KR100866306B1 - Smoked ham containing of Herbs extracts with preservative capacity and quality to be enhanced - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a ham with improved herb quality and shelf life, and more specifically, to a ham containing Hibisicus sabdariffa herbal extract and the results of sensory, shelf life and functional verification thereof. will be. The present invention can increase the physicochemical properties, organoleptic properties, shelf life and functionality of ham by utilizing the herbal extract known to have excellent antimicrobial activity against food poisoning and food rot bacteria in the production of ham.

Hibiscus sabaripa, ham

Description

Smoked ham containing of Herbs extracts with preservative capacity and quality to be enhanced}

Figure 1 shows the redness value of the ham according to the storage period.

Figure 2a shows the change in appearance of the ham according to the storage period.

Figure 2b shows the change in the smell of ham according to the storage period.

Figure 2c shows the change in taste of ham with storage period.

Figure 2d shows the change in texture of the ham according to the storage period.

Figure 2e shows the change in the overall preference of the ham according to the storage period.

Figure 3 shows the weight change of the mouse during the experiment.

Figure 4a shows the concentration of triglyceride in blood.

Figure 4b shows the total cholesterol concentration in blood.

Figure 4c shows the blood HDL cholesterol concentration.

Figure 5 shows the total SOD concentration in the liver.

Figure 6 shows the total bacterial counts of ham according to the storage period.

The present invention relates to a ham with improved herb quality and shelf life, and more specifically, to a ham containing Hibisicus sabdariffa herbal extract and the results of sensory, shelf life and functional verification thereof. will be.

Herbs means 'grass' derived from Latin 'herba', but nowadays, stems, leaves, flowers, roots, etc. are used as a generic term for plants that are useful to humans. It has been found to be effective in treating intractable diseases such as allergy, chronic pain, hyperlipidemia, cancer, arthritis, and heart disease (Essential oils and "aromatherapy" their modern role in healing, 1997).

The main use of herbs used for food has been used as a fragrance that can add an additional scent to the main ingredient or visually appetite, but recently it has been used as a raw material of natural antibacterial agents and antioxidants to replace synthetic antibacterial agents. There is a growing interest in screening of antimicrobial and antioxidative herbs (2003).

In addition, herbal extracts have been shown to reduce the formation of lipids in the blood vessels, including LDL-cholesterol, and contain various antioxidants such as flavonoids, polyphenols, and anthocyanins (Antioxidant, antimutagenic). and chemopreventive activities of a phyto-extract mixture derived from various vegetables, fruits and oriental herbs, 2003).

However, an overdose of nitrite added for meat fixation, antimicrobial, antioxidant, flavor enhancement (Processed meats, 1984) and inhibition of food poisoning (Nitrite cured meat: a food safety issue in perspective, 1990) in ham processing As a result, it has been found that it may combine with symptoms of the body, such as hemoglobin and hemoglobin, and can produce carcinogens called nitrozoamines. (Studies on the regulation for use, metabolism, intake, and safety of sodium nitrite in meat products, 2005).

The present invention is to improve the quality and shelf life of ham through the pigmentation and antimicrobial enhancement by adding a herbaceous pigmented herb instead of reducing the amount of nitrite added during ham production as an alternative to reduce the negative elements of the ham do.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION In order to solve the problems of the prior art, an object of the present invention is to provide a ham and a functional, shelf life and functional verification results for the ham containing an excellent antibacterial and physiological activity.

The present invention for achieving the above object provides a ham containing Hibisicus sabdariffa herbal extract.

Ham containing the Hibisicus sabdariffa herbal extract is characterized by enhanced functionality, shelf life and functionality.

In addition, the present invention comprises the steps of ethanol extraction of Hibisicus sabdariffa herb; After lyophilizing the herb extracts, distilled water is added to obtain a herb concentrate, and a method of preparing a ham containing the herb extract comprising mixing the herb concentrate with beef, pork or chicken.

Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in detail.

In order to prepare a ham containing the herbal extract of the present invention, an extract of Hibisicus sabdariffa herb is prepared.

Hibiscus sabaripa herb has excellent antibacterial and physiological activity. In particular, it is known to have excellent antibacterial activity against food poisoning and food rot.

Hibiscus sabaripa herb can be used by drying the stems or leaves, respectively, or by mixing them.

The hibiscus sabaripa herb extract of the present invention is added to 65 ~ 70% ethanol 10-12 times in the dried hibiscus saabdalipa herb leaf or stem and then mixed for 48-50 hours at 50 ~ 55 ℃ Get

After removing the herb and freeze-dried herb extract, the distilled water is added so that the concentration of the extract of the herbal extract is about 400 ~ 600mg / ㎖.

It is preferable to filter the Hibiscus sabaripa herb concentrate with whatman paper and then filter with 0.45 mm polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).

Ham containing the hibiscus sabaripa herb extract of the present invention can be produced using pork, beef, chicken and the like as a raw material.

Ham containing hibiscus hibiscus sabdaripa herb extract Hibisicus sabdariffa herb ethanol extract step of lyophilizing the herb extract and adding distilled water to obtain a herbal concentrate; And it can be prepared through the step of mixing the herbal concentrate in beef, pork or chicken.

Ham containing hibiscus sabaripa herb extract of the present invention is preferably added salt, nitrate, phosphate, herbal extract to the meat in order to eliminate the cause of corruption, such as blood and juice.

Ham containing the hibiscus sabaripa herb extract preferably contains 0.5 to 3.0% by weight of 500 mg / ml hibiscus sabaripa herb extract.

When the content of the herb extract is less than 0.5% by weight, the effect of the herb extract was inadequate, and when added in excess of 3.0% by weight, the aroma and taste of the herb were too strong, indicating a bad effect on the flavor and taste of the ham.

The mixture for preparing the herbal ham is preferably left in a cool place for 4-8 hours at tumbling (4 ° C.).

The ham mixture is packed in a fume smoke-permeable cellophane paper, and then filled and dried at 45-55 ° C. for 30-50 minutes, and then smoked at 55-60 ° C. for 30-40 minutes.

It is preferable to use oak (2-3 minutes chip) in the smoking, the oak is preferably 33% chip / H ₂ O rehydration (rehydration) 8 hours before use.

 It is preferable to heat-process the ham smoked above at 60-65 degreeC for 30 to 40 minutes, and it cools for 3 to 5 minutes in a 4 degreeC chamber, and after cooling for 30 to 40 minutes in a 1-2 degree cooling chamber, vacuum-packing It is desirable to.

The present invention can utilize the hibiscus sabaripa herbal extract in the production of ham to increase the color, flavor, taste, texture and shelf life of the ham.

According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the ham containing the herbal extract does not appear to affect the weight of the experimental animal compared to the control, but the triglyceride and total cholesterol in the blood contains the herbal extract The experimental group fed the ham was significantly lower and the blood HDL-cholesterol was significantly higher.

Therefore, the ham containing the herbal extract of the present invention can suppress the increase of triglyceride and total cholesterol in the blood according to the ingestion of ham.

According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the microbial measurement results in less detection of total bacteria, E. coli and E. coli bacteria in the sample group to which the herb ham is added. Therefore, the addition of the herbal extract of ham in the present invention is considered to be helpful for the antibacterial effect.

Using a ham containing the herbal extract of the present invention can be prepared for a simple menu such as sandwich for children, adolescents or adults with high ham preference.

The present invention can increase the physicochemical properties, organoleptic properties, shelf life and functionality of ham by utilizing the herbal extract known to have excellent antimicrobial activity against food poisoning and food rot bacteria in the production of ham.

Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in more detail with reference to the following examples. However, these examples are proposed to explain the present invention in more detail, and the scope of the present invention is not limited thereto.

Example.

Example 1. Herb Extract Preparation

Hibisicus, an excellent herb with antibacterial and physiological activity sabdariffa Linn . Roselle extract (Patent Application 10-2005-0080553) was used for the experiment.

Dried Hibisicus sabdariffa Linn 70 g of ethanol was added to 1:10 (w / v) of 70 g of herb leaves for 48 hours at 50 rpm at 150 rpm, and the herb was removed to obtain an herbal extract. After the obtained herbal extract was lyophilized, distilled water was added to make a 500 mg / ml concentrate. The concentrate was filtered with Whatman paper No. 2. and filtered with 0.45 mm polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).

Example 2. Herb Ham Preparation

Pork sirloin (80 cm x 10 cm x 8 cm, 2.5 kg) from which subcutaneous fat was removed was used. Salt, nitrate, phosphate, 0.5%, 1%, and 3% mixed solution of the herbal extract of Example 1 in order to remove the cause of corruption, such as blood and juice, and added 10% to the meat, and then tumbling (4 ℃) It was left in a cool place for six hours. The blending ratio used to prepare the ham is shown in Table 1. It was packed and packed in a fume-permeable cellophane paper corresponding to the required size of retainer. After drying at 50 ℃ for 40 minutes, smoking at 60 ℃ for 30 minutes (oak 2-3 minutes chip, 33% chip / H ₂ O rehydration 8 hours before use), heat treatment at 63 ℃ for 30 minutes, then chamber After cooling for 3 minutes in a cooling chamber for 40 minutes in a cooling chamber, and vacuum packed.

<Table 1> Compounding ratio used for ham production

Material Name ratio(%) Pork tenderloin, raw material 95.330 Garage 0.576 Refined salt 1.478 Complex phosphate 0.191 Sodium nitrite 0.010 White sugar 1.764 L-Sodium Glutamate 0.172 White Pepper 0.224 Clove 0.006 Cinnamon 0.022 Allspice 0.033 sage 0.006 Onion Powder 0.136 Vitamin C 0.023 Red Powder En 0.029 Sum 100

Note

Red Powder: Cochinyl Extract Pigment (Carminic Acid Content 3%), Potassium Aluminum Sulfate, Sodium Citrate, Sodium Metaphosphate, Product Color: Carmic Acid Content 2% or more

Example 3 Physicochemical Evaluation of Herb Ham

Table 2 shows the results of the general component analysis of the ham prepared in the present invention. In the NH group, moisture, crude protein, and crude fat contents tended to be lower than in the other groups to which the herbal extract was added.

Table 3 shows the results of analyzing the general ingredients from the purchase of commercially available herbs with added herbs, and showed less water content, lower protein content, and higher fat content than the ham used in this experiment. Many were analyzed.

Table 2 General Ingredients of Produced Ham (%)

Parameter Samples NH ^{1 )} H1 H2 H3 moisture 66.89 ± 0.39 ²⁾ 67.52 ± 0.75 66.91 ± 0.01 67.53 ± 0.06 Crude protein 26.03 ± 0.04 27.04 ± 0.01 26.72 ± 0.005 28.22 ± 0.02 Crude lipid 1.34 ± 0.05 1.47 ± 0.02 1.90 ± 0.01 1.52 ± 0.02 Crude ash 3.43 ± 0.005 3.25 ± 0.01 3.41 ± 0.01 3.35 ± 0.01

¹⁾ NH: Herb Extract 0%, H1: Herb Extract 0.5%, H2: Herb Extract 1%, H3: Herb Extract 3%

²⁾ ±: standard deviation

<Table 3> General Ingredients (%) of Commercial Hams

Parameter Samples A-Company B-Company C-Company moisture 65.36 ± 0.69 66.09 ± 0.95 65.881 ± 0.55 Crude protein 18.28 ± 0.75 14.49 ± 0.31 15.74 ± 0.27 Crude lipid  5.54 ± 0.20 16.59 ± 0.65 15.67 ± 0.50 Crude ash  3.45 ± 0.05  3.53 ± 0.61 3.48 ± 0.01

±: standard deviation

Measurement of redness (a value)

The redness value of herbal ham with different amount of herb extract did not show significant difference between H1 and H2 on the day of manufacture. There was a significant (p <0.01) difference between NH and H3 (FIG. 1, NH: herbal extract 0%, H1: herbal extract 0.5%, H2: herbal extract 1%, H3: herbal extract 3%). On the 3rd day of storage, the redness value was significantly lower (p <0.001) in NH. There was no significant difference between samples at 6 days of storage, and there was a significant difference in redness between sample groups according to storage period. NH significantly decreased (p <0.001) the redness value with storage period. Redness decreased with storage period among all samples (Table 4).

<Table 4> Changes in redness (a) values of ham according to storage period

Para-meter Storage (days) NH ^{1 )} H1 H2 H3 F-value a 0 ^x 12.54 ± 0.81 ^{b2 ) x} 14.17 ± 0.18 ^{a x} 14.96 ± 0.49 ^{a x} 13.23 ± 0.20 ^b 13.56 ^** 3 ^x 11.96 ± 0.25 ^{c x} 14.11 ± 0.19 ^{a xy} 14.59 ± 0.62 ^{a x} 13.07 ± 0.24 ^b 29.10 ^*** 6 ^x 12.54 ± 0.72 ^x 13.66 ± 1.53 ^xy 14.34 ± 3.09 ^xy 12.24 ± 1.37 0.795 9 ^y 10.37 ± 0.72 ^{b y} 11.35 ± 0.19 ^{b xyz} 13.42 ± 1.37 ^{a y} 11.90 ± 0.39 ^ab 7.429 ^* 12 ^y 10.17 ± 0.50 ^{c y} 11.25 ± 0.24 ^{b yz} 12.35 ± 0.30 ^{a y} 11.97 ± 0.06 ^a 26.94 ^*** 15 ^y 10.30 ± 0.35 ^{b y} 10.25 ± 0.24 ^{b yz} 12.07 ± 0.11 ^{a y} 11.96 ± 0.07 ^a 58.04 ^*** 20 ^z 9.16 ± 0.25 ^{c y} 10.65 ± 0.16 ^{b z} 11.44 ± 0.57 ^{a y} 11.73 ± 0.26 ^a 32.54 ^***         F-value 16.705 ^*** 23.439 ^*** 3.175 ^* 3.422 ^* Para-meter Storage (days) NH ^{1 )} H1 H2 H3 F-value a 0 ^x 12.54 ± 0.81 ^{b2 ) x} 14.17 ± 0.18 ^{a x} 14.96 ± 0.49 ^{a x} 13.23 ± 0.20 ^b 13.56 ^** 3 ^x 11.96 ± 0.25 ^{c x} 14.11 ± 0.19 ^{a xy} 14.59 ± 0.62 ^{a x} 13.07 ± 0.24 ^b 29.10 ^*** 6 ^x 12.54 ± 0.72 ^x 13.66 ± 1.53 ^xy 14.34 ± 3.09 ^xy 12.24 ± 1.37 0.795 9 ^y 10.37 ± 0.72 ^{b y} 11.35 ± 0.19 ^{b xyz} 13.42 ± 1.37 ^{a y} 11.90 ± 0.39 ^ab 7.429 ^* 12 ^y 10.17 ± 0.50 ^{c y} 11.25 ± 0.24 ^{b yz} 12.35 ± 0.30 ^{a y} 11.97 ± 0.06 ^a 26.94 ^*** 15 ^y 10.30 ± 0.35 ^{b y} 10.25 ± 0.24 ^{b yz} 12.07 ± 0.11 ^{a y} 11.96 ± 0.07 ^a 58.04 ^*** 20 ^z 9.16 ± 0.25 ^{c y} 10.65 ± 0.16 ^{b z} 11.44 ± 0.57 ^{a y} 11.73 ± 0.26 ^a 32.54 ^***         F-value 16.705 ^*** 23.439 ^*** 3.175 ^* 3.422 ^* Para-meter Storage (days) NH ^{1 )} H1 H2 H3 F-value a 0 ^x 12.54 ± 0.81 ^{b2 ) x} 14.17 ± 0.18 ^{a x} 14.96 ± 0.49 ^{a x} 13.23 ± 0.20 ^b 13.56 ^** 3 ^x 11.96 ± 0.25 ^{c x} 14.11 ± 0.19 ^{a xy} 14.59 ± 0.62 ^{a x} 13.07 ± 0.24 ^b 29.10 ^*** 6 ^x 12.54 ± 0.72 ^x 13.66 ± 1.53 ^xy 14.34 ± 3.09 ^xy 12.24 ± 1.37 0.795 9 ^y 10.37 ± 0.72 ^{b y} 11.35 ± 0.19 ^{b xyz} 13.42 ± 1.37 ^{a y} 11.90 ± 0.39 ^ab 7.429 ^* 12 ^y 10.17 ± 0.50 ^{c y} 11.25 ± 0.24 ^{b yz} 12.35 ± 0.30 ^{a y} 11.97 ± 0.06 ^a 26.94 ^*** 15 ^y 10.30 ± 0.35 ^{b y} 10.25 ± 0.24 ^{b yz} 12.07 ± 0.11 ^{a y} 11.96 ± 0.07 ^a 58.04 ^*** 20 ^z 9.16 ± 0.25 ^{c y} 10.65 ± 0.16 ^{b z} 11.44 ± 0.57 ^{a y} 11.73 ± 0.26 ^a 32.54 ^***         F-value 16.705 ^*** 23.439 ^*** 3.175 ^* 3.422 ^* Para-meter Storage (days) NH ^{1 )} H1 H2 H3 F-value a 0 ^x 12.54 ± 0.81 ^{b2 ) x} 14.17 ± 0.18 ^{a x} 14.96 ± 0.49 ^{a x} 13.23 ± 0.20 ^b 13.56 ^** 3 ^x 11.96 ± 0.25 ^{c x} 14.11 ± 0.19 ^{a xy} 14.59 ± 0.62 ^{a x} 13.07 ± 0.24 ^b 29.10 ^*** 6 ^x 12.54 ± 0.72 ^x 13.66 ± 1.53 ^xy 14.34 ± 3.09 ^xy 12.24 ± 1.37 0.795 9 ^y 10.37 ± 0.72 ^{b y} 11.35 ± 0.19 ^{b xyz} 13.42 ± 1.37 ^{a y} 11.90 ± 0.39 ^ab 7.429 ^* 12 ^y 10.17 ± 0.50 ^{c y} 11.25 ± 0.24 ^{b yz} 12.35 ± 0.30 ^{a y} 11.97 ± 0.06 ^a 26.94 ^*** 15 ^y 10.30 ± 0.35 ^{b y} 10.25 ± 0.24 ^{b yz} 12.07 ± 0.11 ^{a y} 11.96 ± 0.07 ^a 58.04 ^*** 20 ^z 9.16 ± 0.25 ^{c y} 10.65 ± 0.16 ^{b z} 11.44 ± 0.57 ^{a y} 11.73 ± 0.26 ^a 32.54 ^***         F-value 16.705 ^*** 23.439 ^*** 3.175 ^* 3.422 ^*

¹⁾ NH: Herb Extract 0%, H1: Herb Extract 0.5%, H2: Herb Extract 1%, H3: Herb Extract 3%

²⁾ ±: standard deviation

abc: There is a significant difference between the values of other superscripts on the same line (p <0.05).

xyz: There are significant differences in the values of the different superscripts on the same line (p <0.05).

^* : p <0.05, ^** : p <0.01, ^*** : p <0.001

Example 4 Sensory Evaluation of Herb Ham

For the sensory evaluation of the prepared ham, 12 food and nutrition graduate students and 12 college students were selected as sensory evaluation agents.They were evaluated to recognize the objectives of the experiment and sensory quality factors, and trained through preliminary experiments. Sensory evaluation was performed. Water was provided to rinse the mouth before each sample, in order to simultaneously provide the samples according to the storage period and to ensure that the sensory characteristics of all the samples did not affect the next sample. Sensory evaluation items were evaluated for five kinds of color, smell, taste, texture, and overall preference. At this time, the rating was best divided into 7 points, usually 4 points, very bad 1 point, and after sensory evaluation on the day of manufacture, stored in a refrigerator at 5 ℃ 3 days, 6 days, 9 days, 12 days, 15 days, Sensory evaluation was carried out in the same manner after 20 days.

The results of evaluating appearance (color), smell, taste, texture and overall acceptability after ham production are shown in Tables 5 to 6 and FIGS. 2A to 2E (NH: Herb Extract 0%, H1: Herb Extract 0.5%, H2). : Herb extract 1%, H3: Herb extract 3%). The appearance of ham on the day of manufacture was significantly (p <0.5) higher in H2. There was no significant difference between the sample groups on the 3rd day of storage, and it was significantly (p <0.05, p <0.01) in H2, which was the 1% addition of the herb extract on the 6th and 20th day of storage. As storage period increased, the appearance decreased significantly in all sample groups (FIG. 2A).

The results for odor showed a significant (p <0.001) high score in H2 on the day of preparation and 9 days of storage, and the odor tended to decrease with increasing storage period (FIG. 2b).

In the evaluation of taste, the score was significantly higher (p <0.05) in H2 on the 3rd day of manufacture, and the score of the herb ham added with the herb extract in the taste between samples according to the storage period tended to be high (FIG. 2C). .

As a result of texture evaluation, there was no significant difference between samples on the day of preparation, and significantly lower score (p <0.05) in H3 on storage day 3 and significantly higher score in H1 and H2 (FIG. 2D). The texture was significantly lower (p <0.05) in H3 on the 9th day of manufacture, and the overall acceptability of the NH group was significantly lower (p <0.05) on the 6th day of storage. In addition, as storage period increased, the overall preference value decreased.

As a result of sensory evaluation, the H2 group showed a significantly higher score in appearance, taste, smell, texture, and overall preference evaluation (FIG. 2E).

<Table 5> Sensory Evaluation of Ham According to Storage Period

Parameter Storage (days) NH ^{1 )} H1 H2 H3 F-value Appea rance 0 ^xy 3.88 ± 0.60 ^{ab2 ) yz} 3.88 ± 0.78 ^{ab xy} 4.33 ± 1.00 ^{a x} 3.33 ± 0.70 ^b 2.44 ^* 3 ^x 4.33 ± 0.86 ^x 4.66 ± 0.50 ^x 4.77 ± 0.44 ^x 4.33 ± 0.70 1.11 6 ^x 4.44 ± 0.72 ^{ab xy} 4.44 ± 1.01 ^{ab x} 4.77 ± 0.44 ^{a x} 3.88 ± 0.60 ^b 2.32 ^* 9 ^xy 3.88 ± 0.78 ^z 4.00 ± 0.86 ^x 4.44 ± 0.72 ^x 4.44 ± 0.52 1.41 12 ^yz 3.55 ± 0.52 ^z 3.55 ± 0.52 ^y 4.00 ± 0.70 ^x 3.88 ± 0.78 1.13 15 ^yz 3.55 ± 0.72 ^z 3.66 ± 0.50 ^y 3.77 ± 0.66 ^x 3.66 ± 0.70 0.17 20 ^z 2.88 ± 0.78 ^{b yz} 3.11 ± 1.05 ^{b xy} 3.33 ± 0.70 ^a . ^x 3.33 ± 0.50 ^b 5.91 ^** F-value 4.76 ^** 3.67 ^** 3.41 ^** 1.58 Flavor 0 ^y 3.22 ± 0.44 ^{c x} 3.88 ± 0.78 ^{b x} 4.66 ± 0.50 ^{a x} 3.44 ± 0.52 ^bc 10.97 ^*** 3 ^y 3.22 ± 0.44 ^b . ^x 3.33 ± 0.50 ^{ab xy} 4.00 ± 0.86 ^{a x} 3.66 ± 0.86 ^ab 2.28 ^* 6 ^xy 3.33 ± 0.50 ^x 3.66 ± 0.70 ^y 3.77 ± 0.66 ^x 3.33 ± 0.50 1.30 9 ^xy 3.88 ± 0.33 ^{b x} 4.00 ± 0.50 ^{b x} 4.44 ± 0.52 ^{a x} 4.11 ± 0.33 ^ab 2.76 ^* 12 ^x 4.22 ± 0.83 ^x 4.00 ± 0.70 ^x 4.22 ± 0.83 ^x 4.00 ± 0.70 0.24 15 ^x 4.00 ± 0.86 ^x 3.88 ± 0.60 ^x 4.22 ± 0.66 ^x 3.66 ± 0.86 0.83 20 ^x 4.44 ± 1.01 ^{a x} 3.33 ± 0.50 ^{b xy} 3.66 ± 0.50 ^{b x} 4.00 ± 0.86 ^ab 3.51 ^* F-value 3.78 ^** 1.55 2.43 ^* 1.39 ^* Tasty 0 ^x 4.44 ± 0.72 ^x 4.44 ± 1.01 ^w 5.00 ± 0.70 ^x 4.66 ± 0.50 1.07 3 ^xy 4.00 ± 0.70 ^{b x} 4.44 ± 0.52 ^{ab w} 5.00 ± 0.70 ^{a yz} 3.88 ± 0.92 ^b 4.29 ^* 6 ^x 4.22 ± 0.66 ^{ab x} 4.11 ± 0.78 ^{ab yz} 3.88 ± 0.60 ^{b x} 4.66 ± 0.50 ^a 2.31 ^* 9 ^x 4.33 ± 0.70 ^x 4.44 ± 0.72 ^xw 4.66 ± 0.50 ^xy 4.22 ± 0.66 0.75 12 ^xy 4.11 ± 0.78 ^x 4.11 ± 0.78 ^xy 4.22 ± 0.66 ^xy 4.22 ± 0.66 0.07 15 ^yz 3.44 ± 0.52 ^y 3.22 ± 0.66 ^yz 3.88 ± 0.78 ^z 3.33 ± 0.70 1.67 20 ^z 3.22 ± 0.66 ^y 3.33 ± 0.70 ^z 3.55 ± 0.52 ^z 3.44 ± 0.52 0.49 F-value 4.05 ^** 4.37 ^** 7.17 ^** 5.98 ^**

¹⁾ NH: Herb Extract 0%, H1: Herb Extract 0.5%, H2: Herb Extract 1%, H3: Herb Extract 3%

²⁾ ±: standard deviation

abc: There is a significant difference between the values of other superscripts on the same line (p <0.05).

xyz: There are significant differences in the values of the different superscripts on the same line (p <0.05).

^* : p <0.05, ^** : p <0.01, ^*** : p <0.001

<Table 6> Sensory Evaluation of Ham According to Storage Period

Para-meter Storage (days) NH ^{1 )} H1 H2 H3 F-value Texture 0 ^v 4.66 ± 0.50 ^wx 4.66 ± 0.86 ^x 4.55 ± 0.88 ^x 4.22 ± 0.66 0.71 3 ^vwx 4.33 ± 0.70 ^{ab w} 5.00 ± 0.70 ^{a x} 5.00 ± 0.86 ^{a xy} 4.00 ± 0.70 ^b 4.00 ^* 6 ^wxy 4.00 ± 0.70 ^xy 4.22 ± 0.83 ^x 4.44 ± 0.52 ^xy 4.00 ± 0.70 0.82 9 ^vw 4.55 ± 0.52 ^wx 4.66 ± 0.50 ^x 4.55 ± 0.52 ^xy 4.11 ± 0.78 1.54 12 ^xy 3.88 ± 0.60 ^xy 4.00 ± 0.70 ^x 4.33 ± 0.70 ^x 4.44 ± 0.52 1.53 15 ^yz 3.55 ± 0.72 ^yz 3.66 ± 0.70 ^y 3.44 ± 0.52 ^yz 3.44 ± 0.52 0.25 20 ^z 3.00 ± 0.70 ^z 3.00 ± 0.70 ^y 3.33 ± 0.86 ^z 3.00 ± 0.70 0.44 F-value 7.46 ^** 8.06 ^** 6.63 ^** 5.00 ^** Overall quality 0 ^x 4.66 ± 0.50 ^{a x} 5.00 ± 0.70 ^{a x} 5.00 ± 0.70 ^{a xy} 4.00 ± 0.70 ^b 4.57 ^** 3 ^xy 4.22 ± 0.44 ^yz 4.11 ± 0.60 ^x 4.66 ± 0.70 ^xy 4.11 ± 0.78 1.51 6 ^yz 3.66 ± 0.70 ^{c z} 3.88 ± 0.92 ^{bc x} 4.77 ± 0.44 ^{a x} 4.44 ± 0.72 ^ab 4.46 ^* 9 ^xy 4.11 ± 0.60 ^{bc xy} 4.66 ± 0.86 ^{ab x} 5.00 ± 0.70 ^{a xy} 3.88 ± 0.78 ^c 4.18 ^** 12 ^yz 3.77 ± 0.83 ^{b yz} 4.33 ± 0.70 ^{ab xy} 4.77 ± 0.44 ^{a x} 4.11 ± 0.78 ^ab 3.16 ^* 15 ^yz 3.88 ± 0.78 ^z 3.66 ± 0.70 ^yz 4.00 ± 0.50 ^yz 3.44 ± 0.52 1.33 20 ^z 3.44 ± 0.52 ^z 3.44 ± 0.52 ^z 3.66 ± 0.70 ^z 3.11 ± 0.78 1.13 F-value 3.89 ^** 5.04 ^** 5.62 ^** 3.68 ^**

¹⁾ NH: Herb Extract 0%, H1: Herb Extract 0.5%, H2: Herb Extract 1%, H3: Herb Extract 3%

²⁾ ±: standard deviation

abc: There is a significant difference between the values of other superscripts on the same line (p <0.05).

xyz: There are significant differences in the values of the different superscripts on the same line (p <0.05).

^* : p <0.05, ^** : p <0.01, ^*** : p <0.001

Example  5. Animal Breeding and Dietary Composition

Animals used in the experiment were 4 weeks old ICR mice. After one week of feeding a solid diet to the environment, it was immersed in group 5, ND group, experimental control group (ND-0%), 0.5% herb extract by randomized block design. Ham group (ND-0.5%), ham group immersed in 1% herbal extract (ND-1%), ham group immersed in 3% herbal extract (ND-3%) Ham soaking was used after soaking for 24 hours each. Water and experimental diets were freely consumed. The experimental diet was to take the AIN-76 diet, the composition is shown in Table 7, the dietary intake was recorded every two days, body weight once a week.

 The diet to which the ham was added was allowed to ingest freely, and then the remaining amount was checked to calculate the intake.

Table 7 Dietary Composition

Ingredient Control Ham diet. ND ^{1 )} ND-0% ND-0.5% ND-1% ND-3% Casein 20 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 DL-Methionine 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Corn starch 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Sucrose 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Fiber 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Corn oil 5.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 AIN-76 Mineral mix 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 AIN-76 Vitamin mix 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Choline bitartrate 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ham 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total (g) 100 100 100 100 100 kcal / 100g 384 384 384 384 384

1) AIN-76 diet containing 5% fat (12% fat kcal)

Example 6 Verification of Functionality of Herb Ham

Dietary Intake and Total Calories:

In Example 5, dietary intake and total calorie intake of experimental animals were significantly higher in ND-1% and ND-3% compared to ND-0% (Table 8).

Table 8 Dietary Intake and Total Calories

Control Ham diet. ND ND-0% ND-0.5% ND-1% ND-3% Feed consumption (g / d) 3.98 ± 0.51 ^b 4.44 ± 0.46 ^ab 4.41 ± 0.60 ^ab 4.76 ± 0.47 ^a 4.78 ± 0.48 ^a Energy intake (kcal / d) 15.32 ± 1.96 ^b 17.08 ± 1.77 ^ab 16.97 ± 2.30 ^ab 18.34 ± 1.81 ^a 18.39 ± 1.84 ^a

±: standard deviation (n = 8).

a, b; There is a significant difference between the values of other superscripts on the same line (p <0.05).

Weight gain:

As shown in Table 9, there was no significant difference in the initial body weight, final body weight and weight gain of the experimental animals.

TABLE 9 Weight gain

weight Control Ham ND ND-0% ND-0.5% ND-1% ND-3% Initial weight (g) 31.14 ± 3.28 33.32 ± 2.11 32.58 ± 2.16 32.86 ± 1.99 31.99 ± 1.30 Final weight (g) 37.07 ± 3.97 39.87 ± 4.99 39.99 ± 5.20 43.13 ± 4.89 39.27 ± 3.85 Weight gain (g) 1.23 ± 0.79 1.30 ± 1.59 1.45 ± 0.84 1.80 ± 1.16 1.93 ± 2.57

±: standard deviation (n = 8).

a, b; There is a significant difference between the values of other superscripts on the same line (p <0.05).

Weight change:

As shown in FIG. 3, there was no significant difference between the groups of the results of observing the weight change of the experimental animals during the experiment.

Abdominal Fat Increase:

Abdominal fat mass was not significantly different between groups (Table 10).

TABLE 10 Abdominal fat mass (%)

Control Ham ND ND-0% ND-0.5% ND-1% ND-3% 2.37 ± 1.20 3.07 ± 0.89 3.47 ± 1.00 3.64 ± 1.14 3.14 ± 1.05

±: standard deviation (n = 8).

Blood Lipid Changes:

Triglyceride and total cholesterol in blood were significantly lower in ND-1% and ND-3% compared to ND-0%, and blood HDL-cholesterol was ND-0. ND-1% was significantly higher than% (FIGS. 4A-4C).

SOD activity investigation:

There was no significant difference in liver SOD activity among the groups, but as the concentration of the herb extract increased, SOD activity tended to increase (FIG. 5).

Example 7. Storability Evaluation

Total bacterial count:

The total bacterial count according to the storage period of the ham prepared in Example 2 was measured (NH: herbal extract 0%, H1: herbal extract 0.5%, H2: herbal extract 1%, H3: herbal extract 3%). As a result, the change in the total bacterial count according to the storage period of the prepared ham was less in the total bacterial count production in the H1, H2, H3 to which the herbal extract was added (Fig. 6).

Coliform Group and Coliform Count:

Coliform group and coliform count of ham with different amounts of herbal extracts were measured. As a result, the E. coli group was not found in all samples until the 12th day of storage, and 7.010 ⁶ CFU / g was detected in the NH group on the 15th day of storage, and 4.5 × 10 ⁷ CFU / g on the 20th day of storage. E. coli was not detected during the 20 days of storage.

As described above, the present invention can provide a ham containing hibiscus sabaripa herb extract, and according to the present invention, hibiscus hibiscus saabdalipa extract is excellent in antimicrobial activity against food poisoning and food rot. It can be used to increase the color, aroma, taste, texture and shelf life of ham.

Claims (3)

delete delete a) Hibiscus sabaripa herb leaf or stem, put 65 ~ 70% ethanol 10-12 times the weight of the herb leaf or stem and then extract for 48-50 hours at 50-55 ℃ to obtain a herbal extract step; b) lyophilizing the herbal extract obtained in step 1, then adding distilled water, concentrating the concentration of the herbal extract to about 400-600 mg / ml and filtering with a filter; c) a three step of preparing a ham mixture by mixing the herbal extract and the salt, nitrate and phosphate filtered in the step 2 and filtered to any one selected from the group consisting of beef, pork and chicken; d) After placing the ham mixture prepared in step 3 in a cold place for 3 to 5 ℃ tumbling (tumbling) for 4 to 8 hours, packed in a smoke-permeable cellophane paper and then packed in 45 ~ 55 ℃ 30 ~ 50 4 minutes of drying for 30 to 40 minutes at 55 ~ 60 ℃ after drying for minutes; e) heat the ham smoked in step 4 at 60 to 65 ° C. for 30 to 40 minutes, cool for 3 to 5 minutes in a 3 to 5 ° C. chamber, and cool for 30 to 40 minutes in a 1 to 2 ° C. cooling chamber. , Method of producing a ham consisting of five steps of vacuum packaging.

Images