Effect of Lyophilization Process on Nutritional Value of Meat By-Products
by
, , , ,
Ignė Juknienė
1,*
,
Gintarė Zaborskienė
1,
Agnė Jankauskienė
1,
Aistė Kabašinskienė
1,
Gintarė Zakarienė
1 and
Saulius Bliznikas
2 1
Department of Food Safety and Quality, Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Mickeviciaus Str. 9, LT-44307 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Institute of Animal Rearing Technologies, Faculty of Animal Sciences, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Mickeviciaus Str. 9, LT-44307 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(24), 12984; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412984
Submission received: 4 November 2022
/
Revised: 14 December 2022
/
Accepted: 15 December 2022
/
Published: 17 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biochemical Composition of Food)
Abstract
:The meat industry generates large amounts of by-products, and their mass represents approximately one-third of the live weight of animals. Most by-products are disposed of and not used for processing, although they meet hygiene requirements and are suitable for human consumption or for the processing of food supplements. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of lyophilization on the nutritional value and retention of functional ingredients in ovine and porcine by-products: liver, kidneys, hearts, and lungs. For this purpose, meat by-products of the third category were selected in X and Y slaughterhouses and divided into two parts: one part was freeze-dried at −80 °C for 72 h, and the other part was left raw. Fatty acid composition was determined by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and amino acid analysis was performed by AccQ Tag technology (Waters Corp., Milford, MA, USA) and HPLC. Our study shows that the lyophilization process did not significantly affect protein and fat content. The largest decrease in the amount of proteins was determined in samples of ovine kidneys, at 0.8%, while the difference in protein in ovine liver samples before and after lyophilization was 0.38%. The composition of essential amino acids did not change after lyophilization, except a decrease in Leu and Thr in porcine samples and Leu, Thr, and Met in ovine samples (p < 0.05). The lyophilization process did not significantly affect the polyunsaturated fatty acid content, including the amounts of omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids. The optimal ratio of omega 6 and 3 fatty acids was determined in samples of lyophilized ovine livers (2.65), and the largest ratio was found in samples of lyophilized porcine hearts (16.67). The study results show that, after lyophilization, meat by-products of the third category (according to Regulation (EC) No. 1069/2009, Categorization, Article 10), especially ovine liver, can be used as a source of amino acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids for functional food processing. The process of lyophilization is also appropriate for preserving meat by-products without losing the nutritional value and beneficial components.
1. Introduction
Meat is a particularly important component of the human diet; consequently, the meat industry generates large amounts of by-products, and their mass represents approximately one-third of the live weight of the animals [1,2]. The growing demand for food and higher environmental standards necessitate the development of sustainable raw animal material processing systems and a deeper differentiation of offal in terms of quality and use for food production, retaining the primary nutritional value as much as possible [3,4].
Meat by-products of the third category are safe to use after being rejected for commercial reasons because they have no signs of infectious diseases [5]. Meat by-products can be considered as raw material to obtain biologically active protein hydrolysates or extracts with functional properties [6]. Bioactive peptides derived from meat by-products can perform multiple functions in human physiological systems: antioxidant, antithrombotic, and immunomodulatory [7]. The liver and lungs are particularly suitable for protein hydrolysis to obtain peptides with antioxidant properties [8].
It is expected that the use of animal by-products will increase worldwide, due to the high nutritional value and the problem of depleted resources [2,9]. The chemical composition of meat by-products is similar to that of meat: their nutritional value is high, containing amino acids, fatty acids, and proteins [9,10,11,12]. However, meat by-products spoil very quickly, and their effective use necessitates finding a suitable method to reduce the amount of water. Freeze-drying is one of the best ways to ensure that meat by-products can be stored indefinitely, retaining most of their biologically active ingredients compared with other techniques of dehydration [13,14]. Lyophilization is a high-quality preservation method that reduces moisture and water activity as well as spoilage reactions and microbiological activity [13,14,15,16,17]. Processing animal by-products by preserving their nutritional value would help to avoid disposal costs and reduce environmental damage [17].
The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of lyophilization on the nutritional value and retention of functional ingredients in ovine and porcine by-products: liver, kidneys, hearts, and lungs. The nutritional value of fresh and lyophilized meat by-products was assessed as follows: amino acid analysis was performed by AccQ Tag technology (Waters Corp., Miliford, MA, USA) and quantified by HPLC, and fatty acid composition was determined by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Raw Meat By-Products and Sample Preparation
Meat by-products of the third category (according to Regulation (EC) No. 1069/2009, Section 4, Categorisation, Article 10) [18], i.e., ovine and porcine livers, kidneys, hearts, and lungs, were selected in X and Y slaughterhouses and transported to the laboratory within 24 h after slaughter in plastic containers with the temperature maintained at 4 °C. Before analysis, all meat by-products were chopped into 2 × 2 cm pieces. One part of the chopped samples was selected for freeze-drying, and the other part was prepared for analysis without freeze-drying.
2.2. Freeze-Drying Treatment
Meat by-products were fast-frozen at −35 °C for 3 h using a Liebherr freezer (LGv 5010 MediLine). Freeze-drying (FD) was performed in a lyophilizer (Harvest Right, North Salt Lake, UT, USA). at −80 °C with vacuum pressure of 20 Pa. The samples were freeze dried for 72 h. Subsequently, freeze-dried (lyophilized) meat by-products were subjected to milling using a laboratory-scale mill (Fritsch Mill Pulverisette 14, Indar-Oberstein, Germany) at 6000 rpm and sieved through a 200 μm sieve.
2.3. Determination of Nutritional Value
The protein amount was determined by the Kjeldahl method according to standard LST ISO 937:2000, Meat and meat products: Nitrogen content [19]. The fat content analysis was performed by the Soxhlet method (AOAC International, 2007) [20]. The moisture content was evaluated according to standard LST ISO 1442:1997, Meat and meat products: Determination of moisture content (reference method) [21].
2.4. Fatty Acid Composition
The composition of fatty acids was evaluated according to standardized methods. The samples were prepared according to standard LST EN ISO 12966-2:2017 Part 2: Preparation of methyl esters of fatty acids [22]. Chromatographic analysis was performed according to standard ISO 12966-1:2014 [23]. Fatty acid methyl esters were determined using a gas chromatograph PerkinElmer® Clarus680 (PerkinElmer, Inc., Norwalk, CT, USA) and mass spectrometer PerkinElmer® Clarus SQ8T (PerkinElmer, Inc., Norwalk, CT, USA). Chromatographic column temperature was 60 °C for 1 min, 12 °C/min up to 250 °C, then held for 10 min. Spectrometer temperature mode was 5 °C/min up to 300 °C, then maintained for 20 min. The temperature of the evaporator was 250 °C. The calibration curve was prepared using standard Supelco 37 Component FAME Mix (Merck & Co., Darmstadt, Germany)
2.5. Amino Acid Composition
Hydrolysis of amino acids of defatted samples was performed as described in Commission Regulation No. 152/2009 [24]. After hydrolysis, the samples were cooled to room temperature before further preparation. Then 1 mL of filtered hydrolysate was pipetted into a 100 mL volumetric flask, with 50 mL of 100 mmol/mL L-2-aminobutyric acid added as an internal standard. The contents of the flask were diluted to the mark with ultrapure water, thoroughly mixed, and then filtered through a 0.22 mm syringe filter.
Derivatization of amino acids: the reagents for derivatization, calibration standard, and sample derivatization were prepared as described in the Waters AccQ Tag chemistry kit instruction manual [25]. For the analysis of amino acids in samples, the Shimadzu low-pressure gradient HPLC system (Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan), consisting of LC-10ATVP solvent delivery module, SIL-10ADVP auto injector, CTO-10ACVP column oven, RF-10AXL spectrofluorometric detector, SCL-10AVP system controller, and DGU-14A online degasser, was used. The LabSolution LC system (Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan) was used for HPLC system control and data collection. Amino acid derivatives were separated on a Nova-Pak C18 chromatography column (4 mm, 150 × 3.9 mm; Waters Corp., Milford, MA, USA) at 37 °C, with 10 mL of derivative injected for separation. Separated derivatives were detected at Ex 250 nm to Em 395 nm. A gradient flow was used for separation of amino acid derivatives, with the flow rate set at 1.0 mL/min. The mobile phase consisted of eluent A (prepared by diluting 100 mL of Waters AccQ Tag Eluent A Concentrate with 1 L of ultrapure water), eluent B (acetonitrile), and eluent C (ultrapure water).
The best separation of amino acid derivatives was achieved by the following gradient program: decrease A from 100 to 98%, increase B from 0 to 2% for 0.0–0.5 min, decrease A from 98 to 94%, increase B from 2 to 6% B for 0.5–18.0 min, decrease A from 94 to 90%, increase B from 6 to 10% for 18.0–19.0 min, decrease A from 90 to 83%, increase B from 10 to 17% for 19.0–29.5 min, decrease A from 83 to 0%, increase B from 17 to 60%, increase C from 0 to 40% for 29.5–35.0 min, hold B at 60% and C at 40% for 5.0 min, linear gradient of A from 0 to 100% for 1.0 min, hold A at 100% for 10.0 min. Identification and quantification of single amino acids were performed by comparing retention times and peak areas of separated amino acids in sample and peak areas in standard solution.
2.6. Statistics
The results are reported as the mean value of each determination ± standard deviation (SD). The experimental data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows, version 25.0 (released 2017, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Comparisons between indices relative to different treatments (4 × 3 samples of raw meat by-products and 4 × 3 lyophilized samples of each animal species) were conducted by ANOVA, and significance of difference was defined at p < 0.05.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Nutritional Value of Raw and Freeze-Dried Meat By-Products
The nutritional chemical composition of animal by-products varies, but the internal organs have high nutritional value with regard to proteins, similar to muscle tissue, ranging from 17 to 20% of raw by-product [26,27,28]. Meat by-products are also characterized by similar fat content [9]. The consumption of fats is important for providing energy and facilitating absorption of fat-soluble vitamins [29].
The results showed that the freeze-drying process did not statistically affect the protein and fat content in the tested meat by-products (Table 1). These results coincide with the results of several studies reporting that freeze drying did not affect the nutritional properties of freeze-dried products.
Park and Kim [30] found that freeze drying did not have much impact on the fat and protein content of beef powder. Ma et al. [31] additionally emphasized that this method not only saves meat proteins, but also does not damage fat-soluble vitamins and prolongs the shelf life of products for up to 2 years.
Juan et al. and Chen et al. [32,33] noted that freeze-drying is the safest process to preserve the protein content of meat and that it causes no loss of fat-soluble vitamins such as vitamins A and D.
It was found that the tested samples of ovine liver contained the highest amount of protein, 19.6 ± 0.03%, while samples of porcine liver contained 1.18% less. The protein level in liver is close to that of lean meat tissue [34]. After lyophilization, the amount of protein in samples of ovine liver was found to be reduced by 0.3 ± 0.02%. The largest amount of fat was detected in samples of porcine hearts (8.4 ± 0.02%), and there was much less in samples of ovine liver (4.4 ± 0.3%); it was not detected in samples of pig kidneys and lungs. After lyophilization, fat levels slightly decreased from 0.1% in samples of porcine hearts to 0.4% in samples of ovine kidneys.
3.2. Composition of Amino Acids in Raw and Lyophilized Meat By-Products
The content of amino acids was similar in raw and dried meat by-products (Table 2). The composition of essential amino acids was not changed after lyophilization, except for decreased Leu and Thr in porcine samples and Leu, Thr, and Met in ovine samples (p < 0.05). In other cases, the differences in amino acids were not significant. Mardiah, Huda, and Ahmad [35] observed that freeze-drying slightly reduced the levels of some amino acids in lyophilized fish: isoleucine, threonine, and phenylalanine. A difference in the biological matrix may be a possible explanation for this result.
However, after freeze-drying, the amounts of lysine, methionine, and valine decreased by 1.95, 1.61, and 1.25%, respectively. Our results correspond to those of Chumroenphat et al. [36], confirming that this drying method may be appropriate for relevant products depending on the targeted compounds, such as amino acids, although amino acids are sensitive to processing methods depending on the material, type of amino acid, and method [37,38].
3.3. Composition of Fatty Acids in Raw and Lyophilized Meat By-Products
According to the results, there were no significant difference between amounts of fatty acids (FAs) in meat by-products (Table 3). Saturated FAs were predominant in both raw and lyophilized samples (61–50%). The highest amount of saturated FAs (61.25%) was found in samples of ovine kidneys; the largest proportion was found to be palmitic fatty acid (18.7% of total FAs). Many animal by-products contain large amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), but heart, liver, and lungs contain the largest amounts [34].
Calvo et al. [39] concluded that freeze drying was the safest method to preserve PUFAs. The highest amount of omega 3 FA was found in samples of ovine liver at 7.68%, and the lowest in samples of raw ovine lungs at 2.74%. In our study, we observed that the amounts of omega PUFAs slightly increased after lyophilization. The most pronounced change (increase) in omega 3 FA was detected in samples of porcine liver after lyophilization (0.69%) compared to raw liver samples. The most optimal ratio of omega 6 and 3 FAs was in samples of lyophilized porcine liver, and the largest imbalance was in samples of porcine hearts. Lyophilization and rehydration of meat usually cause a little shrinkage or toughening and, due to the reduction in the surrounding pressure and sublimation from solid to liquid phase, there will not be huge effect on chemical composition and nutritive value.
Lyophilization does not change the composition of FAs and is therefore a technology that is suitable for application in the preservation of products with high nutritional value [40].
Research performed by Lee M.R.F. also showed no differences in meat FA profiles after lyophilization [41].
In order to achieve economic viability and sustainability in the future, it is important to maximize the consumption of animal by-products. According to Jiang et al. [42], the utilization of by-products could reduce costs and help to deal with climate change. The content of omega FA in meat by-products has biological, biochemical, pathological, and pharmacological effects [43]. Meanwhile, omega 6 FA can be harmful if consumed in large amounts. An imbalance between these FAs can lead to inflammatory processes in the body and increase the risk for chronic diseases [44,45]. Wang et al. [46] showed in their research that an imbalance of omega fatty acids is associated with depression. According to Simopoulos [47,48] the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 changed from the recommended 1:1 or 1:2 for modern humans to 1:20, due to the Western diet. In our research, the omega 6 and 3 FA ratio was similar to the recommendation: in sheep by-products, particularly liver, after lyophilization the ratio was 1:2.65.
4. Conclusions
The obtained results show that meat by-products, especially sheep liver, contained high amounts of essential amino acids, and omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids. The lyophilization process did not have a significant impact on the amounts of main nutritional components or the omega 6 and omega 3 fatty-acid ratio. No significant differences in the amounts of amino acids or fatty acids between freeze-dried and raw meat by-products were found. Therefore, meat by-products could be used for the production of functional compounds, and the lyophilization process is a suitable method for preservation, as it does not reduce the beneficial components of meat by-products.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, G.Z. (Gintarė Zaborskienė) and I.J.; methodology, S.B. and I.J.; software, G.Z. (Gintarė Zakarienė); validation, A.K., I.J. and G.Z. (Gintarė Zakarienė); formal analysis, G.Z. (Gintarė Zaborskienė); investigation, I.J. and S.B.; resources, I.J.; data curation, G.Z. (Gintarė Zakarienė); writing—original draft preparation, I.J. and A.J.; writing—review and editing, A.J. and A.K.; visualization, A.J. and I.J.; supervision, G.Z. (Gintarė Zaborskienė); project administration, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Toldrá, F.; Aristoy, M.C.; Mora, L.; Reig, M. Innovations in value-addition of edible meat by-products. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hicks, T.M.; Verbeek, C.J.R. Protein-rich by-products: Production statistics, legislative restrictions, and management options. Protein Byprod. 2016, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ockerman, H.W.; Basu, L. Edible, for Human Consumption. In Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, 2nd ed.; Jensen, W.K., Devine, C., Dikeman, M., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 104–112. [Google Scholar]
- Toldrá, F.; Reig, M.; Mora, L. Management of meat by- and co-products for an improved meat processing sustainability. Meat Sci. 2021, 181, 108608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toldrá, F.; Mora, L.; Reig, M. New insights into meat by-product utilization. Meat Sci. 2016, 120, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lafarga, T.; Hayes, M. Bioactive peptides from meat muscle and by-products: Generation, functionality and application as functional ingredients. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, L.; Toldrá-Reig, F.; Reig, M.; Toldrá, F. Bioactive compounds from animal meat byproducts. In Byproducts from Agriculture and Fisheries; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 335–346. ISBN 9781119383956. [Google Scholar]
- Toldrá, F.; Mora, L.; Reig, M. Current developments in meat by-products. In New Aspects of Meat Quality; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 649–665. ISBN 9780323858793. [Google Scholar]
- Seong, P.N.; Park, K.M.; Cho, S.H.; Kang, S.M.; Kang, G.H.; Park, B.Y.; Moon, S.S.; Ba, H.V. Characterization of edible pork by-products by means of yield and nutritional composition. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2014, 34, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alao, B.O.; Falowo, A.B.; Chulayo, A.; Muchenje, V. The potential of animal by-products in food systems: Production, prospects and challenges. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Babić, J.; Cantalejo, M.J.; Arroqui, C. The Effects of Freeze-Drying Process Parameters on broiler chicken breast meat. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 42, 1325–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdilova, G.; Rebezov, M.; Nesterenko, A.; Safronov, S.; Knysh, I.; Ivanova, I.; Mikolaychik, I.; Morozova, L. Characteristics of meat by-products: Nutritional and biological value. Int. J. Mod. Agric. 2021, 10, 3895–3904. [Google Scholar]
- Karam, M.C.; Petit, J.; Zimmer, D.; Baudelaire Djantou, E.; Scher, J. Effects of drying and grinding in production of fruit and vegetable powders: A Review. J. Food Eng. 2016, 188, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caliskan, G.; Dirim, S.N. Drying characteristics of pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata) slices in convective and freeze dryer. Heat Mass Transf. 2017, 53, 2129–2141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dal-Bó, V.; Freire, J.T. Effects of lyophilization on colorimetric indices, phenolics content, and antioxidant activity of avocado (Persea americana) pulp. Food Control 2022, 132, 108526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdelwahed, W.; Degobert, G.; Stainmesse, S.; Fessi, H. Freeze-drying of nanoparticles: Formulation, process and storage considerations. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 2006, 58, 1688–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jayathilakan, K.; Sultana, K.; Radhakrishna, K.; Bawa, A.S. Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the council and of the Council of 21 October 2009 Laying Down Health Rules as Regards Animal By-Products and Derived Products Not Intended for Human Consumption and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal By-Products Regulation). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R1069&from=EN (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- ISO 937:1978; Meat and Meat Products—Determination of Nitrogen Content (Reference Method). ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1978; Chapter 8. pp. 2–3. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/5356.html (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- Srigley, C.T.; Mossoba, M.M. Current Analytical Techniques for Food Lipids. In Food Safety: Innovative Analytical Tools for Safety Assessment; Spizzirri, U.G., Cirillo, G., Eds.; Scrivener Publishing LLC: Beverly, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 1442:1997; Meat and Meat Products—Determination of Moisture Content (Reference Method). ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997; Chapters 7, 8, 9. pp. 1–3. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/6037.html (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- ISO 12966-2:2017; Animal and Vegetable Fats and Oils—Gas Chromatography of Fatty Acid Methyl Esters—Part 2: Preparation of Methyl Esters of Fatty Acids. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Chapter 5. pp. 2–4. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/72142.html2-4 (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- ISO 12966-1:2014; Animal and Vegetable Fats and Oils—Gas Chromatography of Fatty Acid Methyl Esters—Part 1: Guidelines on Modern Gas Chromatography of Fatty Acid Methyl Esters. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; Chapter 7. pp. 3–4.
- European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 Laying Down the Methods of Sampling and Analysis for the Official Control of Feed. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, L54, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Waters AccQ. Waters AccQ Tag Chemistry Package Instruction Manual; Millipore Corporation: Milford, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Maysonnave, G.S.; de Oliveira Mello, R.; Vaz, F.N.; de Ávila, M.M.; Pascoal, L.L.; Rodrigues, A.C.T. Physicochemical characterization of by-products from beef cattle slaughter and economic feasibility of commercialization. Acta Sci. Anim. Sci. 2020, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carmichael, A.K.; Kouakou, B.; Gelaye, S.; Kannan, G.; Lee, J.H.; Terrill, T.H. Organ mass and composition in growing dairy goat wethers fed different levels of poultry fat and protein. Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 104, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharman, E.D.; Lancaster, P.A.; McMurphy, C.P.; Mafi, G.G.; Starkey, J.D.; Krehbiel, C.R.; Horn, G.W. Effect of rate of body weight gain of steers during the stocker phase. II. Visceral organ mass and body composition of growing-finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 2355–2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bray, G.A.; Paeratakul, S.; Popkin, B.M. Dietary fat and obesity: A review of animal, clinical and epidemiological studies. Physiol. Behav. 2004, 83, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.Y.; Kim, H.Y. Physicochemical property analysis of lyophilized fresh, wet-, and dry-aged beef powders: Application of dry-aged beef crust as a food additive. Meat Sci. 2023, 195, 109014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Giovanni, V.; Meng, X. Key composition optimization of meat processed protein source by vacuum freeze-drying technology. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 25, 724–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, J.; Du, B.; Yang, G.M. Flavors of Dried Bananas. In Handbook of Fruit and Vegetable Flavors; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 543–548. ISBN 9780470622834. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y. Optimization of vacuum freeze-drying technologies of longan fruits. Chinese Soc. Agricult. Eng. 2008, 244–248. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, D.C. Better Utilization of By-Products from the Meat Industry; Food and Fertilizer Technology Center: Taichung, Taiwan, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Mardiah, A.; Huda, N.; Ahmad, R. Protein quality of stingray (Himantura gerrardi) fish flakes. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 2012, 7, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chumroenphat, T.; Somboonwatthanakul, I.; Saensouk, S.; Siriamornpun, S. Changes in curcuminoids and chemical components of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) under freeze-drying and low-temperature drying methods. Food Chem. 2021, 339, 128121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boye, J.; Wijesinha-Bettoni, R.; Burlingame, B. Protein quality evaluation twenty years after the introduction of the protein digestibility corrected amino acid score method. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, S183–S211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, T.; Mao, L. Influences of hot air drying and microwave drying on nutritional and odorous properties of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon Idellus) Fillets. Food Chem. 2008, 110, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvo, P.; Castano, A.L.; Hernández, M.T.; González-Gómez, D. Effects of microcapsule constitution on the quality of microencapsulated walnut oil. EU J. Lipid Sci. Tech. 2011, 113, 1273–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeyalakshm, K.L.; Priya, E.R.; Ravichandr, S.; Chandran, M. Fatty acid contents of lyophilized and frozen Portunus sanguinolentus crab meat. J. Food Resour. Sci. 2015, 4, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, M.R.F.; Tweed, J.K.S.; Kim, E.J.; Scollan, N.D. Beef, chicken and lamb fatty acid analysis—A aimplified direct bimethylation procedure using freeze-dried material. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 863–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiang, G.; Ameer, K.; Kim, H.; Lee, E.J.; Ramachandraiah, K.; Hong, G.P. Strategies for sustainable substitution of livestock meat. Foods 2020, 9, 1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponnampalam, E.N.; Sinclair, A.J.; Holman, B.W.B. The Sources, synthesis and biological actions of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in red meat: An Overview. Foods 2021, 10, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaliannan, K.; Li, X.Y.; Wang, B.; Pan, Q.; Chen, C.Y.; Hao, L.; Xie, S.; Kang, J.X. Multi-Omic Analysis in transgenic mice implicates omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid imbalance as a risk factor for chronic disease. Commun. Biol. 2019, 2, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mariamenatu, A.H.; Abdu, E.M. Overconsumption of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) versus deficiency of omega-3 PUFAs in modern-day diets: The disturbing factor for their “Balanced antagonistic metabolic functions” in the human body. J. Lipids 2021, 2021, 8848161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Y.; Dong, L.; Pan, D.; Xu, D.; Lu, Y.; Yin, S.; Wang, S.; Xia, H.; Liao, W.; Sun, G. Effect of high ratio of N-6/n-3 PUFAs on depression:A Meta-analysis of prospective studies. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simopoulos, A.P. An increase in the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio increases the risk for obesity. Nutrients 2016, 8, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Simopoulos, A.P. The omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio: Health implications. Oléagineux Corps Gras Lipides 2010, 17, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Protein and fat content in raw and lyophilized meat by-products (%).
| Parameter | Meat By-Products | Ovine Meat By-Products | Lyophilized Ovine Meat By-Products | Porcine Meat By-Products | Lyophilized Porcine Meat By-Products | Sp. | Meth. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proteins | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| Heart | 17.2 ± 0.02 | 16.9 ± 0.01 | 15.8 ± 0.02 | 15.4 ± 0.01 | * | NS | |
| Liver | 19.6 ± 0.03 | 19.3 ± 0.01 | 16.6 ± 0.3 | 16.3 ± 0.01 | * | NS | |
| Lung | 15.1 ± 0.02 | 14.8 ± 0.01 | 12.9 ± 0.01 | 12.3 ± 0.02 | * | NS | |
| Kidney | 15.6 ± 0.01 | 14.8 ± 0.01 | 13.8 ± 0.01 | 13.4 ± 0.02 | * | NS | |
| Fat | Heart | 4.4 ± 0.02 | 4.2 ± 0.01 | 8.4 ± 0.02 | 8.3 ± 0.01 | * | NS |
| Liver | 4.3 ± 0.01 | 3.92 ± 0.01 | 3.8 ± 0.02 | 3.56 ± 0.01 | * | NS | |
| Lung | 1.79 ± 0.02 | 1.56 ± 0.01 | ND | ND | * | NS | |
| Kidney | 1.1 ± 0.01 | 0.7 ± 0.02 | ND | ND | * | NS |
Sp., species effect between ovine and porcine meat-by products; p > 0.05; * p < 0.05. Meth., method effect between raw and lyophilized meat by-products; p > 0.05; * p < 0.05. ND, not detected.
Table 2.
Amounts of amino acids in raw and lyophilized meat by-products (g/kg of dry matter).
| Amino Acid | Heart | Heart after Lyophilization | Kidney | Kidney after Lyophilization | Lung | Lung after Lyophilization | Liver | Liver after Lyophilization | Sp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Porcine | |||||||||
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Ala | 12.02 ± 0.1 | 12.06 ± 0.1 | 10.19 ± 0.02 | 10.97 ± 0.04 | 10.39 ± 0.05 | 10.64 ± 0.06 | 15.47 ± 0.03 | 16.89 ± 0.03 | * |
| Thr | 5.51 ± 0.03 | 5.44 ± 0.02 | 4.78 ± 0.01 | 4.98 ± 0.05 | 4.56 ± 0.06 | 4.7 ± 0.02 | 6.98 ± 0.02 * | 7.57 ± 0.03 * | * |
| Ser | 5.38 ± 0.08 | 5.24 ± 0.03 | 4.91 ± 0.02 | 5.27 ± 0.05 | 5.08 ± 0.07 | 5.31 ± 0.04 | 6.73 ± 0.01 | 7.87 ± 0.05 | * |
| Glu | 21.28 ± 0.01 | 21.30 ± 0.02 | 16.30 ± 0.01 * | 17.17 ± 0.06 * | 16.93 ± 0.6 * | 17.52 ± 0.2 * | 24.68 ± 0.03 * | 25.98 ± 0.05 * | * |
| Pro | 6.06 ± 0.04 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 6.59 ± 0.03 | 5.70 ± 0.04 | 7.78 ± 0.09 | 8.23 ± 0.03 | 8.72 ± 0.04 | 8.57 ± 0.03 | * |
| Gli | 7.99 ± 0.01 | 6.9 ± 0.02 | 8.48 ± 0.02 | 7.89 ± 0.08 | 13.30 ± 0.09 | 13.41 ± 0.3 | 10.31 ± 0.02 | 11.61 ± 0.08 | * |
| Ala | 8.01 ± 0.03 | 7.26 ± 0.03 | 7.41 ± 0.05 | 6.84 ± 0.06 | 8.79 ± 0.01 | 8.11 ± 0.12 | 10.81 ± 0.03 | 9.95 ± 0.02 | * |
| Val | 6.89 ± 0.01 | 6.67 ± 0.02 | 6.56 ± 0.08 | 6.81 ± 0.06 | 7.31 ± 0.2 | 6.87 ± 0.05 | 11.16 ± 0.04 | 10.68 ± 0.04 | * |
| Met | 4.55 ± 0.05 | 5.99 ± 0.01 | 4.76 ± 0.03 | 5.16 ± 0.09 | 4.00 ± 0.02 | 5.05 ± 0.3 | 9.05 ± 0.05 | 8.89 ± 0.08 | * |
| Ile | 5.29 ± 0.01 | 5.31 ± 0.03 | 4.86 ± 0.07 | 5.15 ± 0.03 | 4.16 ± 0.02 | 4.1 ± 0.06 | 9.05 ± 0.02 | 7.90 ± 0.06 | * |
| Leu | 10.39 ± 0.02 * | 9.96 ± 0.05 * | 9.18 ± 0.04 | 9.5 ± 0.04 | 8.94 ± 0.01 | 8.65 ± 0.08 | 16.06 ± 0.02 * | 14.70 ± 0.02 * | * |
| Tyr | 3.90 ± 0.05 | 4.2 ± 0.02 | 3.96 ± 0.06 | 4.27 ± 0.04 | 3.56 ± 0.02 | 3.64 ± 0.03 | 5.54 ± 0.01 | 6.47 ± 0.03 | * |
| Phe | 5.46 ± 0.02 | 5.23 ± 0.2 | 5.18 ± 0.09 | 5.37 ± 0.05 | 4.95 ± 0.1 | 4.88 ± 0.02 | 9.09 ± 0.02 | 8.50 ± 0.03 | * |
| His | 5.59 ± 0.02 | 5.49 ± 0.02 | 4.90 ± 0.04 | 5.18 ± 0.04 | 5.35 ± 0.02 | 5.97 ± 0.01 | 6.86 ± 0.02 | 7.93 ± 0.03 | * |
| Lys | 9.04 ± 0.05 | 9.53 ± 0.05 | 6.94 ± 0.08 | 7.68 ± 0.06 | 7.17 ± 0.2 | 8.01 ± 0.2 | 10.64 ± 0.04 | 9.57 ± 0.03 | * |
| Arg | 10.48 ± 0.05 | 9.6 ± 0.06 | 8.11 ± 0.04 | 8.91 ± 0.05 | 9.41 ± 0.03 | 9.71 ± 0.01 | 9.01 ± 0.04 | 11.78 ± 0.04 | * |
| Ovine | |||||||||
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Ala | 13.81 ± 0.02 | 12.00 ± 0.02 | 10.15 ± 0.02 | 11.94 ± 0.02 | 10.08 ± 0.01 | 11.00 ± 0.01 | 14.34 ± 0.01 | 15.02 ± 0.01 | * |
| Thr | 6.24 ± 0.03 | 5.73 ± 0.03 | 4.56 ± 0.03 | 5.41 ± 0.03 | 4.26 ± 0.02 | 4.92 ± 0.03 | 5.87 ± 0.1 | 6.45 ± 0.03 | * |
| Ser | 5.84 ± 0.2 | 5.34 ± 0.02 | 4.47 ± 0.2 | 5.60 ± 0.01 | 4.37 ± 0.03 | 5.06 ± 0.04 | 6.15 ± 0.01 | 7.17 ± 0.06 | * |
| Glu | 25.5 ± 0.01 | 21.39 ± 0.01 | 16.71 ± 0.2 | 18.79 ± 0.2 | 15.60 ± 0.05 | 15.15 ± 0.06 | 22.12 ± 0.02 | 22.24 ± 0.3 | * |
| Pro | 6.5 ± 0.01 | 5.47 ± 0.02 | 5.56 ± 0.01 | 6.36 ± 0.01 | 6.39 ± 0.05 | 6.15 ± 0.02 | 7.47 ± 0.1 | 7.50 ± 0.01 | * |
| Gli | 7.99 ± 0.01 | 7.02 ± 0.01 | 8.02 ± 0.01 | 9.05 ± 0.2 | 10.74 ± 0.01 | 9.85 ± 0.01 | 8.97 ± 0.01 | 9.61 ± 0.01 | * |
| Ala | 9.06 ± 0.01 | 7.21 ± 0.2 | 6.58 ± 0.01 | 7.29 ± 0.01 | 7.52 ± 0.02 | 7.66 ± 0.01 | 8.54 ± 0.02 | 8.49 ± 0.02 | * |
| Val | 7.91 ± 0.02 | 6.66 ± 0.01 | 6.59 ± 0.1 | 7.54 ± 0.01 | 6.52 ± 0.02 | 7.41 ± 0.12 | 9.37 ± 0.03 | 9.42 ± 0.03 | * |
| Met | 6.97 ± 0.01 * | 5.36 ± 0.2 * | 4.35 ± 0.02 | 5.59 ± 0.02 | 4.24 ± 0.02 | 4.44 ± 0.01 | 7.74 ± 0.01 | 7.75 ± 0.03 | * |
| Ile | 6.35 ± 0.04 | 5.48 ± 0.1 | 5.11 ± 0.01 | 5.68 ± 0.03 | 3.88 ± 0.06 | 3.64 ± 0.01 | 6.42 ± 0.03 | 6.67 ± 0.02 | * |
| Leu | 11.88 ± 0.01 * | 10.00 ± 0.01 * | 10.69 ± 0.06 * | 9.22 ± 0.1 * | 8.84 ± 0.03 * | 10.20 ± 0.02 * | 12.12 ± 0.03 * | 13.26 ± 0.01 * | * |
| Tyr | 4.74 ± 0.04 | 4.15 ± 0.01 | 3.76 ± 0.03 | 4.60 ± 0.01 | 3.23 ± 0.01 | 3.51 ± 0.05 | 5.26 ± 0.05 | 5.80 ± 0.02 | * |
| Phe | 6.22 ± 0.06 | 5.34 ± 0.01 | 5.40 ± 0.2 | 6.23 ± 0.04 | 4.90 ± 0.01 | 5.85 ± 0.03 | 7.12 ± 0.03 | 7.78 ± 0.01 | * |
| His | 6.49 ± 0.2 | 5.54 ± 0.02 | 4.58 ± 0.2 | 5.64 ± 0.01 | 4.64 ± 0.05 | 6.63 ± 0.01 | 6.03 ± 0.02 | 6.79 ± 0.03 | * |
| Lys | 11.26 ± 0.01 * | 9.31 ± 0.01 * | 6.75 ± 0.06 * | 9.04 ± 0.1 * | 6.96 ± 0.04 * | 8.99 ± 0.03 * | 7.72 ± 0.01 | 7.73 ± 0.02 | * |
| Arg | 11.46 ± 0.01 | 10.05 ± 0.01 | 7.36 ± 0.03 | 8.89 ± 0.01 | 7.95 ± 0.02 | 7.56 ± 0.01 | 8.00 ± 0.01 | 9.66 ± 0.01 | * |
Sp., species effect between ovine and porcine meat-by products; p > 0.05; * p < 0.05.
Table 3.
Composition of fatty acids in raw and lyophilized meat by-products (% of total fatty acid content).
Table 3.
Composition of fatty acids in raw and lyophilized meat by-products (% of total fatty acid content).
| Fatty Acid | Raw Liver | Liver after Lyophilization | Raw Kidney | Kidney after Lyophilization | Raw Heart | Heart after Lyophilization | Raw Lung | Lung after Lyophilization | Sp. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Porcine | ||||||||||
| Saturated fatty acids | C10:0 | 0.36 ± 0.02 | 0.32 ± 0.06 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | |
| C12:0 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||
| C14:0 | 0.40 ± 0.03 | 0.38 ± 0.06 | 1.11 ± 0.05 | 0.99 ± 0.05 | 3.13 ± 0.02 | 3.11 ± 0.02 | 2.39 ± 0.03 | 2.80 ± 0.05 | ||
| C16:0 | 20.75 ± 0.5 | 20.46 ± 0.5 | 24.67 ± 0.7 | 24.88 ± 0.9 | 24.40 ± 0.8 | 23.64 ± 0.7 | 26.55 ± 0.8 | 26.12 ± 0.9 | * | |
| C17:0 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | ND | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | ||
| C18:0 | 31.33 ± 0.9 | 31.22 ± 0.8 | 29.95 ± 0.5 | 29.90 ± 0.6 | 29.98 ± 0.8 | 29.80 ± 0.7 | 29.47 ± 0.5 | 29.48 ± 0.6 | * | |
| C21:0 | 0.59 ± 0.02 | 0.48 ± 0.02 | 0.40 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | ||
| C22:0 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.28 ± 0.06 | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.82 ± 0.03 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | * | |
| Total | 56.73 | 53.14 | 57.09 | 57.1 | 58 | 57.04 | 58.96 | 58.87 | ||
| Ovine | ||||||||||
| C10:0 | 0.47 ± 0.03 | 0.42 ± 0.02 | 0.57 ± 0.01 | 0.62 ± 0.04 | 0.07 ± 0.05 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.34 ± 0.04 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | ||
| C12:0 | 0.21 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | ND | 0.15 ± 0.04 | 0.11 ± 0.06 | ||
| C14:0 | 0.65 ± 0.02 | 0.55 ± 0.04 | 0.43 ± 0.02 | 0.42 ± 0.02 | 3.19 ± 0.02 | 2.98 ± 0.03 | 1.42 ± 0.06 | 1.33 ± 0.06 | ||
| C16:0 | 19.67 ± 0.9 | 19.72 ± 0.7 | 30.64 ± 0.9 | 30.66 ± 0.8 | 24.61 ± 0.7 | 24.55 ± 0.7 | 26.42 ± 0.8 | 26.22 ± 0.5 | * | |
| C17:0 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.1 ± 0.01 | ||
| C18:0 | 29.80 ± 0.7 | 29.02 ± 0.4 | 29.26 ± 0.5 | 29.30 ± 0.6 | 31.1 ± 0.5 | 30.45 ± 0.7 | 29.2 ± 0.6 | 28.62 ± 0.9 | * | |
| C21:0 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||
| C22:0 | 0.77 ± 0.02 | 0.64 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.02 | 0.72 ± 0.02 | 0.75 ± 0.02 | * | |
| Total | 51.73 | 50.72 | 61.25 | 61.32 | 59.61 | 58.66 | 58.25 | 57.35 | ||
| Porcine | ||||||||||
| Monounsaturated fatty acids | C16:1 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | |
| C18:1 | 19.08 ± 0.12 | 21.43 ± 0.15 | 27.94 ± 0.16 | 27.88 ± 0.17 | 26.42 ± 0.16 | 26.38 ± 0.16 | 25.21 ± 0.12 | 25.11 ± 0.13 | ||
| C20:1 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||
| C24:1 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||
| Total | 19.08 | 21.43 | 27.94 | 27.88 | 26.42 | 26.38 | 25.21 | 25.11 | ||
| Ovine | ||||||||||
| C16:1 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||
| C18:1 | 19.23 ± 0.15 | 19.53 ± 0.15 | 17.86 | 17.05 ± 0.16 | 19.77 ± 0.17 | 19.57 ± 0.18 | 24.55 ± 0.17 | 24.76 ± 0.11 | ||
| C20:1 | 0.87 ± 0.04 | 0.73 ± 0.06 | 0.75 ± 0.02 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.02 | ||
| C24:1 | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 0.98 ± 0.03 | 0.63 ± 0.02 | 0.53 ± 0.04 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 0.42 ± 0.01 | 0.30 ± 0.04 | 0.25 ± 0.04 | ||
| Total | 21.06 | 21.24 | 19.24 | 18.03 | 20.48 | 20.24 | 25.2 | 25.33 | ||
| Porcine | ||||||||||
| Polyunsaturated fatty acids | C18:2n6c | 19.38 ± 0.05 | 19.35 ± 0.08 | 12.27 ± 0.09 | 13.08 ± 0.02 | 14.05 ± 0.08 | 14.09 ± 0.04 | 10.81 ± 0.02 | 10.88 ± 0.03 | * |
| C18:3n6 | 0.73 ± 0.03 | 0.75 ± 0.06 | 0.55 ± 0.06 | 0.66 ± 0.03 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 2.07 ± 0.02 | 2.09 ± 0.01 | * | |
| C18:3n3 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.32 ± 0.03 | 0.21 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | * | |
| C20:3n3 | 1.30 ± 0.03 | 1.10 ± 0.06 | 0.76 ± 0.05 | 0.78 ± 0.05 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.03 | 0.70 ± 0.05 | * | |
| C22:4n6 | 0.85 ± 0.03 | 0.78 ± 0.06 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.34 ± 0.03 | 1.84 ± 0.03 | 1.86 ± 0.05 | ||
| C20:5n3 | 1.14 ± 0.06 | 1.18 ± 0.02 | 0.40 ± 0.02 | 0.42 ± 0.05 | 0.61 ± 0.01 | 0.76 ± 0.03 | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | * | |
| C22:6n3 | 0.52 ± 0.03 | 0.64 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 0.25 ± 0.03 | * | |
| Omega 6 | 20.97 ± 0.5 | 21.21 ± 0.6 | 13.60 ± 0.23 | 13.96 ± 0.21 | 14.66± 0.21 | 15.6 ± 0.12 | 14.73 ± 0.12 | 14.83 ± 0.13 | ||
| Omega 3 | 3.22 ± 0.05 | 4.22 ± 0.08 | 1.37 ± 0.03 | 1.06 ± 0.02 | 0.92 ± 0.02 | 1.07 ± 0.02 | 1.10 ± 0.02 | 1.19 ± 0.06 | ||
| Omega 6/Omega 3 | 6.50 | 5.03 | 9.94 | 13.13 | 15.91 | 14.58 | 13.39 | 12.46 | ||
| Total | 24.19 | 25.43 | 14.97 | 15.02 | 15.58 | 16.67 | 15.83 | 16.02 | ||
| Ovine | ||||||||||
| C18:2n6c | 17.85 ± 0.12 | 18.01 ± 0.14 | 13.08 ± 0.16 | 14.23 ± 0.18 | 14.40 ± 0.12 | 15.01 ± 0.12 | 12.34 ± 0.14 | 12.89 ± 0.16 | * | |
| C18:3n6 | 1.27 ± 0.02 | 1.34 ± 0.07 | 1.99 ± 0.05 | 2.02 ± 0.05 | 0.74 ± 0.02 | 0.85 ± 0.06 | 1.02 ± 0.03 | 1.05 ± 0.05 | * | |
| C18:3n3 | 2.30 ± 0.05 | 2.39 ± 0.07 | 2.09 ± 0.05 | 1.89 ± 0.05 | 0.74 ± 0.05 | 0.78 ± 0.07 | 1.06 ± 0.02 | 1.23 ± 0.02 | * | |
| C20:3n3 | 2.13 ± 0.05 | 2.20 ± 0.05 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.05 | 0.54 ± 0.07 | 0.55 ± 0.07 | 0.34 ± 0.05 | 0.33 ± 0.05 | * | |
| C22:4n6 | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.53 ± 0.02 | 0.58 ± 0.03 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.03 | ||
| C20:5n3 | 0.88 ± 0.08 | 0.90 ± 0.01 | 0.72 ± 0.07 | 0.68 ± 0.02 | 0.56 ± 0.01 | 0.7 ± 0.01 | 0.43 ± 0.02 | 0.65 ± 0.02 | * | |
| C22:6n3 | 1.68 ± 0.05 | 1.79 ± 0.05 | 1.03 ± 0.03 | 1.23 ± 0.02 | 0.50 ± 0.02 | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.91 ± 0.05 | 0.89 ± 0.03 | * | |
| Omega 6 | 20.12 ± 0.15 | 20.35 ± 0.17 | 15.08 ± 0 ± 0.12 | 16.25 ± 0.06 | 15.67 ± 0.13 | 16.44 ± 0.16 | 13.81 ± 0.19 | 14.12 ± 0.18 | ||
| Omega 3 | 6.99 ± 0.05 | 7.68 ± 0.05 | 4.43 ± 0.06 | 4.47 ± 0.03 | 4.33 ± 0.05 | 4.71 ± 0.06 | 2.74 ± 0.03 | 3.10 ± 0.01 | ||
| Omega 6/Omega 3 | 2.88 | 2.65 | 3.40 | 3.64 | 3.62 | 3.49 | 5.04 | 4.55 | ||
| Total | 27.11 | 28.03 | 19.51 | 20.72 | 20 | 21.15 | 16.55 | 17.32 | ||
Sp., species effect between ovine and porcine meat by-products; p > 0.05; * p < 0.05. ND, not detected.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Juknienė, I.; Zaborskienė, G.; Jankauskienė, A.; Kabašinskienė, A.; Zakarienė, G.; Bliznikas, S. Effect of Lyophilization Process on Nutritional Value of Meat By-Products. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12984. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412984
AMA Style
Juknienė I, Zaborskienė G, Jankauskienė A, Kabašinskienė A, Zakarienė G, Bliznikas S. Effect of Lyophilization Process on Nutritional Value of Meat By-Products. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(24):12984. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412984
Chicago/Turabian StyleJuknienė, Ignė, Gintarė Zaborskienė, Agnė Jankauskienė, Aistė Kabašinskienė, Gintarė Zakarienė, and Saulius Bliznikas. 2022. "Effect of Lyophilization Process on Nutritional Value of Meat By-Products" Applied Sciences 12, no. 24: 12984. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412984
APA StyleJuknienė, I., Zaborskienė, G., Jankauskienė, A., Kabašinskienė, A., Zakarienė, G., & Bliznikas, S. (2022). Effect of Lyophilization Process on Nutritional Value of Meat By-Products. Applied Sciences, 12(24), 12984. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412984
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
