AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Food Science and Human Wellness Article
PDF (584.1 KB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

Investigation of physicochemical, microbiological and sensorial properties for organic and conventional retail chicken meat

Berna Çapan, Aytunga Bağdatli( )
Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Food Engineering, Yunusemre, 45140 Manisa, Turkey

Peer review under responsibility of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd

Show Author Information

Abstract

In this study, the commercially available chicken thigh and breast meat produced by organic and conventional methods were investigated in terms of physicochemical, microbiological and sensorial properties. The organic chicken breasts had higher fat content than the conventional chicken breasts. The protein content of organic thighs was higher than conventional thighs. Organic chicken meat contains more mineral substances than conventional chicken meat and has higher pH value, cooking loss and water holding capacity. Alpha-linoleic acid, docosahexaenoic acid was found to be higher in organic chicken meat. Salmonella spp. was detected in all conventional chicken and 66.66% of organic chicken.

Keywords

Organic chickenConventional chickenChicken breastChicken thighChicken meat qualityFatty acid composition

References

[1]

F. Yenilmez, E. Uruk, Organic poultry in Turkey poultry industry, Turk. J. Agric. Nat. 1 (2014) 1043-1048.
Google Scholar
[2]

A. Augustyńska-Prejsnar, M. Ormian, R. Tobiasz-Salach, Quality of broiler chicken meat during frozen storage, Ital. J. Food Sci. 31 (2019) 531-541.
Google Scholar
[3]

F. Çukur, G. Saner, Konvansiyonel ve ekolojik hayvancılık sistemlerinin sürdürülebilirliği ve türkiye üzerine bir değerlendirme, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi. 2 (1) (2005) 39-44.
Google Scholar
[4]

S.N. Brown, G.R. Nute, A. Baker, et al., Aspects of meat and eating quality of broiler chickens reared under standard, maize-fed, free-range or organic systems, British Poult. Sci. 49 (2) (2008) 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660801938833.
Crossref Google Scholar
[5]
AOAC, Official Methods of Analysis, ed. By K. Helrich 15th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. Arlington VA (1990).
[6]

A. Funaro, V. Cardenia, M. Petracci, et al., Comparison of meat quality characteristics and oxidative stability between conventional and free-range chickens, Poult. Sci. 93 (2014) 1511-1522. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03486.
Crossref Google Scholar
[7]
P. Çelik, Determined the quality specifications of meatballs obtained from poultry meat and red meat mixture (M. Thesis, Namık Kemal University, Institute of Natural Science, Food Engineering Department, Tekirdaǧ, Turkey, 2012).
[8]

C. Castellini, C. Mugnai, A. Dal Bosco, Meat quality of three chicken genotypes reared according to the organic system, Ital. J. Food Sci. 14 (2002) 401-412.
Google Scholar
[9]

R.L. Husak, J.G. Sebranek, K. Bregendahi, A survey of commercially available broilers originating from organic, free-range and conventional production systems for cooked meat yields, meat composition and relative value, Poult. Sci. 87 (11) (2008) 2367-2376. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00294.
Crossref Google Scholar
[10]
C. Zengin, The effect of green tea and thyme extracts on the quality of chicken meat (M. Thesis, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Institute of Natural Science, Food Engineering Department, Manisa, Turkey, 2011).
[11]

H. Ergezer, R. Gokce, Comparison of marinating with two different types of marinade on some quality and sensory characteristics of Turkey breast meat, J. Anim. Vet. Adv 10 (1) (2011) 60-67.
Crossref Google Scholar
[12]

J.F. Young, A.H. Karlsson, P. Henckel, Water-holding capacity in chicken breast muscle is enhanced by pyruvate and reduced by creatine supplements, Poult. Sci. 83 (2004) 400-405. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.3.400.
Crossref Google Scholar
[13]

A. Bağdatli, A. Kundakci, Optimization of compositional and structural properties in probiotic sucuk production, J. Food Sci. Technol. 53 (2016) 1679-1689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-2098-3.
Crossref Google Scholar
[14]

A.C. Fanatico, L.C. Cavitt, P.B. Pillai, et al., Sensory attributes of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes raised indoors or with outdoor access, Poult. Sci. 86 (2007) 2441-2449. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00092.
Crossref Google Scholar
[15]
Ş. Is¸ık, Comparison of different broiler hybrids in terms of yield and meat quality. (M. Thesis, Selçuk University, Institute of Natural Science, Food Engineering Department, Selçuk, Turkey, 2008).
[16]

F. Napolitano, C. Castellini, S. Naspetti, et al., Consumer preference for chicken breast may be more affected by information on organic production than by product sensory properties, Poult. Sci. 92 (2013) 820-826. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02633.
Crossref Google Scholar
[17]
M.A. Grashorn, C. Serini, Quality of chicken meat from conventional and organic production, EPC2006 Proc. 12th Eu Poult. Conf. (2006).
Food Science and Human Wellness
Volume 10 Issue 2,
March 2021
Pages 183-190
DOI: 10.1016/j.fshw.2021.02.007
Cite this article:
Çapan B, Bağdatli A. Investigation of physicochemical, microbiological and sensorial properties for organic and conventional retail chicken meat. Food Science and Human Wellness, 2021, 10(2): 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2021.02.007

380

Views

45

Downloads

13

Crossref

12

Web of Science

12

Scopus

0

CSCD

Altmetrics
Received: 05 January 2020
Revised: 29 April 2020
Accepted: 15 June 2020
Published: 22 March 2021
© 2021 Beijing Academy of Food Sciences.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Return