Proximate Composition and Sensory Preference of Beef Sausages with Unripe Jackfruit

Nur Huda Faujan; Najeeba Azizan; Norlelawati Arifin

doi:10.33102/mjosht.v8i2.249

Authors

Nur Huda Faujan Food Biotechnology Programme, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, 71800 Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
Najeeba Azizan Food Biotechnology Programme, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, 71800 Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
Norlelawati Arifin Food Biotechnology Programme, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, 71800 Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33102/mjosht.v8i2.249

Keywords:

Beef sausage, Nutritious sausage, Jackfruit sausage, Sausage preference×

Abstract

Underutilization of jackfruit and demand for healthier meat product with nutritional benefits and similar taste to meat had led to this study which to evaluate the proximate composition, and consumer preference of beef sausage with different ratio of unripe jackfruit. Five formulations of beef sausage were prepared with different amount of beef to unripe jackfruit were: Control (65:0), A (48.75:16.26), B (32.5:32.5), C (16.25:48.75), and D (0:65). Results found that carbohydrate contents of beef sausage with unripe jackfruit were higher (P>0.05) than in control sausage but were lower (P>0.05) in protein, fat, and fibre content. However, results found that all sausages with unripe jackfruit were found significantly higher (P<0.05) in moisture content, and ash compared to control beef sausage. As expected, hedonic test found that consumers preferred (P<0.05) control beef sausage compared to other formulations. Beef sausage incorporated with 25% unripe jackfruit (formulation A) was the most preferred by consumers in texture, taste, and overall acceptance among all sausages with unripe jackfruit. These findings obtained that formulation of beef sausage incorporated with unripe jackfruit could be accepted by consumers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdolghafour, B., Saghir, A. (2014). Development in sausage production and practices-review, J. Meat Sci. Technol., 2, 40-50.

Tee, T.S. (2012). Vegetarianism among young adults in the Klang Valley. J. Hosp. Tour., 9, 55-61.

Nurul, H., Alistair, T.L.J., Lim, H.W., Noryati, I. (2010). Quality characteristics of Malaysia commercial beef franfurters, Int. Food Res. J., 17, 469-476.

Joshi, V., Kumar, S. (2015). Meat analogues: plant-based alternatives to meat products - a review. International Journal of Food and Fermentation Technology, 5, 2, 107.

Gan, W.Y., Boo, S., Seik, M.Y., Khoo, H.E. (2018). Comparing the nutritional status of vegetarians and non-vegetarians from a Buddhist organization in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Malays. J. Nutr., 24, 89-101.

Kumar, P., Chatli, M.K., Mehta, N., Singh, P., Malav, O., Verma, A. (2015). Meat analogues: health promising meat substitutes. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., doi: 10.1080/10408398.2014.939739.

Prakash, O., Kumar, R., Mishra, A., Gupta, R. (2009). Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jackfruit): an overview. Pharmacogn. Rev., 3, 6, 353.

Abdullah, I. (2017). Effect of using unripe jackfruit as a meat substitute on nutrition composition and organoleptic characteristic of meat patty, Politeknik & Kolej Komuniti Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2, 1, 96-106.

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). (2005). Official Methods of Analysis. 18th Ed. Washington: Washington D.C.

Meilgaard, M., Civille, G.V., Carr, B.T. (2007). Sensory Evaluation Techniques (4th Ed.). London: CRC Press LLC.

McKenzie, J., Schaefer R.L., Farber E. (1995). The Student Edition of Minitab for Windows. Boston: Massachussetts. Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Arora, T., Parle, A. (2016). Jackfruit: a health boon. Int. J. Res. Ayurveda Pharm., 7, 59-64.

Ranasinghe, R.A.S.N., Maduwanthi, S.D.T., Marapana, R.A.U.J. (2019). Nutritional and health benefits of jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam.): a review. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech., doi: 10.1155/2019/4327183.

Chang, M.-C., Morris, W. C. (1990). The effect of heat treatments on dietary fiber as assessed by Scanning Electron Microscopy. J. Food Process. Preserv., 14, 5, 335-343.

Hidayat, B., Wea, A., Andriati, N. (2017). Physicochemical, sensory attributes and protein profile by SDS-PAGE of beef sausage substituted with texturized vegetable protein. Food Res., 2, 1, 20-31.

Sharima-Abdullah, N., Hassan, C.Z., Arifin, N., and Huda-Faujan, N. (2018). Physicochemical properties and consumer preference of imitation chicken nuggets produced from chickpea flour and textured vegetable protein. Int. Food Res. J., 25, 3, 1016-1025.

Huda, A.B., Parveen, S., Rather, S.A., Akhter, R., and Hassan, M. (2014). Effect of incorporation of apple pomace on the physico-chemical, sensory and textural properties of mutton nuggets. Int. J. Adv. Res, 2,4, 974-983.

Hidayat, B. T., Wea, A., & Andriati, N. (2018). Physicochemical, sensory attributes and protein profile by SDS-PAGE of beef sausage substituted with texturized vegetable protein. Food Research, 2(1), 20-31. doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.2(1).106

Suman, S. P., & Joseph, P. (2013). Myoglobin chemistry and meat color. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 4, 79-99. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-030212-182623

Sharima-Abdullah, N., Hassan, C. Z., Arifin, N., & Huda-Faujan, N. (2018). Physicochemical properties and consumer preference of imitation chicken nuggets produced from chickpea flour and textured vegetable protein. International Food Research Journal, 25(3), 1016-1025.