PROCESSING, PRODUCTS, AND FOOD SAFETY Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of burger made from duck surimi-like material K. Ramadhan,* N. Huda,*1 and R. Ahmad† *Fish and Meat Processing Laboratory, Food Technology Programme, School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia; and †Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia ABSTRACT Burgers were prepared using duck surimilike material (DSLM) with polydextrose added (SL) and DSLM with sucrose-sorbitol added (SS), and the properties of these burgers were compared with those of burgers made of chicken meat (CB) and duck meat (DB). Quality characteristics such as chemical composition, cooking loss, diameter shrinkage, color, and texture were measured. The DB had a lower moisture content (55.58%) and higher fat content (21.44%) and cooking loss (11.01%) compared with other samples, whereas CB, SS, and SL did not differ significantly in moisture (65.21–66.10%) and fat (10.42–11.16%) con-
tent or cooking loss (5.32–6.15%). The SS and SL were positioned below CB and above DB in terms of hardness, chewiness, and springiness. Ten trained panelists assessed the burgers using quantitative descriptive analysis. Among the burgers, CB had the greatest brightness of color, hardness, springiness, and chewiness. The SS had greater sweetness than the other burgers. Both SL and SS had significantly less animalic odor, meaty flavor, oiliness, juiciness, and saltiness compared with DB. The physicochemical and sensory characteristics of burgers prepared from DSLM approached those of burgers made of chicken.
Key words: duck meat, surimi-like material, burger, sensory analysis 2012 Poultry Science 91:2316–2323 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01747
INTRODUCTION Duck meat is the third most widely produced poultry meat in the world after chicken and turkey, and Malaysia is the third largest producer of duck meat after China and France (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010). In fact, consumption of duck meat has been limited to the Chinese market in Malaysia, and it is available only in particular forms, such as roasted duck and smoked duck (Tai and Tai, 2001). For general consumers in Malaysia, annual consumption of duck meat is only 2 kg per capita, whereas that of chicken meat is 38 kg per capita (Noor, 2008; Saran et al., 2009; Huda et al., 2010). Surimi technology, which initially was used to generate fish protein concentrate, has been adapted to process nonfish flesh into surimi-like material and to improve the properties of unpopular meat sources. Surimi-like materials have been shown to have better quality attributes compared with unprocessed meat, such as lighter color, lower fat content, and higher gel strength. Numerous researchers have reported about ©2012 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received July 19, 2011. Accepted May 20, 2012. 1 Corresponding author:
[email protected]
the utilization of surimi-like materials in processed meat products such as sausages, nuggets, restructured beef steak, and imitation crab sticks (McCormick et al., 1993; Desmond and Kenny, 1998; Perlo et al., 2006; Jin et al., 2007; 2009). To prevent quality degradation of surimi and surimi-like materials during frozen storage, a sucrose-sorbitol blend commonly is added as a cryoprotectant. However, this adds a sweet taste to surimi, which some consumers may not like. Polydextrose, which has low sweetness, is an alternative cryoprotectant (Auh et al., 1999). Despite the abundance and availability of duck meat, studies of the use of duck surimi-like material (DSLM) in processed meat products, such as burgers, are lacking. Thus, the goal of this research was to evaluate the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of DSLM in burgers and to compare them to chicken burger, a widely consumed meat product.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Duck Surimi-Like Material Production Carcasses of 8-wk-old Pekin duck broilers were chilled at 2°C after slaughtering. Approximately after 48 h postmortem, whole carcasses containing breast and thigh meat were mechanically deboned at a com-
2316
2317
BURGERS MADE FROM DUCK SURIMI-LIKE MATERIAL
mercial processing plant (Fika Food Corporation Sdn. Bhd., Penang, Malaysia) using a deboning machine with a pore size of 0.9 mm (Meat Maker Deboner, Prince Industries Inc., Murrayville, GA). The mechanically deboned duck meat was formed into a block shape (520 × 520 × 55 mm) and then frozen in a horizontal plate freezer (Jackstone Freezing Systems Ltd., Thetford, Norfolk, UK) at −40°C for 5 h. Frozen meat blocks were transported to the Fish and Meat Processing Laboratory of the School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia. During the 15 min it took to reach the laboratory, meat blocks were stored in ice boxes. Frozen meat blocks then were stored at −20°C before production of DSLM the next day. To produce DSLM, meat blocks were cut into smaller sizes using a meat bone saw (model P79-SS, Powerline Equipment, Norwalk, CT) and ground using a meat grinder (model EVE/ALL-12, Rheninghaus Srl, Torino, Italy). The DSLM preparation followed procedures described by Ensoy et al. (2004) with modification of the mixing time and dewatering technique. Two kilograms of meat were mixed with 6 L of cold tap water ( 0.05). The nonmeat ingredients, such as soy protein, also contributed to the protein content. Ash content of CB was significantly lower than that of the other sample types. The spices and condiments used in the burgers also contributed to the ash content of burgers (Fernández-López et al., 2006). The bone particles remaining in the duck meat after mechanical deboning might also have contributed to the higher ash content of DB, SL, and SS. The carbohydrate content of burgers ranged from 5.31 to 5.76%, and the addition of tapioca flour and konjac powder contributed to the carbohydrate content of the burgers. Starches, such as tapioca, have been used in processed meat products as a meat filler and a water binder (Joly and Anderstein, 2009). These results are within the proximate compositional ranges of commercial chicken burgers available in Malaysia (Ramadhan et al., 2011a).
Cooking Loss and Diameter Shrinkage of Cooked Burgers Cooking loss and diameter shrinkage of cooked burgers are shown in Table 3. Cooking loss of burgers ranged from 5.32 to 11.01%, which is within the range published for commercial chicken burgers (Ramadhan et al., 2011a). Loss of weight occurred during cooking mainly due to moisture evaporation and dripping of melted fat (Mansour and Khalil, 1997; Alakali et al., 2010). The DB had the highest cooking loss among the samples (P < 0.05), likely because more fluid was lost during cooking due to the higher fat content of DB; this result was in agreement with that reported by Suman and Sharma (2003). Cooking loss was positively correlated with fat content (R2 = 0.958, P < 0.01), hence fat content plays a great role in the amount of drip loss. The diameter shrinkages ranged from 2.58 to 6.71%. This result is within the reported range of commercial burger diameter shrinkage (Ramadhan et al., 2011a). Statistical analysis showed no significant differences among the 4 types of burgers (P > 0.05). Diameter size is an important parameter because burgers are mainly served with burger buns and thus should be comparable with bun size. Burgers shrink during cooking due to meat protein denaturation and fluid (moisture and fat) loss. Volume reduction is reflected mainly by diameter reduction, not by reduction of thickness (Pan and Singh, 2001). In this study, diameter shrinkage was positively correlated with cooking loss and fat content (R2 = 0.786 and 0.719, respectively, P < 0.05).
Table 3. Cooking loss and diameter shrinkage of burgers (n = 8)1 Sample2 CB DB SS SL
Cooking loss (%) 6.15 11.01 5.72 5.32
± ± ± ±
0.21a 0.08b 0.19a 1.04a
Diameter shrinkage (%) 2.58 6.71 4.03 3.55
± ± ± ±
0.68 2.05 1.37 2.05
a,bDifferent superscript letter in the same column indicate significant differences among samples (P < 0.05). 1Data are means ± standard deviation. 2CB: chicken burger; DB: duck burger; SS: burger made from duck surimi-like material with sucrose-sorbitol added; SL: burger made from duck surimi-like material with polydextrose added.
2320
Ramadhan et al. Table 4. Color properties of cooked burgers (n = 8)1 Sample2 CB DB SS SL
L* 38.80 30.64 29.39 30.41
± ± ± ±
a* 0.32b 0.19a 0.04a 1.20a
7.06 7.96 6.90 8.02
± ± ± ±
b* 0.20 0.05 1.13 0.04
18.51 18.32 15.48 15.74
± ± ± ±
0.18b 0.12b 0.83a 0.05a
a,bDifferent
superscript letter in the same column indicate significant differences among samples (P < 0.05). are means ± standard deviation. L* = lightness; a* = redness; b* = yellowness. 2CB: chicken burger; DB: duck burger; SS: burger made from duck surimi-like material with sucrose-sorbitol added; SL: burger made from duck surimi-like material with polydextrose added. 1Data
Cholesterol Content Table 2 shows the cholesterol content of uncooked burgers. The DB had the highest cholesterol content among the samples (P < 0.05), whereas SS and SL contained the lowest amount of cholesterol (P < 0.05). Ismail et al. (2010) reported that washed duck meat had a cholesterol content that was about 30% lower than that of unwashed meat. Previous studies reported that commercial chicken burgers available in Malaysia contain from 40 to 80 mg of cholesterol per 100 g (Ramadhan et al., 2011a). Jiménez-Colmenero et al. (2001) noted that the cholesterol content of meat products is generally 0.05). The CB and DB had more yellowness (b*) compared with SL and SS. During cooking, color alteration occurs in meat when the heme protein becomes denatured, iron is oxidized into ferric, and the heme pigment remains intact (Ganhão et al., 2010).
Texture Profile Analysis Table 5 shows the texture profiles of cooked burgers. The CB had significantly higher hardness, chewiness, and springiness than the other samples (P < 0.05). The SS and SL burgers had higher hardness, chewiness, and springiness than DB (P < 0.05). This likely was caused by the concentration of myofibrillar proteins that occurs during surimi preparation, which results in higher gel strength (Nowsad et al., 2000). The DB had the lowest hardness (P < 0.05), which is in agreement with our previous results for cooked gels from unwashed mechanically deboned duck meat (Ramadhan et al., 2011b). This can be explained by the structural damage that occurs during meat separation due to mechanical stress, which results in high amounts of fat and sarcoplasmic and stromal proteins (ruptured connective tissues) being widely distributed throughout the duck meat slurry. Sarcoplasmic proteins aggregate during the heating process, interfere with myosin cross-linking, and bind into myofibrils, thereby disrupting the formation of a strong gel matrix (Chaijan et al., 2004; Tornberg, 2005). According to Ferris et al. (2009), connective tissues would soften during heating at around 90°C. Hardness values of CB, SS, and SL were within the range reported for commercial chicken burgers (between 8,000 and 19,000 g), whereas the value for DB was much lower and out of this range (Ramadhan et al., 2011a). Hardness values of burgers in this study are much lower than the hardness range of 23,280 to 42,140 g reported for beef burgers (Ganhão et al., 2010). Fernández-López et al. (2006) gave a range of hardness values of 3,207.46 to 11,364.49 g for ostrich burgers, and Coelho et al. (2007) reported values of 5,816 to 8,143 g for fish burgers. Hardness values are commonly associated with the amount of stromal protein in the meat; beef contains around 16 to 28%, poultry about 10 to 15%, and fish 2 to 3% (Barbut, 2002; Hargin, 2002; Nishimura, 2010).
2321
BURGERS MADE FROM DUCK SURIMI-LIKE MATERIAL Table 5. Texture profile analysis of cooked burgers (n = Sample2 CB DB SS SL
Hardness 12,864.3 5,921.2 10,267.8 10,774.8
27.7c
± ± 149.8a ± 238.9b ± 281.8b
Chewiness 2,836.2 503.0 1,554.2 1,521.1
± ± ± ±
674.9c 52.6a 427.1b 324.8b
8)1 Cohesiveness 0.27 0.20 0.25 0.24
± ± ± ±
0.03 0.00 0.05 0.02
Springiness 0.82 0.41 0.61 0.57
± ± ± ±
0.09c 0.03a 0.04b 0.05ab
a–cDifferent
superscript letter in the same column indicate significant differences among samples (P < 0.05). are means ± standard deviation. 2CB: chicken burger; DB: duck burger; SS: burger made from duck surimi-like material with sucrose-sorbitol added; SL: burger made from duck surimi-like material with polydextrose added. 1Data
Nonmeat ingredients added to the burger formulation also contributed to the textural properties of the burgers. For example, Kassama et al. (2003) reported that the addition of soy protein increased hardness and cohesiveness of burger patties. Akesowan (2010) reported that the addition of 1 to 2% soy protein isolate in burger formulations significantly improved springiness, cohesiveness, and chewiness.
Sensory Properties Figure 1 shows the sensory profiles of cooked burgers. The sensory attributes did not differ significantly between SL and SS (P > 0.05), with the exception of sweetness. The SS had the strongest intensity of sweetness among the samples (P < 0.05). This is explained by the influence of sucrose in surimi-like material; the addition of polydextrose successfully diminished the sweetness in the final product, as it contains zero relative sweetness compared with sucrose (O’Donnell, 2005). Saltiness did not differ significantly among the samples (P > 0.05), and the different sweetness levels did not affect the perception of saltiness. Both SL and SS had greater hardness, springiness, and chewiness than DB, but CB had the highest values of all 3 factors (P < 0.05). For all 4 burger types, hardness as evaluated by TPA was positively correlated with hardness evaluated by sensory analysis (R2 = 0.799; P < 0.01). The brightness of DB, SL, and SS did not differ significantly, whereas brightness of CB was higher than the other samples (P < 0.05). Brightness values determined by instrument and sensory analysis were positively correlated (R2 = 0.884; P < 0.01). The DB was the most oily and juicy compared with the other samples (P < 0.05). However, it likely was difficult for the panelists to discern the difference between oiliness and moistness. In this study, oiliness and juiciness were positively correlated with fat content (R2 = 0.816 and 0.405 respectively; P < 0.01). Strong animalic odor and meaty flavor were detected in DB due to the high fat content in mechanically deboned duck meat. Fat is responsible for the development of meaty flavor (Chartrin et al., 2006). The SL and SS were less intense in both sensory attributes as a result of the removal of fat and other volatile compounds during washing in duck surimi-like material production. Odor and meaty flavor of duck meat are
stronger than those of chicken meat, thus CB had the lowest intensity for both sensory attributes. Figure 2 shows that the first 2 PCA biplots accounted for 97.08% of the variability in the data. Vector lines with the same direction show positive correlation between sensory attributes, whereas those with inverse direction (180°) show negative correlation. The intensity of this correlation increases as the angle between sensory attributes diminishes, and hence an angle of 90° between sensory attributes indicates that they are not totally correlated. Samples located close to a vector line of a sensory attribute show strong correlation (Raphaelides et al., 1998). The figure shows that chewiness and springiness are strongly and positively correlated. Juiciness, meaty flavor, and animalic odor are strongly positively correlated, but they are not correlated with chewiness or springiness (that is, the vectors are in inverse directions). Sweetness shows no correlation with the other sensory attributes. The SL and SS are located in the same quadrant, whereas CB and DB lie in different quadrants. The DB sits in the lower-left quadrant, which indicates a greater
Figure 1. Sensory profiles of burgers based on quantitative descriptive analysis (n = 4). CB: chicken burger; DB: duck burger; SS: burger made from duck surimi-like material with sucrose-sorbitol added; SL: burger made from duck surimi-like material with polydextrose added. Color version available in the online PDF.
2322
Ramadhan et al.
Figure 2. Principal component analysis biplot based on descriptive analysis sensory. bri: brightness of color; odo: animalic odor; spr: springiness; hrd: hardness; chw: chewiness; jui: juiciness; oil: oiliness; slt: saltiness; swt: sweetness; flv: meaty flavor; CB: chicken burger; DB: duck burger; SS: burger made from duck surimi-like material with sucrose-sorbitol added; SL: burger made from duck surimi-like material with polydextrose added. Color version available in the online PDF.
tendency for oiliness, juiciness, meaty flavor, animalic odor, and saltiness. The SS lies in the upper-right quadrant, which indicates a strong correlation with sweetness. The SL also lies in the upper-right but sits close to the chewiness and springiness vector lines and away from the sweetness vector line. The CB is located in the lower-right quadrant and is strongly correlated with brightness of color and hardness. In conclusion, compared with burgers made from duck meat, burgers made from DSLM had lower fat and cholesterol content, but they also were less juicy, less oily, harder, chewier, springier, and had less animalic odor and meaty flavor. The properties of burgers prepared from duck surimi-like material approached those of burgers made of chicken.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge with gratitude the support given by Universiti Sains Malaysia. This research was conducted with aid from a research grant from the Malayan Sugar Manufacturing Company Berhad (304/ PTEKIND/650462/K132).
REFERENCES Akesowan, A. 2010. Quality characteristics of light pork burgers fortified with soy protein isolate. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 19:1143– 1149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-010-0163-2. Alakali, J. S., S. V. Irtwange, and M. T. Mzer. 2010. Quality evaluation of beef patties formulated with bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranean L.) seed flour. Meat Sci. 85:215–223. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.12.027. AOAC International. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC International. 17th ed. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD.
Auh, J. H., G. H. Lee, J. W. Kim, J. C. Kim, S. H. Yoon, and K. H. Park. 1999. Highly concentrated branched oligosaccharides as cryoprotectant for surimi. J. Food Sci. 64:418–422. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1999.tb15055.x. Barbut, S. 2002. Poultry Products Processing an Industry Guide. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL. Chaijan, M., S. Benjakul, W. Visessanguan, and C. Faustman. 2004. Characteristics and gel properties of muscles from sardine (Sardinella gibbosa) and mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) caught in Thailand. Food Res. Int. 37:1021–1030. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.foodres.2004.06.012. Chartrin, P., K. Méteau, H. Juin, M. D. Bernadet, G. Guy, C. Larzul, H. Rémignon, J. Mourot, M. J. Duclos, and E. Baéza. 2006. Effects of intramuscular fat levels on sensory characteristics of duck breast meat. Poult. Sci. 85:914–922. Coelho, G., Â. Weschenfelder, E. Meinert, R. Amboni, and L. H. Beirão. 2007. Effects of starch properties on textural characteristics of fish burgers: Sensory and instrumental approaches. Bol. Cent. Pesqui. Process. Aliment. 25: 37–50. ISSN: 19839774. Desmond, E. M., and T. A. Kenny. 1998. Preparation of surimi-like extract from beef hearts and its utilization in frankfurters. Meat Sci. 50:81–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)000187. Dreeling, N., P. Allen, and F. Butler. 2000. Effect of cooking method on sensory and instrumental texture attributes of low-fat beef burgers. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 33:234–238. http://dx.doi. org/10.1006/fstl.2000.0649. Ensoy, Ü., N. Kolsarici, and K. Candoğan. 2004. Quality characteristics of spent layer surimi during frozen storage. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 219:14–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00217-0040886-5. Fernández-López, J., S. Jiménez, E. Sayas-Barberá, E. Sendra, and J. A. Pérez-Alvarez. 2006. Quality characteristics of ostrich (Struthio camelus) burgers. Meat Sci. 73:295–303. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.12.011. Ferris, J. J., A. J. Sandoval, J. A. Barreiro, J. J. Sánchez, and A. J. Müller. 2009. Gelation kinetics of an imitation-mortadella emulsion during heat treatment determined by oscillatory rheometry. J. Food Eng. 95:677–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jfoodeng.2009.06.035. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2010. FAO Stat Database. Accessed Dec. 2010. http://www.faostat.fao. org/default.aspx. Ganhão, R., D. Morcuende, and M. Estévez. 2010. Protein oxidation in emulsified cooked burger patties with added fruit extracts: Influence on colour and texture deterioration during chill storage. Meat Sci. 85:402–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.02.008. Hargin, K. D. 2002. Measurement of the fish content in fish product. Pages 59–72 in Seafoods: Quality, Technology, and Nutraceutical Applications. C. Alasalvar and T. Taylor, ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. Hayes, J. E., E. M. Desmond, D. J. Troy, D. J. Buckley, and R. Mehra. 2005. The effect of whey protein-enriched fractions on the physical and sensory properties of frankfurters. Meat Sci. 71:238–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.03.005. Huda, N., A. A. Putra, and R. Ahmad. 2010. Potential application of duck meat for development of processed meat products. Curr. Res. Poult. Sci. 10.3923/crps.2010 Ismail, I., N. Huda, F. Ariffin, and N. Ismail. 2010. Effect of washing on the functional properties of duck meat. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 9:556–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2010.556.561. Jiang, S. T., M. L. Ho, S. H. Jiang, L. Lo, and H. C. Chen. 1998. Color and quality of mackerel surimi as affected by alkaline washing and ozonation. J. Food Sci. 63:652–655. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1998.tb15805.x. Jiménez-Colmenero, F., J. Carballo, and S. Cofrades. 2001. Healthier meat and meat products: Their role as functional foods. Meat Sci. 59:5–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00053-5. Jin, S. K., I. S. Kim, Y. J. Choi, B. G. Kim, and S. J. Hur. 2009. The development of imitation crab stick containing chicken breast surimi. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 42:150–156. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.lwt.2008.04.009.
BURGERS MADE FROM DUCK SURIMI-LIKE MATERIAL Jin, S. K., I. S. Kim, H. J. Jung, D. H. Kim, Y. J. Choi, and S. J. Hur. 2007. The development of sausage including meat from spent laying hen surimi. Poult. Sci. 86:2676–2684. Joly, G., and B. Anderstein. 2009. Starches. Pages 25–55 in Ingredients in Meat Products: Properties, Functionality and Applications. R. Tarte, ed. Springer Science + Business Media LLC, New York, NY. Kassama, L., M. Ngadi, and G. Raghavan. 2003. Structural and instrumental textural properties of meat patties containing soy protein. Int. J. Food Prop. 6:519–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ JFP-120021456. King, N., and R. Whyte. 2006. Does it look cooked? A review of factors that influenced cooked meat color. J. Food Sci. 71:R31– R40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00029.x. Mansour, E., and A. Khalil. 1997. Characteristics of low-fat beef burger as influenced by various types of wheat fibers. Food Res. Int. 30:199–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(97)00043-4. Martínez, B., J. M. Miranda, B. I. Vázquez, C. A. Fente, C. M. Franco, J. L. Rodríguez, and A. Cepeda. 2009. Development of a hamburger patty with healthier lipid formulation and study of its nutritional, sensory, and stability properties. Food Bioprocess Technol. 10.1007/s11947-009-0268-x. McCormick, R. J., S. Bugren, R. A. Field, D. C. Rule, and J. R. Busboom. 1993. Surimi-like products from mutton. J. Food Sci. 58:497–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1993. tb04309.x. Naveena, B., M. Muthukumar, A. Sen, Y. Babji, and T. Murthy. 2006. Quality characteristics and storage stability of chicken patties formulated with finger millet flour (Eleusine coracana). J. Muscle Foods 17:92–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.17454573.2006.00039.x. Nishimura, T. 2010. The role of intramuscular connective tissue in meat texture. Anim. Sci. J. 81:21–27. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2009.00696.x. Noor, Z. A. M. 2008. Broiler ducks. Department of Veterinary Services, Perak Darul Ridzuan. Accessed Jun. 2011. http://www. jpvpk.gov.my/index.php?view=article&catid=56%3Aguidelines– publications-&id=162%3Abroiler-ducks&tmpl=component&prin t=1&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=209&lang=en. Nowsad, A. A. K. M., S. Kanoh, and E. Niwa. 2000. Thermal gelation characteristics of breast and thigh muscles of spent hen and broiler and their surimi. Meat Sci. 54:169–175. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00091-1. O’Donnell, K. 2005. Carbohydrate and intense sweeteners. Pages 68–89 in Chemistry and Technology of Soft Drinks and Fruit Juices. P. R. Ashurst, ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK.
2323
Pan, Z., and R. P. Singh. 2001. Physical and thermal properties of ground beef during cooking. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 34:437– 444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/fstl.2001.0762. Perlo, F., P. Bonato, G. Teira, R. Fabre, and S. Kueider. 2006. Physicochemical and sensory properties of chicken nuggets with washed mechanically deboned chicken meat: Research note. Meat Sci. 72:785–788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.09.007. Ramadhan, K., N. Huda, and R. Ahmad. 2011a. Physicochemical characteristics and sensory properties of selected Malaysian commercial chicken burgers. Int. Food Res. J. 18:1349–1357. Ramadhan, K., N. Huda, and R. Ahmad. 2011b. Effect of number and washing solutions on functional properties of surimi-like material from duck meat. J. Food Sci. Technol. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s13197-011-0510-1 Raphaelides, S., S. Grigoropoulou, and D. Petridis. 1998. Quality attributes of pariza salami as influenced by the addition of mechanically deboned chicken meat. Food Qual. Prefer. 9:237–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00002-0. Rohall, S., J. Ballintine, J. Vowels, L. Wexler, and K. Goto. 2009. Who’s your patty? Consumer acceptance and sensory properties of burger patties made with different types of meat or plantbased products. Calif. J. Health Promot. 7:1–6. Saran, S., B. P. Singh, R. Narayan, and J. S. Tyagi. 2009. Food safety key to Indian poultry exports. Poultry International. Accessed Jun. 2011. http://www.poultryinternational-digital.com/ poultryinternational/200903/?pg=22#pg22. SPSS. 2008. SPSS Statistics 17.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL. Suman, S. P., and B. D. Sharma. 2003. Effect of grind size and fat levels on the physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of lowfat ground buffalo meat patties. Meat Sci. 65:973–976. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00313-3. Tai, C., and J.-J. L. Tai. 2001. Future prospects of duck production in Asia. Jpn. Poult. Sci. 38:99–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.2141/ jpsa.38.99. Tornberg, E. 2005. Effects of heat on meat proteins—Implications on structure and quality of meat products. Meat Sci. 70:493– 508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.11.021. Turhan, S., H. Temiz, and I. Sagir. 2009. Characteristic of beef patties using okara powder. J. Muscle Foods 20:89–100. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4573.2008.00138.x. Watts, B. M., G. Ylimaki, L. Jeffery, and L. Elias. 1989. Basic Sensory Methods for Food Evaluation. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
