81
32
32
Technical Report Series
Number 92-1
RECOVERY OF MINCED MEAT
FROM BLUE CRAB
PICKING PLANT BY-PRODUCTS
Keith W. Gates
Amanda H. Parker
31
31
Georgia Marine Science Center
University System of Georgia
Skidaway Island, Georgia
81
RECOVERY OP' MINCED MEAT FROM BLUE CRAB
PICKING PLANT BY-PRODUCTS
Keith
w.
Gatea and Aaanda B. Parker
Univeraity of Georgia
Marine Extenaion Service
715 Bay Street
Brunawick, GA 31520
912-264-7268
This work is the result of research spon sored by NOAA Office of Sea Grant,
Department of Commerce , and the University of Georgia under Federal Grant
#NA84AA-D-00072, Project #R/SS-10 . The U. s . Government is authorized to produce
and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright
notation that may appear hereon .
1
ABS~CT
Blue crab by-products extracted with a Baader deboner yielded the following
minced meats:
white, 3 . 18\; mixed, 10 . 71\; claw, 6.39\; and leg, 2.62\.
Sensory
prof i les showed distinct visual , t extural , and flavor attributes for each meat.
Minced meat plate counts ranged from 10' to 107 CFUfg.
Extraction with i n 1 . 5
hours of picking or ic i ng of by-products stabilized plate counts.
Hunter
L,
a,
b
values
showed
that
significantly less than meat pasteurized at
meat
182~
acid-phosphate buffer further reduced bluing at
and minced claw meat pasteurized at
182~
pasteurized
(83.3°C) .
177~
at
177~
blued
Treatment with citric
( 80. 5°C).
Mixed minced meat
(83 . 3°C) in low-density polyethylene
tubes darkened significantly and developed "off" odors and flavors during ten
months of frozen storage.
177~
Buffered and unbuffered minced meat pasteurized at
(80.5°C) in aluminum cans failed to develop "off" odors or flavors during
eleven months of frozen storage.
Buffered and unbuffered meats darkened during
storage, however buffer ed meat was whiter and blued less than unbuffered meat .
Except
pasteurized
for
intermittent
minced
meat
spoilage that was attributed to
maintained
acceptable
microbiological
thirteen months of refrigerated storage at< 357 (< 1.7°C).
faulty
cans,
quality
f or
ACS Spectre Sensor
readings of frozen minced meat showed that the addition of phosphate citric acid
buffer pri or to pasteurization improved the appearance of the meat .
Experimental
extraction of mixed minced meat with 19 combinations of solvents showed that
product
treated
with
bicarbonate/water/water,
three
water
washes,
or
bicarbonatefSPD/sodium chloride significantly lightened meat color as determined
by ACS Spectra Sensor readings.
However, the sensory panel did not determine any
significant differences in meat color following solvent extractions .
2
INTRODUCTION
Recovering and marketing products of higher value from fishery wastes can
reduce rising disposal costs and increase profits and employment for the nation's
seafood industry.
The blue crab industry, which generates approximately 180
million pounds of crab by-products annually, has been particularly vulnerable to
waste disposal problems (Murray and DuPaul, 1981).
yield approximately 10\ picked meat by weight.
Steam-processed blue crabs
Remaining by-products are either
discarded or processed for crab meal, which sells for $100 to $150 per ton
(Murray and DuPaul,
Mechanical extraction of minced meat from crab
1981).
picking by-products could recover an additional 15\ to 20% of edible meat.
Nationally, annual recovery of minced crab meat could approach 30 million pounds
(Thompson, 1985).
Minced meat sells for approximately $1.00 per pound and is
used as an extender in deviled crab,
Minced meat
production
at
two
seafood stuffings, soups, and chowders.
crab plants
that
participated
in the
study
increased from approximately 20,000 pounds per year to more than 400,000 pounds
per year during the three-year investigation.
The grey-to-brown appearance and high microbial levels of minced meat limit
its marketability.
five-pound,
Minced meat produced in Georgia is packed in ring-sealed,
low-density polyethylene tubes.
The tubes are pasteurized in hot
water to reduce microbial levels, which further darkens the product.
is sold as a frozen prQduct.
Most meat
Processors market meat with poor knowledge of
nutritional, sensory, and storage qualities.
Improved quality would increase
market demand, and new products could expand sales through production of white
and claw meat analogs.
The Sea Grant research project described in this report was designed to
improve the quality and appearance of minced blue crab meat.
Yields, chemical,
sensory, microbiological, and nutritional qualities were determined for meats
extracted from picking-room by-products.
3
In-plant methods to reduce microbial
loads were investigated.
Low-temperature pasteurization and chemical additives
were evaluated for potential reduction of heat-related darkening or "bluing . "
Chemical, sensory, microbiological, and nutritional changes in mixed minced meat
and minced claw meat pasteur i zed at 1827 (83.3°C) were monitored monthly during
frozen storage at lese than -47 (-20°C).
Mixed minced meat pasteurized at a
reduced temperature, 1777 (SO . SOC), with and without citric acid phoaphate buffer
waa also monitored during frozen storage at leas than -47 (-20°C) .
Mixed minced meat used in the refrigerated storage portion of the study was
pasteurized in eight-ounce aluminum cans at 1777 ( 80 . 5°C) .
Minced meat and meat
treated with phosphate buffer were stored at <357 (<l . 7°C).
Cans were sampled
monthly for aerobic plate counts, Hunter L, a, b and Stansby WI color values, and
proximate composition during 13 months of refrigerated storage.
Color improvement of extracted minced meats would greatly expand market
opportunities for the products .
Color extraction and bleaching techniques were
adapted from procedures developed for bleachi ng fish
protein concentrates, and manufacturing surimi.
flesh,
producing
fish
We investigated extraction of
mixed minced meat with a seriea of 19 solvent combinations to evaluate methods
to decolorize or lighten the product.
Mixed minced meat was extracted using the
solvents, and product color was evaluated in terms of Hunter L,a,b values, WI
index, and sensory panel hedonic perception of minced meat color.
4
METHODS
By-Product Extraction
Minced meat was extracted from picking-room by-products of mechanicallybacked (C.
and K. Lord Backing Machine,
Cambridge,
MD),
hand-picked,
steam-
retorted blue crabs using a Baader 694 deboning machine (Baader North America
Corp., New Bedford, MA).
Drum perforations were 1.3 mm in diameter.
Two blue
crab processors cooperated by providing plant time and equipment for the project.
Picking-room
by-products
were
separated
into
four
components
to
evaluate
extracted meat types and yields for the following materials:
1.
Mixed minced meat - recovered from all picking-room by-products except
claws
2.
Minced white meat -
recovered from "slabs" removed by the pickers'
first dorsal cut, containing only white body meat
3.
Minced leg meat -
recovered from separated walking legs and swimming
legs
4.
Minced claw meat -
recovered from separated claws.
separated by hand or machine.
Whole claws are
Commercially meat is extracted from
whole claws when there are more claws available for picking than can
be
accommod~ted
by the hand-picking operation.
Analyses
Chemical and nutritional parameters determined in duplicate for minced meat
samples included: percent moisture, percent Kjeldahl protein, percent ash, and
percent
fat
(Williams,
1984).
,Microbiological quality was assessed through
duplicate standard aerobic plate counts,
enterococci plate counts, MPN total
coliforms, MPN E.coli, and MPN coagulase positive staphylococci analyses (Food
and Drug Administration, 1978; Speck, 1984).
5
An ACS Spectra Sensor (supplied by
the O'Brien Corp., Brunswick, GA) was used to determine minced meat Hunter L, a ,
b color values (Hunter and Harold, 1987).
Whiteness index (WI) was calculated
according to Stansby (1967) :
WI • L - Jb + 3a
Sensory Panel
A trained five-member sensory panel determined appearance, flavor, odor,
and textural characteristics of extracted minced meat (Cardello, 1981; Civille
and Liska, 1975; Civille and Szczesniak, 1973; Gates et al., 1984a; Jellinek,
1985) .
sensory profiles were developed for unpasteurized and pasteurized minced
meat samples .
Appearance and odor profile descriptors were defined as follows:
1.
Bluing :
No obvious blu i ng i s 0 , 100% bluing is 6 .
2.
wet-to-dry appearance :
0
is
dry,
5 is free
liquid draining from
sample.
3.
Ammonia odor:
0 represents no detect able odor, while 6 is the odor of
free ammonia that would strongly irritate the nose and eyes.
4.
Cooked-crab odor:
0 is no detectable odor, 6 is an overwhelming crab
aroma reminiscent of the odors evolved from steaming crabs .
s.
Putrid:
0 is no detectable odor, 6 is the strong odor associated wi th
rotten meat.
6.
Fish or
trimethylamine
odor:
0
is
no
detectable
odor,
while
6
indicates the " fish " odor associated with old fish that are getting
"off" and are barely edible .
7.
Cereal odor:
0 is no detectable odor, while 6 indicates a
strong
cereal-bread-yeasty aroma .
The following taste and textural pro files were developed f o r past eur ized
minced crab meat :
6
1. Moistness:
The perceived degree of oil and/or water in the sample
during chewing.
0 is a very dry sample,
6 indicates free
liquid
readily oozing from the sample.
2 . Fibrousness:
The perceived degree (number x size) of fibers evident
during mastication.
0 is no fibers evident, 6 indicates many large
fibers.
3 . Adhesiveness:
The force required to remove material that adheres to
the mouth during the normal eating process (0 = no adhesion; 3
z
cream
cheese; 6 =peanut butter).
4. Chewiness:
The length of time required to masticate a
sample at
constant rate of force to reduce it to a consistency suitable for
swallowing (0 •
Rye bread; 2 •
Jujubes; 4 •
Black cow candy; 6 =
Tootsie Rolls) .
5. Particle size:
=
(0
smooth;
Average size of particles detected during mastication
1 •
chalky; 2 •
gritty; 3
=
grainy;
4 •
coarse;
6
=
chunky).
6. Cooked-crab taste :
Relative strength of crab taste. 0 = none detected,
6 • overwhelming crab taste.
7. Astringent:
8. Sourness :
6
z
0 =none detected, 6 = mouth feel and taste of pure alum.
Relative strength of acidic components, 0 = none detected,
pure lemon juice or vinegar.
9. Rancidity:
The aftertaste associated with country ham.
0
none
detected, 6 =objectionable rancidity (old country ham).
10. Freezer-burn:
The taste associated with
freezer that has been used to store food.
stale refrigerator or
a
0
=
none detected, 6 =
overwhelming taste .
11 . Old-seafood flavor:
Aromatics and tastes associated with cooked
seafood that is getting "off" but still acceptable, 0 • none detected,
6 = overwhelming taste of seafood that has developed strong " off"
flavors and is barely edible.
7
Staff members who developed sensory profile descriptors served as the minced meat
evaluation panel.
Members were presented with coded samples and asked to rate
each descriptor numerically on a printed ratings form.
Panelists were supplied
with the preceding list of sensory descriptors at each sessio n.
Picking-Room Microbiological Analyses and Pasteurization
Bacterial levels in mixed picking-room by-products were evaluated during
four hours of iced- or room-temperature storage to determine the most effective
holding
condition and maximum acceptable
storage period before extraction.
Pasteurization times, temperatures, and F-values were determined for meat packed
in
five-poundr
low-density,
polyethylene tubes
using a
recorder linked with an IBM-XT (Gates et al., 1984b).
temperatures were reduced to
182~
Digitec temperature
Initial pasteurization
(83.3°C), because processors noted excessive
bluing of meat pasteurized at 186°F ( 85 .. SOC) .
Previous studies have shown that
lower pasteurization temperatures have reduced bluing of hand-picked meat (Boon,
1975; Gates et al.
9
1984b; Strasser et al<, 1971; Waters, 1971).
was evaluated by the sensory panel and by Hunter L,
a,
Product color
b color values and
Stansby's Whiteness Index (WI) values (Boon, 1975; Strasser et al., 1971; Waters,
1971; Stansby, 1967).
Effects
of
low-temperature
pasteurization,
177°F
(80.5°C),
and
bluing
inhibitors on minced meat color were determined for mixed minced and minced white
meat samples pasteurized in eight-ounce aluminum cans.
The following buffer
developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service was used in the additive
portion of the study (Waters, 1971): Na2HP04 , 0. 73 oz (20. 79 g); H3CJ{50,, 0.57 oz
( 16.64 g); and NaCl, 0. 78 oz ( 21.99 g).
Sodium phosphate, citric acid, and sodium
chloride were diluted to 33.8 oz (1000 ml) with deionized water to complete the
buffer.
Five low-temperature pasteurization treatments of minced white meat and
mixed minced meat were evaluated by pasteurizing meat in eight-ounce aluminum
cans at
177~
( 80. 5°C):
8
1.
8 ounces (226.8 g) of minced meat
2.
8 ounces (226.8 g) of minced meat plus 2.2 oz (64 ml) buffer that was
poured on top of the meat after it had been packed into the can
3.
8 ounces (226 . 8 g) of minced meat ·plus 2 . 2 oz (64 ml) buffer that was
well mixed by stirring it into the meat after it was packed into the
can
4.
8 ounces (226.8 g) of minced meat plus 3.1 oz (91 ml) buffer that was
poured on top of the meat after the meat had been packed into the can
5.
8 ounces (226.8 g) of minced meat plus 3.1 oz (91 ml) buffer that was
well mixed by stirring it into the meat after it was packed into the
can.
Buffer was either poured into a can of meat without mixing or thoroughly stirred
into the meat prior to sealing.
(80 . 5°C) to F
Us =
37.65 minutes.
Meat was pasteurized for three hours at 177°F
Cooling was 1 . 5 hours in an ice slurry at
3 7 . 4"F (3°C) to a final temperature equal to or less than 40"F ( 4. 4°C) .
Three cans
of crab meat were composited for duplicate chemical, microbiological, color , and
sensory analyses following pasteurization.
Frozen Storage In Polyethylene Tubes
Mixed minced meat and minced claw meat used for the frozen-storage study
were packaged in 5 mil, low-density, polyethylene tubes containing approximately
one pound of meat.
Commercial tubes containing only one pound of meat, instead
of five pounds of meat, were used to reduce storage requirements and meat costs.
Stored one-pound tubes were shorter in length than five-pound tubes, but had the
same cross-sectional area.
Tubes were sealed at each end with steel rings,
pasteurized in a hot water bath at l82"F (83.3°C) for 180 minutes, and cooled in
an ice slurry for 90 minutes to less than or equal to 40"F ( 4. 4°C) •
value was 44.
Meat was blast-frozen at -ll.2°F (-24°C).
9
The mean F
1
1 8&5
Samples were stored in
a walk-in freezer at less than -4°F (-200C) .
Chemical, sensory, microbiological,
and nutritional changes were monitored monthly for ten months.
meat
were
composited
each
month
for
duplicate
Three tubes of
chemical,
color,
and
mi crobiological analyses and sensory panel evaluations.
F r ozen Stor age In Aluminum Cans
Mixed minced meat used for buffered frozen storage tests was pasteurized
in e i ght-ounce aluminum cans at l77°F ( 80 . 5°C) for three hours to F
minutes.
Ns -
Cooling was 1. 5 hour• in an ice slurry at 37. 40f {3°C) .
37.65
cans were
packed wi th 8 oz (226.8 g) of minced meat or 8 oz (220 . 8 g) of minced meat mixed
with 2.2 oz (64 ml) of citric acid-phosphate buffer described previ ously.
cans of meat were held in a walk-in free zer at
Three
cans
of
each
sample
were
compos i ted
microbiologic al, and color analyses .
-4~
Frozen
(-20°C) for eleven months.
monthl y
for
chemical ,
sensory,
All analyses were complet ed i n duplicate .
Refr i gerated Storage In Aluminum Cans
Mixed minced meat used in the refrigerated storage portion of the study was
pasteurized in eight-ounce aluminum cane at 1 770f ( 80 . 5°C) for three hours to F
Ns
=
as
3 7.65 minutes.
Cooling was L 5 hours in an ice slurr y at 37. 40f
previously described for the frozen storage of eight-ounce cans.
(3°C)
Twenty-five
pounds (11.3 kg ) of mixed mi nced meat was mixed with 108 oz (3.2 1) of c i tric
acid phosphate buffer prior to packing in 50 eight-ounce cans.
minced meat was also packed in 50 aluminum cans .
refrigerated storage at <35°F (<1. 7°C).
Untreated mixed
Both products were held in
Three cans of each sample were composited
monthly for aerobic plate counts, Hunter L, a, b and Stensby WI color v alues, and
proximate composition during 13 months of refrigerated stor age.
completed in duplicate.
10
An alyses were
Color Extraction
Color extraction and bleaching techniques were adapted from those used in
the bleaching of fish flesh, development of fish protein concentrates, and surimi
processing
technology
(Banks
and
Morgan,
1978;
Braid
1976;
Guttmann
Vandenheuvel, 1957; Idler, 1968; Jauregui and Baker 1980; Thrash, 1983) .
and
Mixed
minced meat was washed with a series of solvents to determine the ability of
solvents to decolorize or lighten the product.
combined with
centrifuged to
30
ml
of
solvent
remove solvent
and
mixed.
Mixed minced meat (10 g) was
The meat/solvent mixture was
and any extracted color.
Product
color was
evaluated in terms of Hunter L, a, b values, WI index, and sensory panel hedonic
perception of minced meat.
Sensory color was evaluated on an increasing scale
of 0 to 6 with 6 representing the most desirable.
Solvent 1/solvent 2 indicates
that the meat was extracted first by solvent 1 followed by solvent 2.
Minced
meat was extracted with the following solvents or combination of solvents:
1. Unwashed control
2. Cold water
3. 2x with cold water
4. 0.5% sodium bicarbonate
s.
Bicarbonate/water
6. 0.05% sodium tripolyphosphate (STP)
7. 0.05% sodium tripolyphosphate dibasic (SPD)
8. 0.3\ sodium chloride (NaCl)
9. Cold ethanol
10. Bicarbonate/Nacl
11. Bicarbonate/STP/NaCl
12. Bicarbonate/SPD/NaCl
13. Bicarbonate/ethanol
14. Ethanol/water
15. 3x with cold water
16. Bicarbonate/STP/NaCl/water
11
17. Bicarbonate/SPD/NaCl/water
18. Bicarbonate/water/water
19. Hot ethanol
Statistical Analyses
Chemical, sensory, microbiological, and color differences in minced meat
samples were compared statistically using Personal Computer SAS (Joyner, 1985;
Sasser, 1985),
Differences among means were determined using the GLM procedure
and Duncan's multiple-range test.
Pearson's correlation procedure was used to
determine significant correlations between storage month and measured parameters
(Joyner,
1985) .
In the
remainder of
the paper,
statistically significant
differences among means at the 0.05 level will be indicated by "p < 0.05"
following a statement of comparison.
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
By-Product Extraction
Blue crab picking-room by-products were separated into four components
prior
to
extraction
with
a
Baader
694
machine.
By-product types were;
(1) "slabs," the portion of hand-picking by-product containing only white body
meat; (2) mixed by-product that included all picking-room by-products but claws;
(3) separated legs; and (4) separated claws.
weight of an uncooked green crab were:
Minced meat yields based on the
white meat, 3.18\; mixed minced meat,
13 . 89\
(10 . 71\ if slabs are separated); minced leg,
6.39%.
Total recoverable minced meat is approximately 22% of an uncooked crab's
weight.
2.62%;
and minced claw,
Yields based on cooked by- product type as the starting point were:
76 . 63%, 59.45%, 40.44%, and 38.07% for "slab," mixed, leg, and claw by-products,
respectively (Figure 1) .
Mean proximate analyses of the four meat types are presented in Figure 2.
Minced leg meat had higher moisture levels (p < 0.05) than white or claw mince.
Moisture contents of minced leg and mixed minced meat were greater than minced
claw meat (p < 0.05).
Minced white meat moisture content was definitely less
than that of minced leg meat (p < 0.05).
Minced leg meat had a notably lower ash
content than other meat samples (p < 0.05) .
greater (0.05) than mixed minced meat.
Minced claw protein levels were
Fat levels were low for all minced meats,
but claw meat had less fat than leg meat (p < 0.05) which had lower fat levels
than white or mixed minced meat
(p < 0.05).
Mixed minced meat had greater
moisture-free ash content than other meats (p < 0.05), indicating greater shell
content.
Leg meat had higher moisture-free protein levels than mixed or white
minced meat (p < 0 . 05) .
Figure 2 presents mean Hunter color L, a, b, and Stensby's whiteness index
(WI) results for the four meat types.
Mean L values were significantly different
13
MINCED MEAT YI EL DS BY BODY PARTS
80
60
0
_J
w
40
)-
20
D
MIX ED
LEG
WHITE
CLAW
MEAT TYPE
•
GREEN CRAB Y I ELOS
~ BODY PART
Y t ELOS
Figure 1. Mean minced meat by-product yields based on uncooked green crab
starting weight and weight of by-products after cooking.
for all minced meats (p < 0.05).
white, mixed,
claw,
and leg .
Order of decreasing whiteness by L value was:
WI values computed by Stensby' s
index reduce
whiteness by three times the blue (b) value and increase it by three times the
red (a) value.
Claw and leg WI
~atings
were greater than white and mixed meat
levels (p < 0.05), reflecting higher blue levels determined for mixed and white
meats.
Mean Hunter a values show mixed minced meat to be redder than other
meats.
Blue components of mixed and white minced meat are notably greater than
blue components of claw and leg meat (p < 0.05).
Mean sensory appearance and odor profiles for minced meat samples are
reported in Figure 3 (p < 0.05).
meat.
Leg meat appeared to be more wet than white
Leg meat had stronger ammonia odors than white meat
14
( p < 0. 0 5) .
No
.
=
"'c
LL
0
Ul
w
Ul
!
~ .,
I ·
..,..
~
f3:;
f-
z
a_
0
__J
0
u
a
3:;
<!
__J
u
0
z
<
X
-
2
0
z w'
<!
f-
w I
f-
<!
2
X
0
a
0.
3:;
C)'
w
_j
0
a:
u
_,
0
0
•
...
e
...a:
E-
"'
=
"'
.
i
z
:.
c:
....1
u
!§§!!
0
2
<!
r.:l
E-<
H
,..::<:
V1
0
H
~
~
~
D
D
0
0
~
~
~
~
SJn'lYA
.LllJJl!3d
w
a
~
z
u
z
~
><l
t::
..
!;;
"'..."'"'_,
.. tn
<!
~
<(
z
<
....
<
X:
0
0
~
~
r.:l
...J
....X:
H
2
C>
"'<E-
""E-
0
•
•
. •
.
H
~
El!l
" ...
i!
_,
,.,<<
lf)
::
Q
~
0
0
N
!10'!0::> li3.LK!lH
.s
w
LL
LL
z w
<1: u
w z
2
<(
~
<(
~
L'J
w
0' u
t- w
z
z
I
"'
0
2
<(
u
Ill
lC
w
w
~
~
.....
<1: Ul
>w z
_j
<1: 2 <
<!
..."'_,
i "'
..:
'""
..
lil
"'=
J.!IJ::J1!3:d
Figure 2. Proximate and Hunter color analyses of differences among leg, white,
mixed, and claw minced meat . Meat types with the same letter above mean bars
are not different (p < 0.05).
15
MEAN
SENSO~Y
PROFILES OF MINCED LEG, WHITE , MIXED , AND
CLAW MEAT WITH DUNCAN 'S DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS
APPEARANCE AND ODOR
TEXTURE
0
ADII:SlYUISS
Flii0'1151E55
liJIS'P'Eil:SS
c:ntiRSS
P.umcu srzt
rLAVOR
3 5
3
(.;>
~
,....
E-<
~
><
~
0
2. 5
2
1.5
ttl
:z.
r.J
"'
0 5
0
•• • •
coono.. cue
Alm!IIOErr
•
LEG
•
50UI
IAICID
rRUZU BVIUI
OI.D-SEAIOOD
SENSORY PROfiLES
11IXI:D
•
YHITE
~CLAW
Pigure 3. Sensory appearance,
odor,
texture,
and flavor analyses of
differences among leg, white, mixed, and claw minced meat. Meat types with the
same letter above mean bars are not different (p < 0.05).
16
statistically significant differences were determined for cooked crab or putrid
odors.
Leg meat had considerably greater trimethylamine (TMA) odor ratings than
other minced meat
(p < 0.05).
Cereal odor determined for white meat was
definitely less intense than other meats (p < 0.05).
Textural prof ilea of minced meat determined by the sensory panel are
presented in Figure 3.
Claw and leg meat were more moist than white meat (p <
Claw meat was rated more fibrous than mixed minced meat (p < 0.05).
0.05).
statistically
chewineas.
significant
differences
were
determined
for
adhesiveness
No
or
Particle sizes of white and claw minces were distinctly larger than
mixed minced meat (p < 0.05).
Mean flavor profiles for the four minced meats are shown in Figure 3.
Mixed minced meat had a greater astringent feeling than other meat (p < 0.05).
Old-seafood flavors were found at higher levels in claw meat than other minces
(p < 0.05).
No statistically significant differences were determined among
minced meats for sour, rancid, freezer-burn, or old-seafood flavors.
Four meats
with
distinct
textures were extracted.
contents.
chemical
compositions, ·colors,
and
Leg and mixed minced meat had the highest moisture
Ash contents were low, ranging from 1.57\ for leg meat to 2.14\ for
mixed minced meat, indicating little shell contamination.
ranging from 0.12\ to 1. 73\.
content, 18.54\.
m~ist,
Fat content was low,
Mixed minced and white meat had higher fat contents
Minced claw had the highest protein
than minced leg or minced claw meat.
produced a
flavors,
"Slabs" produced a dry, white, textured mince; mixed by-product
golden-brown mince; legs produced a smooth, flavorful, dark-
brown meat; and claws produced a highly-textured, less-flavored, chewy, brown
mince.
17
Picking-Room Microbiological Analyses and Pasteurization
Minced meat exhibited high microbial levels, ranging from 10~ to 107 CFU/g.
No statistically significant differences were determined among aerobic plate
counts for the four meat types before pasteurization.
Unpasteurized plate counts
were higher than pasteurized plate counts (p < 0.05)
(Figure 4) .
Pasteurized
claw bacterial levels were greater than pasteurized leg populations (p < 0.05).
Pasteurization at 182"F ( 83 , 3°C)
(F
3,000 CFU per gram (Log 3.5 CFU/g)
Ns =
44) reduced plate counts to less than
(Figure 4).
No total coliform, E . coli, or
coagulase positiv e staphylococci were detected in pasteurized meata.
Hourly
clean-up and sanitation of the Baader machine improved product quality; however,
by- product microbial levels increased rapidly when held at room temperature
(Figure 5).
Extraction within 1.5 hours of picking showed little increase in
microbial populations of mixed by-products .
Microbial growth was controlled for
extractions delayed beyond 1.5 hours by placing picking-room by-products within
plastic bags and icing the bags at a ratio of 2:1 ice-to-product (Figure 5).
By-
product temperature dropped below 40"F (4 . 4°C) within 70 minutes of icing (Figure
6) .
Pasteurization at 182"F (83 . 3°C) effectively reduced microbial levels for
al l minced meata (Figure 4); however, meats darkened following pasteurization.
Hunter color L, a, b, and Stansby WI values before and after pasteurization are
presented in Figure 7.
(Fiqure
7),
and
paateurization
Hunter L or whiteness decreased for all pasteurized meats
significantly
(p < 0.05).
so
for
mixed,
Stenaby'a WI
pasteurized white and leg meats (p < 0.05).
claw,
values
and
were
leg meat
definitely
following
leas
for
Hunter a, or redness, decreased for
all pasteurized samples except claw meat (p < 0 . 05) (Figure 7).
Hunter b values
decreased significantly for all pasteurized samples except claw meat, indicating
increased levels of bluing (p < 0.05) (Figure 7).
18
LOG MEAN AER OBIC PLATE COUNTS OF LEG, MIXED ,
WHITE AND MINCED CLAW MEAT WITH DUNCAN ·s
·DI FFERENCES AMONG MEANS
7
a
a
6
5
00
':-;:,
1.1..1
4
0
0
3
u
......\
2
0
PASTEUR IZED
UNPASTEURIZED
TR EATMENT
•
LEG
~ MIXED
•
WHITE
~CLAW
Figure 4. Log mean plata counts before and after pasteurization of leg, white,
mixed and claw minced meat analyses of differences among means. Meat types
with the same letter above mean bars are not different (p < 0.05).
Hunter color L, a, b, and Stansby WI values for minced white meat and mixed
minced meat pasteurized at 17 7"F
Figure 8.
( 80. soc) and 182"F
( 83 . ·3 °C)
are presented in
Minced white meat pasteurized at 177"F (80.5°C) was not as blue as meat
pasteurized at 182"F (83.3°C) (p < 0.05) as indicated by Hunter b values.
Mixed
minced meat pasteurized at 182°F (83.3°C) had a lower mean Hunter L value than
meat pasteurized at 177"F (80 . 5°C)
(p < 0.05) (Figure 8).
Hunter L values show
no statistically significant differences among buffered and unbuffered white meat
sample• cooked at 177°F (80.5°C) except for meat buffered with 2.2 oz (64 ml) of
citric acid phosphate that was not mixed into the meat.
white as other pasteurized samples
(p < 0.05)
The product was not as
(Figure 9) .
WI values which
combine L, a, and b levels showed meat treated with 2.2 oz (64 ml) of buffer
19
CRAB PICKING BY-PRODUCT MI CROBIAL LEV ELS
ROOM TEMPERATURE VS ICED STORAGE
2E•07
1E+07
3E•06
2E+06
1E•06
4E•05
2E+05
1E+OS
3E+04
2
0
4
T IME IN 1-fjURS
•
0
+
PLATE COUNTS (~ TEMPERo. TURE)
PLATE COL.NT S ( I CEO)
6
ENTEROCOCrl (ROOM TEMPERATURE)
ENTEROCDCC• CoCED)
Figure 5. Mean microbial levels of mixed picking-room by-products held on ice
and at room temperature.
(without mixing) to be the whitest sample .
had
higher
WI
levels
than
unpasteurized
All pasteurized white meat samples
meat.
Hunter
a
values
showed
unpasteurized white meat and pasteurized white meat containing 3 . 1 oz (91 ml) of
buffer to be more red than other pasteurized samples (p < 0 . 05).
Pasteurized
unbuffered white meat and pasteurized white meat treated with 2.2 oz (64 ml) of
buffer that had not been mixed were definitely more red than other. samples (p <
0.05)
(Figure 9).
Blue color levels,
as shown by Hunter b values,
were not
significantly different for unpasteurized white meat and white meat treated with
3 . 1 oz (91 ml) of buffer prior to pasteurization at 177°F (80 . 5°C).
White meat
treated with 3.1 oz (91 ml) of buffer prior to pasteurization blued less than the
following in order of increased bluing: white meat mixed with 2.2 oz (64 ml)
buffer, unbuffered meat and meat mixed with 3.1 oz (91 ml) of buffer, and meat
20
PICKING BY-PRODUCT TEMPERAT URE PROFILE
HELD ON ICE AND AT ROOtl TEtlPERATURE
BO
75
--1
I
I
~'-;;;?['f......................................................................................f,f·~=,.i
70
-
65
-' \
I
60
-
55
-
I
\\
\ ..•\
~
\1.~;
I>
·n
'\ '-·1
50
'l '--,
-
, ---,
I
'
I
~
45
I
LI
-
....""'
L;
t-,
L"\ •
40
VL....,
-
L --·\
I
I
'-·
L ________i
\ __ 1
35
I
-,
-
:
'
·-,1-l•
\___ ...\
v '}\_~----. . 1
L _______ .
0
40
ao
--,
·-· ------ ------ - ---------~: l ...II~---.'\II\--- -··
r 1
1
I
~-----~-• --- ~ ------·----------- I
v \·,\~_j
30
L. - - ...
1n
~-~
120
160
200
I'
v
'L~-
240
TiltE IN 11111\J'I'ES
ROOJ1 TEJ1PERATURE
-------- ROOJ1 TEil:PERA'l'URE
ICED BY -PRODUCT
............. ROOJ1 BY-PRODUCT
- - --- - - ICED BY-PRODUCT
- - ROOlf BY- PRODUCT
Figure 6. Temperatures of mixed picking-room by-products held on ice and at
room temperature for four hours.
treated with 2.2 oz (64 ml) of buffer (p < 0.05) (Figure 9).
Unpasteurized mixed
minced meat and all buffered mixed minced meat samples pasteurized at 177°F
(80.5°C) had higher L values than unbuffered mixed minced meat cooked at the same
temperature (Figure 9).
Stensby's whiteness index -showed that unpasteurized
mixed minced meat and pasteurized mixed minced meat treated with 2.2 oz (64 ml)
and 3.1 oz (91 ml) of buffer to be definitely more white than unbuffered meat
pasteurized at
177~
(80 . 5°C) (p < 0.05).
Mixed minced meat mixed with 3.1 oz (91
ml) of buffer had the whitest appearance by Hunter L values while unmixed 3.1 oz
(91 ml) buffered meat had the highest WI rating.
Mixed minced meat mixed with
2.2 oz (64 ml) of buffer had the second highest Hunter L rating.
21
Unpasteurized
....
a ..
(1) .... ...
rt::l~
ctn
IDIDft
t1 jl..
1119 ....
tT CD •
~%o
MEAN HUNTER L. A. B. AND STENSBY S WI VALU ES BEFORE
ID tT
9 &o
CD 111 1'1
AN D AFTER PASTEUR I ZATI ON AT 182 F (83 . 3 C) OF MINCED
g.
~~~~<
MEAT WITH DU NCAN ·s DIFFERENCE S AMONG MEAN S
::310111
trill~
lll:se
t1 jl.
Ill
Ill Ill ::3
t1 ~e
CD CD'<
!l 1'1 CD
O't!CD
111
rtlll
jl.~g,
1-'· CD
~
1\)
111J::jl.
111 t1 ...
Cll ... 111
t'IN111
CDIIICD
!l rt 1'1
10
~
Ill
I&J
::>
-I
..
<(
.
<(
>
>
~0
0
...;
8
"'
~
::>
0
20
.....
C))
~
. .....
U1 ~IQ
CD
x.a
-~
Ill'
ct!l"
(t ...
'<rt
!l"ll.
rtlll
!l":S
IDil.
111 n
;:;
Cll
a:
8
•o
el
20
10
0
b
Wl
Wl
II IX ED
60
v;
f.ll
::>
~ •o
-I
<(
~
-I
<(
40
>
"'0
10
lO
-I
8
0
u
"'
20
§:c
10
t>J
jO
Ill
50
-1
>
CLAll'
r------------------------------------------------,
"'
20
t>J
~
10
::>
I
:z:
WI
CD9
t ...
rtiD
•o
:c
'i!8
.... )C
0
~
::>
10
:s 0
0
0 ~ :3
•
$0
-1
:c
~Ill.
1\ rt CD
60
::>
40
-I
ct .... CD
0 !l
~
WHITE
LEG
50
CD
b
HUNT ER COLOR SCALES
II
BEFORE PASTEURI ZATION
~ AFTER PASTEURIZATI ON
WI
and buffered mixed minced meat pasteurized at
177~
(80.5°C) had greater Hunter
a or red components than unbuffered meat pasteurized at the same temperature (p
< 0.05).
Statistically significant differences among mixed minced meat Hunter
a values were grouped in the following order of decreasing redness: mixed minced
meat mixed with 2. oz (64 ml) of buffer, mixed and unmixed meat treated with 3.1
oz (91 ml) of buffer, unpasteurized meat and meat containing 2.2 oz (64 ml) of
buffer, and unbuffered meat pasteurized at
177~
(80.5°C) (p < 0 . 05) (Figure 9).
Addition of buffers to mixed minced meat definitely reduced bluing at 177°F
(p < 0.05) .
(80 . 5°C)
Unpasteurized meat and unbuffered meat had notably lower
Hunter b values, indicating more bluing than all buffered treatments (p < 0.05).
Mixed minced meat treated with 2 . 2 and 3 .1 oz ( 64 and 91 ml) of buffer mixed into
the meat were less blue than buffered meat that had not been thoroughly mixed (p
< 0.05).
Pasteurization at the reduced temperature of 177°F (80.5°C) improved meat
color for both white and mixed minced meat as indicated by Hunter L and b
values~
Color characteristics of white and mixed minced meat were improved by adding
citric acid phosphate buffer when pasteurized at
meat
containing 3 . 1
oz
( 91 ml)
of
177~
buffer that
(80.5°C)(p < 0 . 05).
was mixed or not
White
mixed or
containing 2 . 2 oz (64 ml) of buffer mixed into the meat was definite ly less blue
and less green than unbuffered white meat pasteurized at 177°F (80. 5°C).
Al l
buffered mixed minced meat samples were notably more white, less green , and less
blue than unbuffered minced meat pasteurized at 177°F (80 . 5°C) .
Mince containing
2.2 and 3.1 oz (64 and 91 ml) of phosphate buffer premixed into the meat produced
the most favorable color characteristics.
Mixed minced meat containing 3. 1 oz
(91 ml) of buffer without mixing had the highest WI rating.
177~
(80.5°C) effectively reduced bacterial populations .
counts
for
Pasteurizat i on a t
Total aerobic plate
pasteurized mixed minced and minced claw meat
detected to 160 CFU per gram.
ranged
f rom none
No total coliform, E. coli , or coagulase positive
staphylococci were detected .
23
MEAN HUNTER L, a, b, AND STENSBY S WI VA LUES FOR WHITE
AND MIXED MI NCED MEAT PASTEUR I ZED AT 182 F ( 83 . 3 C) AN D
1 77 F ( 80 . 5 C) WITH DUNCA N S DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS
WHITE
70
60
Vl
~
50
....l
<
>
~
....l
8
40
a
a
30
"'
w
~
:>
20
a:
10
b
b
0
L
b
WI
b
\Vl
loll XED
60
50
Vl
tal
:>
....l
40
"'3
30
<
>
0
(.)
"'~
z;
::>
20
::
10
0
L
a
HUNTER COLOR SCALES
II UNPASTEURI ZED
~ PASTEURIZED AT 177
II PASTEURIZED AT
182
Figure 8. Color analyses of white and mixed minced meat pasteurized at 177° and
182~. Meat types with the same letter above mean bars are not different (p <
0.05) .
24
MEAN HUNTER L. a, b. AND STENSBY S WI VALUES WITH DUNCAN 'S
DIFFERENCES
A~ONG
MEANS FOR WHITE AND MIXED
~INCED
MEAT
PASTEURIZED AT 177 F(80 5 C) WITH AND WITHOUT BUFFERS
WH ITE
70
60
(()
[U
:::> 50
.-l
<
>
IX
40
0
...-l
0
{)
30
IX
[U
f-.
z 2.0
!::>
::c
10
c
b
"
b
0
L
b
WI
b
II'!
t.IIXED
70
60
(/)
iJJ
::> 50
-l
<
>
<>: 40
0
-l
0
u 30
<>:
l<l
r
:z. 2.0
!::>
X
10
0
a
L
•
•
~
HUNTER COLOR SCALES
u : U11pasteurized
~
PBI!oi •
p
Pasteurized
D
PB2. • 91 ..1 phosphate buffer
PBI
= 64
•
ml phosphate buffer
P82ll
~
154 llll
ai xed phosphate buffer
91 ml IIUXed phosphate buffer
Figure 9. Color analyses of pasteurized white and mixed minced meat with and
without buffers. Meat types with the same letter above mean bars for each
color attribute are not different (p < 0.05) .
25
Frozen Storage In Polyethylene Tubes
Mixed minced and minced claw meat pasteurized at
at
less than
-4~
( -20°C)
182~
(83.3°C) and stored
exhibited no consistent statistically significant
differences with time for the following parameters during ten months of frozen
storage:
(1) bacterial levels, (2) proximate composition, (3) bluing, (4) wet-
to-dry appearance, (5) ammonia odor, (6) cooked-crab odor, (7) cereal odor, (8)
perceived moistness,
particle size,
(9) fibrousness,
(13) cooked-crab taste,
(10) adhesiveness,
(11) chewiness,
(12)
(14) astringent taste, or (15) ammonia
concentration.
Figure 10 shows Hunter L,
a,
and b colors and Stansby Whiteness Index
values for mixed minced meat and minced claw meat stored at
pasteurization at
sour,
rancid,
182~
(83.3°C).
freezer-burn,
and
-4~
(-20°C) following
Figures 11 and 12 show putrid and TMA odor and
old-seafood
flavors,
respectively.
Each
parameter had consistent statistically significant changes with month of frozen
storage for mixed minced and minced claw meat (p < 0.05).
Table l presents
Pearson correlation coefficients with measured parameters versus months of
storage for minced claw and mixed minced meat, respectively.
Both minced claw and mixed minced meat darkened over ten months of frozen
storage as indicated by decreasing Hunter L values.
Significant and relatively
high correlation coefficients were determined among storage month and L and WI
values for minced claw meat (p < 0.05} (Table 1) .
The Hunter L value for minced
claw meat at month ten was less than all other L values (p < 0.05).
Zero time
and months one and two for mixed minced meat and month one for minced claw meat
had definitely higher L values than other storage months (p < 0.05).
WI levels
for minced claw at zero time and month one were distinctly higher than all other
months (p < 0.05).
storage.
WI values decreased significantly at two and three months of
Stored claw meat had definitely lower WI ratings in the remaining
months of storage ( p < 0. OS) (Figure 10, Table 1} •
26
Hunter a or redness increased
l»rt" ..
11
10
s:: ...
2"~
::I CD ti
0
(tHo
•
MEAN HUNTER L,
o ...
.
0.11 0
....
PLASTIC TUBES , PASTEURIZED AT 182 F (83 3 C) AND HELD IN FROZEN STORAGE
10 8 0
11o~-'
10:::10
::ln-11
L
rt"::rl»
06
_m::;~
,.
'OHI~
Om
~
• !Om
:.
-'0
Ul(ll~
~
8
48
o~'~IO
0:::1
~n-
. 08
11 ....
I» )C
IQIO
.
-..1
5'l
V&LUE~
~
.,
;>
.. ..
..
•
00.
•o
,.
111-'
I»
~ ~
....rt-8
8~
100.
Ul
8
~ re
!Ort"
1-''0
ID I»
Wl YALO~
..
•• r-----------------------------------------------------,
"'
40
1:! ~8
~
~
:
3
"...B
6
...~
l!i
!<
iii
~
"'
16
..
... ...
... ..
].Q
32
30
0
..
21
lD
11
I» ....
O"N
MONTHS OF FROZEN STORAGE
0 1D
....
10
II Y&LUI'!\
(till
~c.
2
0
••
(t(t
ID ID
11 s::
3
~
gj 10
8
"
Ci
!<
ll
::r ....
rt"O
::riO
gj
~ ~
1-'
on
6 .------------------------------------------------,
::>
•6
••
:;1
..
..
I»
o::s
A VALUES
r--------------------------------------------------------,
-'
100.
N
b, AND STENSBY S WI VALUES WITH DUNCAN ·s DIFFERENCES
AMONG MEANS FOR MIXED MINCED AND MINCED CLAW MEAT PACKED IN
~6o
/\11'<
a ,
•
MIXED MINCED
~ MINCED CLAW
8 ::I
ID
1»'0
;:II-'
I»
O"UI
l»rt"
11 1-'Ul 0
• Upper case letters = m1xed m1nced mea t , lower case
minced claw meat
Tabla 1 .
Pearson correlation coefficients of measured parameters during 10
months of frozen storage for minced claw and mixed minced meat held in
ring sealed low density polyethylene tubes following pasteurization at
182~.
Coefficients atatistically significant at the 0 . 05 level are
marked with an "*"
PARAMETER
Aerobic Plate Counts
MINCED CLAW MEAT
MIXED MINCED MEAT
.34167
.20143
- . 16755
-.32687
'
Moisture
~
Ash
.51435*
'
Protein
.36895
.15486
Fat
.10923
.2131
.34753
-.33826
.14887
- .10075
• 09119
. • 11696
\
Free Ash
' Moisture
Free Protein
' Moisture
' Moisture Free Fat
-.37642
L
- . 72702*
-. 6723*
a
. 30249
. 65512 *
b
. 1786
.16266
WI
-.71097*
.03616
Wet/Dry Appearance
- . 35982"'
- . 35535*
.46006*
.35127*
Ammonia Odor
cooked crab Odor
-.53086*
-.21895
Putrid Odor
. 59845*
. 56'/87*
TMA Odor
. 52751*
. 59311*
Cereal Odor
- . 46448*
-.5543*
Moistness
- . 12734
- . 31579*
Fibrouaneea
- .09042
- . 32977*
Adhesiveness
-.20215
-.10123
. 02887
- . 0405
Chewiness
Particle Size
-.05169
Cooked Crab Taste
-.41355*
Astringent Taste
-.08051
-. 2822*
-.42984*
.0142
Sour Taste
.40623*
. 31069*
Rancid Taste
.58961*
. 63866•
Freezer Burn Taste
.53442*
.46551*
Old Seafood Taste
.61024*
. 57491*
Ammonia
-.44303*
28
-.10662
with time for mixed minced meat samples during frozen storage in plastic tubes,
with a correlation coefficient of 0.655
(Table 1, Figure 10).
Hunter b, or
bluing, levels showed no consistent trends for minced claw or mixed minced meat
(Figure 10).
Putrid odors increased with time for both minced claw and mixed minced meat
during ten months of frozen storage in polyethylene tubes.
Putrid odors were
significantly greater for both meats at ten months of storage than all other
sampled months (p < 0.05) (Figure 11).
Correlation coefficients for putrid odor
and storage month were significant at the 0.05 level with correlation values
greater than 0. 5
(Table 1).
Trimethylamine
(TMA)
odors followed a
pattern
similar to putrid odors with month ten exhibiting the strongest odors and similar
correlation coefficients (Figure 11, Table 1).
Sour taste was greater at month ten for mixed claw meat and definitely
greater at month ten than months zero through seven for mixed minced meat (p <
0.05) (Figure 12).
Correlation coefficients were statistically significant but
low for both meats (Table 1).
Rancid taste results were similar.
Minced claw
meat was notably more rancid by month ten than monitored samples from zero time
through seven months of frozen storage
( p < 0. 05) .
Mixed minced meat was
definitely more rancid by month ten than all preceding months (p < 0.05).
Rancid
taste correlation coefficiepts with time for both meats were greater than 0.5 (p
< 0.05)
(Table 1).
Following ten months of storage,
mixed minced meat was
definitely more rancid than minced claw meat (p < 0.05), although no significant
differences were determined between the two meats for the first nine months of
storage (Figure 12).
Freezer-burn taste was notably greater at month ten than
all other monitored storage times for both mixed minced meat and minced claw meat
(p < 0.05) (Figure 12).
Correlation coefficients were statistically significant
with storage month for both meats, but only exceeded 0.5 for minced claw (Table
1).
Minced claw old-seafood flavor was significantly stronger in months nine and
ten than all preceding months (p < 0.05)
(Figure 12).
Old-seafood flavor for
mixed minced meat was definitely greater by month ten than all other storage
29
MEAN SENSORY ODOR RATINGS WITH DUNCAN S DIF FERENCES
AMONG MEANS FOR MIXED MINCED AND MINCED CLAW
MEAT PACKED IN PLASTIC TUBES , PASTEURIZED AT
182 F (83 3 C) AND HELD IN FROZEN STORAGE
PUTRID ODOR
4
•
0
2
0
3
s
4
6
a
9
\ 0
Tt.IA ODOR
5
A
4
0
z
H
f-<
<
3
.:>:
:>"
.:>:
0
rtl
zw
2.
{fJ
0
t.iONTHS OF FROZEN STORAGE
•
~ MINCED CLAW
t.IIXED t.IINCED
• Upper case letters= mixed minced meat. lower case
m1nced claw meat
Figure 11. Odor analyses of mixed and claw minced meat pasteurized in plastic
tubas and held for 10 months frozen storage. Odors with the same letter above
bars are not different (p < 0 .0 5) .
30
months (p < 0.05) (Figure 12).
statistically
significant
at
Old-seafood taste correlation coefficients were
the
0.05
level
for
both
treatments,
with
coefficients exceeding 0.5 (Table 1).
Both minced claw meat and mixed minced meat pasteurized at l82°F (83.3°F)
and packaged in plastic tubes deteriorated during frozen storage.
marked quality loss by month ten.
"off" flavors.
There was a
Meats darkened and developed "off" odors and
Storage time correlated well with L values, putrid odors, TMA
odors, rancid flavors, and old-seafood flavors for both meat types.
Mixed minced
meat was significantly more rancid at the end of ten months than minced claw
meat.
Frozen Storage In Aluminum Cans
Buffered and unbuffered mixed minced meat pasteurized at l77°F (80.5°C) and
stored in eight-ounce cans at less than -4"F
( -20°C) exhibited no consistent
statistically significant differences with time for the following parameters
during eleven months of frozen storage:
(l) bacterial levels,
(3) \ fat,
(5) sensory odors,
(4) \ moisture-free protein,
(7) adhesiveness,
(8) chewiness,
(9) particle size,
(10)
(2) \ protein,
(6) fibrousness,
sensory tastes,
and
(11) ammonia concentrations.
Figure 13 shows Hunter L, a, b,
and Stensby WI values for buffered and
unbuffered mixed minced meat during eleven months of frozen storage.
Buffered
meat was treated with 2.2 oz (64 ml) of citric acid phosphate buffer.
Meat and
buffer were well mixed prior to sealing.
Pearson correlation coefficients for
measured parameters versus months of storage for unbuffered and buffered meat are
presented in Table 2.
Hunter L values decreased with time for both unbuffered and buffered minced
meats with correlation coefficients of -0.771 and -0.702, respectively (Table 2).
Buffered meat showed no decrease in L values for the first four months of storage
31
1--''0 ..
10 .........
rt"IIIIQ
rt"UI~
fD ......
rt "'
11
Ill
0
MEAN SENSORY FLAVOR RATINGS WITH DUNCAN S DIFFERENCES
AMONG MEANS FOR MIXED MINCED AND MINCED CLAW
MEAT PACKED IN PLASTIC TUBES, PASTEURIZED AT
182 F (83 . 3 C) AND HELD IN FROZEN STORAGE
...
trrtt.J
0
c .
<tr
IDID~
IL'I-"
iil111 PI
Ill ='
::1 0.
<
g
SOUJ. FLAVOR
tr:J"
l
Ill fD Ill
11 ...... ::1
0'1 0. Ill
RAlfCl 0 nAVOR
0
I •
......
Ill ~"~~'<
11 0 Ul
fD ... fD
.,_.Ill
:so
0
0
rt-31'11
o,O
..... ::~ 3
.... rt .....
...,::r><
111
w
1\)
fD
!. ' 2
3,.."
0
...~
~
~
o e
~
0 6
"'"
CD
..
~
B
"'
0 •
0.2
11 ..... 0.
ID !'
=' Ill
0
rt...,='
~~0.
'Otoa
:
•
1
.
•
•
5
0
••
2
1
• rt
~III::S
•..an
1D CD
·o.
~3
~-'co
Ill Ill
~
l 5
s
2
s
I
:"i
0
5
f;1
"~
s..,..
..
~
.."
.,"
.,.."'
0
0
~
r--------------------------------------------------,
el
0 5
rt
11
111'0
-,-
~
QUI(
U1 11 .....
~~~
10
0
oo3
_...0?1 --
OLD SEAfOOD FLAVOR
FR.E.EZER. BUR.Jf FLAVOR
......
::s Ill
I\ CD
I
0
1
-
W4
I
J
,.
0
10
t :
1-'· rt
rtco
::rc
rt ~:Ttoa
CD CD
Ul 0.
~ .....
CD :S
MONTHS Of fROZEN STORAGE
•
MIXED MINCED
~ MINCED CLAW
• Upper case letters = m1xed minced meat. lowe r
c ase= m1nced claw meat
~ '0 ..
t-'·111 ....
rf"CDIQ
::rrt-S::
CD It
CD t: •
MEAN HUNTER L. a, bAND WI WITH DUNCAN ·s DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS FOR
BUFFERED AND UNBUFFERED MIXED MINCED MEAT PACKED IN EIGHT-OUNCE
ALUMINUM CANS, PASTEURIZED AT 177 F (80 5 C) AND HELD IN FROZEN STORAGE
~ ~- ....
CDNW
CD •
1-'0.
~ ..... o
rt-::10
111
111b
L YAlU!::S
11 ...... 11
60
Ill t:
ua
0 .... Ill
< ::1 ::1
CD t: Ill
"<
::"'"'
Ill CD
::1 CD
CD
;
a~-'
3
CD
Ill
::1
n m
0"1110
Ill ::si-t\
w
w
11o.
CD
0"
Ill ::r s::
11e'""
CDo.:D
58
~
~
56
s•
S2
•
:I ..... 11
,
•
'
.
0 0 ID
rt-11C.
s::
...~
~
CD ::1 ::1
::srf"oo-::rs::
CD I-t\
1l
::s 11
AH\ID
11c.
"'
;c; ..... ::
\0
u
11
c.rt-111
t-'-CD ::I
'""::I c.
:Da
11 0
•
8 V&LVE:s
5u
16
i•
r
IC
..
-
-
.
"'
""
oa
lS
~ ,.
22
oo
~Na
CD 1-'·
U1
~::sx
CD ID
o-C.
0
11
Ill .....
IO::s
CD n
• CD
oc.
a
0
1-'8
0 CD
11 Ill
Dirt"
13
20
"
MONTHS Or FROZEN STORAGE
•
BUFFERED MIXED MINCED
~ UNBUFFERED MIXED MINCED
*Upper case letters= mixed minced meat. lower case= minced claw meat
Table 2.
Pearson correlation coefficients of measured parameters during 11
months of frozen storage for unbuffered and buffered mixed minced meat
held in eight-ounce aluminum cans following pasteurization at 177~.
Coefficients statistically significant at the 0.05 level are marked
with an "* · "
UNBUFFERED
BUFFERED
Aerobic Plate Counts
-.19958
- . 0905
' Moisture
' Ash
' Protein
Fat
' Moisture
Ash
' Moisture Free
Free Protein
-.01774
. 14754
PARAMETER
.2047
-.46877*
.21992
.03329
.44304*
-.02108
.19065
.05791
'
.19344
.10491
.49027*
.07001
L
-. 77091*
- .70168*
a
. 75941*
.65807*
' Moisture Free Fat
- .25925
- . 54876*
WI
.03461
.79262*
Wet/Dry Appearance
. 04375
.47635*
b
Ammonia Odor
- .17069
.04188
Cooked Crab Odor
-.11161
. 16179
Putrid Odor
-.13494
- . 1925
TMA Odor
-.09777
.03009
Cereal Odor
.27401*
.30334*
Moistness
. 24556
.45368*
F i brousness
• 48871*
.41844*
Adhesiveness
.44562*
.1472
Chewiness
.43278*
. 39421*
Particle Size
.32362*
• 32871*
Cooked Crab Taste
.05571
-.12844*
Astringent Taste
- . 20621
-.28888
Sour Taste
-.11281
- . 05397
Rancid Taste
- . 16022
- . 00881
Freezer Burn Taste
- .03899
. 14156
.11555
. 10506
Old Seafood Taste
34
(p < 0.05)
(Figure 13).
Unbuffered meat showed no reduction in Hunter L or
whiteness through the first month of storage (p < 0.05) .
clear divisions in whiteness during frozen storage.
There were no other
Buffered meat rated higher
L values than unbuffered meat for all monitored months and was significantly
greater than unbuffered meat in all but the following months; 1, 6, 7, and 9 (p
< 0.05).
Whiteness index correlated well with storage month for buffered meat,
but was not statistically significant for unbuffered meat (p < 0.05)(Table 2).
WI increased with time for buffered meat and was definitely greater than the WI
of unbuffered meat in the eighth month of storage (p < 0.05) (Figure 13).
Hunter
a values increased during frozen storage of both unbuffered and buffered meats
(p < 0.05).
2).
Correlation coefficients were 0.759 and 0 . 658, respectively (Table
No specific breakpoints in Hunter a values were
over eleven months of frozen storage (Figure 13).
buffered mixed minced meat
had notably
higher
for either mince
determin~d
Throughout the storage test
Hunter
a
value
increased redness, when compared to unbuffered meat (p < 0 . 05).
ratings,
or
Hunter b values
determined for unbuffered meat definitely decreased, indicating increased bluing
with storage time (p < 0.05).
The correlation coefficient with time was -0.549.
Buffered meat showed no distinct correlation with time (Table 2).
Unbuffered
Hunter b values were significantly less than values determined for buffered meats
through eleven months of storage, indicating greater bluing in unbuffered meats
(p < 0.05)
(Figure 13).
Figure 14 presents mean proximate composition data for
buffered mixed minced meat.
unbuffered and
No specific patterns with time were determined,
however percent moisture content of buffered meat was significantly greater than
that of unbuffered meat throughout the storage study (p < 0 . 05) (Figure 14, Table
2).
Similar results were determined for ash and moisture free ash contents
(Figure 14, Table 2).
Higher moisture and salt contents in buffered meat were
expected because of water and salts added to the buffer.
Sensory
analyses
determined
few
changes
with
time
for
unbuffered mixed minced meat held in eight-ounce aluminum cans.
35
buffered
or
No significant
WEAN PROXIUATE ANALYSES WITH DUNCAN ·s DiffERENCES AWONG ~EANS FOR
BUFFERED AND UNBUFFERED WIXED UINCED WEAT PACKED I N EIGHT- OUNCE
ALUW1NUW CANS. PASTEURIZED AT ! 77 F ( 80 5 C) AND HELD IN FROZEN STORAGE
..
MOISTUR!
MOIS11JRE-FllEE ASS
17
..
"
MONTHS Of FROZDC STORAO£
Ill
~ UNBUFFERED WIXED WINCED
8UFFERED MIXED WINCED
• Upper case lecters = mixed minced meat .
lo~er
case = minced claw meat
Figure 14. Moisture, ash, and moisture-free ash analyses of buffered and
unbuffered mixed minced meat pasteurized in aluminum cans and held for ten
months- in frozen storage. Proximates with same letter above bars are not
different {p < 0.05).
36
correlation coefficients exceeded 0.5 (Table 2) and no consistent changes with
storage month were determined.
However, wet-dry and moistness data in Figure 15
show distinct differences between buffered and unbuffered meat
(p < 0.05).
Buffered meat rated higher wet-dry values on all occasions with greater wetness
in months two through eleven (p < 0.05).
Results of moistness analyses were
similar with buffered meat greater than unbuffered meat during all sampling
months and significantly so on all but the first month of storage (p < 0.05)
(Figure 15).
Mixed minced meat treated with 2.2 oz
(64 ml) of citric acid phosphate
buffer prior to pasteurization at 177"F ( 80. 5°C) maintained better color than
unbuffered meat during eleven months of frozen storage.
Off-odor and off-flavor
development were not as pronounced in aluminum cans as was previously noted for
low-density
polyethylene
tubes.
Low-density
polyethylene
has
an
oxygen
permeability of 7750 cm3 jm3/25.4 micron thickness/24hrjatm at 25°C (Sacharow and
Griffin, 1980).
High oxygen permeability of low-density polyethylene tubes is
the most probable explanation for development of putrid and TMA odors, and sour,
rancid,
freezer-burn,
storage.
and old-seafood tastes following ten months of frozen
Aluminum barrier cans did not exhibit the same characteristics.
Refrigerated Storage In Aluminum cans
Buffered and unbuffered mixed minced meat pasteurized at l77"F (80.5°C) and
stored
in
aluminum
cans
at
less
than
35°F
(<l.7°C)
showed
no
consistent
statistically significant differences with time for the following parameters
during
thirteen
months
(2) \ protein, (3) \ fat,
b.
of
refrigerated
storage:
(1)
bacterial
levels,
(4) \ ash, (S) Hunter L, (6) Hunter a, and (7) Hunter
Cans used in the study were from the same lot that the cooperating crab
processor determined to be defective .
The formed aluminum cans were stretched
too thin along portions of the body, resulting in intermittent and random leaks
with subsequent bacterial spoilage.
Sensory characteristics of the canned meats
were not evaluated because of intermittent spoilage.
37
MEAN SENSORY ANALYSES WITH DUNCAN ·s DIFFERENCES AMONG
MEANS FOR BUFFERED AND UNBUFFERED MIXED MINCED MEAT
PACKED IN EIGHT-OUNCE ALUMINIUM CANS, PASTEURIZED
AT 177 F (80 . 5 C) AND HELD IN FROZEN STORAGE
WET-DRY
6
[JJ
......
....0
1-<
5
P<:
0..
>
"'z
0
(fJ
4
[JJ
Vl
3
2
0
2
IIOISTNESS
6
_,
w
......
i:; 5
a:
p..
3
2
2
5
6
7
9
lO
11
IIONTHS OF FROZEN STORAGE
Ill
BUFFERED ~IXED WINCED
~ UNBUfFERED YIXED ~INCED
• Upper case letters = mixed minced meat, lower case = minced claw meat
Figure 15. Wet-dry and moistness sensory analyses of buffered and unbuffered
mixed minced meat pasteurized in aluminum cans and held for ten months in
frozen storage. Values with the same letter are not different (p < 0.05).
38
Figure 16 shows plate count analyses of minced meat packaged in B-ounce
aluminum cans during 13 months of refrigerated storage.
Plate counts exceeded
3,000 CFU/g, the maximum limit for pasteurized crab meat set by the Tri-state
Seafood
Committee
(1971),
on
six
Spoilage
occasions.
patterns
were
not
consistent with time, however unbuffered meat plata counts exceeded the standard
on five of six occasions and were significantly greater than buffered plate
counts on each of those occasions (p < 0.05).
AEROBIC PLATE COUNTS WITH DUNCAN ·s DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS FOR
PASTEURIZED BUFFERED AND UNBUFFERED MIXED MINCED MEAT PACKED
IN EIGHT-OUNCE ALUMINUM CANS AND HELD IN REFRIGERATED STORAGE
1E09
1E08
1E07
1E06
Ol
......
1E05
:::>
LL
u
1E04
1E03
1E02
10
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MONTHS OF ICED STORAGE
II
II
BUFFERED MIXED MINCED
UNBUFFERED MIXED MINCED
* Upper case letters = m1xed m1nced mea t . lower case = minced claw meat
Figure 16. Log of aerobic plate counts for buffered and unbuffered mixed
minced meat pasteurized in aluminum cans during thirteen months of
refrigerated storage. Meats with the same letter above mean bars are not
different (p < 0.05).
39
Figure 17 presents Hunter L, a, b,
and Stansby WI values for pasteurized
mixed minced meat and buffered mixed minced meat.
Hunter L or whiteness values
for buffered meat were greater than the L values of unbuffered meats for all
monitored months and statistically significantly greater than unbuffered meats
in 10 of 13 months (p < 0.05).
Hunter a or meat redness showed no consistent
d i fferences between treatments.
Buffered minced meat rated higher Hunter b
values or less bluing than unbuffered meat for all monitored months and was
significantly less blue
(p < 0 . 05)
in months 0, 1,
3
,4 ,5 ,6,
11, and 13.
Stansby ' s WI showed buffered minced meat to be whiter than unbuffered meat during
all but the second and fourth months of refrigerated storage .
Figure 18 shows the proximate composition of buffered and unbuffered minced
meat during thirteen months of refrigerated storage.
Increased salt and moisture
contents of the buffered meats confirm the addition of water and salts to the
buffered meat samples.
Reduced protein and fat values in the buffered meats also
reflect the addition of water to the meats.
Figure 19 presents moisture free
proximate analyses for buffered and unbuffered meats.
Moisture free ash levels
determined for buffered meats were greater than levels determined for unbuffered
meat (p < 0.05), revealing increased salt content from the buffer.
Unbuffered
meat had greater moisture-free protein content in 12 of 13 months , but levels
were statistically significant in only 4 of the storage months (p < 0.05).
Tab le 3 shows Pearson correlation coefficients for monitored parameters
over 13 months of storage for unbuffered and buffered meats.
Two parameters
received correlation coefficient ratings >0 . 5 that were statistically significant
at the 0.05 level.
Unbuffered meat WI values and moisture free protein levels
for buffered meat met both criteria and increased with storage month.
Buffered
minced meat rated higher Hunter b values or less bluing than unbuffered meat for
all monitored months.
Stansby ' s WI showed buffered minced meat to be whiter than
unbuffered meat during storage.
attributed
to
faulty
cans,
Except for intermittent spoilage which was
pasteurized
minced
meat
maintained
acceptable
microbiological quality for thirteen months of storage at less than 35°F (<1. 7°C).
40
O'tl ..
0 Ill ....
1-'GIIQ
0 rt ~
11 CD 1'1
Ill
~
s:: •
11
..... ~
1-'·N -.I
rt CD •
::TO.
m
..,.o
MEAN HUNTER L_ A, 8 _ AND WI VALUES WITH DUNCAN ·s DIFFEREN CES AMONG
MEANS FOR BUFFERED AND UNBUFFERED MI XED MINCED MEAT PACKED IN
EIGHT-OUNCE ALUMINIUM CANS AND HELD IN REFRIGERATED STORAGE
.
;:~e
CD Ill 0
1-'11
1-'S::
co a
111
rt I-'· :;I
rt:llll
IDS::
I-'
118'<
Ill 0
m
CD
tTIIIm
0 :;1
<mt-t.
(D
g. 0
3
s::
(D
11
11
I» .... tT
:;1 :l t:
~
1-'
tT
A VALUES
L VALUES
60
...,
...,
Ill
~
>
_,
58
"'...l0
0
u
5?
..,e-"':c
8
56
.."'
0
IX
~
:c •
55
••
Ht
Ill rt CD
11 ::T 11
••
p
~
"lt-t.
5
"'...l-<
-<
>
D:
•
Ill
sg
5
6
'
•
9
10
u
1Z
5
s • '
e t 10
HONTHS OF ICED STORAGE
u
nONTBS Of ICED STORAGE
m 1-'·m
110.
lllrt
ID CD ::1
1? . 5
u
u
Yl VALUES
B VALUES
11 CD Ill
u
r-----------------------------------------------------,
lO
r-------------------------------------------------------,
:;1:10.
1?
0 3
rtOs::
o.~G.... ::T s::
"'p
:tot-t.
"'0
(D
t1 Ht CD
11
::1 11 CD
u
-~3
"'~
:c
"'
HtCIIt-t,
rtCDO.
'tl ........
~QX
1\CDID
110..
01»
• rt
0
lTI
~
a
CD t-'·
g. :l
0
• m ID
rtc..
0
11
111
\OlD
a
CD Ill
• rt
Ul
...,
Ill
~
~
16
,.
-<
> zo
"'
0
...l
...l
0
••
_,
p
~
t!ii 15
8
15
"'"'
D:
Z?
E-<
"'
p
:.: Z&
1C 5
"
10
u
u
Z5
T
tl
II
BUFFERED MIXED HINCED
* Upp e r ca se letter s
~
1a
11
12
Sl
HONTH5 OF ICED STORAGE
nDNTHS OF ICED STORAGE
II
UNBUFFERED MIXED MINCED
m1x ed m1n c ed meat . l ower ca s e = mi n c ed claw meat
<'tS ..
Ill Ill ....
t-'11\Q
~rtr::
MEAN PROXIMATE ANALYSES WITH DUNCAN ·s DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS
FOR BUFFERED AND UNBUFFERED MIXED MINCED MEAT PACKED IN
EIGHT-OUNCE ALUMINIUM CANS AND HELD IN REFRIGERATED STORAGE
CD CD 1'1
II
(
~-''
~
•
........
H CD
11
rtiD•
::ra.
"1:1
rt .... 11
10
>c
Ill ....
II t-' 3
..
::r::so
~~~
VALUES
~OISTURE
FATS
~-------------------------------------------------------,
.
II
·'
Ill~~~~
t-'~111
ID 3 ::J
~n~
IDIII'<
t1 ::I II
IIIII
Ill
II
rra.
10
!!;
u
w
"'
u
el
a.
]8
"'
0~1'11
<
!z
w
79
ILl
2 ·'
77
11 0
ID ~
11
I
76
>
3.0 0"
1:.
"->
re rt c:
:l::r""
.... 1'11
7S
10
11Jrtl1
t1 ID 10
01100.
ID >e
'01110.
rt
I\ID3
a. ....
0
::3
• 11 n
ortiO
VI 0 0.
• Ill 3
.0 ID
~11
CD Ill
•
rt
~
u
"'a.
Ill
9
•
10
11
12
tJ
PROTEIN
r----------------------------------------------------,
I7
3 .2
rtlll~
~111D
4
WONTHS OF ICED STORAGE
3.4
o::rg.
~ ~-B
rtiQ ....
13
18
IDOO.
::I
::3 rt ~
o.o""
1:1
ASH
Ill ::I Ill
t1 3 ::3
1-'·1'11""
1'11
10
1'111111
ID ID ID
"""0.
l1
NONTHS OF ICED STORAGE
0"1110
,.
..
!z
"'0
15
eic..
26
14
2 4
ll
2 2
12
s
6
9
10
tt
12
u
0
II
BUfFERED NIXED WINCED
* Upper case le tters
=
to
9
4
11
12
u
YONTHS OF ICED STORAGE
NONTHS OF ICED STORAGE
Ill
UNBUFFERED NIXED WINCED
mixed minced meat. l ower case
=
m~nced
claw me at
MEAN MOISTURE FREE PROXIMATE ANALYSES WITH DUNCAN ·s
DIFFERENCES AMONG MEANS FOR BUFFERED AND UNBUFFERED
MIXED MINCED MEAT PACKED IN EIGHT-OUNCE ALUMINUM
CANS AND HELD IN REFRIGERATED STORAGE
IIOISTURE .. FREE ASH
l7
••
'-'
!--
..,z
0
"'w
••
l)
0..
12
ll
10
WONTHS OF ICED STORAGE
••
"
..
"
..
I)
IIOISTURE - FREE FAT
,.
10
WONTIIS OF I CED STOUGE
u
IIOISTURE - FREE PROTEIN
10
65
..,lz
0
"'""
60
"'
50
••
WONTHS OF ICED STORAGE
Ill
Ill
BUfFERED WIXED WINCED
••
II
.. ..
UNBUFfERED WilED WI~CED
* Upper case letters = mixed minced meat . lower case = minced claw meat
Figure 19. Moisture-free analyses for buffered and unbuffered mixed minced
meat pasteurized in aluminum cans during thirteen months of refrigerated
storage. Values with same letter above mean bars are not different (p < 0.05).
43
Table 3.
Pearson correlation coefficients of measured parameters during 13
months of refrigerated storage for unbuffered and buffered mixed minced
meat held in eight-ounce aluminum cans following pasteurization at
177~.
Coefficients statistically significant at the 0.05 level are
marked with an"*,"
UNBUFFERED
PARAMETERS
-23804
Aerobic Plate Counts
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
BUFFERED
Moisture
-.31949
.40943*
.40521*
-.10076
- . 35238
Protein
.03016
*.38969
Fat
.08703
-.10115
- .04654
-.41953
Ash
Moisture Free Ash
Moisture Free Protein
.54259*
.08954
-.01831
-.25374
L
.29602
.06568
a
-.03067
-.10274
b
- .08734
-.24002
Moisture Free Fat
WI
.26134
.55555*
Color Extraction
Figures 20, 21, and 22 show Hunter L, a, b, Stensby WI index, and sensory
panel color results for solvent extracted mixed minced meat.
All washes except
cold ethanol, bicarbonate/ethanol, and hot ethanol brightened the product in
terms
of Hunter L values
(Figure 20) (p < 0.05).
The two most
successful
treatments to improve Hunter L lightness were bicarbonate/water/water and the
three
water
washes .
Stansby's
whiteness
index
showed
the
bicarbonate/SPD/sodium chloride and the three water washes produced the whitest
products.
The untreated control sample had the lowest blue rating on the Hunter
b scale (Figure 21).
Higher b values indicated increasing yellow color and
decreasing blue color.
Bicarbonate/SPD/NaCl washes produced the bluest samples.
Mixed minced control and meat treated with cold ethanol had the highest Hunter
a
rating,
ranking those products as the most red .
44
Hunter a ratings showed
bicarbonate/STP/NaCl/water and bicarbonate/STP/NaCl/water treated mixed minced
meat to be the greenest samples (Figure 21) .
However,
a five-member sensory
panel determined no statistically significant differences among sample colors for
the 19 treatments (Figure 22).
45
HUNTER L AND WI VALUES SHOWING DECOLORING
OF MIXED MINCED MEAT BY SOLVENT EXTRACT ION
80
70
c
E
F
Vl
~
60
..-1
G
8
c
c
D
D
F
E
E
F
F
G
H
H
8
D
E
8
G
B
A
H
c
B
A
0
J
J
L
<
>
~
30
so
u
~
~
E-<
~
::c
40
30
20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.L
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
TREATI1EN'I'
* Upper
case letters = m1xed m1nced meat. lower case = minced
Unwasned control
1
IJivr
2 = Cold water
Bicarbonate/sod1um chlor1de
11 =
Bicarbonate/STP/sodium chlonde
= Bicarbonate/SPD/sodlum chlonde
2x w1th co l d water
12
4 =
0. 5% Sodium bicarbonate
13 = Bicarbonate/ethanol
6
7
14 = Ethanol/water
= Bicarbonate/water
0. 05% sodium tripolyphosphate
=0
meat
10
3
5
cl~w
05% sodium tripolyphosphate dibaSlC
15
3x Wlth cold water
16
Bicarbonate/S'I'P/Nacl/water
B
0 3% sod1um chlonde
17
Bicarbonate/SPDlNacl/water
g
Cold ethanol
18
Bicarbonate/water/water
19
Hot ethanol
Figure 20. Hunter L and WI color changes in mixed minced meat following
solvent extraction. Meat treatments with the same letter above mean bars are
not different (p < 0.05).
46
HUNTER a AND b VALUES SHOW ING DECOLORING
OF MI XED MINCED MEAT BY SOLVENT EXTRACTION
20
a
b
1~
ttl
c.J
::::>
....:l
<
>
p.:
0
10
....:l
0
u
c::
c.J
E-::::>
:z;
;:<:;
s
0
3
4
s
6
7
.a
9
B
10
11
12
~1
3
14
15
,6
17
18
19
TREAT:t1ENT
~
Upper case letters
m1xed minced meat , lower case
~
m1nced claw meat
chl o nde
1
Unwashed control
10
B i carbonatelsod i u~
2
Cold water
11
Blcarbonate/STP i sodlum c hlon d e
12
BicarbonateiSPDi sodium c hloil d e
3
Zx with cold water
4
0
5
Blcarbonatetvater
6
0.
15
3x w1th co ld va t er
7
0 . 05% SOdlUDI t ripol yphosphate dibas ic
16
Bic arbonate/STP / Nacl / water
fl
0 . 3% sodium chlori de
17
Bic arbonate/SPD / Nac l/ vater
9
Cold ethanol
18
Bl ca r b onate/vater/va t er
19
Hot ethano l
5~
OS~
Sod1ua blcarbonatP
SOdlUDI tripolyphosphate
13
Blcarbonate/ethanol
14
E thana 1 I water
Figure 21. Hunter a and b color changes in mixed minced meat following solvent
extraction. Meat treatments with the same letter above mean bars are not
different (p < 0.05).
47
SENSORY PA NE L COLOR PRECEP TION OF MIXED MI NCE D
MEAT DECOLORI NG BY SO LVENT EXTRACT ION
4
A
A
A
4
5
6
<n
l&l
Q
3
..J
-<
>
IX
0
0
..J
(.)
2
....::0
l&l
:z.
<
p..
>-
IX
0
(f)
:z. 1
l&l
(f)
0
1
2
3
1
B
9
10
11
12
13
H
lS
i6
17
18
19
'l'REATI'IENT
•
t
Upper case l ette rs = m1 xed
~ ln c ed
CO LOR
meat. lowe r case
= m1nced
cla w mea t
1
Unva s hed c on trol
10
Blca r bona t e t sod lum c hl or1 de
2
Cold vater
11
Bica r bonate tSTP t sod Lum c hl onde
3
Zx v1 t h c old vater
12
Bi carbona te tSPDt sod Lum c blond e
4
0
13
Blcarbonate/ethan ol
Ethano l / wa t er
5~
Sodium b1ca rb onate
5
Bica rbonate/ water
H
6
o. os:rc sOd l Ull trlpolypho s phat e
15
Jx Yl t h co l d water
0.05X SOdlUID trlpolyphosphate dlbSSl C
16
Bl carbonate/STP / Na c l t va ter
B
0 3X sod iuJD chlorid e
17
BicarhonatetSPD/Nacl t vater
9
Co ld e thano l
18
Blca rb ona t e / va t er t water
19
Hot ethano l
7
=
Figure 22. Sensory panel hedonic evaluation of color changes in mixed minced
meat following solvent extraction. Meat treatments with the same letter above
mean bare are not different (p < 0 . 05). ·
48
CONCLUSIONS
Blue crab picking-room by-products were separated into four components prior
to extraction with a Baader 694 machine.
By-product types were:
(1) "slabs,"
the portion of hand-picking by-product containing only white body meat; ( 2) mixed
by-product that includes all picking-room by-products but claws; (3) separated
legs; and (4) separated claws.
uncooked green crab were:
Minced meat yields baaed on the weight of an
white meat, 3.18\; mixed minced meat, 13.89\ (10.71\
if slabs are separated); minced leg,
recoverable minced meat
2. 62\;
and minced claw,
6. 39\.
is approximately 22\ of an uncooked crab's weight.
Yields baaed on cooked by-product type as the starting point were:
59 . 45\,
40.44\,
and
Total
38.07t.
for
"slab,"
mixed,
leg,
and
claw
76.63%,
by-products,
respectively.
Four meats
with
distinct
textures were extracted.
contents.
chemical
compositions,
colors,
flavors,
and
Leg and mixed minced meat had the highest moisture
Ash contents were low, ranging from 1.57\ for leg meat to 2.14\ for
mixed minced meat, indicating little shell contamination.
ranging from 0.12\ to 1.73\.
Fat content was low,
"Slabs" produced a dry, white, textured mince;
mixed by-product a moist, golden-brown mince; legs a smooth, flavorful, darkbrown mince; and claws a highly-textured, less-flavored, chewy, brown mince.
Minced meat exhibited excessive microbial levels, ranging from 105 to 107
CFU/g.
1. 5
Growth at room temperature was rapid.
Extraction of by-products within
hours of picking showed little increase in the microbial populations of mixed
by-products.
By-products should be extracted within 1.5 hours of picking or the
by-products need to be iced or refrigerated to control microbial growth.
Reduced pasteurization temperatures improved the appearance of minced meat
and
effectively
reduced
microbial
populations.
pasteurization temperatures from 186°F
(85.5°C)
improved the appearance of pasteurized meats.
49
Initial
to 1827
(83.3°C)
reduction
(F
1
1 8\
of
44)
However, all minced meats darkened
following pasteurization at
182~
(83.3°C).
and mixed minced meat at 1 77~ ( 80. sac)
appearance of pasteurized meats.
less and mixed minced was
(80 . 5°C).
Pasteurization of minced white meat
( F Ns
=
38) significantly improved the
Minced white meat and mixed minced meat blued
definitely more white when pasteurized at
177~
The addition of citric acid phosphate buffer to minced white and mixed
minced meat prior to pasteurization at 177Gp (80.5°C) produced product that was
rated
as
more
white,
lese
green,
Pasteurization at 1770f (80.5°C) (F'
and
Ns = 38)
less
blue
than
{~
= 44
meat.
effectively reduced microbial levels.
Mixed minced meat and minced claw meat pasteurized at
F
unbuffered
182~
(83.3°C) to an
in 5 mil, low-density, ring-sealed, polyethylene tubes exhibited color
and sensory deterioration during ten months of frozen storage at less than -4°F
(-20°C).
Meats darkened and turned more red with storage time as indicated by
Hunter L and a values.
Putrid and TMA odors and sour, rancid, freezer-burn, and
old seafood tastes definitely increased by the tenth month of frozen storage for
both minces.
Mixed minced meat was more rancid than minced claw meat at the end
of ten months frozen storage.
Mixed minced meat well mixed with 2.2 oz (64 ml) of citric acid phosphate
buffer prior to pasteurization at 177Gp (80. 5°C)
(F
ls = 38)
1
1
in eight-ounce aluminum cans
maintained better color than unbuffered meat during eleven months of
frozen storage at less than
Stansby WI color values.
ash contents.
-4~
(-20°C) as indicated by Hunter L,
a, b, and
Buffered meat had significantly greater moisture and
Sensory profiles showed buffered meat to be more moist and have
a wetter appearance than unbuffered meat.
Both buffered and unbuffered mixed
minced meat stored in aluminum cans failed to produce "off" odors and flavors
that developed during frozen storage of mixed minced meat and minced claw meat
stored in low-density polyethylene tubes.
also less pronounced.
Color changes in aluminum cans were
Oxygen permeability of the polyethylene tubes is the most
probable explanation for development of "off" odors and flavors.
50
crab processors extracting minced meat from picking room by-products for
pasteurization
and
frozen
storage
should
use
oxygen
barrier
anticipated frozen storage times exceed six to eight months.
materials
if
Oxygen barrier
packaging, as indicated by our work with aluminum cans, permits effective frozen
storage for at least eleven months.
Minced meat color darkens with time, but low
177~
(80.5°C) coupled with addition of citric acid
temperature pasteurization at
phosphate buffer greatly reduces color deterioration during frozen storage.
Except
pasteurized
for
intermittent
minced
meat
spoilage . that
maintained
was
acceptable
attributed
microbiological
thirteen months of refrigerated storage at less than 35°F
minced meat displayed less bluing than unbuffered meat.
whiter than unbuffered meat.
As with
to
faulty
cans,
quality
(<1. 7°C).
for
Buffered
Buffered minced meat was
frozen minced meat,
the addition of
phosphate citric acid buffer significantly improved the appearance of pasteurized
minced crab meat.
Solvent
extraction
of
mixed
minced
determined by the ACS Spectra Sensor.
meat
did
However,
lighten
the
product
as
the sensory panel did not
determine any significant color differences following 19 different treatments.
Solvent extraction was not very effective in lightening the color of mixed minced
meat.
51
LITERATURE CITED
Banks,
N. E .
and
O. A.
Morgan,
inventors;
Interox
Chemicals
Limited,
assignee . Washing bleached fish. United Kingdom 2,009,585A . 1978 Nov. 23 .
5p. Int . Cl 2 A23L 1/2 77
Boon, D, D. 1975. Discoloration in processed crab meat.
Sci.
40:756-761.
Braid,
A. Review.
J. of Food
J .E., inventor; Interox Chemicals Limited, assignee.
Bleaching.
patent 4,060,644. 1977 Nov. 29. 4p. Int. Cl~ A23L 1/277; A23L 1/325 .
u.s
Cardello, A.
1981.
Psychophysical basis for the classification of fish by
f laver, texture, and appearance .
Gordon Research Conference on the
Chemical Senses, Andover, NH .
Civille, G. v. and Szczesniak, A. s. 1973.
Guidelines to training a textural
profile panel. J. of Textural Studies 4 : 204-223.
Civille, G. v . and Liska, 1. H. 1975. Modifications and applications to foods
for the General Foods sensory texture profile technique. J . of Textural
s t udies .
6:19- 31.
Food and Drug Administ r ation . 1978. Bacteriological Analytical Manual. pp. IV-1
t o IV-10, V-1 to v-6, XI-1 to XI-7. Association of Official Analytical
Chemists, washington, DC .
Gates,
K. w. , EuDaly, J. G. ,
Parker, A. H., and Pittman, L. A. 1984a.
Nutritional and quality changes in frozen breaded shrimp within the
wholesale-retail marketing chain . Geor gia Marine Science Center Techni cal
Report series No . 84-2.
Gates,
K. W., EuDaly, J. G., Parker, A. H. , and Pittman, L . A. 1984b.
Mic r ocomputers improve quality and safety for blue crab heat processing.
Georgia Marine Science Center Techni cal Report Ser ies No. 84-3 .
Guttmann, A. and F. A. Vandenheurel. 1957 , The production of edible fish protein
("Fish Flour") from cod and haddock.
Fish. Rea. Bd. Canada Progress
Report, Atlantic Coast 67 . Technological Station, Halifax, N.S.
Hunter, R,. S . and Harold R. W. 1987.
and Sons , New York, NY.
The Measurement of Appearance.
Idler, D. R. 1968. The development and scope of the Halifax process.
Fisheries Reports No. 10, p . 45-56. Halifax, N.S.
John Wiley
canadian
Jauregui, C. A. and R.C. Baker. 1980 .
Discoloration problems in mechanically
deboned fish. J. Food Sci. 45:1068-1069.
Jellinek, G. 1985.
Sensory Evaluation of Food,
Horwood, Chichester, England.
Joyner, s. P . 1985.
Cary, NC.
Theory and Practice.
Ellis
SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers. SAS Institute, Inc.,
Murray, T. J. and DuPaul, W. D. 1981. Feasibility of crab meal processing in the
Chesapeake Bay region. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean
Engineering No. 248 , July 1981 .
Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester , VA.
Sasser, M. 1985.
SAS Procedures Guide for Personal Computers Version 6.
Institute, Cary, NC.
52
SAS
Sacharow, s. and R. c. Griffin, Jr. 1980. Principles of Food Packaging, Second
Edition. AVI Publishing Co . , Westport, CT.
Speck, M. L. 1984. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of
Foods. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC .
Stensby, P. S. 1967.
207.
Optical brightness and their evaluation. Soap Chern. Spec.
Strasser, J. H., Lennon, J. s., and King, F. J. 1971. Blue Crab Meat II. Effect
of chemical treatments on acceptability. Special Scientific Report Fisheries, No. 630. U. s. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Thrash, B. 1983. Pastries to Peanuts, The Japanese Komoboko Industry. Alaska
Fisheries Development Foundation. Ankorage, AK.
Tri-State Seafood Committee. 1971. Manual of Regulations for the Sanitary Control
of Blue crab Meat Production .
Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, VA .
Thompson, B. G. 1985 . Fisheries of the United States. 1984 . Current Fisheries
Statistics No. 8360. U. s. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Waters, M. E. 1971. Bluing of Processed Crab Meat. I. A study of processing
procedures that may cause blue discoloration in pasteurized crab meat.
II. Identification of some factors involved in the blue discoloration of
canned crab meat (Callinectes sapidus).
Special Scientific Report Fisheries, No. 633 . U. S. Dept . of Commerce , Washington, DC.
Williams, s. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, Fourteenth Edition.
Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.
53
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Lewis Crab Factory, Inc. and Sea Garden
seafoods, Inc. for supporting the project, providing deboning machinery,
pasteurization baths, and needed plant time.
We wish to thank the O'Brien
Corporation for use of their ACS Spectre Sensor.
The technical assistance of the following was greatly appreciated:
Amason v Jack Amason, Cynthia Johnson, David Lewis, and Hal Walls ,
54
Andy