Fesh Pork Saa Prodctcbion *yCI. e ,--- I - - -- Bulletin 620 March 1993 Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Lowell T. Frobish, Director Auburn University Auburn University, Alabama CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.3 EXPERIMENTAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................3 DESIGN AND 4 Product Processing Procedure ..................................................... 4 Methodology for Cooking and Determination of Cooking Loss ............... 4 Moisture, Protein, and Fat Analysis ................................................ 4 Sensory Panel Evaluation........................................................... 4 Statistical Analysis .................................................................. 5 STUDY I: CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OF FRESH PORK SAUSAGE WITH VARYING AMOUNTS OFFAT .......................................... 5 Design................................................................................5 Results and Discussion.............................................................. 5 Conclusion............................................................................ 8 STUDYJII: CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OFFRESH PORK SAUSAGE WITH DIFFERENT SEASONING FORMULATIONS......................... 8 Design................................................................................ 8 Results and Discussion.............................................................. 8 Conclusion .......................................................................... 10 STUDY III: CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OFFRESH PORK SAUSAGE METHODOLOGY......................................................... WITH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF SEASONING........................... 10 Design...............................................................................10 Results and Discussion.............................................................11 Conclusion .......................................................................... 13 STUDY IV: CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OFFRESH PORK SAUSAGE WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CARRAGEENAN AND WATER ..... 13 Design...............................................................................13 Results and Discussion.............................................................14 Conclusion .......................................................................... 16 STUDY V: CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OF FRESH PORK SAUSAGE WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OFCARRAGEENAN ........................... 16 Design...............................................................................16 Results and Discussion.............................................................17 Conclusion .......................................................................... 19 STUDY VI: ACCEPTABILITY OF FURTHER FAT REDUCTION OFLEAN PORK SAUSAGE ..................................................... 19 Design...............................................................................19 Results and Discussion ............................................................ 20 Conclusion .......................................................................... 22 SUMMARY................................................................................ 22 REFERENCES ............................................................................. 23 FIRST PRINTING 4M, MARCH 1993 Information contained herein is available to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin. Low-Fat Fresh Pork Sausage Production DALE L. HUFFMAN, C.M. CHEN, W.R. EGBERT, AND D.D. BRADFORD,2 INTRODUCTION Over one billion pounds of fresh pork sausage products are consumed annually in the United States. These products generally contain between 35-50 percent fat (1). From this information it is clear that as today's consumers continue to become more lealth conscious, their demand for lean fresh pork sausage products will rapidly xpand. The acceptability of pork sausage products is affected by the amount of fat present. Egbert et al. (1) reported that the acceptability of fresh pork sausage is closely to the amount of fat in these products. Simple reduction of the fat level in fresh poork sausage products to less than 10 percent would result in a product with indesirable palatability traits. Therefore, an innovative approach was initiated to develop an acceptable lean fresh pork sausage product. -elated EXPERIMENTAL DEVELOPMENT Development of a low-fat fresh pork sausage was approached in a series of gical steps or studies, each building on the results of the previous experiment. The ';rst study explored consumer acceptability of fresh pork sausage containing varying vels of fat. Study II was designed to determine the optimum combination of easonings, based on consumer ratings. The third study was designed to determine Se amount of seasoning from Study II that was desired by consumers. The objective f Study IV was similar to Study III, but the acceptability of varying levels of arrageenan and water was explored. The fifth study was conducted to determine the .nsumer acceptability of low-fat pork sausage with varying amounts of carrageenan id water. The fifth study confirmed the findings of the earlier studies, which led to .velopment of an acceptable product. Study VI was designed to explore the )ssibility of further fat reduction of lean pork sausage from 12.5 percent to 7 percent. ' Professor and Research Associates of Animal and Dairy Sciences. 2This study was funded in part by the National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, Ill. The )ntribution of nonmeat ingredients by the Marine Colloids Division of FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, Pa., and A.C. Legg, Inc., Birmingham, Ala., is appreciated. The cooperation of Jason M. Britt and Southern Foods Company, Columbus, Ga., is also acknowledged with appreciation. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Product Processing Procedure Fresh boneless pork hams, picnics, and back fat were obtained from a local packer. The raw materials were separated into lean and fat portions and ground separately through a 1/2-inch plate. Representative samples were analyzed for fat content by ether extraction (2). The lean sausage products were formulated using the Pearson square technique to determine the appropriate amount of lean and fat. The lean and fat components were mixed with various ingredient combinations (such as seasoning, carrageenan and/or water) based upon the formulation for each study. After the meat and non-meat ingredients had been mixed for 2 minutes on a speed setting of two (200 rpm) in a Hobart bowl mixer (Model H-120), the products were finely ground through a 3/16-inch plate and made into 2-ounce patties using a Hollymatic (Super 54) patty machine. Sausage patties were stored at 370 F until sensory and chemical analyses were completed. Methodology for Cooking and Determination of Cooking Loss Sausage products were griddle broiled on a Model TG-72 Special McDonald's grill (Wolf Range Corporation) at a temperature of 329°F for 5 minutes (1.5 minutes on the first side, 2 minutes on the other side and another 1.5 minutes on the first side) until an internal temperature of 167-172°F was achieved. Percent cooking yields were determined by the difference in weight for three patties from each treatment weighed prior to cooking and after equilibration to room temperature (68°F). Percent cooking loss was determined by subtracting the percent cooking yield from 100 percent. Moisture, Protein, and Fat Analysis Raw and cooked samples for each treatment/replication/study were ground three times using a Kitchen Aid Mixer-Grinder (Model K45S5). Moisture and protein (Kjeldahl nitrogen) contents of products were determined in triplicate using the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2) approved methods. Fat content was determined as described by Folch et al. (3). Sensory Panel Evaluation The sensory panels for each study were held within 24-48 hours after processing. The sensory panel (untrained or trained) was composed of students, faculty, and staff of the Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences. Cooked patties were cut into six wedges of approximately equal size and stored in metal pans with lids in a conventional oven until evaluated. Panelists evaluated products for juiciness, LOW-FAT SAUSAGE 5 tenderness, cohesiveness, flavor intensity, and overall acceptability on an eight-point hedonic scale (1 = extremely dry, extremely tough, extremely noncohesive, extremely bland, and extremely undesirable; and 8 = extremely juicy, extremely tender, extremely cohesive, extremely intense, and extremely desirable, respectively). Panelists were served one wedge of each treatment in a random order accompanied with unsalted crackers and apple juice at room temperature. Statistical Analysis The experimental data for each study were analyzed using a completely random design with three replications. Analysis of variance, means, and standard errors were used for all data (8). When a significant F-value (P<0.05) was found, Fisher's Least Significant Difference (FLSD) mean separation procedure was used to determine differences between treatment means (9). STUDY I CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OF FRESH PORK SAUSAGE WITH VARYING AMOUNTS OF FAT DESIGN Fresh pork sausage patties were formulated to six fat levels (10, 20, 30,40, 50, and 60 percent). The products were processed as previously described. Sensory evaluation was conducted by 100 untrained consumer-type panelists. Sausage patties were subjected to evaluation for overall acceptability on an eight-point hedonic scale. The study was replicated, and the data were analyzed as previously described. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Proximate Analysis of Raw Product Proximate analysis data for raw products shown in Table 1 indicate that fat content of products were consistent with formulated fat levels. As the fat level increased in the raw fresh pork sausage patties, the levels of moisture decreased (P<0.05). The results support previous studies (4, 5, 6, 7), which reported that an inverse relationship exists between fat content and moisture content. Protein content was different (P<0.01) for products with different fat levels. An increased fat level in fresh pork sausage patties resulted in a decreased (P<0.05) protein content. 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Pct. 10............. ............... 20.................................... 30.................................... 40.................................... 50................................... Pct. 69.6a 62.8b 55.6c 49.8e 40.3e Pct. 9.2f 17.2e 25.9d 34.8c 43.6b Pct. 21.Oa 18.6b 14.9c l2.2d lOe 51.8a 8.9f 60.................................... 33.3f Level" is the projected amount of fat, while "Fat" is the actual fat level found upon analysis. 2 Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). I"Fat Proximate Analysis of Cooked Product Proximate analysis results for cooked fresh pork sausage patties presented in Table 2 indicated that composition of the cooked fresh pork sausage patties conform to the same trend as the raw products. Fat content differed (P<0.05) in the cooked fat levels increased, with the exception of products pork sausages as containing 50 or 60 percent fat which did not differ. In general, percent moisture content for the cooked fresh pork sausage patties decreased (P<0.05) as fat increased. Percent protein-content varied (P<0.05) among products. This finding is likely due to the change in moisture and fat content. formulated increased (P<0.05) as fat increased in the fresh {Generallpercent hooking (Table 2). There was no difference (P>0.05) in cooking loss pork .products with a ,fat content below 30 percent or above 40 percent. among sausage parie loss Cooking Loss Fat Level Pct 10: ...,.; Moisture' Pct. . 63. la Fat' Pct. Protein Pct. 23.9b Cooking Loss' Pct. 34.4b 36.7b 11.2e 17.64d,25.6a 2.........55.8b 30. . ...... ............ 52.4c .43. lde 43.2e 22.2c 27.4b 28.7a 28.5a '20.5e' 23.4b 21.7d 22.9hc 38.Oh 4.........45.3d 50.................... 60...................... 44.8a 45.7a 46.3a 'Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). LOW-FAT SAUSAGE 7 Sensory Evaluation Sensory evaluation data presented in Table 3 and the figure show an increase in overall acceptability scores as fat content increased from 10 percent to 40 percent and a marked decrease at 50 percent and 60 percent fat. When these data are plotted, the curve peaks at an acceptability level of 40 percent. Statistical data (Table 3) show no differences (P>0.05) in sensory acceptability scores among products with fat levels of 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent. . Table 3. Overall Acceptability Scores of Fresh Pork SausagePtte With Different Amounts of Fat, Study I. Fat Level Pet. Overall Acceptability Scores 1'2 10................................................. ....... 6.lbc 6.lb 50 ................................................................................. 20................................................... .................... 30................................................... 40.................................................. ... ....................... 60..... .................... 6.a ..................... 9a 4.5d ................... 'Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). 2Scale: 1=extremely undesirable; 8=extremely desirable. Overall acceptability score 7.50- 6.80-F 6.10 I 4.70 4.00 10 20 40 30 0 Fat level, % 50 60 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CONCLUSION Since overall acceptability scores from fresh pork sausage patties peaked at a fat content of 40 percent, this fat level was determined to be the standard (control) for future research on the development of low-fat fresh pork sausage products. STUDY II CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OF FRESH PORK SAUSAGE WITH DIFFERENT SEASONING FORMULATIONS DESIGN Fresh pork sausage patties were prepared with three different seasoning formulations (mild, medium, and hot) at 40 percent fat (Table 4). The products were manufactured as described previously. Sensory evaluation was conducted by 100 untrained consumer-type panelists. Sausage patties were subjected to evaluation for overall acceptability on an eight-point hedonic scale. The study was replicated, and the data were analyzed as previously described. Table 4. Fresh Pork Sausage Seasoning Formulation, Study II Treatment Hot Pct. Medium Pct. Mild Pct. Salt........................................................... Dextrose.................................................. Chopped sage.......................................... Black pepper........................................... Ground red pepper.................................. Crushed red pepper................................ Water....................................................... 1.630 0.250 0.220 0.050 0.160 0.031 3.000 1.630 0.250 0.160 0.030 0.125 0.016 3.000 1.630 0.250 0.100 0.016 0.094 0.000 3.000 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Proximate Analysis There were no differences (P>0.05) for proximate analysis among raw products due to the different seasoning (mild, medium and hot) formulations (Table 5). The same trends also were observed for the cooked products (Table 6). LOW-FAT SAUSAGE Table 5. Proximate Analysis of Raw Fresh Pork Sausage Patties 1 With Different Seasoning Formulations, Study II Treatment' MoistureFaPrti Pct. 48.9b 49.5b 49.8b 2 2 Poen2 Pct. 34.8b 34.7b 34.8b Pct. 12.4b 12.3b 12.2b Hot.............................................. Medium....................................... Mild............................................ 'Description of treatments shown in Table 4. 2 Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (PO.05) due to different seasoning (mild, medium, and hot) formulations. Sensory Evaluation Overall acceptability scores for fresh pork sausage patties with different seasoning formulations are presented in Table 7. Panelists found that product with the mild levels of seasoning ingredients (chopped sage, black pepper, ground pepper, and crushed red pepper) had lower (PO.05) for overall acceptability between products with hot (treatment 1) or medium (treatment 2) seasoning ingredients. red 10 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 7. Overall Acceptability Scores of Fresh Pork Sausage Patties With Different Seasoning Formulations, Study II Treatment' Overall Acceptability 2,3 Hot ......................................................................... .................... .. 7.4b Mild............................................................. 6.6c ................. 7.4b M edium ...................................................................... 'Description of treatments shown in Table 4. 2 Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). 3Scale: 1=extremely undesirable; 8=extremely desirable. CONCLUSION Fresh pork sausage patties with a hot or medium seasoning formulation were rated more desirable (P<0.05) than the low seasoning product by panelists. In order to establish a standard seasoning formulation for the development of low-fat sausages, a medium seasoning formulation was chosen as the acceptable standard to prevent the possibility of the hot seasoning masking any off-flavors. STUDY HI CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OF FRESH PORK SAUSAGE WITH DIFFERENTAMOUNTS OF SEASONINGS DESIGN Four different amounts of seasoning (1, 1.25, 1.5, and 1.75 times that of the control amounts) were used in the lean sausage products (15 percent fat) to compare regular control (40 percent fat) in order to adjust the flavor intensity due to different fat contents in the sausage products (Table 8). The products were produced as described previously. Sensory evaluation was conducted by 15 trained panelists. Sausage patties were subjected to evaluation for juiciness, tenderness, cohesiveness, flavor intensity and overall acceptability on an eight-point hedonic scale. The study was replicated, and the data were analyzed as previously described. LOW-FAT SAUSAGE 11 Table 8. Fresh Pork Sausage Seasoning Formulation, Study II Treatment' 1 Pct. Salt.................................... Dextrose............................ Chopped sage...... ........ Black pepper.................... Ground red pepper........... Crushed red pepper.......... Water ................................ 1.625 0.250 0.160 0.030 0.125 0.016 3.000 2 Pct. 1.625 0.250 0.160 0.030 0.125 0.016 3.000 3 Pct. 2.031 0.313 0.200 0.038 0.156 0.020 3.000 4 Pct. 2.438 0.375 0.240 0.045 0.188 0.024 3.000 5 Pct. 2.844 0.438 0.280 0.053 0.219 0.028 3.000 ' Treatment 1 was formulated to contain 40 pct. fat; all others were formulated to contain 15 pct. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Proximate Analysis Proximate analysis data for raw products are presented in Table 9. As expected, regular products with 40 percent fat (treatment 1) had higher (P<0.05) fat content and lower (P<0.05) moisture and protein contents than lean products (treatments 2,3,4,and 5). The results showed no differences (P>0.05) for moisture, fat, and protein contents among lean products (15 percent fat) with different levels of seasonings. Similar trends were found for cooked products except protein content (Table 10) which was approximately 26 percent for all treatments. Treatment Moisture 2 Pct. Fat 2 Protein 2 Pct. 16.8c 17.7b 17.7b 17.6b 17.5b Pct. 33.2b 11.5c 11.2c 11.9c 11.8c 1...................................... 2...................................... 3...................................... 4...................................... 5...................................... 51.5c 67.5b 67.9b 67.6b 67.5b ' Description of treatments shown inTable 8. 2Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTUA XEIMN TTO Cooking Loss Table 10 shows cooking loss data for fresh pork sausage patties. Lean sausage products (treatments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) had less (P<0.05) cooking loss than regular sausage (40 percent fat). There were no differences (P>0.05) for cooking loss among lean (15 percent) sausage patties with different levels of seasonings. Treatment Moistures Pct. Fat' Pct. 25.3b 13.8c 13.5c 13.6c 13.8c Protein Pct. 25.8b 25.6b 25.5b 25.8b 25.6b Cooking Loss2 Pct. 37.Ob 20.5c 20.7c 20.4c 20.6c 1............................. 2............................. 3............................. 4............................. 5....................... 50.7c 60.2b 60.4b 60.3b 60.Ob 'Description of treatments shown in Table 8. 2Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P0.05) for sensory characteristics (juiciness, tenderness, flavor intensity, and overall acceptability scores) except product cohesiveness scores. The results showed lean (15 percent fat) products (treatment 2, 3, 4 and 5) had higher (P<0.05) cohesiveness scores than regular (40 percent fat) products (treatment 1). Treatment' Juiciness" 5.7b 5.4b 5.7b 5.8b Tenderness' 6.3b 5.7b 6.1b 5.9b Cohesiveness 23 ' 2 Intensity '3 Flavor2 Acceptability2' 3 Overall2 1................... 2................... 3................... 4................... 5................... 'Description 5.5c 6.5b 6.5b 6.7b 5.5b 5.9b 6. lb 6.5b 5.4b 5.5b 5.9b 5.5b 5.8b 6.Ob 6.4b 6.6b of treatments shown in Table 8. 2Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P0.05) for fat content among raw products with different combinations of carrageenan and added water. Sausages with carrageenan and less than 10 percent added water (treatments 3 and 4) had the highest (P<0.05) protein content while sausages with carrageenan and more than 20 percent added water (treatments 5 and 6) had the lowest (P<0.05) protein content. Table 13. Proximate Analysis of Raw Fresh Pork Sausage With Different Amounts of Carrageenan and Water, Study IV Treatment ' Moisture Pct. 1................................ 48.7f 2 Fat 2 Pct. 33.0b Protein 2 Pct. 16.9d 2.................................. 3.................................. 4.................................. 5 .......... ......... ..... 67.7e 68.3e 70.0d 73.3c 11.4c 10.5d 10.8d 10.3d 17.7c 18.5b 18. lb 15.8e 6...................................... 74.6b 10.7d 15.4e 'Description of treatment shown in Table 12. 2Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). Proximate Analysis of Cooked Products Proximate composition of cooked products presented in Table 14 show that moisture content of cooked sausages increased (P<0.05) when added water increased in the products. The fat content of cooked products was lower (P<0.05) for lean products with carrageenan and 10 percent or more added water (treatments 4, 5, and 6) than for other treatments. However, lean sausage patties with carrageenan and 10 percent or more added water (treatments 4, 5, and 6) were not different (P>0.05) for fat content. No differences (P>0.05) were found among cooked sausage products for protein content. LOW-FAT SAUSAGE 15 Table 14. Proximate Analysis of Cooked Fresh Pork Sausage Patties With Different Amounts of Carrageenan and Water, Study IV Treatment ' Moisture 2 Pct. Fat 2 Pct. Protein Pet. Cooking Loss Pct. 1............................. 2............................. 50.9g 60.0f 25.2b 13.8c 25.2b 25.7b 37. lb 20.6d 3......................... 4......................... 5............................. 6............................. 62.3e 65.4c 64.2d 66.6b 13.3c 12.1 d 11.9d 11.4d 23.9b 23.Ob 23.8b 19.5b 16.3e 18.2de 25.7c 23.8c 'Description of treatments shown in Table 12. 2 Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). Cooking Loss Cooking loss for sausage products was different (P<0.05) for products containing carrageenan and varying levels of water (Table 14). The data indicate that regular sausage (40 percent fat) had the highest (P>0.05) cooking loss. Lean sausages with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 3 percent added water had the lowest (P<0.05) cooking loss except for lean sausages with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 10 percent added water. No differences (P>0.05) were found for cooking loss of lean sausages with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 20 percent or 30 percent added water. The same result was found between lean sausages with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 3 percent or 10 percent added water. Sensory Evaluation Sensory panel data shown in Table 15 indicate that juiciness scores for lean sausages were higher (P<0.05) than regular sausages (treatment 1). Panelists rated sausages with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 30 percent added water (treatment 6) higher (P<0.05) for juiciness scores than others, except sausages with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 20 percent added water (treatment 5). Similar trends were found for tenderness and cohesiveness scores. No differences (P>0.05) were found for flavor intensity scores among products. Panelists found that lean sausage (15 percent fat) with 0.5 percent carrageenan and less than 10 percent water (treatments 3 and 4) had similar (P<0.05) overall acceptability scores as regular sausage (40 percent fat). Lean sausage with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 20 percent or 30 percent added water had higher (P<0.05) overall acceptability scores than regular sausage. 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 15. Sensory Evaluation of Fresh Pork Sausage Patties With Different Amounts of Carrageenan and Water, Study IV Treatment ' Juiciness 2, 3 Tenderness 2, 3 Cohesiveness 2,3 Intensity 2, 5.4e 5.7de 3 Acceptability , 5.3d 5.7bcd 23 1.................. 2........................ 5.2e 5.7d 6.1b 6.3b 5.7b 6.1b 3........................ 4.................... 5.................... 6........................ 5.9d 6.1cd 6.4bc 6.5b 6.0d 6.1d 6.5c 6.9b 5.6c 5.9bc 5.6cd 5.2d 5.7b 5.9b 6. lb 6.0b 5.4cd 5.6bcd 5.9bc 5.9bc 'Description of treatments shown in Table 12. 2Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0. 05). 3 Description of scale shown in Table 11. CONCLUSION Low-fat sausage patties formulated with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 20 percent or 30 percent water were found to be more juicy, more tender, less cohesive, and have greater overall acceptability characteristics than the control formulation. The treatment containing 10 percent water had some similar sensory properties as the other treatments (20 and 30 percent added water). However, from a practical standpoint the treatment with 20 percent added water and 0.5 percent carrageenan was chosen for further evaluation. STUDY V CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OF FRESH PORK SAUSAGE WITH DIFFERENTLEVELS OF CARRAGEENAN DESIGN Lean fresh pork sausage patties were prepared with four levels of carrageenan (0 percent, 0.2 percent, 0.35 percent, or0.5 percent) and 20 percent added water, and compared to the control sausage with 3 percent water and 40 percent fat (Table 16). The products were produced as described previously. Sensory evaluation was conducted by 15 trained panelists. Sausage patties were evaluated for juiciness, tenderness, cohessiveness, flavor intensity, and overall acceptability on an eightpoint hedonic scale. The study was replicated three times, and the data were analyzed as previously described. LOW-FAT SAUSAGE 17 Table 16. Fresh Pork Sausage Patties With Different Amounts of Carrageenan and Water, Study V Treatment 1 1 Pct. 2 Pct. 3 Pct. 4 Pct. 5 Pct. Raw material......................... Dextrose................................ Chopped sage...................... Black pepper........................ Ground red pepper............... Crushed red pepper.............. Carrageenan.......................... W ater................................... 94.79 0.250 0.160 0.030 0.125 0.016 0.000 3.000 94.20 2.030 0.313 0.200 0.038 0.156 0.020 0.000 3.000 77.04 2.030 0.313 0.200 0.038 0.156 0.020 0.200 20.000 76.90 2.030 0.313 0.200 0.038 0.156 0.020 0.350 20.00 76.70 2.030 0.313 0.200 0.038 0.156 0.202 0.500 20.00 1.630 Salt....................... .............. STreatment 1 was formulated to contain 40 pct. fat; all others were formuated to contain 15 pct. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Proximate Analysis of Raw Products Proximate composition of raw sausage patties shown in Table 17 indicates that lean sausage patties had higher (P<0.05) moisture content than regular sausage. No differences (P>0.05) were found for moisture content among lean sausage treatments containing different levels of carrageenan. Sausage patties with different levels of carrageenan (treatments 3, 4, and 5) contained less (P<0.05) fat than other sausage (treatments 1 and 2). Lean sausage with 0.5 percent carrageenan and 20 percent water added (treatment 5) had higher (P<0.05) protein content than other treatments except the lean control (treatment 2). Proximate Analysis of Cooked Products Proximate composition of cooked sausage patties shown in Table 18 indicate that regular sausage (treatment 1) had the highest (P<0.05) fat content and the lowest protein and moisture content. Lean sausage with different levels of carrageenan (treatments 3, 4, and 5) had higher (P<0.05) moisture content and lower fat content than other products (treatments 1 and 2). Lean sausage patties with 0.5 percent or 0.35 percent carrageenan (treatments 4 and 5) had higher (P<0.05) protein content than other products (treatments 1, 2, and 3). 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 17. Proximate Analysis o. Raw Fresh Pork Sausage Patties With Different Amounts of Carrageenan, Study Treatment' Moisture Pct. 1...................................... 2 .............................. 3 .............................. 4.............................. 5 .............................. 2 V Fat 2 Protein 2 Pct. 13.8d 18.2b 16.3c 16.7c 18.3b Pct. 38.Ob 14.5c 12.9d 12.2e 12.7de 47.8c 66.8b 69.9b 69.9b 68.1b 'Description of treatments shown in Table 16. 2Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P0.05) were found for cooking loss among lean sausage patties with different levels of carrageenan (treatments 3, 4, and 5). Sensory Evaluation Sensory panel results (Table 19) show that lean sausage with 0.35 percent or 0.5 percent carrageenan and 20 percent water had better (P<0.05) juiciness, tenderness, and cohesiveness scores than the regular control (treatment 1) and lean control (treatment 2). Lean sausage with 0.2 percent or 0.35 percent carrageenan (treatments LOW-FAT SAUSAGE 19 3 and 4) had higher (P<0.05) flavor intensity scores than the regular control (treatment 1). Overall acceptability results indicate that all lean sausage formulations (treatments 2, 3, 4 ,and 5) had higher (P<0.05) scores than regular sausage patties containing a higher level of fat (treatment 1). Table 19. Sensory Evaluations of Fresh Pork Sausage Patties With Different Amounts of Carrageenan, Study V Treatment 1........................ 2.................... 3.................... 4.................... 5.................... Juiciness 2,3 Tenderness 2'3 5.5c 5.4c 5.8bc 6.0b 6.3b 5.7de 5.5e 6.0cd 6.2bc 6.5b Cohesiveness 6.2bc 6.6b 6.4bc 6.1 cd 5.8d I Flavor Intensity 5.5c 6.8bc 6.l b 6.0b 5.8bc Overallt Acceptability 5. Ic 5.8b 6.0b 6. lb 5.9b 'Description of treatments shown in Table 16 2Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). Description of the scale shown in Table 11. CONCLUSION It is evident from these results that low-fat sausage patties formulated with 0.35 percent or 0.50 percent carrageenan and 20 percent water (treatments 4 and 5) provide low-fat fresh pork sausage patties which have sensory properties equal, or superior to control formulations (treatments 1 and 2). Based on this study, it is recommended that the formulation used in treatment 4 (0.35 percent carrageenan) be used for production of lean sausage patties due to its higher numerical scores for overall acceptability. STUDY VI ACCEPTABILITY OF FURTHER FAT REDUCTION OF LEAN PORK SAUSAGE DESIGN The objective of the final study was to develop a low-fat (less than 7 percent fat) pork sausage product with sensory and physical properties equivalent to the developed product with 12.5 percent fat. The pork sausage products were formulated to contain three fat levels (40 percent = treatment 1; 12.5 percent = treatment 2; and 7 percent = treatment 3) and to comply with U.S.D.A regulations that require low-fat 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION treatments to contain a maximum of 30 percent fat, water, and added ingredients. Sausage products were evaluated for sensory and compositional properties. The study was replicated three times, and the data were analyzed as previously described. Treatment 1 Pct. 2 Pct. 76.90 2.030 0.313 0.200 0.038 0.156 0.020 0.350 20.00 3 Pct. 76.90 2.030 0.313 0.200 0.038 0.156 0.020 0.350 20.00 Meat.................................... .......... 94.60 1.630 0.250 0.160 0.030 0.125 0.160 0.000 3.000 Salt........................................... Dextrose.............................. Chopped sage..... ................... ....... Black pepper........................... Ground red pepper.......................... Crushed red pepper........................ .................... Carrageenan..... W ater......................................... .......... RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Proximate Analysis Low-fat fresh pork sausage with 7 percent fat (treatment 3) was found to be lower in fat and higher in protein than low-fat fresh pork sausage with 12.5 percent fat (treatment 2) or traditional pork sausage with 33 percent fat (treatment 1). Moisture levels were the same for the low-fat treatments, but both were higher than traditional pork sausage. Upon cooking, low-fat fresh pork sausage with 7 percent fat was found to be lower in fat and equivalent to low-fat fresh pork sausage with 12.5 percent fat in both moisture and protein content. Traditional pork sausage with 33 percent fat was lower in moisture, higher in fat and lower in protein than either of the low-fat treatments. See Table 21. Cooking Loss Traditional pork sausage (33 percent fat) was highest in cooking loss among the three treatments while low-fat fresh pork sausage with 7 percent fat had greater cooking loss than low-fat fresh pork sausage with 12.5 percent fat (Table 22). LOW-FAT SAUSAGE 21 LOW-FAT SAU SAGE 21 Table 21. Proximate Analysis of Raw Fresh Pork Sausage Patties, Study VI Treatment' Moisture 2 Pct. 1............................... 2 .............................. 3 .............................. 'Description Fat 2 Pet. 32.7b 11.3c 6.70d Protein 2 Pct. 15.3d 16.8c 51.lc 70.9b 73.3b 19.1b 2 of treatments shown in Table 20. Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). Treatment Moisture 2 Pet. Fat 2 Pet. 32.3b 14.3c h1Oc Protein 2 Pet. 19.4c 20.8b Cooking Loss 2 Pet. 32.9b 13.9d 21.3c 1....................... 2....................... 3....................... 47.3c 63.8b 65.9b 22.1b 'Description of treatments shown in Table 20. 2Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). Sensory Evaluation Panelists found the traditional pork sausage (33 percent fat) to be less juicy and less tender than either of the low-fat treatments. No differences were found between low-fat treatments for juiciness, tenderness, off-flavor, or flavor intensity. Also, no differences were found among the three treatments for overall acceptability, offflavors, or flavor intensity (Table 23). racteristics of Fresh Pork Sausage Treatments, Study VI Treatment ' 1............................. 2.............................. 3.............................. 'Description 23 Juiciness ' Tenderness 2' 3 6.lb 7.1a 7.3a Off-flavor 7.6a 7.5a 7.3a 23 Intensity Flavor 5.8a 6.2a 6.3a 2 3 , Overall13 Acceptability' 6.3a 6.5a 6.4a 6.1b 7.3a 6.9a 2 of treatments shown in Table 20. Mcans in thc samc column followcd by diffcrent lettcrs are significantly different (P<.0.05). 3Description of the scale shown in Table 11. 22 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CONCLUSION It is evident that the low-fat (AU Lean) sausage formulated with carrageenan and 7 percent fat (treatment 3) has sensory properties equivalent or better than traditional sausage (treatment 1) with a higher fat level. Based on this study, it is recommended that the 12.5 percent fat content of AU Lean sausage could be reduced to 7 percent and still be equivalent to, or better than, the traditional pork sausage. SUMMARY The objective upon initiation of this research was to develop a low-fat (<10 percent fat) fresh pork sausage product that had sensory properties equal (or superior) to traditional fresh pork sausage patties. Results from the present studies indicate that the goal of this project was accomplished. Evidence from these studies indicate that low-fat sausages formulated with 0.35 percent carrageenan and 20 percent added water provided sausage patties with significantly less fat, but with more desirable sensory characteristics than the control formulations. The developed low-fat fresh pork sausage patties have a 70 percent reduction in fat and a 46 percent reduction in calories when compared to traditional fresh pork sausage patties. LOW-FAT SAUSAGE 23 REFERENCES (1) EGBERT, W.R., D.L. HUFFMAN, AND J.C. REEVES. 1990. Fat Content is Major Factor in Acceptability of Fresh Pork Sausage. Highlights of Agr. Res., Ala. Agr. Exp. Sta., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL. 37(3): 15. AOAC. 1980. "Official Methods of Analysis," 13th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C. FOLCH, J., M. LEES, AND G.H. SLOANE. 1957. A Simple Method for the Isolation and Purification of Total Lipids from Animal Tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 226: 497. HUFFMAN, D.L., AND W.R. EGBERT. 1990. Advances in Lean Ground Beef Production. Ala. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 606. KEETON, J., 1983. Effects of Fat and NaCl/Phosphate Levels on the Chemical and Sensory Properties of Pork Patties. J. Food Sci. 48: 878. KREGEL, K.K., K.J. PRUSA, AND K.V. HUGHES. 1986. Cholesterol Content and Sensory Analysis of Ground Beef as Influenced by Fat Level, Heating, and Storage. J. Food Sci. 51: 1162. REITMEIER, C.A., AND K.J. PRUSA. 1987. Cholesterol Content and Sensory Analysis of Ground Pork as Influenced by Fat Level and Heating. J. Food Sci. 52: 916. SAS. 1988. "SAS User Guide: Statistics." SAS Institute Inc. Cary, N.C. STEEL, R.G., AND J.H. TORRIE. 1982. "Principles and Procedures of Statistics." McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) AUB1UCRN UNIX LRSITY \WVit h an1 cnlt urn I nun research unit in ex ery major soil area. Au burn Unix ersity serv'es the needs, of field crop. livestock. forestr\x and hor1ticlturIal produce rs in each region in Alabama. Ev ery citizen of the state has a stake in th is rescarch 6 9 11 10 8 programf. since amx adx antac from newx and more economical xxax, of producing and handling farm products (irectIN benefits the cnuing- public. *Main Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn. E. V. Smith Research Center, Shorter. Tennessee Valley Substation. Belle Mina. Sand Mountain Suostation. Crossvillie. North Alabama Horticulture Suostation. Cullman Upper Coastal Plain Substation. Winfield. Forestry Unit. Fayette County. Chilton Area Horticuliture Substation. Clanton Forestry Unit. Coosa Counrty. Piedmont Su~bstation. Camp Hill Foresty Unit. Autauga County. Prattville Experiment Field. Prattsille. 11. 2 13 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Black Belt Su.bstation. Marion Junction. The Turnipseeo-Ikenberry Place. Union Springs Lower Coastsl Plain Substation. Cam~den. Forestry Unit. Barbour County. Monroesilie Experimeet Field. Monroeville Wiregrass Substation. Headland. Brewtor Experimert Field Brewton. Ornamentsl Horticuliture Substation. Spring Hill Gulf Coast Substation. Fairhope.