meat product

8/3/2019 Meat Product

1/12

Mal J Nutr 1: 83-94, 1995 83

The nutritional value of some processed meat products in

Malaysia

Abdul Salam Babji and Seri Chempaka Mohd. Yusof

Department of Food Science & Nutrition, Faculty of Life Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia, 43600 Bangi. Selangor

ABSTRACT

Per capita consumption of meat and meat products in Malaysia more than doubled from 15.70kg in 1970 to 35.71 kg in 1990. This increase in meat consumption is mainly due to the rapiddevelopment and wide acceptance of value added meat and poultry products amongst Malaysianconsumers. Meat products such as burgers, sausages, hotdogs and nuggets are widely acceptedand consumed by all ethnic groups at home as well as in the fast food restaurants. The significant

expansion of the fast food industry and the increase consumption of processed meat productsmakes it necessary for a re-evaluation of the nutritional quality of popular meat products currentlyavailable in the market. This review paper described the quality of some processed meat products,their proximate composition, meat quality, use of non meat proteins and binders, and the use ofadditives in the formulation of burgers, frankfurters, nuggets, bologna, chicken and beef balls.Preliminary results on the protein efficiency ratio of local meat products seemed favourable butthis study is limited to only one laboratory. In vivo and in vitro protein digestibility studiesindicated high values on the digestibility of locally manufactured meat products. Proximateanalysis of the raw materials used in the formulation of such products showed many with high fatand low protein contents being utilized. The meat content was lower than the minimum amountstated by the food regulation. This paper concludes that due to lack of information and studies onthe nutritional composition of processed meat products, concerned bodies should take positive

steps to generate reliable data to elucidate the actual nutritional composition of such products. Itis also observed that many by-products from the animal industry from non-conventional sourcesare increasingly being utilized in the manufacture of processed meat product.


2/12

84 Babji AS & Seri Chempaka MY

INTRODUCTION

Malaysia has achieved rapid growth in thefood industry sector. Of special interest

currently is the significant development ofvalue-added meat products dominating thechill and frozen section of retail outlets,supermarkets and fast food chains ofrestaurants. In 1983 the value of processedfood originating from livestock exceeded1,600 million Malaysian Ringgit. Malaysiaimported about 30,000 tons of red meat in1985 and estimate for 1995 is about 45,000tons. Lately, most of the red meat isimported from India. Poultry and pigconsumption are also expected to increase to

400,000 tons and 200,000 tons in 1995respectively. Processed meats, especially hotdogs and hamburgers are common fooditems to many fast food outlets andsupermarkets. In 1989 processed meatsamounted to 45 million ringgit. Today, localproducers have come out with manyprocessed meats; mainly burgers, hotdogs,nuggets, sausages and meat balls and to alesser extent, bologna, meat loaf, Salami andcured meat products. The specifications forMalaysian style processed meats are not

clear but the Food Regulations (1985) docover for minimum requirements for meatcontent, microbiology safety and the use offood additives for preservation purpose insuch meat products.

Research and development on value-addedmeat products are limited to only a fewinstitutions, namely UKM, UPM, IMR andMARDI. A literature search on nutritionalinformation on local meat and meat productsrevealed some food composition

data/information and isolated researchpapers on the nutritional quality of a fewlocal meat products. With consumption offurther processed poultry and meat items on

the increase and the meat industry utilizingmore raw materials for value addedproducts, it is important for scientists andnutritionists to monitor the quality of suchfood products. This paper reviews someR&D results pertaining to the chemicalcomposition, food additives, meat content,and nutritional quality of some locallyprocessed meat products.

FOOD COMPONENTS AND

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

The most popular meat product inMalaysia today is the burger (chicken andbeef). To date there are about 20 localmanufacturers of beef and chicken burgers.Many used imported buffalo meat (fromIndia) as the main component because it isreadily available at low cost compared tolocal beef for making beef burgers. Forchicken burger, trimmings and lower pricedcuts and spent hens are utilized for theformulation. Many other non-meat

components are added in locally producedburgers (Tables 1, 2). These include texturedvegetable protein, bread crumbs, starch, ox-fat, soya bean, egg powder, potatoes,groundnuts, gluten and caseinate. Localburgers also include additives, (phosphates,monosodium glutamate, salts, artificialflavors, soy sauce, sugar and nitrate), spices,(chilli, curry, paprika, coriander, garlic,onion, tumeric, ginger and others) colours,(Apo-carotenal, sunset yellow,EdicolOrange and Geranyl 2G) and


3/12

The nutritional value of some processed meat products 85

Table 1. Local brand names of beefburgers, manufacturers and ingredient

food preservatives. The proximate analysesof locally processed beef and chickenburgers have beened reported by Babji(1986; 1988a; 1988b), Babji, Sayuwa andAminah (1985) and Babji and Letchumanan(1989). We observed that in general locallyproduced burgers have lower protein andhigher fat and carbohydrate contents, whencompared to those from franchised burgerproducts. Table 3 shows the protein, fat,

moisture, ash and carbohydrate contents oflocal beef and chicken burgers. The lowerprotein content is due to substitution withnon meat components mentionedearlier,since beef and chicken (meatproteins) are relatively more expensive thannon-meat components. Fat content did notexceed 30% (maximum amount stipulated inthe Food Regulation, 1985) in most locallyproduced burgers, but it is relatively higher.


4/12


Table 2. Food additives formulated into various processed meats in Malaysia

Table 3. Proximate analyses of locally processed burgers (wet weight basis)*


5/12


than those of the franchised producedburgers.

Table 4 shows the quantification of meat

content, soy protein concentrate, and cerealstarch component in local beef burgers.Total pigment was taken as the best estimatefor meat content (Babji 1988). Totalpigment ranged from a low of 0.51 mg/g to ahigh of 3.10 mg/g of meat, corresponding to23.5 to 70.1% meat content respectively.All, except for two brand names of beefburgers contained less than 65% meat(minimum requirement stipulated by FoodRegulation 1985). Soy protein ranged from15.4 to 36.5%. Beef burgers with lower meat

content seem to have more soya protein andcereal added in the formulation. In an earlierstudy, Babji et al. (1985) compared threefranchised beef burgers with seven popular

locally manufactured beef burgers. Table 5shows that using total pigment as anindicator to measure meat content, the 100%meat content of franchised burger is

equivalent to about 4.8 - 5 mg/g meat. Soyprotein concentrate, soya flour and cerealsare used to substitute meat in the locallyproduced beef burgers.

The addition of other components such asnon-meat protein, water and food additiveare shown in Table 6. The Food Regulation(1985) stated that processed meat should notcontain less than 1.7% nitrogen in theorganic form. In our study (1988) the totalnitrogen content ranged from 1.84 to 2.56%,

thus satisfying the nitrogen requirement. Itshould be noted that non-meat componentssuch as

Table 4. Total pigments, soy protein, cereal and meat contents of hamburgers


6/12


Table 5. Mean values of soy protein, cereal, total meat pigment and estimated meat contents inlocal and franchised beef burgers in Malaysia*

Table 6. Total nitrogen content, phosphorus pentoxide, added water and Federnumber in locally processed hamburgers.*


7/12


soyprotein, cereals and other proteincomponents are also formulated into locallymanufactured hamburgers. For beef burger,beef trimming, chuck or buffalo meat are

used with TVP, starch, spice mix, sugar,MSG, onion and pepper. Some used eggwhite, colours, and special spice mix toobtain products with flavour, colour textureand taste to the liking of Malaysian tastebuds. In the last few years, manufacturershave been looking seriously intomaximizing the utilization of animalindustry by products. With export marketdemanding more premium cuts and portionof poultry meat, a new range ofunconventional byproducts are now

available in abundance for utilization invalue added meat products. These includemechanically deboned chicken meat(MDCM), low quality chicken trimmings(LQCT), high quality chicken trimmings(HQCT), bird breader cull (BBC) and breastchicken trimmings (BCT), tons of eachbeing produced from five of the largestpoultry industry in Malaysia. Tables 7 & 8show the proximate composition of

conventional and unconventional proteinraw materials currently available from thepoultry industry. Tables 9 shows thecomposition of protein, fat, ash and moisture

of various type of chicken meat productsthat are locally manufactured. Many of theseproducts utilized the newly-foundunconventional by-products as shown inTable 8.

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF

MEAT PROTEINS

Babji and Letchumanan (1989) reportedon the rat bioassay for protein efficiencyratio, in-vitro protein digestibility as well as

in vivo digestibility of protein in locallyproduced beef burgers and compared theresults with pure beef burgers as well as soy-beef burger. Table 10 shows the PER values,in-vitro and in-vivo protein digestibilities oflocally produced beef burgers withcomparison to pure beef, soya beef and acasein reference. Although the PER valueswere lower than pure beef and soya-beef,local beef burgers had

Table 7. Proximate analyses of raw material (Conventional and non-conventional proteins)from poultry industry*


8/12


Table 8. Proximate analyses of raw material (Non-conventional protein) from apoultry industry grading system.*

PER value above 2.0, considered good interm of protein quality. Recently, Babji andIsmail (1993) did a preliminary study toevaluate the protein quality of importedhotdog and compared it with two locally

produced hotdogs, all made usingunconventional protein by products rawmaterials. The PER values of the two localhotdogs were higher (2.79 and 2.02)compared to the Imported hotdog from aEuropean country which had a PER score of1.9. The in-vivo protein digestibility wasalso higher for local hotdog in comparisonto the imported hotdog (Table 11). Furtherstudies on the most popular range of localand imported processed meat products isseriously needed. Mechanically deboned

poultry meat (MDPM) has recently enteredthe Malaysian food market. Many importedfrankfurters from beef and chickencontained mechanically deboned meat(MDM). The chemical composition andnutritional quality of MDM is different

compared to normal meat. Table 12 showsthe chemical composition of various type ofchicken parts. Generally, the protein contentis lower than broiler meat and the fat contentis higher (12.0 - 28%). The ash content is

also higher ranging from 0.6 - 1.4%. ThePER, in-vivo and in-vitro digestibilities ofMDPM using rat bioassay are shown inTables 13 & 14. Babji, Froning and Satterlee(1980) reported PER values of 1.90 - 2.65indicating good to excellent proteinbiological value deriving from mechanicallydeboned processing of meat. Digestibilityvalues are also comparable to standardcasein. These results suggested that MDMare beneficial in increasing the nutritionalcontent of such processed poultry products.

It has high contents of calcium, phosphorus,iron and other minerals, but also highercontent of fat. So nutritionists need to bewell informed of the chemical compositionand the nutrient contribution from suchprocessed meat products.


9/12


Table 9. Proximate analyses in some poultry processed products.*

Table 10. PER values, % in vivo apparent disgestibility and in vitro digestibility of local,

formulated hamburgers and casein reference.

2


10/12


.Table 11. PER values and in vivo protein digestibility of chicken frankfurter samples.

Table 12. Composition of mechanically deboned poultry meat (MDPM)

Table 13. In vivo and in vitro measurements of protein digestibility of mechanicallydeboned poultry meat.


11/12


Table 14. Protein efficiency ratios for rats fed mechanically deboned poultry meat.

CONCLUSION

Nutritional information such as proximatecomposition and biological values (PER, invitro and in vivo digestibility) are seriouslylacking on meat products like burgers,hotdogs and other processed meat productsin Malaysia. The data presented in this paperis limited to one laboratory. There is a needto conduct more studies on the chemical

composition and nutritional evaluation oflocally processed meat products. The fewstudies carried out earlier indicated the useof non-meat proteins in many local products,some of which have lower protein contentand biological value when compared to puremeat samples.

REFERENCES

Babji AS, Froning GW & Satterlee LD(1980). Protein nutritional quality of

mechanically deboned poultry meat aspredicted by the C-PER assay.J Food Sci45(3):44 1-443.

Babji AS, Sayuwa A & Aminah A (1985).The need for standards and specificationsof processed meats in Malaysia. Paperpresented at ASAIHL Seminar on FoodTechnology and Nutrition. 8-10 July,Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Babji AS (1986). Nutritional evaluation andthe use of food additives in local meat

products in ASEAN. An ISEASFellowship Award Field Report. Instituteof South East Asian Studies, Singapore.

Babji AS (1988a). Quality control of meatand non-meat component in localhamburgers. Proceedings of 34

th

International Congress of Meat Scienceand Technology, 29 Aug - 2 Sept,Brisbane, Australia, Part B 387-390.

Babji AS (1988b). Status pemakanan dan

kawalan mutu dalam industri dagingterproses


12/12

Babji AS & Seri Chempaka MY 94

di Malaysia. Imperatif Penyelidikan DalamSains Hayat, p 161-175.

Babji AS & Letchumanan S (1989).

Evaluation of nutritive value of local andsoy-beef hamburgers. In AOCS vegetable

protein utilization in human foods and

animal feeds tuffs. ed TH Applewhite. Pp237-242.

Babji AS and Ismail MN (1993). ProteinEfficiency Ratio and In vitro digestibilityof some franksfurters. Unpublished data.Dept. of Food Science and Nutrition,UKM, Bangi, Selangor.

Froning OW (1970). Poultry meat sourcesand their emulsifying characteristics asrelated to processing variables. Poultry Sci49:6.

Froning GW, Arnold RG, Mandigo RW,Neth CE & Hartung TE (1971). Qualityand storage stability of frankfurters con-taining 15% mechanically deboned turkey

meat.JFood Sci 36:974.

Froning OW & Johnson F (1973).Improving the quality of mechanicallydeboned fowl meat by centrifugation. JFood Sci 38:279.

Grunden LP, Mac Neil JH & Dimich PS(1972). Poultry product quality: Chemicaland physical characteristics ofmechanically deboned poultry meat. JFood Sci 37:247.

meat product

Documents