Effect of chicken meat replacement by spent laying hen meat on physicochemical properties and sensorial characteristics of fresh sausage

ABSTRACT

1. Sausages were used to assess the effects of chicken meat replacement by spent laying hen meat on the quality parameters and sensorial properties.

2. Five formulations were developed: control (CON) containing 100% chicken meat and 4 levels of chicken meat replacement with spent laying hen meat: 25% (T25), 50% (T50), 75% (T75) and 100% (T100).

3. Appearance, texture, succulence, flavour and overall consumer acceptance were analysed. Parameters such as moisture, ash, fat and protein content, pH, cooking loss and colour parameters (lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*)) were analysed, as well as the texture properties (hardness, elasticity, cohesiveness and chewiness).

4. Statistical analysis did not reveal significant (P > 0.05) differences in chemical composition and colour parameters among formulations. On the other hand, CON treatment showed the lowest (P < 0.05) cooking loss (20.45%) that increased as spent laying hen meat increased in the formulation (24.92% vs. 27.65% vs. 28.12% vs. 33.05%, for T25, T50, T75 and T100 batches, respectively).

5. Regarding textural parameters, T75 and T100 formulations presented higher (P < 0.05) hardness and chewiness compared to the other ones.

6. Concerning to sensorial characteristics, the T100 formulation presented the lowest average scores (P < 0.05) for all attributes studied. However, the other batches (T25, T50 and T75) did not show significant differences for appearance, texture, succulence, flavour and overall acceptability attributes compared with the CON formulation.

7. The results indicated that the substitution of up to 75% of chicken meat by spent laying hen meat did not decrease the sensory acceptance of the sausages by consumers, demonstrating that this level of substitution in sausages allows better use of spent laying hen meat.

KEYWORDS:

• Colour parameters
• texture profile analysis
• acceptance test
• cooking loss; chemical composition; succulence; flavor

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The authors are members of the MARCARNE network, funded by CYTED [ref. 116RT0503].