Yeast extract having taste-enhancing effect

Abstract

The present invention addresses enhancing a taste of common processed food and drink without imparting a foreign taste and without increasing calories or sodium content. In such a case, a substance added to the common processed food and drink is preferably a common foodstuff, and preferably has a high degree of safety. A yeast extract having a peptide content of 5 wt % or more, an RNA content of 5 wt % or more, a free amino acid content of 4 wt % or less, and more preferably having a dietary fiber content of 15 wt % or more is added in an appropriate amount to the common processed food and drink.

Claims

1. A composition comprising a Candida utilis yeast extract or a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast extract, the yeast extract containing a peptide, RNA, dietary fiber, and free amino acids, the peptide being present in an amount of 5 wt % or more of the yeast extract, the RNA being present in an amount of 10 wt % or more of the yeast extract, the dietary fiber being present in an amount of 15 wt % or more of the yeast extract, and the free amino acids being present in an amount up to and including 4 wt % of the yeast extract, wherein the yeast extract enhances the taste of food to which it is added without imparting a savory or bitter flavor or aftertaste.

2. A method of enhancing a taste of food, wherein the composition according to claim 1 is added to a food.

3. A Candida utilis yeast extract or a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast extract for enhancing a taste of food, the yeast extract comprising a peptide, RNA, dietary fiber, and free amino acids, the peptide being present in an amount of 5 wt % or more, the RNA being present in an amount of 10 wt % or more, the dietary fiber being present in an amount of 15 wt % or more, and the free amino acids being present in an amount up to and including 4 wt %; and which yeast extract enhances the taste of food to which it is added without imparting a savory or bitter flavor or aftertaste.

4. An agent enhancing a taste of food, wherein the yeast extract according to claim 3 is an active ingredient.

5. The yeast extract according to claim 3, wherein the RNA is present in an amount of 25 wt % or more.

6. The yeast extract according to claim 3, which is in powder form.

7. The yeast extract according to claim 3, which enhances sweetness, saltiness, or sourness of food to which it is added.

8. A powder composition comprising a peptide, RNA, dietary fiber, and free amino acids, the peptide being present in an amount of 5 wt % or more, the RNA being present in an amount of 10 wt % or more, the dietary fiber being present in an amount of 15 wt % or more, and the free amino acids being present in an amount up to and including 4 wt %, wherein the powder composition is made from a Candida utilis yeast extract or a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast extract, and wherein the powder composition enhances the taste of food to which it is added without imparting a savory or bitter flavor or aftertaste.

9. The composition according to claim 1, which enhances sweetness, saltiness, or sourness of food to which it is added.

10. The composition according to claim 1, wherein the RNA is present in an amount of 25 wt % or more.

11. A method of enhancing a taste of food, wherein the yeast extract according to claim 3 is added to a food.

12. A composition comprising a Candida utilis yeast extract or a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast extract, the yeast extract containing protein, RNA, dietary fiber, and free amino acids, the protein being present in an amount of 5 wt % or more of the yeast extract, the RNA being present in an amount of 10 wt % or more of the yeast extract, the dietary fiber being present in an amount of 15 wt % or more of the yeast extract, and the free amino acids being present in an amount up to and including 4 wt % of the yeast extract, wherein the yeast extract enhances the taste of food to which it is added without imparting a savory or bitter flavor or aftertaste, and wherein a nucleolytic enzyme has not acted on the yeast extract.

13. The composition according to claim 12, wherein the RNA is present in an amount of 25 wt % or more.

Description

WORKING EXAMPLES

(1) The present invention is described in detail in working examples below. The present invention, however, is not limited to the following embodiments.

(2) Various measurement methods and testing methods in the working examples are as follows:

(3) <Method for Measuring Free Amino Acid Content>

(4) A yeast extract sample dissolved in a 0.02 N HCl was used as a measurement sample. The sample was measured using an amino acid analyzer (Hitachi high-speed amino acid analyzer L-8900).

(5) <Method for Measuring Total Amino Acid Content>

(6) A yeast extract sample was dissolved in a 6 N HCl then left to stand at 110° C. for 24 hours to hydrolyze. A portion of the sample was diluted in a 0.02 N HCl and used as a total amino acid measurement sample. The sample was measured using an amino acid analyzer (Hitachi high-speed amino acid analyzer L-8900).

(7) <Method for Measuring Peptide Content>

(8) A peptide content is calculated by subtracting the free amino acid content from the total amino acid content.

(9) <Method for Measuring RNA Content>

(10) A yeast extract sample dissolved in superpure water was used as a measurement sample, then a measurement was conducted using an HPLC method. An Asahipak HPLC column GS-320H was used as a column, and 0.1 M of a sodium phosphate buffer was used as an eluent. A detection wavelength was set to 260 nm.

(11) <Method for Measuring Dietary Fiber Content>

(12) Measurement was conducted at the Japan Food Research Laboratories using an enzymatic-gravimetric method.

(13) <Method for Sensory Analysis>

(14) A sensory analysis of food taste was conducted with five panelists for a working example sample and a comparative example sample. Intensity of sweetness, saltiness, sourness, richness, and milk body was evaluated in comparison to the taste of a control sample.

<Production Example 1> Method of Obtaining Yeast Extract

(15) Using a 10 N sulfuric acid, 1000 ml of a 10% cell body suspension of Candida utilis CS 7529 strain (FERM BP-1656) was adjusted to a pH of 3.5, then was subjected to a heat treatment at 60° C. for 30 minutes, after which the cell bodies were collected via centrifugal separation and cleaned with water to remove the sulfuric acid and superfluous extracts. After the cell bodies were adjusted to a cell body concentration of 10% and suspended using water, a heat treatment was performed at 90° C. for 30 minutes; enzymes within the cell bodies were completely deactivated; the suspension was adjusted to 40° C. and a pH of 7.0; 0.5 g of a cell wall lytic enzyme (“Tunicase,” manufactured by Daiwa kasei) was added thereto to react for four hours; and the extract was extracted. Cell body residue was removed by centrifugal separation, then a supernatant fluid thus obtained was condensed and spray-dried to obtain 30 g of yeast extract powder. The obtained yeast extract (hereafter referred to as “yeast extract 1”) contained 18.7 wt % of peptide, 30.4 wt % of RNA, 0.5 wt % of free amino acid, and 22.7 wt % of dietary fiber. By adding the obtained yeast extract to common processed food, the taste of the food can be enhanced.

<Working Example 1> Effect on Chocolate

(16) The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) and commercially available chocolate were added at composition ratios shown in Table 1, then were dissolved in a double boiler and re-hardened. This was then used as a sample for evaluation.

Comparative Example 1

(17) Comparative example 1 was conducted in the same manner as working example 1, except that a yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 1.

Comparative Example 2

(18) Comparative example 2 was conducted in the same manner as working example 1, except that a yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 1.

(19) <Control>

(20) A control chocolate sample was produced in the same manner as working example 1, except that the yeast extract 1 was not added to the composition of working example 1.

(21) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 1 Example 1 Example 2 Chocolate 100.0 g 100.0 g 100.0 g 100.0 g Yeast Extract 1 —  0.3 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — —  0.3 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — —  0.3 g Total 100.0 g 100.3 g 100.3 g 100.3 g

(22) The results of conducting the sensory analysis were that, as a result of comparing each evaluation sample with the control sample, the sweetness of the chocolate was felt to be enhanced and milkiness was improved in working example 1. In addition, the chocolate was full-bodied on the tongue and an aftertaste retained the feeling of body. In comparative example 1, savoriness was detected in the aftertaste, which was not preferred. In comparative example 2, savoriness was imparted and a characteristic flavor of yeast was detected, which were not preferred.

<Working Example 2> Effect of Addition to Pastry Cream

(23) Various ingredients were weighed in a stainless steel mug at the composition ratios shown in Table 2. After heating the ingredients to 60° C. while mixing the ingredients together, the ingredients were stirred together for 5 minutes at 5000 rpm by a homogenizing mixer (Labolution Homogenizing Mixer Mark II Model 2.5, manufactured by Primix Corporation). After being stirred and heated for ten minutes in a boiling solution, the ingredients were put on ice while stirring and cooling to 60° C. A cup was then filled and the ingredients therein cooled to serve as a control pastry cream. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) was added at 0.3 g and mixed together with 100 g of the control pastry cream. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 2.

Comparative Example 3

(24) Comparative example 3 was conducted in the same manner as working example 2, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 2.

Comparative Example 4

(25) Comparative example 4 was conducted in the same manner as working example 2, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 2.

(26) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Milk 63.0 g  63.0 g  63.0 g  63.0 g  Superfine sugar 12.0 g  12.0 g  12.0 g  12.0 g  Egg yolk 10.0 g  10.0 g  10.0 g  10.0 g  Starch syrup 9.0 g 9.0 g 9.0 g 9.0 g Cornstarch 4.0 g 4.0 g 4.0 g 4.0 g Weak flour 1.0 g 1.0 g 1.0 g 1.0 g Glycine 1.0 g 1.0 g 1.0 g 1.0 g Yeast Extract 1 — 0.3 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — — 0.3 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — — 0.3 g Total 100.0 g  100.3 g  100.3 g  100.3 g 

(27) The results of conducting the sensory analysis were that the sweetness of the pastry cream was felt to be enhanced and a strong egg flavor was also detected in working example 2. In addition, the aftertaste retained the feeling of body. In comparative examples 3 and 4, savoriness was imparted and a characteristic flavor of yeast was detected, which were not preferred.

<Working Example 3> Effect of Addition to Milk Pudding

(28) The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) and various ingredients were weighed in a beaker at the composition ratios shown in Table 3. After heating the ingredients to 80° C. while mixing the ingredients together, a cup was filled with the ingredients and cooled to serve as the evaluation sample.

Comparative Example 5

(29) Comparative example 5 was conducted in the same manner as working example 3, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26 wt %; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 3.

Comparative Example 6

(30) Comparative example 6 was conducted in the same manner as working example 3, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 3.

(31) <Control>

(32) A control milk pudding sample was produced in the same manner as working example 3, except that the yeast extract 1 was not added to the composition of working example 3.

(33) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Working Comparative Comparative Control Example 3 Example 5 Example 6 Granulated 10.0 g 10.0 g 10.0 g 10.0 g sugar Dairy cream 10.0 g 10.0 g 10.0 g 10.0 g Vegetable fat 10.0 g 10.0 g 10.0 g 10.0 g and oil Powdered fat-  3.0 g  3.0 g  3.0 g  3.0 g free milk Thickener  0.5 g  0.5 g  0.5 g  0.5 g Water 66.5 g 66.5 g 66.5 g 66.5 g Yeast Extract 1 —  0.1 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — —  0.1 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — —  0.1 g Total 100.0 g  100.1 g  100.1 g  100.1 g 

(34) The results of conducting the sensory analysis and comparing each evaluation sample with the control sample were that the sweetness was felt to be enhanced and a strong milky flavor was detected in working example 3. In comparative examples 5 and 6, savoriness was imparted and a characteristic flavor of yeast was detected, which were not preferred.

<Working Example 4> Effect of Addition to Worcestershire Sauce

(35) Commercially available Worcestershire sauce (manufacturer: AEON Co., Ltd.) was used as the control. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) obtained with production example 1 was added at 0.1 g and dissolved in 100.0 g of the Worcestershire sauce. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 4. Ingredients of the commercially available Worcestershire sauce were vegetables, fruits (tomato, onion, apple, carrots), fermented vinegar, sugar, table salt, hydrolyzed vegetable proteins (including soy), spices, yeast extract, caramel coloring, seasonings (such as amino acids), and spice extracts.

Comparative Example 7

(36) Comparative example 7 was conducted in the same manner as working example 4, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 4. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 7.

Comparative Example 8

(37) Comparative example 8 was conducted in the same manner as working example 4, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 4. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 8. Composition ratios of working example 4, comparative example 7, and comparative example 8 are shown in Table 4.

(38) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 4 Example 7 Example 8 Worcestershire 100.0 g 100.0 g 100.0 g 100.0 g sauce Yeast Extract 1 —  0.1 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — —  0.1 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — —  0.1 g Total 100.0 g 100.1 g 100.1 g 100.1 g

(39) The results of conducting the sensory analysis and comparing the evaluation samples of working example 4, comparative example 7, and comparative example 8, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 4, saltiness and sourness were felt to be enhanced in comparison to the control. When compared to working example 4, comparative examples 7 and 8 had poor saltiness- and sourness-enhancing effects, and savoriness was felt to be enhanced in comparison to the control. In comparative example 8, this was not preferred.

<Working Example 5> Effect of Addition to Carbonara Sauce

(40) A carbonara sauce was made with the composition ratios shown in Table 5.

(41) Vegetable oil was poured into a frying pan and bacon was fried, then wheat flour was added and the ingredients mixed together. The remaining ingredients were then added and brought to a boil to make a carbonara sauce, which was used as the control.

(42) The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) was added at 0.3 g and mixed together with 100 g of the control carbonara sauce. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 5.

Comparative Example 9

(43) Comparative example 9 was conducted in the same manner as working example 5, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 5. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 9.

Comparative Example 10

(44) Comparative example 10 was conducted in the same manner as working example 5, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 5. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 10.

(45) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 5 Example 9 Example 10 Enzyme-treated 10.00 g  10.00 g  10.00 g  10.00 g  egg yolk Bacon 15.00 g  15.00 g  15.00 g  15.00 g  Dairy cream 12.00 g  12.00 g  12.00 g  12.00 g  Vegetable oil 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g Wheat flour 4.00 g 4.00 g 4.00 g 4.00 g Parmigiano- 5.00 g 5.00 g 5.00 g 5.00 g Reggiano powder Table salt 0.50 g 0.50 g 0.50 g 0.50 g Coarse black 0.20 g 0.20 g 0.20 g 0.20 g pepper Additive water 50.20 g  50.20 g  50.20 g  50.20 g  Polyphosphate 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g Monoglyceryl 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g fatty acid ester Yeast Extract 1 — 0.30 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — — 0.30 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — — 0.30 g Total 100.00 g  100.30 g  100.30 g  100.30 g 

(46) The results of conducting the sensory analysis and comparing the evaluation samples of working example 5, comparative example 9, and comparative example 10, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 5, saltiness and milk body were felt to be enhanced in comparison to the control. When compared to working example 5, comparative examples 9 and 10 had a poor saltiness-enhancing effect, and savoriness was felt to be enhanced. In comparative example 10, a characteristic flavor of yeast was detected as a foreign taste and was not preferred.

<Working Example 6> Effect of Addition to Kabosu Ponzu

(47) Commercially available kabosu ponzu (manufacturer: Fundokin Co., Ltd.) was used as the control. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) was added at 0.1 g and dissolved in 100.0 g of the commercially available kabosu ponzu. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 6. Ingredients of the commercially available kabosu ponzu were soy sauce, sugar, isomerized liquid sugar, fermented vinegar, kabosu juice, protein hydrolysate, table salt, shiitake mushroom extract, acidifier, spices, and caramel coloring.

Comparative Example 11

(48) Comparative example 11 was conducted in the same manner as working example 6, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %, RNA content 0.00 wt %, free amino acid content 1.26%, dietary fiber 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 6. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 11.

Comparative Example 12

(49) Comparative example 12 was conducted in the same manner as working example 6, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %, RNA content 11.23 wt %, free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 6. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 12. Composition ratios of working example 6, comparative example 11, and comparative example 12 are shown in Table 6.

(50) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 6 Example 11 Example 12 Kabosu ponzu 100.0 g 100.0 g 100.0 g 100.0 g Yeast Extract 1 —  0.1 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — —  0.1 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — —  0.1 g Total 100.0 g 100.1 g 100.1 g 100.1 g

(51) The results of conducting the sensory analysis of food taste and comparing the evaluation samples of working example 6, comparative example 11, and comparative example 12, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 6, saltiness and sourness of the ponzu were felt to be enhanced in comparison to the control and a depth was imparted to the flavor. In comparative examples 11 and 12, savoriness was imparted as compared to the control, but working example 6 was felt to have a stronger saltiness- and sourness-enhancing effect. In comparative example 12, a characteristic flavor of yeast was detected as a foreign taste and was not preferred.

<Working Example 7> Effect of Addition to Processed Cheese

(52) The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber 22.7 wt %) and commercially available processed cheese (“Cheddar Slices,” manufactured by MK Cheese Co., Ltd.) were added to a beaker at the composition ratios shown in Table 7, then were heated and melted in a home microwave oven. This was then cooled and solidified to be used as the evaluation sample. Ingredients of the processed cheese were natural cheese, whey powder, emulsifiers, and carotenoid coloring.

Comparative Example 13

(53) Comparative example 13 was conducted in the same manner as working example 7, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26 wt %; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 7.

Comparative Example 14

(54) Comparative example 14 was conducted in the same manner as working example 7, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 7.

(55) <Control>

(56) A control processed cheese sample was produced in the same manner as working example 7, except that the yeast extract 1 was not added to the composition of working example 7.

(57) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 7 Example 13 Example 14 Processed cheese 100.0 g 100.0 g 100.0 g 100.0 g Yeast Extract 1 —  0.3 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — —  0.3 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — —  0.3 g Total 100.0 g 100.3 g 100.3 g 100.3 g

(58) The results of conducting the sensory analysis and comparing each of the evaluation samples with the control sample were that, in working example 7, the body of the cheese was felt to be improved in comparison to the control. In comparative examples 13 and 14, savoriness and a foreign taste were imparted, causing a change in an inherent taste quality of the ingredients, and so comparative examples 13 and 14 were not particularly preferred.

<Working Example 8> Effect of Addition to Noodle Sauce

(59) A noodle sauce was made with the composition ratios shown in Table 8.

(60) Ingredients were weighed in a beaker and heated to 80° C. to produce a liquid concentrate of control noodle sauce. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) was added at 0.05 g and mixed together with 100 g of the control noodle sauce. This was then used as a sample for working example 8.

Comparative Example 15

(61) Comparative example 15 was conducted in the same manner as working example 8, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%, dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 8. This was then used as a sample for comparative example 15.

Comparative Example 16

(62) Comparative example 16 was conducted in the same manner as working example 8, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 8. This was then used as a sample for comparative example 16.

(63) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Working Comparative Comparative Name of Ingredient Control Example 8 Example 15 Example 16 Koikuchi soy sauce 35.00 g 35.00 g 35.00 g 35.00 g Table salt  2.60 g  2.60 g  2.60 g  2.60 g Superfine sugar 15.00 g 15.00 g 15.00 g 15.00 g Mirin 18.00 g 18.00 g 18.00 g 18.00 g Concentrated bonito  4.50 g  4.50 g  4.50 g  4.50 g stock Powdered bonito  0.50 g  0.50 g  0.50 g  0.50 g flake extract Powdered kelp  1.50 g  1.50 g  1.50 g  1.50 g extract Water 22.90 g 22.90 g 22.90 g 22.90 g Yeast Extract 1 —  0.05 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — —  0.05 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — —  0.05 g Total 100.00 g  100.05 g  100.05 g  100.05 g 

(64) The sample produced with the above-noted method was diluted to one-sixth with water, after which the sensory analysis of food taste was conducted. The results of comparing the evaluation samples of working example 8, comparative example 15, and comparative example 16, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 8, overall richness was felt to be enhanced in comparison to the control, while in comparative examples 15 and 16, a richness-enhancing effect was poor in comparison to working example 8 and savoriness was felt to be enhanced.

<Working Example 9> Effect of Addition to Pork Bone Ramen Soup

(65) A pork bone ramen soup was made with the composition ratios shown in Table 9. Ingredients were weighed, then dissolved in 100 ml of hot water to produce a control ramen soup. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) was added at 0.05 g and mixed together with 100 ml of the control ramen soup. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 9.

Comparative Example 17

(66) Comparative example 17 was conducted in the same manner as working example 9, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 9. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 17.

Comparative Example 18

(67) Comparative example 18 was conducted in the same manner as working example 9, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 9. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 18.

(68) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Contol Example 9 Example 17 Example 18 Powdered pork 2.500 g 2.500 g 2.500 g 2.500 g extract Powdered 1.000 g 1.000 g 1.000 g 1.000 g chicken extract Powdered 1.670 g 1.670 g 1.670 g 1.670 g vegetable extract Table salt 0.670 g 0.670 g 0.670 g 0.670 g Powdered soy 0.270 g 0.270 g 0.270 g 0.270 g sauce White pepper 0.017 g 0.017 g 0.017 g 0.017 g Garlic powder 0.007 g 0.007 g 0.007 g 0.007 g Ginger powder 0.003 g 0.003 g 0.003 g 0.003 g Superfine sugar 0.100 g 0.100 g 0.100 g 0.100 g Fermented 0.135 g 0.135 g 0.135 g 0.135 g umami seasoning HVP 0.135 g 0.135 g 0.135 g 0.135 g MSG 0.050 g 0.050 g 0.050 g 0.050 g Ribotide 0.005 g 0.005 g 0.005 g 0.005 g Yeast Extract 1 — 0.100 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — — 0.100 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — — 0.100 g Hot water 100.000 g  100.000 g  100.000 g  100.000 g  Total 106.562 g  106.662 g  106.662 g  106.662 g 

(69) The results of conducting the sensory analysis and comparing the evaluation samples of working example 9, comparative example 17, and comparative example 18, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 9, richness of the soup was felt to be enhanced in comparison to the control, and an impression of extract concentration was improved. Although comparative examples 17 and 18 had a savoriness-imparting effect as compared to working example 9, working example 9 was felt to have a stronger richness-imparting effect.

<Working Example 10> Effect of Addition to Mayonnaise

(70) A mayonnaise was made with the composition ratios shown in Table 10.

(71) All ingredients other than the vegetable oil were measured in a stainless steel mug, then were mixed at 5000 rpm by a homogenizing mixer (Labolution Homogenizing Mixer Mark II Model 2.5, manufactured by Primix Corporation). While mixing, a small amount of the vegetable oil at a time was added to make a control mayonnaise. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) was added at 0.05 g and mixed together with 100 g of the control mayonnaise. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 10.

Comparative Example 19

(72) Comparative example 19 was conducted in the same manner as working example 10, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 10. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 19.

Comparative Example 20

(73) Comparative example 20 was conducted in the same manner as working example 10, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 10. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 20.

(74) TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 10 Example 19 Example 20 Vegetable oil 70.00 g  70.00 g  70.00 g  70.00 g  Egg yolk 15.00 g  15.00 g  15.00 g  15.00 g  Fermented 12.00 g  12.00 g  12.00 g  12.00 g  vinegar Table salt 2.00 g 2.00 g 2.00 g 2.00 g Sugar 0.75 g 0.75 g 0.75 g 0.75 g Mustard 0.25 g 0.25 g 0.25 g 0.25 g powder Yeast Extract 1 — 0.05 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — — 0.05 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — — 0.05 g Total 100.00 g  100.05 g  100.05 g  100.05 g 

(75) The results of conducting the sensory analysis of food taste and comparing the evaluation samples of working example 10, comparative example 19, and comparative example 20, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 10, richness of the mayonnaise was felt to be enhanced in comparison to the control. In comparative examples 19 and 20, savoriness was imparted as compared to the control, but working example 10 was felt to have a stronger richness-enhancing effect.

<Working Example 11> Effect of Addition to Corn Cream Soup

(76) Ingredients are weighed with a formulation shown in Table 11, then are dissolved in 100 ml of hot water to make a control corn cream soup. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) obtained with production example 1 was added at 0.1 g to 100.0 g of the control corn cream soup and dissolved therein. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 11.

Comparative Example 21

(77) Comparative example 21 was conducted in the same manner as working example 11, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 11. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 21.

Comparative Example 22

(78) Comparative example 22 was conducted in the same manner as working example 11, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 11. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 22. Composition ratios of working example 11, comparative example 21, and comparative example 22 are shown in Table 11.

(79) TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Working Comparative Comparative Name of Ingredient Control Example 11 Example 21 Example 22 Powdered sweet 5.0 g 5.0 g 5.0 g 5.0 g corn Powdered cream 2.0 g 2.0 g 2.0 g 2.0 g Starch 1.8 g 1.8 g 1.8 g 1.8 g Lactose 1.0 g 1.0 g 1.0 g 1.0 g Superfine sugar 0.8 g 0.8 g 0.8 g 0.8 g Table salt 0.8 g 0.8 g 0.8 g 0.8 g Powdered fat-free 1.0 g 1.0 g 1.0 g 1.0 g milk Chicken powder 0.2 g 0.2 g 0.2 g 0.2 g Powdered kelp 0.2 g 0.2 g 0.2 g 0.2 g extract Powdered onion 1.7 g 1.7 g 1.7 g 1.7 g extract MSG 0.1 g 0.1 g 0.1 g 0.1 g Yeast Extract 1 — 0.1 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — — 0.1 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — — 0.1 g Total 15.1 g  15.2 g  15.2 g  15.2 g 

(80) The results of conducting the sensory analysis of food taste and comparing the evaluation samples of working example 11, comparative example 21, and comparative example 22, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 11, richness of the soup was improved and sweetness of the corn was felt to be particularly enhanced in comparison to the control. In comparative examples 21 and 22, although savoriness was felt to be enhanced as compared to the control, an effect of improving an overall taste of the soup was inferior as compared to working example 11.

<Working Example 12> Effect of Addition to Demi-Glace Sauce

(81) A control demi-glace sauce was made with a formulation shown in Table 12. First, butter and wheat flour were added to a pot and sautéed well over medium heat. The remaining ingredients were then added and were boiled until thickened. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) obtained with production example 1 was added at 0.1 g to 100.0 g of the demi-glace sauce and dissolved therein. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 12.

Comparative Example 23

(82) Comparative example 23 was conducted in the same manner as working example 12, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 12. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 23.

Comparative Example 24

(83) Comparative example 24 was conducted in the same manner as working example 12, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 12. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 24. Composition ratios of working example 12, comparative example 23, and comparative example 24 are shown in Table 12.

(84) TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 12 Example 23 Example 24 Water 35.70 g  35.70 g  35.70 g  35.70 g  Tomato purée 20.00 g  20.00 g  20.00 g  20.00 g  Liquid sugar 10.00 g  10.00 g  10.00 g  10.00 g  Apple cider 8.00 g 8.00 g 8.00 g 8.00 g vinegar Wheat flour 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g Superfine sugar 8.00 g 8.00 g 8.00 g 8.00 g Roasted onion 2.00 g 2.00 g 2.00 g 2.00 g powder Butter 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g Table salt 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g Powdered onion 1.00 g 1.00 g 1.00 g 1.00 g extract White pepper 0.10 g 0.10 g 0.10 g 0.10 g Allspice 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g Bay leaf 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g Thyme 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g Garlic powder 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g 0.05 g Dextrin 2.00 g 2.00 g 2.00 g 2.00 g Beef extract 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g 3.00 g Protein 1.00 g 1.00 g 1.00 g 1.00 g hydrolysate Yeast Extract 1 —  0.1 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — —  0.1 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — —  0.1 g Total 100.0 g  100.1 g  100.1 g  100.1 g 

(85) The results of conducting the sensory analysis of food taste and comparing the evaluation samples of working example 12, comparative example 23, and comparative example 24, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 12, sourness and saltiness of the sauce were felt to be enhanced and an overall impact was improved in comparison to the control. Although comparative examples 23 and 24 had a savoriness-imparting effect as compared to working example 12, sourness- and saltiness-enhancing effects were poor.

<Working Example 13> Effect of Addition to White Sauce

(86) A control white sauce was made with a formulation shown in Table 13. First, butter and wheat flour were added to a pot and sautéed well over medium heat. The remaining ingredients were then added and were boiled until thickened. The yeast extract 1 (peptide content 18.7 wt %; RNA content 30.4 wt %; free amino acid content 0.5 wt %; dietary fiber content 22.7 wt %) was added at 0.1 g to 100.0 g of the white sauce and dissolved therein. This was then used as an evaluation sample for working example 13.

Comparative Example 25

(87) Comparative example 25 was conducted in the same manner as working example 13, except that the yeast extract 2 (peptide content 22.09 wt %; RNA content 0.00 wt %; free amino acid content 1.26%; dietary fiber content 33.3 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 13. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 25.

Comparative Example 26

(88) Comparative example 26 was conducted in the same manner as working example 13, except that the yeast extract 3 (peptide content 24.41 wt %; RNA content 11.23 wt %; free amino acid content 4.9 wt %) was used instead of the yeast extract 1 in working example 13. This was then used as an evaluation sample for comparative example 26. Composition ratios of working example 13, comparative example 25, and comparative example 26 are shown in Table 13.

(89) TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 Name of Working Comparative Comparative Ingredient Control Example 13 Example 25 Example 26 Wheat flour 4.00 g 4.00 g 4.00 g 4.00 g Butter 4.00 g 4.00 g 4.00 g 4.00 g Milk 70.0 g 70.0 g 70.0 g 70.0 g Chicken 0.80 g 0.80 g 0.80 g 0.80 g consommé White pepper 0.01 g 0.01 g 0.01 g 0.01 g Table salt 0.10 g 0.10 g 0.10 g 0.10 g Water 21.09 g  21.09 g  21.09 g  21.09 g  Yeast Extract 1 —  0.1 g — — Yeast Extract 2 — —  0.1 g — Yeast Extract 3 — — —  0.1 g Total 100.0 g  100.1 g  100.1 g  100.1 g 

(90) The results of conducting the sensory analysis of food taste and comparing the evaluation samples of working example 13, comparative example 25, and comparative example 26, respectively, with the control sample were that, in working example 13, saltiness was felt to be enhanced in comparison to the control and a feeling of milk body was imparted. In comparative examples 25 and 26, savoriness was imparted as compared to the control, but a sourness-enhancing effect and a milk body-imparting effect were more strongly detected in working example 13.

INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY

(91) As described above, according to the present invention, by adding the yeast extract to common processed food and drink of any flavor, sweetness, sourness, saltiness, and milk body and richness can be enhanced, depending on the processed food and drink to which the yeast extract is added, without imparting a taste that is out of place, and a volume of overall flavor can be improved. Therefore, the present invention can be favorably used not only in the common processed food and drink, but also, for example, in health foods claiming to be low in calories, sodium, and fat.