• Journal of the Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.193-200
• /
• 2004

The preparation of low-fat chicken patties added 10% fat and 0.5% sodium alginate (SA treatment) arabia gum (AG treatment), xanthan gum (XG treatment), respectively and the control patty containing 20% fat was prepared. The moisture contents of raw, cooked and reheated patty of control were lower than low-fat patties containing gums, and were no significant difference among low-fat patties. The fat content of control patty was higher than that of the low-fat patties and the protein showed no significant difference among patties. In case of raw patty, the Hunter's $L^{*}$ value of control patty was higher than that of the low-fat patties, the Hunter's $a^{*}$ value was no significant difference among patties. But the Hunter's $L^{*}$, $a^{*}$ and $b^{*}$ values of cooked and reheated patties showed no significant difference among patties The yielding and fat retention of cooked control patty were lower than that of the low-fat patties. The yield and fat retention of reheated control patty were lower than those of the low-fat patties, and the final yield of low-fat patties was higher than that of the control patty The hardness of cooked patties showed no significant difference among patties but the springiness, cohesiveness and chewiness of low-fat patties were higher than those of the control patty. The water holding capacity of low-fat patties was higher than that of the control patty. In case of reheated patties, the hardness was no significant difference among patties, the springiness was highest in low-fat patty treated arabia gum and was lowest in control patty. The cohesiveness, chewiness and water holding capacity of reheated low-fat patties were higher than those of the control patty. Oleic, palmitic, linoleic and stearic acids were major fatty acids, and glutamic acid, aspartic acid, lysine, leucine, arginine and alanine were major amino acids in chicken patties. The aroma was not significantly different among patties, but the texture of low-fat patties was higher than that of the control patty and was not significantly different among low-fat patties.tties.ies.

• Korean Journal of Food Science and Technology
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.55-60
• /
• 2007

This study used glucomannan as a fat substitute to produce low-fat patties with chicken meat, of which consumer consumption is increasing. In the case of a cooked meat patty, the crude fat content of the group treated with glucomannan was higher than that of a control when cooked. The cooking loss and reduction rate in the diameter of the control patties were higher than those of the group treated with glucomannan. Cohesiveness and chewiness of the group treated with glucomannan were higher than those of the control. As a result of sensory evaluation, there were no significant differences in the tenderness, color, odor and overall taste among the patties, but the juiciness of the group treated with glucomannan was lower than that of the control. There were no big differences in the pH of the patties during the frozen storage period. The volatile basic nitrogen (VBN) content of all of the types of patties gradually increased up to 7.97-8.56 mg% at the fourth week of storage, but these VBN values are hygienically safe. From these results, there was no large quality difference between a low-fat chicken patty to which glucomannan was added and a control. Therefore, it was confirmed that a good quality low-fat chicken patty can be made by controlling the fat and glucomannan content.