Nutritional Composition and Physicochemical Properties of Sausages Developed with Non-Meat Ingredients (Tofu)
محورهای موضوعی :Leila Mousavi 1 , Nur Nadia Binti Razali 2 , Wan Rosli Wan Ishak 3
1 - Nutrition and Dietetics Program, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia Health Campus, 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
2 - Nutrition and Dietetics Program, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia Health Campus, 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
3 - Nutrition and Dietetics Program, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia Health Campus, 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
کلید واژه: Nutritional value, Sausage, Physicochemical properties, Tofu,
چکیده مقاله :
This study was attempted to determine the impact of different percentage of tofu on nutritional values and physicochemical properties of sausages development as a non-meat ingredient. The sausages were prepared by adding 25%, 50% and 75% of tofu. The nutritional analysis and physicochemical properties of non-sausages produced were then examined. The percent finding suggested that the 75% added tofu formulation of chicken sausage recorded the highest moisture (61.11%) and ash content. Nevertheless, 25% formulation recorded the lowest fat content (11.28%) among other formulations. The result of protein content displayed that the decrement of the protein content with the increment of tofu levels. The calorific value of the sausages did not show any linear pattern with an increase of tofu levels. Based on the result of the sensory evaluation score, 25% added tofu formulation maintain a higher score on the colour, texture, juiciness, flavour, and overall acceptance attributes as compared to the other formulations. In conclusion, the formulation of sausages with different level of tofu was shown to affect the nutritional composition (proximate value and calorific value) and physicochemical properties (cooking yield, moisture retention and fat retention).
1. Noor S., Radhakrishnan N.S., Hussain K., 2016. Sausage formulations and effects of addition of different non-meat ingredients on sausages-a review. International Journal of Livestock Research. 6(12), 1-19.
2. Sheng T.Y., Shamsudin M.N., Mohamed Z., Abdullah A.M., Radam A., 2010. Demand analysis of meat in Malaysia. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 16(2), 199-211.
3. Kim D.H., Shin D.M., Seo H.G., Han S.G., 2019. Effects of konjac gel with vegetable powders as fat replacers in frankfurter-type sausage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 32(8),1195-1204.
4. Ayyash M., Liu S.Q., Al Mheiri A., Aldhaheri M., Raeisi B., Al-Nabulsi A., Osaili T., Olaimat A., 2019. In vitro investigation of health-promoting benefits of fermented camel sausage by novel probiotic Lactobacillusplantarum: A comparative study with beef sausages. LWT. 99, 346-354.
5. Jin S.k., Kim S.H., Choi J.S., Yim D.G., 2019. Effect of diverse binder materials and their addition levels on physico-chemical characteristics of sausages. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization. 13(2), 1558-1565.
6. Wan Rosli W., Babji A.S., Aminah A., Foo S., Abd Malik O., 2010. Effect of retorting and oven cooking on the nutritional properties of beef frankfurters blended with palm oils. International journal of food sciences and nutrition. 61(5), 519-535.
7. Feldsine P., Abeyta C., Andrews W.H., 2002. AOAC International methods committee guidelines for validation of qualitative and quantitative food microbiological official methods of analysis. Journal of AOAC International. 85(5), 1187-1200.
8. El-Magoli S.B., Laroia S., Hansen P., 1996. Flavor and texture characteristics of low fat ground beef patties formulated with whey protein concentrate. Meat Science. 42(2), 179-193.
9. Wan Rosli W., 2012. Effect on the addition of Pleurotus sajor-caju (PSC) on physical and sensorial properties of beef patty.
10. Shurtleff W., Aoyagi A. 1979. The book of tempeh. Soyinfo Center
11. Oliveira M., Gubert G., Roman S., Kempka A., Prestes R., 2015. Meat quality of chicken breast subjected to different thawing methods. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. 17(2), 165-171.
12. Choi Y.S., Choi J.H., Han D.J., Kim H.Y., Lee M.A., Jeong J.Y., Chung H.J., Kim C.J., 2010. Effects of replacing pork back fat with vegetable oils and rice bran fiber on the quality of reduced-fat frankfurters. Meat Science. 84(3), 557-563.
13. Fernández‐Ginés J., Fernández‐López J., Sayas‐Barberá E., Sendra E., Pérez‐Alvarez J., 2003. Effect of storage conditions on quality characteristics of bologna sausages made with citrus fiber. Journal of Food Science. 68(2), 710-714.
14. Yang H.S., Choi S.G., Jeon J.T., Park G.B., Joo S.T., 2007. Textural and sensory properties of low fat pork sausages with added hydrated oatmeal and tofu as texture-modifying agents. Meat Science. 75(2), 283-289.
15. Wan Rosli W., Maihiza N., Raushan M., 2015. The ability of oyster mushroom in improving nutritional composition, β-glucan and textural properties of chicken frankfurter. International Food Research Journal. 22(1), 311-317.
16. Rosli W., Nurhanan A., Solihah M., Mohsin S., 2011. Cornsilk improves nutrient content and physical characteristics of beef patties. Sains Malaysiana. 40(2), 155-161.
17. Arrese E.L., Sorgentini D.A., Wagner J.R., Anon M.C., 1991. Electrophoretic, solubility and functional properties of commercial soy protein isolates. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 39(6), 1029-1032.
18. Akesowan A., 2013. Quality of light pork sausages containing konjac flour improved by texturizing ingredients. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 23(4), 1012-1018.
19. Chin K., Keeton J., Longnecker M., Lamkey J., 1999. Utilization of soy protein isolate and konjac blends in a low-fat bologna (model system). Meat Science. 53(1), 45-57.
20. Feng J., Xiong Y., Mikel W., 2003. Textural properties of pork frankfurters containing thermally/enzymatically modified soy proteins. Journal of Food Science. 68(4), 1220-1224.
21. Ahmad S., Rizawi J., Srivastava P., 2010. Effect of soy protein isolate incorporation on quality characteristics and shelf-life of buffalo meat emulsion sausage. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 47(3), 290-294.
