Technical Challenges – Controlling
Texture when Reducing Salt and Fat
in Processed Meat Products
Aarti Tobin
CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences
Why Reduce Salt and Fat?
• Obesity is a global problem - impacts public health
budgets
• In Australia 68% of adult men and 55% of adult women are
overweight or obese (National Health Survey 2007-08)
• Adverse publicity on meat and processed meat
products
• Meat is one of the main sources of saturated fat in Australian
diet (the other is dairy) – coronary heart disease
• Salt – high blood pressure – coronary heart disease
But……
• Processed meats offer portion control and convenience
Fat Reduction in Meat Products
Role of Fat in Meat Products
• Texture - perception of texture is directly related to the
amount of fat in the product
• Flavour – responsible for the flavour
• Mouthfeel – lubricates the food – easier to swallow
• Juiciness – dryness in the mouth is avoided
• Satiety - the digestion of the lipids is slow and it delays the
perception of a need to eat more food.
Approach / Criteria
Goal
To reduce the energy content of selected processed meat
products by at least 25% without affecting the sensory
properties, safety or stability
Approach
-
Use leaner meat (cost implications)
Replace the meat and fat with water
Add fruit and vegetable fibres and water to replace the fat
Maintain texture using gums – esp. carrageen
Maintain water holding with gums and starches
Combination of ingredients
No food allergens
Commercial viability
Fruit and Vegetable Fibres as Fat Replacers
• Fibres can bind 10-25 times their weight in water
• Extra moisture in the product lubricates the product and the
mouth, giving the perception of the product being juicy/fatty
• Can impart flavour of the “origin” raw material
• Has over 4 times less energy than fat
Component
Fat
Carbohydrate
Protein
Water
Dietary Fibre
Energy Content (KJ/gram)
37
16
17
0
8
FSANZ – nutritional calculation values
Structure of Protein and Fat in a Stable
Meat Emulsion
• Structure of emulsion allows for a lot more water addition while
still maintaining a stable emulsion
Meat Emulsion
Protein
Fat
Andersson, Andersson and Tornberg, J.Sci. Food Agric 80:555-560, (2000)
Structuring for fat in reduced fat and reduced energy processed meat products
Structure of Protein and Fat in a Reduced Fat
Meat Emulsion
• Finely comminuted – meat fibres are separated into fibrils
and the fat has been replaced with water
Reduced fat emulsion
W/P ratio – 5.1
W/P ratio – 8.3
Andersson, Andersson and Tornberg, J.Sci. Food Agric 80:555-560, 2000
Fat Replacement in a Reduced Fat
Frankfurter
Approaches used:
• Standard meat – 85CL (chemical lean)
• Added water – 25% to 41%
• Hydrated fibre systems to bind the water
• Fibres can binds 10-25 times their weight in water
• Some fibres give a fatty mouthfeel
• Starches
• Bind water that is not bonded to the matrix
• Carrageenan Gum
• Firm sausage snap
Results – Beef Frankfurters
Product
Energy
(kJ)
Hardness
(N)
Protein
(g)
Fat-Total
(g)
CHO (g)
Sugars
(g)
Sodium
(mg)
CSIRO Control
Frankfurters
848
5.24
14.4
14.9
2.0
0.1
866
CSIRO Energy Reduced
Frankfurters
523
4.78
11.9
8.2
2.1
0.1
862
Commercial Low Fat
Hotdogs
590
4.40
12.1
2.9
6.2
1.0
974
Commercial Full Fat
Hotdogs
974
5.16
12.7
16.3
7.6
1.6
842
*
Values are based on FSANZ Nutritional Calculator or taken from the packaging of commercial products
Effect of fat reduction on sensory perception of
frankfurters
• The prototype (CSIRO) FF/RF pair were closer in sensory
characteristics than the commercial FF/RF pair
Prototype FF
Paprika O
60
50
Prototype RF
Commercial FF
40
Pepper AT
30
20
Beefy F
Commercial LF
10
0
Juicy
Oily mouthcoating
Firm
Conclusions – Fat Reduction
• Fruit and vegetable fibres can be used to replace fat and meat
in processed meat products.
• Fibres and products types need to be matched properly to
maximise the effect of the fibre.
• Some fibres can impart juiciness and fatty mouthfeel.
• Fibres can be used reduce both the fat and the energy content
of processed meat products.
• When fat is replaced with a higher water content: MUST review
microbial hurdles
Salt Reduction in Meat Products
Role of Salt in Meat Products
• Extraction of salt soluble proteins and swelling of the protein
network – binds water
• Gelation (binding) of these proteins during cooking gives the
expected Texture
• Flavour – typical processed meat taste/flavour
• Juiciness – binding of water gives juiciness to the product
• Shelf-life – salt assists with increasing the shelf-life: inhibits
microbial growth
Current salt reduction techniques
• Reduce salt
• Depending on reduction level can affect texture and cook loss
• Replace salt with Potassium chloride
• Reported to give metallic and bitter taste
• Yeast extracts
• Savoury flavours to enhance the meaty taste
• Salt reduction can be achieved with
• Ingredients
• Technology - HPP
High Pressure Processing – reduced
salt sausages
• High Pressure Processing (HPP) – up to 800MPa
• Modifies protein functionality
• Enhances binding without additions of high levels of salt
• Traditional comminuted meat products
• 1.8 – 3% salt
• Goal
• Determine if HPP could enhance the binding and texture of
reduced salt, cooked beef sausages.
Approach
• Control beef emulsion
• 75% lean meat
• 0-2% salt
• 23-25% water
• HPP Treatment
• 0, 100, 200, and 400MPa pressure
for 2 minutes
• Cooking
• Control: No HPP
• Following HPP treatment
HPP unit at Cooper Plains
• Analysis
• Cook loss
• Texture – Texture profile analysis (TPA) and informal sensory
Results
• Preliminary data showed that 200MPa resulted in best texture
and least cook loss
Texture
Cook Loss
40
14
0.1 MPa
200 MPa
0.1MPa
200MPa
13
30
Hardness (N)
Cook Loss (%)
12
20
10
11
10
9
8
7
6
0
0
0.5
1
Salt Content (%)
No HPP
2
0
0.5
1
Salt Content (%)
HPP
2
Results
1% Salt in batter
• without HPP
• with 200MPa HPP
28% cook loss
5% cook loss
Sensory
• without HPP
• with 200MPa HPP
dry and crumbly
firm, sausage snap and texture, juicy
Without HPP
With 200 MPa HPP
Conclusions - HPP
• HPP can be used to improve texture and cook loss in
reduced salt comminuted meat products.
• Use of technology such as HPP reduces the need to use
binders and additives in the products.
• Solubilisation of proteins using HPP increases the water
holding capacity enhance reduces cook loss and
improves the juiciness of the product: opportunities for fat
reduction
• HPP provides a additional safety hurdle for low salt and
low fat meat products
Summary – fat and salt reduction
• Salt and fat both play a very important role in comminuted meat
products.
• Texture, Flavour
• Appearance
• Impact water activity (aw)
• A combination of ingredients and technology can be used to
achieve both
• Fat replacers e.g. fruit and vegetable fibres
• HPP technology – improves bind strength, juiciness, reduces cook
loss
• HPP acts as a microbial hurdle
• Microbial challenge testing required to ensure food safety if
there is significant salt and fat reduction
Aarti Tobin
Senior Food Technologist
CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences
Mobile 0414305493
Email: aarti.tobin@csiro.au
Thank you