Eating Characteristics of Donkey Meat Frankfurters

Journal of Animal Science Advances Eating Characteristics of Donkey Meat Frankfurters Akwetey W. Y., Atawalna J. and Amankwah N. K. J Anim Sci Adv 2015, 5(8): 1386-1391 DOI: 10.5455/jasa.20150816041924 Online version is available on: www.grjournals.com

ISSN: 2251-7219 AKWETEY ET AL. Eating Characteristics of Donkey Meat Frankfurters 1 Akwetey W. Y., 2 Atawalna J. and 1 Amankwah N. K. 1 Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. 2 School of Veterinary Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. Abstract Original Article An experiment was carried out to determine the suitability of donkey meat in the production and consumption of frankfurter-type sausages. Donkey meat was substituted at 0% (control), 50% and 100% of beef to produce the sausages. Physico-chemical and sensory attributes of the sausages were studied. A 35-member consumer panelist evaluated the sausages based on appearance, taste, tenderness, flavor, juiciness, texture, mouth feel and acceptability, using a 9-point Hedonic Scale (1=like extremely, 5= neither like nor dislike, 9= dislike extremely). Sensory evaluation of the frankfurter-type sausages revealed no significant (p>0.05) differences between sausages produced with or without donkey meat. There were significant differences (p<0.05) in cooking loss, water holding capacity and ph of the cooked products. Cooking loss ranged from 25.34% (T1) to 28.25% (T0), water holding capacity was between 26.47% (T0) and 27.23% (T1) and ph ranged from 5.92 (T0) to 6.25 (T1). The cost of producing frankfurters reduced from GH 8.99 (T0) to GH 5.84 (T2) per kg. Thus donkey meat is a potential substitute to beef in frankfurter-type sausage production. Keywords: Donkey meat, frankfurter-type sausage, physico-chemical property, sensory attribute. Corresponding author: Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. Received on: 14 Jul 2015 Revised on: 24 Jul 2015 Accepted on: 16 Aug 2015 Online Published on: 30 Aug 2015 1386 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 1386-1391

Introduction The donkey, (Equus asinus) is one of the most important domestic animals in many countries located in North Africa and the Middle East (Smith and Pearson, 2005). It belongs to the equine family which includes horses, zebras and mules. Donkey have been domesticated for thousands of years (Aganga et al., 2003), and contributed to the development of various civilizations. They are more common than horses in countries like Nigeria, Egypt, Mali, Niger and Sudan (Payne and Wilson, 1999). In other parts of the world, like the Middle East and Asia, donkeys still serve as an important means of transportation (Smith and Pearson, 2005). Donkeys are tolerant to tropical diseases and parasites, and can survive on poor quality feed, and thrive under adverse climatic conditions (Aganga et al., 2000). There are a number of breeds including the Mammoth Jack, Spotted Donkey, Cypriot Donkey and Martina Franca. Donkeys are more versatile than cattle in such a way that they can pull, carry, and be ridden fast or slow, cheaper to purchase and therefore fall within the range of more people s budgets since they are smaller than cattle. If managed well, donkeys have a longer working life than cattle, although the working life of a donkey is short in some African countries due to hard work and minimal management inputs (Nengomasha et al., 1999). According to a study by MacDonald and Low (1985) (cited by Nengomasha et al., 1999), despite its small frame-size when compared with cattle, the donkey is considered the most efficient power unit in agriculture. Meat production from young male donkeys is a way to increase the income of local farmers together with donkey milk production, and meat from young males is an easy way to obtain cheap meat with good nutritional characteristics (Polidori et al., 2008). Meat obtained from older donkeys is considered unacceptably tough since these equines are normally used as work animals and their meat is mostly destined into salami or other salted meatbased products because they are slaughtered at an advanced age (Paleari et al., 2003). Donkey meat is appreciated for its protein balance (21.7g per 100 g of edible portion), its higher levels of iron and other minerals and carbohydrates content than those EATING CHARACTERISTICS OF DONKEY MEAT found in beef. (Karatosidi et al., 2013). The meat is rich in connective tissues, with pure nutritional characteristics (proteins and minerals). On the contrary, the consumption of donkey meat is relatively unknown, even though donkey meat has low fat and cholesterol content and high protein content (Polidori et al., 2008). The main aim of this experiment is to determine the suitability of donkey meat in the production of frankfurter-type sausages. The specific objectives were to determine: Water holding capacity (WHC), ph, cooking loss and production cost. Sensory attributes of the sausages. Proximate composition (ash content, protein content, fat content and moisture content) Materials and Methods Study Location and Experimental Materials The experiment was conducted at the Meat Science and Processing Laboratory of the Department of Animal Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi. Frozen donkey meat was obtained from Bolgatanga in the Upper East Region of Ghana. Boneless beef and Lard were obtained from the Kumasi Abattoir Company Limited. Other ingredients were obtained from the Kumasi Central Market, while curing salt and triploy-phosphate were obtained from the Meat Science and Processing Laboratory of the Department of Animal Science, KNUST. Experimental Procedure Preparation of Frankfurter-Type Sausages with or without Donkey Meat The donkey meat and boneless beef were minced separately using a tabletop mincing machine (MADO Superwolf, Germany) through a three millimeter sieve diameter. Lard was minced using the same mincer but through a five millimeter sieve in order to prevent mashing. The minced beef and donkey meat were allotted to three treatments, T0 (Control), T1 and T2 in which donkey meat was included at 0% (control), 50% and 100% respectively. All other ingredients used were the same for each treatment. Each treatment was 1387 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 1386-1391

AKWETEY ET AL. chopped separately to obtain a consistent meat batter using a tabletop bowl cutter (MADO Garant, Germany). Ice was added to control temperature during chopping. Table 1 is the ingredients used in formulating the respective treatments. Table 1: Ingredients used in frankfurter-type sausage with or without donkey meat formulation. Ingredient (g) Type of Frankfurter Beef 3180 1590 0 Donkey meat 0 1590 3180 Lard 1820 1820 1820 Salt 50 50 50 Phosphate 20 20 20 * Mixed spice 45 45 45 Ice crystals 1100 1100 1100 Total 6215 6215 6215 * Comprised of powdered garlic, red pepper, nutmeg, black pepper and ginger. The casing to be used was soaked in water for about 30 minutes. Each treatment batter was then transferred into a hand operated stuffer which was used to separately stuff each treatment into the hog casings used were soaked in water for about 30 minutes after which each treatment batter was then transferred into a hand operated stuffer. They were linked at 10 centimeter lengths with precautions to prevent air pockets. Surface moisture was reduced by hanging sausages on wooden racks for about 10 minutes. Sausages were weighed and taking to the smokehouse at the Meat Science and Processing Unit of the Department of Animal Science, KNUST. Wood and saw dust were used as fuel to smoke the sausages for 3 hours. The smoked sausages were scalded in water at 70 C to a core temperature of 68 C. Sausages were cooled immediately under tap water and placed under ceiling fan for about 30 minutes and this was done to avoid separation of the binding properties in the sausages. They were finally packaged in polythene bags, labeled and kept frozen at -18 C for further studies. Parameters Measured Cooking Loss Weight of each treatment before smoking and after cooling to room temperature was taken. The differences in weight expressed as a percentage of their corresponding initial weight was used to determine the cooking loss. Cooking loss = 100 - (Fresh weight cooked weight) Fresh weight x 100% Water Holding Capacity (WHC) and ph Approximately 10g of the meat emulsion sample of each treatment was put in a 45ml centrifuge tube separately and mixed with 25ml of distilled water each. The solution obtained was allowed to settle down for 15 minutes and the Syntex ph meter (SP- 701) is lowered into each treatment to read and record the ph. The procedure of Lin and Huang (2003) was used in determining the water holding 1388 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 1386-1391 capacity of the experimental products. 10g of each treatment was weighed and mixed thoroughly with 25g of distilled water in separate 50ml centrifuge tubes. After centrifuging at 15 C for 10minutes at 2000g, the supernatant was decanted and the final sample weight was determined. The WHC was calculated as follows WHC = (final sample weight-original sample weight) / original sample weight x 100%.

EATING CHARACTERISTICS OF DONKEY MEAT Proximate Composition Samples were taken from each treatment and triplicates made for moisture, protein, fat and ash determination according to the procedures of AOAC (2002). The determination of the moisture content was done by oven drying of each sample and the differences in weight between the fresh and dry sample represent the moisture content. Kjedahl s technique was used to determine protein content whiles the Soxhlet apparatus was used for fat extraction. The ash content was also determined using a muffle furnace at 600 C. Sensory Attributes Frozen sausages were thawed in a refrigerator and sliced to approximately equal lengths of 2 centimeters with a knife and oven warmed at 180 C to a temperature of 65 C. A slice of each treatment was served on disposable plates which were clearly labeled. Thirty-five (35) untrained panelists made up of students of KNUST and teaching assistants of the Department of Animal Science, KNUST were involved in the sensory evaluation that was based on appearance, taste, tenderness, flavour, juiciness, texture, mouth feel and acceptability. A 9 point Hedonic Scale (1=like extremely, 2=like very much, 3=like moderately, 4=like slightly, 5=neither like nor dislike, 6=dislike slightly, 7= dislike moderately, 8=dislike very much, 9=dislike extremely) was used for the evaluation. Samples were coded with threedigit random numbers in order to ensure fairness in assessment and to enhance the realization of sincere results from the panelists. Water was provided to each panelist to rinse their mouth between tasting the sausages. Sensory evaluation took place under laboratory conditions as described by (Poste et al., 1991) that ensured individual independence throughout the entire time. Statistical Analysis All data generated from the study were analyzed using SPSS (2006) version 16.0 for windows. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used in a Complete Randomized Design (CRD) and significant differences between treatment means were obtained using Duncan s test of homogeneity at 5%. Results and Discussion Effect of Using Donkey Meat on Water Holding Capacity (WHC), ph, Cooking Loss and Production Cost of Frankfurters The results for water holding capacity (raw and cooked), ph (raw and cooked), cooking loss and production cost of frankfurters are shown in Table 2. Cooking loss reduced significantly (p<0.05) with sausages containing donkey meat in their formulation and the control treatment (T0) without donkey meat had a significantly higher loss (p< 0.05). Table 2: Water holding capacity, ph, cooking loss and production cost. Parameter Type of Frankfurter SEM WHC (raw) 16.91b c 17.20 c 16.46 a 0.117 (cooked) 26.47 a 27.23 c 26.86 b 0.905 ph (raw) 5.63 b 5.74b c 5.46 a 0.047 (cooked) 5.92 a 6.25 c 6.14 b 0.048 Cooking loss (%) 28.25 c 25.34 a 26.19 b 0.432 PC (GHc/kg) 8.99 7.55 5.84 - abc : Means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05). PC= Production Cost. The observed differences in cooking loss are due to the fact that donkey meat retained more water than ground beef during cooking. Cooking loss ranged from 25.34% (T1) to 28.25% (T0). WHC of cooked sausages increased significantly (p<0.05) in sausages produced with donkey meat than those produced with ground beef. WHC was between 26.47% (T0) and 27.23% (T1). This increase was due to the fact that the donkey meat had a higher water holding capacity (28.60%) than 1389 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 1386-1391

AKWETEY ET AL. ground beef (17.40%). The ph of the raw products ranged from 5.46(T2) to 5.74(T1) while the cooked products had ph ranging between 5.92 (T0) and 6.25 (T1). In frankfurter-type sausages, a higher ph is needed to increase the WHC which will help reduce the cooking loss. A higher WHC in a sausage shows important characteristics of juiciness and tenderness when subjected to mastication. The cost of producing frankfurters reduced from GH 8.99 (T0) to GH 5.84 (T2) per kg representing a percentage reduction of 16.02% (T1) and 35.04% (T2) respectively. This reduction indicates that a processor would save some money in the cost of producing donkey frankfurters substantial than for using beef and accrue more profit. Also the reduction in cost of producing frankfurters using donkey meat may lead to a reduction in the current price of normal frankfurters on the market. All things been equal, a reduced price of frankfurters may encourage or motivate all categories of income brackets to buy and consume more frankfurters and possibly solve the protein deficiency problem in poorer communities. Proximate Composition of Frankfurter-Type Sausage with and without Donkey Meat Results for nutrient composition of the frankfurter-type sausages produced with and without donkey meat are shown in Table 3. Protein content of the raw product decreased significantly (p<0.05) from 41.27% (T0) to 38.30% (T2). However, it was significantly higher in T1 (42.20%) of the cooked products. Ash levels reduced with increasing levels of donkey meat in the product formulation. The raw product of the control treatment (T0) had a significantly higher (p<0.05) ash content but there were no significant differences in ash contents of the cooked product. Table 3: Proximate composition of frankfurter-type sausage with or without donkey meat. Nutrient (%) Type of Frankfurter SEM Protein (raw) 41.27 a 38.47 a 38.30b c 0.485 (cooked) 39.06 b 42.30 a 32.60 c 1.414 Fat (raw) 24.17 c 50.50 a 49.33 b 4.296 (cooked) 45.33 a 43.33 b 43.33 b 0.854 Ash (raw) 4.67 a 3.17 b 3.17b c 0.264 (cooked) 4.83 ab 4.00 b 4.17 b 0.167 Moisture (raw) 46.52 b 53.58 a 44.57 c 1.369 (cooked) 58.89 a 57.82 c 58.16 b 0.188 abc : Means with different superscript in the same row are significantly different (p<0.05). Frankfurters showed a significantly (p<0.05) higher moisture content in T1 of the raw products. Moisture content decreased with increasing levels of donkey meat in the cooked product (57.82% (T1) to 58.89% (T0)). This suggests that, beef was able to absorb more water than donkey meat during processing however its WHC was lower and therefore the higher cooking loss obtained for the frankfurters produced with 100% beef (Table 2). Fat content was higher in T1 of the raw product but reduced in the cooked products with increasing levels of donkey meat. This reduction may result in improved shelf-life of frankfurters due to a possible reduction in the rate of auto-oxidation and rancid flavour development (Akwetey et al., 2012). Sensory Attributes of Frankfurter-Type Sausage with and without Donkey Meat The responses of a consumer panel to the sensory evaluation of frankfurters are reported in Table 4. Statistically taste panelists detected no significant differences (p>0.05) between frankfurters produced with or without donkey meat. Low scores were obtained for the product overall acceptability and for most of the individual sensory attributes. Generally frankfurters produced with donkey meat were equally acceptable in all respects to the panelist just like the control without donkey meat. 1390 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 1386-1391

EATING CHARACTERISTICS OF DONKEY MEAT Table 4: Sensory attributes of frankfurter-type sausages with and without donkey meat. Parameter Type of Frankfurter SEM Appearance 2.77 3.09 2.97 0.117 Taste 3.31 3.06 3.17 0.191 Tenderness 2.89 3.06 2.91 0.131 Flavour 3.06 3.06 2.91 0.136 Juiciness 2.86 2.80 2.80 0.139 Texture 3.03 3.09 2.94 0.128 Mouth feel 3.37 3.26 3.20 0.199 Acceptability 2.97 3.06 2.80 0.152 Sensory attributes were scored for like extremely=1 to dislike extremely=9; T0 (control, no donkey meat added); T1 had 50% beef and 50% donkey meat; T2 had donkey meat with no beef added. Means in same row are not significantly different (p>0.05). Conclusion and Recommendation The results obtained suggest that frankfurters produced with donkey meat have similar sensory qualities just as their all beef counterparts. Also lower cooking losses were obtained for the donkey meat-treated frankfurter sausages. Moreover the cost/kg of producing frankfurter sausages reduced appreciably with increasing usage of donkey meat. Thus donkey meat is a potential substitute to beef in frankfurter-type sausage production. It is recommended that, work should be done to confirm the results obtained in this research. Also further work should be done on donkey meat to assess its microbial load and storability. Moreover the use of donkey meat should be investigated in other types of processed meats such as meat loaf, patties and pepperoni sausages. References Aganga AA, Letso M and Aganga AO (2000). Feeding Donkeys. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., Vol. 12, Article (1). Retrieved November 29 (2013) from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd12/2/agan122.htm. Aganga AA, Aganga AO, Thema T and Obocheleng KO (2003). Carcass Analysis and Meat Composition of the Donkey. Pakistan J. Nutr., 2(3): 138-147. pp. AOAC (2000). Official Methods of Analysis. Assoc. Official Anal. Chem., Washington, DC, 16th Ed. Akwetey WY, Ellis WO and Oduro IN (2012). Using Whole Cowpea Flour in Frankfurter-Type Sausages. www.grjournals.com. pp. 453. Karatosidi D, Marsico G and Tarricone S (2013). Modern Use of Donkeys. Iranian J. Appl. Anim. Sci., 3(1): 13-17. pp. Lin KW and Huang HY (2003). Konjac/gellan gum mixed gels improve the quality of reduced-fat frankfurters. Meat Sci., 65: 749-755. Nengomasha EM, Pearson RA and Gebre WA (1999). Empowering People through Donkey Power into the Next Millennium. Proceedings of an Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) Workshop, September (1999), South Afr., ISBN: 0-907146-10-4. pp. 344. Paleari MA, Moretti VM, Beretta G, Mentasti T and Bersani C (2003). Cured Products from Different Animal Species. Meat Sci., pp. 63. 485-489. Payne JA and Wilson TR (1999). An Introduction to Animal Husbandry in the Tropics, (5 th Ed). Blackwell Sci. Ltd., Oxford. pp. 546-563. Polidori P, Cavallucci C, Beghetti D and Vincenzetti S (2008). Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Donkey Meat from Martina Franca breed. Meat Sci., 82(4): 469-471. pp. Poste MP, Mackie DA, Butler G and Larmand E (1991). Laboratory methods for sensory analysis of food. Publ., 1864. Smith DG and Pearson RA (2005). A review of the factors affecting the survival of donkeys in the semi-arid regions of the sub-saharan Africa. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 38: 93-101. SPSS (2006). Version 16.0 for Windows 7. Microsoft Corp., USA. 1391 J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 1386-1391