# Changes in Quality Features of Pork Burgers Prepared with Chokeberry Pomace During Storage
## 4 Conclusions  
The incorporation of chokeberry pomace into the meat batter for pork burgers was expected to influence the quality of the final product, and the results of this study confirmed this hypothesis. This study demonstrated that using black chokeberry pomace in a minimally processed raw form for pork burgers does not pose technological challenges but significantly affects multiple quality parameters. The addition of chokeberry pomace influenced the culinary quality characteristics of pork burgers, which may impact consumer acceptance. As the level of pomace increased, thermal loss also increased (_p_ < 0.05), ranging from 23.5% (BC) to 30.8% (B5). Additionally, the addition of chokeberry pomace lowered (_p_ < 0.05) the pH of the burgers, from 6.93 (BC, day 1) to 6.74 (B5, day 14), and influenced (_p_ < 0.05) the composition of water, protein, fat, and sodium chloride. The increased thermal losses associated with higher pomace concentrations likely contributed to these differences. The pork burgers contained at least 26.68% protein (BC), no more than 13.96% fat (B5), and no more than 1.94% sodium chloride. Chokeberry pomace significantly affected the color quality of pork burgers. Burgers containing chokeberry pomace (B2-B5) were significantly (\(p<0.05\)) darker, redder, and less yellow compared to the control product (BC). The color parameter values varied as follows: lightness (L*) ranged from 46.98 (B5, day 14) to 64.42 (BC, day 1); redness (a*) varied from +5.44 (BC, day 14) to +9.61 (B5, day 14); and yellowness (b*) ranged from -2.77 (B5, day 14) to +10.58 (BC, day 1). The observed color differences were likely due to the anthocyanin pigments found in chokeberry pomace. The addition of chokeberry pomace resulted in a gradual increase in shear force, which ranged from 20.83 N to 27.99 N over 14 days of storage. The addition of chokeberry pomace (2-5%, B2-B5) did not cause significant (\(p<0.05\)) differences between the control product (BC) and pomace-containing products in terms of microbial counts on days 1 and 7. The satisfactory microbiological quality of the burgers was demonstrated by the absence of _Enterobacteriaceae_, yeasts, and molds in all treatments throughout the 14-day storage period. However, on the final day of storage, the chokeberry pomace exhibited moderate antimicrobial properties, as indicated by significantly lower (\(p<0.05\)) counts of LAB and _Pseudomonas_ spp. in B2-B5 products compared to BC. In conclusion, raw, unprocessed chokeberry pomace is a perishable material susceptible to microbiological changes, which limits its industrial application despite its potential, as demonstrated in this work. The use of raw chokeberry pomace in meat products would likely require pretreatment to reduce microbial contamination, which would increase production costs. Nevertheless, these findings contribute to the development of more sustainable meat products in the convenience food category, incorporating plant by-products. However, for such innovative products to be commercially viable, they must meet consumer acceptance criteria. Therefore, a thorough evaluation of chokeberry pomace's impact on pork burger quality should include sensory analysis, considering attributes such as color, taste, flavor, and texture. The sensory quality of burgers containing chokeberry pomace will be the focus of future research. The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15052337/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15052337/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15052337/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15052337/s1)), Figure S1. Fresh black chokeberry pomace. ; Figure S2. The appearance of pork burgers with various additions of chokeberry pomace after heat treatment; Table S1. The total color difference (AE) between the control product (BC) and pork burgers with added black chokeberry pomace during storage. Conceptualization, A.C., J.P. and E.H.-S.; methodology, A.C., J.P., M.C., E.H.-S. and S.K. ; formal analysis, L.A. and S.K.