RATITE MEAT SENSORY SCORES COMPARED WITH BEEF

LINDA ANDREWS2v4, JEFFREY GILLESPIE’ and ALVIN SCHUPP3

’Sugar Processing Research Institute and ’Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness

Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Louisiana State University Agricultural Center

Baton Rouge, LA 70803

AND

GARY TAYLOR

School of Agricultural and Natural Resources College of Agriculture and Technology

State University of New York Morrisville. NY I3408

Accepted for Publication September 1, 1999

ABSTRACT

Ostrich and emu meats o f e r consumers a low fat red meat alternative to beef: A descriptive scoring method was used to compare edibility characteristics of beeJ emu and ostrich meats. The flavor and textures of grilled ostrich and emu meat were compared with top sirloin beef as fresh and over 6 months offrozen storage (0, 2, 4, 6 months) using the “Difference from Control Test”. Liver-like/giblet flavors for ostrich were slightly less and emu slightly more than beef: Ostrich and emu j l e t juiciness were slightly higher than beef: Ground emu liver-like giblet flavor was enhanced by fiozen storage. Grilledfi-eshly ground ostrich was slightly less mealy, beefi, lardy, and liver-like, while scoring slightly more juicy than beef: Ground ostrich, from a processor, was much less like beef than laboratory prepared ground ostrich. Freshly ground emu was slightly less mealy and bee&, more juicy, and less lardy than beef: Frozen whole cuts maintained similar attributes throughout the 6 months offi-ozen storage.

‘This manuscript has been approved for publication by the Director of Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station as manuscript Number 99-61 -0216.

‘Author to contact: Dr. Linda Andrews, Sugar Processing Research Institute, 1 100 Robert E. Lee Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70124, Tel: 504-286-4392.

Joumal of Food Quality 23 (2000) 351-359. All Rights Reserved. “Copyright 2000 by Food & Nutrition Press, Inc.. Trumbull, Connecticut. 351

352

Serving

Protein, g ,

Fat, g

L. ANDREWS ETAL.

1 Cholesterol, mg

INTRODUCTION

' Calories -

In the United States, people are constantly receiving more information about the benefits of a low fat diet. People have become more health conscious, and those with dietary restrictions caused by high blood cholesterol and high blood pressure are seeking alternatives to traditional beef and pork in their diet. These changes have significantly increased the tendency to consume low fat and low cholesterol foods over the last two decades (Schupp et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 1996). Beef consumption is down and poultry consumption has increased (Schupp et al. 1998). Ostrich and emu meats, possible alternatives to beef, are red meats with lower fat and cholesterol content, (Table 1). The recent introduction of ostrich and emu meats into U.S. markets prompts the question of how consumers will accept ratite meats as a substitute for quality beef.

TABLE 1. NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF RATITE MEATS WITH OTHER COMMONLY CONSUMED

MEATS

Measure/3oz

Ostrich

(Major Muscles

Average)

22

2

58

91

(Thigh) (Lean Steak)

22 22 ~~

2 1 - 1 5

58 I 75

109 235

Chicken Pork

(Roasted (Lean,

no skin) broiled)

140 275 1 I

Ratite production has expanded throughout the United States over the past 15 years. By 1996, the United States had become the world's second largest producer of ostriches, with 7,000-10,000 farms (van Zyl 1996). In Louisiana alone, the ostrich breeding flock increased from two mature birds in 1985 to more than 1000 birds of breeding age in 1995 (Taylor and Frank 1996).

The emu industry observed a similar growth during the same period. With this beginning, continued development and growth of either of the two ratite industries are partially dependent on the US. consumer purchasing and consuming ratite meat in competition with established meats. A sensory study of ostrich meat conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service (1994) evaluated four different ostrich meat cuts and compared them to similar cuts of beef in a blind taste test. One hundred twenty-two consumers evaluated the samples for flavor, flavor intensity,

RATITE MEAT SENSORY SCORES 353

tenderness, texture, and hedonic (like/dislike). The panelists in that study scored beef steak slightly higher in selected palatability criteria. However, the slight differences in hedonic evaluation did not significantly influence consumer acceptability of ostrich filets. Consumers in the Texas study were not trained in sensory evaluation techniques and had a single exposure to the ostrich filets. The study reported in this paper differs from the Texas study in that fresh and frozen stored ostrich, emu and beef are compared with a beef control using a trained sensory panel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sensory Panel Evaluation

During training, an 11 -member sensory panel established a list of primary edibility attributes (Table 2) determined from evaluating ground and whole cut grilled beef, ostrich and emu meat. These attributes were then used to evaluate the two ratite meats and a blind beef sample in comparison to a known beef control. All samples were evaluated under “red light” to prevent color differences from influencing sensory evaluation.

Statistical Design

The “Difference from Control” method was used throughout the evaluation of both ground and whole cut meat samples (Meilgaard et al. 1987). This method provided an immediate reference for the panelists while they were scoring the level of each test attribute. Each panelist evaluated duplicate samples of each meat product over three replicate sampling periods in a randomized complete block design. Differences in mean ratings by criteria were evaluated using a one way ANOVA. This design uses panel members as blocks and animal species as treatments. Differences between individual means were evaluated over 6 months storage by using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. All interpretations were based on a 5% confidence level.

TABLE 2. FLAVOR AND TEXTURE ATTRIBUTES OF EMU, OSTRICH AND BEEF

Ground Meat Whole Cut Meat beefy beefy juicy liver like mealy juiciness

lardy/waxy chewiness liver like/giblet salty

354 L. ANDREWS ETAL.

Sample Preparation

Ostrich and emu birds were slaughtered and processed on three separate occasions, every two weeks for four weeks with meat stored frozen as ground patties or whole cut fan filets for 0-6 months. USDA top sirloin beef cuts for blind flavor evaluation and for the control were purchased at a local supermarket to coincide with bird slaughter and processing, and stored frozen as ground (our ground ostrich, ground emu, ground beef) or whole cuts (ostrich, emu, beef). Additional samples of ground ostrich (ground ostrich) produced at a commercial slaughter house were also evaluated. Duplicate sets of test samples were cooked on an electric grill to an internal temperature of 63-66C. Samples of emu, ostrich and beef were cut and presented to panelists in covered plastic cups using random number identification along with the clearly identified beef control. Ground meats were evaluated on separate days from whole cuts. Samples were evaluated for edibility attributes and overall acceptability using the beef samples as a control at 0,2,4, and 6 months of storage. Note that duplicate sets of beef samples were used, first as a clearly marked control with which to compare the other meats; and second as a blind unknown along with the ratite meat samples as an internal control for normal variations which might occur in the panelists’ judging and with different samples of the same meat.

The scale used to evaluate each criterion listed in Table 2 was -5 to +5 where the panel members rated the sample relative to the control (beef). The scale used to evaluate the overall difference between the sample and the beef control was 0-9 (none-very large).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fresh Ground Meat Edibility and Storability

The panel evaluated the three ground meat products on the same day of three consecutive weeks at 2 month intervals. The mean values of sensory attributes by product are presented in Table 3. Mean values for “differences-from-control” for most sensory attributes were small in fresh unstored samples. Significant differences were however exhibited in the following: (1) Liverlike/giblet flavors were stronger in emu samples than in either the ostrich or beef samples. (2) Ground ostrich provided by the slaughter house had consistently less beefy taste, less juiciness and was more different from beef than ‘Lour ground ostrich” which was ground in the sensory laboratory from the same cut of meat as the whole uncut filets, Fig. 1.

At two months’ storage, more attributes emerged as significantly different; mealy texture, beefy taste and juiciness. At four months’ storage, emu and ostrich were both less beefy tasting and ostrich was more juicy than sirloin. Interestingly,

RATITE MEAT SENSORY SCORES 355

Attribute

after six months’ storage, the ratite meats differed from the control for few attributes. Juiciness and mealy texture were no longer significantly different. In overall comparisons, ground ostrich continued to have less beefy flavor than ground sirloin. Emu also continued to exhibit liverlikelgiblet flavor.

Scale 0 Mos. 2 Mos. 4 Mos 6 Mos.

Whole Cut Meat Edibility and Storability

The sensory panel evaluated whole cut meat samples using the same pattern that was used for ground meat, i.e., three consecutive weeks at two month intervals. Mean values for each sensory attribute over storage are presented in Table 4.

~ ~~~

Mealy

Beefy

Juiciness

Lardy Waxy

TABLE 3. DUNCAN’S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR COMPARING SENSORY ATTRIBUTES OF

GROUND OSTRICH AND GROUND EMU STORED FOR 0,2,4 AND 6 MONTHS . , , r GROIJND OSTRICH

~~

-5 to 5 -0 .571~ -0.375~ 0.183b 0.620a

-5 to 5 -0.589a -0.174a -0.883a - 1.040a

-5 to 5 0.571a 0.018b 0.367ab -0.660~

-5 to 5 -0.161b -0.018ab 0.400a 0.060ab

Control Difference

Control Comparison

0 to 9 1.982a I .929a 2.1 OOa 2.530a

- I to 1 -0.412a -0.286a -0.500a -0.500a

I I

Mealy

Beefy

Juiciness

Lardyt Waxy

Liver Wte/Giblet

Control Difference

I Liverliie/Giblet 1-5 to 5 I -0.125b I 0.473a I 0.183ab I 0.180ab I

-5 to 5 -0.020b 0.036b 0.683a 0.700a

-5 to 5 -0.679a -0.554a - I .042a -0.600a

-5 to 5 -0.071a -0.125a -0.525ab - 1.080b

-5 to 5 0.000a 0.143a 0.150a 0.204a

-5 to 5 0 .107~ 0.268bc 1.167a 0.674b

0 to 9 1.875~ 2.236bc 3.133a 2.857ab

L I 1 I I I 1

I I I I I I I

I Control ComDarison I -1 to 1 I -0.294a I -0.291a I -0.683b I -0.551ab I

Ost

rich I Our

Ost

rich

E

mu

Bee

f I D

iffer

ence

from

bee

f

W

VI

m

‘Jr

-

I I

I I

I 1

beef

y ju

icy

mea

ly

lard

y gi

blet

ov

eral

l St

atist

ical

ly si

gnifi

cant

diffe

renc

es a

re d

enot

ed b

y di

ffer

ent l

ette

rs (

p <

0.0

1)

FIG

. 1.

FRES

H G

RO

UN

D M

EAT

EDIB

ILIT

Y S

CO

RES

“DIF

FER

ENC

E FR

OM

BEE

F” C

ON

TRO

L

RATITE MEAT SENSORY SCORES 351

0 Mos.

-1.395a

-0.339~

0.724a

0.8 15a

-0.8 15a

Fresh (0 mos) emu and ostrich filets exhibited less beefy flavor than sirloin. Emu filet had more liver hke/giblet taste than beef filet as was demonstrated in ground meat samples. Ostrich filet was more juicy and less salty than beef filet. Both ratite meats were judged as slightly inferior to sirloin beef filet, (Fig. 2).

Scores were relatively unchanged at two months storage except for ostrich juiciness. At four and six months, all panel ratings showed significant differences in all attributes except for comparison with the control at four and six months, and juiciness and chewiness for four months only. In general, mean differences across storage were smaller than for ground meat products indicating that ratite filet stored better than their ground meat counterparts.

2 Mos.

-1.304a

-0.054

0.375

0.857a

-1.01 8a

TABLE 4. DUNCAN’S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR COMPARING SENSORY ATTRIBUTES OF

OSTRICH AND EMU STEAKS STORED FOR 0 , 2 , 4 AND 6 MONTHS

OSTRICH FAN FILET

0 Mos.

-1.323

0.452a

0.129a

0.008a

Attribute

2 Mos. 4 Mos 6 Mos

-1.589b -0.926a - I 043a

0.964a 0.796a 0.787a

0.143a 0.074a 0 3R3a

-0.3 39a -0 259a 0 255a

Scale

-5 to 5

Juicy -5 to 5

-5 to 5

Salty -5 to 5

Control comparison I - I to I

2.226 1 2.49a

-0.218a 1 -0.277

6 Mos.

- 1.630a - 1.468a

0.019b 0.830a

0.957a

-0.6 I 1 c -0.500 I I I I I

Attribute I Scale

Juicy -5 to 5

Chewy I -5 to 5

Salty I -5 to 5

Control Difference 1 0 to 9

Control Comparison I - 1 to I

2.266a 2.929a 2.389a 2.479a

-0.463

Difference from beef 5

4

3 2 1

0

-1

-2

-3 -4

-5

0 Ostrich H Emu Beef

bba

I I I I I

beefy liverlike juiciness chewiness sa Ity overall

Statistically significant differences are denoted by different letters (~~0.0 1 )

W VI W

FIG. 2. FRESH GRILLED INTACT MEAT EDIBILITY SCORES “DIFFERENCE FROM BEEF” CONTROL

RATITE MEAT SENSORY SCORES 359

CONCLUSIONS

Ground ostrich provided by the processor was less desirable than the ostrich ground in the laboratory. Recommendations were made to the processor to improve the ground ostrich product by eliminating some of the connective tissue and other byproducts. Because of the deterioration of ground meat samples after two months frozen storage, it was noted that these products have a shorter shelf-life than the whole cut meats (which maintained nearly the same sensory qualities throughout the 6 months frozen storage). Over the entire study, edibility criteria differences were minimal considering the overall range of scoring options available to the panel. Deterioration of ground meat samples after two months frozen storage was noted. These products had a shorter shelf-life than the whole cut meats (which maintained nearly the same sensory qualities throughout the 6 months frozen storage). Over the entire study, edibility criteria differences were minimal considering the overall range of scoring options available to the panel.

Intact muscle products from emu and ostrich were rated as only slightly different from beef These products could provide consumers with a red meat alternative that is lower in saturated fat and cholesterol than beef, while having many of the positive attributes of beef,

While these results indicated that ratite meats compare rather favorably with beef for most edibility characteristics, these meats will have to overcome their exotic image to challenge either beef or pork seriously (Schupp et al. 1998).

REFERENCES

MEILGAARD, M., CIVILLE, G. and CARR, B.T. 1987. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, pp. 86-94, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

SCHUPP, A,, GILLESPIE, J. and REED, D. 1998. Consumer Choice Among Alternative Meats. J. Food Distribution I I , 35-43.

TAYLOR, G. and FRANK, D. 1996. Summary: Louisiana Ratite Industry Survey, 1994-1995 Season. A one page report sent to Louisiana ratite producers, Feb.

TAYLOR, G., GILLESPIE, J., SCHUPP, A. and FRANK, D. 1996. An Overview of the Louisiana Ratite Industry. Louisiana Rural Economist 58(2), 6-10.

Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1994. Ostrich Meat Industry Development. Final report to the American Ostrich Association. Texas Agric. Extension Ser., College Station, TX.

van ZYL, P. 1996. A global perspective of the ostrich industry. American Ostrich Aug., 25-27, 30-3 1.