Sabofa FlavorJet Report

www.sabofa.com - [email protected]

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

Study of the influence of adding fluids to Chicken Products by means of the

‘FlavorJet- system’

2


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

3


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. With 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.

4


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.

5


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. .

6


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

7


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

8


gen

. co

un

t (l

og

)

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

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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

9


gen

. co

un

t (l

og

)

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.

Bact. Count

Product % Injection Fluid Avg. Gen. Count in Log

Chicken Legs natural

0 7.000 3,85 5 38.000 4,58

10 121.000 5,08

0 8.500 3,93 Chicken Legs

seasoned 5 7.500 3,88

10 7.000 3,85 Chicken Legs

marinated

0 1.500 3,18 5 2.500 3,40

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

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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 date of kill, is shown in figure 2 and table 2. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the results of the average values are calculated. The average general bacterial count in chicken filets is slightly higher than that in chicken legs.

10


gen

. co

un

t (l

og

)

Avg. Gen. Bact. Count


Chicken Filets

natural

0 33.500 4,53

5 978.000 5,99 10 117.500 5,07

Chicken Filets

seasoned

0 30.000 4,48

5 24.000 4,38

10 26.500 4,42

Chicken Filets

marinated

0 24.000 4,38 5 35.000 4,54

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

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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 date of kill, is shown in figure 3 and table 3. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the results of 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.

11


gen

. co

un

t (l

og

)

Product


% Injection Fluid Avg. Gen. Count in Log

Whole Chicken natural

0 19.500 4,29

5 83.500 4,92 10 53.500 4,73

Whole Chicken

seasoned

0 19.500 4,29

5 12.000 4,08

10 25.000 4,40

Whole Chicken

Marinated

0 31.500 4,50 5 34.000 4,53

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

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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 date of kill, is shown in figure 3 and table 3. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the results of 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.

12


kve/g

yea

sts



Chicken Wings natural

0 800.000 5,90 5 2.150.000 6,33

10 1.650.000 6,22

0 1.225.000 6,09 Chicken Wings

seasoned 5 71.500 4,85

10 16.500 4,22 Chicken Wings

marinated

0 395.000 5,60 5 865.000 5,94

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

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

0

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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 date of kill, is shown in figure 5 and table 5. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the results of 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.

13


kve/g

yea

sts

Product % Injection Fluid Avg. Yeasts (kve/g)


0 245 5 495

10 1.040

0 265 Chicken Legs

seasoned 5 115

10 110 Chicken Legs

marinated

0 30 5 50

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

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

0

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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 date of kill, is shown in figure 6 and table 6. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the results of the average values are calculated. Figure 6 shows that in chicken filets natural the yeast content increases with 5% and 10% injection fluid.

14


kve/g

yea

sts


Chicken Filet

natural

0 780

5 930 10 940

Chicken Filet

seasoned

0 265

5 160

10 270

Chicken Filet

marinated

0 1.040 5 555

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

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

0

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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 date of kill, is shown in figure 7 and table 7. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the results of 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.

15


kve/g

yea

sts

Product % Injection Fluid Avg. yeasts (kve/g)


0 125 5 645

10 375

0 70 Whole

Chicken seasoned

5 60

10 135

Whole Chicken

marinated

0 95 5 110

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

8.000

6.000

4.000

natural

seasoned

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 date of kill, is shown in figure 8 and table 8. The analyses are executed in duplicate and the results of 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.

16


kve/g

en

tero

's


Chicken Wings

natural

0 9.650 5 9.850

10 10.400

0 3.240

Chicken Wings seasoned

5 400

10 120

Chicken Wings

marinated

0 2.950 5 380

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.

2.800

2.400

2.000

1.600

1.200

800

400

0

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

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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.

17


kve/g

en

tero

's

Product % Injection Fluid Avg. Enterobacteria (kve/g)


0 315 5 515

10 910

0 90

Chicken Legs seasoned

5 60

10 55

Chicken Legs

marinated

0 30 5 30

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

40.000

30.000

20.000

natural

seasoned

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.

18


kve/g

en

tero

's


Chicken Filets

natural

0 2.400 5 17.500

10 39.310

0 305 Chicken

Filets seasoned

5 115

10 105

Chicken Filets

marinated

0 1.655 5 810

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

2.000

1.600

1.200

800

400

0

0 5 10

% inj. fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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 days after date of kill, is shown in figure 11 and table 11. The analyses are executed in duplicate and 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.

19


kve/g

en

tero

's



0 150 5 2.745

10

770

0 70 Whole

Chicken seasoned

5 135

10 455

Whole Chicken

marinated

0 30 5 460

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.

60.000

Avg. kve/g enterobacteria chicken wings

end shelf-life

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

natural

seasoned

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 days after date of kill, is shown in figure 12 and table 12. The analyses are executed in duplicate and 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.

20



Chicken Wings natural

0 57.500 5 17.000

10 38.000

0 1.075 Chicken Wings

seasoned 5 100

10 30 Chicken Wings

marinated

0 18.500 5 13.250

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.

21


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

Chicken Legs

natural

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Gray No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Little

5

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Normal Little

10

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Normal Much

Chicken Legs

seasoned

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Pale No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Little

5

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Product looks a

little wet Much

10

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Product looks a

little wet Much

Chicken Legs

marinated

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Normal

5


10

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality 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. With 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.

22


Product: Chicken Legs after Preparation Process % Parameter Result Preference


after Preparation

0

Exterior raw Little Moisture No Preference Taste Good, Chicken Taste Texture Dry/tough

5

Exterior raw More Moisture 3 of 5 panel members Taste Less Chicken Taste,

Watery

Texture More Tender

10 Exterior raw Much Moisture 2 of 5 panel members Taste Good, Watery 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

Chicken Filet

natural

0

Scent No Abnormality Zurig Colour Not fresh No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Normaal

5

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Not fresh No Abnormality Drip Loss Normal Normal

10

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Not fresh No Abnormality Drip Loss Normal Normal

Chicken Filet

seasoned

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Little

5


10


Chicken Filet

marinated

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Not so fresh No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Normal

5

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Not so fresh No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Much

10

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Not so fresh No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Much

Table 15. Assessment of Chicken Filets raw during the Shelf-life period

23


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

Chicken Filet natural

after preparation

0

Exterior raw Little Moisture No Preference Taste Good, less Taste Texture Dry/tough

5

Exterior raw Little Moisture No Preference Taste Less chicken taste, watery Texture Moist, falls apart

10

Exterior raw Little Moisture 5 out of 5 test panel members

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 preparation (cooking). The products are judged in raw condition for exterior and for taste and texture 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.

24


Product: Whole Chicken raw Process % injection Parameter During Shelf-Life End Shelf-Life

Whole Chicken

natural

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Light Pink No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Little

5

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Pink No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Normal

10

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Pink No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Much

Whole Chicken seasoned

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Pale, less

seasoned No Abnormality

Drip Loss Little Little

5 Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Normal Normal

10


Whole Chicken

marinated

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Normal Normal

5

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour No Abnormality No Abnormality Drip Loss Much Much

10


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.

25


Product: Whole Chicken after preparation Process Parameter Result Preference

Whole Chicken

natural after preparation

0

Exterior raw Little Moisture 1 out of 5 test panel members

Taste Little Taste Texture Dry/not tender

5

Exterior raw More Moisture 4 out of 5 test panel members

Taste Good Taste Texture Tender, Moist (3x)

(Very) Dry (2x)

10

Exterior raw Much Moisture No Preference 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 preparation (cooking). The products are judged in raw condition for exterior and for taste and texture 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. However, the preference is also determined by the tenderness.

26


Product: Chicken Wings raw Process % injection Parameter During Shelf-Life End Shelf-Life

Chicken Wings

natural

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Not fresh, gray Pale Drip Loss Little Little

5

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Nice Pink No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Normal

10

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Nice Pink No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Normal

Chicken Wings

seasoned

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Gray No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Little

5


10


Chicken Wings

marinated

0

Scent No Abnormality No Abnormality Colour Gray No Abnormality Drip Loss Little Much

5


10


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 Process Parameter Result Preference

Chicken Wing natural after preparation (cooking)

0

Exterior raw Discoloured, Dry Taste Little Taste Texture Firm, little too dry

5

Exterior raw More Volume 5 out of 5 test panel members

Taste Pleasant, good Taste Texture Tender, Moist

10

Exterior raw Much More Volume Taste Less Salty Texture Too tender, Watery

Table 20. Assessment of Whole Chicken natural after preparation

27


Table 20 shows the sensory assessment of chicken wings 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. 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. However, the preference is also determined by the tenderness.

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) Process Parameter Result Preference

Grilled Chicken Legs after heating

0

Exterior grilled Good Taste Chicken Taste (3x)

Less Taste (2x)

Texture (Very) Dry 1 out of 5 test panel members

5

Exterior grilled Good Taste Pleasant Taste (3x)

Too Salty (2x)

Texture Little Dry, less dry than 0%

3 out of 5 test panel members

10

Exterior grilled Good Taste Too Salty (4x)

Less Salty (1x) 1 out of 5 test panel 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.

28


Product: Grilled Chicken Filets after preparation (heating) Process Parameter Result Preference

Grilled Chicken

Filets after heating

0

Exterior grilled Good Taste Spicy Texture Good 5 out of 5 test panel

members

5 Exterior grilled Good Taste Too Salty Texture Tender

10

Exterior grilled Good 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) Process Parameter Result Preference

Grilled Chicken

Wings after heating

0

Exterior grilled Good Taste Good, little Taste Texture Good

5

Exterior grilled Good Taste Salty, Nice Texture Tender 4 out of 5 test panel

members

10

Exterior grilled Good Taste Too Salty (4x)

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.

29


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.

30


% D

rip

Lo

ss

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

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

0 5 10

% Injection Fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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.

31


% D

rip

Lo

ss

Chicken Legs % Injection Fluid % Drip Loss end Shelf-Life

Natural

0 0,9 5 1,2

10 2,4

0 1,2

Seasoned 5 3,2

10 3,5

Marinated

0 2,1 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

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

0 5 10

% Injection Fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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.

32


% D

rip

Lo

ss

Chicken Filets % Injection Fluid % Drip Loss end Shelf-Life

Natural

0 2,1 5 1,4

10 1,5

0 0,7

Seasoned 5 0,7

10 0,7

Marinated

0 2,0 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

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

0 5 10

% Injection Fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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.

33


% D

rip

Lo

ss

Whole Chicken % Injection Fluid % Drip Loss end Shelf-Life

Natural

0 0,6 5 0,7

10 1,2

0 0,4

Seasoned 5 1,0

10 1,4

Marinated

0 0,7 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

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

0 5 10

% Injection Fluid

natural

seasoned

marinated

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

34


Chicken Wings % Injection Fluid % Drip Loss end Shelf-Life

Natural

0 1,1 5 1,5

10 1,8

0 1,1

Seasoned 5 2,9

10 4,3

Marinated

0 1,8 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. Whole 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.

35


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.

Sabofa FlavorJet Report

Technology

Transcript of Sabofa FlavorJet Report