Influence of rendering methods on yield and quality of chicken fat recovered from broiler skin

Abstract

ObjectiveIn order to utilize fat from broiler byproducts efficiently, it is necessary to develop an appropriate rendering procedure and establish quality information for the rendered fat. A study was therefore undertaken to evaluate the influence of rendering methods on the amounts and general properties of the fat recovered from broiler skin.MethodsThe yield and quality of the broiler skin fat rendered through high and lower energy microwave rendering (3.6 W/g for 10 min and 2.4 W/g for 10 min for high power microwave rendering (HPMR) and high power microwave rendering (LPMR), respectively), oven baking (OB, at 180°C for 40 min), and water cooking (WC, boiling for 40 min) were compared.ResultsMicrowave-rendered skin exhibited the highest yields and fat recovery rates, followed by OB, and WC fats (p<0.05). HPMR fat had the highest L*, a*, and b* values, whereas WC fat had the highest moisture content, acid values, and thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the acid value, peroxide value, and TBA values between HPMR and LPMR fats.ConclusionMicrowave rendering at a power level of 3.6 W/g for 10 min is suggested base on the yield and quality of chicken fat.

Rheological and functional characterization of gelatin and fat extracted from chicken skin for application in food technology

“…The results showed that none of the time, temperature, or interaction between them had a significant effect on the yield ( p > .05). The yield of chicken skin fat reported in this study was similar to those obtained by the wet rendering of chicken skin (23.3%, Lin & Tan, 2017 ) but lower as compared to the yields found for enzyme‐assisted extraction of chicken skin fat (30.4%–35.85%, Fallah‐Delavar & Farmani, 2018 ). The differences between the results may be explained by the diverse efficacy of different extraction methods.…”

“…Various extraction methods, including wet rendering (Lin & Tan, 2017 ; Sheu & Chen, 2002 ), dry rendering (Farmani et al., 2016 ; Lin & Tan, 2017 ; Sheu & Chen, 2002 ), microwave rendering (Lin & Tan, 2017 ; Sheu & Chen, 2002 ), frying (Sheu & Chen, 2002 ), and enzyme‐assisted extraction (Fallah‐Delavar & Farmani, 2018 ), have been used for the recovery of chicken fat from chicken skin. For the recovery of gelatin, enzyme‐assisted extraction is not a choice as the protein hydrolyzates do not normally show gelling properties (Fallah‐Delavar & Farmani, 2018 ).…”

“…For the recovery of gelatin, enzyme‐assisted extraction is not a choice as the protein hydrolyzates do not normally show gelling properties (Fallah‐Delavar & Farmani, 2018 ). Dry rendering methods (including microwave and frying techniques) involve the use of higher temperatures (up to 180°C) which can badly affect the quality of fat and proteins (Farmani et al., 2016 ; Lin & Tan, 2017 ; Sheu & Chen, 2002 ). Moreover, the proteinaceous leftover may not be suitable for subsequent gelatin extraction, especially if very high temperatures are used for fat extraction.…”

“…Moreover, the proteinaceous leftover may not be suitable for subsequent gelatin extraction, especially if very high temperatures are used for fat extraction. Wet rendering, on the other hand, involves the use of water and temperatures lower than 100°C (Lin & Tan, 2017 ; Sheu & Chen, 2002 ). Accordingly, both fat and gelatin (as an aqueous solution) can be recovered from the chicken skin in a single extraction process.…”

Technologies for extraction of oil from oilseeds and other plant sources in retrospect and prospects: A review

“…Rendering is the most conventional method used for oil extraction and is still employed to extract oils and fats from animal tissues (Ali, Ali, & Speight, 2005; Lin & Tan, 2017), but not much widely used. In dry/wet rendering, cellular structures are disrupted by applying heat to release triacylglycerols (Sharma, Giriprasad, & Goswami, 2013).…”