Journal of Food and Nutritional DisordersISSN: 2324-9323

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Research Article, J Food Nutr Disor Vol: 5 Issue: 1

Influence of Season and Storage Period of Camel Meat on the Quality Characteristics of Burger

Suliman AME1, Fadlalmola SA2, Babiker ASA2, Yousif HS2, Ibrahim SM3, Abdelrahim YM3 and Arabi OA3
1Department of Biology, University of Hail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2Department of Veterinary science, University of Butana, Sudan
3Department of engineering and Technology, University of Gezira, Sudan
Corresponding author : Abdel Moneim Elhad Suliman
Department of Biology, University of Hail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Tel: 966538081679
E-mail: [email protected]
Received: October 12, 2015 Accepted: January 14, 2016 Published: January 20, 2016
Citation: Suliman AME, Fadlalmola SA, Babiker ASA, Yousif HS, Ibrahim SM, et al. (2016) Influence of Season and Storage Period of Camel Meat on the Quality Characteristics of Burger. J Food Nutr Disor 5:1. doi:10.4172/2324-9323.1000190

Abstract

Influence of Season and Storage Period of Camel Meat on the Quality Characteristics of Burger

The present study was conducted to investigate the influence of season and storage period on camel meat product burger. Fresh camel meat samples were obtained from slaughter house and stored at -18°C for 3, 6 and 9 months (summer, winter and autumn seasons). Burger samples were prepared at the end of each storage period. Manufactured Burgers were subjected to physicochemical, microbiological and sensorial analyses. The results revealed significant interaction between the season and storage time. Oxidative rancidity of burger were significantly (P<0.05) affected by the storage time. Burger lightness (L), redness (a) and yellowness (b) were affected significantly with increasing storage time.

Keywords: Oxidative rancidity; Colour; Coliforms; Sensory evaluation

Keywords

Oxidative rancidity; Colour; Coliforms; Sensory evaluation

Introduction

The camel (Camelus dromedarius) is a special animal, but its services to mankind are more than estimation, especially regarding its adaptability and thriving in the harsh climate of the deserts. The most populous camel species in the world are dromedaries (one humped). Globally, the camels are most populous in the East Africa (Horn of Africa) and Middle east. There are about 1 million camels in Pakistan. The meat of the camel is the bye product as the male animals are preferably kept as baggage animal while the female camel also serves as dairy purpose. There are about 0.17 million camels are slaughtered annually in the world [1].
The dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius ) has unique physiological characteristics, including a great tolerance to high temperatures, solar radiation, water scarcity, rough topography and poor vegetation [2].
The camel meat quality varies with the feeding, breeds, age and its methods of the processing. However, the camel produces high quality food with low cost. There is established market of the camel meat in the Sudan.
Camel’s meat is always an important basic food in the Sudan. As a meat-producing animal, its dressing percentage range from 46-55% [3]. The fat content of camel meat is considerably less than beef, low in cholesterol and high in protein. Camel meat is similar in taste and texture to beef [4]. Commonly, it is said that the camel meat is tough, coarse and watery. The color of the meat varies from rasberry red to dark brown. Its taste is sweetish due to high glycogen content in the muscles. The fat of the camel is white in colour. The toughness increases while the palatability decreases with increase in the age of the animal. Optimum age is 1-3 years. Ultimate pH is ranging 5.7 to 6; it depends on the amount of glycogen and lactic acid [1].
Sudan is one of the largest camel raising countries in the Africa and Arab world, yet the role of camel meat in the meat industry is underestimated due to the limited information available concerning the potentialities of camel meat in processing.
Comminuted products are those made from raw meat materials that have been reduced into small meat pieces, chips, or flakes. Two main advantages are gained from all comminuted processes, i.e. improved uniformity of product due to more uniform particle size and distribution of ingredients, and increased in tenderness, as the meat is subdivided into smaller particles [5].
Originally, burgers were made from beef (preferably lean cow meat), but in recent years chicken and mutton burgers have become more common. Other animal tissues such as fats or connective tissue/ tendons can also be part of the mixture, with quantities depending on the type and quality of the products. In UK burger products are named according to their meat constituents, such as bacon burger, lamb burger and hamburger, or according to basic ingredient for example cheese burger, microwave burger which is usually intended to be fully cooked in microwave oven [6].
The objectives of this study were to improve the quality of camel meat by processing into burger, to investigate the effects of season and storage period of camel meat on some physic-chemical properties, microbiological characteristics and sensory attributes of camel’s meat burger.

Materials and Methods

Sampling
A total number of 108 camels (Camelus dromedaries ) from Tamboul slaughter house, central Sudan, were used in this study. Longissimusmuscle between the 5th to 10th ribs were obtained from the right side of the carcasses after 50 minutes post slaughter. Fresh camel meat samples were kept in refrigerator at (4°C) over night after that kept in deep freezer at -18°C, and stored for summer, winter and autumn months. At the end of each season, the samples were divided into four groups according to storage time as the following:
• Meat storage for 3months
• Meat storage for 2months
• Meat storage for 1month
• Fresh meat to be control
At the end of storage period these sample were transported hygienically to Department of Meat Production, Faculty of Animal Production at Shambat (Khartoum North), and University of Khartoum. Then the samples labeled wrapped and kept in at refrigerator overnight until used.
At the end of each storage period, meat samples were transported hygienically to the Department of Meat Production, Faculty of Animal Production, and University of Khartoum for processing into burger.
Burger Processing
Various burger samples were processed according to FAO [7]. The required ingredients are shown in Table 1. Meat and fat for each of the treatment groups were run separately through electrical meat grinders, the meat through 8 mm plate and the fat through 6 mm plate. Then the meat and the other ingredients were thoroughly mixed, and the mixture was re-grinded through a 5 mm plate, and finally burgers were formed, weighing 50 gm and 5-10 mm thick. After freezing, the burgers were packed into suitable plastic bags, and immediately and stored for 1, 7 and 14 days pending further analysis.
Table 1: The required ingredients for burger processing.
Burger sample preparation for analysis
Pieces of burger samples prepared from various camel meats at storage periods and different seasons (about 50 grams each) were taken for the analyses. Several variables were also evaluated using objective and subjective measurements. These included pH, colour, rancidity, water holding capacity (WHC), cooking loss and sensory evaluation (colour, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and acceptability).
pH determination
pH values (duplicates) of camel meat burger samples were determined immediately after preparation of the samples. 10 gm of the sample were blended with 100 ml distilled water for one minute before measurement of pH values using a pH meter (model CG 840).
Water holding capacity (WHC)
Duplicate samples (about 1 gram) from the camel meat and burger samples were used. Each sample was placed on humidified filter paper and pressed between two Plexiglas plates for 1 minute at 25 kg/cm2 load. The meat filter area was traced with a ball pen and the filter paper was allowed to dry. Meat and moisture areas were measured with a compensating Planometer. The resulting area covered by the meat was divided into the moisture area to give a ratio expressed as water holding capacity of meat. A large ratio indicates an increase in the watery condition of the flesh or a decrease in the water holding capacity [8].
Water holding capacity (WHC) = Loose water area − Meat film area
Meat film area
Cooking Loss: The frozen camel meat burger samples were thawed to determine cooking loss (duplicate).The sample was placed in a polythene bag and totally immersed in a water bath at 80ºC for 90 minutes. After cooking each sample was cooled in running tap water for 20 minutes in its exuded fluids and then removed and dried with paper towel [9]. Cooking loss was determined as the difference in weight of sample before and after cooking, and was expressed as a percentage of the weight before cooking.
Cooking loss = Wt. Before cooking − Wt. After cooking
Weight before cooking
Oxidative rancidity measurements: The oxidative rancidity of the camel meat and burger samples was determined using 2- thiobarbituric acid (TBA) method as described by Hoyland and Taylor [1989] in duplicate. The reading of oxidative rancidity was taken using a spectrophotometer at the wave length of 538 nm as follows:
Oxidative rancidity (mg/ml) = Spectrophotometric Reading × 7.8
Sample Weight
Colour measurements: The colour of samples of camel meat and burger was determined by using Hunter lab Tri-stimulus colorimeter Model D 25 M.2 optical sensor machine in duplicate. Lightness (l), redness (a) and yellowness (b) measurements.
Microbiological analysis
The microbiological analysis was carried out for burger produced from various camel meat samples according to Harrigan, et al. [10]. Appropriate dilutions of the respective burger samples in 0.1 gm aliquots were spread on pre-poured plates of Plate count agar for the presumptive enumeration of total viable count and Baird-Parker agar for staphylococci. Inoculated plates were incubated for 24-48 h at 37°C. Characteristic colonies appearing on the respective selective agar media were counted, multiplied by the dilution factor and expressed as colony forming units per ml c.f.u/g.
Determination of coliform bacteria: For determination of coliforms in various burger samples, the most probable number (MPN) technique presumptive coliform test was used. One ml of each of three first dilutions (10-1, 10-2, 10-3) was inoculated aseptically in 9 ml of sterilized MacConky broth using the five –tube technique with Durhan tubes. The tubes were incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. The production of acid together with sufficient gases to fill the concave of the Durham tube is recorded as positive presumptive test.
Sensory evaluation and statistical analysis: Samples for sensory evaluation were conducted in the sensory evaluation facilities of Meat Laboratory, Faculty of Animal Production University of Khartoum. The samples to be used for sensory evaluation were randomly selected and cooked in a pan for 5 minutes and kept warm by using aluminum foil. 20 semi-trained panelists were used to evaluate burger samples. The tested attributes included; colour, tenderness, flavour, juiciness and overall acceptability using an 8- point scale score (hedonic scale) card as described by Cross et al. [11], in which the highest score of 8 being extremely desirable and 1being extremely undesirable. The data of sensory evaluation were analyzed as with a 4×3 factorial arrangement of treatments using analysis of variance, treatments means were compared by Duncan's multiple range tests and ANOVA table by using SPSS version 15 computer programs.

Results and Discussion

Influence of season and storage period in camel meat burger
The effect of different seasons (summer, autumn and winter) and storage time on physicochemical properties and oxidative rancidity of camel meat burger is presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2: The effect of different seasons (summer, autumn and winter) on physical properties and oxidative rancidity of camel meat burger:(n=36).
Table 3: The effect of different storage period on physical properties and oxidative rancidity on camel meat burger: (n=36).
Water holding capacity and cooking loss is important issue in meat quality and it depend on pH value Results show that WHC of burger were 1.34, 1.47 and 0.51 in summer, winter and autumn, respectively. Increasing the storage period from day 1 to day 14 at -18°C resulted in an improvement of the WHC values, WHC increased significantly (P<0.05) with increasing storage time in all burger samples. However, these values were in close agreement to those of Ibrahim [12] and Elshrif [13] who found that burger WHC had increased with increasing the percentage of camel meat.
Cooking loss of burger was significantly different in the three seasons and during storage periods. In that, cooking loss increased from 15.99% for the fresh burger to 20.04% in burger stored for 14 days. Regardless of the cooking methods used by the different investigators, the cooking loss is in close agreement to that reported by Ali [14] and Elgasim et al. [15]. During freezing storage meat loses water by evaporation, sublimation and exudation. It has been reported that moisture losses by evaporation during freezing of non-packed carcasses or joints normally amount to between 0.5 and 1.2% of the total weight [16].It has been documented that, cooked meats cooked rare sustain less loss; the losses may vary from 5 to 20 %. Under some conditions they may be higher. Well-done meats usually have a higher cooking loss, from 20 to 45%, however, meats cooked at very low cooking temperatures may have less than 15% cooking losses [17].
Babiker and Tibin [18] and FAO [7] reported that the percentage of losses in cooking was affected by the level and type of fat in emulsion. During cooking, added starch binds part of the free water and swells, thus decreasing cooking loss. In addition, these findings agreed with Lawrie [19] who reported that higher water holing capacity of meat decreased cooking loss in final products. Jaroslav [20] found that drip losses are influenced by many factors, size of meat cut (higher losses come from sliced meat and steaks), postmortem, storage temperature and the most important factor is the pH value of the meat.
Increasing the storage period from day 1 to day 14 at -18°C resulted in slight decrease of the pH values of various burger samples from 5.85 in fresh samples to 5.37 in burger stored for 14 days. The reduction of pH values goes in accordance with the fact that camels have a high gluconeogenesis capacity due to the presence of hump. The amount of enzymes in causes slower glycogen degradation and pH decline [21,22].It is known that meat with a high ultimate pH is generally very susceptible to microbial growth even under the best management condition and practices [23].
Oxidative rancidity (TBA-value) of camel meat burger made from fresh camel meat and storage at -18°C in different seasons is indicted in Tables 2 and 3. The results show that TBA value of burger was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected by storage period up to 14 days and season. The results showed that TBA values increase significantly (P ≤ 0.05) in winter on fresh camel meat burger. This could be due to the higher fat content of camel meat. However, Nercellottiet al. [24] stated that post-mortem factors can influence lipid oxidation and decrease shelf life of the meat products. The results show that an increase of TBA with increasing storage period in camel meat burger. These results are supported by many investigators [12,25] and Elshrif [13] who reported that rancidity increased with increasing storage time, as unsaturated fatty acid are very prone to oxidation, even in meat in which most of the fat is saturated as the cell membranes contains phospholipids. These results are also in line with those of Sato and Hegorty [26] who reported that the process is relatively rapid (1-2 days), and this lead to the rather stale, rancid flavor referred to as warmed- over flavour.
Figure 1A show that the objective colour measurements of fresh burger manufactured from camel meat and kept at -18°C for up to day 14 were affected significantly (P ≤ 0.05) with increasing the storage time.
Figure 1A: The effect of different seasons on colour measurement lightness (l), redness (a) and yellowness (b) of camel burger.
Lightness (l) values of burger were non- significantly (P ≤ 0.05) influenced by the season, but there was significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) of storage periods on redness (a) of camel meat burger. It decreased with increasing storage time from to 12.26 in the fresh sample to 8.91 and 7.98 for samples stored for 7 and 14 days, respectively. Yellowness (b) in burger as indicated in Figure 1B was non-significantly affected (P<0.05) between different seasons and storage time.
Figure 1B: The effect of different storage time on colour measurement lightness (l), redness (a) and yellowness (b) of camel burger.
There was significant interaction between season and storage periods on redness (a). But there was non-significant interaction between ages and storage periods on lightness (l) and yellowness (b). Lightness (l), redness (a) and yellowness (b) decreased with increasing storage time from day 1 to day 14 at -18°C. But this decrease was nonsignificant between day 1 and day 7 of the storage period. This may be due to the variation in the level of pigmentation (myoglobin) present in the muscle. These results agreed with those of other investigators findings, Babiker and Yousif [27] and Fathi El-Rhman [25] reported that camel meat colour varied from raspberry red to brown. The results were also supported by Farouk [28] who reported that the colour of comminuted meats decreases significantly during refrigeration storage. The decrease in redness was obviously due to denaturation of the pigment myoglobin. The same results were indicated by Al-Qadi [29] who pointed that with regard to colour, camel meat sustains its redness up to five days of storage. On the other hand, Abdelhadiet al. [30] found that season significantly influenced muscle chemical composition, ultimate pH and color when investigated the effect of season on contractile and metabolic properties of desert camel. However, Abdelhadiet al. [31] found no differences in muscle pH, color and WHC as effect of ageing on meat quality of the one humped camel Table 4.
Table 4: The effect of different season (summer, autumn and winter) on microbial load of camel burger (n=36).
The effect of different seasons and storage time on the microbiological characteristics of burger
Table 5 and 6 show the microbiological characteristics of burger samples in different seasons and storage time at -18°C. It is known that muscle tissues of healthy animals contain few bacterial cells, but cuts and exposed surfaces are easily contaminated after slaughter and during and after processing. Multiplication of microorganisms may occur in fresh meat and the level of initial contamination has no correlation with the number of viable bacteria [10].
Table 5: The effect of different storage time on microbial load camel sausage and burger (n=36).
Table 6: The effect of different seasons (summer, winter and autumn) on Sensory evaluation of camel burger stored for (14) days at -18°C. (n=20).
Results show significant differences (P<0.05)) in total viable count of various samples, the highest total viable count was found in summer (48.65×105 cfu/g) while the lowest was found in winter (35.9×105 cfu/g) season. The total viable count of burger stored at -18° C increased but non-significantly (P<0.05) for up to day 7, then decreased as a result of increasing of pH. This result was acceptable as it falls within the confidence limits (107 cfu/g) of total viable counts of chilled and unfrozen uncooked meat (e.g. burger, sausage) required by SSMO [32] which reported that the acceptable microbiological limits 50×104 cfu/g, and the level of maximum count is 5×102 cfu/g. Alalla [33] reported that the aerobic plate count of the fresh meat before processing was 102-103 cfu/g, and after processing was 107-108 cfu/g. The total viable count of burger stored at -18°C for up to day 14 decreased with increasing storage time.
As for the total coliforms determined by MPN\g, the results show significantly difference (P<0.05) between the different samples. The highest value was found in summer, while the lowest was found in winter season. The increase of coliform count may be correlated with the method of processing, post processing contamination and handling which may enhance their growth. Echerichia coli were detected in all samples of burger.
In raw samples the lowest Staphylococcus spp. count was found in autumn which were 1.64×103 cfu/g, while the highest was found in summer season which were 2.93×103 cfu/g. However, the increase of coliform count may be correlated with the method of processing, post processing contamination and handling which may enhance their growth. Although most vegetative bacteria are destroyed by a temperature of 60°C for 30 minutes, Staphylococcus spp. resist a temperature of frequently 60°C for an hour and some strain, may resist a temperature of 80°C for 30 minute [34]. SSMO [32] requires the acceptable microbiological limits 5×102 cfu/g and the level of maximum count 1×103 cfu/g.
Sensory evaluation
Table 4 shows the results of sensory evaluation of various camel meat burger samples. The appearance, tenderness, juiciness, flavor and overall acceptability were non- significantly (P<0.05) differ among the all groups during the storage period. Moreover, there was no significant changes (P<0.05) in appearance, tenderness, juiciness, flavor and overall acceptability as a result of season of production of burger stored for up to 14 days at -18°C.
This indicates that burger made from camel meat with different ages can be stored for up to 14 days in freezing conditions. The panelists gave high scores of juiciness to camel meat burger, and this will result in a lower cooking loss of this product, thus, burgers made from camel meat retained their water and fat during cooking. These results are in agreement with that of Elshrif [13] who found that camel meat products retained their water and fat during cooking better than those made with beef. On the other hand, Ibrahim [12] did not find significant differences of burger prepared from various blends of camel meat.
It has been reported that the sensation of tenderness is influenced by the juiciness of meat, the water holding capacity of protein and the amount and distribution of fat [17]. Generally, results of the sensory evaluation reveal that burger product prepared from camel meat were acceptable, off-flavor compounds were not present.

Conclusion

The obtained results indicated that burger can be manufactured from camel meat with a good chemical and organoleptic quality, however, the preservation of meat intended influenced its processing characteristics. However, the panelist could not detect any significant difference in the sensorial properties of the burgers made from the different meats particularly in appearance, appearance, flavor, juiciness and over all acceptability. It is highly recommended to use camel meat for burger Processing and other meat products. Future studies include the health and processing potentiality aspects of camel meat.

References



































Track Your Manuscript