Volume 11, Issue 1: 23-27; January 25, 2021  
CHARACTERISTICS OF OSTRICH MEAT IN MANUFACTURING  
SAUSAGE IN COMPARISON WITH BEEF  
Yasir Hilal ELHASHMI, Sulafa Yousif FALIH and Mohammed Elkhatim Ibrahim ABDALMAGEED  
Department of Meat Production and Technology, Faculty of Animal Production, University of Gezira, Al-Managil, P.O.Box 20, Sudan  
Supporting Information  
ABSTRACT: Ostrich meat has become one of the most popular meat around the world. The objectives of this  
study are to evaluate the quality characteristics of processed meat, compared to products made from beef.  
The Ostrich and beef meat was prepared and stored frozen. Sausage was processed in laboratory and analyzed  
for chemical composition (crude protein, moisture, fat and ash). Physical properties include Water-holding  
capacity (WHC), cooking loss and microbiological analysis were done. The findings of this study revealed that,  
chemical composition of sausage from ostrich and beef had highly significant differences in moisture, crude  
protein, lipids and ash among all types of products. Physical attribute of sausage revealed that, there were  
highly significant differences among all types of products. The microbiological in sausage observed that, the  
highly significant differences in E. coli, staphylococcus aurous, total coli form, yeast and mold and total viable  
count but was not significant differences in Pseudomonas among all types of sausage. The study  
recommended that ostrich meat can be used on manufacturing of meat as an alternative to beef meat in  
limited amount.  
Keywords: Animal Product, Meat, Ostrich, Processing, Sausage.  
INTRODUCTION  
Today, the world faces the problem of shortage in food supply, which creates the malnutrition problem and its  
consequences in the developing countries, processed meat from non- conventional meat sources like wild animals  
spatially Ostrich can used as part of solving the problem (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2011). Sausage is prepared  
food usually made from ground meat, animal fat, salt, spices and typically backed in a casing (Steven et al., 2019).  
Commonly, there are six types of sausages: fresh sausage, uncooked smoked sausage, cooked smoke sausage, and  
cooked sausage, dry and semi-dry sausage (Hasan Hussein et al., 2019; Steven et al., 2019).  
According to Hoffman et al. (2005) meat from ostriches fed a standard diet contains 21.65, 1.95 and 1.2% protein,  
fat and ash, respectively. Ostrich meat is recommended for overweight people and for those who suffer from coronary  
content increase and causes decrease in moisture (Sales et al., 1999). Compared with other species, e.g. chicken and  
beef, ostrich meat shows a beneficial fatty acids profile (Sales and Horbanczuk, 1998).  
Atef et al. (2015) were found that, the chemical composition of beef sausage was: moisture (65.31%) crud fat 20%,  
ash 9.5% and crud protein 61.28% when investigated effect of Arak Stems Extracts on chemical characteristics bacteria  
activity evaluation of beef sausage products. Alamin (2015) studied sausage some quality attribute, she found that water  
holding capacity of beef sausage was 1.06% and the cooking loss was (22.02%). Ibrahim, (2008) reported that Beef  
Sausage water holding capacity was 59.55% and cooking loss was 17%. Atef et al. (2015) found that the microbial count  
of beef sausage was: E. coli: N.D, Salmonella: N.D, staphylococcus aureus: N.D, Coli form group D and total viable count  
was (6.15%). The objectives of this study are to evaluate the quality characteristics of processed meat, compared to  
products made from beef and meat with other meat animals.  
MATERIALS AND METHODS  
The ostrich and beef meat was obtained and then stored and frozen. The additional materials needed in the formulation  
were spices, salt, potatoes, onion, garlic, Chick Peas, milk Powder, Bread crumb and Rice.  
Two types of sausage (Ostrich and beef) were produced. The minced meat (ostrich, beef) was mixed with other  
ingredients (Beef fat, chick peas, rice, water, salt, skim Milk powder and seasoning mixture). The mixture was stuffed into  
prepared sheep intestine casing and formed into fingers of about 57 cm in length. Samples of the two types of sausage  
were analyzed to evaluate the chemical composition, Physical composition, microbial load and sensory evaluation.  
23  
Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed  
Proximate chemical composition for determination of moisture, crude protein, fat (ether extract) and ash of the sample  
was done according to A.O.A.C. (2002). The cooking loss was determined according to Honkel (1998) method. WHC  
determination was done according to the method of Babiker and Lawrie (1983). Microbial load on (sausage) was  
assessed, it includes the identification of total viable counts, coliforms, yeast and mould, pseudomonas, E. coli,  
Salmonella ssp, Staphylococcus aureus.  
Statistical analysis  
All statistical analysis was done by using the computer with SPSS program Ver. (17, 2008) and Duncan multiple  
range tests was used to detect difference between means (Snedecor and Cochran, 1980).  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
Table 1 showed the chemical composition of sausage from ostrich and beef. The moisture of sausages processed from  
ostrich and beef were 66.99% and 68.95% respectively. There were highly significant differences in moisture (P≤ 0.01)  
among all type of sausages. The higher moisture was found in beef sausage, while the lower moisture was recorded in  
ostrich sausage. In this study the moisture content was greater than that of Atef et al. (2015), who reported that moisture  
of beef sausage was (65.31%) and less than Mohammed (2009) who observed that moisture of beef sausage was  
(72.43%) and disagree with Ibrahim (2008) who recorded that moisture of beef sausage was (57.56%).  
The protein of sausages processed from ostrich and beef were 19.25% and 14.00% respectively. There were highly  
significant differences (P≤0.01) in protein among the products. The higher protein content was observed in ostrich  
sausage, while the lower protein was found in beef sausage. The findings were lesser than Atef et al, (2015) who were  
pointed out that the crude protein (CP) of beef sausage was (61.28%) and agreement with Ibrahim (2008) who found that  
CP of beef sausage (14.09%), but disagree with Mohammed (2009) who stated out that CP of beef sausage was  
(17.55%).  
The ether extract of fat of sausage processed from ostrich and beef were 1.83%, 0.83% respectively. There were  
highly significant differences (P ≤ 0.01) in total energy expenditure (E.E) of fat among all type of the product. The higher  
E.E of fat content was observed in ostrich sausage. The findings were very lower than Atef et al. (2015) who found that Fat  
of beef sausage was 20%, also lesser than Mohammed (2009) who pointed out that Fat of beef sausage was (7.79%) And  
disagree with Ibrahim (2008) who reported that Fat of beef sausage was (16.49%).  
Ash content of sausage processed from ostrich and beef were 2.44% and 2.04% respectively. There were highly  
significant differences (P≤0.01) in ash between ostrich sausage and beef sausage. The higher ash was found in ostrich  
sausage. This finding was lower than that of Atef et al. (2015) who found that Ash of beef sausage was (9.5%), but  
agreement with Mohammed (2009) who stated out that Ash beef sausage was (2.02%) and greater that Ibrahim (2008)  
who observed that Ash beef sausage was (1.07%).  
Table 1 - Average values (Means ± SE) of chemical composition for sausage of ostrich and beef.  
Sausage  
Variables  
Over All  
Sig.  
Ostrich  
Beef  
Moisture %  
68.47±0.29  
16.63±0.004  
1.33±0.004  
2.24±0.01  
66.99±0.41b  
68.95±0.41a  
**  
**  
**  
**  
Crude Protein %  
Ether. Extract %  
Ash %  
19.25±0.006a  
1.83±0.006a  
2.44±0.02a  
14.00±0.006b  
0.83±0.006b  
2.04±0.02b  
* The differences between mean of quantitative parameters are marked by various letters in the same raw are significant (P≤ 0.05). ** Mean  
there is a highly significant differences (P≤ 0.01).  
Table 2 showed some physical properties of sausage from ostrich and beef. The water holding capacity of sausage  
processed from ostrich and beef were 2.24, 3.35 respectively. There were highly significant differences (P≤0.01) in water  
holding capacity content among sausage. The higher water holding capacity content was observed in beef sausage. The  
findings were greater than Alamin (2015) who found that the water holding capacity of beef sausage was (1.06%) when  
was studied sausage some quality attribute, but lower than Ibrahim (2008) who stated out that the water holding capacity  
of beef sausage was (59.55%).  
Cooking loss of sausage processed from ostrich and beef were 32.41, 39.95 respectively. There were highly  
significant differences (P≤0.05) in cooking loss between ostrich and beef sausage. The higher cooking loss was found to  
be in beef sausage. The findings were very higher than Alamin (2015) whom reported that cooking loss of beef sausage  
was (22.02%) when investigated some quality attribute, also greater than Ibrahim (2008) who found that cooking loss of  
beef sausage was (17%).  
Table 3 showed the microbiological properties for sausage of ostrich and beef E. coli of sausage processed from  
ostrich and beef were zero (MPN/g), 5 (MPN/g) respectively. There were highly significant difference (P≤0.01) observed  
24  
Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed  
among ostrich and beef sausage. The higher E. coli content was found to be in beef sausage. The finding was in line with  
Hamad (2010) who found that E. coli count of beef sausage was (20%) when studied prevalence of Escherichia. Coli,  
salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus and processed meat in Khartoum State, but disagree with Atef et al. (2015), who  
was not detected E. coli bacteria.  
Table 2 - Average values of some physical properties for sausage of Ostrich and beef (Means ± SE).  
Sausage  
Variables  
Over All  
Sig.  
Ostrich  
Beef  
Water holding capacity  
Cooking Loss  
2.80±0.004  
2.24±0.006b  
3.35±0.006a  
**  
**  
36.18±0.004  
32.41±0.006b  
39.95±0.006a  
* The differences between mean of quantitative parameters are marked by various letters in the same raw are significant (P≤ 0.05). ** Mean  
there is a highly significant differences (P≤ 0.01).  
Table 3 -Average values (Means ± SE) of microbiological properties for sausage of Ostrich and Beef  
Sausage  
Variables  
Over All  
Sig.  
Ostrich  
Beef  
E.coli (MPN/g)  
2.50+0.33  
0
0
5.00±0.47a  
**  
NS  
**  
**  
**  
**  
Pseudomonas (cfu/g)  
Staphylococcus (cfu/g)  
Total coli form (MPN/g)  
Yeast and Mould (cfu/g)  
Total viable count (cfu/g)  
0
0
2.08×103±0.13  
17.67±0.65  
1.00×102±0.34  
3.48×106±0.88  
3.33×102±0.19b  
7.33±0.92b  
0
3.83×103±0.19a  
28.00±0.92a  
2.00×102±0.49a  
6.90×106±1.24a  
6.43×104±1.24b  
* The differences between mean of quantitative parameters are marked by various letters in the same raw are significant (P≤ 0.05). ** Mean  
there is a highly significant differences (P≤ 0.01). NS: non-significant  
Table 4 - Salmonella presence in sausage from ostrich and beef  
Sausage  
Detection of salmonella  
Ostrich  
Beef  
N
0
3
3
%
0
N
1
2
3
%
Positive  
Negative  
Total  
33.3  
66.7  
100  
100  
100  
The pseudo of sausage processed from ostrich and beef were zero (CFU/g), zero (CFU/g) respectively. There were no  
significant differences in Pseudomonas count observed among ostrich and beef sausage. The Staphylococcus of sausage  
processed from ostrich and beef were 3.33×102 (CFU/g), 3.83×103 (CFU/g) respectively. There were highly significant  
difference (P≤0.01) in Staphylococcus among ostrich and beef sausage. While beef sausage recorded the highest content  
of Staphylococcus while the lowest content of Staphylococcus was found in ostrich sausage. The findings were in line with  
Hamad (2010) who stated out that staphylococcus of beef sausage was (52%) when investigated prevalence of  
Escherichia. Coli, salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus and processed meat in Khartoum State, while Atef et al. (2015)  
were not detected staphylococcus in beef sausage when studied the effect of Arak Stems Extracts on chemical  
characteristics bacteria activity and sensory evaluation of beef sausage products. The total coli form of sausage  
processed from different type of meat (ostrich and beef) 7.33 (MN/g), 28 (MPN/g) respectively.There were significant  
differences (P≤0.01) in total coli form content among sausages. The highest content of total coli form was found to be in  
beef sausage. The results in the present study were agreement with Atef et al. (2015), who found that total coli form  
count in beef sausage was detected when studied the effect of arak stems extracts on chemical characteristics bacteria  
activity and sensory evaluation of beef sausage products.  
The yeast and moulds of sausage processed from ostrich and beef were zero (CFU/g), 2×102 (CFU/g) respectively.  
There were highly significant differences (P≤0.01) in yeast and moulds between (ostrich and beef) sausage. The highest  
yeast and moulds content was found in beef sausage, while was not found in ostrich sausage. The total viable count of  
bacteria for sausage processed from ostrich and beef were 6.43×105 (CFU/g), 6.90×107 (cFU/g) respectively. There were  
highly significant differences (P≤0.01) in total viable count among all type of sausage. The higher content of total viable  
count was found in beef sausage, while the lower content of total viable count was recorded in ostrich sausage.  
25  
Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed  
 
The findings of study were greater than Atef et al. (2015) who pointed out that the total coli from count in beef  
sausage was 6.25 cfu/g when studied the effect of arak stems extracts on chemical characteristics bacteria activity and  
sensory evaluation of beef sausage products. Table 4 showed that the detection of salmonella sausage processed from  
ostrich was 0(N)-0% positive and 3(N)-100% negative. While beef sausage was 1(N)-33.3% positive and 2(N)-66.7%  
negative. There was no significant differences found among detection of salmonella for all types of sausage. The findings  
were disagree with Atef et al. (2015), who found that detection of salmonella in beef sausage was not detected but was  
agreement with Hamad (2010), who observed salmonella of beef sausage was (20%).  
CONCLUSION  
The findings of this study revealed that, chemical composition for ostrich sausage was the highest percentage in crude  
protein, Ash and total energy expenditure of fat while beef sausage was the highest percentage in moisture. For  
microbiological load, beef sausage showed the highest count in all microorganisms which included in the study except  
total coli form and Pseudomonas were not detected in sausages. The salmonella was not detected in ostrich sausage,  
while it was detected in beef sausage.  
Recommendation  
It is strongly recommended to use ostrich meat for sausage processing.  
Promotion programs are needed to make ostrich meat products more acceptable to consumers.  
Control of E.coli and other food-borne pathogens such as Salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus can be achieved.  
Precautions should include adequate cooking and avoidance of cross contamination of cooked meat by contaminated  
equipment, water or infected food handlers.  
DECLARATIONS  
Corresponding Author  
E-mail: yahilal@gmail.com; ORCİD: 0000-0002-7298-6169  
Authors’ Contribution  
All authors contributed in research conduction, analyzing and writing, equally.  
Conflict of interests  
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
REFERENCES  
A.O.A.C. (2002). Official method of analysis. Association of Official Analytical chemist. Horwitz, W. (ed), Washington, DC, USA.  
Alamin SAE (2015). Sausages some quality attribute. American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences,  
Antunes IC, Ribeiro MF, Pimentel FB, Alves SP, Oliveira M, Bessa R, and Quaresma M (2018). Lipid profile and quality indices of ostrich  
meat and giblets. Poultry Science, 97(3): 10731081. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex379 I Google Scholar  
Atef AA, Nahed MA, Amr A, and May MA (2015). The effect of arak stems extracts on chemical characteristics, bacterial activity and  
sensory evaluation of beef sausage products. International Journal of Advances in Agricultural and Environmental Engineering  
Babiker SA, and Lawrie RA (1983). Post mortem electrical stimulation and high temperature aging of hot deboned beef. Meat science,  
Cooper RG (1999). Ostrich meat, an important product of the ostrich industry: a southern African perspective. World’s Poultry Science  
Food and Agriculture Organization FAO (2011). The state of food security in the world. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.  
Hamad NMH (2000). Prevalence of Escherichia Coli, salmonella and staphylococcus aureus in processed meat in Khartoum State.  
University of Alnileen .Khartoum. Sudan. http://khartoumspace.uofk.edu/handle/123456789/9296  
Hasan Hussein F, Razavi S, Emam Djomeh Z (2019). Evaluation of physicochemical, sensorial and microbiological attributes of fermented  
camel  
sausages.  
Iranian  
Journal  
of  
Chemistry  
and  
Chemical  
Engineering  
(IJCCE),  
38(2):171-181.  
Hoffman LC, Joubert M, Brand TS, and Manley M (2005) .The effect of dietary fish oil rich in n-3 fatty acids on the organoleptic, fatty acid  
and physicochemical characteristics of ostrich meat. Meat Science, 70: 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.11.019  
I
Honkel KO (1998). Reference method for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Sciences, 49: 447-457.  
Ibrahim S (2008). Utilization of wheat germ flour in the processing of sausage. M.Sc. thesis in meat technology. Khartoum University,  
26  
Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed  
 
Mohammed RA, (2009). Quality evaluation of beef sausage incorporated with bee honey. M.Sc. thesis in meat Technology. Khartoum  
University, Sudan. Link I Google Scholar  
Sales J and Horbanczuk J (1998). Ratite meat. World’s Poultry Science Journal 54: 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19980005  
I
Sales J, Horbanczuk JO, Dingle J, Coleman R and Sensik S (1999). Carcass characteristics of emus (Dromaius ovaehollandiae). British  
Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. (1980). Statistical method 7th Ed. The Iowa state university press, Ames, Iowa, USA. 1980:39-63. Google  
Steven ML, David GT, and Dennis NM (2019). Chapter 14 - sausage processing and production Editors: Steven M. Lonergan, David G.  
Topel, Dennis N. Marple, The science of animal growth and meat technology (second edition), Academic Press, Elsevier Inc. Pp. 229-  
Zdanowska SŻ, Marchewka J, Horbańczuk JO, Wierzbicka A, Lipińska P, Jóźwik A, Atanasov AG, Huminiecki Ł, Sieroń A and Sieroń K,  
(2018). Nutrients composition in fit snacks made from ostrich, beef and chicken dried meat. Molecules, 23: 1267.  
27  
Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed