Characterization of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flours and application in low-fat pork bologna as a model system

Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Research International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres

Characterization of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flours and application in low-fat pork bologna as a model system W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa a, Janitha P.D. Wanasundara b, Zeb Pietrasik a,1, Phyllis J. Shand a,* a b

Department of Food and Bioproduct Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5A8 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0X2

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 4 March 2009 Accepted 23 July 2009

Keywords: Chickpea Kabuli Desi Extender Flour Functional properties Low-fat bologna Sensory evaluation

a b s t r a c t The suitability of chickpea grown in Western-Canada was studied in a low-fat (fat <5%) emulsion-type meat product as a model. Six high-yielding chickpea varieties were screened and one Kabuli and Desi variety were selected for testing in a meat system. The physiochemical, textural and sensory properties of low-fat pork bologna extended with chickpea flour (or pea and wheat flour as comparisons) at 2.5% and 5.0% were investigated. Inclusion of chickpea flour improved the product’s instrumental and sensory texture properties. Bologna with added Kabuli and Desi chickpea flour performed similar to the control (no added binder) for most flavour properties. However, panelists noted more foreign-flavours with addition of wheat and pea flour at 5.0%. This study shows that chickpea flour is a potential source of high protein flour for use as an extender in emulsified meat products due to its superior technological functionality and minimal effects on flavour. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), the world’s third largest pulse crop based on cultivated area (Hasan, Arshad, Ahsan, & Saleem, 2008), is widely produced in the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan (80%) and Alberta (20%). Two chickpea biotypes are produced in Canada; Kabuli also known as garbanzo beans is a large, cream-coloured seed with a thin seed coat and Desi is a small, dark-coloured seed with a thick seed coat. Chickpea is a protein (23–24%) and starch (36–41%) rich legume, with readily available energy. Non-meat ingredients derived from various plant and animal sources are used as fillers, binders, emulsifiers or extenders in meat systems to reduce cost and serve as functional ingredients. Flours from various sources, such as tubers (Annor-Frempong, AnnanPrah, & Wiredu, 1996), cereals (Brown & Zayas, 1990) and legumes (Dzudie, Scher, & Hardy, 2002; Modi, Mahendrakar, Narasimha Rao, & Sachindra, 2003; Verma, Ledward, & Lawrie, 1984) have been added to various comminuted red meat products resulting in increased water holding capacity (WHC) and yield, and decreased cooking losses. Achieving favourable product characteristics while reducing fat content is a challenge that meat

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +306 966 8842; fax: +306 966 8898. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.J. Shand). 1 Present address: Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 6309-45 Street, Leduc, Alberta, Canada T9E 7C5. 0963-9969/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.024

processors face. Many processed meats, such as frankfurters and bologna, may contain up to 30% fat. In reduced-fat meat products, the fat level can be reduced by water substitution but this result in concomitant alterations in texture and water holding ability (Claus, Hunt, & Kaster, 1989). Various non-meat ingredients may be capable of improving water binding and modifying texture. Addition of different functional ingredients to reduced-fat processed meat products has been studied to a certain extent (Ahn, Hsieh, Clarke, & Huff, 1999; Andres, Garcia, Zaritzky, & Califano, 2006; Chin, Keeton, Longnecker, & Lamkey, 1998; Chin, Keeton, Longnecker, & Lamkey, 1999; Shand, 2000; Yang, Keeton, Beilken, & Trout, 2001). The use of North American chickpea is currently limited to canned seeds and specialty dishes and no reports are available on its use as an extender in low-fat meat products. The Crop Development Centre (CDC) at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, has introduced new varieties of chickpea suitable for the Canadian prairies. The chemical constituent profile of chickpea is affected by environmental conditions, such as location, soil type, irrigation and fertilizers (Chavan, Kadam, & Salunkhe, 1989). Selected high-yielding chickpea varieties grown in Saskatchewan were studied for functionalities required in processed meat products as an initial step to explore technological properties and changes in chemical constituents. In addition, processing, textural and sensory properties of low-fat high-moisture pork bologna with added chickpea flour were evaluated in order to understand the behaviour of chickpea flour in a meat system.

618

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Materials Samples of six varieties of chickpea, Desi (var. CDC Cabri, CDC Vanguard and Myles) and Kabuli (var. CDC Xena, CDC Frontier and Amit) biotypes, from the 2005 and 2006 harvests were obtained from CDC, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. For the meat processing study, a bulk sample of Kabuli chickpea, var. CDC Xena, and Desi chickpea, var. Myles, seeds from the 2007 harvest was obtained. The chickpea samples were directly milled (not dehulled) to avoid extensive loss of cotyledon sections. Milling was carried out using a turbo impact mill (Centrifugal Impact Mill Grinds, Munson Machinery Co., Inc., Utica, IL, USA), and the resulting flour was passed through a Cyclone sample mill (Udy Corporation, Fort Collins, CO, USA) with a 0.1 mm stainless steel screen. Wheat and pea (Fiesta) flour was provided by Robin Hood Mills and Parrheim Foods (Saskatoon, SK, Canada), respectively. Fresh (1–2 d postmortem) pork buckeye mainly consisting of sirloin (gluteus medius) and loin muscle (longissimus) were obtained from a local slaughter plant and held at 1 °C for 48 h prior to use. Laboratory chemicals (analytical reagent grades) were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) or Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO, USA). 2.2. Studies on six chickpea varieties 2.2.1. Chemical analysis and colour of flours Total moisture (method 950.46 B), ash (method 920.153), crude fat (method 960.39) and protein (method 981.10) contents (N 5.7 for wheat flour, 6.25 for all others) of chickpea and other flours were determined in duplicate using AOAC (1990) procedures. Megazyme (Megazyme International Ltd., Wicklow, Ireland) total starch analysis (K-TSTA/05/06), amylose/amylopectin assay (KAMYL/04/06) kits and dietary fibre kit (K-TDFR/12/05) were used for determining the total starch, amylose and dietary fibre contents, respectively. Colour of chickpea flour samples was determined using a Hunterlab Miniscan XETM (Hunter Associates Laboratory, Inc., Reston, VA, USA) using illuminant A and 10° observer angle. The instrument was standardized using black and white tiles. A glass Petri dish containing the flour sample (5 mm thickness) was placed above the light source, covered with a dark plate, and L* = lightness, a* = redness, and b* = yellowness were recorded. 2.2.2. Thermal properties of flour Thermal properties of chickpea flour were determined using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) model DSC 2010 (TA Instruments, Lukens Drive, New Castle, DE, USA) equipped with thermal analysis software (TA Instrument Control). The instrument was calibrated using indium and zinc. Flour (3.0 mg) was directly placed in the DSC pan and 11 lL deionized water was added to obtain 24% (w/w) flour slurry, hermetically sealed, and scanned during a temperature increase from 25 to 140 °C at 10 °C/min. An empty pan was used as a reference. Peak temperature and enthalpy were computed from the thermograms using the supplied data processing software. Pasting properties of chickpea flours as a function of temperature was studied using a Rapid Visco Analyzer (Model RVA-4, Newport Scientific, Warriewood, Australia) with data analysis software (Thermocline). Viscosity profiles were recorded using 14% (w/w, dry basis) flour suspensions (total mass = 25 g). With constant stirring, the starch–water suspension was equilibrated at 50 °C for 1 min, increased to 95 °C at 6 °C/min, held at 95 °C for 1.5 min, cooled from 95 to 50 °C at 6 °C/min and then held at 50 °C for 2 min. Each sample was run in triplicate.

Least gelation concentration (LGC) was determined in duplicate by the method of Sathe, Deshpande, and Salunkhe (1982). Briefly, the flour suspensions (2–20% w/v, 5 mL volume) in test tubes were heated for 1 h in a boiling water bath, cooled rapidly under cold running water followed by further cooling at 4 °C for 2 h. Least gelation concentration was determined as the concentration above which the sample did not run down or slip when the test tube was inverted. 2.2.3. Functional properties of flour from different chickpea varieties Nitrogen solubility index was determined by the standard AACC method 46-23 (1995), and pH vs. nitrogen solubility curves for the chickpea flours were obtained following 30 min extraction at pH 2–11. Water holding capacity (WHC) of chickpea flour was determined according to the AACC standard method 88-04 (AACC, 1995). Oil absorption capacity of chickpea flour was determined by a method modified from Lin, Humbert, and Sosulski (1974). The samples (0.5 g) were mixed with 5 mL of corn oil (commercial) in preweighed centrifuge tubes for 1 min with a glass rod to disperse oil in flour. After a holding period of 30 min, the tubes were centrifuged for 25 min at 3000g, the separated oil layer was removed with a pipette and the tubes were inverted for 25 min to drain any remaining oil prior to reweighing. The oil absorption capacities were expressed as grams of oil bound per gram of the sample on a dry weight basis. Emulsifying activity index (EAI) and emulsion stability index (ESI) of chickpea flour and protein isolates were determined in triplicate by the turbidimetric method of Pearce and Kinsella (1978). 2.3. Meat product manufacture with selected Kabuli and Desi chickpea flours Nine low-fat pork bologna formulations (6-kg batches) were prepared on three separate occasions in the meat processing pilot plant at University of Saskatchewan under commercial processing conditions. The control formulation (without binders) consisted (w/w) of 62.55% pork, 34.8% ice water, 1.5% NaCl, 0.30% cure salt containing 6.4% sodium nitrite (Griffith Laboratories, Scarborough, ON, Canada) 0.5% dextrose, 0.1% sodium erythrobate (Unipac Packaging Products Ltd., Edmonton, AB, Canada), and 0.25% seasoning (Newly Weds Foods Co., Edmonton, AB, Canada). For the formulations with added flours, water was replaced with respective flours at a 1:1 ratio (w/w) to ensure the same meat protein level. All flour-added treatments were formulated to contain 2.5% or 5% (w/w) of tested flours including flours from two chickpea cultivars (Desi and Kabuli), yellow pea and wheat. Treatments with pea flour addition were included as a comparison, because of their close compositional relationship with chickpea (i.e. both are legumes). Wheat flour was employed as an ingredient as it is commonly used in commercial meat products in Canada. The moisture, crude fat, and protein contents of the pea and wheat flours were 9.5%, 2.6%, and 22.5% and 7.8%, 0.6%, and 14.1%, respectively. The meat batters were prepared as described by Shand (2000), stuffed using a Handtmann VF80 stuffer (Biberach/Riss, Germany) into 60 mm moisture proof casings and portioned to approximately 1000 g. Then products were tensioned by hand and clipped with aluminum clips (2). A 250-mL plastic cup was also filled with batter using the stuffer for viscosity testing. Stuffed chubs were held for 1 h at 4 °C, and then cooked in an air-agitated water bath on a step up schedule: 30 min at 60 °C, 30 min at 70 °C, followed by cooking at 78 °C to a final internal temperature of 72 °C. When the endpoint temperature was achieved, the bologna were immediately chilled using cool water (20 °C) to an internal temperature of 35 °C (45–50 min). Bologna was stored at 1 °C

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

for 48 h before sampling for instrumental and sensory analysis. Internal temperature of the bologna was monitored using both an Omega digital thermometer (Omega Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CT, USA) with a chromel–alumel (Omega K) thermocouple probe positioned in the geometric center of the bologna and a data logger (Barnant Scanning Thermocouple Thermometer, Burrington, IL, USA) with copper constantan thermocouples. 2.3.1. Batter viscosity, chemical composition and colour of cooked bologna Batter viscosity was measured immediately after stuffing in triplicate with a Brookfield Synchro-Lectric viscometer (Model RVT; Brookfield Engineering, Stoughton, MA, USA) set at 10 rpm as previously described (Shand, 2000). Apparent viscosity was expressed in centipoise. Chemical composition of cooked low-fat pork bologna (LFPB) samples was determined by AOAC (1990) procedures as previously described. Colour of sliced bologna was performed 3 days after LFPB production (a day after sensory assessment) using a Hunterlab Miniscan XETM (Hunter Associates Laboratory, Inc., Reston, VA, USA). A stack of two 3-mm thick slices was vacuum-packed ( 0.9 bar using a Roschermatic Type VM-20, Osnabruck, Germany) and stored at 4 °C for 24 h in the dark. Then, CIE L*, a*, and b* values were monitored through the intact packages in duplicate, with a 90° sample rotation between measurements. Colour of two packages per treatment were measured weekly for 3 weeks. The pH of cooked bologna (20 g of bologna with 80 mL of deionized water) was determined at 23 °C. 2.3.2. Cooking yield, expressible moisture (EM) and purge drip of the LFPB Each raw chubs was weighed soon after processing. After bologna was cooked and chilled for 24 h, two chubs per treatment were removed from the casings and reweighed. Cook yield was calculated as a percentage of raw stuffed weight before cooking. Expressible moisture of processed bologna was determined in triplicate as described by Shand (2000). The EM was expressed as percentage weight lost from the original sample weight following centrifugation for 15 min at 2400g (Beckman J2-HC centrifuge, Fullerton, CA, USA). Purge drip (loss) was monitored on duplicate packages of sliced bologna per treatment. Eight slices (2 stacks of 4) of bologna (3mm thick) were vacuum packaged ( 0.9 bar using a KOMET Vacuboy, KOMET Maschinenfabfik GmbH, Plochingen, Germany) in polyethylene bags. Packages were stored in an upright position for 14 days at 4 °C. After the vacuum seal was broken, the fluid was drained and the bologna slices reweighed. Purge drip was calculated as percentage weight lost (due to drip) from the initial sample weight. 2.3.3. Instrumental textural measurements of the LFPB Allo-Kramer (A-K) shear force (N/g) was determined by shearing a bologna square (4  4 cm) removed from the center of a 0.5-cm thick bologna slice. Six squares per treatment were sheared using a 10-blade A-K shearing compression cell attached to a TMSPro Texture Press (Food Technology Corp., Sterling, VA, USA). The full-scale load was set at 1000 N with the crosshead speed of 200 mm/min. Peak shear force was recorded and divided by sample weight to calculate shear force in N force/g sample. Data were reported as the average of six readings per treatment. All instrumental texture profile analyses (TPA) (Bourne, 1978) were performed on chilled (4 °C) samples. For each formulation, four samples (2.5 cm thick and 3.5 cm in diameter) were cut from the center of the bologna and axially compressed (crosshead speed 50 mm/min) twice to 50% of their original height between flat plates using a TMS-Pro Texture Press (Food Technology Corp.,

619

Sterling, VA, USA) interfaced with a computer, using the supplied software (Texture Technologies Corp., Texture Lab Pro, version 1.13-002). The following parameters were obtained: hardness (N), the peak force of the first bite; cohesiveness, the ratio of the active work under the second force–displacement curve to that under the first compression curve; springiness (mm), the distance the sample recovers after the first bite (also calculated as % recovery) and chewiness (N mm), hardness  cohesiveness  springiness. Torsion analysis was performed according to the method of Kim, Hamann, Lanier, and Wu (1986) using bologna samples of 28.7 mm length (30-mm thick samples removed using a 12 mm dia cork borer and then trimmed). Plastic disks designed to fit the torsion apparatus were glued onto the samples with cyanoacrylate glue (LoctiteÒ 404, Instant adhesive, Loctite Corporation, Newington, CT, USA). Samples were milled into dumbbell-shaped specimens with minimum diameter of 10 mm at the mid section by using a modified bench-top grinder (KCI-24A2, Bodline Electric Company, Chicago, IL, USA). The torsion apparatus was composed of a torsion fixture attached to a Brookfield digital viscometer model DV-I (Gel Consultants Inc., Raleigh, NC, USA). After placing the sample in the apparatus, the bottom plate of the torsion assembly remained stationary while the upper plate rotated at 2.5 rpm twisting the specimen until it failed. Failure shear stress and strain were calculated using the provided software (Gelscan, Gel Consultants Inc.). For each treatment an average of eight samples was taken. 2.3.4. Sensory evaluation of the LFPB Sensory evaluation was conducted by a 14-member semitrained sensory panel using category scales. This study was accepted on ethical grounds (BEH # 07-188) by the University of Saskatchewan Behavioral Research Ethics Board. Panelists were given five 30 min training sessions during which a broad range of bologna samples were presented to familiarize them with the score sheet and different flavour and texture of the products. Prior to sensory testing, samples were kept at room temperature for 15 min, and panelists were served one quarter-slices (3-mm thick) of bologna from each of seven treatments (in random order). Panelists were served water at room temperature and salt-reduced crackers to cleanse their palate between samples. Samples were assessed under red lights to mask any colour difference. For LFPB, 7 of the 9 treatments were evaluated to reduce the number of samples panelists tasted at one time to limit fatigue. In commercial practice, flour is added to bologna at a 5.0% addition level therefore LFPB containing 5.0% wheat flour (commercial-type product comparison) and 5.0% pea flour (as a legume flour comparison) was evaluated. 2.4. Statistical analysis For instrumental and sensory studies of LFPB, data were arranged into a randomized block design and three replications were conducted (in the model, treatments and replication were included as random effects). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the general linear model (PROC GLM), mean separation by the Student-Newman-Kuels (SNK), and Pearson correlation procedures of SAS (SAS Institute Inc., 2004) was used for data analysis on means of chickpea cultivar, texture and sensory data. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Characterization of chickpea flours 3.1.1. Chemical properties The proximate composition of chickpea flours varied significantly among different chickpea varieties (Table 1). Protein content

620

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

Table 1 Some chemical components of chickpea varieties grown in Western Canada. Variety

ProteinA

Ash

Crude fat

Total starch

Kabuli XN FT AM

24.9 ± 0.5a 22.8 ± 0.7bcd 24.0 ± 0.2ab

2.9 ± 0.09 2.9 ± 0.21 3.0 ± 0.12

6.8 ± 0.2b 7.2 ± 0.1ab 7.2 ± 0.4ab

49.3 ± 3.9a 49.8 ± 1.2a 45.3 ± 3.8b

Desi CB VG ML

21.8 ± 0.8d 22.1 ± 0.6cd 23.5 ± 0.5abc

2.8 ± 0.24 2.8 ± 0.11 3.0 ± 0.16

7.4 ± 0.2a 7.6 ± 0.0a 6.7 ± 0.3b

43.1 ± 3.1bc 42.2 ± 5.0bc 41.1 ± 5.1c

Amylose

Dietary fibreB IDF

SDF

TDF

23.1 ± 0.2a 17.7 ± 0.1c 19.9 ± 0.1b

15.4 ± 0.4b 14.4 ± 0.8b 16.1 ± 0.2b

7.5 ± 0.4ab 7.1 ± 0.1b 7.5 ± 0.1ab

22.9 ± 0.8b 21.5 ± 0.9b 23.5 ± 0.2b

21.2 ± 0.2b 21.5 ± 0.2ab 23.2 ± 1.8a

18.5 ± 0.1a 19.6 ± 0.1a 19.2 ± 1.4a

7.5 ± 0.5ab 8.0 ± 0.1a 7.4 ± 0.2ab

26.0 ± 0.6a 27.6 ± 0.2a 26.5 ± 1.6a

Means (% value ± SD) of triplicate analyses on samples from each of two years. Means followed by the same letter within a column do not differ significantly (p < 0.05). Var: XN = CDC Xena, FT = CDC Frontier, AM = Amit, CB = CDC Cabri, VG = CDC Vanguard, ML = Myles. A Total nitrogen  6.25. B Insoluble dietary fibre (IDF), Soluble dietary fibre (SDF) and Total dietary fibre (TDF).

ranged from 22.8% to 24.9% for Kabuli and from 21.8% to 23.5% for Desi biotypes. Reflecting the biotype (i.e. Kabuli or Desi) effect (p < 0.05), most Kabuli chickpea varieties had higher protein content (by approximately 1.5%) than those of the Desi-type. The ash and crude fat contents of cultivars ranged from 2.8% to 3.0% and 6.7% to 7.6%, respectively and did not show a significant biotype effect. Total starch content of Kabuli-type chickpea was significantly (p < 0.05) higher (45.3–49.8%) than Desi-type (41.1–43.1%). The mean values for protein, carbohydrate, lipid, and ash content of 22.5%, 69.5%, 5.01% and 2.98%, respectively, for chickpea flour were similar to those reported earlier (Milan-Carrillo, Reyes-Moreno, & Armienta-Rodelo, 2000). Amylose content of starch was determined since it plays a very important role in the gelatinization and pasting properties of flour. A small, but significant (p < 0.05) difference was observed for the amylose content of chickpea biotypes. Amylose content of different chickpea varieties ranged from 17.7% to 23.1% for Kabuli-type and 21.2–23.2% for Desi-type flours. There was also a distinctive cultivar difference in amylose content within biotype (Table 1). Meares, Bograchera, Hill, & Hedley (2004) reported that Desi and Kabuli chickpea cultivars had amylose content of 26.1% and 26.4%, and total starch content of 45.2% and 42.1%, respectively. There was a clear difference in TDF between biotypes, Desi-type chickpea had higher TDF values (26.7%) than Kabuli-types (22.6%), mainly due to the higher IDF contents of the former (Table 1). These results are in good agreement with those obtained by Rincon, Martinez, and Ibanez (1998) where differences in seed coat thickness between Desi and Kabuli biotypes contributed to differences in TDF and IDF. Seed coat accounts for 14.5–16.5% of seed weight (Paredes-Lopez, Ordorica-Falmir, Olivares-Vasques, 1991), and Kabuli-type chickpea contains only 4.3% hulls, whereas Desi-type contains 11.5% (Sosulski & Gadan,

1988). On the contrary, very small differences (0.5%) were found in SDF content. The soluble dietary fibre fraction includes pectins, gums, mucilages, and some soluble hemicelluloses (Periago, Ros, Lopez, Martinez, & Rincon, 1993). Because hemicellulose constitutes a large proportion (about 55%) of the total dietary fibre of both Desi and Kabuli (Singh, 1984), the SDF content would be independent of seed coat thickness and thus be similar for both biotypes, as revealed in this study. A strong positive correlation was found between IDF and TDF (n = 12, r = 0.99, p < 0.001). A negative correlation was found between crude fat and protein content (r = 0.59, p < 0.01). Similarly, total starch exhibited strong negative correlations with TDF and IDF (r = 0.77 and 0.74 respectively, p < 0.001). Chemical composition demonstrates that chickpea flour is a good source of protein, starch and dietary fibre. 3.1.2. Functional, physico-chemical, and thermal properties Colour of the added ingredients play a vital role in acceptance of the end product, especially for meat products. Flour of Kabuli chickpeas had higher CIE L* values (about 5.4 units) than that of the Desi-type (data not shown). Flours from all varieties exhibited low a* values indicating a light green colour. The b* value, an indicator of ( ) blue and yellow (+), did not show either biotype or variety differences for the chickpea flours. No biotype effect was observed for thermal properties (To: onset, Tp: peak temperature and DH: enthalpy change) of various chickpea flours. Two major endothermic peaks were observed for chickpea flour; one around 64 °C for starch gelatinization (Table 2), and a second broad peak at a higher temperature (96 °C) (data not shown), which could be interpreted as a protein denaturation peak (Meares et al., 2004). For starch gelatinization, To, Tp and

Table 2 Properties of chickpea flours related to thermal gelation and liquid holding capabilities. Chickpea var.

Tp (°C)

Pasting Temp (°C)

LGC (%)

WHC (g/g)

OAC (g/g)

EAI

ESI

Kabuli XN FT AM

65.4 ± 2.8a 63.9 ± 3.1c 64.1 ± 2.9bc

63.7 ± 0.3bc 61.8 ± 0.6c 62.4 ± 0.8bc

6 10 12

0.84 ± 0.01a 0.79 ± 0.02b 0.80 ± 0.08ab

0.88 ± 0.08a 0.86 ± 0.06ab 0.87 ± 0.05a

0.43 ± 0.05a 0.40 ± 0.07a 0.28 ± 0.04b

23.00 ± 0.50c 26.08 ± 0.46b 28.55 ± 1.34a

Desi CB VG ML

64.7 ± 3.0abc 64.6 ± 2.2abc 64.9 ± 2.9ab

64.9 ± 0.7b 68.0 ± 4.7a 61.7 ± 0.6c

10 10 8

0.78 ± 0.00b 0.79 ± 0.04b 0.71 ± 0.07c

0.78 ± 0.01c 0.81 ± 0.06c 0.81 ± 0.04bc

0.30 ± 0.02b 0.32 ± 0.07b 0.41 ± 0.02a

18.05 ± 0.35d 15.95 ± 0.78e 21.50 ± 0.07c

Means (±SD) of triplicate analysis per year and all data on dry weight basis. Means followed by the same letter within a column do not differ significantly (p < 0.05). Tp = peak temperature, WHC = water holding capacity, OAC = oil absorption capacity, EAI = emulsion ability index, ESI = emulsion stability index, LGC = least gelation concentration. Var: XN = CDC Xena, FT = CDC Frontier, AM = Amit, CB = CDC Cabri, VG = CDC Vanguard, ML = Myles.

621

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

curves, presenting small pasting peaks, and greater similarity to the Type B crystalline structure (Fig. 1). The thermal data obtained show that chickpea starch requires relatively low temperatures to ensure complete gelatinization and pasting which would be beneficial in meat products generally heat processed to internal temperatures of 71–80 °C. Least gelation concentration (LGC) was taken as a measure of the gelation capacity, the lower the LGC, the better the gelation characteristics of the flour. Least gelation capacity for various chickpea flours ranged from 6% to 12% (w/v) (Table 2). This variation in gelation properties of the two biotypes may be attributed to variation in the quantity and chemistry of the seed constituents such as seed coat (Sathe et al., 1982), protein, carbohydrate, and lipids. CDC Xena had the lowest LGC of 6% (w/v) among Kabulitype while Myles had the lowest LGC of 8% (w/v) among Desi-type. CDC Xena and Myles flours formed very solid- and solid-gels, respectively, in 20% flour samples. Kaur and Singh (2005) reported 10–14% (w/v) LGC concentrations for various Indian-grown chickpeas. The LGC has been reported for other legume flours, with values of 16% (w/v) for cowpea (Abbey & Ibeh, 1991), 18% for wingbean (Sathe et al., 1982), and 10% for great northern bean (Sathe & Salunkhe, 1981). Solubility is probably the most critical of the functional properties, because it affects other properties such as emulsification, foaming and gelation (Kinsella, 1976). The nitrogen solubility profiles of chickpea flours as a function of pH (Fig. 2) indicate minimum solubility (20.3–35.9%) occurred at pH 4.0–4.4, with an average value of 4.3. These soluble proteins, likely albumins, are

(a) 100 Soluble nitrogen (%)

DH ranged between 58.1–60.2 °C, 63.9–65.4 °C, and 0.78– 1.49 J g 1, respectively. For the protein denaturation peak, the To was 88.6–92.6 °C, the Tp was 95.1–97.4 °C, and the DH was 0.03– 0.11 J g 1. Interestingly, there was a ‘year’ effect with respect to starch gelatinization temperatures determined from DSC of the chickpea flours. Mean values of the onset and peak temperatures of the starch gelatinization peak were higher (by 4.8 and 4.0 °C, respectively) for 2006 than 2005. Peak temperatures of the protein transition were not significantly different (p < 0.05) due to year. Meares et al. (2004) reported average onset and peak temperatures of starch gelatinization for Australian chickpea flour samples of 64 and 72 °C, respectively, which are higher than the present results. Kaur and Singh (2005) reported higher onset (65.4–67.9 °C), and peak (70.6–73.3 °C) temperatures for Indian Kabuli and Desi flours than those of the Western Canadian chickpea varieties in our study. Pasting temperature (temperature at the onset of the rise in viscosity) of flours from different chickpea cultivars ranged from 61.7 to 68.0 °C (Table 2). According to Kaur and Singh (2005), flour from Indian grown chickpea cultivars had higher pasting temperatures ranging from 73.1 to 75.2 °C than observed in this study. Pasting temperature is an indication of the minimum temperature needed to cook the flour sample (Fig. 1). All chickpea flours showed a gradual increase in viscosity with temperature increase because of amylose release from the swelling starch granules. Final viscosity (which indicates the ability of the material to form a viscous paste) and set back (a measure of retrogradation or syneresis of the cooked flour paste upon cooling) of chickpea flours ranged from 142 to 304 and 56 to 167 RVU, respectively. CDC Frontier had the highest peak (192.2), trough (136.8), breakdown (57.9), final viscosity (303.9) and setback (166.4) viscosities. A biotype effect was observed for all RVA characteristics. Kabuli-type chickpeas were characterized as having greater average RVA parameters than Desi-types, except for pasting temperature. According to the classification of Schoch and Maywald (1968) based on the pasting profile, chickpea and many other legume starches showed Type C (restricted swelling) viscosity patterns without a pasting peak but with a continual rise throughout the heating period. However, the present study show Desi-type has viscosity patterns typical of Type C starches whereas Kabuli-type has less restricted swelling

80

60

40 XN FT 20

336

0 120

252

(b) (c)

210

80 8 60

(d) (e) (f )

168

40

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

126 84 42

(b) 100 80

60

40 CB VG ML

20

0 0

5

10

15

20

9

pH Temperature (°C)

100

1

Soluble nitrogen (%)

(a)

Temperature profile

294

Viscosity (RVU)

AM

25

Time (Minutes) Fig. 1. Rapid Visco Analyzer pasting profiles of flours from different chickpea varieties at 14% (w/v) flour. (a) CDC Frontier, (b) CDC Xena, (c) CDC Amit, (d) CDC Cabri, (e) CDC Vanguard, and (f) CDC Myles.

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

pH Fig. 2. Nitrogen solubility curves for chickpea flours (2005 harvest) from (a) Kabuli (b) Desi varieties as a function of pH. XN = CDC Xena, FT = CDC Frontier, AM = Amit, CB = CDC Cabri, VG = CDC Vanguard, ML = Myles.

622

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

less abundant than globulin, and represents 15–25% of the total cotyledonary proteins (Clemente, Vioque, Sánchez-Vioque, Pedroche, Bautista, & Millán, 2000). Chickpea flours exhibited high nitrogen solubility values, over 90%, on both sides of the isoelectric pH 4–5. These results closely resemble those reported for flours of field pea and fababean (Sosulski & McCurdy, 1987), common bean, and green mung bean (Dzudie & Hardy, 1996) flours. Over 90% of protein was soluble at pH 6.2, which is the normal pH value of processed meat. The influence of this wide pH range for protein solubility of chickpea flour on the functional properties of meat products when combined may be of particular interest. Water holding capacity and OAC of different cultivars ranged from 0.71 to 0.84 g/g and 0.81 to 0.88 g/g, respectively (Table 2). Kabuli chickpea showed significantly (p < 0.05) higher WHC/OAC than Desi. Kaur and Singh (2005) observed a similar biotype effect for OAC, but with inverse relation for WHC of Kabuli and Desi chickpeas. This discrepancy may be due to varietal and methodology differences between the two studies. Water holding capacity may play a crucial role in low-fat meat products as it directly influences texture and sensory properties. Emulsifying properties of different chickpea flours are shown in Table 2. Generally, Kabuli-type flours had higher emulsifying properties than Desi-type flour reflecting their higher (p < 0.05) protein contents (Table 1). Among the Kabuli biotype, CDC Xena and CDC Frontier had the highest emulsifying activities of 0.43 and 0.40, respectively, but did not form as stable an emulsion as CDC Frontier. Myles had superior EAI and ESI compared to other Desi varieties (0.41 and 21.5, respectively). The observed properties of chickpea flours may influence the fat emulsification process in meat products, although it is of lesser importance in low-fat meat formulations. Significant differences between the properties of flours from Kabuli and Desi chickpea cultivars were observed. For flours, the two biotypes differed in their lightness value, protein, amylose, insoluble dietary fibre, and total dietary fibre contents, least gelation concentration, water holding capacity, oil absorption capacity, emulsion activity and stability indices. Therefore, one chickpea variety from each biotype (i.e. Kabuli and Desi) was selected for the meat processing model study. Further supporting data was obtained from evaluating the protein and starch fractions of these six chickpea varieties, including chemical, thermal and functional properties (Sanjeewa, 2008). According to the findings, CDC Xena (a Kabuli-type) and Myles (a Desi-type) generally had more desirable properties with respect to meat applications (Sanjeewa, 2008) and were chosen for evaluation in high moisture, low-fat bologna system. 3.1.3. Physico-chemical properties of LFPB with chickpea flours The type and level of flour affected (p < 0.05) the viscosity of low-fat pork batter samples (Table 3). Addition of Kabuli, Desi

and pea flour at 5% resulted in significantly higher values (p < 0.05) for viscosity than that of the control (no binder) and the 2.5% level of flours. The 2.5% level of addition resulted in similar or lower viscosity in the meat batter as the control. More water and reduced-fat level can lead to decreased batter viscosity of the comminuted meat products in the absence of any plant-based extender (Claus & Hunt, 1991; Claus, Hunt, Kastner, & Kropf, 1990). Addition of wheat (13.4% protein and 71.2% starch), normal barley (11.8% protein and 66.3% starch) and waxy barley flours (13.0% protein and 61.2% starch) increased batter viscosity by 31%, 35%, and 37%, respectively, compared to the control (Shand, 2000). The low batter viscosity may cause handing problems in pre-stuffing and stuffing processes and addition of chickpea flour like other flour binders can minimize this problem by increasing raw batter viscosity. Although the initial temperature of the meat was 1 to 0 °C, there was a significant (p < 0.05) increase of final batter temperature of about 2.5 °C (measured right after stuffing) upon binder addition, which might be due to several reasons: (1) temperature of the ingredients (flour, seasoning, salt, etc.) which were at the room temperature and may impart a temperature rise to the batter, (2) addition of flour which increases the friction of the system also may affect the batter temperature rise, and (3) less water in the system as a result of direct substitution of water. Mean values for proximate composition of the LFPB with added flours are as in Table 3. Flour-added LFPB had lower moisture content than the control with no binder in the formulation. With increasing levels of flour from 2.5% to 5.0%, moisture content decreased significantly (p < 0.05) from 77% to 75%, as a result of water substitution with flour in the formulation. Furthermore, protein contents of LFPB ranged from 13.9% to 14.7%, with a slight variation among the formulations. Addition of flour to the LFPB significantly affected the fat content (p < 0.05) but only minor effects on ash contents and pH was observed. Table 4 shows the effect of flour binders on cook yield, water holding parameters and colour of cooked LFPB. Appearance is an important consumer requirement, colour being the most important attribute in any product. The reddish-pink colour of thermally processed meat product is due to the combined effects of thermally denatured myoglobin and hemoglobin blended with the other nonmeat additives. The L* and a* values for the cooked bologna were not greatly affected by adding flour or changing the level of flour addition. Bologna formulations with pea (2.5%), wheat (5%) and Kabuli (2.5%) flours were significantly (p < 0.05) lighter in colour than the formulation with 5% Desi flour. The colour of the Desi flour which contained fine seed coat particles may confer this small difference in L* value of the processed product. Control bologna and that with Kabuli flour at 2.5% had higher a* (redness) values than that of the bologna with 5% Desi flour (p < 0.05). Addition of flour up to 5% in the formulations significantly increased the CIE

Table 3 Proximate analysis and pH of cooked low-fat pork bologna and viscosity of the meat batter formulated with two levels and four types of flour binders. Treatment

Protein (%)

Fat (%)

Ash (%)

pH

Viscosity (cps)  105

Binder

Level (%)

Control Chickpea flour Kabuli

0

79.7 ± 0.6a

13.9 ± 0.4bc

2.6 ± 0.9c

2.7 ± 0.0bc

6.2 ± 0.1

8.9 ± 0.9c

2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0

77.1 ± 0.5b 75.4 ± 0.6c 77.0 ± 0.6b 75.8 ± 0.8c 77.4 ± 0.7b 75.2 ± 0.2c 77.1 ± 1.2b 75.4 ± 0.3c

14.2 ± 0.4abc 14.3 ± 0.3ab 14.1 ± 0.2bc 14.4 ± 0.2ab 14.2 ± 0.3abc 13.8 ± 0.9c 14.1 ± 0.4bc 14.7 ± 0.3a

3.9 ± 0.9ab 4.0 ± 0.8ab 4.6 ± 0.5a 3.4 ± 1.3bc 3.4 ± 0.7bc 3.4 ± 0.5bc 3.8 ± 1.5ab 3.5 ± 0.6bc

2.8 ± 0.1ab 2.9 ± 0.0a 2.8 ± 0.1a 2.9 ± 0.1a 2.7 ± 0.0c 2.8 ± 0.2ab 2.7 ± 0.0bc 2.8 ± 0.0ab

6.3 ± 0.3 6.3 ± 0.1 6.3 ± 0.2 6.3 ± 0.1 6.1 ± 0.1 6.2 ± 0.1 6.3 ± 0.3 6.2 ± 0.1

11.2 ± 0.7b 12.3 ± 0.9ab 11.9 ± 1.1ab 12.9 ± 0.4ab 12.7 ± 0.9ab 13.8 ± 0.9a 12.7 ± 0.7ab 13.3 ± 0.2a

Desi Wheat flour Pea flour a–d

Moisture (%)

Means (±SD) within the same column with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05).

623

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626 Table 4 Effect of flour binders on cook yield, purge losses, expressible moisture and colour of low-fat pork bologna. Treatment

Purge losses (%)

CIE colourA

Binder

Level (%)

L*

a*

b*

0

95.0 ± 0.5d

17.33 ± 0.78a

3.76 ± 0.34a

68.2 ± 0.2ab

17.4 ± 0.1a

10.9 ± 0.1d

2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0

96.0 ± 0.3bc 97.2 ± 0.5a 94.7 ± 0.6bcd 96.5 ± 0.5ab 95.6 ± 0.4bcd 97.4 ± 0.4a 95.3 ± 0.1cd 96.0 ± 0.6bc

12.70 ± 1.21bc 10.28 ± 0.65cd 13.49 ± 1.28b 11.19 ± 0.98bcd 12.90 ± 0.97bc 9.55 ± 1.31d 13.83 ± 1.05b 12.52 ± 0.70bc

2.12 ± 0.19b 0.90 ± 0.23cd 2.20 ± 0.20b 1.33 ± 0.19c 1.36 ± 0.23c 0.64 ± 0.10d 1.92 ± 0.34b 1.30 ± 0.15c

70.0 ± 0.2a 69.3 ± 0.1ab 68.8 ± 0.2ab 67.5 ± 0.3b 69.2 ± 0.4ab 69.6 ± 0.2a 69.8 ± 0.2a 69.4 ± 0.5ab

17.3 ± 0.1a 16.9 ± 0.1ab 16.6 ± 0.1ab 16.1 ± 0.2b 17.2 ± 0.3ab 17.1 ± 0.1ab 17.1 ± 0.2ab 17.1 ± 0.3ab

13.2 ± 0.1c 14.1 ± 0.1b 14.1 ± 0.1b 15.6 ± 0.1a 12.4 ± 0.2c 13.0 ± 0.1c 12.9 ± 0.1c 14.1 ± 0.2b

Wheat flour Pea flour

A

Expressible moisture (%)

Control Chickpea flour Kabuli Desi

a–d

Cook yield (%)

Means (± SD) within the same column with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05). CIE colour: ‘‘L*” = lightness; ‘‘a*” = redness; ‘‘b*” = yellowness.

yellowness (b*), compared with the control. The highest b* value was observed for LFPB containing 5% Desi flour. Shand (2000) found that wheat and barley flour binders (4% w/w) had only small effects on colour of ultra low-fat (<1%) bologna. Addition of 5–10% common bean flour (CBF) to beef sausages had a significant effect on the colour of the final product (Dzudie et al., 2002). Storage did not significantly (p < 0.05) affect the CIE colour values up to 3 weeks storage (data not shown). Candogan and Kolsarici (2003) reported an increase in redness and no change in lightness of low-fat beef frankfurters formulated with carrageenan and pectin during storage. In the present study, vacuum packaged slices of LFPB with chickpea flour at 2.5% or 5% levels had a stable colour when stored at 4 °C for up to 21 days. Addition of 2.5% of Desi chickpea, pea and wheat flours in LFPB resulted in similar cook yield to the control. However, the cook yield was significantly (p < 0.05) higher for LFPB with 2.5% Kabuli flour or 5% levels of all flours used than for the control. The highest cook yield was observed for bologna with Kabuli, Desi and wheat flour at a 5% level. Higher cook yield than the control were reported for konjac flour blends in low-fat bologna (Chin et al., 1998) and for common bean flours in sausages (Dzudie et al., 2002). However, addition of 4% wheat and barley flour in ultra-low-fat bologna (<1% fat) did not affect cook yield (Shand, 2000). Flours from legumes or cereals contain mainly protein and starch which are biological macromolecules that can imbibe water and form gel matrices upon heating. In the presence of meat protein, they could either form a complex 3D gel network involving various forces such as van der Waals, electrostatic and hydrogen bonding, which traps fine particles of emulsified meat or the meat matrix simply entraps the starch and non-meat proteins as fillers. The flour components might help to retain water and fat during the cooking process hence increase the cook yield.

Expressible moisture of the control bologna (without binders) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that of all other treatments (Table 4). Purge loss, the percentage of weight loss of the sample after 14-day storage to the initial weight of the sample, for cooked LFPB with binders ranged from 0.64% to 2.2%. These values were significantly (p < 0.05) lower than that of the control (3.76%). In general, EM and purge of low-fat bologna with chickpea flours were similar to that made with commercial pea and wheat flours. Flour addition level of 5% to LFPB showed lower purge drip than with 2.5% flour addition. Values for EM and purge loss of the present study were lower than those reported for other plant binders (Shand, 2000) partly due to the differences in product formulations (protein and water content) and the fat levels (>1% vs. >5% in the present study). Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated in order to assess the strength and direction of a linear relationship among raw batter viscosity, temperature, cooking yield, EM, and purge loss (data not shown). An inverse relationship between viscosity and EM (r = 0.44, p < 0.05) was found suggesting that high viscous batters form a good gel structure with high water retaining ability. There was a negative correlation between batter temperature and water holding parameters (r = 0.48 and 0.56 for EM and purge drip, respectively). Cook yield showed a strong negative relationship with EM and purge loss (r = 0.69 and 0.67, respectively). Finally, the purge loss of cooked LFPB increased (r = 0.83) with the EM suggesting that EM can be used as an indicator of purge for LFPB. 3.1.4. Instrumental texture properties Allo-Kramer (A-K) shear force values (N/g) of LFPB with different flour binders at 2.5% and 5% level are shown in Table 5. AlloKramer shear force values of cooked bologna with 2.5% Kabuli and Desi flour were similar to the control, while 2.5% wheat and

Table 5 Effect of different flour binders on textural properties of low-fat bologna. Treatment Binder Control Chickpea flour Kabuli Desi Wheat flour Pea flour a–e A

Allo-Kramer shear (N/g) Level (%)

Texture profile analysis CohesivenessA (–)

Springiness (%)

Chewiness (N mm)

103.7 ± 5.2

0.35 ± 0.04cd

73.1 ± 2.4b

455.5 ± 8.5c

113.6 ± 8.3cde 122.1 ± 8.3bc 115.3 ± 6.4cd 137.0 ± 5.8a 100.3 ± 6.8e 107.0 ± 9.9de 108.1 ± 6.8de 127.7 ± 4.4ab

0.47 ± 0.07a 0.45 ± 0.05ab 0.48 ± 0.08a 0.48 ± 0.07a 0.30 ± 0.05d 0.31 ± 0.06d 0.45 ± 0.04ab 0.39 ± 0.05bc

82.7 ± 3.7a 81.0 ± 1.3a 81.4 ± 3.7a 79.4 ± 5.5a 79.9 ± 2.9a 80.5 ± 2.8a 80.7 ± 3.3a 80.6 ± 2.8a

498.0 ± 9.0bc 587.0 ± 6.8ab 570.2 ± 9.3ab 624.4 ± 8.6a 359.6 ± 7.5d 364.0 ± 3.1d 553.8 ± 8.6ab 505.0 ± 7.6bc

Hardness (N) b

0

14.4 ± 0.7

2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0

14.5 ± 0.5b 16.1 ± 0.5a 14.6 ± 0.7b 16.3 ± 0.9a 12.7 ± 0.7c 14.6 ± 0.9b 13.0 ± 0.8c 15.4 ± 1.3ab

de

Means within the same column with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05). This value is dimensionless.

624

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

pea flour containing LFPB were significantly softer (p < 0.05) than the control. Bologna with Kabuli and Desi flour at 5% showed the highest (p < 0.05) A-K shear forces among the treatments while bologna with 5% wheat and pea flour were intermediate in A-K shear force compared to the control. Allo-Kramer shear values increased as the level of chickpea flour in the formulation increased suggesting a strong gel structure formation within the bologna matrix. In contrast to effects seen with chickpea flour, a previous study showed that increased level of konjac flour gel in low-fat pork sausage had an inverse relationship with A-K shear force (Osburn & Keeton, 1994). The control bologna sample showed the least springy and chewy mean values for instrumental texture profile analyses (TPA; Table 5). Addition of 5% Desi or pea flour produced bologna with the hardest texture (32% and 23% higher than the control, respectively). Moreover, TPA-hardness value of formulations with 2.5% flour levels did not differ (p < 0.05) from the control. Generally, legume flour formulated LFPB (chickpea and pea) had significantly higher hardness and cohesiveness values than the control and the wheat flour containing bologna at both addition levels, suggesting protein content of the binders (i.e. legumes vs. cereals) may have played a role. Shand (2000) comparing the TPA parameters of ultra-low-fat pork bologna with added carrageenan (2.5%), soy protein concentrate (1%), potato starch (4%), wheat flour (4%) and barley flour (4%) found that addition of carrageenan and soy protein concentrate had minor effects on texture, while use of wheat flour and barley flour significantly increased the hardness of the bologna as compared to the control. Addition of common bean flour (21.2% protein and 69.7% carbohydrates) to beef sausages at 2.5%, 5.0%, and 7.5% level resulted in lower shear force and hardness values than the control without binder (Dzudie et al., 2002). Differences (p < 0.05) were found in torsion shear stress and shear strain values of LFPB due to flour levels and type of added flour (Fig. 3). The highest shear stress (43.6 kPa) was observed for bologna with 5% Desi flour, whereas the lowest values were noted for the control (30.5 kPa) and 2.5% pea flour-added LFPB (31.5 kPa). 5.0% flour addition to bologna resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) higher shear stress values than that with 2.5% flour addition except for the pea flour containing bologna. Shear strain represents the elasticity behaviour of gelled meat products. LFPB formulated with

45 (33.45 a ±0.50)

Brittle

T o u gh

Shear Stress (kPa)

40

Desi flour (27.85 d ±1.59) (29.55 bcd ±1.28) (27.21 ed ±0.96)

Wheat flour

35

(28.27 cd ±1.42)

Kabuli flour (30.30 bc ±0.20)

(30.94 b ±1.18)

Pea flour

30

(25.10 e ±0.28) (21.20 f ± 0.20)

Control 25 Mushy 20 1.00

Rubbery

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

Shear Strain Fig. 3. Torsion texture map of low-fat bologna containing different flours. Arrows point from the 2.5% flour to the corresponding 5% flour level of addition. Corresponding torsion rigidity values (shear stress/shear strain) (kPa) are given in parentheses. a-f Means of torsion rigidity followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05).

any flour had lower (p < 0.05) shear strain values than of the control. Differences (p < 0.05) were found in torsion rigidity (stress/strain) values within the two levels of flour addition and different source of flours (Fig. 3). Flour addition increased the torsion rigidity (increased shear stress and decreased shear strain) (p < 0.05) compared with the control. The control treatment had a more ‘‘rubbery” texture than all other treatments. The increased level of addition from 2.5% to 5% had an effect on texture for all flours. Texture of LFPB moved closer to ‘‘brittle” with wheat, pea and Desi flour addition, whereas texture of LFPB with Kabuli flour moved closer to ‘‘tough”. The findings suggest that when flour addition was increased from 2.5% to 5% in the formulation, changes of torsion rigidity of wheat and Kabuli flour added bologna were driven by shear stress, while that of pea flour added bologna were due to changes in shear strain. shear strain and shear stress made equal contributions to rigidity for the Desi flour added bologna. Torsion stress had positive correlations with TPA hardness (r = 0.64) and A-K shear force values (r = 0.64) and there was a strong correlation between A-K shear force and TPA-hardness (r = 0.71), suggesting that the three different textural indices were measuring similar properties. 3.1.5. Sensory characteristics Textural and flavour quality of cooked LFPB evaluated by a 14member semi-trained panel are presented in Fig. 4. The control had the highest initial juiciness while bologna with 5% wheat flour had the lowest value (p < 0.05) probably due to the high water content in the control formulation (Shand, 2000) as flours were substituted for water (1:1) in other treatments. However, with continued chewing, differences in sustained juiciness for Kabuli flour and 2.5% Desi flour formulations were not significant, whereas, bologna with 5% Desi, wheat and pea flour had lower scores for sustained juiciness compared to the control. Perception of saltiness was not significantly changed (p > 0.05) among formulations. At both flour levels, all samples were perceived to be firmer (p < 0.05) than the control; 5% Desi treatment was scored as the firmest texture. While LFPB with 5% Kabuli and pea flour had the hardest TPA values, panelists scored the bologna with 5% Kabuli and Desi flour as the firmest products and these scores were significantly higher than that of the 5% wheat or pea flour added bologna. Bologna with 5% Desi flour had a higher cohesiveness value (p < 0.05) than that of the control and 2.5% Desi flour containing samples. The lowest level of graininess (p < 0.05) was observed for the control and 2.5% Kabuli flour added bologna, and the highest for the 5% Desi flour added samples. The higher score for graininess in Desi flour containing LFPB could be attributed to the contribution of finely ground seed coat materials of the Desi flour. However, dehulling of Kabuli chickpea during preparation of the flour may not be necessary for use in meat processing, especially at lower levels of flour addition, since graininess scores were not different than control. Scores for flavour attributes such as overall flavour intensity and desirability were similar for all chickpea treatments. However, bologna with 5% wheat flour scored lower in overall flavour intensity and desirability. The 5% pea flour formulated bologna also scored lower in flavour desirability. Foreign flavour intensity is the amount of any atypical or off-flavours present in the mouth after complete mastication, which was evaluated to determine perception of beany flavour of the flour ingredients. All the chickpea formulations and the control bologna had very weak foreign flavour and did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) from each other. However, panelists were able to identify (p < 0.05) foreign flavour notes in 5% wheat and pea flour formulations giving a score of slightly to moderately weak. Our sensory data clearly shows that addition of Kabuli and Desi chickpea flour up to 5% in low-fat bologna was not detected by the panelists in terms of flavour.

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

625

Control Kabuli flour 2.5%

Initial juiciness

Kabuli flour 5.0%

8

Desi flour 2.5% Foreign-flavour intensity

Firmness 6

Desi flour 5.0% Wheat flour 5.0% Pea four 5.0%

4 Cohesiveness

Flavour desirability 2

Sustained juiciness Overall flavour intensity

Graininess

Saltiness

Fig. 4. Sensory evaluation of low-fat pork bologna formulated with Kabuli, Desi, pea and wheat flours at 2.5% and 5% levels. Initial and sustained juiciness: 8 (extremely moist) to 1 (extremely dry); firmness: 8 (extremely firm) to 1 (extremely soft); cohesiveness: 8 (extremely cohesive) to 1 (extremely brittle); saltiness: 6 (extremely salty) to 1 (not detectable); graininess 6 (extremely grainy) to 1 (not detectable); overall flavour intensity: 8 (extremely intense) to 0 (extremely band); flavour desirability: 8 (extremely desirable) to 1 (extremely undesirable); foreign flavour: 8 (no foreign flavour) to 1 (extremely intense foreign flavour).

4. Conclusions As a legume, chickpea is a good source of the naturally available biopolymers, fibre, protein and starch. Kabuli and Desi chickpea biotypes grown in Western Canada had significantly distinctive differences in their physico-chemical, thermal and functional properties, although for some properties, variety was also a factor. The meat application study demonstrated that incorporation of chickpea flour at both levels (2.5% and 5%) into a low-fat pork bologna model system increased the product’s cook yield, decreased water releasing properties, and increased the instrumental and sensory firmness without a biotype difference. For most flavour properties, bologna with Kabuli and Desi chickpea flour performed similar to control, whereas panelists noted more foreign-flavours with addition of wheat and pea flour at 5%. Even though Kabuli and Desi flours showed slightly different physicochemical characteristics, both performed similarly in the chosen meat system. Results from this study indicated that chickpea flour at 2.5% and 5% has good potential as an extender in low-fat emulsion-type meat systems. Acknowledgments Financial support provided by the Saskatchewan Pulse Crop Development Board and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is gratefully acknowledged. Authors would like to thank H. Silcox and D. Pobereznek for their technical assistance and Dr. B. Tar’an, Dr. G.C. Arganosa and S.D. Hood for providing chickpea and pea samples. References AACC, (1995). Approved methods of the American association of cereal chemists (9th ed.). St. Paul, MN. Abbey, B. W., & Ibeh, G. O. (1991). Functional properties of raw and heat processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata, Walp) flour. Journal of Food Science, 53, 1775–1777. Ahn, H., Hsieh, F., Clarke, A. D., & Huff, H. E. (1999). Extrusion for producing low-fat pork and its use in sausage as affected by soy protein isolate. Journal of Food Science, 64, 267–271. Andres, S. C., Garcia, M. E., Zaritzky, N. E., & Califano, A. N. (2006). Storage stability of low-fat chicken sausages. Journal of Food Engineering, 72, 311–319.

Annor-Frempong, E., Annan-Prah, A., & Wiredu, R. (1996). Cassava as a nonconventional filler in comminuted meat products. Meat Science, 44, 193–202. AOAC, (1990). Official methods of analysis. Association of official analytical chemists (15th ed.). Washington, DC. Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32, 62–66. Brown, L. M., & Zayas, J. F. (1990). Corn germ protein flour as an extender in broiled beef patties. Journal of Food Science, 55, 888–892. Candogan, K., & Kolsarici, N. (2003). Storage stability of low fat beef frankfurters formulated with carrageenan and pectin. Meat Science, 64, 207–214. Chavan, J. K., Kadam, S. S., & Salunkhe, D. K. (1989). CRC handbook of world food legumes, 1, 247–288. Chin, K. B., Keeton, J. T., Longnecker, M. T., & Lamkey, J. W. (1999). Utilization of soy protein isolates and konjac blends in low-fat bologna (model system). Meat Science, 53, 45–47. Chin, K. B., Keeton, J. T., Longnecker, M. T., & Lamkey, J. W. (1998). Low-fat bologna in a model system with varying types and levels of konjac blends. Journal of Food Science, 63, 1–6. Claus, J. R., & Hunt, M. C. (1991). Low-fat, high added-water bologna formulated with texture-modifying ingredients. Journal of Food Science, 56, 643–648. Claus, J. R., Hunt, M. C., & Kastner, C. L. (1989). Effects of substituting added water for fat on the textural, sensory, and processing characteristics of bologna. Journal of Muscle Foods, 1, 1–21. Claus, J. R., Hunt, M. C., Kastner, C. L., & Kropf, D. H. (1990). Low-fat, high-added water bologna: Effects of massaging, preblending, and time of addition of water and fat on physical and sensory characteristics. Journal of Food Science, 55, 338–341. Clemente, A., Vioque, J., Sánchez-Vioque, R., Pedroche, J., Bautista, J., & Millán, F. (2000). Factors affecting the in vitro protein digestibility of chickpea albumins. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 80, 79–84. Dzudie, T., & Hardy, J. (1996). Physicochemical and functional properties of flours prepared from common beans and green mung beans. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 44, 3029–3032. Dzudie, T., Scher, J., & Hardy, J. (2002). Common bean flour as an extender in beef sausages. Journal of Food Engineering, 52, 143–147. Hasan, E., Arshad, M., Ahsan, M., & Saleem, M. (2008). Genetic variability and interrelationship for grain yield and its various components in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Agricultural Research, 46, 109–116. Kaur, M., & Singh, N. (2005). Studies on functional. Thermal and pasting properties of flours from different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Food Chemistry, 91, 403–411. Kim, B. Y., Hamann, D. D., Lanier, T. C., & Wu, M. C. (1986). Effect of freeze-thaw abuse on the viscosity and gel-forming properties of surimi from two species. Journal of Food Science, 51, 951–956. Kinsella, J. E. (1976). Functional properties of proteins in foods: A survey. CRC Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 7, 219–280. Lin, M. J. Y., Humbert, E. S., & Sosulki, F. W. (1974). Certain functional properties of sunflower meal products. Journal of Food Science, 39, 368–373. Meares, C. A., Bogracheva, T. Y., Hill, S. E., & Hedley, C. L. (2004). Development and testing of methods to screen chickpea flour for starch characteristics. Starch/ Stärke, 56, 215–224.

626

W.G. Thushan Sanjeewa et al. / Food Research International 43 (2010) 617–626

Milan-Carrillo, J., Reyes-Moreno, C., & Armienta-Rodelo, E. (2000). Physicochemical and nutritional characteristics of extruded flours from fresh and hardened chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft & Technologie, 33, 117–123. Modi, V. K., Mahendrakar, N. S., Rao, N. D., & Sachindra, N. M. (2003). Quality of buffalo meat burger containing legume flours as binders. Meat Science, 66, 143–149. Osburn, W. N., & Keeton, J. T. (1994). Konjac flour gel as a fat substitute in low-fat prerigor fresh pork sausage. Journal of Food Science, 59, 484–489. Paredes-Lopez, O., Ordorica-Falmir, C., & Olivares-Vasquez, M. R. (1991). Chickpea protein isolates: Physiochemical, functional and nutritional characterization. Journal of Food Science, 56, 726–729. Pearce, K. N., & Kinsella, J. E. (1978). Emulsifying properties of proteins: Evaluation of a turbidimetric technique. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 26, 716–722. Periago, M. J., Ros, G., Lopez, G., Martinez, M. C., & Rincon, F. (1993). The dietary fiber components and their physiological effects. Revista Revista Española de Cienciay Tecnología de Alimentos, 33, 229–246. Rincon, F., Martinez, B., & Ibanez, V. (1998). Proximate composition and antinutritive substances in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as affected by the biotype factor. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 78, 382–388. Sanjeewa, W. G. T. (2008). Physico-chemical properties of chickpea flour, starch and protein fractions and their utilization in low-fat pork bologna. Master of Science thesis, University of Saskatchewan. ).

SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS/STAT 9.1 user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS institute Inc. Sathe, S. K., & Salunkhe, D. K. (1981). Functional properties of the great northern bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) proteins: Emulsion, foaming, viscosity, and gelation properties. Journal of Food Science, 46, 71–75. Sathe, S. K., Deshpande, S. S., & Salunkhe, D. K. (1982). Functional properties of winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonobus L. DC) proteins. Journal of Food Science, 47, 503–509. Schoch, T. J., & Maywald, J. (1968). Preparation and properties of various legumes starches. Cereal Chemistry, 45, 564–574. Shand, P. J. (2000). Textural, water holding, and sensory properties of low-fat pork bologna with normal or waxy starch hull-less barley. Journal of Food Science, 65, 101–107. Singh, K. B. (1984). Dietary fiber and its constituents in Desi and Kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Nutrition Reports International, 29, 419–426. Sosulski, F. W., & Gadan, H. M. (1988). Variation in lipid composition among chickpeas cultivars. Journal of American Oil Chemist Society, 65, 369–372. Sosulski, F. W., & McCurdy, A. R. (1987). Functionality of flours, protein fractions and isolates from field peas and faba bean. Journal of Food Science, 52, 1010–1014. Verma, M. M., Ledward, D. A., & Lawrie, R. A. (1984). Utilisation of chickpea flour in sausages. Meat Science, 22, 109–121. Yang, A., Keeton, J. T., Beilken, S. L., & Trout, G. R. (2001). Evaluation of some binders and fat substitutes in low-fat frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 66, 1039–1046.