Farklı Firmalar Tarafından Satılan Tavuk Göğüs Etlerinin Bazı Kimyasal ve Tekstürel Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, satış deposundan temin edilen üç farklı firmaya (A, B, C) ait ağırlık, ambalaj ve son kullanma tarihleri benzer olan göğüs etlerinin kimyasal analizlerinin yapılması ve pişirme kaybı, renk ve tekstür özelliklerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. . Bu amaçla her firmadan 10'ar adet göğüs eti örneği materyal olarak kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak A, B ve C işletmelerinde protein değerleri sırasıyla %22,60, %22,59 ve %22,82 olarak bulunmuştur (P> 0,05). Yağ değerleri %2,18, 2,77 ve %2,42 olarak ölçüldü (P> 0,05). Pişirme kaybı değerinin en yüksek A işletmesinde (%28,90) olduğu belirlendi. L* (açıklık) değerinin 59,47 ile 59,70, a* (kırmızılık) değerinin 2,84 ile 3,60 arasında olduğu ölçülmüştür ve bu değerler işletmeler arasında anlamlı fark oluşturmamıştır (P> 0,05). A, B ve C işletmelerinde b* (sarılık) değeri sırasıyla 10,19, 12,89, 14,95 olarak bulunmuş ve bu ölçümler arasındaki farkın istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu görülmüştür (P< 0,05). Tekstür analizi sonuçları incelendiğinde sertlik, yaylanma, yapışkanlık ve sakızımsılık açısından işletmeler arasında önemli bir fark olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Çiğneme sonuçlarının işletmelerde anlamlı fark yarattığı belirlendi (P < 0.05).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Broiler
• Et
• Renk
• Tekstür

Investigation of Some Chemical and Textural Properties of Chicken Breast Meats Sold by Different Companies

Öz

In this study, it was aimed to make some chemical analyzes and to compare cooking loss, color and texture properties of breast meats from three different companies (A, B, C) which were obtained from sales depot with similar weight, packaging and expiry dates. For this purpose, 10 each breast meat samples from each company were used as material. As a result, protein values in companies A, B and C were found to be 22.60, 22.59 and 22.82%, respectively (P > 0.05). Fat values were measured as 2.18, 2.77 and 2.42% (p > 0.05). It was determined that the cooking loss value was the highest in enterprise A (28.90%). It was measured that the L* (lightness) value was between 59.47 and 59.70, and the a* (redness) value was between 2.84 and 3.60, and these values did not make significant difference between enterprises (p > 0.05). The b* (yellowness) value was found as 10.19, 12.89, 14.95 in A, B and C enterprise respectively, and it was observed that the difference between these measurements was statistically significant (P < 0.05). When the texture analysis results were examined, it was determined that there was no significant difference between the enterprises in terms of hardness, springiness, adhesiveness and gumminess. It was determined that the chewiness results made significant difference in the enterprises (P < 0.05).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Broiler
• Color
• Meat
• Texture

Kaynakça

1. Adamski M., Kuźniacka J., Milczewska N. Preferences of consumers for choosing poultry meat. Polish Journal of Natural Science 2017; 32(2): 261–271.
2. Baeza E., Guillier L., Petracci M. Review: Production factors affecting poultry carcass and meat quality attributes. Animal 2022; 16.
3. Bowker B., Zhuang H. Relationship between water-holding capacity and protein denaturation in broiler breast meat. Poultry Science 2015; 94: 1657–1664.
4. Chmiel M., Hac-Szymanczuk E., Adamczak L., Pietrzak D., Florowski T., Cegielka A. Quality changes of chicken breast meat packaged in a normal and in a modified atmosphere. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2018; 27(3): 349-362.
5. Erdemir E., Karaoğlu MM. Et ve et ürünlerinin tekstürel özelliklerini enstrümantal olarak tespit etme yöntemleri ve tekstür profil analizi üzerine bir derleme. Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 2021; 11(4): 2836-2848.
6. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang AG., Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 2007; 39(2): 175-191.
7. Garcia RG., Freitas LW., Schwingel AW., Farias RM., Caldara FR., Gabriel AMA., Graciano JD., Comiama JM., Almeida Paz ICL. Incidence and physical properties of PSE chicken meat in a commercial processing plant. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2010; 12(4): 233-237.
8. Honikel KO. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science 1998; 49(4): 447-457.

9. Isleyici O., Sancak YC., Sireli TU. Kanatlı etinin besin değeri ve halk sağlığı açısından önemi. Mektup Ankara 2019; 17(4): 6-30.
10. Karunanayaka DS., Jayasena DD., Jo C. Prevalence of pale, soft, and exudative (PSE) condition in chicken meat used for commercial meat processing and its effect on roasted chicken breast. Journal of Animal Science and Technology 2016; 58: 27.
11. Kim HJ., Kim HJ., Jeon J., Nam KC., Shim KS., Jung JH., Kim KS., Choi Y., Kim SH. Jang A. Comparison of the quality characteristics of chicken breast meat from conventional and animal welfare farms under refrigerated storage. Poultry Science 2020; 99(3): 1788-1796.
12. Kokoszynski D., Kujawska JZ., Kotowicz M., Sobczak M., Piwczynski D., Stęczny K., Majrowska M., Saleh M. Carcass characteristics and selected meat quality traits from commercial broiler chickens of different origin. Animal Science Journal 2022; 93(1).
13. Masoumi B., Abbasi A., Mazloomi SM., Shaghaghian S. Investigating the effect of probiotics as natural preservatives on the microbial and physicochemical properties of yogurt-marinated chicken fillets. Journal of Food Quality 2022.
14. Mir NA., Rafid A., Kumar F., Singh V., Shukla V. Determinants of broiler chicken meat quality and factors affecting them: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 2017; 54(10): 2997–3009.
15. OECD-FAO. Table C.4. World meat projections. Oecd-Fao Agricultural Outlook 2022-2031. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/cb5332en/Meat.pdf. [Accessed 18.08. 2022] .
16. Petracci M., Sirri F., Mazzoni M. Comparison of breast muscle traits and meat quality characteristics in 2 commercial chicken hybrids. Poultry Science 2013; 92: 2438–2447.
17. Sezen G. Piyasada satışa sunulan taze kanatlı eti preparatlarının son kullanma tarihlerindeki duyusal, kimyasal ve mikrobiyolojik kaliteleri. Uludağ Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 2009; 28(1): 19-24.
18. Silva DCF., Arruda AMV., Goncalves AA. Quality characteristics of broiler chicken meat from free-range and industrial poultry system for the consumers. Journal of Food Science and Technology 2017; 54 (7): 1818–1826.
19. TÜRKOMP. Ulusal Gıda Kompozisyon Veri Tabanı. Available at http://www.turkomp.gov.tr/foodpilic-eti-gogus-derisiz-64 [Accessed August 18.08. 2022].
20. Xiong YL., Cantor AH., Prescatora AJ., Blanchard SP., et al., Variations in muscle chemical composition, pH and protein extractability among eight different broiler crosses. Journal of Poultry Science 1993; 72: 583-588.
21. Wideman N., O'bryan CA., Crandall PG. Factors affecting poultry meat colour and consumer preferences-A review. World's Poultry Science Journal 2016; 72(2): 353-366.
22. Valceschini E. Poultry meat trends and consumer attitudes. 359. In: Proceedings of the EPC 2006 - 12th European Poultry Conference, 2006, Verona, Italy; 6.
23. Zaboli G., Huang X., Feng X., Ahn DU. How can heat stress affect chicken meat quality?- a review. Poultry Science 2019; 98: 1551-1556.