View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Szeged, 6725, Szeged, Hungary
  • | 2 Doctoral School of Food Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118, Budapest, Hungary
  • | 3 Department of Livestocks Product and Food Preservation Technology, Institute of Food Science and Technology, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118, Budapest, Hungary
Open access

Abstract

Animal food, especially meat, has played an important role in the history of mankind. Different meats can be used in the production of meat products. In addition to lean meats, mechanically deboned meat (MDM) and mechanically separated meat (MSM) can also be used in meat products. However, the latter does not qualify as meat due to damage to the muscular structure due to the high pressure applied during the separation, therefore cannot be included in the meat content of products.

The aim of our experiment was to compare whole, minced meat, MDM and MSM from turkey (raw and in the form of meat paste). Technofunctional tests (water-holding and -binding capacity), color measurement, chemical composition (moisture, protein and fat content), electron microscopic recording, rheological properties show that the quality of MSM is inferior to other meat raw materials. These properties can also result in the production of lower quality products.

Abstract

Animal food, especially meat, has played an important role in the history of mankind. Different meats can be used in the production of meat products. In addition to lean meats, mechanically deboned meat (MDM) and mechanically separated meat (MSM) can also be used in meat products. However, the latter does not qualify as meat due to damage to the muscular structure due to the high pressure applied during the separation, therefore cannot be included in the meat content of products.

The aim of our experiment was to compare whole, minced meat, MDM and MSM from turkey (raw and in the form of meat paste). Technofunctional tests (water-holding and -binding capacity), color measurement, chemical composition (moisture, protein and fat content), electron microscopic recording, rheological properties show that the quality of MSM is inferior to other meat raw materials. These properties can also result in the production of lower quality products.

Introduction

Meat is the processed and certified skeletal muscle of mammals and poultry for human consumption. According to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004, meat is the edible parts of the following animals, including blood: pigs, cattle, calves, poultry (e.g. chickens, hens, ducks, geese, turkeys), other warm-blooded animals (sheeps, rabbits, goats, horses, etc.), wild animals (wild boar, deer, cervids, wild rabbits, etc.) and ratites (ostriches).

In addition to lean meat, meat removed from bones can also be used in meat products, according to the provisions of the Requirement No. 1-3/13-1 of the Codex Alimentarius Hungaricus:

  1. -Mechanically deboned meat (MDM), the production operation is limited to the mechanical removal of the bone from the boned meat and is not intended for the further extraction of meat from the bone remaining after boning.
  2. -Mechanically separated meat (MSM) is a product obtained after boning from fresh, fleshy bones or poultry which have been removed by mechanical means in such a way as to damage or modify the muscular structure. This does not qualify as meat.

When a slaughtered animal is cut, about 5% of the meat remains on the bones. At least 6% of meat, 12–25% of fat, and 17–19% of protein (of which 25% is connective tissue) remain after manual bone cleansing. Extracting this manually would be very labor and time consuming (Wittmann, 1977). This meant savings of around £ 9 million in Britain in the 1970s (Newman, 1981).

Mechanical equipment for extracting meat left on fleshy bones and enabling time-consuming methods of cutting and boning appeared after the World War I. The bone to be separated is placed in a basket with a perforated wall where it is put under great pressure. As a result, the meat is squeezed out of the holes and the compressed bone can be removed separately. However, it is inevitable that at this high pressure, bone fragments will also be transferred to the separation. The separators operate at high pressures (300–470 bar), with a temperature rise of 2–9 °C during operation, depending on the equipment (Wittmann, 1977).

Of course, the higher the pressure, the higher the yield, but the poorer the quality of the meat. The meat obtained is pasty, with a bone content of around 1% and a calcium content of 0.1% for pork, and have a higher pH compared to hand-boned meat (Demos and Mandigo, 1995) and is therefore sensitive to oxidation, advising that its temperature should not exceed 10 °C because strong lipid oxidation coincides with heme protein oxidation (Wittmann, 1977). More and better quality separations can be obtained from bones with higher meat content.

The basis of the method was developed in Japan in the early 1940s for removing and separating fish meat (Trindade et al., 2004; Oliveira et al., 2015). According to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004, MSM cannot be made from poultry skins, neck skin and heads. Bone-in meat packaged for up to 3 days at 2 °C can be used as raw material. The regulation stipulates a shelf life of 3 months when stored at –18 °C. It is important that MSM can only be used in heat-treated products.

MSM does not qualify as meat due to its unfavorable chemical (high fat and calcium content) and functional (poor water binding) properties. The composition and name of the product must also include ‘mechanically separated meat (MSM)’. Previously, this was also classified as meat, but – due to its unfavorable properties – its use in meat products was maximized by 10% (Req. No. 1-3/13-1 of the Codex Alimentarius Hungaricus). Of course, it can also be used in larger quantities for the production of a product, but in this case the product cannot be called e.g. bologna sausage, vienna sausage. Figure 1 shows the definition of meat.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

The definiton of meat (EFSA, 2013). MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

In terms of consumer risk, EFSA compared poultry and pork MSM samples with fresh and minced meat and other meat products processed with non-MSM technology. From a microbiological point of view, there is no significant difference, although the risk of microbial proliferation increases with damage to muscle fibers due to high pressure. Chemical, histological (molecular), molecular, structural, and flow parameters were studied to distinguish between MSM and non-MSM products. Based on the available data, calcium and (as yet unconfirmed) cholesterol concentrations were the only chemical characteristics that could distinguish MSM products from non-MSM. Based on the reported data, a model has been developed to determine whether or not a product is made with MSM technology based on its calcium content. According to Regulation (EC) No. 2074/2005, if the calcium content of the product is 100 mg/100g, then according to the developed model, the product is MSM with a probability of 93.6%. However, based on the calcium content alone, it is not yet possible to distinguish between low-pressure MSM products and otherwise processed meat products, so other validated tests are needed to determine this. Histological features include microscopic observation of different tissues and their changes. This appears to be a promising method to screen for MSM products, but further studies are needed to confirm this (EFSA, 2013).

Materials and methods

Materials

We obtained our samples from Gallfood Ltd. (Kecskemét, Hungary). The samples obtained were whole turkey drumsticks, minced turkey drumsticks (particle size: 3 mm), mechanically deboned meat made from turkey drumsticks and MSM made from turkey backs.

Methods – raw materials

Water-holding capacity

Water-holding capacity (WHC) was determined by the following method. 0.5–1 g of samples – whole meat, minced meat, MDM and MSM – was placed on dried filter paper. The samples were placed between glass plates and were weighed at 1,000 g for 5 min. Then the weight of the pressed meat was measured. Measurements were performed on three repeats. The pressing loss was calculated using the following formula:
Pressingloss(%)=100(weightofmeatafterpressingweightofmeatbeforepressing·100%)

Water-binding capacity

Water-binding capacity (WBC) was determined by two methods. To determine the cooking loss, the 2 × 2 × 2 cm samples were heat-treated in an airtight plastic bag until a core temperature of 72 °C was reached. In determining the roasting loss, two sides of the 2 × 2 × 2 cm samples were heat-treated in a contact grill heated to 170 °C for 5 min. Measurements were performed on three repeats. The cooking and roasting loss was calculated using the following formula:
Cooking/Roastingloss (%)=100(weightofmeatafterheattreatmentweightofmeatbeforeheattreatment·100%)

pH

The pH of the samples was measured with a Testo 206 (Testo SE & Co. KGaA, Titisee-Neustadt, Germany) (three repeats).

Water activity

The water activity of the samples was measured with a NOVASINA LabMaster AW (Novasina AG, Switzerland) (three repeats). The tempering unit built into the instrument ensures a constant temperature (25 °C), so that the water activity of the samples was determined under the same conditions.

Chemical composition

The chemical composition of the samples was measured with a FOSS FoodScan 2 Lab (Hilleroed, Denmark) (five repeats). The samples were homogenized with a Bosch MFW67450 (Munich, Germany) meat grinder using a 3 mm grinder hole disc. The instrument measured the following characteristics: moisture content, fat content, saturated fatty acid content (SFA), protein content, collagen content, salt content, carbohydrate content, ash content. Of these, the results for moisture content, fat content, and protein content were shown in the results section.

Color stability

The color stability of the samples was measured (in CIELab color space) with a Minolta CR-400 (Osaka, Japan). Minced, MDM and MSM samples were used for the measurement. The measurement lasted for 120 min, measured every 10 min (five points). During the measurement, commercial meat display coolers were simulated. The samples were continuously cooled from below. The samples were also under lighting. The illumination level was 700 lx. Half of the samples were uncovered, and the other half were covered with foil (to avoid changes caused by oxygen).

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Preparation: 1 g of samples – whole meat, minced meat, MDM and MSM – were fixed in glutaraldehyde (2.5 g 100 g−1) for 24 h in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.0). After fixing the ethanol dehydration, the samples were freeze-dried and spray-coated according to the method of Cao et al. (2012). The prepared samples were tested on a FEI Quanta 3D Two-Beam Scanning Electron Microscope (Hillsboro, Orlando, USA) at 5 °C, 700 Pa and 100% relative humidity.

Methods – meat paste

Sample preparation (dilution)

In each case, 100 g of sample (minced, MDM and MSM) and 0 mL, 10 mL, 20 mL, 30 mL, 40 mL, 60 mL, 80 mL, and 100 mL of water were used to prepare the meat paste. Paste production was performed for 20 s with an Ambiano Electric Mini Chopper (500 W, Münster, Germany).

Color measurement

The surface color of the meat pastes (minced meat, MDM and MSM) containing different amounts of added water (in CIELab color space) was measured with a Minolta CR-400 (Osaka, Japan) (five parallel measurements). The obtained color characteristics were used to determine the color stimulus difference (ΔE*), which was determined by the following formula (Hill et al., 1997):
ΔEab=(ΔL2+Δa2+Δb2),
where ΔE*ab is the color stimulus difference, L* is the degree of lightness, a* is the red color intensity and b* is the yellow color intensity.

Examination of the rheological properties

Viscosity characteristics were tested with an Anton Paar Physica MCR 92 viscometer (Graz, Austria). The temperature of the sample was 10 °C, the frequency was 10 Hz, the amplitude was increased to 0.05–100%, the gap was 1 mm, and the diameter of the measuring head was 25 mm. Using the amplitude sweeping method, 3 parallel measurements were performed with a sheet-to-sheet arrangement, with a sheet diameter of 23 mm. Measured characteristics: modulus of storage (G′) and loss (G″) and shear stress (τ). From these values, the end of the linear viscoelastic region (τ LVE) and the shear stress (τ M) at the intersection of the G′ and G″ curves were determined (yield strength).

Methods – statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM Statistics 27 (Armond, New York, USA) software. The significance level was 5% (P < 0.05). Data were normalized by Shapiro-Wilk test. Levene test was used to determine equality of variance. The differences were assumed to be equal in all cases. ANOVA was used for statistical analysis of variance. We determined which groups differed significantly by Tukey HSD post hoc test. Microsoft 365 Excel (Redmond, Washington, USA) was used for graphical representation.

Results and discussion

Results and discussion – raw materials

Water-holding capacity

The results of the pressing losses of the samples are shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen from this that there is a significant difference between the samples (P < 0.001), the lowest value is given to the whole turkey drumstick meat (0.54 ± 0.380), so this sample has the highest water-holding capacity value. This was followed by minced turkey drumsticks (1.69 ± 0.050) and turkey drumstick MDM (5.27 ± 0.540). Most of the water was lost by MSM due to compression (10.76 ± 0.330).

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Weight loss due to compression of the samples. MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat. Capital letters above the bars show significant difference (P < 0.05)

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

Water-binding capacity

From the results of the cooking loss (Fig. 3a) it can be stated that there is a significant difference between the samples due to cooking (P < 0.001). The smallest loss was for minced meat (21.12 ± 0.760), followed by whole turkey drumstick meat (24.09 ± 0.460), MDM (27.00 ± 0.120). MSM had the highest cooking loss and thus the smallest water-binding capacity (37.14 ± 0.290) of the samples. Observing the results of the roasting loss (Fig. 3b), it can be read that there is a significant difference between the samples (P < 0.001). The trend was similar in cooking test. Minced meat had the best water-binding property - the lowest roasting loss (36.40 ± 0.795), followed by whole meat (38.81 ± 0.535), MDM (41.19 ± 0.295) and MSM (42.41 ± 0.295).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Cooking (a) and roasting (b) loss of samples. MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat. Capital letters above the bars show significant difference (P < 0.05)

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

pH

In Fig. 4 it is shown that there is a significant difference between the pH values of the whole meat and other samples (P < 0.001). Whole turkey drumstick meat has the lowest value (6.29 ± 0.020). This is followed by MSM (6.42 ± 0.020), MDM (6.44 ± 0.044) and minced sample (6.46 ± 0.025), respectively, with no significant difference between the different meat types.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

The pH values of samples. MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat. Capital letters above the bars show significant difference (P < 0.05)

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

Water activity

The values of the water activity of the samples are presented in Fig. 5, which shows that there is a significant difference between the whole and minced meat and the other samples (P < 0.001). Minced meat (0.954 ± 0.003) and whole meat (0.955 ± 0.003) had the lowest water activity, so these samples contained less free water, which could be a medium for the growth of microorganisms. There is no significant difference between MDM (0.963 ± 0.004) and MSM (0.963 ± 0.003).

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Water activity of samples. MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat. Capital letters above the bars show significant difference (P < 0.05)

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

Chemical composition

There is a significant difference (P < 0.001) between the fat contents of the samples (Fig. 6a). Minced meat had the lowest fat content (4.12 ± 0.017), and this value was not much higher for MDM (5.24 ± 0.114). The sample with the highest fat content was MSM (20.90 ± 0.029). There is also a significant difference between the moisture content values of the samples (Fig. 6b) (P < 0.001), the highest value was that of minced meat (74.87 ± 0.012). This was followed by MDM (74.30 ± 0.036) and MSM (61.33 ± 0.037). The trend shows that there is an inverse relationship between moisture content and fat content. There is also a significant difference between the protein content results of the samples (Fig. 6c) (P < 0.001). The highest protein content was in minced meat (20.82 ± 0.032), followed by MDM (20.54 ± 0.033) and MSM (14.27 ± 0.038). Thus, it can be seen that the trend in protein content follows the trend observed for moisture content (inverse proportion to fat content can be detected).

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Chemical composition of the samples. a) fat content, b) moisture content, c) protein content. MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat. Capital letters above the bars show significant difference (P < 0.05)

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

Color stability

Figure 7 (a) shows the change in the degree of lightness of the samples over time. The uncovered samples became darker and darker than the covered ones (P < 0.05), their lightness decreased more. It was found that the lightest sample at the beginning was MSM, followed by minced meat and MDM.

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Examination of the color stability of the samples. a) degree of lightness (L*), b) red color intensity (a*), c) yellow color intensity (b*). MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

Figure 7 (b) shows the change in the red color intensity of the samples over time. From the trend of the meat samples it can be stated that the uncovered samples became more and more reddish compared to the covered ones (P < 0.05), their color intensity value increased more. It was found that the most red sample at the beginning was MSM, followed by MDM and minced meat.

Figure 7 (c) shows the change in the yellow color intensity of the samples over time. It can be stated that the uncovered samples became more and more yellowish compared to the covered ones (P < 0.05), their color intensity value increased more. It can be seen that the most yellow sample at the beginning was MSM, followed by minced meat and MDM.

Overall, the uncovered samples darkened, reddened, and turned yellow due to contact with air. In addition, MSM was lighter, redder, and yellower in color compared to MDM and minced meat.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

In Fig. 8 (a), the fibers of the whole turkey drumstick meat can be seen. The other figures (Fig. 8 (b), (c) and (d)) show the results of the various processing operations (mincing, mechanical deboning and separation). Electron micrographs of MSM show a complete change in muscle structure compared to minced meat and MDM. This may be due to the high pressure applied during the separation.

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Electron micrographs of the samples. a) whole, b) minced, c) MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, d) MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

Results and discussion – meat paste

Color measurement

Figure 9 (a) shows the effect of the amount of water added on the lightness of the meat pastes. Based on the trend, it can be said that the different meat pastes became lighter with increasing amount of water (P < 0.05).

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.

Color characteristics of the prepared meat pastes. a) degree of lightness (L*), b) red color intensity (a*), c) yellow color intensity (b*). MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

Figure 9 (b) shows the effect of the amount of water added on the red color intensity of the meat pastes. Increasing the amount of water shows a decrease in the red color intensity of the pastes (P < 0.05).

Figure 9 (c) shows the effect of the amount of water added on the yellow color intensity of the meat pastes. From the trend it can be observed that the yellow color intensity of the pastes decreased with increasing water volume (P < 0.05).

Overall, the pastes became lighter and less red and yellow as the amount of water added increased.

Table 1 shows the pairwise color stimulus differences for meat pastes made by adding different amounts of water and their evaluation. Based on this, it can be concluded that there is no visible difference between any two meats. In addition, by increasing the amount of water added to the meat pastes, the visibly large or well noticeable color difference is all the more characteristic. Furthermore, it can be seen that in the case of MSM meat paste, there is no apparent large color difference between the two samples, in contrast to the sample made from MDM and minced meat.

Table 1.

Values and evaluation of color stimulus differences between different meat pastes. JND: Just Noticeable Difference, ND: Noticeable Difference, WND: Well Noticeable Difference, LD: Large Difference. MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Amount of added water of meat pastes [mL]MincedMDMMSM
ΔE*EvaluationΔE*EvaluationΔE*Evaluation
0101.16 ± 0.232JND0.70 ± 0.116JND0.81 ± 0.114JND
201.93 ± 0.246ND1.39 ± 0.283JND1.39 ± 0.281JND
302.73 ± 0.397ND1.93 ± 0.212ND1.83 ± 0.178ND
403.62 ± 0.297WND2.61 ± 0.321ND2.70 ± 0.195ND
604.32 ± 0.560WND3.23 ± 0.350WND3.77 ± 0.335WND
805.44 ± 0.362WND4.27 ± 0.404WND4.72 ± 0.271WND
1007.26 ± 0.444LD6.64 ± 0.495LD5.34 ± 0.312WND
10200.83 ± 0.071JND0.69 ± 0.177JND0.61 ± 0.300JND
301.67 ± 0.228ND1.23 ± 0.118JND1.10 ± 0.101JND
402.56 ± 0.231ND1.92 ± 0.220ND2.07 ± 0.207ND
603.26 ± 0.476WND2.55 ± 0.247ND3.17 ± 0.394WND
804.33 ± 0.416WND3.60 ± 0.308WND4.16 ± 0.158WND
1006.12 ± 0.263LD6.03 ± 0.445LD4.79 ± 0.221WND
20300.85 ± 0.210JND0.57 ± 0.082JND0.52 ± 0.356JND
401.73 ± 0.215ND1.26 ± 0.054JND1.53 ± 0.217ND
602.43 ± 0.460ND1.89 ± 0.151ND2.62 ± 0.142ND
803.52 ± 0.421WND2.98 ± 0.137ND3.63 ± 0.388WND
1005.36 ± 0.233WND5.48 ± 0.334WND4.27 ± 0.296WND
30400.89 ± 0.156JND0.70 ± 0.110JND1.03 ± 0.204JND
601.60 ± 0.278ND1.34 ± 0.213JND2.12 ± 0.452ND
802.72 ± 0.373ND2.42 ± 0.195ND3.12 ± 0.146WND
1004.64 ± 0.070WND4.93 ± 0.353WND3.76 ± 0.220WND
40600.71 ± 0.270JND0.65 ± 0.187JND1.10 ± 0.289JND
801.85 ± 0.235ND1.74 ± 0.093ND2.10 ± 0.302ND
1003.81 ± 0.212WND4.29 ± 0.315WND2.74 ± 0.254ND
60801.19 ± 0.316JND1.15 ± 0.223JND1.01 ± 0.510JND
1003.21 ± 0.302WND3.75 ± 0.388WND1.65 ± 0.434ND
801002.04 ± 0.434ND2.60 ± 0.262ND0.64 ± 0.160JND

Examination of the rheological properties

In Fig. 10 it is shown that the storage modulus (G′) of meat pastes decreases with increasing amount of added water, i.e. it becomes less and less elastic. In Fig. 10 it is shown that the value of the initial storage modulus of the meat paste made of MDM is the highest, followed by the meat paste made of minced meat and MSM (P < 0.05). MSM meat paste is considered to be the least flexible, to which more additives must be added to produce the right quality paste.

Fig. 10.
Fig. 10.

Storage modulus values (G′) of meat pastes with different amounts of added water as a function of shear strain (γ). (a) minced meat, (b) MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, (c) MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

In Fig. 11 it is shown that the loss modulus value (G″) of meat pastes decreases with increasing amount of water, i.e. the paste becomes less and less viscous. In Fig. 11 it is shown that the value of the initial loss modulus of the meat paste made from MDM is the highest, followed by the meat paste made from minced meat and MSM. Thus, MSM meat paste is considered to be the least viscous (P < 0.05).

Fig. 11.
Fig. 11.

Loss modulus values (G″) of meat pastes with different added amounts of water as a function of shear strain (γ). (a) minced meat, (b) MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, (c) MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

For the three types of meat paste, the loss modulus is initially less than the storage modulus, so their quotient is less than 1, which means that is a solid material despite of added water.

In Fig. 12 (a-c) it is shown that the value of the shear stress (τ) of the meat pastes decreases with increasing amount of water added, i.e. the paste becomes less and less resistant to the shear strain. In Fig. 12 (a-c) it is shown that the final shear stress value of the meat paste made of MDM is the highest, followed by the meat paste made of minced meat and MSM (P < 0.05). So the least shear strain is required for MSM paste.

Fig. 12.
Fig. 12.

Shear stress values (τ) of meat pastes containing different amounts of added water as a function of shear strain (γ). (a) minced meat, (b) MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, (c) MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

In Fig. 13 (a) it is shown that the end values of the linear viscoelastic region (τ LVE) of meat pastes made from the same meat raw material decrease as a function of the amount of water added. This suggests that the samples are becoming less and less resistant. Among the meat raw materials, MSM is the least resistant compared to the other two samples (P < 0.05).

Fig. 13.
Fig. 13.

The values of a) end of linear viscoelastic region (τ LVE), b) yield strength (τ M) of the prepared meat pastes. MDM: Mechanically deboned meat, MSM: Mechanically separated meat

Citation: Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences 2022; 10.1556/446.2021.00040

In Fig. 13 (b) it is shown that the yield strength values (τ M) of meat pastes made from the same meat raw material decrease as a function of the amount of water added. That is, less and less strain is required for the samples to assume viscous properties. Among the meat raw materials, it can be observed that MSM requires less strain to achieve these properties compared to the other two samples (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Summarizing our results, it can be stated that MSM differs from whole meat, minced meat and MDM both in the raw state and as a raw material for meat paste. Water activity and pH results are not significantly different from MDM. However, differences in key properties can be detected. In terms of technofunctional properties – water-holding and water-binding capacity –, MSM has worse properties due to high levels of muscle cell destruction. It had higher pressing, cooking and roasting loss compared to the other samples. Electron micrographs of MSM show a complete change in muscle structure compared to minced meat and MDM (cause: high pressure applied). In the case of surface color characteristics, it can be observed that MSM is a lighter, redder and yellower color both in the raw form and in the form of meat paste. You cannot keep these properties stable over time. The rheological properties (e.g. elasticity) of MSM meat paste are less favorable than those of other raw materials. These properties can also occur during the production of meat products occur which needs to be offset e.g. with natural additives or physical effect (high pressure).

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences's Doctoral School of Food Science and the University of Szeged's Department of Food Engineering for the support in this study.

References

  • Cao, Y. , Xia, T. , Zhou, Z. , and Xu, X. (2012). The mechanism of high pressure-induced gels of rabbit myosin. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies ,16: 4146.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demos, B. P. and Mandigo, R. W. (1995). Composition and chemistry of mechanically recovered beef neck-bone lean. Journal of Food Science, 60(3): 576579.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (2013). Scientific opinion on the public health risks related to mechanically separated meat (MSM) derived from poultry and swine. EFSA Journal, 11(3): 3137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hill, B. , Roger, T. , and Vorhagen, F. W. (1997). Comparative analysis of the quantization of color spaces on the basis of the CIELab color-difference formula. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 16(2): 109154.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newman, P. B. (1981). The separation of meat from bone – a review of the mechanics and the problems. Meat Science, 5(3): 171200.

  • Oliveira, I. S , Lourenço, L. F. H. , Sousa, C. L. , Peixoto Joele, M. R. S. , and Ribeiro, S. C. A. (2015). Composition of MSM from Brazilian catfish and technological properties of fish flour. Food Control, 50: 3844.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

  • Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

  • Requirement No 1-3/13-1 of the Codex Alimentarius Hungaricus (in Hungarian).

  • Trindade, M. A. , Eduardo de Felício, P. , and Castillo, C.J.C. (2004). Mechanically separated meat of broiler breeder and white layer spent hens. Scientia Agricola (Piracicaba, Brazil), 61(2): 234238.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wittmann, M. (1977). Zur maschinellen Trennung von Fleisch und Knochen. Fleischwirtschaft, 57(6): 11351143 (in German).

  • Cao, Y. , Xia, T. , Zhou, Z. , and Xu, X. (2012). The mechanism of high pressure-induced gels of rabbit myosin. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies ,16: 4146.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demos, B. P. and Mandigo, R. W. (1995). Composition and chemistry of mechanically recovered beef neck-bone lean. Journal of Food Science, 60(3): 576579.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (2013). Scientific opinion on the public health risks related to mechanically separated meat (MSM) derived from poultry and swine. EFSA Journal, 11(3): 3137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hill, B. , Roger, T. , and Vorhagen, F. W. (1997). Comparative analysis of the quantization of color spaces on the basis of the CIELab color-difference formula. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 16(2): 109154.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newman, P. B. (1981). The separation of meat from bone – a review of the mechanics and the problems. Meat Science, 5(3): 171200.

  • Oliveira, I. S , Lourenço, L. F. H. , Sousa, C. L. , Peixoto Joele, M. R. S. , and Ribeiro, S. C. A. (2015). Composition of MSM from Brazilian catfish and technological properties of fish flour. Food Control, 50: 3844.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

  • Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

  • Requirement No 1-3/13-1 of the Codex Alimentarius Hungaricus (in Hungarian).

  • Trindade, M. A. , Eduardo de Felício, P. , and Castillo, C.J.C. (2004). Mechanically separated meat of broiler breeder and white layer spent hens. Scientia Agricola (Piracicaba, Brazil), 61(2): 234238.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wittmann, M. (1977). Zur maschinellen Trennung von Fleisch und Knochen. Fleischwirtschaft, 57(6): 11351143 (in German).

 

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Felföldi, József

Chair of the Editorial Board Szendrő, Péter

Editorial Board

  • Beke, János (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineerin, Gödöllő – Hungary)
  • Fenyvesi, László (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Gödöllő – Hungary)
  • Szendrő, Péter (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Gödöllő – Hungary)
  • Felföldi, József (Szent István University, Faculty of Food Science, Budapest – Hungary)

 

Advisory Board

  • De Baerdemaeker, Josse (KU Leuven, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Leuven - Belgium)
  • Funk, David B. (United States Department of Agriculture | USDA • Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), Kansas City – USA
  • Geyer, Martin (Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Department of Horticultural Engineering, Potsdam - Germany)
  • Janik, József (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Gödöllő – Hungary)
  • Kutzbach, Heinz D. (Institut für Agrartechnik, Fg. Grundlagen der Agrartechnik, Universität Hohenheim – Germany)
  • Mizrach, Amos (Institute of Agricultural Engineering. ARO, the Volcani Center, Bet Dagan – Israel)
  • Neményi, Miklós (Széchenyi University, Department of Biosystems and Food Engineering, Győr – Hungary)
  • Schulze-Lammers, Peter (University of Bonn, Institute of Agricultural Engineering (ILT), Bonn – Germany)
  • Sitkei, György (University of Sopron, Institute of Wood Engineering, Sopron – Hungary)
  • Sun, Da-Wen (University College Dublin, School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, Agriculture and Food Science, Dublin – Ireland)
  • Tóth, László (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Gödöllő – Hungary)

Prof. Felföldi, József
Institute: MATE - Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Institute of Food Science and Technology, Department of Measurements and Process Control
Address: 1118 Budapest Somlói út 14-16
E-mail: felfoldi.jozsef@uni-mate.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • SCOPUS
  • CABI

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
8
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,141
Scimago Quartile Score Environmental Engineering (Q4)
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (Q4)
Mechanical Engineering (Q4)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
0,8
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 261/338 (Q4)
Environmental Engineering 138/173 (Q4)
Mechanical Engineering 495/601 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,381

2020  
Scimago
H-index
8
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,197
Scimago
Quartile Score
Environmental Engineering Q4
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Q3
Mechanical Engineering Q4
Scopus
Cite Score
33/69=0,5
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Environmental Engineering 126/146 (Q4)
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 269/336 (Q3)
Mechanical Engineering 512/596 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,211
Scopus
Cites
53
Scopus
Documents
41
Days from submission to acceptance 122
Days from acceptance to publication 40
Acceptance rate 86%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
6
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,123
Scimago
Quartile Score
Environmental Engineering Q4
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Q4
Mechanical Engineering Q4
Scopus
Cite Score
18/33=0,5
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Environmental Engineering 108/132 (Q4)
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 242/340 (Q3)
Mechanical Engineering 481/585 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,211
Scopus
Cites
13
Scopus
Documents
5

 

Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription:  148 EUR / 185 USD
Print + online subscription: 172 EUR / 215 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles can be purchased at the prices indicated.

Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2004
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
1
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia  
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1786-335X (Print)
ISSN 1787-0321 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jan 2022 0 31 10
Feb 2022 0 61 30
Mar 2022 0 47 26
Apr 2022 0 43 25
May 2022 0 42 31
Jun 2022 0 28 23
Jul 2022 0 0 0