Advertisement

Journal of Food Science and Technology

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 2230–2239 | Cite as

Physicochemical, technological and sensory properties of hamburger made with meat from lambs fed on whole cottonseed

  • Magda Aita Monego
  • Djenifer Kirch Kipper
  • Luiz Gustavo de Pellegrini
  • Luiz Giovani de Pellegrini
  • Silvane Souza Roman
  • Ernesto Hashime Kubota
  • Rosa Cristina Prestes
  • Renius de Oliveira Mello
Original Article
  • 117 Downloads

Abstract

The physicochemical composition and the technological and sensory properties of hamburgers made with meat from Ile de France lambs fed on different levels (0, 10, 20, 30 and 40%) of whole cottonseed were studied. The addition of whole cottonseed to the lambs’ diets decreased the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances in the lamb meat and altered the physicochemical characteristics of the hamburgers, which were characterised by low lipid (\( \hat{y} = 4.27 \)), cholesterol (\( \hat{y} = 75.15 \)) and caloric content (\( \hat{y} = 122.04 \)). The results regarding cooking characteristics were directly related to the microscopic observations regarding the hamburgers; the more cohesive structures exhibited better performance after cooking, with increased cooking yield and moisture retention, and decreased cooking loss. The levels of whole cottonseed did not influence the texture profile, but they negatively affected the acceptability of the hamburgers, since as the levels of cotton seedlings increased, the scores for the sensorial attributes decreased. Thus, a maximum inclusion of 16.7% of whole cottonseed in the dry matter of the diet of lambs is recommended.

Keywords

Gossypium hirsutum Lamb meat products Cooking characteristics Texture profile analysis Microscopy Triangle test 

References

  1. Abdel-Naeem HHS, Mohamed HMH (2016) Improving the physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of camel meat burger patties using ginger extract and papain. Meat Sci 118:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AOAC (2005) Official methods of analysis of the AOAC, 18th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, GaithersburghGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourne MC (1978) Texture profile analysis. Food Technol 32:62–72Google Scholar
  4. Brasil (1998) Portaria nº 1004. Aditivos e seus limites máximos de uso para carne e produtos cárneos. Diário Oficial da União, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasil (2000) Instrução Normativa nº 20/2000. Regulamento Técnico de Identidade e Qualidade do Hambúrguer. Diário Oficial da União, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasil (2001) Resolução nº 12. Regulamento Técnico sobre padrões microbiológicos. Diário Oficial da União, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Brasil (2003) Instrução Normativa nº 62. Métodos Analíticos Oficiais para Análises Microbiológicas para Controle de Produtos de Origem Animal e Água. Diário Oficial da União, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  8. CONAB Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (2016) Acompanhamento da safra brasileira agrícola, v. 3—Safra 2015/16, n. 10—Décimo levantamento julho 2016Google Scholar
  9. Costa QPB, Wechsler FS, Costa DPB, Polizel Neto A, Roça RO, Brito TP (2011) Performance and carcass traits of steers fed diets containing whole cottonseed. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 63:729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dutcosky SD (2011) Análise sensorial de alimentos, 3rd edn. Champagnat, CuritibaGoogle Scholar
  11. Gök V, Akkaya L, Obuz E, Bulut S (2011) Effect of ground poppy seed as a fat replacer on meat burgers. Meat Sci 89:400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutt G, Paduret S, Amariei S, Chelaru M (2014) Chopped meat freshness assessment by texture profile analysis. Lucrări Ştiinţifice Seria Zootehnie 61:87–91Google Scholar
  13. Hara A, Radin NS (1978) Lipid extraction of tissues with a low-toxicity solvent. Anal Biochem 90:420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IAL Instituto Adolfo Lutz (2008) Métodos físico-químicos para análise de alimentos. IAL, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  15. Junqueira LC, Carneiro J (2008) Histologia básica, 11th edn. Guanabara Koogan, São Paulo, p 524Google Scholar
  16. Kim HL, Calhoun MC, Stipanovic RD (1996) Accumulation of gossypol enantiomers in ovine tissues. Comp Biochem Physiol 113(2):417–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lima Júnior DM, Carvalho FFR, Silva FJS, Rangel AHN, Novaes LP, Difante GS (2016) Intrinsic factors affecting sheep meat quality: a review. Rev Colomb Cienc Pec 29:3–15Google Scholar
  18. Linares MB, Cózar A, Garrido MD, Vergara H (2012) Chemical and sensory quality of lamb meat burgers from Manchego Spanish breed. Int J Food Sci Nutr 63(7):843–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Madruga MS, Vieira TRL, Cunha MGG, Pereira Filho JM, Queiroga RCRE, Sousa WH (2008) Effect of diets with increasing levels of whole cotton seed on chemical composition and fatty acid profile of Santa Inez (Santa Inês) lamb meat. Braz J Anim Sci 37:1496–1502Google Scholar
  20. NRC National Research Council (2007) Nutrient requeriments of small ruminants: Sheep, goats, cervids and new world camelids. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. Oliveira AS, Carvalho MLM, Bárbara CNV, Guimarães RM, Oliveira JA, Pereira DS (2016) Biochemical changes in fiber naturally colored cottonseeds during storage. J Seed Sci 38(2):101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paim TP, Louvandini H, McManus CM, Abdalla AL (2010) Use of cotton byproducts in ruminant nutrition. Vet Sci Trop 13:24–37Google Scholar
  23. Paim TP, Viana P, Brandão E, Amador S, Barbosa T, Cardoso C, Dantas AMM, Souza JR, McManus C, Abdalla AL, Louvandinia H (2014) Carcass traits and fatty acid profile of meat from lambs fed different cottonseed by-products. Small Rumin Res 116:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pellegrini LG (2017) Quality of lambs meat in the finishing stage with cottonseed. Doctoral thesis, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  25. Pilecco VM (2016) Cottonseed use on finishing of feedlot lambs. MA dissertation, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  26. Raharjo S, Sofos JN, Schmidt GR (1992) Improved speed, specificity, and limit of determination of an aqueous acid extraction thiobarbituric acid-C18 method for measuring lipid peroxidation in beef. J Agric Food Chem 40(11):2182–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saldanha T, Mazalli MR, Bragagnolo N (2004) Comparative evalution of two methods for the determination of cholesterol in meat and milk. Food Sci Technol 24(1):109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Santos Júnior LCO, Rizzatti R, Brungera A, Schiavini TJ, Campos EFM, Neto JFS, Rodriguez LB, Dickel EL, Santos LR (2009) Development of hamburger using adult sheep meat and oat flour. Braz Anim Sci 10(4):1128–1134Google Scholar
  29. SAS Institute (2002) Statistical analysis system: user guide. Version 9. SAS Insitute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  30. Viana JGA, Revillion JPP, Silveira VCP (2013) Alternative of structuring of the chain of sheep production value in Rio Grande do Sul. J Manag Reg Dev 9:187–210Google Scholar
  31. Viana MM, Silva VLS, Trindade MA (2014) Consumers’ perception of beef burgers with different healthy atributes. Food Sci Technol LEB 59:1227–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vieira TRL, Cunha MGG, Garrutti DS, Duarte TF, Félex SSS, Pereira Filho JM, Madruga MS (2010) Physical and sensorial properties of Santa Ines lamb meat terminated in diets with increasing levels of whole cotton seed (Gossypium hirsutum). Food Sci Technol 30:372–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Villalobos-Delgado LH, Carob I, Blanco C, Bodas R, Andrés S, Giráldez FJ, Mateo J (2015) Effect of the addition of hop (infusion or powder) on theoxidative stability of lean lamb patties during storage. Small Rumin Res 125:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang X, Thomas HB, James CM, Feng C, Gangemi JD (2008) bioactivities of gossypol, 6-methoxygossypol, and 6,6′-dimethoxygossypol. J Agric Food Chem 56:4393–4398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang X, Howell CP, Chen F, Yin J, Jiang Y (2009) Gossypol—a polyphenolic compound from cotton plant. Adv Food Nutri Res 58:215–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wood JD, Richardson RI, Nute GR, Fisher AV, Campo MM, Kasapidou E, Enser M (2004) Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: a review. Meat Sci 66(1):21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magda Aita Monego
    • 1
    • 2
  • Djenifer Kirch Kipper
    • 2
  • Luiz Gustavo de Pellegrini
    • 2
  • Luiz Giovani de Pellegrini
    • 3
  • Silvane Souza Roman
    • 4
  • Ernesto Hashime Kubota
    • 2
  • Rosa Cristina Prestes
    • 2
  • Renius de Oliveira Mello
    • 2
  1. 1.Polytechnic College of UFSMFederal University of Santa Maria (UFSM)Santa MariaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Science and Food TechnologyFederal University of Santa Maria (UFSM)Santa MariaBrazil
  3. 3.Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology FarroupilhaJúlio de CastilhosBrazil
  4. 4.Integrated Regional University of Upper Uruguay and MissionsErechimBrazil

Personalised recommendations