Innovative beef protein co-products to substitute gelatine as gelling agents, and sodium caseinate as emulsifiers: Determination of optimal conditions using the response surface methodology (RSM)
2024
Le Foll, Rozenn | Nau, Francoise | Hamon, Pascaline | Guérin-Dubiard, Catherine | Lambert, Xavier | Deglaire, Amélie | Lechevalier-Datin, Valérie | Science et Technologie du Lait et de l'Oeuf (STLO) ; Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE)-Institut Agro Rennes Angers ; Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro) | CORNILLE sas | Fondation Institut Agro
Meat co-products are a promising alternative for meeting the increasing demand for protein, especially for the formulation of meat products. The present study aims to determine the optimal conditions under which two innovative bovine co-products, resulting from the fat rendering process, can mimic the gelling and emulsifying properties of commercial gelatines and sodium caseinate (NaCas), respectively, using Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The desirability function was used to determine the values for protein concentration, pH and NaCl content that enable the two co-products to effectively mimic gelatine and NaCas. The co-product obtained from water recovered during the fat rendering process proved to be the most suitable to mimic commercial gelatines. Very high desirability scores were obtained with this ingredient on 4 criteria out of 7, and a high overall score as well, provided 90 g/L protein was used to mimic a 50 g/L gelatine 150 Bloom. Both co-products appeared as effective alternatives to NaCas as emulsifiers, especially regarding their capacity in stabilizing emulsions. The co-product made of greasy greaves can be even regarded as more effective than NaCas, as less proteins are needed to obtain the same performances (110 g/L vs 125 g/L, respectively).
显示更多 [+] 显示较少 [-]