Sibel DEMİRCİOĞLU KARACA, Ersel OBUZ, SEMRA KAYAARDI

Textural, chemical and sensory properties of döners produced from beef, chicken and ostrich meat

Bu çalışmada deneysel olarak üretilmiş sığır, tavuk ve devekuşu etinden üretilmiş dönerlerin kimyasal, tekstürel ve duyusal özellikleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Sığır ve tavuk dönerlerine göre devekuşu etinden üretilmiş döner örneklerinin kolesterol içeriği daha düşük, kalori değerleri ise daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Sığır etinden üretilmiş döner örneklerinin daha yüksek Warner Bratzler kesme kuvveti (WBSF) değerlerine sahip olduğu gözlenmiştir (P

Sığır, tavuk ve devekuşu etinden üretilmiş dönerlerin tekstürel, kimyasal ve duyusal özellikleri

In this study, the chemical, textural and sensory properties of beef, chicken, or ostrich meat döners were compared. Ostrich döner samples had lower (P<0.0001) cholesterol content than beef or chicken döners but higher calorific values. It is observed that beef döners had higher (P<0.0001) Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) than chicken and ostrich döners. According to the texture analyses results it is concluded that hardness measured by Texture Profile Analyzer was found to be a better predictor of sensory tenderness than WBSF. Panelists rated ostrich meat with highest point in terms of sensory properties. Ostrich döners had better overall acceptance than beef or chicken döners. Therefore it is concluded that ostrich döner can be taken into consideration as an alternative protein source to beef or chicken döners.

PDF

___

1. Gönülalan Z, Yetim H, Köse A: Quality characteristics of döner made from sucuk dough which is a dry fermented Turkish sausage. Meat Sci, 67, 669-674, 2004.
2. Bartholama A, Hildebrandt G, Stenzel WR, Erol I: A preliminary investigation of döner in the german market. Fleishwirtschaft, 77 (10): 913-915, 1997.
3. Yüksek N, Evrensel SS, Temelli S, Anar S, Sen MKC: A microbiological evaluation on the ready to eat red meat and chicken donairs from a local catering company in Bursa, J Biol Environ Sci, 3 (7): 7-10, 2009.
4. Öztan A: Et Bilimi ve Teknolojisi. TMMOB Gıda Mühendisleri Odası Yayınları Kitaplar Serisi, Yayın No: 1, 4. Baskı, Ankara, 2003.
5. Institute of Turkish Standards. Döner-Pişmemiş. The number of Turk Standard: 11859 Ankara, 2003.
6. Arslan A: Et muayenesi ve Et Ürünleri Teknolojisi. Fırat Üniversitesi Yayınları, Elazığ, Türkiye, 2002.
7. Kayaardı S, Kundakçı A, Kayacıer A, Gök V: Sensory and chemical analyses of döner kebap made from turkey meat. J Muscle Foods, 17 (2): 1665-172, 2006.
8. Bostan K, Yılmaz F, Muratoğlu K, Aydın A: Pişmiş döner kebaplarda mikrobiyolojik kalite ve mikrobiyel gelişim üzerine bir araştırma. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 17 (5): 781-786, 2011.
9. Demirok E, Kolsarıcı N, Akoğlu İT, Özden E: The effects of tumbling and sodium tripolyphosphate on the proteins döner. Meat Sci, 89, 154- 159, 2011
10. Aşkın OO, Kilic B: Effect of microbial tranglutaminase and sodium caseinate and non-fat dry milk on quality of salt free, low ft turkey döner kebap. Int J Food Sci and Technol, 42, 1590-1596, 2009.
11. Institute of Turkish Standards. Döner Yapım Kuralları-Pişmemiş. The number of Turk Standard: 11658 Ankara, 1995.
12. Vazgeçer B, Ulu H, Öztan A: Microbiological and chemical qualities of chicken döner kebap retailed on the Turkish restaurants. Food Control, 15, 261-264, 2004.
13. Jimenez CF: Technologies for developing low-fat meat products. Trends in Food Sci and Technol, 7, 41-48, 1996.
14. Hoffman LC, Fischer PP: Comparison of meat quality characteristics between young and old ostriches. Meat Sci, 59 (3): 335-337, 2001.
15. Paleari MA, Camisasca S, Beretta G, Renon P, Corsico P, Bertolo G, Crivelli G: Ostrich meat: Physico-chemical characteristics and comparison with turkey and bovine meat. Meat Sci, 48, 205-210, 1998
16. Thomas AR, Gondoza H, Hoffman LC, Oosthuizen V, Naude RJ: The role of the protosome and cathepsin B, L, H and D in ostrich meat tenderisation. Meat Sci, 67, 113-120, 2004.
17. Sales J, Marais D, Kuger M: Fat content, caloric value, cholesterol content and fatty acid composition of raw and cooked ostrich meat. J Food Comp and Analysis, 9, 85-98, 1996.
18. AOAC 1990: Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, 1990.
19. Naeemi ED, Ahmad N, Al-Sharrah, TK, Behbahani M: Rapid and simple method for determination of cholesterol in processed food. J AOAC Int, 78 (6): 1522-1525, 1995.
20. Bourne MC: Texture profile analysis. Food Technol, 32, 62-66, 1978.
21. AMSA, American Meat Science Association: Research guidelines farcookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements offreshmeat. Published by AMSA in cooperation with the National Livestock and MeatBoard, 1995.
22. SAS: Institute Inc. User’s Guide Version 8.2, SAS Institute Cary, NC, 2001.
23. Kayisoglu S, Yilmaz I, Demirci M, Yetim H: Chemical composition and microbiological quality of the döners sold in Tekirdağ market. Food Control, 14, 469-474, 2003.
24. Sales J: Fatty acid composition and cholesterol content of different ostrich muscles. Meat Sci, 49, 489-492, 1998.
25. Hoffman LC, Mellett FD: Quality characteristics of low fat ostrich meat patties formulated with either pork lard or modifıed corn starch, soya isolate and water. Meat Sci, 65, 869-875, 2003.
26. Chizzolini R, Zanardi E, Dorigoni V, Ghidini S: Calorifıc value and cholesterol content of normal and low-fat meat and meat products. Trends in Food Sci & Technol, 10, 119-128, 1999.
27. Kilic B: Effect of microbial tranglutaminase and sodium caseinate on quality of chicken döner. Meat Sci, 63, 417-421, 2003
28. Safari E, Fogarty NM, Ferrier GR, Hopkins LD, Gilmour A: Diverse lamb genotypes. 3. Eating quality and the relationship between its objective measurement and sensory assessment. Meat Sci, 57 (2): 153- 159, 2001.
29. Ruiz de Huidobro F, Miguel E, Blazquez B, Onega E: A comparison between two methods (Warner-Bratzler and texture profile analysis) for testing either raw meat or cooked meat. Meat Sci, 69, 527- 536, 2005.