Effect of Fat Level and the Ripening Time on Quality Traits of Fermented Sausages

Article information

Asian-Australas J Anim Sci.. 2016;29(1):119-125
Publication date (electronic) : 2015 September 10
doi : https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0180
Department of Health Administration and Food Hygiene, Jinju Health College, Jinju 660-757, Korea.
1Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Sangji University, Wonju 220-702, Korea.
*Corresponding Author: Ku-Young Chung. Tel: +82-33-730-0534, E-mail: kychung@sangji.ac.kr
Received 2015 March 03; Revised 2015 May 27; Accepted 2015 June 02.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of the fat reduction on the physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of fermented sausages during ripening and drying. Low fat fermented sausages were produced with different fat levels (30%, 20%, 10%, and 5%) under ripening conditions and fermented process. Samples from each treatment were taken for physicochemical and microbiological analyses on the 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21st day of ripening. In proximate analysis, the fat reduction in sausages produced an increase in moisture, protein and ash contents during ripening and drying (p<0.05). The weight losses were significantly higher in high fat formulations during the first 4 days, whereas those were higher in low fat ones after 10 days of storage (p<0.05). Fat reduction was responsible for an increase in shear force values after 3 days of storage. The volatile basic nitrogen (VBN) value of the low fat samples was significantly higher (p<0.05). Low fat sausages reduced the extent of lipid oxidation. The lower fat level produced redder sausages. Total plate bacteria and Pseudomonas counts of sausages showed no significant differences. Production of low fat sausages resulted in the physicochemical and microbiological attributes equal to or better than the high fat sausages without negative effects, except only a higher VBN and weight loss.

INTRODUCTION

Fat contributes to nutritional (source of essential fatty acids, liposoluble vitamins, and energy), organoleptic (flavour, texture, and mouthfeel), and technological properties (release of moisture) in meat products (Olivares et al., 2010). Nevertheless, fat in meat and meat products is considered a triggering factor in the development of some chronic diseases (World Health Organization, 2003). For this reason, health organizations all over the world have promoted lowering the intake of total dietary fat intake to less than 30% of total calories, particularly saturated fatty acids and cholesterol, as a mean of preventing cardiovascular heart disease (Nutrition Committee, American Heart Association, 1986; Kris-Etherton et al., 1988). Thus, meat researchers have focused on developing new formulations by reducing fat levels.

Fermented sausages are meat products with a high fat content. Traditional sausages made with a normal recipe have fat contents around 32% directly after manufacture, but during the first week these values rise to about 40%, as a result of drying, and after 4 weeks to about 40% to 50% (Wirth, 1988). Therefore, it is valuable to reduce the amount of pork backfat used in fermented sausages, since it contains a high content of saturated fat. However, low-fat fermented sausages become not only harder, but have high weight loss and an unacceptable appearance due to intensely wrinkled surfaces (Muguerza et al., 2002). Consequently, fat reduction can affect the sensory characteristics of the products (Giese, 1996; Mendoza et al., 2001) and increase the toughness of meat products (Barbut and Mittal, 1996). Furthermore, the granulated fat in fermented sausages helps to loosen the sausage mixture and this aids the continuous release of moisture from the inner layers of the product; a process absolutely necessary for undisturbed fermentation and flavour/aroma development (Muguerza et al., 2002). For these reasons, fermented sausages are the most difficult of meat products as far as fat reduction is concerned (Wirth, 1988). Generally, fat reduction (10%) affected the external appearance and flavour intensity of fermented sausages (Liaros et al., 2009) while higher reduction percentages (20%) produced a suitable acceptability (Papadima and Bloukas, 1999; Olivares et al., 2010). Very few studies have dealt with fat reduction of fermented sausages during ripening and drying. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of the fat reduction on the physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of fermented sausages during ripening and drying.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fermented sausages manufacture

For fermented sausages production, fresh beef, refrigerated pork, and frozen pork backfat were obtained in a vacuum packaged condition from a local meat packer. Pork and beef meat were trimmed of visible fat and pork backfat of adhering skin. Both meats and pork backfat were cut and weighed in appropriate amounts, vacuum packed and kept frozen at −24°C for 3 days. Four treatments of fermented sausages were prepared at different levels (30%, 20%, 10%, and 5%) of pork backfat. Fermented sausages were made with ground beef, pork, pork backfat, curing sodium chloride (2.8%), garlic (0.05%), mettwurst additive (0.1%), monosodium glutamate (0.05%), glucose (0.5%), and starter culture (0.4%). A commercially available frozen meat starter culture (Lyocarni RBL-73, Lyocarni, SACCO, Milan, Italy) consisting of Lactobacillus curvatus and Staphylococcus xylosus with 2.5×106 log colony-forming unit (CFU)/g was added at a concentration of 6 log CFU/g, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Beef, pork, and backfat were cut in a bowl chopper (Fujee Co., Seoul, Korea) at low speed to the desired particle size, about 3 to 5 mm and mixed in a mixer (Fujee Co., Korea). Starter culture and ingredients were added during mixing. All treatments, about 10 kg each, were replicated three times in separate meat sources of each replicate. The mixture was then stuffed using a stuffer (H20E, TALSA Co., Northampton, EU) into 25 mm diameter hog casings (Seoul, Korea). The casings had been pre-soaked in lukewarm water. Sausage filling was restrained and tied with a string by hand. Special cleaning and sanitizing measures were taken during sausage manufacture in a pilot plant. All equipment was rinsed thoroughly between treatments. Samples were dried and ripened in a laboratory smoke chamber (BTDS76P, Bradley, Galesburg, IL, USA). The following conditions of relative humidity (RH) and temperature were applied: day 0 until day 3, 93% RH and 20°C±1°C; day 3, 81% to 85% RH and 17°C±1°C; day 4 until day 7, 88% to 90% RH and 18°C±2°C; day 7 until day 10, 87% RH and 16°C; after day 10, 60% to 70% RH and 16°C. The sausages were smoked after 3 and 7 days in the chamber. Samples from each treatment were taken for physicochemical and microbiological analyses on the 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21st day of ripening. All the results in proximate composition were expressed as the mean of triplicate trial at each sampling time.

Proximate composition and physicochemical analyses

Before analysis, the fat was manually removed from the sausages slices by a knife. All determinations were carried out on the homogenized sample, in triplicate. Moisture, fat, protein and ash were determined on samples using with a slightly modified method of AOAC (Horwitz, 2000). The pH of samples was determined with a pH meter (PHM201, Radiometer, Villeurbanne, France). The pH values of samples were measured by blending a 10 g sample with 90 mL distilled water for 60 seconds in a homogenizer (Ultra-turrax, T25-S1, IKA, Staufen, Germany). For measurement of weight loss, two strings of sausages from each treatment were weighed just before the sausages were put into the fermentation room. The same strings were reweighed on the 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21st day of ripening. Weight loss was expressed as a percentage of the initial weight. The mean of the two measurements was recorded. Color measurements were taken with a Minolta chromameter (Model CR-410, Minolta Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage L*, a*, and b* values were determined with measurements standardized with respect to a white calibration plate (L* = 94.4, a* = 0.313, b* = 0.319) after 30 minutes blooming at room temperature. Color measurements for each of three replicates, always trying to avoid areas with excess fat, were taken and the value was recorded. The TBARS of samples were analyzed by the modification method described by the procedure of Witte (Witte et al., 1970). Readings were made on a spectrophotometer (X-MA 3000, Human Ltd., Seoul, Korea) at 530 nm. A micro-diffusion method described by Conway (1950) was modified for the determination of volatile basic nitrogen (VBN) in sausage samples. Each sample (3 g) was homogenized (Ultra-turrax, T25-S1) for 30 seconds with 27 mL of distilled water. The supernatant solution was filtered using a filter paper (No. 4, Whatman). A 0.01 N of boric acid was placed in the inner section of a Conway micro-diffusion cell (Sibata Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). A 1 mL sample solution and 1 mL of saturated K2CO3 were also placed into the outer section of the same cell, and the lid was immediately closed. The cell was incubated at 25°C for 60 minutes, and it was then titrated against 0.02 N H2SO4. The VBN value was reported as mg/%. Shear force values were analyzed by the method described by the procedure of Bourne (1978). The samples were prepared a cubic form (30×30×20 mm) and were cut perpendicular to the longitudinal orientation of the muscle fiber with a Warner-Bratzler shear attachment on a texture analyzer (TA-XT2, Stable Micro System Ltd., Godalming, UK). The maximum shear force value (kg) was recorded for each sample. Test and post-test speeds were set at 1.0 mm/s.

Microbiological analysis

Ten grams of samples from each treatment was also weighed and then homogenized with 90 mL distilled water using a stomacher (STOMACHER 400 CIRCULATOR, Seward Ltd., Worthing, UK) for 90 seconds at room temperature. Total aerobic plate counts (TACs) were analyzed according to the Standards for Processing and Ingredients Specifications of Livestock Products, Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine and Inspection Agency Notification (Quarantine and Inspection Agency, 2014). Homogenized microbial extracts were serially diluted with distilled water by 10-fold. Portions of the samples (0.1 mL) were plated separately on each plate and spread thoroughly. TACs were enumerated on plate count agar (Difco, Difco Laboratories, Detroit, MI, USA) and colonies were counted after incubation at 35°C±1°C for 48 hours. Pseudomonas spp. were assessed by spread technique on Pseudomonas Agar (Difco, USA), incubation at 30°C±1°C for 48 hours. All analyses were performed in duplicate, and results expressed as logarithm colony-forming units per gram of samples (log CFU/g).

Statistical methods

Experimental design used was 4 (fat level)×10 (ripening time) factorial analysis. An analysis of variance were performed on all the variables measured using the General Linear Model procedure of the SAS statistical package (SAS, 2002). The Duncan’s multiple range test (p<0.05) was used to determine differences among the treatment means.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Proximate composition, physicochemical characteristics, and microbial analysis

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on proximate composition of fermented sausages is shown in Table 1. The differences between the fat level on proximate composition were significant (p<0.05). The moisture, protein and ash contents were inversely proportional to the fat content during ripening and drying. The lower the added fat level, the higher moisture, protein and ash contents and the lower fat content were as expected. A similar finding was reported by Muguerza et al. (2002) and Olivares et al. (2010), who found that fat reduced sausages were lower in fat content and higher in moisture, protein and ash contents. The moisture content ranged from 51.48% to 63.91% at day 0 and from 17.69% to 25.03% on the 21st day. At day 0, the moisture content was the highest (p<0.05) in fat reduced samples (T3). At the end of the ripening and drying process (day 21), the sausages reached a fat content of 47.27%, 34.82%, 25.71%, and 22.49% for the 30%, 20%, 10%, and 5% formulations, respectively. Protein contents were 29.78%, 33.29%, 41%, and 43.42% for the 30%, 20%, 10%, and 5% formulations, respectively at day 21. The storage conditions had significant effect on the proximate composition of the sausages (p<0.05). During ripening and drying, the moisture contents of sausages were significantly decreased, while the fat, protein and ash content was increased on the 21st day compared to day 0 (p<0.05). A similar trend has been reported by Olivares et al. (2010), who found the reduction in moisture during ripening caused the increase in fat and protein contents.

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on proximate composition of fermented sausages

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on physicochemical characteristics of fermented sausages is shown in Table 2. Weight losses were significantly affected by the fat level (p<0.05). During ripening and drying, the weight losses of sausages were significantly increased on the 21st day compared to day 0 (p<0.05). This agrees with the results of Liaros et al. (2009), who found the weight loss of high and low-fat non-packaged sausages continuously increased during ripening. While the weight losses of fermented sausages were higher in 30% and 20% formulations than in 10% and 5% during the first 4 days, they were lower in 30% and 20% after 10 days of storage. This is in agreement with the results of other studies (Papadima and Bloukas, 1999; Liaros et al., 2009), which have indicated low-fat sausages had higher weight loss than high-fat ones at the end of ripening. Weight losses depend on various factors including the temperature and RH of the ripening room, the air movement and the ripening time, and the width of the casings, the material of which the casings are made and the fat content of the sausages (Muguerza et al., 2002). The initial pH of fermented sausages ranged from 5.28 to 5.36 and the final pH on the 21th day from 4.62 to 4.92. No differences in pH value were found between the high-fat (30%) and low-fat (5%) treatments during ripening and drying. Similar results have been reported by Bloukas et al. (1997) and Muguerza et al. (2002). Papadima and Bloukas (1999) mentioned the higher weight loss of sausages stored in the ripening room may also be attributed to their lower pH values. During ripening and drying, the pH of sausages were significantly decreased on the 21st day compared to day 0 (p<0.05).

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on physicochemical traits of fermented sausages

During ripening and drying, the shear force values of sausages were increased on the 21st day compared to day 0 (p<0.05). The shear force values of fermented sausages were higher in 5% fat formulations than in other treatments after 3 days of storage (p<0.05). Previous studies have shown that sausage texture in low fat sausages caused an increase in chewiness and hardness at longer ripening times (Mendoza et al., 2001; Olivares et al., 2010). Total VBN concentration was used as an index of meat freshness, because it is increased by the levels of microbial contamination (Lee and Joo, 1999). During ripening and drying, fermented sausages with low-fat had significantly higher VBN than those with high-fat (p<0.05) (Table 2). The high content of VBN in low fat sausage seems due to the higher content of protein in low fat sausage. According to the studies of Egan et al. (1981), the higher VBN of sausages with low-fat is explained by accelerated protein degradation. The VBN value of sausages continuously increased during the ripening period (p<0.05). However, it remained up to 21st day at values less than 30 mg/%. The range in VBN values is 7 to 18 mg (VBN/100 g) in Chinese style dry-cured sausages during the ripening period (Lin and Lin, 2002). As presented in Table 2, the lipid oxidation of sausages steadily increased during fermentation and ripening (p<0.05). The casings used for stuffing are permeable to air. Therefore, fermented sausages are exposed to oxygen and, in consequence, to increase lipid oxidation (Liaros et al., 2009). After 7 days of storage, the TBA values of fermented sausages were higher in high-fat (C and T1) compared to low-fat (T2 and T3) sausages (p<0.05). This could be explained by differences in lipid stability as the result of higher fat content. Low-fat fermented sausages had TBA values lower than 1 mg malonaldehyde/kg, which is considered the limit of acceptability for rancidity for fresh meat (Ockerman, 1976).

The influence of fat level for pork backfat on color of fermented sausages is shown in Table 3. No differences in L* and b* were found between treatments during ripening and drying. However, lower fat levels produced redder sausages (p<0.05). These results are in agreement with those reported by many authors (Soyer et al., 2005; Liaros et al., 2009) mentioned low-fat fermented sausages were redder than higher fat sausages. This difference is due to the higher lean beef and pork contents used for the production of the meat mixture for low-fat sausages, and consequently to their higher myoglobin content. The a* values increased very rapidly during the first 5 days in sausages and decreased slowly after 7 days of storage (p<0.05). This increase in redness is attributed to the formation of nitrosylmyoglobin (Papadima and Bloukas, 1999). The small decrease in a* values of sausages may be due to the oxidation of nitrosylmyoglobin to nitrate and the brown metmyoglobin (Gøtterup et al., 2008). The L* values decreased slightly during the ripening period, but was not statistically significant (p>0.05). However, the b* values decreased slightly during the ripening period (p<0.05). This result was similar to that of the yellowness of Spanish sausage, which decreases during the ripening period (Pérez-Alvarez et al., 1999).

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on meat color of fermented sausages

The influence of fat level for pork backfat on bacteria count of fermented sausages is shown in Table 4. The initial count of total plate bacteria and Pseudomonas counts in the sausage mixture was about 106 log CFU/g and remained unchanged up to the 21st day. This attribute is due to a lack of fermentable carbohydrates (Papadima and Bloukas, 1999). Total plate bacteria and Pseudomonas counts of sausages were not significantly affected by fat level (p>0.05). Previous studies have shown that fat level had no effect on lactic acid bacteria counts (Muguerza et al., 2002; Liaros et al., 2009). Bacteria counts of sausages appeared to be not related to higher fat content in this study.

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on total plate counts and Pseudomonas of fermented sausages

CONCLUSION

This result showed that the fat level for pork backfat significantly affects the proximate composition and physicochemical characteristics of fermented sausages during ripening and drying. This was also able to produce low fat fermented sausages without negative effects on the bacteria counts, except for only a higher VBN and weight loss. Further research is needed to improve the sensory attributes of these products, particularly their fatty acid. The result of this study could provide useful information to produce healthier reduced fat fermented sausages.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by research funds of Sangji University.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

References

Barbut S, Mittal GS. 1996;Effects of three cellulose gums on the texture profile and sensory properties of low fat frankfurters. Int J Food Sci Technol 31:241–247.
Bloukas JG, Paneras ED, Fournitzis GC. 1997;Effect of replacing pork backfat with olive oil on processing and quality characteristics of fermented sausages. Meat Sci 45:133–144.
Bourne MC. 1978;Texture profile analysis. Food Technol 32:72.
Conway EJ. 1950. Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error 3rd ednth ed. Crosby Lockwood and Son Ltd. London, UK:
Egan H, Kirk RS, Sawyer R, Pearson D. 1981. Pearson’s Chemical Analysis of Foods 8th ednth ed. Longman scientific and Technical. Essex, UK:
Gøtterup J, Olsen K, Knøchel S, Tjener K, Stahnke LH, Møller JK. 2008;Colour formation in fermented sausages by meat-associated staphylococci with different nitrite- and nitrate-reductase activities. Meat Sci 78:492–501.
Giese J. 1996;Fats, oils and fat replacers. Food Technol 50:78–83.
Horwitz W. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International 17th ednth ed. AOAC International. Gaithersburg, MD, USA:
Kris-Etherton PM, Krummel D, Russell ME, Dreon D, Mackey S, Borchers J, Wood PD. 1988;The effect of diet on plasma lipids, lipoproteins, and coronary heart disease. J Am Diet Assoc 88:1373–1400.
Lee JG, Joo ST. 1999;Effects of slaughter weight on backfat thickness, intramuscular fat and physical properties of pork loin from barrow. Korean J Anim Sci 41:207–214.
Liaros NG, Katsanidis E, Bloukas JG. 2009;Effect of the ripening time under vacuum and packaging film permeability on processing and quality characteristics of low-fat fermented sausages. Meat Sci 83:589–598.
Lin KW, Lin SN. 2002;Effects of sodium lactate and trisodium phosphate on the physicochemical properties and shelf life of low-fat Chinese-style sausage. Meat Sci 60:147–154.
Mendoza E, García ML, Casas C, Selgas MD. 2001;Inulin as fat substitute in low fat, dry fermented sausages. Meat Sci 57:387–393.
Muguerza E, Fista G, Ansorena D, Astiasaran I, Bloukas JG. 2002;Effect of fat level and partial replacement of pork backfat with olive oil on processing and quality characteristics of fermented sausages. Meat Sci 61:397–404.
Nutrition Committee, American Heart Association. 1986;Dietary guidelines for healthy American adults A statement for physicians and health professionals by the Nutrition Committee, American Heart Association. Circulation 74:1465A–1468A.
Ockerman HW. 1976. Quality Control of Post-mortem Muscle and Tissue Department of Animal Science, Ohio State University. Columbus, OH, USA:
Olivares A, Navarro JL, Salvador A, Flores M. 2010;Sensory acceptability of slow fermented sausages based on fat content and ripening time. Meat Sci 86:251–257.
Pérez-Alvarez JA, Sayas-Barberá ME, Fernández-López J, Aranda-Catalá V. 1999;Physicochemical characteristics of Spanish-type dry-cured sausage. Food Res Int 32:599–607.
Papadima SN, Bloukas JG. 1999;Effect of fat level and storage conditions on quality characteristics of traditional Greek sausages. Meat Sci 51:103–113.
Quarantine and Inspection Agency. 2014. Standards for Processing and Ingredients Specifications of Livestock Products, Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine and Inspection Agency Notification (No. 2012–118) Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine and Inspection Agency. Anyang, Korea:
SAS. 2002. SAS/STAT Software for PC Release 6.11 SAS Institute. Cary, NC, USA:
Soyer A, Ertaş AH, Uzümcüoǧlu U. 2005;Effect of processing conditions on the quality of naturally fermented Turkish sausages (sucuks). Meat Sci 69:135–141.
Wirth F. 1988;Technologies for making fat-reduce meat products. What possibilities are there? Fleischwirtsch 68:1153–1156.
Witte VC, Krause GF, Bailey ME. 1970;A new extraction method for determining 2-thiobarbituric acid values of pork. Food Technol 8:326.
World Health Organization. 2003. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases WHO Technical Report Series. 916Geneva:

Article information Continued

Table 1

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on proximate composition of fermented sausages

Treatment Moisture (%) Fat (%) Protein (%) Ash (%)
0 day
 C1 51.48±0.37d 32.29±0.21a 12.82±0.38c 3.31±0.08b
 T1 56.93±0.50c 22.82±0.95b 17.02±0.44b 3.60±0.10ab
 T2 62.73±0.35b 13.57±0.16c 20.04±0.61a 3.66±0.12a
 T3 63.91±0.73a 13.87±0.54c 19.14±0.74a 3.84±0.26a
21 day
 C 17.69±0.09c 47.27±0.15a 29.78±0.14d 5.42±0.29d
 T1 25.00±0.75a 34.82±0.61b 33.29±0.14c 6.28±0.21c
 T2 25.03±0.26a 25.71±0.73c 41.00±0.85b 7.68±0.25b
 T3 23.24±0.72b 22.49±0.79d 43.42±0.74a 9.41±0.07a
Average ripening time
 0 day 58.76±0.49a 20.64±0.47 b 17.26±0.54 b 3.60±0.14 b
 21 day 22.74±0.39b 32.57±0.28 a 36.87±0.50 a 7.20±0.22 a

Values are presented as means ± standard deviation of three replicate experiments with three samples analyzed per replicate (n = 9).

1

C, 30% fat; T1, 20% fat; T2, 10% fat; T3, 5% fat.

a–d

Figures with different letters within a same column differ significantly (p<0.05).

Table 2

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on physicochemical traits of fermented sausages

Variable Days of ripening

0 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 14 21
Weight loss (%)
 C1 3.23aF 4.21aF 8.74aE 13.52aD 21.63C 28.91B 39.04bA 45.33bA 47.34bA
 T1 3.14aF 4.12aF 8.90aE 14.09aD 23.14C 29.99B 41.81bA 48.36bA 50.32bA
 T2 3.17aF 4.21aF 9.16aE 14.79aD 24.53C 30.47B 45.56aA 54.09aA 55.94aA
 T3 2.69bF 3.06bF 7.65bE 12.52bD 21.66C 28.29B 47.24aA 53.68aA 55.64aA
pH
 C 5.35A 5.42A 4.61B 4.38B 4.54B 4.50B 4.67B 4.52B 4.61B 4.64B
 T1 5.36A 5.45A 4.69B 4.46B 4.55B 4.52B 4.64B 4.63B 4.71B 4.82B
 T2 5.34A 5.38A 4.63B 4.49B 4.64B 4.65B 4.74B 4.94B 4.93B 4.92B
 T3 5.28A 5.38A 4.76B 4.35B 4.43B 4.38B 4.46B 4.53B 4.60B 4.62B
Shear force (kg)
 C 0.19C 0.18C 0.71C 1.34bC 1.43bC 1.43bC 1.72bC 2.20bB 3.50cA 5.23dA
 T1 0.19C 0.22C 0.91C 1.45bC 1.46bC 2.19bB 2.48bB 3.22bB 4.39cA 7.08Ca
 T2 0.25D 0.24D 1.28D 1.60bD 1.68bD 3.58aC 2.72bC 5.72aB 8.63bB 17.67bA
 T3 0.28C 0.26C 1.35C 2.49aC 2.07aC 3.03aC 3.24aC 4.33aC 13.29aB 20.14aA
VBN
 C 2.32bC 4.75bC 4.87bC 7.12bB 8.02bB 8.11bB 12.45bA 17.72cA 19.13bA 16.11bA
 T1 2.46bD 6.91aC 8.94aC 7.13bC 10.27aB 9.80bB 13.85bB 21.93bA 20.45bA 27.33aA
 T2 4.96aC 7.42aC 8.85aC 10.21aB 12.12aB 14.13aB 18.88aB 27.12aA 28.30aA 28.11aA
 T3 4.98aC 8.89aB 9.61aB 10.20aB 11.61aB 11.90aB 15.11aB 26.27aA 26.06aA 28.71aA
TBA (mg malonaldehyde/kg)
 C 0.38B 0.52B 1.00aA 1.44aA 1.49aA 1.52aA 1.50aA 1.62aA 1.68aA 1.57aA
 T1 0.36B 0.53B 0.80aA 1.30aA 1.30aA 1.13aA 1.14aA 1.26aA 1.35aA 1.10aA
 T2 0.39 0.48 0.59b 0.61b 0.73b 0.73b 0.57b 0.78b 0.84b 0.74b
 T3 0.40 0.48 0.60b 0.59b 0.62b 0.63b 0.37b 0.70b 0.77b 0.77b

VBN, volatile basic nitrogen; TBA, thiobarbituric acid.

Values are presented as means±standard deviation of three replicate experiments with three samples analyzed per replicate (n = 9).

1

C, 30% fat; T1, 20% fat; T2, 10% fat; T3, 5% fat.

a–d

Figures with different letters within a same column differ significantly (p<0.05).

A–F

Figures with different letters within a same row differ significantly (p<0.05).

Table 3

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on meat color of fermented sausages

Variable Days of ripening

0 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 14 21
L*
 C1 52.96 51.30 51.98 53.21 53.62 51.07 49.02 48.28 48.65 49.10
 T1 52.19 50.49 51.07 51.99 53.50 52.04 50.22 48.46 47.81 46.87
 T2 50.74 48.45 49.85 50.35 53.21 49.67 49.65 45.90 46.97 46.40
 T3 47.10 46.35 47.75 48.64 50.54 49.00 49.39 49.39 46.56 46.49
a*
 C 3.79b 2.32b 4.08b 5.56b 6.75c 6.35c 4.54b 4.97b 3.66b 3.47b
 T1 3.54b 2.42b 4.10b 5.86b 7.73b 8.78b 7.15a 5.62b 4.46b 4.22b
 T2 5.44a 5.98a 6.92a 8.35a 9.31a 9.88a 8.78a 6.90a 6.61a 6.98a
 T3 5.55a 5.78a 6.44a 9.26a 10.30a 10.08a 8.63a 8.63a 5.79a 6.10a
b*
 C 6.30A 4.83A 4.22A 4.95A 4.52A 3.57B 3.19B 3.54B 2.51C 2.40C
 T1 5.27A 4.58A 4.50A 4.47A 5.41A 5.36A 4.39A 3.22B 2.44C 2.38C
 T2 5.91A 4.07A 4.16A 4.11A 5.51A 5.06A 4.37A 3.00B 3.08B 3.29B
 T3 4.04A 3.95A 3.92A 4.08A 4.76A 5.11A 4.32A 4.32A 3.45 B 2.58B

L, lightness; a, redness; b, yellowness.

Values are presented as means±standard deviation of three replicate experiments with three samples analyzed per replicate (n = 9).

1

C, 30% fat; T1, 20% fat; T2, 10% fat; T3, 5% fat.

a–c

Figures with different letters within a same column differ significantly (p<0.05).

A–C

Figures with different letters within a same row differ significantly (p<0.05).

Table 4

Effect of fat level for pork backfat on total plate counts and Pseudomonas of fermented sausages

Variable Days of ripening

0 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 14 21
Total plate counts (log CFU/g)
 C1 6.74 6.84 6.31 6.03 6.13 5.94 6.45 6.25 6.25 6.04
 T1 6.68 6.80 6.24 5.92 5.96 5.81 6.31 6.41 6.31 6.48
 T2 6.61 6.90 6.21 6.01 5.96 6.01 6.11 6.43 6.41 6.01
 T3 6.79 6.85 6.44 6.08 5.96 6.01 6.34 6.45 6.42 6.07
Pseudomonas (log CFU/g)
 C 6.71 6.66 6.23 5.70 5.77 5.63 6.21 5.95 6.07 5.95
 T1 6.61 6.65 6.00 5.82 5.89 5.64 6.10 6.04 6.30 6.35
 T2 6.51 6.70 6.21 5.74 5.56 5.69 5.80 6.24 6.23 6.23
 T3 6.71 6.82 6.60 6.19 5.74 5.92 6.30 6.22 6.32 6.26

CFU, colony-forming unit.

Values are presented as means±standard deviation of three replicate experiments with three samples analyzed per replicate (n = 9).

1

C, 30% fat; T1, 20% fat; T2, 10% fat; T3, 5% fat.