Texture and acceptability of goat meat frankfurters processed with 3 different sources of fat

• Published in: Journal of animal science 2011-05, Vol.89 (5), p.1429-1433
• Main Authors: Bratcher, C.L, Dawkins, N.L, Solaiman, S, Kerth, C.R, Bartlett, J.R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal productions; Animals; beef; Biological and medical sciences; canola oil; chewiness; consumer acceptance; Fats - chemistry; Female; flavor; Food industries; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; goat meat; Goats; hardness; hot dogs; Humans; Least-Squares Analysis; Male; Meat; Meat and meat product industries; Meat Products - analysis; Meat Products - standards; Oils & fats; Random Allocation; research and development; sensory evaluation; Taste; Terrestrial animal productions; texture; Value added; value-added products; Vertebrates
• ISSN: 0021-8812; 1525-3163
• DOI: 10.2527/jas.2010-3398

The objective of this research was to evaluate the texture and consumer acceptability of goat meat frankfurter formulations with no added fat (NAF), beef fat (BF), or canola oil (CO). Consumer sensory evaluation, fat, and moisture and texture profile analyses were performed on goat meat frankfurters produced with the fat sources BF, CO, and NAF. For sensory evaluations, NAF was less tender (P = 0.007; 4.90 vs. 4.11 and 4.35 for BF and CO, respectively) and the flavor was liked less (P = 0.004; 4.59 vs. 3.83 and 4.30 for BF and CO, respectively); BF was scored as the juiciest (P = 0.003; 3.86 vs. 4.49 and 4.58 for CO and NAF, respectively); and CO had the least amount of flavor (P = 0.029; 3.65 vs. 3.12 and 3.10 for BF and NAF, respectively). Moisture was least (P < 0.001) in CO (46.59%), followed by BF (48.57%) and NAF (55.80%). The amount of fat was not different (P = 0.761) in BF (24.36%) or CO (24.43%) but was less (P < 0.001) in NAF (9.06%), as expected. The NAF had the most protein (P < 0.001; 34.14%), followed by CO (27.98%) and BF (26.07%). For texture profile analyses, NAF had the least hardness value (P = 0.008; 3.92 vs. 4.48 and 4.40 for BF and CO, respectively) and least chewiness value (P = 0.026; 2.89 vs. 3.39 and 3.29 for BF and CO, respectively). Beef fat and CO were not different for hardness (P = 0.596) or chewiness (P = 0.530). No differences were observed in springiness (P = 0.954) or resilience (P = 0.561). The sensory panelists tended to prefer BF for overall acceptability. Results from these data revealed that value-added goat meat products received acceptable sensory scores; therefore, continued research and development will greatly expand the knowledge of goat meat and increase the acceptance of value-added products.