See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272791824

Restructured meat products - production, processing and marketing: a review

Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.5958/0973-9718.2015.00036.7

CITATIONS READS
8 5,066

4 authors, including:

Yogesh Gadekar A. K. Shinde

ICAR-Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute
55 PUBLICATIONS 193 CITATIONS 87 PUBLICATIONS 491 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sanjod Kumar Mendiratta

Indian Veterinary Research Institute
137 PUBLICATIONS 1,008 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

development of quality indicator for monitoring safety of meat and meat products View project

Nutritional Manipulation for enhancing qualitative and quantitative mutton production View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yogesh Gadekar on 26 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Indian Journal of
The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1) : 1-12
Small Ruminants

RESTRUCTURED MEAT PRODUCTS - PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND MARKETING:

A REVIEW
Y.P. Gadekar* B.D. Sharma, A.K. Shinde1 and S.K. Mendiratta
Division of Livestock Products Technology
ICAR - Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar- 243 122, Uttar Pradesh
1
ICAR -Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar- 304 501, Rajasthan
*E-mail address: yogirajlpt@gmail.com
Manuscript received on 13.10.2014, accepted on 15.11.2014

DOI: 10.5958/0973-9718.2015.00036.7

ABSTRACT

Importance of meat and meat products in human health is well known. Many times meat
and meat products are blamed that their consumption is associated with cardiovascular
diseases and colorectal cancer. Researchers and food processors around the globe are
making efforts to improve the quality of meat and meat products by altering its composition.
Due to changing scenario and awareness, consumers prefer meat product with less fat, low
sodium and rich fibre with minimum synthetic chemicals. The restructured meat product offers
multiple benefits of economy, low fat and calorific value. Advances during production,
processing, preservation and marketing of restructured meat products are discussed.

Key words: Marketing, Restructured meat product, Sensory attributes, Textural properties

eat and meat products are considered as Hautzinger, 2007). Low fat meat products are

M balanced diet and can be further modified to a

considered as a growing segment of the food industry.

In this context, restructured meat products are

“healthier” food by fortification with fibre, vitamins,
minerals, and antioxidants etc. Meat contains protein,
fat, vitamin and mineral of high biological value.
Nowadays, efforts are being made for formulation of
meat products by modifying the lipid and fatty acid
contents, and/or by adding a series of functional
ingredients (like fibre, vegetable proteins,
monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids,
vitamins, calcium, phytochemicals etc.) or by
eliminating contents that are considered harmful to
health (Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2001; Fernandez-
Lopez et al., 2005). Consumer concerns about high fat
and salt contents in processed meat have created an
increased demand of lean meat products. Further
economic pressure has also led to the development of
novel products utilizing trimmings and lower value cuts
of carcass. There is a huge demand for low-fat meat
products due to human health concerns. Fat content
should not exceed 10% in the final product (Heinz and
beneficial as they contain low fat and low calorific
value. Restructuring is a partial or complete
disassembling of meat and reforming into the same or
different form which was started in early 1970's.
Restructuring implies binding or holding of small meat
pieces together using natural proteins to form a meat
product with the properties of steak and roast meat.
These products are called, reformed, flaked and
formed, chopped and shaped and chunked and formed
depending on large extent by the size of the constituent
pieces (Franklin and Cross, 1982; Sheard and Jolley,
1988). Sometimes they are also referred as
intermediate value products (Breidenstein, 1982). This
type of product is preferred by the consumer and
marketed as intermediate in value between traditional
burgers and intact muscle steak (Sheard, 2002).
Restructured products have sensory characteristics
somewhere between ground meat and intact muscle

1
 Y.P. Gadekar et al.

steaks. The purpose of producing restructured
products is to effectively market low value carcasses
of spent or aged animals with poor conformation and
carcass components. Several methods like tumbling
and massaging and blade tenderization facilitate
production of high quality restructured products
(Pearson and Tauber, 1984).
Restructured meat products are becoming an
important component of the meat industry due to
benefits like convenience in preparation, less
demanded meat trimmings, different shapes product
with improved tenderness, juiciness and flavour
characteristics at economic cost. Moreover,
restructured meat products can be formulated as per
the requirement of a specific group of consumers
seeking low fat, low salt, high dietary fibre and
antioxidants in meat products. Various extenders and
binders are used to improve the functionality,
acceptability and economic viability of these products.
The limitations of restructured meat products are rapid
lipid oxidation during storage which deteriorates its
colour and flavour. Moreover, low value cuts when
incorporated also affect tenderness and colour of
restructured meat products. Various methods and
approaches to overcome these limitations are
discussed in this review.
A. Status of restructured meat production
At present, production of restructured meat
product in the country is in the infant stage while in
other parts of the world, especially in the developed
countries sizable quantity of restructured meat
products are manufactured and sold through retail
counters. Some of advantages of restructured meat
products are:
i. Consumers around the globe are demanding
meat products with low fat, minimum synthetic
additives and product with a healthier profile. For
such consumers, the restructured product could
be one of the options.
ii. Consumer demand for safe, wholesome and
nutritious product with acceptable sensory
attributes is ever rising. Restructured meat
products have consumer-friendly texture and
appearance which can facilitate an increased
demand in the market.
iii. The ever rising costs of meat production have
urged the processors to search efficient
processing strategies which will enable
utilization of low value cuts and trimmings from
the carcasses. The restructuring process allows
for efficient utilization of low-value cuts and
carcass trimmings.
iv. The consumers are demanding for quick - and -
easy foods. At the same time there is demand for
cost-effective, easy-to-handle products requiring
little preparation. Consumers and restaurant
owners require products which can be easily
sliced, have the ability to reheated, provide an
attractive appearance and offer flexibility of use.
A time-line for some of the restructured meat
products available in the market to satisfy the above
demand are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Timeline for restructured meat products

Restructured product Features Reference

Restructured pork
Restructured pork product
Restructured beef and pork steak
Restructured pork
Restructured meat product
Restructured chicken steaks
Combination of salt and sodium tripolyphosphate Schwartz and Mandigo
(0.75 and 0.125%) (1976)
Evaluated effect of processing conditions Chesney et al. (1978)
Optimized processing flake size Berry et al. (1987)
Evaluated effect of antioxidants (butylated Boling et al. (1990)
hydroxyanisole and ascorbic acid)
Evaluated microbial transglutaminase (MTGase) Kuraishi et al. (1997)
and sodium caseinate
Extended with milk co-precipitate and evaluated Bhoyar et al. (1998a, b)
the effects of the different packaging condition

2 The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12


Restructured beef
Restructured beef
Restructured beef product
Reformed pig meat shoulder
product
Restructured beef and emu steak
Restructured pressed
smoked duck steak
Restructured pork rolls
Restructured buffalo meat blocks
Restructured buffalo meat rolls
Restructured beef roast
Restructured mutton steak
Beef steak
Beef steaks
Restructured buffalo meat blocks
Restructured buffalo meat nuggets
Restructured buffalo meat product
Restructured beef steak
Restructured beef steaks
Restructured turkey steak
Restructured buffalo meat rolls
Restructured chicken blocks
Low-fat cooked ham
Restructured goat meat product
Restructured chicken product
Restructured chicken meat block
Restructured chicken meat blocks
Restructured goat meat product
Restructured chicken
meat product
Restructured mutton chops
Restructured mutton slices
Restructured goat meat product
Restructured pork product
Restructured mutton chops
The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12
Restructured meat products
Evaluated comminution method and binder system Boles and Shand (1998)
Evaluated sodium phytate, sodium pyrophosphate Lee et al. (1998)
and sodium tripolyphosphate
Evaluated effect of binder and processing Tsai et al. (1998)
condition Evaluated effect of processing condition McDermott et al. (1999)
Evaluated salt/phosphate and alginate Shao et al. (1999)
Isolated soya protein and carrageenan added Huang et al. (2001)
Combination of 0.7% alginate + 0.125% CaCO3 Devatkal and Mendiratta
+ 0.3% lactate (2001)
Optimized processing condition Sharma et al. (2002)
Use of calcium phosphate Mendiratta et al. (2002)
Cost effective product using soy protein (1%), Ramos et al. (2003)
potato starch (3%) and carrageenan (0.3%)
Evaluated effect of meat particle size Sen and Karim (2003)
With added walnuts Jimenez-Colmenero et al.
(2003)
Treated with propyl gallate (0.015%) with or without Reverte et al. (2003)
a beefy flavoring agent (0.75%)
Added with milk co-precipitates Kumar et al. (2004)
Quality and shelf life evaluation Thomas et al. (2006)
Evaluated effect of ingredients and processing Kumar and
conditions Sharma (2007)
Evaluated effect of walnut Serrano et al. (2007)
Use of alginate binder Moon et al. (2007)
Sodium diacetate and/or sodium lactate Shafit et al. (2007)
Quality and shelf life evaluation Anandh et al. (2011)
Use of chicken gizzard and shelf life evaluation Sudheer et al. (2011)
Liquid whey to replace water Dutra et al. (2012)
Development and quality evaluation Gadekar (2012)
Extended with chestnut flour Malav et al. (2012)
Incorporated with hydrated colocasia flour Talukder et al. (2013)
Extended with sorghum flour and potato Malav et al. (2013)
Optimized processing conditions Gadekar et al. (2013)
Extended with green plantain pulp and hydrated Sharma et al. (2013a)
soy chunks
Extended with tamarind seed flour Sharma et al. (2013b)
Using antioxidants butylated hydroxyl anisole Reddy et al. (2013)
(0.01%) and grape seed extract (0.1%)
Added with natural antioxidants Gadekar et al. (2014a, b)
Optimized processing conditions Gurikar et al. (2014)
Extended with flax seed flour Sharma et al. (2014)
3
 Y.P. Gadekar et al.
B. Processing of restructured meat products
Chunking and forming, flaking and forming and
lastly tearing and forming are three main methods for
restructuring meats. The method used has effect on
appearance, cook yield and sensory attributes of the
finished product (Mandigo, 1988). The chunking and
forming and flaking and forming processes are widely
used while tearing and forming process needs a
specialized apparatus for tearing meat fibres and then
reforming them into shapes resembling intact cuts.
Chunking and forming method has one more
advantage that the finished product can mimic the
texture and structure of the original cut. For holding
meat chunks together proper binding system is
necessary. During processing of restructured meat
products either hot-set binding method or cold-set
binding method can be used. The hot-set method
involves hot-set binding of extracted meat proteins. The
constraint of this technology is marketing of products, it
should be either pre-cooked or frozen. The cold-set
binding system utilizes various binding systems like
FibrimexTM, alginate and ActivaTM. The advantage of this
method is flexibility in marketing of restructured meat
product, either in the raw or in refrigerated state.
C. Quality of restructured meat products
The effect of meat particle size and binding
strength, tumbling and massaging and ingredients /
processing conditions on quality of restructured meat
is discussed below:
Meat particle size and binding strength: The particle
size affects the texture of the meat products. Smaller
the particle size, the better is myofibrillar protein
extraction (Acton, 1972). The restructured pork steaks
processed from smaller flakes had lower shear force
values (Berry et al., 1987). Restructured pork chops
and reformed pork shoulder product made with smaller
flakes had higher tenderness (Chesney et al., 1978;
McDermott et al., 1999). Sen and Karim (2003) sliced
mutton to 7 cm length and 0.8 cm thickness and
minced through a meat mincer to opening size of 2.0,
1.2 and 0.5 cm. It was observed that purge loss (%)
was significantly lower in 2.0 and 1.2cm size than in 7.0
cm. It indicates that cook yield of restructured
4 The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12
mutton steaks is significantly affected by meat particle
size. Restructured pork blocks with meat chunk size of
2-3 cm and cooking time of 50 min was found optimum.
Product yield was higher (89.31%) in restructured pork
blocks with a chunk size of 2-3 cm compared to chunk
size of 4-5 cm (85.12%). The restructured pork block
prepared with 2-3 cm meat chunks had significantly
lesser shear force value and more tender compared to
4-5 cm meat chunks (Gurikar et al., 2014).
Salt and phosphate are used in restructured
products to extract myofibrillar proteins of muscle and
form a heat set protein gel upon subsequent cooking.
This sticky gel is responsible for binding the products.
The pH of the muscle also affects the binding of meat
pieces and myosin is optimally solubilized at pH 6.5.
External and seam fat on meat pieces affects the
binding strength and yield and all trimming fat should
be removed for optimum quality and yield (Knipe,
1992). Tumbling of turkey breast muscle in the
presence of salt, sodium tripolyphosphate and sodium
hexametaphosphate as compared to other phosphates
improved binding of meat pieces (Froning and Sackett,
1985). The increased level (15%) of walnut decreased
Kramer shear force and binding strength in pre-cooked
restructured beef (Cofrades et al., 2004). The binding
strength of restructured beef steak was not affected by
storage at frozen stage (Serrano et al., 2006).
Restructured buffalo meat blocks incorporated with
10% milk co-precipitates had significantly higher
(P<0.05) binding strength than 15, 20 and 0% levels
(Kumar et al., 2004). Micro waved restructured beef
steaks had significantly higher (P<0.05) Kramer shear
force and binding strength compared to pan-fried and
conventionally oven-cooked steaks (Serrano et al.,
2007).
Tumbling and massaging: The basic aim of both these
techniques is to produce desirable attributes in the
finished product. Tumbling and massaging improves
cure distribution, increase ionic strength and pH,
resulting in higher product yield and improves water
retention, tenderness, juiciness and appearance of the
finished product and binding of meat chunks. The
product yield from vacuum and aerobically tumbled
meats was found comparable (Ghavimi et al., 1987)
whereas, Muller (1991) reported higher product yield
 Restructured meat products
due to tumbling as compared to non-tumbled.
Prolonged tumbling time improves the water binding
characteristics of cooked meats (Dzudie and
Okubanjo, 1999; Pietrasik and Shand, 2004). Short
tumbling time prior to injection improve yield and
tenderness of roast beef (Boles and Shand, 2002).
The vacuum tumbling of buffalo meat at 0.4 bar for 3
h at 11 rpm speed gave better extraction of salt
soluble proteins and binding and cohesiveness of
the product as compared to 3 h aerobic tumbling
(Sharma et al., 2002).
Binding strength increases as massaging/ blending
time increases and this is due to increased exudates
formation on the meat surface. Crude myosin extraction
increases with increase in blending time, but increased
blending time has adverse effect on the binding ability
of crude myosin. Myosin loses solubility with increase
in time. Meat temperature during tumbling and
massaging is also important as it affects the binding
strength; salt soluble proteins can be readily extracted
from lean meat at 2.2-3.30C. For optimum binding and
food safety reasons, tumbler and massager processes
should be operated in cold (4.4 0C) rooms (Rust, 2004).
Slow or intermittent agitation of meat disrupts tissue
structure, thereby assists in distributing the brine
solution. The protein exudates produced in the process
serve as “glue” to bind the meat chunks during cooking.
Operation under vacuum helps in removing the air
bubbles from the exudates and assist in protein
extraction (Barbut, 2005). Moon et al. (2007) reported
that 5 min tumbling time was more acceptable than 25
min. The use of vacuum tumbling for 45 min improved
the physico-chemical, microbiological and sensory
quality of the chicken tikka (Bharti et al., 2011).
Massaging time of 10 min was found optimum
compared to 6 and 8 min in preparation of restructured
pork blocks (Gurikar et al., 2014).
Ingredients / processing conditions: In addition to
muscle proteins, other binders / non-meat ingredients
also play important role in binding meat chunks /
pieces. Meat chunks with 0.1% microbial
transglutaminase (MTGase) and 3% salt showed better
binding. The enzyme MTGase (0.05-0.1%) and sodium
caseinate (0.5-0.1%) for more than 2 h. at 5oC
The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12
produce restructured meat with adequate binding in
the raw, refrigerated state and without salt (Kuraishi
et al., 1997). Beef rolls prepared with 1% salt and
0.5% sodium salt of phytate was found almost as
effective as 1% salt + 0.5% sodium pyrophosphate
and 1% salt + 0.5% sodium tripolyphosphate in
increasing binding strength and cook yield (Lee et
al., 1998). Restructured beef and emu steaks made
with 0.5% algin / 0.5% calcium lactate and 0.5%
phosphate / 1.5% salt improved binding strengths
and cook yields better than 5% fibrinogen / 0.25%
thrombin. Salt / phosphate and alginate restructuring
systems produce palatable beef or emu products
(Shao et al., 1999).
Restructured pork rolls prepared from a
combination of 0.7% sodium alginate + 0.125%
calcium carbonate + 0.3% calcium lactate was
reported best to use under refrigeration (Devatkal
and Mendiratta, 2001). Use of tri-calcium phosphate
(0.3%) significantly improved meat tenderness and
binding of restructured buffalo meat rolls compared
to t h e p r o d u c t s c o n t a i n i n g 0 . 3 % s o d i
u m tripolyphosphate (Mendiratta et al., 2002). Beef
steaks were treated with propyl gallate (0.015%) with
or without a beefy flavoring agent (0.75%), and
stored at - 290C up to 6 months. It was found that the
combination of antioxidant and flavoring agents
enhance the palatability and storage stability of beef
from forage-fed cattle (Reverte et al., 2003). It is
possible to make a relatively low cost restructured
beef product incorporating 1% soy protein isolate,
3% potato starch and 0.3% carrageenan (Ramos et
al., 2003).The higher cooking yield of restructured
buffalo meat blocks can be obtained with 10% level
than 15% added water (Kumar and Sharma, 2007).
The restructured turkey breasts were treated with
1.5% sodium lactate (NaL), 2.0% NaL, 1.5% NaL +
0.1% sodium diacetate (NaD), 2.0% NaL + 0.1%
NaD, 0.1% NaD, or control indicated that even
though steaks treated with NaD and/or NaL had
lower binding strength (P<0.05). The Fibrimex TM
binding system was found ideal to hold the meat
pieces together (Shafit et al., 2007).
Malav et al. (2012) evaluated the effects of water
chestnut flour on quality and storage stability of
5
 Y.P. Gadekar et al.
restructured chicken meat product and found that 10%
water chestnut flour (1:1 hydrated) can be used as
optimum level and the products were found acceptable
up to 10 days at refrigerated storage. The fresh liquid
whey can be added to a restructured cooked ham
formulation up to 38% with similar results to products
cured with a conventional formulation (Dutra et al.,
2012). For restructured chicken meat blocks, 9%
sorghum flour (1:1 hydration, w/w) and 6% potato
(boiled and mashed) was found optimum as extenders.
The product was acceptable up to 15 days at
refrigeration storage (Malav et al., 2013). The
restructured chicken meat product was extended with
5.0, 7.5 and 10.0% hydrated colocasia flour (HCF). The
optimum incorporation level of HCF was found at 7.5%
on the basis of sensory scores, physico-chemical
properties and the microbial quality (Talukder et al.,
2013). The restructured goat meat products with
optimum physico-chemical and sensory attributes can
be prepared by 15% level of added water, 15 minute
massaging time and 50 minute cooking time (Gadekar
et al., 2013). Addition of grape seed extract at 0.1%
enhanced the shelf-life of restructured mutton slices,
which can be stored up to 28 days under refrigeration
(Reddy et al., 2013).
The effect of sodium ascorbate (500 ppm) and
alpha tocopherol acetate (10 ppm) on storage stability
of restructured goat meat product during refrigeration
and frozen storage indicated that use of antioxidants
improved lipid stability of the products (Gadekar et al.,
2014a, b). The suitability of tetra-potassium
pyrophosphate (0.4%), tetra-sodium pyrophosphate
(0.4%) and their blend (0.2% each) was evaluated for
development of a low salt restructured goat meat
product. The product yield was significantly improved
by use of phosphates and soapy flavor of tetra-
potassium pyrophosphate. The blend of tetra-sodium
and tetra-potassium pyrophosphate can be used for
preparation of low sodium product (Gadekar et al.,
2014c). The application of plasma powder rehydrated
in sodium chloride aqueous solution (0.5%, w/v) on
untreated meat surfaces produces the highest binding
(Romero de Ávila et al., 2014).
D. Attributes of the restructured meat products
Colour of meat product: The colour attributes of
cooked meat products arise mainly from the
6 The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1):1-12
pigmentation of meat with which they are made and the
additives used in the formulation viz., haem pigments
concentration, their oxidation-reduction state, emergent
chemical reactions and light scattering properties
(Hughes et al., 1997). A major factor influencing display
life is lighting which induces autoxidation of bright red
oxymyoglobin (MbO2) to brown metmyoglobin (MMb).
Natural antioxidants (sodium ascorbate and alpha-
tocopherol acetate) improved (P<0.01) colour of the
restructured goat meat product (Gadekar et al., 2014b).
Walnut addition, increased (P<0.05) lightness in raw
product and decreased (P<0.05) it in restructured
cooked beef (Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2003) while
sodium pyrophosphate or sodium tri-polyphosphate
had no effect on colour scores of restructured cooked
beef (Lee et al., 1998). Restructured goat meat product
prepared by chitosan had lower (P<0.05) lightness
values. In the restructured product containing inulin,
redness values were not affected by treatment, while
yellowness and chroma values were significantly
(P<0.05) lower (Gadekar, 2012). Fluid whey addition
had non-significant (P>0.05) effect on the products
lightness (L*) and yellowness (b*); however, when
whey replaced at more than 50%, it induced lowest
redness (a*) values (Dutra et al., 2012).
Sensory quality: It helps to decide suitability of the
meat product for consumption in addition to different
tests used for determining the incipient spoilage in
meat and meat products. The combination of 0.75%
salt and 0.125% sodium tripolyphosphate in
restructured pork after four weeks storage at -23°C,
improved colour, aroma, flavour, texture and juiciness
(Schwartz and Mandigo, 1976). The restructured
chicken steaks from both vacuum and aerobic
packaging were found quite acceptable up to 60 days
during frozen storage wherein, vacuum-packaged
products were rated higher in colour, flavour, juiciness,
texture and overall acceptability (Bhoyar et al., 1998a)
The steaks with 20% milk co-precipitates was preferred
most for colour, juiciness and overall acceptability with
equivalent flavour ratings as those of all-meat steaks
(Bhoyar, et al., 1998b). Sudheer et al. (2011) reported
decreased flavour scores of restructured chicken
product during frozen storage. Reverte et al. (2003)
showed that the binding strength
 Restructured meat products
of restructured beef steaks did not change during
frozen storage and also not influenced by the inclusion
of an antioxidant and/or beefy flavoring agent. The
sensory quality of the restructured beef steak was not
influenced by frozen storage (Serrano et al., 2006).
The inclusion of liquid whey as a substitute for
water in the cure formulation of cooked ham had no
effect on overall impression and texture (Dutra et al.,
2012).The restructured chicken meat blocks extended
with 9% sorghum flour (1:1 hydration, w/w) and 6%
potato (boiled and mashed) retained good to very good
acceptability when stored aerobically in low-density
polyethylene (LDPE) pouches under refrigeration
storage for 15 days without any marked demotion of
sensory quality (Malav et al., 2013). The sensory
attributes of the restructured chicken meat product with
7.5% HCF showed significantly (P<0.05) higher values
for general appearance, flavour, texture and overall
acceptability (Talukder et al., 2013). The effect of 8 and
10% green plantain pulp (GPP) and 6, 9 and 12%
hydrated soy chunks (HSC) as an extender on the
quality and acceptability of restructured chicken meat
block were evaluated. The general appearance, flavour,
binding strength, texture, juiciness and overall
acceptability score decreased with increasing levels of
extender whereas for soy added products binding and
texture scored increased in comparison to control.
However, all the sensory attributes of the meat block
extended with 8% GPP and 6% HSC were comparable
with control and found optimum for the formulation of
restructured chicken meat product (Sharma et al.,
2013a).
The antioxidant treated restructured goat meat
products were found stable up to 20 days at
refrigeration storage (Gadekar et al., 2014b).
Restructured mutton slices prepared using grape seed
extract had superior sensory scores when compared
with butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) during refrigerated
storage under aerobic and vacuum conditions (Reddy
et al., 2013). Use of tamarind seed powder (1%)
improved (P<0.05) general appearance, texture and
overall acceptability scores of restructured mutton
chops (Sharma et al., 2013b). Flaxseed flour
(FF) as a binder in restructured mutton chops at 1%
significantly (P<0.05) improved general appearance,
The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1):1-12
binding, texture and overall acceptability (Sharma et
al., 2014). Tetra-sodium pyrophosphate significantly
(P<0.05) improved binding scores of restructured
goat meat product (Gadekar et al., 2014c).
Microbial quality: The shelf-life of meat products is
influenced by various intrinsic and extrinsic factors
like heat treatment, storage temperature, pH, water
activity (aw), and redox potential. In cooked meat
products, a maximum limit of log 6.0 cfu/g of aerobic
mesophilic counts (Shapton and Shapton, 1991) and
4.6 log cfu /g of psychrophilic count (Cremer and
Chipley, 1977) have been recommended. The total
viable count of restructured pressed smoked duck
steak, increased from an initial log 3.0 cfu/g to log
4.0 cfu/g after 9 weeks of frozen storage (Huang et
al., 2001).The counts for mesophilic, psychrotrophic
and coliforms of emulsion and restructured buffalo
meat nuggets during the entire storage (30 days)
period did not exceed log 3.09 and 3.44, log 2.23
and 2.11 and log 1.30 and 1.30 cfu/g, respectively
(Thomas et al., 2006). In low fat restructured chicken
product there was a significant (P<0.05) increase in
the standard plate count during frozen (60 days)
storage (Sudheer et al., 2011). In restructured buffalo
meat nuggets the growth of psychrotrophs occurred
only after 15th day of storage at refrigerated
temperature. The absence of psychrotrophic bacteria
occurred in the nuggets during initial periods of
storage to a retardation of log phase as a result of
reduced metabolic rate due to sudden change in the
physical environment. A nonlinear growth of
coliforms in restructured nuggets from buffalo meat
was also reported (Thomas et al., 2006).
Restructured buffalo meat rolls had better
acceptability up to 15 days at 4±1°C in LDPE pouches
(Anandh et al., 2011) during storage. Total plate count
of restructured chicken meat blocks extended with 9%
sorghum flour (1:1 hydration, w/w) and 6% boiled and
mashed potato followed a linear increasing trend from 0
to 15th day of refrigerated storage (Malav et al., 2013).
Total plate count for products without extender and
10% extender followed a gradual but non-significant
increasing trend during refrigerated storage period, but
in products with 5.0 and 7.5% HCF, increment was
significant (P<0.05) in comparison to
7
 Y.P. Gadekar et al.
without extender (Talukder et al., 2013). Addition of
grape seed extract (0.1%) significantly (P<0.05)
reduced the total psychrophilic and coliform counts in
aerobic and vacuum packaged restructured mutton
slices during refrigerated storage for 14 days and 28
days, respectively (Reddy et al., 2013). Aerobic
mesophilic count significantly (P<0.01) declined on day
30th and thereafter showed an increase (P<0.01) on
60th day. The psychrophiles were not detected in the
restructured goat meat product on 30 th days, but grew
in the control and alpha tocopherol treatment on 60 and
90th days. Coliforms were not detected during frozen
storage in the restructured goat meat product (Gadekar
et al., 2014a).
Texture profile analysis (TPA): The texture profile of
restructured beef products is temperature dependent
and is affected by binders, heating temperature and
their interaction (Tsai et al., 1998). Restructured mutton
steaks had greater (P<0.05) shear force value with 12
and 5 mm meat particles than 8 mm sliced meat (Sen
and Karim, 2003). The restructured buffalo meat
nuggets had significantly higher cohesiveness,
gumminess, chewiness and shear force values
(Thomas et al., 2006). Kramer shear force and binding
strength of restructured beef decreased (P<0.05) as
the proportion of walnut increased from 0-20% level
(Serrano et al., 2006). The addition of BHA, ascorbic
acid and sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) did not affect
cohesiveness scores of restructured pork chops (Boling
et al., 1990). The addition of walnut did not affect
textural properties in uncooked restructured beef steak,
but in cooked products Kramer shear force and bind
strength reduced (P<0.05) when 10% or more of the
walnut was added (Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2003).
Instrumental texture profile analysis revealed that
restructured buffalo meat blocks incorporated with 10%
milk co-precipitates (MCP) were significantly better
(P<0.05) in hardness/ firmness than without MCP
while, non-significant (P>0.05) differences were
observed in cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess
and chewiness of both MCP and without MCP samples
(Kumar et al., 2004).
The addition of walnut (20%) improved the yield of
cooked restructured beef steaks as compared to those
formulated with beef fat and softness improved with
8 The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12
added walnut (Serrano et al., 2007). Hardness of
restructured mutton chops using tamarind seed powder
(0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 %) were comparable without powder
while shear force values, cohesiveness and springiness
increased with an increase in level of incorporation
(Sharma et al., 2013b). Hardness value of the
restructured pork block prepared with larger meat
chunks (4-5 cm) was higher than smaller meat chunks
(2-3 cm). Increased gumminess, chewiness and
cohesiveness values were observed for the
restructured pork block prepared with large size meat
chunks (Gurikar et al., 2014). Springiness, gumminess
and chewiness values showed an increasing trend with
increasing extender levels (5.0, 7.5 and 10%); however,
all other characters of texture profile showed
decreasing values other than hardness, which did not
differ significantly in comparison to without extender
(Talukder et al., 2013). Hardness scores of restructured
mutton chops using tamarind seed powder (0.5, 1.0
and 1.5 %) were comparable to without powder while
shear force values, cohesiveness and springiness
increased with increased level of incorporation (Sharma
et al., 2013b).Textural features were not affected by the
antioxidant treatment except adhesiveness which
differed (P<0.05) in restructured goat meat product
made with tocopherol acetate (Gadekar et al., 2014b).
Hardness of restructured mutton chops showed
significant increasing (P<0.01) trend with increasing
levels (0.5, 1.0 and 1.5%) of incorporation of flaxseed
flour; however all other parameters of texture profile
showed a decreasing trend (Sharma et al., 2014). The
hardness of the restructured goat meat product was
significantly (P<0.05) increased in control and tetra-
sodium pyrophosphate containing product. The f r a c t
u r a b i l i t y, a d h e s i v e n e s s , s p r i n g i n e s s
cohesiveness and resilience values of control and
treated restructured goat meat product were
comparable while chewiness values were significantly
(P<0.05) higher in the control product (Gadekar et al.,
2014c).
E. Marketing of the restructured meat products
Effective marketing is the basic requirement for
profitability and sustainability of any industry. As per
FAO (2014) global meat production is projected to
 Restructured meat products
double by 2050, the majority of which is expected in
developing countries. The growing meat market will
provides a significant opportunity for livestock
farmers and meat processors in these countries.
Nevertheless, increasing livestock production and
the safe processing and marketing of hygienic meat
and meat products represents a big challenge. Meat
and meat products are perishable items and
hygienic production, processing and preservation is
of utmost importance till it reaches to fork.
Nowadays market is highly competitive.
Production of good product does not provide good
price, but consistent quality production at competitive
price and effective marketing are essentially required
for sustainable business. Meat and meat products sold
at retail outlets in a pre-packaged form must fulfil
legislation. Majority of the meat production and
marketing practices in rural areas are traditional. Meat
is directly sold to consumers without any intermediary.
The butchers/processors have their own processing
facilities. These facilities are controlled by the local
regulatory bodies while in urban areas supermarket
outlets are catering the need of the consumers. In the
developed countries, pre-cooled (0-4°C) meat is
conveyed to supermarkets from the wholesaler or direct
from the abattoir and in supermarkets the packaged
meat is kept in refrigerated display cabinets, and
customers can choose the ready-packaged items
themselves directly from the shelves.
In processed meat sector, there is huge potential
for entrepreneurial opportunities and employment
generation. Successful entrepreneur should understand
the system better and follow innovative practices for
marketing meat products at a reasonable price with
better sensory attributes to the consumers. Slowly
organized retail marketing is becoming popular. The
meat production and marketing system need
modernization. Proper processing facilities are required
for the international export market. Many of the
abattoirs are producing quality meat to fulfil the global
demand. Understanding the customer's needs and
altering processing and dispensing, creation of brand
name, strict quality control, and the creation of healthier
meat product as per the consumer demand can be
some of the strategies to improve marketing of
processed meat products.
The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12
F. Conclusion
Meat restructuring technology offers a potential
benefit of utilization of meat trimmings and lower value
cuts into value-added products, thereby improving the
palatability and consumer acceptance. To further
improve the quality and consistency of restructured
meat products, research is still needed on particle size,
blending conditions, meat tenderizing processes, colour
and flavour stability. Besides the economy, the
restructuring process also provides healthier meat
products, as restructured products are leaner and
health conscious consumers are demanding healthier
products having low fat, low salt, and high fibre and
minimum synthetic ingredients. Numbers of
restructured products using a variety of ingredients
have been developed, but acceptance of these
products by the consumer is still challenging. At the
same time, proper marketing and educating the
consumers about the importance of restructured
products is essentially required.
REFERENCES
Acton, J.C. 1972. The effect of meat particle size on
extractable protein, cooking loss and binding strength in
chicken loaves. Journal of Food Science 37: 240-243.
Anandh, M., Radha, K., Venkatachalapathy R.T. and
Lakshmanan, V. 2011. Quality and acceptability of
restructured buffalo meat rolls in refrigerated storage.
World Journal of Dairy and Food Science 6: 207-211.
Barbut, S. 2005. Poultry Products Processing. First Indian
reprint. CRC Press London, Noida
Berry, B.W., Smith, J.J. and Secrist, J.L. 1987. Effects of
flake size on textural and cooking properties of
restructured beef and pork steaks. Journal of Food
Science 52: 558-563.
Bharti, S.K., Anita, B., Das, S.K. and Biswas, S. 2011.
Effect of vacuum tumbling time on physico-chemical,
microbiological and sensory properties of chicken
tikka. Journal of Stored Products and Post-harvest
Research 2: 139-147.
Bhoyar, A.M., Pandey, N.K. Anand, S.K. and Verma, S.S.
1998a. Quality characteristics of restructured chicken
steaks as influenced by packaging during frozen
storage. Indian Journal of Poultry Science 33: 56-60.
Bhoyar, A.M., Pandey, N.K., Anand, S.K. and Verma, S.S.
1998b. Effect of extending restructured chicken steaks
9
 Y.P. Gadekar et al.
with milk co-precipitates. Journal of Food Science and
Technology 35: 90-92.
Boles, J.A. and Shand, P.J. 1998. Effect of comminution
method and raw binder system in restructured beef.
Meat Science 49: 297-307.
Boles, J.A., and Shand, P.J. 2002. Tumbling regime effects on
the processing characteristics and tenderness of cooked
roast beef. Journal of Muscle Foods 13: 25-35.
Boling, C.S., Graham, P.P., Marriott N.G. and Kelly, R.F.
1990. Effect of butylated hydroxyanisole and ascorbic
acid on storage stability of restructured pork. Journal
of Animal Science 68: 108-116.
Breidenstein, B.C. 1982. Intermediate Value Beef Products.
National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago.
Chesney, M.S., Mandigo, R.W. and Campbell, J.F. 1978.
Properties of restructured pork product as influenced
by meat particle size, temperature and comminution
method. Journal of Food Science 43: 1535.
Cofrades, S., Serrano, A., Ayo, J., Solas, M.T., Carballo, J.
and Jimenez-Colmenero, F. 2004. Restructured beef
with different proportions of walnut as affected by
meat particle size. European Food Research and
Technology 218: 230-236.
Cremer, M.L. and Chipley, J.R. 1977. Satellite food service
system: Time and temperature and microbiological and
sensory quality of frozen hamburger patties. Journal of
Food Protection 40: 603-607.
Devatkal, S. and Mendiratta, S.K. 2001. Use of calcium
lactate with salt-phosphate and alginate-calcium gels
in restructured pork rolls. Meat Science 58: 371-379.
Dutra, M.P., Cardoso, G.P., Ramos, E.M., Ramos, A.L.S.,
Pinheiro, A.C.M. and Fontes, P.R. 2012. Technological and
sensory quality of restructured low-fat cooked
containing liquid whey. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 36: 86-92.
Dzudie, T., and Okubanjo A. 1999. Effect of rigor state and
tumbling time on quality of goat hams. Journal of
Food Engineering 42: 103-107.
FAO. 2014. Meat and meat products. Animal Production
and Health. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes
/en/meat/home.html.
Fernandez-Lopez, J, Zhi, N., Aleson-Carbonell, L., Perez-
Alvarez J.A. and Kuri, V. 2005. Antioxidant and anti-
bacterial activities of natural extracts: application in
beef meat balls. Meat Science 69: 371-380.
Franklin, K.R. and Cross, H.R. 1982. Proceedings of
International Symposium on Meat Science and
Technology. National Live Stock and Meat Board,
Chicago,
10 The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12
Froning, G.W. and Sackett, B. 1985. Effect of salt and
phosphates during tumbling of turkey breast muscle on
meat characteristics. Poultry Science 64: 1328-1333.
Gadekar, Y.P. 2012. Studies on development and quality
improvement of restructured goat meat blocks. Ph. D.
thesis, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar,
Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.
Gadekar, Y.P. Sharma, B.D., Shinde, A.K. and Mendiratta
S.K. 2013. Effect of processing conditions on quality
of restructured goat meat product. Indian Journal of
Small Ruminants 19: 182-186.
Gadekar, Y.P., Sharma, B.D., Shinde A.K. and Mendiratta
S.K. 2014c. Effect of different phosphates on quality
of goat meat and restructured goat meat product.
Agricultural Research DOI: 10.1007/s40003-014
-0129-3.
Gadekar, Y.P., Sharma, B.D., Shinde A.K., Thomas, R. and
Mendiratta S.K. 2014a. Usage of sodium ascorbate
and alpha tocopherol acetate. Fleischwirschaft
International 4: 52-57.
Gadekar, Y.P., Sharma, B.D., Shinde, A.K., Verma, A.K.
and Mendiratta, S.K. 2014b. Effect of natural
antioxidants on the quality of cured, restructured goat
meat product during refrigerated storage (4±10C).
Small Ruminant Research 119: 72-80.
Ghavimi, B., Althen, T.G. and Rogers, R.W. 1987. Effects
of tumbling at various speeds on some characteristics
of restructured cured beef. Journal of Food Science
52: 543-544, 553.
Gurikar, A.M., Lakshmanan, V., Gadekar, Y.P., Sharma,
B.D. and Anjaneyulu, A.S.R. 2014. Effect of meat
chunk size, massaging time and cooking time on
quality of restructured pork blocks. Journal of Food
ham
Science and Technology 51: 1363-1369.
Heinz, G. and Hautzinger, P. 2007. Meat processing
technology-for small to medium scale producers.
Food and Agricultural Organization, Bangkok.
Huang, C.C., Wang, T.Y., Huang, A.J.F. and Lin, S.C.C.
2001. Studies on the quality of restructured pressed
smoked duck steak. Asian Australasian Journal of
Animal Science 14: 1316-1320.
Hughes, E., Cofrades, S. and Troy, D.J. 1997. Effects of
fat level, oat fiber and carrageenan on frankfurters
formulated with 5%, 12% and 30% fat. Meat Science
45: 273-281.
Jimenez-Colmenero, F., Carballo, J. and Cofrades, S.
2001. Healthier meat and meat products: their role as
functional foods. Meat Science 59: 5-13.
 Restructured meat products
Jimenez-Colmenero, F., Serrano, A., Ayo, J., Solas, M.T.,
Cofrades, S. and Carballo, J. 2003. Physicochemical
and sensory characteristics of restructured beef steak
with added walnuts. Meat Science 65: 1391-1397.
Knipe, C.L. 1992. Phosphates as meat emulsion
stabilizers. Phosphates as emulsifiers. Encyclopedia
of Food Science, Food Technology and Nutrition,
Academic Press Limited, London.
Kumar, S. and Sharma, B.D. 2007. Standardization of
ingredients and processing conditions for the
preparation of restructured buffalo meat blocks. Indian
Journal of Meat Science 4: 1-5.
Kumar, S., Sharma, B.D. and Biswas, A.K. 2004. Influence
of milk co-precipitates on the quality of restructured
buffalo meat blocks. Asian-Australasian Journal of
Animal Sciences 17: 564-568.
Kuraishi, C., Sakamoto, J., Yamazaki, K., Susa, Y., Kuhara, C.
and Soeda, T. 1997. Production of restructured meat
using microbial transglutaminase without salt or cooking.
Journal of Food Science 62: 488-490, 515.
Lee, B.J., Hendricks, D.G. and Cornforth, D.P. 1998. Effect of
sodium phytate, sodium pyrophosphate and sodium
tripolyphosphate on physico-chemical characteristics of
restructured beef. Meat Science 50: 273-283.
Malav, O.P., Sharma, B.D., Gokulkrishnan, P., Talkuder, S.
and Ranjan R. 2012. Effect of water chestnut flour on
quality characteristics and storage stability.
Fleischwirtschaft International 5: 58-62.
Malav, O.P., Sharma, B.D., Talukder, S., Kumar, R.R. and
Mendiratta, S.K. 2013. Shelf life evaluation of
restructured chicken meat blocks extended with sorghum
flour and potato at refrigerated storage (4±1?C).
International Food Research Journal 20: 105-110.
Mandigo, R.W. 1988. Restructured meats. In: R. Lawrie
(Ed.), Developments in Meat Science - 4. Elsevier
Science Publication, London, UK, pp 297-315.
McDermott, M., Mitchell, P.C. and Welch, R.W. 1999. Effects
of meat piece size and phosphate on maximum slicing
rate, cooking loss and sensory quality of a re-formed pig
meat shoulder product. International Journal of Food
Science and Technology 34: 101-106.
Mendiratta, S.K., Anjaneyulu, A.S.R. Devatkal, S.,
Chauhan, G. and Lakshmanan, V. 2002. Preparation
of restructured buffalo meat rolls using calcium
phosphate. Journal of Food Science and Technology
39: 534-536.
Moon S.S., Yang, H.S., Park, G.B. and Joo, S.T. 2007. The
effect of tumbling time on the quality and binding ability of
restructured beef M. Pectoralisprofundus with
The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12
alginate binder. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal
Sciences 20: 418-423.
Muller, W.B. 1991. Effect of method of manufacture.
Fleischwirtschaft 71: 8, 10-18, 60.
Pearson, A.M. and Tauber, F.W. 1984. Processed Meat.
2nd edn., AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport,
Connecticut.
Pietrasik, Z., and Shand, P.J. 2004. Effect of blade
tenderization and tumbling time on the processing
characteristics and tenderness of injected cooked
roast beef. Meat Science 66: 871-879.
Ramos, M., Beldarrain-Iznaga, T., Santos-Lorenzo, R.,
Casals, C. Nunez-de-Villavicencio, M. and Leyva-
Mora, A. 2003. Development of a restructured roast
beef. Alimentaria 341: 85-88.
Reddy, G.V.B., Sen A.R., Nair, P.N., Reddy, K.S., Reddy,
K.K., and Kondaiah, N. 2013. Effects of grape seed
extract on the oxidative and microbial stability of
restructured mutton slices. Meat Science 95: 288-294.
Reverte, D., Xiong, Y.L. and Moody, W.G. 2003. Properties
of restructured beef steaks from forage- and grain-fed
cattle as affected by antioxidant and flavoring agents.
Meat Science 65: 539-546.
Romero de Ávila, M.D., Ordóñez, J.A., Escudero, R. and
Cambero, M.I. 2014. The suitability of plasma powder
for cold-set binding of pork and restructured dry ham.
Meat Science 98: 709-717.
Rust, R.E. 2004. Processing Equipment. In: Encyclopedia
of Meat Sciences. Jensen, W.K., Devine, M. and
Dikemen, M. (Eds.) Elsevier Academic Press.
Schwartz, W.C. and Mandingo, R.W. 1976. Effect of salt,
sodium tripolyphosphate and storage on restructured
pork. Journal of Food Science 41: 1266.
Sen, A.R. and Karim, S.A. 2003. Effect of meat particle size
on quality attributes of restructured mutton steaks.
Journal of Food Science and Technology 40: 423-425.
Serrano, A., Cofrades, S. and Jimenez-Colmenero, F.
2006. Characteristics of restructured beef steak with
different proportions of walnut during frozen storage.
Meat Science 72: 108-115.
Serrano, A., Librelotto, J., Cofrades, S., Sanchez-Muniz
F.J. and Jimenez-Colmenero, F. 2007.Composition
and physicochemical characteristics of restructured
beef steaks containing walnuts as affected by cooking
method. Meat Science 77: 304-313.
Shafit, H.M., Williams, S.K., West, R.L., Littell, R.C.,
Balaban, M.O. and Bacus, J.N. 2007. Effect of sodium
diacetate and/or sodium lactate on binding stability of
restructured turkey steak. Journal of Tropical
Agriculture and Food Science 35: 81-89.
11
 Y.P. Gadekar et al.
Shao, C.H., Avens, J.S., Schmidt, G.R. and Maga, J.A.
1999. Functional, sensory, and microbiological
properties of restructured beef and emu steaks.
Journal of Food Science 64: 1052-1054.
Shapton, D.A. and Shapton, N.F. 1991. Principles and
practices for safe processing of foods. Butterworth
Heineman Ltd., Oxford, pp 377-444.
Sharma, B.D., Kumar, S. and Nanda, P.K. 2002.
Optimization of short term tumbling schedule for the
processing of cured and restructured buffalo meat
blocks. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 72: 684-
688.
Sharma, B.D., Talukder, S., Mendiratta, S.K., Kumar, R.R.
and Malav, O.P. 2013a. Utilization of green plantain
and soy chunk for the development of restructured
chicken meat blocks. Indian Journal of Poultry
Science 48: 42-46.
Sharma, H., Sharma, B.D., Mendiratta, S.K., Talukder, S.
and Giriprasad R. 2014. Efficacy of flaxseed flour as
bind enhancing agent on the quality of extended
restructured mutton chops. Asian-Australasian
Journal of Animal Sciences 27: 247-255.
Sharma, H., Sharma, B.D., Talukder, S. and Giriprasad R.
2013b. Utilization of tamarind seed powder as bind
enhancing agent in extended restructured mutton
chops. Fleischwirschaft International 5: 58-64.
12 The Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 2015, 21(1): 1-12
Sheard, P.R. 2002. Processing and quality control of
restructured meat In: Meat Processing: Improving
Quality, Kerry, J., Kerry, J. and Ledward D. (Eds),
CRC Press, Cambridge, England.
Sheard, P.R. and Jolley, P.D. 1988. Restructured and
reformed meat products. Food Technology
International Europe pp 129-132.
Sudheer, K., Mandal, P.K., Das, C., Pal, U.K., Santosh
Kumar, H.T. and Rao, V.K. 2011. Development of
restructured chicken block utilizing gizzard and its
refrigerated storage stability. Journal of Food Science
and Technology 48: 96-101.
Talukder, S., Sharma, B.D., Mendiratta, S.K. and Malav,
O.P. 2013. Development and evaluation of extended
restructured chicken meat block incorporated with
Colocasia (Colocasia esculenta) flour. Journal of Food
Process Technology 4: 207. doi: 10.4172/2157-
7110.1000207.
Thomas, R., Anjaneyulu, A.S.R. and Kondaiah, N. 2006.
Quality and shelf life evaluation of emulsion and
restructured buffalo meat nuggets at cold storage
(4±1°C). Meat Science 72: 373-379.
Tsai, S.J., Unklesbay, N., Unklesbay, K. and Clarke, A.
1998. Water and absorptive properties of restructured
beef products with five binders at four isothermal
temperatures. LWT-Food Science Technology 31: 78-
83.
View publication stats