Advertisement

Journal of Food Science and Technology

, Volume 55, Issue 7, pp 2552–2559 | Cite as

Impact of the soy protein replacement by legumes and algae based proteins on the quality of chicken rotti

  • Oleksii Parniakov
  • Stefan Toepfl
  • Francisco J. Barba
  • Daniel Granato
  • Sol Zamuz
  • Fernando Galvez
  • José Manuel Lorenzo
Original Article

Abstract

The addition of different protein sources (soy, bean, lentil, broad bean, Spirulina, and Chlorella) on nutritional, physicochemical and sensory properties of chicken rotti was evaluated. Significant changes were observed in physicochemical composition, textural properties and amino acid content of chicken rotti after adding the proteins from different sources, thus influencing the sensory acceptance and preference. Spirulina and Chlorella rotti presented a slight increase of pH and seaweed caused a decrease in some colour parameters. The highest lipids contents were found in chicken rotti added of with Spirulina and lentil proteins. Chicken rotti prepared with lentil protein also showed the highest values for ash content. Chicken rotti enriched with seaweed protein presented the highest total amino acid content. Principal component analysis showed that broad beans and lentils proteins as interesting ingredients to replace soy protein in chicken rotti.

Keywords

Functional foods Meat analogues Spirulina Chlorella Amino acid profile Sensory analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by FEDER INTERCONECTA (Grant number ITC-20151395). The authors would like to thank Algaenergy S.A. (Madrid, Spain) for the Chlorella and Spirulina seaweeds samples supplied for this research. José M. Lorenzo is member of the MARCARNE network, funded by CYTED (Ref. 116RT0503). Daniel Granato acknowledges CNPq for a productivity grant (Process 303188/2016-2).

References

  1. Agregán R, Munekata PE, Franco D, Dominguez R, Carballo J, Lorenzo JM (2017a) Proximate composition, phenolic content and in vitro antioxidant activity of aqueous extracts of the seaweeds Ascophyllum nodosum, Bifurcaria bifurcata and Fucus vesiculosus. Effect of addition of the extracts on the oxidative stability of canola oil under accelerated storage conditions. Food Res Int 99:986–994.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.11.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agregán R, Munekata PE, Franco D, Dominguez R, Carballo J, Lorenzo JM (2017b) Assessment of the antioxidant activity of Bifurcaria bifurcata aqueous extract on canola oil. Effect of extract concentration on the oxidation stability and volatile compound generation during oil storage. Food Res Int 99:1095–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.10.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agregán R, Munekata PE, Franco D, Dominguez R, Carballo J, Lorenzo JM (2017c) Phenolic compounds from three brown seaweed species using LC-DAD–ESI-MS/MS. Food Res Int 99:979–985.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.03.043 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Agregán R, Munekata PE, Franco D, Carballo J, Barba FJ, Lorenzo JM (2018) Antioxidant Potential of extracts obtained from macro-(Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus vesiculosus and Bifurcaria bifurcata) and micro-algae (Chlorella vulgaris and Spirulina platensis) assisted by ultrasound. Medicines 5:33.  https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines5020033 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Anonymous (2007) UNE-EN ISO 8589:2010 Sensory anlalysis. General guidance for the desing fo test rooms (ISO 8589:2007). ISOGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnaudas L, Caverni A, Lou LM, Vercet A et al (2013) Fuentes ocultas de fósforo: presencia de aditivos con contenido en fósforo en los alimentos procesados. Diálisis y Transplantes 34:154–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dialis.2013.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arora B, Kamal S, Sharma VP (2017) Effect of binding agents on quality characteristics of mushroom based sausage analogue. J Food Process Preserv 41:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG et al (2001) Legume consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in US men and women: NHANES I epidemiologic follow-up study. Arch Intern Med 161:2573–2578.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.21.2573 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bleakley S, Hayes M (2017) Algal proteins: extraction, application, and challenges concerning production. Foods 6:2–34.  https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6050033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boye JI, Danquah AO, Lam Thang C, Zhao X (2012) Food Allerg.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118308035.ch42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi Y-S, Choi J-H, Han D-J et al (2012) Effects of Laminaria japonica on the physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of reduced-fat pork patties. Meat Sci 91:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.11.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cofrades S, López-López I, Solas MT et al (2008) Influence of different types and proportions of added edible seaweeds on characteristics of low-salt gel/emulsion meat systems. Meat Sci 79:767–776.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.11.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cofrades S, Benedí J, Garcimartin A et al (2017) A comprehensive approach to formulation of seaweed-enriched meat products: from technological development to assessment of healthy properties. Food Res Int 99:1084–1094.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.06.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawczynski C, Schubert R, Jahreis G (2007) Amino acids, fatty acids, and dietary fibre in edible seaweed products. Food Chem 103:891–899.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.09.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Boer J, Schösler H, Boersema JJ (2013) Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat. Food Qual Prefer 28:32–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Domínguez R, Crecente S, Borrajo P et al (2015) Effect of slaughter age on foal carcass traits and meat quality. Animal 9:1713–1720.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115000671 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleurence J (1999) Seaweed proteins: biochemical, nutritional aspects and potential uses. Trends Food Sci Technol 10:25–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(99)00015-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gómez M, Lorenzo JM (2013) Effect of fat level on physicochemical, volatile compounds and sensory characteristics of dry-ripened “chorizo” from Celta pig breed. Meat Sci 95:658–666.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.06.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Granato D, de Araújo Calado VM, Jarvis B (2014) Observations on the use of statistical methods in food science and technology. Food Res Int 55:137–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.10.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Granato D, Santos JS, Escher GB et al (2018) Use of principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) for multivariate association between bioactive compounds and functional properties in foods: a critical perspective. Trends Food Sci Technol 72:83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO (1978) Determination of nitrogen content, ISO 937:1978 standard. International standards meat and meat products. International Organization for Standardization. Genéve, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO (1997) Determination of moisture content, ISO 1442:1997 standard. International standards meat and meat products. International Organization for Standardization. Genéve, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  23. López-López I, Cofrades S, Jiménez-Colmenero F (2009) Low-fat frankfurters enriched with n-3 PUFA and edible seaweed: effects of olive oil and chilled storage on physicochemical, sensory and microbial characteristics. Meat Sci 83:148–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.04.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lorenzo JM, Pateiro M (2013) Influence of type of muscles on nutritional value of foal meat. Meat Sci 93:630–638.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorenzo JM, Purriños L, Temperán S et al (2011) Physicochemical and nutritional composition of dry-cured duck breast. Poult Sci 90:931–940.  https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lorenzo JM, Sarriés MV, Tateo A, Polidori P, Franco D, Lanza M (2014) Carcass characteristics, meat quality and nutritional value of horsemeat: a review. Meat Sci 96:1478–1488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.12.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorenzo JM, Agregán R, Munekata PE, Franco D, Carballo J, Şahin S, Lacomba R, Barba FJ (2017) Proximate composition and nutritional value of three Macroalgae: Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus vesiculosus and Bifurcaria bifurcata. Mar Drugs 15:360.  https://doi.org/10.3390/md15110360 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Neacsu M, McBey D, Johnstone AM (2017) Chapter 22—meat reduction and plant-based food: replacement of meat: nutritional, health, and social aspects. In: Nadathur SR, Wanasundara JPD, Scanlin L (eds) Sustainable protein sources. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Sullivan AM, O’Grady MN, O’Callaghan YC, Smyth TJ, O’Brien NM, Kerry JP (2016) Seaweed extracts as potential functional ingredients in yogurt. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 37:293–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2016.07.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pateiro M, Lorenzo JM, Diaz S et al (2013) Meat quality of veal: discriminatory ability of weaning status. Span J Agric Res 11:1044–1056.  https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2013114-4363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rochfort S, Panozzo J (2007) Phytochemicals for health, the role of pulses. J Agric Food Chem 55:7981–7994.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf071704w CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Seves SM, Verkaik-Kloosterman J, Biesbroek S, Temme EH (2017) Are more environmentally sustainable diets with less meat and dairy nutritionally adequate? Public Health Nutr 20:2050–2062.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017000763 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Vainio A, Niva M, Jallinoja P, Latvala T (2016) From beef to beans: eating motives and the replacement of animal proteins with plant proteins among Finnish consumers. Appetite 106:92–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elea Vertriebs- und Vermarktungsgesellschaft mbHQuakenbrückGermany
  2. 2.Nutrition and Food Science Area, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Food Sciences, Toxicology and Forensic Medicine Department, Faculty of PharmacyUniversitat de ValènciaBurjassot, ValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Food EngineeringState University of Ponta GrossaPonta GrossaBrazil
  4. 4.Meat Technology Center of Galicia, Galicia Street No 4Parque Tecnológico de GaliciaSan Cibrao das Viñas, OurenseSpain
  5. 5.COREN, Sociedad Cooperativa GalegaOurenseSpain

Personalised recommendations