Chicken stomachs are by-products obtained from the poultry processing in
slaughterhouses. Their amount has been gradually increasing as a consequence of
a continually rising poultry consumption. Since these animal tissues are still
rich in proteins, mainly collagen, fat, and minerals, it is essential and
beneficial to investigate the appropriate management and further processing.
Collagen could be extracted from chicken stomachs and used as a raw material in
the food, cosmetic, medical, and also pharmaceutical industry. This paper is to
investigate possibilities of such extraction of collagen products, gelatines, or
alternatively hydrolysates, from chicken stomachs after prior biotechnological
treatment with the proteolytic enzyme Protamex. In this experiment,
non-collagenous proteins were removed from stomachs using 0.03 M NaOH and 0.2 M
NaCl. Subsequently, the tissue was defatted applying acetone and the enzyme
Lipolase. Purified and dried collagen was then treated with the proteolytic
enzyme Protamex. In the last step, gelatine was extracted from the tissue in hot
water. The influence of selected processing parameters on the extraction
efficiency and final product quality was monitored. The extraction conditions
included the amount of the added enzyme (0.1 – 0.4%) and the extraction
temperature of between 60 and 65 °C. The total gelatine yield ranged from
43.80 to 96.45% and the gel strength varied from 2 ±0 to 429 ±8 Bloom.
The enzymatic treatment of the raw material is an economical and ecological
alternative to traditional acid or alkaline treatments. Extracted gelatine with
the gel strength of 100 – 300 Bloom would be suitable for the
applications in the food industry in the production of confectionery,
marshmallow, aspic or dairy products.
The consumption of poultry meat has been consistently increasing. The current status
in the Czech Republic is approximately 27 kg per person per year. Such a situation
emphasizes the importance of management and processing of slaughter by-products
(Český statistický
úřad, 2019). The poultry slaughter process produces two forms
of edible and inedible waste, solid and liquid. Solid waste includes skin, feathers,
intestines, offal, glands, limbs, and bones and liquid involves blood and various
adipose tissues (Seong et al., 2015;Ockerman and Hansen, 2000). Poultry waste
comprises up to 30% (in several cases even 40%) of the live weight of the animal.
Considering their proteinaceous nature and the fact they are produced in large
quantities, they must be managed to avoid environmental pollution. However, inedible
parts of poultry are mostly incinerated or landfilled. That is undesirable waste
management producing up to 100 million tonnes of waste worldwide (Borowski and Kubacki, 2015;Xiong et al., 2016;Ferraro, Anton and Santé-Lhoutellier,
2016). Blood is used as an additive in certain food products and in the
production of feed meal. Bones and skins are applied in the production of
hydrolysates, gelatine, fertilizers, and feed for livestock; furthermore, in the
leather industry in the leather production and in the production of meat-and-bone
meal. Adipose tissues are employed in the production of biofuels, industrial
lubricants, oils, soaps, and as a functional additive for cosmetic products (Lee, Lee and Song, 2015;Cruz-Fernández et al., 2017;Sarbon, Badii and Howell, 2013). Keratin
hydrolysates obtained from feathers are used as growth promoters, feed additives,
and functional additives in cosmetic products (Ockerman and Hansen, 2000;Barbut, 2015;Dikeman and Devine, 2014;Wan Omar and Sarbon, 2016). Other wastes aim
for the production of biofuels, composting, anaerobic digestion, or the isolation of
valuable substances contained in animal by-products (Borowski and Kubacki, 2015;Alibardi and Cossu, 2016;Xiong et al., 2016). The best solution would
be to eliminate waste. Even though this is unfortunately very difficult to achieve,
the optimal waste management must be pursued. To use slaughter by products
efficiently, several criteria are vital to be accomplished. Primarily, a process
recycling such a material to produce new products must be developed. Equally
important is to provide a sufficient amount of slaughter by-products in the locality
of new products manufacture together with the appropriate technological and
economical background. A potential market where to offer these products is also
essential. One of the ideal solutions appears to be the processing of slaughter
waste, such as chicken stomachs, into further protein products containing
significant amounts of collagen, vitamins, and minerals (Rafieian, Keramat and Shahedi, 2015;Lee, Lee and Song, 2015;Khalid et al., 2011). It is important to
explain that in the countries of Central Europe (the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Poland, and Hungary) poultry stomachs are considered to be edible offal. However, in
Western Europe and America, these animal tissues are not included in a diet and are
generally regarded as a slaughter waste. A suitable alternative to the utilization
of chicken stomachs is in collagen products of gelatines and hydrolysates possible
to apply in the food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and medical industry. This would
facilitate the management of an undesired and unused slaughter waste (Alao et al., 2017;Toldra, 2006;Schreiber and Gareis, 2007;Rousselot gelatin, 2019).
Poultry slaughtering produces by-products having extraordinary physico-chemical
properties (Ockerman and Hansen, 2000;Ferraro, Anton and Santé-Lhoutellier,
2016). The chicken stomach is a part of the digestive system functioning
as a smooth muscle bag divided into a muscular and glandular part. Only the muscular
part is edible. The chicken stomach represents about 3% of the total weight of
poultry. Since stomachs contain a significantly large amount of collagen, suitable
methods of extracting gelatine from them have been investigating. Regrettably,
chicken stomachs are composted or incinerated rather than used for the consumption
in these regions so far (Marvan, 2017;Huda et al., 2013;Kosseva, 2013). The viscera, including
chicken stomachs, provides extraordinary nutritional value and is highly appreciated
in many parts of the world, such as in China, Japan, and India (Bakar and Harvinder, 2002).
In practice, type A and type B gelatines are encountered. Type A gelatine is obtained
by acid treatment of the raw material, while type B gelatine is extracted using a
base. Currently, the extraction is performed using beef and pork skins and bones.
This study examines the gelatine extraction after the prior enzyme treatment which
seems to be the most convenient method of obtaining gelatine in terms of time and
energy savings. Type B gelatine is treated for up to 6 months, type A gelatine for
up to 40 hours, but enzyme extracted gelatine is treated for only up to 24
hours.
What is more, this form of gelatine is considerably well digested and absorbed in the
gastrointestinal tract (GMIA Standard Testing
Methods for Edible Gelatin, 2019;Schreiber and Gareis, 2007;Mokrejš et al., 2019).
The aims of this study
As chicken stomachs are solid poultry by-products containing large amounts of
collagen (Marvan, 2017;Ockerman and Hansen, 2000), this study is
to contribute to the investigation of suitable methods for the collagen
extraction from such a slaughter waste. To our best knowledge, extraction and
application of gelatine obtained from chicken stomachs by enzymatic treatment of
the raw material have not been reported yet. Therefore, the aim of this paper is
to assess the possibilities of extracting gelatine from chicken stomachs after
the preceding biotechnological treatment of tissues with the proteolytic enzyme
Protamex. It continues in the previous research "Preparation of protein
products from collagen-rich poultry tissues" and "Utilization of
protein by-products from poultry slaughterhouses for the preparation of
collagen" (Polaštíková et
al., 2019a;Polaštíková et al.,
2019b). This study focuses on monitoring the influence of selected
technological conditions on the process efficiency and the final quality of
extracted gelatine. The examined factors include the amount of the added
Protamex proteolytic enzyme (Factor A; 0.1, 0.25, and 0.4%) and the extraction
temperature (Factor B; 60, 62.5, and 65 ° C). Furthermore, it characterizes
prepared gelatine by its gel strength and ash content.
Scientific hypothesis
Gelatine with a high gel strength of approximately 200 – 300 Bloom can be
extracted from chicken stomachs.
MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGYMaterial
Chilled chicken stomachs were provided by Raciola Uherský Brod, the Czech
Republic. Stomachs were minced and homogenized to the particle size of 3 mm. The
dry matter content was 19.10 ±0.05% and the composition in dry matter was
as follows: protein content of 75.6 ±0.8%; fat content of 21.70 ±0.01%
and mineral content of 3.900 ±0.005%.
Appliances, tools and chemicals
P-22/82 meat mincer Braher (Brather Internacional, Spain), LT2 shaker Kavalier
(Kavalier, Czech Republic), Kern 440 – 47 electronic analytical scale, Kern 770
electronic analytical scale (Kern, Germany), pH meter Multical pH 526 (WTW,
Weilhein, Germany), heating block LTHS 250 and 500 (Merci, Czech Republic), WTB
Binder E28-TB1 driver (Binder, Germany), Memmert ULP 400 drying device (Memmert
GmbH + Co. KG, Germany), SLR heating board with a magnetic stirrer (Schott
Gerate GmbH, Germany), Stevens LFRA Texture Analyser for measuring gelatine gel
strength (Leonard Farnell and Co Ltd., England), magnetic stirrer IKA
Labortechnik PCT Basic with a heating and magnetic stirrer (IKA-Werke, Germany),
differential scanning calorimeter DSC 1 (Mettler-Toledo, Germany), Mora hot air
oven (Mora, Czech Republic), Nabertherm L9/11 muffle furnace (Nabertherm,
Germany), desiccator (Kavalier, Czech Republic), EBA 20 centrifuge including a
rotor (Hettich, Germany), vertical mixer ETA 0010 New Line (ETA, Czech
Republic), KRUPS grinder and Samsung refrigerator (KRUPS, Czech Republic).
Erlenmeyer flasks of the volume of 2 L and 0.5 L; 2 L PET bottles with a screw
cap; 25 mL, 200 mL, 250 mL and 1000 mL graduated cylinder; Petri dishes;
pipettes; weighing bottles; low-density filter papers; metal sieves; sprays with
distilled water; scissors; gel strength flasks; non-stick drying pads; PA
fabric; silicon crucible; 1 mm and 2 mm metal sieves; laboratory spoons and
sticks; beakers; laboratory tongs; self-closing PE bags; funnels; metal sheet
and adhesive tape.
Enzym Protamex (Bacillus protease complex developed for the
hydrolysis of food proteins; declared activity of 1.5 AU.g-1),
distilled water, 0.03 M and 0.06 M NaOH, 0.2 M HCl, acetone, chloroform,
ethanol, the enzyme Lipolase. The enzyme was provided by the Danish company
Novozymes and the all chemicals used were provided by the Czech company
Verkon.
Factor analysis
Factor analysis refers to a trial method describing the effect of individual
factors on the total yield. It is a more time-consuming optimization method
sensitive to measurement errors. It provides an extensive range of information;
it monitors the impact of several factors on the sample. Factor analysis enables
to evaluate not only one factor but also a complex of factors affecting the
studied sample. Factor schemes of 22 or 23 are the most
common. The analysis is a matrix creating a combination of input values. And the
number of experiments depends on the number of variables (Antony, 2014;Erge and Zorba, 2018). In this study, a
factor scheme of 22 was applied for the experiments, for two levels
and two examined quantities. The factors were as follows: the amount of Protamex
enzyme added (Factor A; 0.1, 0.25 and 0.4%) and the extraction temperature
(Factor B; 60, 62.5, and 65 °C). The enzymatic treatment of the raw
material and the extraction time were constant for all laboratory experiments,
30 h, and 2 h, respectively.
Testing of functional properties gelatines
The extraction efficiency was calculated according to the following equation:
HY=m1m0.100GY=m2m0.100η=HY+GY
Where:
HY is the hydrolysate yield (%), m0 is the weight of the defatted raw
material (g), m1 is the weight of the hydrolysate, GY is the gelatine
yield (%), m2 is the weight of gelatine (g) and ƞ is the total
yield (%).
Gelatine analysis providing ash content and gel strength was performed according
to the Standard testing methods for edible gelatine (GMIA Standard Testing Methods for Edible Gelatin, 2019).
The melting temperature of gelatine gel was determined using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). After weighing 15 – 30 mg of the sample onto the DSC
aluminum dish, it was sealed with a lid. Subsequently, the sample was placed
into the measuring cell together with the reference sample. First, the DSC dish
was cooled to 5 °C and maintained at this temperature for 5 min. Then, the
dish was heated at a heating rate of 5 °C/1 min to the final temperature of
50 °C. Afterward, it was cooled to the initial temperature of 5 °C
following the cooling rate of 5 °C/1 min. The melting temperature reflected
an endothermic peak during the sample heating (Höhne, Hemminger and Flammersheim, 2003).
Preparation of chicken stomach gelatinesPreparation of pure collagen
The purpose was to remove non-collagenous proteins and fat from the raw
material to obtain isolated collagen which was then processed in gelatine
extraction. First, the raw material was washed in water which removed
albumins from the raw material. The treatment in 0.2 M NaCl at the ratio of
1:6 for 1.5 h followed to remove globulins. Then, the treatment with 0.03 M
NaOH at the ratio of 1:6 for 20 h removed glutelins. And finally, the
treatment with the enzyme Lipolase (the amount of 5% enzyme) with water 1:10
for 3 days defatted the material. Afterward, the defatted tissue was dried
at 35 ±1 °C in the oven for 24 h. Thereafter, solvent defatting of
the material was performed using acetone at the ratio of 1:9 for 20 h. This
was followed by grinding pure collagen on a vertical mixer to the particle
size of 1 mm.
Extraction of gelatine from pure collagen
The purified raw material was mixed with distilled water at the ratio of 1:10
and gently shaken at room temperature for 45 min. Then, the pH was adjusted
to 6.5 – 7.0. Subsequently, the Protamex enzyme was added in the amount
following Factor A, which is 0.1% or 0.25% or 0.4% of the
enzyme (Table 1). The enzymatic
treatment time of 30 h was constant for all experiments. In the next step,
the raw material was filtered through a metal sieve, which was provided with
3 layers of PA fabric, and washed thoroughly with water to inactivate the
enzyme partially. The material was then subjected to gelatine extraction.
First, the washed material was placed into a beaker and mixed with distilled
water at the ratio of 1:8. Subsequently, it was heated to the temperature of
60 °C, 62.5 °C, or 65 °C following Factor B.
After reaching a defined temperature, the gelatine was extracted for 2 h.
Finally, 200 mL of gelatine solution was poured onto a 330 cm2
sheet provided with a non-stick film and dried in an air circulation drier
at the temperature of 45 ±1 °C for 2 days.
Characteristics of the experiments defining technological conditions,
process characterization and attributes of prepared gelatines.
Exp. No.
Factor A Enzyme addition (%)
Factor B Extraction temperature (°C)
Yield of hydrolysate, ƞH (%)
Yield of gelatine (main fraction), ƞG
(%)
Yield of gelatine (minor fraction), ƞG
(%)
Total extraction efficiency, Σƞ (%)
Gel strength, F ±SD (Bloom)
Ash content, AC ±SD (%)
1
0.10
60.0
7.76
24.39
32.70
64.85
192 ±10
1.87±0.04
2
0.10
65.0
6.65
23.84
13.31
43.80
429 ±8
1.60 ±0.30
3
0.40
60.0
8.87
86.47
1.11
96.45
8 ±0
1.10 ±0.90
4
0.40
65.0
6.65
88.69
0.55
95.89
2 ±0
1.00 ±0.30
5
0.25
62.5
7.76
63.19
9.67
80.62
96 ±4
1.40 ±0.30
Table 1 provides the list of
experiments including the technological conditions, process
characterization, and the list of prepared gelatines following the factor
scheme of 22.
Statistical analysis
The results of all experiments were processed in MiniTab® 17.3.1 software
(Fujitsu Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) for Windows. The statistical significance of the
investigated process factors within the observed limits was evaluated on the
significance level of p = 95%. Factors with a value lower than
α = 0.05 influenced the evaluated variables with a 95% significance. The
lower the p value, the greater the influence of process factors
on the sample. Subsequently, the coefficient of determination characterizing the
quality of the regression model was established and the data was graphically
expressed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The evaluated variables included the degree of conversion, i.e. the percentage of
conversion of the raw material into collagen products, the degree of purity of the
final products in terms of ash content, and the quality of the extracted gelatine
expressed in gel strength in Blooms.
The equation (1) of total extraction
efficiency was:
∑η=177+139.5A−2.16B
The amount of added enzyme performed a statistically significant (p
= 0.035) influence on the total extraction efficiency, whereas the extraction
temperature showed no statistical significance (p = 0.309);
R2 = 93.58%.
Figure 1 depicts the effects of factors A and B
on the total extraction efficiency. It reveals that the overall yield is the least
(less than 50%) with the enzyme addition of 0.1% and the extraction temperature of
65 °C. Conversely, the highest total efficiency of more than 90% was recorded
with the enzyme addition of 0.4% and the extraction temperature of 60 and 65
°C. At the temperature of 62.5 °C, the yield declined below 90% again. In
general, the total efficiency increases with a rising amount of added enzyme and
growing extraction temperature. Thus, the highest efficiency of 96.45% was monitored
when 0.4% enzyme was added and the extraction temperature was 60 °C; the lowest
efficiency of 43.80% was determined with 0.1% added enzyme and the extraction
temperature of 65 °C.
The impact of the amount of added enzyme and extraction temperature on the
total extraction efficiency.
The yield of the gelatine extraction from chicken stomachs varied between 23.84 and
88.69%. Du et al. (2013) treated chicken and
turkey heads in acetic acid and achieved gelatine yields ranging from 21.1 to 38.0%.
Lower gelatine yield of 21.1% was obtained for chicken gelatine extracted at 60
°C and higher gelatine yield of approximately 38.0% was established for turkey
gelatine extracted at 50 °C. In both studies, a lower gelatine yield was
established if compared to the present experiment. Almeida, Calarge and Santana (2013) treated chicken feet at 120 °C
for 20 min and extracted gelatine with a yield of about 36% which is in accordance
with the yields determined in this study. Cheng et
al. (2009) treated chicken feet in hydrochloric, acetic, and lactic acid
and established the gelatine yield of 5.6 (HCl), 7.3% (acetic acid), and 8.3 (lactic
acid) which is less than in this experiment. Sarbon,
Badii and Howell (2013) extracted gelatine from chicken skin using both
the acid and alkaline method with the total yield of only 16%. Therefore, it is
evident that the acid and alkaline method may not be optimal to apply for skin
processing. A higher yield of gelatine was achieved using the enzymatic treatment of
the raw material (Mrázek et al., 2019).
Duck gelatine yield examined by Huda et al.
(2013) was 28.4% which is a lower yield compared to the chicken gelatine
yield of 31% achieved by Liu, Lin and Chen
(2001). Abedinia et al. (2017)
treated duck feet using the acid, alkaline and enzymatic methods with the yields of
12.76, 11.39, and 17.94%, respectively. Even though their study confirmed the
highest yield of gelatine by enzymatic treatment, it is still less than it was
established in this experiment.
The equation (2) of gelatine gel
strength was as follows:
F=−1044−1018A+23.1B
The amount of added enzyme and the extraction temperature did not show a
statistically significant (p = 0.084; p = 0.346)
influence on gel strength; R2 = 85.69%.
Figure 2 depicts the impact of Factor A and B on
gelatine gel strength. It is evident that to obtain high values of gelatine strength
it is essential to apply higher extraction temperatures together with a lower amount
of the enzyme. With 0.1% of the added Protamex enzyme and extraction temperature of
65 °C (Experiment 2), gelatine with the gel strength of more than 400 Bloom was
extracted which is significantly high. Generally, the gel strength grows with a
decreasing amount of enzyme and rising extraction temperature. In this study, it
ranged from 2 ±0 to 429 ±8 Bloom. The lowest gel strength value was
recorded with 0.4% of the added enzyme and at the extraction temperature of 65
°C. The highest values of gel strength were achieved in the extraction
conditions of Experiment 2.
The impact of the amount of added enzyme and extraction temperature on the
gel strength.
Du et al. (2013) extracted gelatine from
turkey and chicken heads with a prior treatment in acetic acid and established the
gel strength of 367 Bloom of turkey gelatine extracted at the temperature of 50
°C and the gel strength of 248 Bloom of chicken head gelatine extracted at the
temperature of 60 °C which corresponds with this study. Sarbon, Badii and Howell (2013) stated bovine gelatine gel
strength of 229 Bloom and chicken gelatine gel strength of 355 Bloom. High gel
strength values ranging between 320 and 550 Bloom were established in the study by
Rafieian, Keramat and Kadivar (2013).
Rafieian, Keramat and Shahedi (2015)
examined chicken bone waste of mechanically deboned meat and determined the gel
strength of 520 Bloom which exceeded the results of this experiment. Sarbon, Badii and Howell (2013) extracted
chicken skin gelatine using both acidic and alkaline extraction methods and recorded
the gel strength of 355 Bloom. Such a gel strength value confirms they have obtained
the gelatine of considerably good quality. Compared to other alternative gelatine
sources, such as fish, chicken gelatine achieves higher gel strength values;
mackerel gelatine showed the gel strength of 280 Bloom and tilopia gelatine of about
220 Bloom (Bakar and Harvinder, 2002). In the
last decade, an interest in both poultry and fish gelatines has increased. Gel
strength of fish gelatines may reach up to 420 Bloom. Such a significant gel
strength was measured in gelatine extracted from tuna skin according to the study by
Zhou, Mulvaney and Regenstein (2006).
The equation (3) of the ash content in
gelatine was as follows:
AC=−4.277−2.283A−0.0370B
For the ash content, the amount of added enzyme was statistically significant
(p = 0.008). In contrast, the extraction temperature was
statistically insignificant (p = 0.092); R2 = 98.58%.
Figure 3 shows the effects of Factors A and B on
ash content. It is evident that to obtain a low amount of ash content in % it is
vital to apply a lower/higher extraction temperature and a higher amount of the
added enzyme. With 0.4% of the added enzyme Protamex and the extraction temperature
of 60 and 65 °C, the ash content is approximately 1.1%. The ash content
generally grows with a decreasing amount of the added enzyme and rising extraction
temperature. The highest value corresponds with 0.1% of the added enzyme and the
extraction temperature of 60 °C which reflects the extraction conditions in
Experiment 1.
The impact of the amount of added enzyme and extraction temperature on the
ash content.
In the present study, the ash content ranged from 1.0 ±0.3 to 1.87 ±0.04%.
Du et al. (2013) published a smaller ash
content of only 0.03 to 0.06% in turkey and chicken gelatine extracted at 50 °C
and 60 °C. Almeida and Lannes (2013)
established the ash content in chicken feet gelatine of 1.9%. According to The United States Pharmacopeial Convention
(2018) the maximal content of ash in gelatine must not exceed 2.0%;
therefore, this factor has been accomplished in this study. Bueno et al. (2011) determined approximately 0.3% of ash in
pork gelatine and Sarbon, Badii and Howell
(2013) established 1.1% of ash in beef gelatine. In contrast to this
study, Rafieian, Keramat and Shahedi (2015)
recorded the ash content in chicken bone waste of 2.6%. Sarbon, Badii and Howell (2013) affirmed a lower ash content of
0.4% in chicken skin gelatine extracted using both acid and alkaline methods. Huda et al. (2013) extracted gelatine from duck
feet using 5% lactic acid in the rate of 1:8 and established the ash content of
28.6% which is fourteen times higher than the required limit for gelatine
application in the food industry.
Melting temperatures of gelatine gels
Figure 4 depicts DSC curve of gelatine gels
melting temperatures. Experiment 4 (the gel strength of 2 ±0 Bloom) failed
to identify the melting temperature of the gel since a hydrolyzate was formed.
The gelatine of Experiment 1 (0.1% of the added enzyme and the extraction
temperature of 60 °C) performed a gelatine gel melting temperature of
approximately 35 °C (the gel strength of 192 ±10 Bloom). Very similar
melting temperature was achieved in Experiment 5 (0.25% of the added enzyme and
the extraction temperature of 62.5 °C; the gel strength of 96 ±4
Bloom). The melting temperature of 36 °C was recorded in Experiment 3 with
the gel strength of 8 ±0 Bloom (0.4% of the added enzyme and the extraction
temperature of 60 °C). The highest melting temperature of gelatine gel with
a strength of 429 ±8 Bloom (40.5 °C) was identified in Experiment 2
(0.1% of the added enzyme and the extraction temperature of 65 °C). Melting
temperatures of commercial gelatine gels vary in the range from 30 to 40
°C. Their values are important not only from a technical point of view, but
also considering the particular application of gelatines influencing various
factors, such as the management of gelatine products, maintanance of the final
shape of gelatine products and the stability of the products during the storage.
Concerning gelatines extracted from chicken stomachs, their melting temperatures
ranged from 35 to 40 °C which is comparable with commercial gelatines
(Schreiber and Gareis, 2007). Du et al. (2013) determined the melting
temperature between 33.7 and 34.2 °C. That is slightly lower than the
melting temperature of 35 – 40 °C established using DSC in this study
reflecting the trend that melting temperature increases with a rising gelatine
gel strength.
DSC curve of gelatine gel melting points.
CONCLUSION
The study examines the possibility of extracting gelatine from chicken stomachs after
the prior treatment by the proteolytic enzyme Protamex. The main objective was to
propose technological conditions for processing stomachs into collagen products,
either gelatines or hydrolysates, with a maximum yield. The influence of Factor A
and B on the final efficiency and quality of extracted gelatine was monitored.
Factor A represents the amount of added enzyme of 0.1, 0.25 and 0.4% and factor B
represents the extraction temperature of 60, 62.5 and 65 °C. The extraction
time of 2 h was constant. The final extraction efficiency ranged from 43.83% with
0.1% of added enzyme and the extraction temperature of 65 °C to 96.45% with
0.4% of added enzyme and the extraction temperature of 60 °C. The highest gel
strength of about 430 Bloom was measured within the conditions of the enzyme
addition of 0.1% and extraction temperature of 65 °C. On the other hand, the
lowest gel strength of 2 Bloom was established with the enzyme addition of 0.4% and
extraction temperature of 65 °C. The ash content in prepared gelatines was less
than 2%; it ranged between 1.0 (0.4% of added enzyme and the extraction temperature
of 65 °C) and 1.9% (0.1% of added enzyme and the extraction temperature of 60
°C). Edible gelatine with the gel strength of 96 Bloom (with the yield of 63%)
is suitable for the applications in the production of confectionery, such as
meringues, toffee, licorice and also deposited marshmallow. To produce jelly, gummy
bears, aspic and dairy products it is preferable to employ gelatine with a higher
gel strength (192 Bloom) despite its lower yield (approximately 24%). Both types of
gelatine performed the ash content lower than 2.0% and the melting temperature of
about 35 °C which means that such gelatines would be soluble in the mouth and
simultaneously it would maintain the product shape during the storage, particularly
during the summer months. Gelatine with a high gel strength of more than 220 Bloom
is applicable in the production of desserts, extruded marshmallow, fish aspic and
reduced fat spreads and in the pharmaceutical industry in the production of soft
gelatine capsules.
This study has proved that it is possible to obtain high quality gelatine from
chicken stomachs with the gel strength of up to 430 Bloom if appropriate
technological conditions are set. The method applied in this study is quite prompt
and efficient. Therefore, it has also confirmed that effective processing of
valuable poultry slaughter by-products is accesible.
Acknowledgments:
This work was supported by IGA/FT/2020/002.
AbediniaA.AriffinF.HudaN.NafchiA. M.2017 Extraction and characterization of gelatin from the feet of
Pekin duck (Anas platyrhynchos domestica) as affected by
acid, alkaline, and enzyme pretreatment.International Journal of Biological Macromolecules9858659410.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.01.139 AlaoB. O.FalowoA. B.ChulayoA.MuchenjeV.2017 The potential of animal by-products in food systems: Production,
prospect and challenges.Sustainability97 108910.3390/su9071089 AlibardiL.CossuR.2016 Effects of carbohydrate, protein and lipid content of organic
waste on hydrogen production and fermentation products.Waste Management47697710.1016/j.wasman.2015.07.049 AlmeidaP. F.CalargeF. A.SantanaJ C C.2013 Production of a product similar to gelatin from chicken feet
collagen.Engenharia Agrícola336 1289130010.1590/S0100-69162013000600021 AlmeidaP. F.LannesS. C. S.2013 Extraction and physicochemical characterization of gelatin from
chicken by-product.Journal of Food Process Engineering366 82483310.1111/jfpe.12051 AntonyJ.2014Design of experiments for engineers and scientists.
2nd ed. ENGLAND : Elsevier books, 220 p. ISBN-
9780080994192.BakarJ.HarvinderK. G.2002 Properties of gelatins from skins of fish – Black tilapia
(Oreochromis mossambicus) and red tilapia
(Oreochromis nilotica).Food Chemistry771 818410.1016/S0308-8146(01)00328-4 BarbutS.2015The science of poultry and meat processing. 1st
ed. CANADA : University of Guelph, 764 p. ISBN- 978-0-88955-626-3.BorowskiS.KubackiP.2015 Co-digestion of pig slaughterhouse waste with sewage
sludge.Waste Management4011912610.1016/j.wasman.2015.021 BuenoC. M.AlvimI. D.KobersteinT. C. R. D.PortellaM. C.GrossoC.2011 Produção de gelatina de pele de tilápia e sua utilização para
obtenção de micropartículas contendo óleo de salmão.Brazilian Journal of Food Technology141 65733Český statistický úřad2019Available at: https://www.czso.cz/csu/vykazy/vykazy-sber-dathttps://www.czso.cz/csu/vykazy/vykazy-sber-dat.ChengF. Y.HsuF. W.ChangH. S.LinL. C.SakataR.2009 Effect of different acid on the extraction of pepsin-solubilised
collagen containing melanin from silky fowl feet.Food Chemistry1132 56356710.1016/j.foodchem.2008.08.043 Cruz-FernándezM.Luque-CobijaM. J.CerveraM. L.Morales-RubioA.GuardiaM.2017 Smartphone determination of fat in cured meat
products.Microchemical Journal13281410.1016/j.microc.2016.12.020 DikemanM.DevineC.2014Encyclopedia of meat sciences. 1st ed. ENGLAND :
Elsevier books, 1500 p. ISBN- 9780124649705. DuL.KhiariZ.PietrasikZ.BettiM.2013 Physicochemical and functional properties of gelatins extracted
from turkey and chicken heads.Poultry Science929 2463247410.3382/ps.2013-03161 ErgeA.ZorbaÖ.2018 Optimization of gelatin extraction from chicken mechanically
deboned meat residue using alkaline pre-treatment.Science Direct9720521210.1016/j.lwt.2018.06.057 FerraroV.AntonM.Santé-LhoutellierV.2016 The “sisters” α-helices of collagen, elastin and keratin
recovered from animal by-products: Functionality, bioactivity and trends of
application.Trends in Food Science and Technology51657510.1016/j.tifs.2016.03.006 GMIA Standard Testing Methods for Edible Gelatin2019Available at:
http://www.gelatin-gmia.com/uploads/1/1/8/4/118450438/gmia_official_methods_2019.pdfhttp://www.gelatin-gmia.com/uploads/1/1/8/4/118450438/gmia_official_methods_2019.pdfHöhneG. W. H.HemmingerW. F.FlammersheimH. J.2003Differential scanning calorimetry. 2nd ed. NEW
YORK, USA : Springer publishing media, 298 p. ISBN-3-540-00467-x. HudaN.SeowE. K.NormawattiM. N.MuhammadN A N.2013 Preliminary study on physicochemical properties of duck feet
collagen.International Journal of Poultry Science1210 61562110.3923/ijps.2013.615.621 KhalidA.ArshadM.AnjumM.MahmoodT.DawsonL.2011 The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste.Waste Management318 1734174410.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.021 KossevaM. R.2013Poultry wastes – Food industry wastes. 1st ed.
AMSTERDAM : Elsevier, 33 p. ISBN-978-0-12-391921-2.LeeJ. H.LeeJ.SongK. B.2015 Development of a chicken feet protein film containing essential
oils.Food Hydrocolloids4620821510.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.12.020 LiuD. C.LinY. K.ChenM. T.2001 Optimum condition of extracting collagen from chicken feet and
its characteristics.Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences1411 1638164410.5713/ajas.2001.1638 MarvanF.2017Morfologie hospodářských zvířat (Morphology of farm
animals) 6th ed. Prague : Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze,
304 p. ISBN-9788021327511.MokrejšP.GálR.PavlačkováJ.JanáčováD.MrázekP.2019 Využití vedlejších kolagenních produktů z porážky drůbeže k
přípravě želatin a hydrolyzátů. (Use of collagen by-products from poultry
slaughter for the preparation of gelatins and hydrolysates).Chemické Listy1132 121125MrázekP.MokrejšP.GálR.OrsavováJ.2019 Chicken skin gelatine as an alternative to pork and beef
gelatines.Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences131 22423310.5219/1022 OckermanH.HansenC. L.2000Animal by-product processing and utilization,
1st ed. FLORIDA, USA : CRC Press, 544 p. ISBN-
9781566767774.PolaštíkováA.GálR.MokrejšP.KrejčíO.2019aPreparation of protein products from collagen-rich poultry tissues.
Conference MendelNet. Brno, Czech Republic : Mendel University in
Brno26392397PolaštíkováA.MokrejšP.GálR.BaďurováJ.2019bUtilization of protein by-products from poultry slaughterhouses for the
preparation of collagen. Conference Food safety and control, Piešťany,
Slovakia. Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of
Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Department of Food Hygiene and
Safety.RafieianF.KeramatJ.KadivarM.2013 Optimization of gelatin extraction from chicken deboner residue
using RSM method.Journal of Food Science and Technology502 37438010.1007/s13197-011-0355-7 RafieianF.KeramatJ.ShahediM.2015 Physicochemical properties of gelatin extracted from chicken
deboner residue.LWT – Food Science and Technology642 1370137510.1016/j.lwt.2015.04.050 Resources352 17918810.5851/kosfa.2015.35.2.179 Rousselot gelatin2019Available at:
https://www.rousselot.com/functional/rousselot-gelatinshttps://www.rousselot.com/functional/rousselot-gelatins.SarbonN. M.BadiiF.HowellN. K.2013 Preparation and characterisation of chicken skin gelatin as an
alternative to mammalian gelatin.Food Hydrocollois301 14315110.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.05.009 SchreiberR.GareisH.2007Gelatine handbook: Theory and industrial practice.
1st ed. ENGLAND : Wiley-VCH, 347 p.
ISBN-978-3-527-31548-2.SeongP. N.ChoS. H.ParkK. M.KangG. H.ParkB. Y.MoonS. S.BaH. V.2015Characterization of chicken by-products by mean of proximate and
nutritional compositions.Korean Journal for Food Science of AnimalThe United States Pharmacopeial Convention2018Food Chemicals Codex. 11th ed. MARYLAND, USA :
The United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 1678 p. ISBN-978-1-936424-77-1.
ToldraF.2006Handbook of food science, technology and engineering.
1st ed. FLORIDA, USA : CRC Press, 3632 p.
ISBN-9780849398476.Wan OmarW. H.SarbonN. M.2016 Effect of drying method on functional properties and antioxidant
activities of chicken skin gelatin hydrolysate.Journal of Food Science and Technology5311 3928393810.1007/s13197-016-2379-5 XiongG.GaoX.WangP.XuX.ZhouG.2016 Comparative study of extraction efficiency and composition of
protein recovered from chicken liver by acid-alkaline
treatment.Process Biochemistry5110 1629163510.1016/j.procbio.2016.07.007 ZhouP.MulvaneyS. J.RegensteinJ. M.2006 Properties of Alaska pollock skin gelatin: a comparison with
tilapia and pork skin gelatins.Journal of Food Science716 31332110.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00065.x