+49 30 838 62550
The quantity of foamed substance resulting from the production technology in formed meat produced from pork muscle tissue is directly connected to the intensity of mechanical processing. Therefore this muscular destruction constitutes an important quality factor In the assessment of formed meat products made of pork from the point of view of food legislation. It was the task of the present investigation to verify the transferability of the assessment criterion used for pork to poultry muscle tissue. The investigation led to the following results.1. Chicken muscle tissue is not as resistant to the pre-grinding process normally used in the preparation of samples for histological examination as is pork muscle tissue.2. Chicken muscle tissue changes its microscopic structure through partial disintegration of myofibrils during heating to a much greater extent than pork muscle tissue.3. In the case of pork muscle tissue, the activated mass exhibits a froth honeycomb-like structure. The chicken muscle tissue used in the experiment had a compact granular structure. Foam like substance however was detected in formed chicken meat products available on the market.4. Increasing the time of tumbling causes a much higher degree of destruction of the chicken muscle tissue than for pork, also when viewed macroscopically.5. In both pork and chicken muscle tissue, mechanical treatment increases the disintegration of the cores.The conclusions to be drawn from the histological results for the examinations of formed meat products from the point of view of food legislation are the following:Microscopic examination of histological slices of heated pork products allows a clear distinction to be made between the foamed substances, due to their typical form, and other structures; these foamed substances are thus quantifiable in terms of the German codex alimentarius . Neither pre-grinding during sample preparation nor heating produce substantial changes in the histological characteristics. In chicken meat, heating, pre-grinding and tumbling produce similar structural damage, appearing in the form of an amorphous granular mass. The compactmaterial resulting from tumbling can thus not be differentiated Prom the altered structures resulting from heating and/or pre-grinding. Furthermore, the tissue destruction resulting from even light mechanical or thermal treatment reaches such a degree that the maximum limit of 10% set by the German codex alimentarius (Lebensmittelbuch) is consistenly exceeded - disregarding the fact that foamed substance can not be clearly identified in most instances.