Sabofa FlavorJet Report

www.sabofa.com - info@sabofa.com

Study of the influence of adding
fluids to Chicken Products by means of the
‘FlavorJet- system’

Sabofa BV – Galvanistraat 1 – 6716 AE – Ede – The Netherlands – tel. +31 318 591 356


Index

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Experimental Design ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Legislation ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Research Set-Up ........................................................................................................................... 6
3. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Microbiologic ................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.2 Results ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Sensory............................................................................................................................................ 21
3.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.3 Weight and Drip Loss-Loss ......................................................................................................... 30
3.3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.3.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 34
4. Final Conclusions and Recommandations ........................................................................................ 35

2


Summary
This company has had the possibility to test the “FlavorJet” needle-free injection system in a
production environment. By means of this injection system is it possible to add, under high pressure,
water, flavours and/or adjuvant to meat to obtain, amongst others, more tender products.
The purpose of this study is to be able to assess the influence of the needle-free injection technology
on the product features and the microbiological sustainability of chicken products.

For this study the legislation regarding injection of chicken products is important. Adding water to
fresh, raw meat is not prohibited. However, it is required that the denotation on the label of the fresh,
raw meat will be supplemented with the word “water”. When injecting meat that is marketed as
prepared meat the injected ingredients must be stated on the ingredients declaration label. The
ingredient water can be classified as not being present as long as it is 5% or less of the total quantity
of the product.
The needle free injection technology is applied to the following products: whole chicken, chicken
breast filet, chicken wings and chicken legs.
An injection fluid, based on water, salt and adjuvant is added to these products.
The 4 different product types are injected with 5% and 10% injection fluid. Also, products of the same
batch are stored as non-injected reference material.
In order to see what the influence of the needle-free technology that are seasoned or marinated, the 4
injected product types will be further prepared as follows:
- After injection, packing on tray; these are called natural products
- After injection, seasoning, then packing on tray; these are called seasoned products
- After injection, marinating, then packing on tray; these are called marinated products

When looking at the microbiological results it can be seen that the general bacterial count, the yeasts
and the enterobacteria increase when injected. In particular with the amount of kve/g enterobacteria
this increase can clearly be seen for the natural products. However, this increase is not exceeding the
quality standards of this company. A well monitored needle-free injection process with good quality
ingredients does not influence the standards for shelf life set by this company. When injecting and
seasoning, the increase is less; spices have a lower initial bacterial count and negatively influence the
circumstances for bacterial growth. This is not so much the case for marinades.

A Test Panel has been put together to test the sensory effects of the needle-free injection.
The preference of the panel members for natural chicken filets, chicken legs, whole chicken and
chicken wings goes to products injected with 5% and 10% injection fluid. W ith grilled chicken filets is
their preference for non-injected filets. This is because they find the chicken filets too salty. This is just
a matter of changing the formula of the injection fluid. The panel members find the filets more tender.
The preference of the panel members with seasoned products is always for the injected products.
They find these products more tender.

On the basis of the sensory results the conclusion is that the needle-free injection of chicken parts
gives more taste and more tenderness to the products. These products are judged to have a better
quality. This is in particular the case with the 5% injected products.
It is recommended not to inject chicken products natural. When natural products are injected, it is
required by law to state on the product label below the product name that this product contains water.
The percentage of water is not relevant in this case. Also, there is more bacterial growth with injected
natural products.
Bacterial growth is less with seasoned products and, in a lesser way, with marinated products. The
marinade is sliding a little bit of the injected products. This can be adjusted by using marinades with a
higher viscosity.

More drip loss in the package can be seen as a negative by the consumer. In particular with injected
wings and legs there is more drip loss in the packages. This makes these products less suitable for
injection. However, this can be overcome by using a absorbing pad in the packages. Another
possibility is to add a water binding adjuvant that does not require declaration on the ingredients label.

3


Chicken filets and whole chicken retain the injected fluids very well and the injected products are
judged as tender and delicious. It is recommended that seasoned or marinated products are injected
first by this needle-free injection method.
Also the injected and then grilled products are judged “very good” by the test panel. The consumer will
experience injected chicken products as less dry and more tender. Also these products are eligible for
the needle-free injection method. It is important to match the injection fluids and the seasoning to avoid
a salty taste.

It is recommended to invest in a FlavorJet needle-free injection system and start with 5% injection
fluid. In case the water percentage stays below 5% of the end product the ingredient water does not
need to be declared.

4


1. Introduction

This company has had the possibility to test the “FlavorJet” needle-free injection system in a
production environment. By means of this injection system is it possible to add, under high pressure,
water, flavours and/or adjuvant to meat to obtain, amongst others, more tender products.
The purpose of this study is to be able to assess the influence of the needle-free injection technology
on the product features and the microbiological sustainability of chicken products.
.

5


2. Experimental Design

2.1 Legislation
For this study legislation regarding the injection of chicken products is important. European legislation
regarding the addition of water and water-containing substances in meat make a clear distinction
between fresh, raw meat on one hand and prepared meat on the other hand. Adding water to fresh,
raw meat is not prohibited. However, it is required that the denotation on the label of fresh, raw meat
will be supplemented with the word “water. On the package with chicken filets with added water it is
the also required to enter a list of ingredients and mention the percentage of added water. In case
other, for the consumer important, ingredients are added, then it is also required to declare these
ingredients and the percentages of each ingredient.
When injecting meat that is marketed as prepared meat the injected ingredients must be stated on the
ingredients declaration label. The ingredient water can be classified as not being present as long as it
is 5% or less of the total quantity of the product.
On the basis of the legislation, this study will focus on influence of needle-free injection on prepared
meat and not so much on fresh, raw meat.

2.2 Research Set-Up
The FlavorJet technology of needle-free injection of water, flavours and adjuvant is applied to the
following products:
- whole chicken
- chicken filets
- chicken wings
- chicken legs

To these products an injection fluid is added on the basis of water, salt and adjuvant. These 4 product
types are injected with 5% and 10% injection fluid. Also, products of the same batch are stored as non-
injected reference material.

In order to see what the influence of the needle-free technology that are seasoned or marinated, the 4
injected product types will be further prepared as follows:
- After injection, packing on tray; these are called natural products
- After injection, seasoning, then packing on tray; these are called seasoned products
- After injection, marinating, then packing on tray; these are called marinated products

Weight
An important aspect of this study is the increase and/or decrease of the weight of the products after
injection and during the shelf-life period. The products will be weighed before injection, after injection
and then daily during the shelf-life period. There are 10 products per each of the 4 different product
types and per each of the 3 different ways of preparation. This means 120 packages of products
injected with 5% injection fluid and 120 packages of products injected with 10% injection fluid.

Organoleptic
In order to assess the influence of the FlavorJet needle-free injection technology on the product
features it is important to judge the injected products daily by colour and scent.
On the first day after injection and on the last day of the shelf-life period the products are judged by
taste, tenderness and meat structure. There are 5 products per each of the 4 different product types
and per each of the 3 different ways of preparation. This means 60 packages of products injected with
5% injection fluid and 60 packages of products injected with 10% injection fluid.

Microbiological Sustainability
In order to assess the influence of the FlavorJet needle-free injection technology 1 product per product
type will immediately after injection and at the end of the shelf-life period direct be analyzed for:
o General Bacterial Growth
o Yeasts and Molds
o Enterobacteria

6


There are 2 products per each of the 4 different product types and per each of the 3 different ways of
preparation. This means 24 packages of products injected with 5% injection fluid and 24 packages of
products injected with 10% injection fluid.

Grill Products
Products loose water during the process of grilling. It is possible to inject these products before grilling.
The products whole chicken, chicken filets, chicken legs and chicken wings will be injected with 5%,
10%, 15% and 20% injection fluid. There will be an organoleptic assessment during the shelf-life
period.

For the assessment of the results the following assumptions/facts are important:
 this study is indicative and is not based on any scientific research
 the assessment of whole chicken grilled has not taken place because these products were
destroyed before the end of the shelf-life period

7


3. Results

3.1 Microbiologic

3.1.1 Introduction
The FlavorJet needle-free injection system has been examined for positive or negative influences on
the microbiological shelf-life of the chicken products. 4 product types have been injected:
- chicken legs
- chicken filets
- whole chicken
- chicken wings

These products have been non-injected (=0%), and injected with 5% and 10% injection fluid. Then
they are kept as natural or seasoned or marinated. After this they were packed on tray. Each product
type has been analyzed in duplicate at the end of the shelf-life period for:
- general bacterial count
- yeasts and molds
- enterobacteria

3.1.2 Results
The end results of the microbiological analysis are displayed graphically here below. The results of
the analysis for the determination of the general bacterial count, the yeasts and the enterobacteria are
shown. The results for the molds do not show any deviation with regard to the various percentages of
injection fluid.

General bacterial count
The standard for the general bacterial count is set at 7,0 Log, 10.000.000 kve/g.
None of the performed analyses show results that exceed the standard of 7,0 log, 10.000.000 kve/g for
the general bacterial count.

Avg. gen. count chicken legs at end shelf-life

7,00
6,00
gen. count (log)

5,00
natural
4,00
seasoned
3,00
marinated
2,00
1,00
0,00
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 1. Average general bacterial count (log) chicken legs at end of shelf-life period

The average general bacterial count of chicken legs at the end of the shelf-life period, 12 days after
date of kill, is shown in figure 1 and table 1. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the results of
the average values are calculated. Figure 1 shows that the general bacterial count of the natural
products is higher than that of the seasoned and marinated products. This appears to be true for all of

8


the 4 product types. Seasonings and, to a lesser extent, marinates slow down the bacterial growth.
Also is the initial bacterial count of seasonings and marinates lower than that of chicken products.
It is possible that adding water and ingredients through injection increases the general bacterial count
of chicken products.

Avg. Gen.
Product % Injection Fluid Bact. Count Avg. Gen. Count in Log
0 7.000 3,85
Chicken Legs
5 38.000 4,58
natural
10 121.000 5,08
0 8.500 3,93
Chicken Legs
5 7.500 3,88
seasoned
10 7.000 3,85
0 1.500 3,18
Chicken Legs
5 2.500 3,40
marinated
10 14.000 4,15
Table 1. Average general bacterial count in chicken legs at end of shelf-life period

Table 1 shows that the general bacterial count higher is in injected chicken legs natural and marinated.
However, figure 1 shows that the difference is close to zero. It is therefore not conclusive if the slight
raise is caused by the injection process and/or by the injection fluid (water + ingredients).

Avg. gen. count chicken filets at end shelf-life

7,00
6,00
gen. count (log)

5,00
natural
4,00
seasoned
3,00
marinated
2,00
1,00
0,00
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 2. Average general bacterial count (log) chicken filets at end of shelf-life period

The average general bacterial count of chicken filets at the end of the shelf-life period, 12 days after
the average values are calculated. The average general bacterial count in chicken filets is slightly
higher than that in chicken legs.

9


Avg. Gen.
Chicken 0 33.500 4,53
Filets 5 978.000 5,99
natural 10 117.500 5,07
Chicken 0 30.000 4,48
Filets 5 24.000 4,38
seasoned 10 26.500 4,42
Chicken 0 24.000 4,38
Filets 5 35.000 4,54
marinated 10 86.000 4,93
Table 2.Average general bacterial count in chicken filets at end of shelf-life period

Table 2 shows that the general bacterial count higher is in injected chicken legs natural and marinated.
However, figure 2 shows that the difference is close to zero. It is therefore not conclusive if the slight
raise is caused by the injection process and/or by the injection fluid (water + ingredients).

Avg. gen. count whole chicken at end shelf-life

7,00
6,00
gen. count (log)

5,00
natural
4,00
seasoned
3,00
marinated
2,00
1,00
0,00
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 3. Average general bacterial count (log) whole chicken at end of shelf-life period

The average general bacterial count of whole chicken at the end of the shelf-life period, 12 days after
the average values are calculated. The average count in whole chicken natural is higher than that of
whole chicken seasoned or marinated. However the difference is close to zero. Also the differences
between not injected and injected with 5% or 10% fluid are close to zero.

10


Avg. Gen.
Whole 0 19.500 4,29
Chicken 5 83.500 4,92
natural 10 53.500 4,73
Whole 0 19.500 4,29
Chicken 5 12.000 4,08
seasoned 10 25.000 4,40
Whole 0 31.500 4,50
Chicken 5 34.000 4,53
Marinated 10 4.500 3,65
Table 3. Average general bacterial count (log) in whole chicken at end of shelf-life period

Table 3 shows that the differences in average general bacterial count are small. At the end of the
shelf-life period is the average count below 100.000 kve/g. This is very low for whole chicken at the
end of the shelf-life period.

Avg. gen. count chicken wings at end shelf-life

7,00
6,00
gen. count (log)

5,00
natural
4,00
seasoned
3,00
marinated
2,00
1,00
0,00
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 4. Average general bacterial count (log) in chicken wings at end of shelf-life period

The average general bacterial count of chicken wings at the end of the shelf-life period, 12 days after
the average values are calculated. The average count of chicken wings natural and chicken wings
marinated is higher than that in chicken wings seasoned. Spices can slow the growth of micro-
organisms; therefore it is possible that the average general count is lower in chicken wings seasoned.
It appears from the sensory tests and the Drip Loss percentage that chicken wings, injected as well as
non-injected, are drier at the end of the shelf-life period and there is more fluid in the package. Micro-
organisms can grow better because of the released fluids. This is the reason why the average general
bacterial count in chicken wings is higher than that of the other 3 product types. A slight raise of the
average general count is shown in injected products; this is possibly caused by the presence of more
released fluids.

11


Avg. Gen.
0 800.000 5,90
Chicken Wings
5 2.150.000 6,33
natural
10 1.650.000 6,22
0 1.225.000 6,09
Chicken Wings
5 71.500 4,85
seasoned
10 16.500 4,22
0 395.000 5,60
Chicken Wings
5 865.000 5,94
marinated
10 3.810.000 6,58
Table 4. Average general bacterial count (log) in chicken wings at end of shelf-life period

Table 4 shows that the average general bacterial count in chicken wings is higher than that in whole
chicken, chicken filets and chicken legs that have been analyzed for this study. This higher average
general count shows a slight raise after injection. Chicken wings seasoned are the exception to this. It
is likely that the spices bind the released fluid and there is less fluid available for the micro-organisms.
This means less growth of micro-organisms during the shelf-life period.

Yeasts and molds
The results of this study show that needle-free injection, seasoning and/or marinating have no
influence on content of molds. Therefore these results are not graphically displayed. This is not the
case for yeasts. The results for yeasts are shown in the figures and tables below.

Avg. yeast content chicken legs at end shelf-life

1.800
1.600
1.400
kve/g yeasts

1.200 natural
1.000
seasoned
800
600 marinated
400
200
0
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 5. Average yeast content (kve/g) chicken legs at end of shelf-life period

The average yeast content in kve/g of chicken legs at the end of the shelf-life period, 12 days after
the average values are calculated. Figure 5 shows that in chicken legs natural the yeast content
increases with 5% and 10% injection fluid. This is also the case for chicken legs marinated.

12


Product % Injection Fluid Avg. Yeasts (kve/g)
0 245
Chicken Legs
5 495
natural
10 1.040
0 265
Chicken Legs
5 115
seasoned
10 110
0 30
Chicken Legs
5 50
marinated
10 370
Table 5. Average yeast content (kve/g) in chicken legs at end of shelf-life period

Table 5 shows that the yeast content of chicken legs seasoned is not increasing after needle-free
injection. Chicken legs natural and chicken legs marinated show an increase.

Avg. yeast content chicken filets at end shelf-life

1.800
1.600
1.400
kve/g yeasts

1.200 natural
1.000
seasoned
800
600 marinated
400
200
0
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 6. Average yeast content (kve/g) chicken filets at end of shelf-life period

The average yeast content in kve/g of chicken filets at the end of the shelf-life period, 12 days after
the average values are calculated. Figure 6 shows that in chicken filets natural the yeast content
increases with 5% and 10% injection fluid.

13


Chicken 0 780
Filet 5 930
natural 10 940
Chicken 0 265
Filet 5 160
seasoned 10 270
Chicken 0 1.040
Filet 5 555
marinated 10 1.685
Table 6. Average yeast content (kve/g) in chicken filets at end of shelf-life period

Table 5 shows that the yeast content of chicken filets seasoned is not increasing after needle-free
injection. Chicken legs natural and chicken legs marinated show an increase at 10% injection fluid.

Avg. yeast content whole chicken at end shelf-life

1.800
1.600
1.400
kve/g yeasts

1.200 natural
1.000
seasoned
800
600 marinated
400
200
0
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 7. Average yeast content (kve/g) whole chicken at end of shelf-life period

The average yeast content in kve/g of whole chicken at the end of the shelf-life period, 12 days after
the average values are calculated. Figure 7 shows that in whole chicken natural the yeast content
increases with 5% and 10% injection fluid. It also shows that the yeast content is lower in whole
chicken seasoned and in whole chicken marinated.

14


Product % Injection Fluid Avg. yeasts (kve/g)
Whole 0 125
Chicken 5 645
natural 10 375
Whole 0 70
Chicken 5 60
seasoned 10 135
Whole 0 95
Chicken 5 110
marinated 10 30
Table 7. Average yeast content (kve/g) whole chicken at end of shelf-life period

Table 5, 6, 7 en 8 show that the average yeast content in whole chicken is lower than that in chicken
legs, chicken filets and chicken wings.

Avg. yeast content chicken wings at end shelf-life

12.000

10.000
kve/g yeasts

8.000 natural
6.000 seasoned

4.000 marinated

2.000

0
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 8. Average yeast content (kve/g) chicken wings at end of shelf-life period

The average yeast content in kve/g of chicken wings at the end of the shelf-life period, 12 days after
the average values are calculated. The scale in figure 8 is different because the results of the average
yeast content in chicken wings are higher than the results for chicken legs, chicken filets and whole
chicken. Figure 8 also shows that the average yeast content in chicken wings natural is higher than
that in chicken wings seasoned and chicken wings marinated.

15


0 9.650
Chicken Wings 5 9.850
natural 10 10.400
0 3.240
Chicken Wings 5 400
seasoned 10 120
0 2.950
Chicken Wings 5 380
marinated 10 4.180
Table 8. Average yeast content (kve/g) chicken wings at end of shelf-life period

Table 8 shows an increase of the yeast content in injected chicken wings natural. This increase is not
shown for chicken wings seasoned and chicken wings marinated.

Enterobacteria
It is important to analyze the number of kve/g enterobacteria because an increase can be caused by
process conditions. This is an indicator for the hygienic level of processing. Since needle-free injecting
is an extra process step and this process step is executed in a study environment it is possible that
there will be an increase in the number of kve/g enterobacteria.

Avg. kve/g enterobacteria chicken legs
end shelf-life
2.800
2.400
kve/g entero's

2.000
natural
1.600
seasoned
1.200
marinated
800
400
0
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 9. Average enterobacteria (kve/g) in chicken legs at end of shelf-life period

The average number of enterobacteria in kve/g in chicken legs at the end of the shelf-life period, 12
days after date of kill, is shown in figure 9 and table 9. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the
results of the average values are calculated. Figure 9 shows that in chicken legs natural the number of
enterobacteria is much higher than in chicken legs seasoned and chicken legs marinated.

16


Product % Injection Fluid Avg. Enterobacteria (kve/g)
Chicken Legs 0 315
natural 5 515
10 910
0 90
Chicken Legs 5 60
seasoned 10 55
0 30
Chicken Legs 5 30
marinated 10 120
Table 9. Average enterobacteria (kve/g) in chicken legs at end of shelf-life period

Table 9 shows that the number of enterobacteria in chicken legs increases after injection. This
increase is not shown foe chicken legs seasoned and chicken legs marinated.

Avg. kve/g enterobacteria chicken filets end shelf-life

60.000

50.000
kve/g entero's

40.000 natural
30.000 seasoned
20.000 marinated

10.000

0
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 10. Average enterobacteria (kve/g) in chicken filets at end of shelf-life period

The average number of enterobacteria in kve/g in chicken filets at the end of the shelf-life period, 12
days after date of kill, is shown in figure 10 and table 10. The analyses are executed in duplicate and
the results of the average values are calculated. The scale in figure 10 is different from figure 9 and 11
because the higher number of enterobacteria in chicken filets. Figure 10 shows that in chicken filets
natural the number of enterobacteria is much higher than that in chicken filets seasoned and chicken
filets marinated.

17


Chicken 0 2.400
Filets 5 17.500
natural 10 39.310
Chicken 0 305
Filets 5 115
seasoned 10 105
Chicken 0 1.655
Filets 5 810
marinated 10 1.675
Table 10. Average enterobacteria (kve/g) in chicken filets at end of shelf-life period

Table 10 shows that in chicken filets natural the number of enterobacteria is increasing after injection.
This increase is not shown for chicken filets seasoned and chicken filets marinated.

Avg. kve/g enterobacteria whole chicken end shelf-life

2.800
2.400
kve/g entero's

2.000
natural
1.600
seasoned
1.200
marinated
800
400
0
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 11. Average enterobacteria (kve/g) in whole chicken at end of shelf-life period

The average number of enterobacteria in kve/g in whole chicken at the end of the shelf-life period, 12
the results of the average values are calculated. The scale in figure 11 is different from figure 10 and
12 because the number of enterobacteria in whole chicken is lower. Figure 11 shows that in whole
chicken natural the number of enterobacteria is higher than in whole chicken seasoned and marinated.
Whole chicken natural injected with 5% injection fluid shows an exceptional value; this is probably
caused by a non-hygienic action during the injection or packing process.

18


0 150
Whole 5 2.745
Chicken
natural 10 770
Whole 0 70
Chicken 5 135
seasoned 10 455
Whole 0 30
Chicken 5 460
marinated 10 185
Table 11. Average enterobacteria (kve/g) in whole chicken at end of shelf-life period

Table 11 shows that in whole chicken natural and whole chicken seasoned the number of
enterobacteria increases after injecting. This is, to a lesser extent, also the case with whole chicken
marinated.

Avg. kve/g enterobacteria chicken wings
end shelf-life
60.000
50.000
kve/g entero's

40.000
natural
30.000 seasoned

20.000 marinated

10.000
0
0 5 10
% inj. fluid

Figure 12. Average enterobacteria (kve/g) in chicken wings at end of shelf-life period

The average number of enterobacteria in kve/g in chicken wings at the end of the shelf-life period, 12
the results of the average values are calculated. The scale is this figure is different from figure 9 and
11 because the number of enterobacteria in chicken wings is higher. Figure 12 shows that in chicken
wings natural the number of enterobacteria is higher than in chicken wings seasoned and chicken
wings marinated.

19


0 57.500
Chicken Wings
5 17.000
natural
10 38.000
0 1.075
Chicken Wings
5 100
seasoned
10 30
0 18.500
Chicken Wings
5 13.250
marinated
10 10.400
Table 12. Average enterobacteria (kve/g) in chicken wings at end of shelf-life period

Table 12 does not show a clear increase of the number of enterobacteria in chicken wings after
injection. This is the case for chicken wings natural as well as for chicken wings seasoned and chicken
wings marinated. It appears that the number of kve/g enterobacteria is already high before the chicken
wings are injected. This can be because of a low quality of the incoming material or it can be caused
by the Drip Loss effect of the chicken wings and the availability of released fluids for the growth of
micro-organisms.

3.1.3 Conclusion
The results of this study show that for chicken products natural the general bacterial count, the yeasts
and the enterobacteria increase after injection. Especially the increase in the number of kve/g
enterobacteria in chicken products natural is clearly shown. However, the values do not exceed the
quality standards set by this company. Good quality incoming products and a well controlled injection
process will not negatively influence the standards set for shelf-life.
The increase is less for chicken products seasoned; spices have a lower initial bacterial count and
create less favorable circumstances for microbiological growth.
This is, to a lesser degree, also the case for marinates. This is why , in most cases, the microbiological
results are higher after marinating.
The microbiological results for chicken wings are higher than for chicken legs, whole chicken and
chicken filets. This can be because of a low quality of the incoming material or it can be caused by the
Drip Loss effect of the chicken wings and the availability of released fluids for the growth of micro-
organisms.

20


3.2 Sensory

3.2.1 Introduction
During the shelf-life period the sensory properties of each of the 4 product types (chicken legs, chicken
filets, whole chicken and chicken wings) is determined for the 3 different percentages of injection fluid
(0%, 5%, 10%).This is tested internally as well as externally by a team of experts.
The products are assessed for drip loss, colour and scent.
At the end of the shelf-life period is each product type prepared by the external panel in the same way
as would be done by the consumer. Then it is tested for sensory properties like taste, colour and
tenderness. The products are tested by the external panel at the end of the shelf-life period. These
packages are different; therefore the results of the assessments during and after the shelf-life period
can differ from each other.

3.2.2 Results
Sensory assessment during shelf-life period of raw chicken products.

Product: Chicken Products raw
Process Injection % Parameter During Shelf-Life End Shelf-Life
Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality
0 Colour Gray No Abnormality
Drip Loss Little Little
Chicken Legs
5 Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality
natural
Drip Loss Normal Little
Drip Loss Normal Much
0 Colour Pale No Abnormality
Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality
Chicken Legs 5
Drip Loss Product looks a Much
seasoned
little wet
Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality
10
Drip Loss Product looks a Much
little wet
Drip Loss Little Normal
Chicken Legs
marinated
Drip Loss Product looks wet Normal
Table 13. Assessment of raw chicken legs during the shelf-life period.

Table 13 shows the sensory assessment of chicken legs raw during and at the end of the shelf-life
period. No abnormalities were found regarding scent and colour. W ith injected chicken legs, especially
at 10% injection, more drip loss is shown during and at the end of the shelf-life period. This is also the
case for chicken legs seasoned and chicken legs marinated; chicken legs seasoned at 5% injection
fluid look a little wet.
21


Product: Chicken Legs after Preparation
Process % Parameter Result Preference
Exterior raw Little Moisture No Preference
0 Taste Good, Chicken Taste
Texture Dry/tough
Chicken Exterior raw More Moisture 3 of 5 panel members
Legs natural Taste Less Chicken Taste,
5
after Watery
Preparation Texture More Tender
Exterior raw Much Moisture 2 of 5 panel members
10 Taste Good, W atery
Texture Tender, Less texture
Table 14. Assessment of Chicken Legs after preparation

Table 14 shows the sensory assessment of chicken legs at the end of the shelf-life and after
preparation (cooking). The products are judged in raw condition for exterior and for taste and texture
after preparation. The injected chicken legs have a little more drip loss; this can be found in the
package. The injected chicken legs have, according to the test panel, a little less chicken taste, but
they are more tender then non-injected chicken legs. Three out of five test panel members prefer the
chicken legs with 5% injection fluid and two out of five test panel members prefer the chicken legs with
10% injection fluid. So all members of the test panel prefer injected chicken legs over non-injected
chicken legs. One of the reasons is that this assessment is for chicken legs natural. The injection fluid
contains, amongst other ingredients, salt which gives the natural products more taste.
However, the preference is determined by the tenderness.

Product: Chicken Filets raw
Process % injection Parameter During Shelf-Life End Shelf-Life
Scent No Abnormality Zurig
0 Colour Not fresh No Abnormality
Drip Loss Little Normaal
Chicken Filet
natural
Drip Loss Normal Normal
Chicken Filet
seasoned
0 Colour Not so fresh No Abnormality
Chicken Filet
marinated
Drip Loss Little Much
Table 15. Assessment of Chicken Filets raw during the Shelf-life period
22


Table 15 shows the sensory assessment of chicken legs raw during and at the end of the shelf-life
period. No abnormalities were found regarding scent. The colour of chicken filets natural and chicken
filets marinated, non-injected as well as injected, are regarded as less fresh. This is possibly caused
by the raw material. Chicken filet natural and chicken filet seasoned show little drip loss at 0%, 5% and
10%. This shows that the chicken filets retain the injection fluid well. Chicken filets marinated show
more moist and marinade at the bottom of the package at the end of the shelf-life period. It seems that
there is more drip loss in the package but a large part of this is marinade. It is possible that the
marinade does not stick to the product as well after injection.

Product: Chicken Filet natural after Preparation
Process Parameter Result Preference
Exterior raw Little Moisture No Preference
0 Taste Good, less Taste
Texture Dry/tough
Chicken Exterior raw Little Moisture No Preference
Filet natural 5 Taste Less chicken taste, watery
after Texture Moist, falls apart
preparation Exterior raw Little Moisture 5 out of 5 test panel
members
10
Taste Nice, delicious
Texture Tender
Table 16. Assessment of Chicken Filets natural after preparation

Table 16 shows the sensory assessment of chicken filets at the end of the shelf-life and after
after preparation. Chicken filets injected with 5% and 10% fluid do not show more drip loss than non-
injected chicken filets. Chicken filets with 5% injection fluid have less chicken taste, according to the
test panel; chicken filets with 10% injection fluid are regarded as nice and delicious. Chicken filets
injected with 5% and 10% fluid are moister and more tender. Five out of five test panel members
prefer chicken filets injected with 10% fluid. This preference is based on tenderness and taste. One of
the reasons is that this assessment is for chicken filets natural. The injection fluid contains, amongst
other ingredients, salt which gives the natural products more taste.
However, the preference is also determined by the tenderness.

23


Product: Whole Chicken raw
0 Colour Light Pink No Abnormality
Whole Chicken
5 Colour Pink No Abnormality
natural
10 Colour Pink No Abnormality
Colour Pale, less No Abnormality
0
seasoned
Whole Chicken Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality
seasoned 5 Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality
Whole Chicken
marinated
Drip Loss Much Much
Drip Loss Much Much
Table 17. Assessment of Whole Chicken raw during the Shelf-life period

Table 17 shows the sensory assessment of whole chicken raw during and at the end of the shelf-life
period. No abnormalities were found regarding scent. There were no unacceptable abnormalities
ascertained in colour. However, the colour of whole chicken turns a little more pink after injection. This
is regarded as positive. At the end of the shelf-life period whole chicken show more drip loss after
injection with 5% or 10% fluid. This is even more with whole chicken marinated. This is a mixture of
marinade and injection fluid. It is possible that the marinade does not stick to the product as well after
injection.

24


Product: Whole Chicken after preparation
Exterior raw Little Moisture 1 out of 5 test panel
members
0
Taste Little Taste
Texture Dry/not tender
Whole Exterior raw More Moisture 4 out of 5 test panel
Chicken members
natural after 5 Taste Good Taste
preparation Texture Tender, Moist (3x)
(Very) Dry (2x)
Exterior raw Much Moisture No Preference
10 Taste Watery, little Chicken Taste
Texture Too Moist
Table 18. Assessment of Whole Chicken natural after preparation

Table 18 shows the sensory assessment of whole chicken at the end of the shelf-life and after
after preparation. Whole chicken injected with 5% and 10% fluid shows more drip loss than whole
chicken non-injected. Whole chicken injected with 5% fluid has a pleasant taste, according to the test
panel; whole chicken injected with 10% fluid is judged as too watery. Non-injected whole chicken is
rated dry. The opinions are divided regarding the whole chicken injected with 5% fluid. The difference
in opinion is probably caused by the fact that the outer part of the whole chicken is heated more
strongly than inner parts. The conclusion of the assessment is that whole chicken injected with 5% has
the best tenderness level. Four out of five test panel members prefer whole chicken injected with 5%
fluid. This is based on tenderness and taste. One of the reasons is that this assessment is for whole
chicken natural. The injection fluid contains, amongst other ingredients, salt which gives the natural
products more taste.

25


Product: Chicken Wings raw
0 Colour Not fresh, gray Pale
Chicken Wings
5 Colour Nice Pink No Abnormality
natural
10 Colour Nice Pink No Abnormality
Chicken Wings
seasoned
Drip Loss Much Much
Chicken Wings
marinated
Table 19. Assessment of Chicken Wings raw during the Shelf-life period

Table 19 shows the sensory assessment of chicken wings raw during and at the end of the shelf-life
period. No abnormalities were found regarding scent. There were no unacceptable abnormalities
ascertained in colour. However, the colour of chicken wings turns a little more pink after injection. This
is regarded as positive. At the end of the shelf-life period chicken wing natural and chicken wings
marinated, both injected with 5% and 10% fluid, do not show more drip loss; chicken wings seasoned
show more drip loss.

Product: Chicken Wings after preparation
Exterior raw Discoloured, Dry
0 Taste Little Taste
Texture Firm, little too dry
Chicken Wing Exterior raw More Volume 5 out of 5 test panel
natural after members
5
preparation Taste Pleasant, good Taste
(cooking) Texture Tender, Moist
Exterior raw Much More Volume
10 Taste Less Salty
Texture Too tender, W atery
Table 20. Assessment of Whole Chicken natural after preparation

26


Table 20 shows the sensory assessment of chicken wings at the end of the shelf-life and after
after preparation. Non-injected chicken wings are discoloured and dry. These show less volume.
Chicken wings injected with 5% fluid have a pleasant taste, according to the test panel; chicken wings
injected with 10% fluid are rated less salty. Non-injected chicken wings are rated dry and chicken
wings injected with 10% fluid are rated too watery. The tenderness of chicken wings injected with 5%
fluid is rated good. All members of the test panel prefer the chicken wings injected with 5% fluid. This
is based on tenderness and taste. One of the reasons is that this assessment is for chicken wings
natural. The injection fluid contains, amongst other ingredients, salt which gives the natural products
more taste.

Grilled Products
The grilled products are checked during the shelf-life period and do not show any abnormalities. One
of the reasons is that these products are heated and lost part of the injection fluid during heating. The
grilled products are assessed at the end of the shelf-life period. After preparation (heating) they have
been judged mainly for taste and tenderness.
Whole chicken has not been assessed. The products injected with 15% and 20% fluid and then grilled
have not been assessed because of a too high salt content. This is caused by the combination of
spices and a high percentage of injection fluid.

Product: Grilled Chicken Legs after preparation (heating)
Exterior grilled Good
Taste Chicken Taste (3x)
0 Less Taste (2x)
Texture (Very) Dry 1 out of 5 test panel
members
Grilled
Taste Pleasant Taste (3x)
Chicken Legs
5 Too Salty (2x)
after heating
Texture Little Dry, less dry than 3 out of 5 test panel
0% members
Taste Too Salty (4x) 1 out of 5 test panel
10
Less Salty (1x) members
Texture Very tender
Table 21. Assessment of Grilled Chicken Legs after preparation

Table 21 shows the sensory assessment of grilled chicken legs at the end of the shelf-life period after
preparation (heating). These products are judged for the exterior and after heating for taste and
texture. Non-injected chicken legs are rated dry after heating; chicken legs injected with 5% fluid are
rated more tender and have a pleasant taste. Two of the test panel members rate these as too salty,
probably because of the combination of spices and injection fluid. Chicken legs injected with 10% fluid
are rated very tender but too salty. The test panel has a clear preference for grilled chicken legs
injected with 5% fluid.

27


Product: Grilled Chicken Filets after preparation (heating)
Taste Spicy
0
Texture Good 5 out of 5 test panel
Grilled members
Chicken Exterior grilled Good
Filets after 5 Taste Too Salty
heating Texture Tender
10 Taste Too Salty
Texture Tender
Table 22. Assessment of Grilled Chicken Filets after preparation

Table 21 shows the sensory assessment of grilled chicken filets at the end of the shelf-life period after
preparation (heating). These products are judged for the exterior and after heating for taste and
texture. Non-injected grilled chicken filets have a good texture after heating. Grilled chicken filets with
5% and 10% injection fluid are rated more tender but too salty. This is because of the combination of
spices and injection fluid. Out of the four product groups chicken filets retain the injection fluid better
and therefore also the salt in the injection fluid. This is why the chicken filets taste too salty.

Product: Grilled Chicken Wings after preparation (heating)
0 Taste Good, little Taste
Texture Good
Grilled Taste Salty, Nice
5
Chicken Texture Tender 4 out of 5 test panel
Wings after members
heating Exterior grilled Good
Taste Too Salty (4x)
10 Nice (1x)
Texture Tender 1 out of 5 test panel
members
Table 23. Assessment of Grilled Chicken Wings after preparation

Table 23 shows the sensory assessment of grilled chicken wings at the end of the shelf-life period after
preparation (heating). These products are judged for the exterior and after heating for taste and texture.
Non-injected grilled chicken wings have a good taste and texture after heating. Grilled chicken wings
with 5% and 10% injection fluid are rated more tender but too salty. This is because of the combination
of spices and injection fluid. The test panel has a clear preference for grilled chicken legs injected with
5% fluid; these are more tender and have a better taste.

28


3.2.3 Conclusion

The conclusion based on the sensory assessment of the raw products is that there is more drip loss
shown in the packages with injected products during the shelf-life period. With products injected with
5% fluid this is mostly rated as acceptable (normal); with products injected with 10% fluid this is rated
as much. Marinated products show drip loss sooner because the marinade does not stick so well to
the product after injection.
The conclusion based on the sensory assessment of cooked products and grilled products is that the
products injected with 5% and 10% fluid are more tender. These products also have more taste.

The preference of the members of the test panel have a preference for chicken filets natural, chicken
legs natural, whole chicken natural and chicken wings natural injected with 5% and 10% fluid.
They prefer grilled chicken filets when they are not injected. This is because the salt content in the
injected grilled chicken filets. Injected grilled chicken filets are more tender but also more salty. This
can be corrected by changing the formula of the injection fluid.
The members of the test panel prefer all other grilled chicken products when they are injected, despite
the combination of grill spices and salt in the injection fluid. This is also because grilled chicken
products become drier when reheated; injected chicken products stay more tender.

29


3.3 Weight and Drip Loss

3.3.1 Introduction
In order to apply the process of needle-free injection it is important to control the percentage of
injection fluid in the end product as accurate as possible. This is particularly important for the labeling
of packaged products. At the end of the shelf-life period the percentage of drip loss has been
determined to find out to what extent the injected products retain the fluid.

3.3.2 Results

Set Up FlavorJet Average % Injection Fluid (50 products) Spread
5% 6,2 4,7%-8,3%
10% 11,1 8,7%-13,0%
15% 17,7 13,1-20,9%
Table 24.Average percentage and distribution of injection fluid in whole chicken after setting

Table 24 shows the average percentage of injection fluid in whole chicken after injection. It appears
that the average percentage is slightly higher than the set value. There is a spread of 4-6%. This study
shows that with the demo machine used for the tests it is not possible to inject 5%, 10% or 15%
exactly.

Avg. % Drip Loss Chicken Legs at end Shelf-Life

5
4,5
4
3,5
% Drip Loss

natural
3
2,5 seasoned
2 marinated
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 5 10
% Injection Fluid

Figure 13. Average percentage drip loss chicken legs in package at end shelf-life period

Figure 13 shows the average percentage drip loss in chicken legs at the end of the shelf-life period.
The drip loss increases at 5% and 10% injection fluid, mainly for natural and seasoned products. For
marinated products the drip loss is generally higher. However, this is not just injection fluid but also
marinade.

30


Chicken Legs % Injection Fluid % Drip Loss end Shelf-Life
0 0,9
Natural 5 1,2
10 2,4
0 1,2
Seasoned 5 3,2
10 3,5
0 2,1
Marinated 5 1,8
10 2,2
Table 25. Average percentage drip loss chicken legs in package at end shelf-life period

Table 25 shows that the Drip Loss in non-injected chicken legs varies from 0.9% to 2.1%. In chicken
legs injected with 5% fluid it varies from 1.2% to 3.2% and in chicken legs injected with 10% fluid it
varies from 2.2% to 3.5%.

Avg. % Drip Loss Chicken Filets end Shelf-Life

5
4,5
4
3,5
% Drip Loss

natural
3
2,5 seasoned
2 marinated
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 5 10
% Injection Fluid

Figure 14. Average percentage drip loss chicken filets in package at end shelf-life period

Figure 14 shows the average percentage drip loss in chicken filets at the end of the shelf-life period.
The percentage of drip loss does not increase at 5% and 10% injection fluid. This means that chicken
filets retain the injection fluid well. This figure also shows that the drip loss in marinated products is
generally higher. However, this is not just injection fluid but also marinade.

31


Chicken Filets % Injection Fluid % Drip Loss end Shelf-Life
0 2,1
Natural 5 1,4
10 1,5
0 0,7
Seasoned 5 0,7
10 0,7
0 2,0
Marinated 5 1,9
10 2,1
Table 26. Average percentage drip loss chicken filets in package at end shelf-life period

Table 26 shows that the drip loss in non-injected chicken filets varies from 0.7% to 2.0%. In chicken
filets with 5% injection fluid it varies from 0.7% to 1.9% and in chicken filets with 10% injection fluid it
varies from 0.7% to 2.1%.

Avg. % Drip Loss Whole Chicken end Shelf-Life

5
4,5
4
3,5
% Drip Loss

natural
3
2,5 seasoned
2 marinated
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 5 10
% Injection Fluid

Figure 15. Average percentage drip loss whole chicken in package at end shelf-life period

Figure 15 shows the average percentage drip loss in whole chicken at the end of the shelf-life period.
The drip loss increases at 5% and 10% injection fluid. This figure also shows that the drip loss in
marinated products is generally higher. However, this is not just injection fluid but also marinade.

32


Whole Chicken % Injection Fluid % Drip Loss end Shelf-Life
0 0,6
Natural 5 0,7
10 1,2
0 0,4
Seasoned 5 1,0
10 1,4
0 0,7
Marinated 5 1,4
10 1,3
Table 27. Average percentage drip loss whole chicken in package at end shelf-life period

Table 27 shows that the drip loss in non-injected whole chicken varies from 0.4% to 0.7%. In whole
chicken injected with 5% fluid it varies from 0.7% to 1.4% and in whole chicken injected with 10% fluid
it varies from 1.2% to 1.4%.

Avg. % Drip Loss Chicken Wings end Shelf-Life
5
4,5
4
3,5
% Drip Loss

3 natural
2,5 seasoned
2 marinated
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 5 10
% Injection Fluid

Figure 16. Average percentage drip loss chicken wings in package at end shelf-life period

Figure 16 shows the average percentage drip loss in chicken wings at the end of the shelf-life period.
The drip loss increases at 5% and 10% injection fluid, especially for seasoned products

33


Chicken Wings % Injection Fluid % Drip Loss end Shelf-Life
0 1,1
Natural 5 1,5
10 1,8
0 1,1
Seasoned 5 2,9
10 4,3
0 1,8
Marinated 5 1,8
10 1,5
Table 28. Average percentage drip loss chicken wings in package at end shelf-life period

Table 28 shows that the drip loss in non-injected chicken wings varies 1.1% to 1.8%. In chicken wings
injected with 5% fluid it varies from 1.5% to 2.9% and in chicken wings injected with 10% fluid it varies
from 1.5% to 4.3%.

3.3.3 Conclusion

Based on the average percentage of injection fluid and the spread after injecting whole chicken, the
conclusion is that with the test machine there is a variation in the exact percentage of injection fluid.
This can be caused by the way this study has been set up; probably the set up can be improved when
it is adjusted better to the products of this company.

The results of the study of drip loss in the packages show that the drip loss is the biggest in chicken
wings. The general bacterial count in chicken wings is also bigger than in the other chicken products.
This is most likely caused by the fact that there is more free moisture in the packages. There is a
strong increase in chicken wings with 5% and 10% injection fluid.
This increase can also been observed in chicken legs.
Whole chicken is not cut and shows therefore less drip loss in non-injected products. W hole chicken
injected with 5% and 10% also shows less drip loss increase than chicken legs and chicken wings.
The results shows that chicken filets can retain the injected fluid very well. No increase in drip loss is
observed in chicken filets injected with 5% and 10% fluid.

34


4. Final Conclusions and Recommendations

When looking at the microbiological results it can be seen that the general bacterial count, the yeasts
and the enterobacteria increase when injected. In particular with the amount of kve/g enterobacteria
this increase can clearly be seen for the natural products. However, this increase is not exceeding the
quality standards of this company. A well monitored needle-free injection process with good quality
ingredients does not influence the standards for shelf life set by this company. When injecting and
seasoning, the increase is less; spices have a lower initial bacterial count and negatively influence the
circumstances for bacterial growth. This is not so much the case for marinades.
Based on the average percentage of injection fluid and the spread after injecting whole chicken, the
conclusion is that with the test machine there is a variation in the exact percentage of injection fluid.
This can be caused by the way this study has been set up; probably the set up can be improved when
it is adjusted better to the products of this company.

The conclusion based on the sensory test results is that the needle-free injection of chicken products
adds more flavour and tenderness to these products. The test panel rates these chicken products as
better quality products. This is especially the case with chicken products injected with 5% fluid.
However, the process needs to be improved to reduce the spread in the percentage of injection fluid.
It is recommended not to inject chicken products natural. When natural products are injected, it is
required by law to state on the product label below the product name that this product contains water.
The percentage of water is not relevant in this case. Also, there is more bacterial growth with injected
natural products.
Bacterial growth is less with seasoned products and, in a lesser way, with marinated products. The
marinade is sliding a little bit of the injected products. This can be adjusted by using marinades with a
higher viscosity.

More drip loss in the package can be seen as a negative by the consumer. In particular with injected
wings and legs there is more drip loss in the packages. This makes these products less suitable for
injection. However, this can be overcome by using an absorbing pad in the packages. Another
possibility is to add a water binding adjuvant that does not require declaration on the ingredients label.
Chicken filets and whole chicken retain the injected fluids very well and the injected products are rated
as tender and delicious. It is recommended that seasoned or marinated products are injected first by
this needle-free injection method.
Also the injected and then grilled products are rated “very good” by the test panel. The consumer will
experience injected chicken products as less dry and more tender. Also these products are eligible for
the needle-free injection method. It is important to match the injection fluids and the seasoning to avoid
a salty taste.

It is recommended to invest in a FlavorJet needle-free injection system and start with 5% injection
fluid. In case the water percentage stays below 5% of the end product the ingredient water does not
need to be declared.

35

Sabofa FlavorJet Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sabofa FlavorJet Report

Similar to Sabofa FlavorJet Report (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sabofa FlavorJet Report