2.7.

Instrumental color Cor instrumental

A Cor foi medida usando um espectrofotmetro.

Color was measured using a Minolta handheld spectrophotometer (KonicaMinolta CM-2500C, Osaka, Japan) with a 10_ observer angle and illuminant A, calibrated against a white tile immediately before readings were taken. Color measurements (CIE L_, a_, and b_) were made through intact packages 2 days after processing. All measurements were taken in duplicate, with a 90_ clockwise sample rotation between measurements. Hue angle was calculated as: tan-1(b*/a*), and the saturation index (chroma) was calculated as: (a*2 + b*2)0.5.

2.8. Consumer acceptance Samples for consumer testing were delivered to Alberta Agriculture and Rural Developments Consumer Product Testing Center (CPTC) in a pre-sliced, packaged format. Three-digit, treatmentspecific blinding codes were applied to each package during prepanel set up, and all products were refrigerated until prepared for serving. Panellist selection from the CPTC database of potential participants was completed after screening for willingness to eat beef and pork, frequency of sliced lunchmeat consumption, and degree of liking of bologna. Seventy-four consumer panellists participated in the product evaluation. Panellists received verbal instructions upon arrival at the CPTC, and were then seated at individual testing booths where written instructions were integrated into electronic ballot presentation using Compusense five software (v. 4.8, Compusense Inc., Guelph, ON). Samples (a single 2 mm slice placed on a 15 cm coded foam plate) were passed through serving hutches to each panellist in a sequential, monadic manner. Sample presentation order was randomized across all panellists according to a design that balanced both sample position and order. Room temperature water and unsalted crackers were provided for palate cleansing between samples.

Each panellist scored appearance, flavor, moistness, firmness, and overall acceptability on 9-point hedonic scales (1 = dislike extremely, 9 = like extremely), moistness and firmness on 5-point just right scales (1 = much too dry/soft, 2 = slightly too dry/soft, 3 = just right, 4 = slightly too moist/firm, 5 = much too moist/firm), and purchase intent on a 5-point purchase intent scale (1 = definitely would not purchase, 2 = probably would not purchase, 3 = might/might not purchase, 4 = probably would purchase, 5 = definitely would purchase).

2.9. Statistical analysis The experiment was replicated three times. Processing and instrumental data were subject to analysis of variance using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS (v. 9.1.3, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The least significant difference test (p < 0.05) was used to determine differences between treatment means. Consumer panel data were also subject to analysis of variance using the GLM procedure, with panellist specified as a random factor. Where the formulation treatment effect was significant (p < 0.05), a Tukey test was used for means separation. Correlation analysis was conducted to assess the relationship of the acceptability of product characteristics to overall acceptability. Score frequency distributions from the categorical just right data set were tabulated. Mean drop analysis was conducted across all treatments in order to determine the effect on overall acceptability of products being rated outside the just right category for moistness and firmness. Mean drop represented the difference between the overall acceptability mean for samples rated at just right and the acceptability mean for each divergent category (i.e. either too dry/soft or too moist/firm) for each product characteristic. Finally, the frequency of purchase intent scores was calculated.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. pH and proximate composition

The pH values (Table 1) of the raw meat batters and cooked products ranged from 6.30 to 6.43 and 6.47 to 6.63, respectively. In general, none of the experimental treatments had any effect on pH of the raw and cooked products. Moisture levels in the cooked products varied from 61.4% in HF samples to 71.6% in LF treatments. Because fat in all the low fat formulations was replaced with water, moisture content was directly proportional to the amount of added water. Protein content varied from 11.1% in HF to 12.5% in PF samples. In all formulations, meat protein content was held constant, indicating that the slight increase in overall protein content in PF and WF treatments was a function of proteins present in the pea and wheat flours. The fat content ranged from 9.8% to 10.5% in low fat formulations to 20.7% in HF samples, and only varied slightly from the target values. Compared to regular fat bologna, the low-fat products had 50% less fat, 40% fewer total calories, 21% fewer calories from fat, and 010% of the total calories from the added binders. This represents a significant reduction in fat and total calories derived from fat without affecting the consumer acceptability (see later discussion).