2021 SCIENCELINE

O nline J ournal of A nimal and F eed R esearch

Volume 11, Issue 1: 23-27; January 25, 2021

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.5

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



Email: yahilal@gmail.com ;

: 0000-0002-7298-6169

^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

heart disease (Cooper 1999; Antunes et al., 2018; Zdanowska-Sąsiadek et al., 2018 ). Thus, during cooking, the fat

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 5–7 cm in length. Samples of the two types of sausage

were analyzed to evaluate the chemical composition, Physical composition, microbial load and sensory evaluation.

Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed

Res., 11(1): 23-27. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.5

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±0.41^b

68.95±0.41^a

Crude Protein %

Ether. Extract %

Ash %

19.25±0.006^a

1.83±0.006^a

2.44±0.02^a

14.00±0.006^b

0.83±0.006^b

2.04±0.02^b

* 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

Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed

Res., 11(1): 23-27. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.5

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±0.006^b

3.35±0.006^a

36.18±0.004

32.41±0.006^b

39.95±0.006^a

* 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

5.00±0.47^a

Pseudomonas (cfu/g)

Staphylococcus (cfu/g)

Total coli form (MPN/g)

Yeast and Mould (cfu/g)

Total viable count (cfu/g)

2.08×10³±0.13

17.67±0.65

1.00×10²±0.34

3.48×10⁶±0.88

3.33×10²±0.19^b

7.33±0.92^b

3.83×10³±0.19^a

28.00±0.92^a

2.00×10²±0.49^a

6.90×10⁶±1.24^a

6.43×10⁴±1.24^b

* 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

Positive

Negative

Total

33.3

66.7

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.

Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed

Res., 11(1): 23-27. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.5

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.

https://www.aoac.org/official-methods-of-analysis-21st-edition-2019/

Alamin SAE (2015). Sausages some quality attribute. American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences,

12: 39-43. http://iasir.net/AIJRHASSpapers/AIJRHASS15-723.pdf

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): 1073–1081. 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

(IJAAEE), 2: 39-43. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rY9dYwIAAAAJ&hl=en Google Scholar

Babiker SA, and Lawrie RA (1983). Post mortem electrical stimulation and high temperature aging of hot deboned beef. Meat science,

8(1):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(83)90028-1 I Google Scholar

Cooper RG (1999). Ostrich meat, an important product of the ostrich industry: a southern African perspective. World’s Poultry Science

Journal, 55: 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19990027 I Google Scholar

Food and Agriculture Organization FAO (2011). The state of food security in the world. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

http://www.fao.org/3/i2330e/i2330e00.htm I Google Scholar

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

Chemistry

and

Chemical

Engineering

(IJCCE),

38(2):171-181.

http://www.ijcce.ac.ir/article_30665_d6ca3ba13cb406fe761526883c62bc28.pdf I Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Honkel KO (1998). Reference method for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Sciences, 49: 447-457.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00034-5 I Google Scholar

Ibrahim S (2008). Utilization of wheat germ flour in the processing of sausage. M.Sc. thesis in meat technology. Khartoum University,

Sudan. Link I Google Scholar

Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed

Res., 11(1): 23-27. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.5

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

Google Scholar

Sales J, Horbanczuk JO, Dingle J, Coleman R and Sensik S (1999). Carcass characteristics of emus (Dromaius ovaehollandiae). British

Poultry Science 40, 145-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669987999 I Google Scholar

Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. (1980). Statistical method 7^thEd. The Iowa state university press, Ames, Iowa, USA. 1980:39-63. Google

Scholar

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-

253. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815277-5.00014-7 Link

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.

https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23061267 I Google Scholar

Citation: Elhashmi YH, Falih SY and Abdalmageed MEI (2021). Characteristics of ostrich meat in manufacturing sausage in comparison with beef. Online J. Anim. Feed

Res., 11(1): 23-27. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2021.5