Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Food Science and Technology logoLink to Journal of Food Science and Technology
. 2019 Aug 1;56(11):5027–5035. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03975-4

Effect of amaranth and quinoa seed flour on rheological and physicochemical properties of goat meat nuggets

Arun K Verma 1,✉, V Rajkumar 1, Suman Kumar 1
PMCID: PMC6828864  PMID: 31741527

Abstract

An attempt was made through the present study to prepare gluten free goat meat nuggets by replacing refined wheat flour from product formulation with healthy, dietary fibre rich amaranth (A) and quinoa (Q) flour at different levels. A total of five different treatments viz., AI (1.5% amaranth), AII (3% amaranth), QI (1.5% quinoa) and QII (3% quinoa) were prepared. The physicochemical, colour, texture, sensory and rheological properties of these pseudocereal-added products were evaluated against control (3% refined wheat flour). Emulsion stability of meat batter was significantly affected (P < 0.05) due to addition of amaranth flour (1.5% and 3%) and quinoa (3%). Treatment groups AII and QI had significantly low (P < 0.05) moisture content with respect to control while the amount of fat content showed a reverse trend. Addition of amaranth and quinoa significantly increased (P < 0.05) the dietary fibre in meat products. Rheology of meat batter was affected by types and level of pseudocereal incorporation. Treatment AII had low (P < 0.05) hunter colour lightness value, whereas redness value was low for treatment QI. Effect of added amaranth and quinoa flour was observed on the textural parameters like adhesiveness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness. High scores for almost all the sensory parameters were recorded in pseudocereal-added meat products. Though, all the products were very much acceptable, product with 1.5% quinoa flour was found to have high (P < 0.05) overall acceptability score.

Keywords: Goat meat nuggets, Pseudocereals, Rheology, Textural property, Dietary fibre

Introduction

The demand for meat products with special functional attributes to promote consumer health as well as to prevent non-communicable diseases is ever increasing. A greater concern about health and healthy eating is gradually expanding the market for foods with special purposes (Kuipers et al. 2011) and has been a driving force for the food industry to develop or modify food preparations on these lines (Choe et al. 2013). One such product group is the dietary fibre enriched meat products. The role of dietary fibre in nutrition and health is very well established (Kritchevsky and Bonfield 1995). Dietary fibres typically play an important role in determining the quality characteristics of the foods in which they are added, thus it is important to understand their functionality and behaviour in food system. Dietary fibre is a commonly used additive in functional foods (Puupponen-Pimïa et al. 2002).

Ingestion of gluten-containing grains can lead to autoimmune enteropathy like celiac disease in genetically susceptible individuals (Catassi and Fasano 2008). The only acceptable treatment for celiac disease is lifelong elimination of gluten from the diet (Chand and Mihas 2006; Rodrigo 2006). Pseudocereals such as amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat are the major constituents of gluten-free foods, besides being good sources of dietary fibre (Alvarez-Jubete et al. 2010a). Gluten free meat products can be prepared by total replacement of refined wheat flour in the formulation with amaranth and quinoa seed flour. Pseudocereals have attracted the consumer’s interest in recent years mainly due to their excellent nutritional characteristics. Amaranth and quinoa provide quality protein, dietary fibre and lipids rich in unsaturated fats, minerals, vitamins and other bioactive components such as saponins, phytosterols, squalene, fagopyritols and polyphenols (Alvarez-Jubete et al. 2010b). Presence of flavonoids and betalains in amaranth seeds was reported by Repo-Carrasco-Valencia et al. (2010). In quinoa seeds the main phenolic acids recorded include ferulic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid and benzoic acids, and major flavonoids found were kaempferol, myricetin and quercetin (Gómez-Caravaca et al. 2012). Owing to the healthier nature of amaranth and quinoa the last decade has witnessed an increasing trend in their consumption worldwide (Giménez et al. 2013).

Food texture is one of the most important determinants of food quality, while the acceptability of a product is determined by its composition and rheological properties (Bourne 1992). Information related to the rheology, function, and composition of ingredients is important to develop food formulations including meat products. These parameters assist in quality control, process control, and processing equipment design (Ofoli et al. 1987). Dietary fibres or hydrocolloids have been used in the meat products to get desirable textural and rheological characteristics (Saricoban et al. 2008; Yasin et al. 2016). Additionally, improvement in cooking yield and water holding capacity has been reported due to added dietary fibres (Turhan et al. 2005; Bilek and Turhan 2009). Being a good source of dietary fibre, amaranth and quinoa find variety of applications in the meat products processing system as thickeners, stabilizers, fat replacers, structural components, etc. Addition of amaranth and quinoa seed flours is supposed to influence the nutritional, functional and rheological characteristics of the meat products.

Preparation of gluten-free meat products using pseduocereals is an upcoming area for the researchers and the industry. However, limited work has been carried out till date. de Carvalho et al. (2018) reported the development of low-fat gluten-free enrobed chicken nuggets by adding amaranth flakes in the batter. Hęś et al. (2017) observed the influence of buckwheat hull extract on lipid oxidation in frozen-stored ground pork meatballs. However, studies on incorporation of amaranth and quinoa seed flour on the rheological properties of goat meat batter and quality of goat meat nuggets is limited. An investigation was made in the present study to replace refined wheat flour from the goat meat nuggets formulation with healthy amaranth and quinoa seed flours and evaluate the effects of their inclusion on the rheological properties of goat meat batter as well as the physicochemical, colour, textural and sensory characteristics of the products.

Materials and methods

Raw materials

Boneless chevon from neck and shoulder cut of 12 months old male Barbari goat, procured from the experimental slaughter unit of the Institute was used for product preparation. The frozen meat was thawed overnight at 4 °C and cut into small pieces, followed by grinding with a meat mincer (Model P-22, Tallers Ramon, Barcelona, Spain). The ground meat was used in different product formulations. Other food grade non-meat ingredients and additives like common salt, sodium nitrite, sodium tripolyphosphate, sucrose, refined vegetable oil, condiments, whole egg liquid, refined wheat flour and spices used for the preparation of goat meat nuggets were procured from local market and CDH Chemicals, India. Analytical grade chemicals were purchased from, Sigma-Aldrich, USA; Himedia, India, s.d. Fine-Chem Limited, India to evaluate various parameters. Amaranth and quinoa seeds were procured from local market. The seeds were washed with distilled water, dried at 50 °C in a hot air oven (12 h), ground in a home mixer and packed in LDPE bags for further use in the product formulation.

Product development

A batch of 10 kg each of product mix was prepared for control as well as the test products with two different levels of incorporation i.e., 1.5% and 3% of amaranth seed flour (AI and AII) and quinoa seed flour (QI and QII) by partial and complete replacement of refined wheat flour. All batches contained (w/w) 68.09% lean meat, 1.5% common salt, 0.015% sodium nitrite, 0.3% sucrose, 0.5% sodium tripolyphosphate, 10% ice flakes, 3% whole egg liquid, 9% refined vegetable oil, 3% condiment mix (onion, garlic and ginger in 3:1:1 ratio), and 1.6% spice mix (mixture of aniseed, black pepper, capsicum, caraway seed, cardamom, cinnamon, cloves, coriander powder, cumin seed, turmeric and dried ginger). Amaranth and quinoa seed flours were incorporated in the formulation by replacing 1.5% and 3% refined wheat flour. Thus, control contained 3% refined wheat flour; AI contained 1.5% amaranth and 1.5% refined wheat flour; AII contained 3% amaranth; QI contained 1.5% quinoa and 1.5% refined wheat flour; and QII contained 3% quinoa. Meat emulsions were prepared in a bowl chopper (Seydelmann K20, Ras, Germany) by orderly mixing and chopping of different ingredients for 7–8 min.

Meat emulsions from all the control and four treatments were placed into stainless steel moulds, and steam cooked for 35 min to get a core temperature 80 ± 2 °C in the meat blocks. The meat blocks were sliced (15 mm thick) after cooling and cut into nuggets. About 200 g of nuggets were packed in LDPE pouches using a Roscher-matic packaging machine (Roscher Geba, Hjørring, Germany) for determination of various physicochemical and functional characteristics.

Analytical procedures

Total phenolics and flavonoids

To evaluate the total phenolic and flavonoid contents of amaranth and quinoa seed flour, aqueous extract was prepared by adding 100 ml of boiled distilled water to 5 g flour and left for 1 h, followed by filtration through Whatman No. 1 filter paper (Merck, India). The extract was used to determine the total phenolics and flavonoids.

Total phenolic content in the aqueous amaranth and quinoa seed flour extracts was evaluated following the Folin–Ciocalteu (FC) method as described by Singleton and Rossi (1965). The amount of total phenolics was calculated as gallic acid equivalents (GAE) in milligram per gram.

The amount of flavonoids in amaranth and quinoa seed flour extract was determined using the aluminium chloride assay through colorimetry. An aliquot of extract was allowed to react with sodium nitrite, aluminium chloride and sodium hydroxide to get a pink colour. The absorbance of reaction mixture was recorded after 15 min incubation at 510 nm using spectrophotometer. Total flavonoids were expressed in microgram of catechin equivalents (CE) per gram (Chlopicka et al. 2012).

pH and emulsion stability

The pH of the meat emulsion and nuggets was determined by blending 10 g of sample with 50 ml of distilled water for a minute in a homogenizer (model PT-MR-2100, Kinematica AG, Luzern, Switzerland). The pH values were measured using a digital pH meter (Mettler Toledo, Columbus, Ohio, USA). Emulsion stability (ES) was determined by heating 25 g emulsion samples at 80 °C in a thermostatically controlled water bath for 20 min. After draining out the exudate, the cooked mass was cooled, weighed and the yield was expressed as ES percent (Kondaiah et al. 1985).

Proximate analysis and dietary fibre

Moisture, protein, fat and ash contents as well as dietary fibre in amaranth and quinoa seed flour and meat product were determined by the methods of AOAC (1995).

Dynamic rheological properties

The viscoelastic characteristics of the meat batters were continuously monitored using a dynamic rheometer (MCR72, Anton Paar Ltd., Austria) fitted with 25 mm diameter parallel stainless steel plate geometry with 1 mm gap. The samples were gently placed onto the plate and allowed to equilibrate for 5 min at 20 °C. Frequency sweeps from 0.015 to 10 Hz were performed on the meat batters at 20°C under a fixed strain of 100 Pa. In order to determine behaviour of meat batter with varying temperature, the raw batter was placed between the flat parallel plates and the perimeter was coated with a thin layer of paraffin oil to prevent dehydration. The samples were heated from 20 to 90 °C with temperature increase of 2 °C/min. During the heating process, the samples were continuously sheared with 100 Pa stress and 1 Hz frequency. Changes in storage modulus (G′) and loss modulus (G″) were measured during processing with increasing temperature. Two replicates of each treatment were measured.

Colour coordinates

The colour parameters of the products were monitored by evaluating Hunter “L”, “a” and “b” values using ColorTec PCM+ (ColorTec Associates, Inc., Clinton, NJ). Hunter L (lightness), a (redness) and b (yellowness) values were measured on the both sides of the meat slice at two randomly chosen spots.

Texture profile analysis (TPA)

Textural properties of nuggets were evaluated using the Stable Micro System (Model TA.XT 2i/25 Surrey, U.K.). TPA was performed using central cores of two pieces of each sample (1.5 cm3), which were compressed twice to 60% of the original height. A crosshead speed of 2 mm/s was used applying a 0.15 N load cell and 75 mm compression platen (P75).

Sensory characteristics

A fifteen member trained sensory panel comprising researchers of the Institute evaluated goat meat nuggets using 8-point descriptive scale, where 8 denoted extremely desirable and 1 denoted extremely poor. Scores from 5 to 8 were considered acceptable. The nature of experiment was explained to the panelists without revealing the sample identity. The pre-warmed three digit coded samples were randomly served to the panelists at the respective booth and they were asked to evaluate the appearance, flavour, juiciness, texture and overall acceptability on the sensory evaluation proforma. The panelists were provided filtered water to rinse their mouth between samples.

Statistical analysis

Data for the analysis were generated by three independent experiments. Each analysis was run in duplicate (n = 3 × 2). For sensory evaluation 15 trained panelists were employed during each experimental trial (n = 15 × 3). Values for various parameters were analysed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the SPSS software for windows (version 17.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Comparisons of means were carried out by Duncan’s multiple range test, considering significant differences when P < 0.05.

Results and discussion

Goat meat is the most widely consumed meat in India without any social or religious inhibitions. Goat meat nuggets is one of the most preferred preparations among different processed meat products available in the country. Therefore, goat meat nuggets was the product of choice to conduct the present experiment.

Nutritional quality of amaranth and quinoa seed

Evaluation of nutritional quality of amaranth and quinoa seed flour in the present study revealed that both amaranth and quinoa are very good source of protein (17.54% and 19.13%), fat (6.99% and 8.76%) and dietary fibre (26.24% and 28.26%) (Table 1). These values were comparatively on the higher side in quinoa seed flour. According to Nascimento et al. (2014) protein content in amaranth and quinoa was 13.40% and 12.10%, respectively. These values are lower than our results, which may be due to difference in moisture content. In contrary to our results, Alvarez-Jubete et al. (2010a) mentioned that amaranth contains high amount of protein with respect to quinoa. Alvarez-Jubete et al. (2009) reported the protein, fat and dietary fibre contents in amaranth as 16.5%, 5.7% and 20.6%, respectively while in quinoa these values were 14.5%, 5.2% and 14.2%, respectively. Burešová et al. (2017) reported protein and fat contents in amaranth flour as 19.4% and 0.5%, respectively while these values for quinoa flour were 19% and 6.3%, respectively. The above studies reported lower values of dietary fibre in comparison to our findings which could be due to difference in moisture content as well as geographical factors. Extracts from amaranth and quinoa seed flour showed presence of almost similar amount of total phenolics. However, amount of total flavonoids was high in quinoa seed flour extract. Several workers have mentioned that pseudocereals like amaranth and quinoa contain good amount of bioactive components such as saponins, phytosterols, squalene, fagopyritols and polyphenols (Berghofer and Schoenlechner 2002; Taylor and Parker 2002).

Table 1.

Nutritional quality of amaranth and quinoa seed flour

Parameters Amaranth Quinoa
Moisture (%) 6.33 ± 0.13 4.56 ± 0.11
Protein (%) 17.54 ± 0.49 19.13 ± 0.61
Fat (%) 6.99 ± 0.21 8.76 ± 0.41
Ash (%) 2.07 ± 0.02 1.82 ± 0.02
Insoluble dietary fibre (%) 23.07 ± 1.49 23.81 ± 0.50
Soluble dietary fibre (%) 3.17 ± 0.40 4.45 ± 0.92
Total dietary fibre (%) 26.24 ± 1.09 28.26 ± 0.42
Phenolic (mgGAE/g) 10.51 ± 0.63 11.05 ± 1.02
Flavonoids (µgCE/g) 11.21 ± 1.40 53.58 ± 0.35
Open in a new tab

Dynamic rheological properties

The frequency sweep values of all the meat batters showed association of high frequency with high storage modulus (G′) and loss modulus (G″) (Fig. 1). In all the treatments, value of storage modulus was higher than loss modulus, indicating the predominance of elastic components in the system, although meat batter still behaves as a weak viscoelastic gel (Apichartsrangkoon et al. 1998; Messens et al. 2000). Storage and loss modulus values with frequency were influenced by the nature and proportion of binding ingredients. All the treatments showed similar trend for storage modulus with a higher values of frequency. The values of G′ for the meat batter with 3% quinoa were on a higher side with respect to control, reflecting the formation of an important three-dimensional network with even more solid-like characteristics. However, storage modulus values for AI, AII (at higher frequency), and QI meat batters were lower than control. According to Mezger (2006) higher value of elastic modulus (G′) reflects enhancement of structural strength of gel network. Treatments AI and QI showed lesser frequency dependency indicating the stronger nature of the gel. Marchetti et al. (2013) observed similar viscoelastic behaviour of low-lipid meat emulsion added with different binders when evaluated against frequency.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Storage and loss modulus of meat emulsion added with amaranth and quinoa seed flour as a function of frequency

The formation of protein gels during heating was also studied by rheological measurements of storage modulus and loss modulus (Fig. 2). The G′ and G″ values remained almost static for all the treatments till ramp temperature of around 40 °C. Subsequently, values of elastic modulus sharply increased for all the treatments up to the ramp temperature of 70–75 °C indicating the formation of a stiff elastic matrix structure typical of heat-induced protein gels, followed by a plateau phase. Elastic modulus for treatments AI, AII and QII were higher with respect to control and QI. Electrostatic interactions between the charged groups of polysaccharide and proteins present in amaranth and quinoa could be responsible for increased elastic behaviour of meat emulsion due to addition of 1.5% and 3% amaranth, and 3% quinoa (Tolstoguzov 1986). The loss modulus (G″) also followed a similar trend, although a steeper upward increment in the values was not observed and these values were much lesser than the values of storage modulus. Increase in G′ values are basically attributed to irreversible protein aggregation and gel network formation (Romero et al. 2009). Similar pattern of the storage modulus against temperature ramp was observed in pork meat batter added with sea spaghetti seaweed (Fernández-Martín et al. 2009).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Evolution of storage and loss modulus of meat emulsion added with amaranth and quinoa seed flour with temperature

Physicochemical characteristics

The stability of meat emulsion was significantly decreased (P < 0.05) due to addition of amaranth flour (Table 2). Addition of quinoa flour at 1.5% level (QI) did not affect emulsion stability, however high level of inclusion significantly decreased (P < 0.05) the value. Felisberto et al. (2015) recorded decrease in emulsion stability when starch was substituted with prebiotic fibres like inulin and polydextrose. Conversely, improvement in emulsion stability has also been reported due to added seaweeds, pig skin and wheat fibre mix (Choe et al. 2013). The differences in the emulsion and product pH values among various treatments were non-significant as the pH values of added amaranth and quinoa were in the similar range. Goat meat nuggets with 3% amaranth flour (AII) and 1.5% quinoa (QI) had significantly low (P < 0.05) moisture content with respect to control, while amount of fat showed the reverse trend. Water-binding capacity of proteins is a function of several parameters like size, shape, stearic factors, conformational characteristics, hydrophilic–hydrophobic balance of amino acids in the protein molecules as well as lipids, carbohydrate and tannins associated with proteins (Chavan et al. 2001). Protein and ash contents among different products were statistically similar (P > 0.05). Addition of amaranth and quinoa by replacing refined wheat flour in goat meat nuggets significantly increased the amount of total dietary fibre. Among the products with amaranth and quinoa, 3% quinoa (QII) increased TDF content more significantly as compared to the same level of amaranth. The present result was as per our expectations, since about one fourth of both the pseudocereals are composed of dietary fibre. The presence of dietary fibre signifies the healthy nature of goat meat nuggets. Thus, the treatments without refined wheat flour i.e., AII and QII can be regarded as dual purpose functional meat products that are both fibre enriched and gluten free.

Table 2.

Effect of amaranth and quinoa seed flour on physicochemical quality of goat meat nuggets (n = 6)

Parameters Control AI AII QI QII
ES (%) 96.53 ± 0.21a 95.97 ± 0.10b 95.27 ± 0.24c 96.48 ± 0.03a 95.47 ± 0.11c
Emulsion pH 6.36 ± 0.01 6.36 ± 0.00 6.37 ± 0.02 6.38 ± 0.01 6.37 ± 0.01
Product pH 6.42 ± 0.01 6.42 ± 0.01 6.44 ± 0.01 6.42 ± 0.01 6.43 ± 0.01
Moisture (%) 65.97 ± 0.18ab 66.22 ± 0.17a 65.24 ± 0.22cd 65.06 ± 0.10d 65.63 ± 0.15bc
Protein (%) 15.14 ± 0.17 15.36 ± 0.14 15.97 ± 0.07 15.75 ± 0.10 15.86 ± 0.15
Fat (%) 13.29 ± 0.07bc 13.15 ± 0.11b 13.60 ± 0.08a 13.69 ± 0.07a 13.53 ± 0.14ab
Ash (%) 2.69 ± 0.05 2.98 ± 0.27 2.85 ± 0.07 2.64 ± 0.03 2.70 ± 0.01
TDF (%) 0.84 ± 0.01e 1.26 ± 0.02d 1.57 ± 0.02b 1.32 ± 0.01c 1.69 ± 0.02a
Open in a new tab

Control, nuggets without refined wheat flour; AI, nuggets with 1.5% amaranth seed flour; AII, nuggets with 3% amaranth seed flour; QI, nuggets with 1.5% quinoa flour; QII, nuggets with 3% quinoa flour

Means bearing different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P < 0.05)

Colour coordinates

Since the colour parameter of meat products significantly influences the consumer acceptance, its evaluation is very important. Hunter colour lightness value of AII was significantly low (P < 0.05) as compared to control and AI (Table 3). However, lightness values for treatment AII, QI and treatment QII were statistically comparable (P > 0.05). Similarly, lightness values of control, AI, treatment QI and QII did not differ significantly. Zhang et al. (2013) reported significant influence of addition levels and variety of starches on the colour parameters. Redness value of treatment QI was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than treatment QII. However, redness values of control, AI, AII in comparison with QII as well as QI did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Yellowness values for all the products were comparable. Redness value is influenced by meat myoglobin content as well as non-meat ingredients (Pilar and Reyes 2007). The observed variation in the redness value may be attributed to the added amaranth and quinoa flour, since the quantity of meat/myoglobin content was constant across treatment groups. Felisberto et al. (2015) reported that the formulations containing prebiotic fibres exhibited significantly low lightness values.

Table 3.

Effect of amaranth and quinoa seed flour on Hunter colour parameters and texture profile analysis of goat meat nuggets (n = 6)

Parameters Control AI AII QI QII
Lightness 46.82 ± 0.32a 46.30 ± 0.25a 45.25 ± 0.20b 45.95 ± 0.41ab 45.86 ± 0.39ab
Redness 7.03 ± 0.20ab 7.56 ± 0.46ab 6.61 ± 0.39ab 6.47 ± 0.40b 7.73 ± 0.32a
Yellowness 12.13 ± 0.20 12.23 ± 0.39 12.37 ± 0.39 12.13 ± 0.26 12.84 ± 0.19
Hardness 32.70 ± 1.50 32.40 ± 2.99 30.02 ± 1.65 34.31 ± 1.36 32.82 ± 1.32
Adhesiveness − 0.05 ± 0.01a − 0.09 ± 0.05ab − 0.20 ± 0.06b − 0.11 ± 0.05ab − 0.07 ± 0.04ab
Springiness 0.85 ± 0.01 0.82 ± 0.01 0.84 ± 0.01 0.85 ± 0.01 0.85 ± 0.01
Cohesiveness 0.45 ± 0.02a 0.40 ± 0.02c 0.37 ± 0.01c 0.45 ± 0.01ab 0.41 ± 0.01bc
Gumminess 14.89 ± 1.11a 13.16 ± 1.57ab 11.27 ± 0.79b 15.32 ± 0.62a 13.40 ± 0.91ab
Chewiness 12.69 ± 0.99a 10.81 ± 1.27ab 9.42 ± 0.57b 13.04 ± 0.48a 11.30 ± 0.67ab
Open in a new tab

Control, nuggets without refined wheat flour; AI, nuggets with 1.5% amaranth seed flour; AII, nuggets with 3% amaranth seed flour; QI, nuggets with 1.5% quinoa flour; QII, nuggets with 3% quinoa flour

Means bearing different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P < 0.05)

Texture profile analysis

Texture profile analysis of the products showed non-significant differences (P > 0.05) in the hardness and springiness values of all the products (Table 3). Adhesiveness, gumminess and chewiness values for AII were significantly low (P < 0.05) when compared with control. Cohesiveness value for control nuggets was significantly high (P < 0.05) with respect to AI, AII and QII. This is in agreement with findings of Álvarez and Barbut (2013) who reported reduction in the cohesiveness value of cooked meat batter added with inulin and β-glucan. Similarly, Fernández-Martín (2009) also found significantly low cohesiveness value of cooked pork meat batter due to added sea spaghetti and konjac gel. Incorporation of sugarcane dietary fibre and rice bran fibre significantly decreased the cohesiveness value of meat emulsion systems (Choi et al. 2011; Zhuang et al. 2016). Gumminess and chewiness are the derived textural parameters and their behaviour is influenced by the primary parameters they are dependent on.

Sensory characteristics

Organoleptic evaluation of the products showed significant differences (P < 0.05) in the scores of various parameters (Table 4). Treatments AII and QI had significantly high (P < 0.05) appearance scores as compared to control and AI. Flavour score for QI was significantly high (P < 0.05) in relation to the other products. As remarked by the panelists amaranth and quinoa flour addition masked the saltiness of the products. Products with 1.5% amaranth had significantly high (P < 0.05) texture score. Treatments AII, QI and QII had significantly high (P < 0.05) juiciness scores than the control. Though, all the products were very much acceptable, QI was found to have significantly high (P < 0.05) overall acceptability score.

Table 4.

Effect of amaranth and quinoa seed flour on sensory characteristics of goat meat nuggets (n = 45)

Parameters Control AI AII QI QII
Appearance 6.89 ± 0.10c 6.95 ± 0.08bc 7.24 ± 0.10a 7.32 ± 0.08a 7.17 ± 0.10ab
Flavour 7.17 ± 0.05b 7.11 ± 0.06b 7.24 ± 0.08b 7.52 ± 0.07a 7.28 ± 0.11b
Juiciness 7.03 ± 0.10b 7.25 ± 0.08ab 7.29 ± 0.08a 7.49 ± 0.08a 7.44 ± 0.09a
Texture 7.21 ± 0.10b 7.58 ± 0.08a 7.26 ± 0.09b 7.32 ± 0.08b 7.22 ± 0.07b
Overall acceptability 7.35 ± 0.06b 7.47 ± 0.07ab 7.51 ± 0.07ab 7.60 ± 0.07a 7.29 ± 0.11b
Open in a new tab

Control, nuggets without refined wheat flour; AI, nuggets with 1.5% amaranth seed flour; AII, nuggets with 3% amaranth seed flour; QI, nuggets with 1.5% quinoa flour; QII, nuggets with 3% quinoa flour

Means bearing different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P < 0.05)

Conclusion

The present study shows that both amaranth and quinoa, besides being gluten free are also rich in dietary fibre, protein, phenolics and flavonoids. Incorporation of both pseudocereals in goat meat nuggets affects batter stability, moisture and fat contents. Added amaranth and quinoa flours improve the dietary fibre content in meat products. Amaranth and quinoa seed flours influence the elastic and viscous modulus when evaluated against frequency and temperature ramps. Hunter colour lightness and redness were affected at 3% amaranth (AII) and 1.5% quinoa (QI), respectively. Adhesiveness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness of the products were affected by added pseudocereals. The study shows that, highly acceptable, dietary fibre rich gluten-free goat meat nuggets can be developed through incorporation of amaranth and quinoa seed flour.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by project ANSC CIRG SI 2012 015 00226, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. Authors wish to thank the Director of this Institute for providing required facilities to conduct the work. The help rendered by Radhey Shyam, Suraj Pal and Khem Chand for their technical assistance and support is also duly acknowledged.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Álvarez D, Barbut S. Effect of inulin, β-glucan and their mixtures on emulsion stability, color and textural parameters of cooked meat batters. Meat Sci. 2013;94(3):320–327. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alvarez-Jubete L, Arendt EK, Gallagher E. Nutritive value and chemical composition of pseudocereals as gluten-free ingredients. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2009;60(1(Sup4)):240–257. doi: 10.1080/09637480902950597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alvarez-Jubete L, Arendt E, Gallagher E. Nutritive value of pseudocereals and their increasing use as functional gluten-free ingredients. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2010;21(2):106–113. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alvarez-Jubete L, Wijngaard H, Arendt E, Gallagher E. Polyphenol composition and in vitro antioxidant activity of amaranth, quinoa buckwheat and wheat as affected by sprouting and baking. Food Chem. 2010;119(2):770–778. [Google Scholar]
  5. AOAC . Official methods of analysis. 16. Washington: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  6. Apichartsrangkoon A, Ledward DA, Bell AE, Brennan JG. Physicochemical properties of high-pressure-treated wheat gluten. Food Chem. 1998;63(2):215–220. [Google Scholar]
  7. Berghofer E, Schoenlechner R. Grain amaranth. In: Belton PS, Taylor JRN, editors. Pseudocereals and less common cereals: grain properties and utilization potential. Berlin: Springer; 2002. pp. 219–260. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bilek AE, Turhan S. Enhancement of the nutritional status of beef patties by adding flaxseed flour. Meat Sci. 2009;82:472–477. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bourne MC. Food texture and viscosity. New York: Academic Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  10. Burešová I, Tokár M, Mareček J, Hřivna L, Faměra O, Šottníková V. The comparison of the effect of added amaranth, buckwheat, chickpea, corn, millet and quinoa flour on rice dough rheological characteristics, textural and sensory quality of bread. J Cereal Sci. 2017;75:158–164. [Google Scholar]
  11. Catassi C, Fasano A. Celiac disease. In: Arendt EK, Dal Bello F, editors. Gluten-free cereal products and beverages. London: Academic Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chand N, Mihas AA. Celiac disease: current concepts in diagnosis and treatment. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40(1):3–14. doi: 10.1097/01.mcg.0000190644.01661.2b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chavan U, McKenzie D, Shahidi F. Functional properties of protein isolates from beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus L.) Food Chem. 2001;74(2):177–187. doi: 10.1021/jf0005317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chlopicka J, Pasko P, Gorinstein S, Jedryas A, Zagrodzki P. Total phenolic and total flavonoid content, antioxidant activity and sensory evaluation of pseudocereal breads. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2012;46(2):548–555. [Google Scholar]
  15. Choe JH, Kim HY, Lee JM, Kim YJ, Kim CJ. Quality of frankfurter-type sausages with added pig skin and wheat fiber mixture as fat replacers. Meat Sci. 2013;93(4):849–854. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Choi YS, Choi JH, Han DJ, Kim HY, Lee MA, Kim HW, Jeong JY, Kim CJ. Effects of rice bran fiber on heat-induced gel prepared with pork salt-soluble meat proteins in model system. Meat Sci. 2011;88(1):59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. de Carvalho LRS, da Silva CHD, Giada MDLR. Physical, chemical and sensorial properties of low-fat and gluten-free chicken nuggets. J Culin Sci Technol. 2018;16(1):18–29. [Google Scholar]
  18. Felisberto MHF, Galvão MTEL, Picone CSF, Cunha RL, Pollonio MAR. Effect of prebiotic ingredients on the rheological properties and microstructure of reduced-sodium and low-fat meat emulsions. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2015;60(1):148–155. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fernández-Martín F, López-López I, Cofrades S, Colmenero FJ. Influence of adding Sea Spaghetti seaweed and replacing the animal fat with olive oil or a konjac gel on pork meat batter gelation. Potential protein/alginate association. Meat Sci. 2009;83(2):209–217. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.04.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Giménez MA, González RJ, Wagner J, Torres R, Lobo MO, Samman NC. Effect of extrusion conditions on physicochemical and sensorial properties of corn-broad beans (Vicia faba) spaghetti type pasta. Food Chem. 2013;136(2):538–545. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.08.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gómez-Caravaca AM, Iafelice G, Lavini A, Pulvento C, Caboni MF, Marconi E. Phenolic compounds and saponins in quinoa samples (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.) grown under different saline and nonsaline irrigation regimens. J Agric Food Chem. 2012;60(18):4620–4627. doi: 10.1021/jf3002125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hęś M, Szwengiel A, Dziedzic K, Thanh-Blicharz J, Kmiecik D, Górecka D. The effect of buckwheat hull extract on lipid oxidation in frozen-stored meat products. J Food Sci. 2017;82(4):882–889. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kondaiah N, Anjaneyulu ASR, Kesava Rao V, Sharma N, Joshi HB. Effect of salt and phosphate on the quality of buffalo and goat meats. Meat Sci. 1985;15:183–192. doi: 10.1016/0309-1740(85)90036-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kritchevsky D, Bonfield C. Dietary fibre in health and disease. St. Paul: Eagan Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuipers RS, Graaf DJ, Luxwolda MF, Muskiet MH, Dijck-Brouwer DA, Muskiet FA. Saturated fat, carbohydrates and cardiovascular disease. Neth J Med. 2011;69(9):372–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Marchetti L, Andres SC, Califano AN. Textural and thermal properties of low-lipid meat emulsions formulated with fish oil and different binders. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2013;51(2):514–523. [Google Scholar]
  27. Messens W, Van de Walle D, Arevalo J, Dewettinck K, Huyghebaert A. Rheological properties of high-pressure-treated Gouda cheese. Int Dairy J. 2000;10(5–6):359–367. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mezger TG. The rheology handbook. 2. Hannover: Vicentz Network; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nascimento AC, Mota C, Coelho I, Gueifão S, Santos M, Matos AS, Gimenez A, Lobo M, Samman N, Castanheira I. Characterisation of nutrient profile of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa), amaranth (Amaranthus caudatus), and purple corn (Zea mays L.) consumed in the North of Argentina: proximates, minerals and trace elements. Food Chem. 2014;148:420–426. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.09.155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ofoli RY, Morgan RG, Steffe JF. A generalized rheological model for inelastic fluid foods. J Texture Stud. 1987;18:213–230. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pilar T, Reyes P. Simultaneous application of transglutaminase and high pressure to improve functional properties of chicken meat gels. Food Chem. 2007;100(1):264–272. [Google Scholar]
  32. Puupponen-Pimïa R, Aura AM, Oksman-Caldentey KM, Myllärinen P, Saarela M, Mattila-Sandholm T, Poutanen K. Development of functional ingredients for gut health. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2002;13:3–11. [Google Scholar]
  33. Repo-Carrasco-Valencia R, Hellström JK, Pihlava JM, Mattila PH. Flavonoids and other phenolic compounds in Andean indigenous grains: Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa), kañiwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule) and kiwicha (Amaranthus caudatus) Food Chem. 2010;120(1):128–133. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rodrigo L. Celiac disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(41):6585–6593. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i41.6585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Romero A, Bengoechea C, Cordobés F, Guerrero A. Application of thermal treatments to enhance gel strength and stability of high concentrated crayfish based emulsions. Food Hydrocoll. 2009;23:2346–2353. [Google Scholar]
  36. Saricoban C, Ozalp B, Yilmaz MT, Ozen G, Karakaya M, Akbulut M. Characteristics of meat emulsion systems as influenced by different levels of lemon albedo. Meat Sci. 2008;80(3):599–606. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Singleton VL, Rossi JA. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Vitic. 1965;16(3):144–158. [Google Scholar]
  38. Taylor JRN, Parker ML. Quinoa. In: Belton PS, Taylor JRN, editors. Pseudocereals and less common cereals: grain properties and utilization. Berlin: Springer; 2002. pp. 93–122. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tolstoguzov VB. Functional properties of protein-polysaccharides mixtures. In: Mitchell JR, Ledward DA, editors. Functional properties of macromolecules. London: Elsevier; 1986. pp. 385–415. [Google Scholar]
  40. Turhan S, Sagir I, Ustun NS. Utilization of hazel nut pellicle in low-fat beef burgers. Meat Sci. 2005;71:312–316. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.03.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Yasin H, Babji AS, Ismail H. Optimization and rheological properties of chicken ball as affected by κ-carrageenan, fish gelatin and chicken meat. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2016;66:79–85. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang F, Fang L, Wang C, Shi L, Chang T, Yang H, Cui M. Effects of starches on the textural, rheological, and color properties of surimi–beef gels with microbial tranglutaminase. Meat Sci. 2013;93(3):533–537. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhuang X, Han M, Kang ZL, Wang K, Bai Y, Xu XL, Zhou GH. Effects of the sugarcane dietary fiber and pre-emulsified sesame oil on low-fat meat batter physicochemical property, texture, and microstructure. Meat Sci. 2016;113:107–115. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Food Science and Technology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES