.e., bamboo or wheat fibers with fiber length up to 200 μm) that retard fat coalescence in the meat batter and increase the bite after cooking are used. Many studies have been conducted on evaluating inclusion of different sources of dietary fibers in minced meat and finely comminuted beef and veal meat products (patties, meatballs, and sausages) marketed either fresh or frozen. Ground beef meat products are very popular worldwide, with increasing consumption. However, these products provide large amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol that are associated with several chronic diseases. Due to this, the beef industry is greatly interested in developing low-fat products. For this reason, many studies have been carried out to evaluate the incorporation of dietary fibers as a formulation strategy to reduce the content of fat and cholesterol in ground beef and veal meat products. Overall, it has been largely proved that dietary fibers obtained by cereals (Hu & Yu, 2015; Ozturk et al., 2014; Petersson et al., 2014a, 2014b; Pin˜ero et al., 2008; Sarıc¸oban et al., 2009; Serdaroglu, 2006; Yi et al., 2012; Yılmaz, 2005) and legumes (Alakali et al., 2010; Besbes et al., 2008) can be profitably used for manufacturing low-fat and low-cholesterol ground beef and veal meat products. However, fat reduction can significantly affect sensory acceptability and textural properties of the products. Major challenges have been found in color changes (Ozturk et al., 2014; Serdaroglu, 2006), texture modifications detected by instrumental tools (Hu & Yu, 2015; Yılmaz, 2005), and sensory taste and acceptability (Hu & Yu, 2015; Ozturk et al., 2014; Pin˜ero et al., 2008; Yılmaz, 2005). In addition, dietary fibers obtained as by-products from fruits such as olives (Hawashin et al., 2016) and pineapple (Henning et al., 2016; Selani et al., 2016) as well as vegetables like linseed (Valenzuela Melendres et al., 2014), potato (Ktari et al., 2014) and inulin (Rodriguez Furla´n et al., 2014) have been employed to improve the nutritional profile and reduce costs of beef products. Again, major issues arise from appearance, textural modifications, and taste, which can impact consumers’ purchase willingness and satisfaction (Table 10.5). The use of dietary fibers also has been extensively evaluated in pork meat products with the same purpose of improving the nutritional and perceived health quality. Just as in beef products, many studies have been conducted on ground pork meat products like meatballs (Kehlet et al., 2017), patties (Gao et al., 2014; Lo´pez-Vargas et al., 2014; Sa´nchez-Zapata et al., 2010), and especially sausages (Grossi et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2011; Keenan et al., 2014; Petersson et al., 2014a, 2014b; Tomaschunas et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2007), which are very popular in Europe, North America, and China. Overall, these studies agree that there are considerable challenges in maintaining acceptable sensory quality when the fiber addition exceeds 5%–10%, even though they enhance water-holding capacity and decrease cooking losses. When pea (Kehlet et al., 2017), tiger nut (Sa´nchez-Zapata et al., 2010), tomato peel powder (Wang et al., 2016), and yellow fruit passion albedo (Lo´pezVargas et al., 2014) are added, appearance is also adversely affected. In addition, many applications of dietary fibers have been investigated in emulsion-type meat products

338

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

(frankfurters and bologna) (Choe et al., 2013; Choi et al., 2014; dos Santos Alves et al., 2016; Ferna´ndez-Gin
es et al., 2004; Han & Bertram, 2017; Pietrasik & Janz, 2010; Zhuang et al., 2016), which are commonly manufactured by using pork meat. In emulsified products, incorporation of dietary fibers was proposed as effective fat-replacement strategy, while, as expected, the major impact was on textural properties (especially hardness, gumminess, and springiness). As well, carrot fiber (Eim et al., 2008; Eim et al., 2013) and short-chain FOS (Salazar et al., 2009) have been used to increase functional properties of dry fermented sausages (Table 10.5). Following the increasing trend of poultry meat consumption as alternative to red meats, during the last decade many studies have also been conducted on coarse ground chicken meat products having improved health-perceived properties such as low saturated fatty acids, cholesterol, and fat content (Guedes-Oliveira et al., 2016; Huber et al., 2016; Prasad et al., 2011; Talukder & Sharma, 2010; Yadav et al., 2018). Overall, advantages and challenges on technological and sensory properties agree with those obtained in analogous products manufactured with beef and pork. In addition, pea hull (Verma et al., 2015), green banana, and soybean hull flours (Kumar et al., 2013) have been tested for manufacturing chicken nuggets with good outcomes, even if color and textural properties were profoundly changed. It was also demonstrated that tomato can be used in chicken emulsified-type products to improve oxidative stability (Cava et al., 2012), while inulin was employed to enrich dryfermented chicken sausages (Menegas et al., 2013) (Table 10.5).

10.5.1 Minced Meat and Finely Comminuted Meat Products Vegetable fibers are the perfect functional ingredient for minced meat products (i.e., sausages, hamburgers, meat balls, and loaves) and finely comminuted meat products (i.e., restructured roasts from grinded or finely comminuted meat). In fact, the fiber is perfectly incorporated into the meat matrix during processing on a meat paddle mixer or bowl chopper, and it builds up a kind of network among the meat particles that act as a sponge, a gelling agent, and a glue at the same time. The main goal to achieve during minced meat product fabrication is to assist the retention of the meat juice that is naturally expelled by the meat during shelf-life as a result of cell damage and natural drip formation, as well as to have a stable binding of the extra added water. Another important goal is to produce a good binding among the meat particles in order to assist forming of meat batter during burger or breaded patties processing, packaging, and manipulation by the final consumer (Barbut, 2012; Petracci et al., 2013). Finally, when using a lean dry meat mince (i.e., from chicken breast, pork loin, very lean beef), the use of fiber can help improve the juiciness and mouthfeel after cooking, and it helps to open up the cooked product texture, increasing the “crumbliness” and tenderness and avoiding the formation of a not pleasant, heavy-packed cooked meat structure. For finely comminuted meat products (i.e., restructured roasts), the most important functionality is represented by water-holding capacity/yield improvement and binding among comminuted meat in order to have a uniform and homogenous slice after cooking (Barbut, 2015; Petracci et al., 2013). For this kind of application, complex balanced fibers with insoluble and soluble fractions or residual starch that can assist the water-holding capacity during

10.5 MAIN APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

339

cooking and shelf-life also improve the sensory traits after cooking (i.e., increasing the juiciness and tenderness). Citrus, carrot, pea, and potato fibers alone or coupled with insoluble fibers from bamboo or other sources can also be used for this purpose. The amount of fiber added to the meat batter generally spans from 0.5%–2% based on the type of fiber, recipe, type of meat, and required functionality. For fresh minced meat products like burgers, patties, meat balls, and loaves, it is very common to use vegetable fibers with other fillers such as breadcrumbs, potato flakes, flours, or texturized proteins to lower recipe costs.

10.5.2 Chicken Nuggets and Poultry Breaded Items Chicken nuggets and poultry-breaded patties are a family of heterogeneous products with different technical issues to fulfill during formulation (Barbut, 2012). Vegetable fibers can help achieve the right functionality according to final product expectations. Some of the main factors to consider during chicken nugget formulation are: (i) type of meat (i.e., from fatty and fine mechanically deboned meat to lean and fibrous breast meat); (ii) production technology (i.e., convection vs steam oven cooking; fried or not fried items); (iii) target formulation cost (from very cheap mechanically deboned meat-based products to premium white breast meat-based products) (Barbut, 2015). Many types of fibers can be used in order to increase water-holding capacity, enhance the bite in mechanically deboned meat-based formulations, or increase juiciness and tenderness of lean products (i.e., breast meat products). Other beneficial side effects of fibers in breaded items is to retard the migration of moisture from the cooked meat to the coating system (i.e., predust/battering/breading) during shelf-life that is detrimental for the final product crunchiness and superficial mold growth. Insoluble fibers with medium to long granule size (i.e., from 90 to 200 μm) can be used to add bite and stabilize fats into mechanically deboned meat-based products where it is necessary to build up extra fibrousness in the meat matrix. Rich ingredients are adopted in order to increase the juiciness, tenderness, and mouthfeel of chicken nuggets formulated with lean meats (i.e., breast meat). Some specialty very fine and water-dispersible fibers (i.e., micronized citrus fibers like the commercially available Citri-Fi®, Fiberstar, Inc.) can be used for breaded marinated whole chicken breast muscles or cut-up parts like inner fillet (P. minor) or breast meat (P. major) slices by dispersing the fiber directly into the marinating brine.

10.5.3 Marinated or Injected Meats Marinated and injected meats are a category of meat products that span from whole muscles (i.e., high-quality pork, cooked ham, or premium turkey whole breast), muscle parts (i.e., chunks or slices) as well as cut-up parts that are enhanced with a brine by means of a simple tumbling process or injection followed by tumbling. In both technologies, there is the possibility to add a tenderizing phase (i.e., by using needles or blades) to speed up brine pickup and improve protein extraction and tenderness.

340

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

Another type of meat product that can be considered under this category is represented by restructured products where big meat chunks or coarse grinded meat (i.e., 50 mm hole grinding plate) is tumbled and stuffed into casing before cooking in order to yield restructured hams and roasts (i.e., restructured pork ham or turkey rolls) (Barbut, 2015; O’Grady & Kerry, 2010; Williams, 2011). Traditionally, cook-up starches, carrageenan, animal proteins (i.e., sodium caseinate or pork collagen), vegetable proteins (i.e., soy or pea protein isolates), or other hydrocolloids are the most frequently used ingredients for this application since they do not modify too much but gel during meat cooking, retaining water in the meat (i.e., restructured cooked hams with up to 100% (w/w) extension). Vegetable fibers were not traditionally applied because of their thickening behavior in cold conditions that can excessively increase the brine viscosity. Moreover, the expanded fibers can have a particle size that determines problems during injection (i.e., needle filling). The new achievements in micronizing techniques as well as innovative fibers introduced into the market made possible new applications of vegetable fibers for marinated and injected meats in the last few years. Some examples of fibers used in marinated or injected meat include micronized (i.e., 30–40 μm) insoluble fibers (i.e., derived from bamboo, wheat, or oat) as well as fibers with a residual of native starch like inner pea fibers or potato fibers. Another example of commercially available specialty fiber for meat marination and injection is the citrus fiber Citri-Fi® (Fiberstar, Inc.) that is claimed to be suitable for injected and marinated meats for yield improvement, phosphate replacement, and to improve sensory properties (i.e., juiciness). This fiber is very fine and water dispersible so that it can be added directly to the brine premixed with other functional ingredients, salts, and sugars. Moreover, due to its ability to emulsify fats, it can be used for the preparation of oil-in-water marinades to add extra condiments and flavor to the meat.

References Ahmad, A., & Khalid, N. (2018). Dietary fibers in modern food production: a special perspective with β-glucans. In A. M. Holban (Ed.), Grumezescu, A (pp. 125–156). Biopolymers for food design: Academic Press. Alakali, J. S., Irtwange, S. V., & Mzer, M. T. (2010). Quality evaluation of beef patties formulated with bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranean L.) seed flour. Meat Science, 85(2), 215–223. Asioli, D., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Caputo, V., Vecchio, R., Annunziata, A., Næs, T., et al. (2017). Making sense of the “clean label” trends: a review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Research International, 99, 58–71. Balestra, F., & Petracci, M. (2018). Techno-functional ingredients for meat products: current challenges. In C. Galanakis (Ed.), Sustainable meat production and processing (pp. 45–68). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing. Barbut, S. (2012). Convenience breaded poultry meat products–new developments. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 26(1), 14–20. Barbut, S. (2015). The science of poultry and meat processing. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. Barbut, S. (2017). Ingredient addition and impacts on quality, health, and consumer acceptance. In M. Petracci & C. Berri (Eds.), Poultry and quality evaluation (pp. 291–311). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing. Besbes, S., Attia, H., Deroanne, C., Makni, S., & Blecker, C. (2008). Partial replacement of meat by pea fiber and wheat fiber: effect on the chemical composition, cooking characteristics and sensory properties of beef burgers. Journal of Food Quality, 31(4), 480–489. Bodner, J. M., & Sieg, J. (2009). Fiber. In R. Tart
e (Ed.), Ingredients in meat products (pp. 83–109). New York: Springer. Cava, R., Ladero, L., Cantero, V., & Rosario Ramı´rez, M. (2012). Assessment of different dietary fibers (tomato fiber, beet root fiber, and inulin) for the manufacture of chopped cooked chicken products. Journal of Food Science, 77(4), C346–C352.

REFERENCES

341

Chauhan, S. S., & England, E. M. (2018). Postmortem glycolysis and glycogenolysis: insights from species comparisons. Meat Science, 144, 118–126. Cheung, T. T. L., Junghans, A. F., Dijksterhuis, G. B., Kroese, F., Johansson, P., Hall, L., et al. (2016). Consumers’ choice-blindness to ingredient information. Appetite, 106, 2–12. Choe, J. H., Kim, H. Y., Lee, J. M., Kim, Y. J., & Kim, C. J. (2013). Quality of frankfurter-type sausages with added pig skin and wheat fiber mixture as fat replacers. Meat Science, 93(4), 849–854. Choi, Y. S., Kim, H. W., Hwang, K. E., Song, D. H., Choi, J. H., Lee, M. A., et al. (2014). Physicochemical properties and sensory characteristics of reduced-fat frankfurters with pork back fat replaced by dietary fiber extracted from makgeolli lees. Meat Science, 96(2), 892–900. dos Santos Alves, L. A. A., Lorenzo, J. M., Gonc¸alves, C. A. A., dos Santos, B. A., Heck, R. T., Cichoski, A. J., et al. (2016). Production of healthier bologna type sausages using pork skin and green banana flour as a fat replacers. Meat Science, 121, 73–78. Eim, V. S., Simal, S., Rossello´, C., & Femenia, A. (2008). Effects of addition of carrot dietary fibre on the ripening process of a dry fermented sausage (sobrassada). Meat Science, 80(2), 173–182. Eim, V. S., Simal, S., Rossello´, C., Femenia, A., & Bon, J. (2013). Optimisation of the addition of carrot dietary fibre to a dry fermented sausage (sobrassada) using artificial neural networks. Meat Science, 94(3), 341–348. Farahnaky, A., Askari, H., Majzoobi, M., & Mesbahi, G. (2010). The impact of concentration, temperature and pH on dynamic rheology of psyllium gels. Journal of Food Engineering, 100(2), 294–301. Feiner, G. (2006a). Additives: phosphates, salts (sodium chloride and potassium chloride, citrate, lactate) and hydrocolloids. In Meat products handbook—practical science and technology (pp. 72–88). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing. Feiner, G. (2006b). Additives: proteins, carbohydrates, fillers and other additives. In Meat products handbook—Practical science and technology (pp. 89–141). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing Limited. ´ lvarez, J. A. (2004). Lemon Ferna´ndez-Gin
es, J. M., Ferna´ndez-Lo´pez, J., Sayas-Barbera´, E., Sendra, E., & P
erez-A albedo as a new source of dietary fiber: application to bologna sausages. Meat Science, 67(1), 7–13. Fletcher, D. L. (2004). Further processing of poultry. In G. C. Mead (Ed.), Poultry meat processing and quality (pp. 108–134). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Font-i-Furnols, M., & Guerrero, L. (2014). Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Science, 98(3), 361–371. Gao, X., Zhang, W., & Zhou, G. (2014). Effects of glutinous rice flour on the physiochemical and sensory qualities of ground pork patties. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 58(1), 135–141. Givens, D. I., Gibbs, R. A., Rymer, C., & Brown, R. H. (2011). Effect of intensive vs. free range production on the fat and fatty acid composition of whole birds and edible portions of retail chickens in the UK. Food Chemistry, 127(4), 1549–1554. Grossi, A., Søltoft-Jensen, J., Knudsen, J. C., Christensen, M., & Orlien, V. (2011). Synergistic cooperation of high pressure and carrot dietary fibre on texture and colour of pork sausages. Meat Science, 89(2), 195–201. Guedes-Oliveira, J. M., Salgado, R. L., Costa-Lima, B. R., Guedes-Oliveira, J., & Conte-Junior, C. A. (2016). Washed cashew apple fiber (Anacardium occidentale L.) as fat replacer in chicken patties. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 71, 268–273. Han, M., & Bertram, H. C. (2017). Designing healthier comminuted meat products: effect of DFs on water distribution and texture of a fat-reduced meat model system. Meat Science, 133, 159–165. Hawashin, M. D., Al-Juhaimi, F., Ahmed, I. A. M., Ghafoor, K., & Babiker, E. E. (2016). Physicochemical, microbiological and sensory evaluation of beef patties incorporated with destoned olive cake powder. Meat Science, 122, 32–39. Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V. C., & Troy, D. (2014). Meat consumption: trends and quality matters. Meat Science, 98(3), 561–568. Henning, S. S. C., Tshalibe, P., & Hoffman, L. C. (2016). Physico-chemical properties of reduced-fat beef species sausage with pork back fat replaced by pineapple dietary fibres and water. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 74, 92–98. Hu, G., & Yu, W. (2015). Effect of hemicellulose from rice bran on low fat meatballs chemical and functional properties. Food Chemistry, 186, 239–243. Huang, S. C., Tsai, Y. F., & Chen, C. M. (2011). Effects of wheat fiber, oat fiber, and inulin on sensory and physicochemical properties of Chinese-style sausages. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 24(6), 875–880. Huber, E., Francio, D. L., Biasi, V., Mezzomo, N., & Ferreira, S. R. S. (2016). Characterization of vegetable fiber and its use in chicken burger formulation. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 53(7), 3043–3052.

342

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

Jim
enez-Colmenero, F., & Delgado Pando, G. (2013). Fibre-enriched meat products. In J. A. Delcour & K. Poutanen (Eds.), Fibre-rich and wholegrain foods-improving quality (pp. 329–347). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing Limited. Keenan, D. F., Resconi, V. C., Kerry, J. P., & Hamill, R. M. (2014). Modelling the influence of inulin as a fat substitute in comminuted meat products on their physico-chemical characteristics and eating quality using a mixture design approach. Meat Science, 96(3), 1384–1394. Keeton, J. T. (2001). Formed and emulsion products. In A. R. Sams (Ed.), Poultry meat processing (pp. 195–226). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Kehlet, U., Pagter, M., Aaslyng, M. D., & Raben, A. (2017). Meatballs with 3% and 6% dietary fibre from rye bran or pea fibre—effects on sensory quality and subjective appetite sensations. Meat Science, 125, 66–75. Kim, H. J., & Paik, H. D. (2012). Functionality and application of DF in meat products. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, 32(6), 695–705. Ktari, N., Smaoui, S., Trabelsi, I., Nasri, M., & Salah, R. B. (2014). Chemical composition, techno-functional and sensory properties and effects of three dietary fibers on the quality characteristics of Tunisian beef sausage. Meat Science, 96(1), 521–525. Kumar, V., Biswas, A. K., Sahoo, J., Chatli, M. K., & Sivakumar, S. (2013). Quality and storability of chicken nuggets formulated with green banana and soybean hulls flours. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(6), 1058–1068. Leroy, F., & Degreef, F. (2015). Convenient meat and meat products: societal and technological issues. Appetite, 94, 40–46. ´ lvarez, J. A ´ ., & Viuda-Martos, M. (2014). Quality characteristics of Lo´pez-Vargas, J. H., Ferna´ndez-Lo´pez, J., P
erez-A pork burger added with albedo-fiber powder obtained from yellow passion fruit (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) co-products. Meat Science, 97(2), 270–276. Lundberg, B., Pan, X., White, A., Chau, H., & Hotchkiss, A. (2014). Rheology and composition of citrus fiber. Journal of Food Engineering, 125, 97–104. Matarneh, S. K., Eric, M., England, E. M., Scheffler, T. L., & Gerrard, D. E. (2017). The conversion of muscle to meat. In F. Toldra (Ed.), Lawrie’s meat science (pp. 159–186). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing. Mehta, N., Ahlawat, S. S., Sharma, D. P., & Dabur, R. S. (2015). Novel trends in development of dietary fiber rich meat products—a critical review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52(2), 633–647. Menegas, L. Z., Pimentel, T. C., Garcia, S., & Prudencio, S. H. (2013). Dry-fermented chicken sausage produced with inulin and corn oil: physicochemical, microbiological, and textural characteristics and acceptability during storage. Meat Science, 93(3), 501–506. Mensink, M. A., Frijlink, H. W., van der Voort Maarschalk, K., & Hinrichs, W. L. (2015). Inulin, a flexible oligosaccharide I: review of its physicochemical characteristics. Carbohydrate Polymers, 130, 405–419. Meyer, D., & Blaauwhoed, J. P. (2009). Inulin. In G. O. Phillips & P. A. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of hydrocolloids (2nd ed., pp.829–848). Nie, S., Cui, S. W., & Xie, M. (2018). Psyllium polysaccharide. In Bioactive polysaccharides (pp. 395–443). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809418-1.00008-3. O’Grady, M. N., & Kerry, J. P. (2010). The effect of non-meat ingredients on quality parameters in meat and poultry. In L. H. Skibsted, J. Risbo, & M. L. Andersen (Eds.), Chemical deterioration and physical instability of food and beverages (pp. 701–725). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing. OECD/FAO (2018). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook, OECD Agriculture statistics (database). https://doi.org/10.1787/ agr-outl-data-en. € € O., € & Ardic¸, M. (2016). DFs as functional ingredients in meat products. Harran Universitesi € € Ozbaş, O. Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi, 5(2), 184–189. Ozturk, I., Sagdic, O., Tornuk, F., & Yetim, H. (2014). Effect of wheat sprout powder incorporation on lipid oxidation and physicochemical properties of beef patties. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 49(4), 1112–1121. Petersson, K., Godard, O., Eliasson, A. C., & Tornberg, E. (2014a). The effects of cereal additives in low-fat sausages and meatballs. Part 2: rye bran, oat bran and barley fibre. Meat Science, 96(1), 503–508. Petersson, K., Godard, O., Eliasson, A. C., & Tornberg, E. (2014b). The effects of cereal additives in low-fat sausages and meatballs. Part 1: untreated and enzyme-treated rye bran. Meat Science, 96(1), 423–428. Petracci, M., Bianchi, M., & Cavani, C. (2009). The European perspective on pale, soft, exudative conditions in poultry. Poultry Science, 88(7), 1518–1523. Petracci, M., Bianchi, M., & Cavani, C. (2010). Pre-slaughter handling and slaughtering factors influencing poultry product quality. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 66(1), 17–26. Petracci, M., Bianchi, M., Mudalal, S., & Cavani, C. (2013). Functional ingredients for poultry meat products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 33(1), 27–39.

REFERENCES

343

Petracci, M., Mudalal, S., Soglia, F., & Cavani, C. (2015). Meat quality in fast-growing broiler chickens. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 71(2), 363–374. Petracci, M., Soglia, F., & Berri, C. (2017). Muscle metabolism and meat quality abnormalities. In M. Petracci & C. Berri (Eds.), Poultry and quality evaluation (pp. 51–75). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing. Petracci, M., Soglia, F., & Leroy, F. (2018). Rabbit meat in need of a hat-trick: from tradition to innovation (and back). Meat Science, 146, 93–100. Pietrasik, Z., & Janz, J. A. M. (2010). Utilization of pea flour, starch-rich and fiber-rich fractions in low fat bologna. Food Research International, 43(2), 602–608. Pin˜ero, M. P., Parra, K., Huerta-Leidenz, N., Arenas de Moreno, L., Ferrer, M., Araujo, S., et al. (2008). Effect of oat’s soluble fibre (β-glucan) as a fat replacer on physical, chemical, microbiological and sensory properties of low-fat beef patties. Meat Science, 80(3), 675–680. Ponnampalam, E. N., Bekhit, A. E. D., Holman, B. W. B., Jayasundera, M., Lewandowski, P. A., Frank, R., et al. (2017). Use of plant materials to enhance the nutritional appeal of processed meat products. In F. Toldra´ (Ed.), Advances in meat processing technology (pp. 413–446). Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing. Prasad, B., Rashmi, M. D., Yashoda, K. P., & Modi, V. K. (2011). Effect of casein and oat flour on physicochemical and oxidative processes of cooked chicken kofta. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 35(3), 359–368. Rodriguez Furla´n, L. T. R., Padilla, A. P., & Campderro´s, M. E. (2014). Development of reduced fat minced meats using inulin and bovine plasma proteins as fat replacers. Meat Science, 96(2), 762–768. Salazar, P., Garcı´a, M. L., & Selgas, M. D. (2009). Short-chain fructooligosaccharides as potential functional ingredient in dry fermented sausages with different fat levels. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 44(6), 1100–1107. Sa´nchez-Zapata, E., Mun˜oz, C. M., Fuentes, E., Ferna´ndez-Lo´pez, J., Sendra, E., Sayas, E., et al. (2010). Effect of tiger nut fibre on quality characteristics of pork burger. Meat Science, 85(1), 70–76. Sarıc¸oban, C., Yılmaz, M. T., & Karakaya, M. (2009). Response surface methodology study on the optimisation of effects of fat, wheat bran and salt on chemical, textural and sensory properties of patties. Meat Science, 83(4), 610–619. Sa´yago-Ayerdi, S. G., Brenes, A., & Gon˜i, I. (2009). Effect of grape antioxidant dietary fiber on the lipid oxidation of raw and cooked chicken hamburgers. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 42(5), 971–976. Sebranek, J. G. (2015). An overview of functional non-meat ingredients in meat processing: The current toolbox. In: Proceedings of 68th Reciprocal Meat Conference, Lincoln, NE, USA (pp. 42–46). Selani, M. M., Shirado, G. A., Margiotta, G. B., Saldan˜a, E., Spada, F. P., Piedade, S. M., et al. (2016). Effects of pineapple byproduct and canola oil as fat replacers on physicochemical and sensory qualities of low-fat beef burger. Meat Science, 112, 69–76. Serdaroglu, M. (2006). The characteristics of beef patties containing different levels of fat and oat flour. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 41(2), 147–153. Shoaib, M., Shehzad, A., Omar, M., Rakha, A., Raza, H., Sharif, H. R., et al. (2016). Inulin: properties, health benefits and food applications. Carbohydrate Polymers, 147, 444–454. Smil, V. (2013). Should we eat meat? Solutions and consequences of modern carnivory. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Talukder, S. (2015). Effect of DF on properties and acceptance of meat products: a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55(7), 1005–1011. Talukder, S., & Sharma, D. P. (2010). Development of dietary fiber rich chicken meat patties using wheat and oat bran. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 47(2), 224–229. Toldra´, F., & Reig, M. (2011). Innovations for healthier processed meats. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(9), 517–522. Tomaschunas, M., Z€ orb, R., Fischer, J., K€ ohn, E., Hinrichs, J., & Busch-Stockfisch, M. (2013). Changes in sensory properties and consumer acceptance of reduced fat pork Lyon-style and liver sausages containing inulin and citrus fiber as fat replacers. Meat Science, 95(3), 629–640. US NCC. (2018). US National Chicken Council. www.nationalchickencouncil.org. Accessed 31 October 2018. ´ lvarez Almora, E., Gonza´lez Mendoza, D., Valenzuela Melendres, M., Camou, J. P., Torrentera Olivera, N. G., A Avendan˜hito Reyes, L., et al. (2014). Response surface methodology for predicting quality characteristics of beef patties added with flaxseed and tomato paste. Meat Science, 97(1), 54–61. Verma, A. K., Banerjee, R., & Sharma, B. D. (2015). Quality characteristics of low fat chicken nuggets: effect of salt substitute blend and pea hull flour. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52(4), 2288–2295. Wang, Q., Xiong, Z., Li, G., Zhao, X., Wu, H., & Ren, Y. (2016). Tomato peel powder as fat replacement in low-fat sausages: formulations with mechanically crushed powder exhibit higher stability than those with airflow ultra-micro crushed powder. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology, 118(2), 175–184.

344

10. APPLICATIONS IN MEAT PRODUCTS

Williams, J. B. (2011). Marination processing technology. In Y. H. Hui (Ed.), Handbook of meat and meat processing (pp. 495–503). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Windhorst, H. W. (2017). Dynamics and pattern of global poultry-meat production. In M. Petracci & C. Berri (Eds.), Poultry quality evaluation (pp. 1–25). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing. Xiong, Y. L. (2012). Non-meat ingredients and additives. In Y. H. Hui (Ed.), Handbook of meat and meat processing (pp. 573–588). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Yadav, S., Pathera, A. K., Islam, R. U., Malik, A. K., & Sharma, D. P. (2018). Effect of wheat bran and dried carrot pomace addition on quality characteristics of chicken sausage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 31(5), 729. Yalınkılıc¸, B., Kaban, G., & Kaya, M. (2012). The effects of different levels of orange fiber and fat on microbiological, physical, chemical and sensorial properties of sucuk. Food Microbiology, 29(2), 255–259. Yang, H. S., Choi, S. G., Jeon, J. T., Park, G. B., & Joo, S. T. (2007). Textural and sensory properties of low fat pork sausages with added hydrated oatmeal and tofu as texture-modifying agents. Meat Science, 75(2), 283–289. Yi, H. C., Cho, H., Hong, J. J., Ryu, R. K., Hwang, K. T., & Regenstein, J. M. (2012). Physicochemical and organoleptic characteristics of seasoned beef patties with added glutinous rice flour. Meat Science, 92(4), 464–468. Yılmaz, I. (2005). Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of low fat meatballs with added wheat bran. Journal of Food Engineering, 69(3), 369–373. Yousefi, M., Khorshidian, N., & Hosseini, H. (2018). An overview of the functionality of inulin in meat and poultry products. Nutrition & Food Science, 48(5), 819–835. Zhuang, X., Han, M., Kang, Z. L., Wang, K., Bai, Y., Xu, X. L., et al. (2016). Effects of the sugarcane dietary fiber and pre-emulsified sesame oil on low-fat meat batter physicochemical property, texture, and microstructure. Meat Science, 113, 107–115.