Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303

www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Quality characteristics of ostrich (Struthio camelus) burgers

J. Fernández-López ¤, S. Jiménez, E. Sayas-Barberá, E. Sendra, J.A. Pérez-Alvarez
Departamento de Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Orihuela, Universidad Miguel Hernández,
Ctra. a Beniel Km 3,2, 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain

Received 12 July 2005; received in revised form 17 November 2005; accepted 21 December 2005

Abstract

Quality characteristics and storage stability of three types of burgers prepared with ostrich meat (alone or mixed with pork or beef
meat) were evaluated. Burger evaluation was based on chemical, microbiological, textural, colour, sensory and oxidation characteristics.
All of the assayed formulas showed acceptable general quality scores in the sensory evaluation, but the burgers formulated with 100%
ostrich meat or mixing ostrich and beef meat had the highest scores. Only TBA values and redness were inXuenced by storage time. Bur-
gers formulated with ostrich and pork meat had a faster oxidation rate and became more oxidized than the others. Microbial counts indi-
cated that, at the end of the refrigerated storage (9 days), all of the preparations were spoiled.
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Burger; Quality characteristics; Ostrich meat; Shelf life

1. Introduction
Many eVorts have been made to improve the quality and
stability of burgers because consumer demand for healthy
fast food has rapidly increased in the recent years (Papa-
dina & Bloukas, 1999).
Ostrich meat is perceived and marketed as a healthy
alternative to other red meats (Fisher, HoVman, & Mellet,
2000). Relative to beef, ostrich meat is characterized by a
higher ultimate pH (>6.2), lower collagen and higher pig-
ment content, similar cooking loss, darker visual appear-
ance, similar sensory tenderness, higher polyunsaturated
fatty acid content and similar cholesterol content (Jones,
Robertson, & Bereton, 1995; Sales, 1996, 1998; Walter,
Soliah, & Dorsett, 2000). In Spain, ostrich meat produc-
tion reached 1000 tons last year (ACADE, 2004) and had
an important annual growth rate, principally due to the
perception of its’ healthy properties, which increased
ostrich meat consumption (25–30% higher in 2004 com-
pared to 2003). Ostrich meat can be classiWed (non-com-
pulsory) into four main categories in Spain, namely Extra
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 966749656; fax: +34 966749677.
E-mail address: j.fernandez@umh.es (J. Fernández-López).
Class, First Class, Second Class (or steak) and Third Class
(or cook). Ostrich meat from the Extra, First and Second
categories are usually commercialised as fresh meat (vac-
uum-packed and refrigerated or frozen) and served
cooked, grilled or dried (biltong) in restaurants. Ostrich
meat is highly perishable due to its high pH and the need
for more research on the use of ostrich meat in value-
added products is evident. Some authors have reported
that ostrich meat can be used successfully in cooked sau-
sages (Fernández-López, Sayas-Barberá, Navarro, Serra,
& Pérez-Alvarez, 2003; Fisher et al., 2000) and in Italian
style fermented sausages with the use of speciWc starter
cultures (Böhme, Mellet, Dicks, & Basson, 1996), but as
far as we could determine, the use of ostrich meat as an
ingredient in fresh meat products has not been reported.
Walter et al. (2000) found cooked ground ostrich meat to
be dry and recommended the use of additional ingredients
or mixing with other types of meat in order to increase
acceptability.
The objective of our study was to evaluate the use of
ostrich meat (alone or mixed with pork or beef meat) in
order to produce a quality comminuted meat product, such
as a meat burger, and to evaluate its stability during 9 days
of storage at 4 °C.

0309-1740/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.12.011
296 J. Fernández-López et al. / Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303
2. Materials and methods
Ostrich meat was obtained from 12 to 14 months old
birds, beef meat from 1 year old animals and pork meat
from 8 months old animals, which were slaughtered at a
local abattoir approved by the European Union using
industrial slaughtering techniques (as described in Fisher
et al., 2000). All meat batches were vacuum packed and fro-
zen at ¡20 °C until processed.
2.1. Burger manufacture
2.1.1. Burger formulation
A simple traditional formulation was used (percentages
of non-meat ingredients are related to meat): 70% lean
ostrich meat (oV-cuts derived from Extra, First and Sec-
ond Classes) and 30% fat meat, 18% (w/w) water (ice),
1.5% (w/w) sodium chloride, 500 mg/kg sodium ascorbate,
10% (w/w) potato starch and spices (0.01% black pepper
and 0.005% nut-meg).
Three formulations of burger were prepared, only diVering
in the fat meat used: Formula 1 – ostrich meat from Second
Class (it has the highest fat content; Aznar et al., 2000); For-
mula 2 – meat from beef ribs; and Formula 3 – pork backfat.
2.1.2. Burger processing
Three independent replicates of each burger formula were
processed on the same day. Products were prepared in a pilot
plant according to commercial processing. After thawing
overnight in a cooler (§4 °C), the meat was ground through a
5-mm plate (Olotinox, Olox, Spain) in a mincer attached to a
mixer (CATO 114, Sabadell, Spain). Afterwards water, addi-
tives and spices were added into the bowl and mixed with the
spiral dough hook at medium speed (80 rpm) during 5 min.
This mixture was shaped using a commercial burger maker
(9 cm internal diam) to obtain patties of approximately 70 g
and 1 cm thickness. Plastic packaging Wlm was used to help
maintaining the shape of the patties prior to storage.
2.1.3. Storage conditions
After reaching the packing temperature (7 § 1 °C), the
burgers (4) were placed in plastic containers, sealed with
one layer of a semi-permeable Wlm of water vapor perme-
ability 3.2 g/m2/24 h at 23 °C/90%RH, carbon dioxide
permeability 23 cm3/m2/24 h at 23 °C/50%RH and oxygen
permeability 50 cm3/m2/24 h at 23 °C/50%RH (Polyvinyl
chloride, Freshcling, Murcia, Spain), and stored in
darkness at 4 § 1 °C for 9 days in a commercial refrigera-
tor. Sampling and storage condition records from each
formula took place at 1, 3, 6 and 9 days (storage time) and
every sample was analysed promptly as follows.
2.2. Burger analysis
2.2.1. Chemical analysis
All parameters were tested in triplicate. Moisture, ash,
protein and fat content were determined by AOAC meth-
ods (AOAC, 1995). Moisture (g water/100 g sample) was
determined by drying 3 g of sample at 100 °C to constant
weight. Ashing was performed at 500 °C for 5 h (g ash/
100 g sample). Protein (g protein/100 g sample) was
analyzed according to the Kjeldahl method. Factor 6.25
was used for conversion of nitrogen to crude protein. Fat
(g fat/100 g sample) was calculated by weight loss after a
6-cycle extraction with petroleum ether in a Sohxlet
apparatus.
2.2.2. Lipid oxidation (thiobarbituric acid test)
Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) were
determined as described by Rosmini et al. (1996). Sample
extracts (sample + TBA solution + trichloroacetic solution)
were heated for 10 min in a boiling water bath (95–100 °C)
to develop a pink color, cooled under running water, and
the supernatant was obtained at 5500 rpm for 25 min in a
centrifuge (Alresa HZ50, Orto Alresa, Aljavit, Madrid).
Supernatant absorbance was measured at 532 nm using a
UV spectrophotometer (Unicam Limited, Cambridge,
UK). TBARS (mg malonaldehyde/kg sample) were calcu-
lated using a 1,1,3,3-tetraethoxypropane standard curve.
Triplicate samples were analyzed for each batch.
2.2.3. Physicochemical analysis
2.2.3.1. pH. The pH was measured with a pH meter (Crison
Instruments, S.A., Alella, Barcelona, Spain) on a suspension
resulting from blending 15 g sample with 150 mL deionized
water for 2 min.
2.2.3.2. Color determinations. Color was evaluated using a
colorimeter (Mod. CR-200, Minolta Camera Co., Osaka,
Japan) with illuminant D65, 2° observer, DiVuse/O mode,
8 mm aperture of the instrument for illumination and 8 mm
for measurement. The colorimeter was standardized with a
white tile (L¤ D 98.14, a¤ D ¡0.23 and b¤ D 1.89). Color was
described by coordinates: lightness (L¤), redness (a¤, §red-
green) and yellowness (b¤, §yellow-blue). Nine replicate
measurements were taken for each sample, following the
guidelines for color measurements of the American Meat
Science Association (Hunt et al., 1991).
2.2.3.3. Texture analysis. Texture proWle analysis (TPA)
was performed on raw samples at 4 § 1 °C with a Texture
Analyser TA-XT2 (Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, UK)
following AMSA (1995) procedures. Cubic samples
(1 £ 1 £ 1 cm) were cut from patties and subjected to a
two-cycle compression test. Samples were compressed to
70% of their original height with a cylindrical probe of
10 cm diameter at a compression load of 25 kg, and a
cross-head speed of 20 cm/min. Texture proWle parameters
were determined following descriptions by Bourne (1978)
and interpreted as follows. Hardness (kg) is the maximum
force required to compress the sample; cohesiveness is the
extent to which sample could be deformed prior to rup-
ture (A2/A1), A1 being the total energy required for the
Wrst compression and A2 the total energy required for the
 J. Fernández-López et al. / Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303
second compression; springiness (cm) is the ability of the
sample to recover its original shape after the deforming
force is removed; gumminess (kg) is the force to disinte-
grate a semisolid meat sample for swallowing (hardness
£ cohesiveness) and chewiness (kg £ cm) is the work
needed to masticate the sample for swallowing
(springiness £ gumminess).
2.2.4. Microbiological analysis
Samples (25 g) were homogeneized with 225 mL sterile
1.5% peptone water in a Stomacher 400 (Colworth, Lon-
don, UK) for 1.5 min. Total viable counts and psychro-
trophic microbiota were determined on Plate Count Agar.
Plates were incubated at 35 °C for 48 h for total viable
counts and at 7 °C for 10 days for determination of psy-
chrotrophs. Culture media were from Oxoid (Oxoid Uni-
path Ltd. Basingtoke, Hampshire, UK).
2.2.5. Sensory evaluation
Six burgers from each formulation were cooked at
150 °C in a forced draught oven A23RES (Alphatec,
Munich, Germany) to a core 72 °C, and maintained warm
in an oven until testing within 3–8 min. Experienced pan-
elists (30) were recruited from the staV and students of the
Miguel Hernández University, Alicante, Spain. Protocols
for sensory analysis were approved by the local Ethics
Committee for Clinical Research (ECCR Vega Baja Hos-
pital, Orihuela, Alicante). Panelists were chosen on the
basis of previous experience in consuming traditional bur-
gers. Furthermore, a preparatory session was held prior to
testing, so that each panel could thoroughly discuss and
clarify each attribute to be evaluated. Testing was initi-
ated after the panelist agreed on the descriptors. A quanti-
tative descriptive analysis was carried out (IFT, 1981). All
sensory work was carried out in the sensory laboratory at
the University, which fulWls the requirements according to
the international standards (ASTM, 1986). During evalu-
ation the panelists were situated in private booths under
TL 5 Xuorescent light (Philips-Ibérica, Madrid, Spain),
with an intensity of approximately 350 lux. Rectangular
pieces approximately 1.5-cm £ 2-cm were cut from the
center of burgers, and were served at room temperature
(ASTM, 1988). Each panelist evaluated three replicates of
all formulas; the sample presentation order was random-
ized for each panelist. Tap water was provided between
samples to cleanse the palate. The attributes measured
and their descriptors were as follows: for “external evalu-
ation”: colour intensity (from extremely light to extremely
dark), hue (from pale pink to brown) and shine (from dull
to bright): For “taste”: saltiness, fatiness, rancid Xavour
and residual taste (from imperceptible to extremely
intense): For “texture”: Wrmness (from extremely soft to
extremely tough) and juiciness (from extremely dry to
extremely moist).
At the end of the test, panelists were asked to give a
score for overall acceptability of the product from 0 to
10.
297
2.3. Statistical analysis
Each parameter was tested in triplicate. Conventional
statistical methods were used to calculate means and stan-
dard deviations. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine signiWcant diVerences (P < 0.05) between treat-
ments. To assess diVerences between the levels of the main
factor, contrasts between means (Tukey test) were used
(AWW & Azen, 1979). For burger characterization, ANOVAs
with two factors: formulation (three levels: Formula 1, For-
mula 2, and Formula 3) and replicate (three levels), were
applied for each parameter. For burger shelf life, ANOVAs
with three factors: formulation (three levels: Formula 1,
Formula 2, Formula 3), storage time (four levels: 0, 3, 6 and
9 days) and replicate (three levels) were applied for each
parameter The Statistical analyses were done using STAT-
ISTICA for Windows Release 5.0A (STATISTICA, 1989).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Burger characterization
Results of chemical composition of burgers are presented
in Table 1. DiVerences in composition of the diVerent for-
mulas are attributed to the type of fat meat used as it was
the only variable.
There were no diVerences between Formulas 1 and 2 in
any chemical parameters; so, the nutritional value of both
types of burger was the same. Most of the diVerences have
been found for burgers made with pork backfat (Formula
3) which showed the highest fat content and the lowest
moisture content. It could be due to the diVerent fat content
of each commercial retail cut used as fat meat, because
pork backfat usually presents an 85–90% fat. No diVerences
(P > 0.05) have been found for ash content between the
three burger formulations. Sales and Hayes (1996) reported
that total ash content did not diVer between muscles or spe-
cies, but the mineral composition may be diVerent. They
reported that phosphorus, manganese and iron were higher
and sodium lower in ostrich meat than in pork and poultry.
This last characteristic is an advantage for people who need
a low sodium diet. The high ash content of ostrich burgers,
compared to fresh ostrich meat (Sales & Hayes, 1996) sug-
gested that the increase was due to the addition of salt and
spices.
Table 1
Chemical composition and TBARS values (mg/kg sample) of diVerent
types of ostrich burgers
Formulation Moisture (%) Fat (%) Protein (%) Ash (%) TBARS (mg/kg)
Formula 1A 68.67a 8.58b 22.43a 1.95a 1.21c
Formula 2 69.11a 7.16b 21.81a 1.90a 1.11b
Formula 3 64.45b 12.40a 19.78b 1.86a 1.69a
a–c
Values in the same column bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly
diVerent (P < 0.05).
A
Formula 1, 30% second class ostrich meat; Formula 2, 30% beef; For-
mula 3, 30% pig backfat.
298 J. Fernández-López et al. / Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303
pH was diVerent (P < 0.05) between Formula 1 and the
other formulas (Table 2). The high pH value obtained for
Formula 1 could be due to the special characteristics of
ostrich meat, which has an ultimate pH of 6.0. The pres-
ence of 30% beef and pork meat in the other two formula-
tions (Formulas 2 and 3) decreased the pH of both
products.
The TBA test has been widely used to measure lipid oxi-
dation in meat and meat products (Fernández-López,
Pérez-Alvarez, & Fernández-López, 1997). The lowest
TBARS values were obtained in Formula 1, and the highest
in Fsormula 3 (P < 0.05). These diVerences could be attrib-
uted to the higher fat content of the burgers made with
pork fat (Formula 3), which could speed up lipid oxidation.
Color parameters of diVerent burgers are shown in Table
2. Lightness was the only color parameter that was not
aVected by burger type (P > 0.05). Some authors reported
that lightness in meat and meat products depends on sev-
eral factors such as water holding capacity (Fernández-
López, Pérez-Alvarez, & Aranda-Catalá, 2000; KauVman,
Joo, Schultz, Warner, & Faustman, 1991), fat content
(Fisher et al., 2000), free water (Judge, Aberle, Forrest,
Hedrich, & Merkel, 1989), etc. In our study, although For-
mula 3 had the highest fat content, it did not diVer in L¤
values with the other formulas, which could be due to the
higher moisture contents in Formulas 1 and 2. Some
authors have reported that an increase in fat and/or water
in meat products results in lighter products (Littinandana,
Kenney, & Slider, 2005). The higher a¤ values (P < 0.05) of
ostrich burgers (Formula 1) suggested a redder color com-
pared to burgers with beef or pork fat (Formulas 2 and 3),
as was expected since ostrich meat does appear redder com-
pared to beef or pork (Paleari et al., 1998). The lowest a¤
value (P < 0.05) of Formula 3 could be due to the greater fat
content, which dilutes the myoglobin in the products.
Johanson, Tornberg, and Lundström (1991) suggested that
the a¤ coordinate is related to the myoglobin content. Sev-
eral authors have related the evolution of redness with lipid
oxidation in meat products (Fernández-López et al., 2003;
Yu, Scalin, Wilson, & Schmidt, 2002), while others report
that the development of lipid oxidation provokes a
decrease in redness. Burgers of Formula 1 which showed
the lowest values of TBA, also showed the highest
(P < 0.05) redness values, on the contrary, Formula 3 bur-
gers had the highest TBA values and the lowest (P < 0.05)
a¤ values. No diVerences (P > 0.05) for b¤ values among
Table 2
Color parameters and pH values of diVerent types of ostrich burgers
Formulation L¤ a¤ b¤ pH
Formula 1A 36.11a 11.40a 10.15b 6.07a
Formula 2 36.23a 9.32b 9.96b 5.89b
Formula 3 35.51a 7.50c 12.69a 5.87b
a–c
Values in the same column bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly
diVerent (P < 0.05).
A A
Formula 1, 30% second class ostrich meat; Formula 2, 30% beef; For-
mula 3, 30% pig backfat.
Formulas 1 and 2 were found, showing lower values
(P < 0.05) than Formula 3.
Table 3 shows the results of the textural properties of
diVerent ostrich burgers. Cavestanty, Colmenero, Solas,
and Carballo (1994) reported that the variations in meat
products textural properties may be inXuenced by a variety
of factors such as diVerences in formulation and ionic
strength, functionality of meat proteins, concentration and
characteristics of fat, and others. Springness was the only
textural parameter that showed no signiWcant diVerences
(P > 0.05) among its formulations. Hardness, cohesiveness,
gumminess and chewiness (Table 3) showed signiWcant
diVerences (P < 0.05) between formulations. For all of them,
the lowest values were obtained for Formula 3, and the
highest for Formula 1. The lowest hardness observed in
Formula 3 could be related to the highest fat content.
Changes in fat content signiWcantly aVected the textural
characteristics of meat products (Cofrades, Guerra, Carb-
allo, Fernández-Mart´n, & Jiménez-Colmenero, 2000;
Pietrasik, 1999).
Results of the sensory evaluation are presented in Fig. 1.
Appearance and colour are among the most important
attributes inXuencing customer choice, and texture also
plays a relevant role on the perception of quality of meat
products. From the attributes selected for external evalua-
tion only “shine” showed no diVerences (P > 0.05) between
formulas, which could be related with lightness results
obtained by instrumental analysis (Table 2). “Color inten-
sity” and “hue” showed the highest scores in Formula 1
and the lowest in Formula 3 (P < 0.05) which is in agree-
ment with redness result. About the attributes used for taste
evaluation, none of them showed diVerences between for-
mulas (P > 0.05) (saltiness: 4.02 § 0.52; fatiness: 3.10 § 0.22;
rancid Xavour: 2.08 § 0.34; residual taste: 2.11 § 0.36). It is
important to observe that although Formula 3 had the
highest fat content and TBA values (Table 1), increased
“fatiness” or “rancid Xavour” was not detected by the pan-
elists. From the attributes selected for texture evaluation,
both of them showed diVerences between the formulas
(P < 0.05). Formula 3 had the highest scores for “juiciness”
which could be related with its higher fat content since
reduction of fat content in frankfurters has been reported
to decrease juiciness (Park, Rhee, Kccton, & Rhee, 1989).
Formula 1 showed the highest hardness (P < 0.05) by
instrumental analysis, and it was detected and scored as
“Wrmness” by the 30 member panel.
Table 3
Textural parameters of diVerent types of ostrich burgers
Formulation Hardness Springness Cohesiveness Gumminess Chewiness
(g) (mm) (g) (g mm)
Formula 1A 11364.49a 3.33a 7374.87a 83.81a 2794.65a
Formula 2 5838.79b 3.33a 3612.37b 21.09b 703.29b
Formula 3 3207.46c 3.65a 2662.46c 8.53c 311.72c
a–c
Values in the same column bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly
diVerent (P < 0.05).
Formula 1, 30% second class ostrich meat; Formula 2, 30% beef; For-
mula 3, 30% pig backfat.
 J. Fernández-López et al. / Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303 299

a a
7 a
b b
b b
6 a
c a a a b
c
c
5
Sensorial scores

0
color intensity hue juiciness shine firmness

Formula 1 Formula 2 Formula 3

Fig. 1. Results of sensory evaluation carried out in diVerent types of ostrich burgers (Formula 1, 30% second class ostrich meat; Formula 2, 30% beef; For-
mula 3, 30% pig backfat). Color intensity: 0 (extremely light) – 7 (extremely dark); Hue: 0 (pale pink) – 7 (brown); Shine: 0 (dull) – 7 (bright); Juiciness: 0
(extremely dry) – 7 (extremely moist); Firmness: 0 (extremely soft) – 7 (extremely tough). a–c Values in the same attribute bearing diVerent letters are signiW-
cantly diVerent (P < 0.05).

a* 12
a, x
11

10
b, x a, y
9

8
c, x b, y
a, z
a, z
7

6 b, z
c, y b, z

5
c, z
c, z

4
1 3 6 9
Storage time (days)

Formula 1 Formula 2 Formula 3

Fig. 2. Redness (a¤) during storage time in diVerent types of ostrich burgers (Formula 1, 30% second class ostrich meat; Formula 2, 30% beef; Formula 3,
30% pig backfat). a–c Values in the same storage time bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05). x–z Values in the same formula bearing
diVerent letters are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).
300 J. Fernández-López et al. / Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303

9
A

8
w

6
Log10 cfu/g

x
5

4 y
z

2
1 3 6 9
Storage time (days)

9
B

8
w

7
Log10 cfu/g

x
5

4 y
z

2
1 3 6 9
Storage time (days)

Formula 1 Formula 2 Formula 3

Fig. 3. Counts of aerobic bacteria (A) and pshycrotrophyc microbiota (B) on diVerent types of ostrich burgers (Formula 1, 30% second class ostrich meat;
Formula 2, 30% beef; Formula 3, 30% pig backfat) during storage time. There were no diVerences (P > 0.05) between formulas for A and B. w–z Values
bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).

Consumer acceptance is a complex process in which
perceived information from foods is integrated during
tasting. While instrumental testing provides useful infor-
mation, the complexity of the changes due to new raw
meats application in meat products in relation to accep-
tance could only be perceived by discrimination and con-
sumer tasting (Kennedy, Stewart-Knox, Mitchell, &
Thurnham, 2004; Lawless & Heymann, 1999). “Overall
acceptability” was similar (P > 0.05) for Formulas 1 and 2
(8.05 § 0.22), with showing Formula 3 the lowest
(P < 0.05) scores (6.99 § 0.35), even though they still repre-
sent good acceptability.
3.2. Burgers shelf-life
pH levels increased during storage time for all formulas,
reaching similar values (6.20 § 0.05) at the end of the stor-
age. This increase has been observed in other comminuted
meat products and it has been attributed to proteolysis
(Bond, Marchello, & Slanger, 2001).
 J. Fernández-López et al. / Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303 301

In all formulas, Lightness and yellowness showed no
diVerences (P < 0.05) during storage time, but redness
decreased as storage time progressed (P < 0.05; Fig. 2). a¤
values faded very rapidly during the Wrst 6 days. Phillips,
Mancini, Sun, Lynch, and Faustman (2001) reported a
decrease in a¤ values of ground beef linked to longer stor-
age time. This is not surprising as meat which has been
stored longer would be expected to have predominantly
either oxymyoglobin (OMb) or (metmyoglobin) MMb, as
opposed to deoxymyoglobin (DMb), which in turn would
predispose the meat to a faster browning rate (Hunt, Sor-
heim, & Slinde, 1995, 1999).
No textural properties of burgers showed diVerences due
to storage time (P > 0.05). DiVerences in texture have been
only found for type of meat (formulas) and have been pre-
viously discussed.
The growth of aerobic and psychrotrophic microbiota was
similar (P > 0.05) for all burger formulas (Fig. 3). Initial
counts in ostrich burgers were higher than those reported
for minced beef (<3 Log10ufc/g) which could be due to the
higher pH of ostrich meat that favours bacterial growth
(Jackson, AcuV, & Dickson, 1997). In all samples, counts of
aerobic and psychrotrophic microbiota reached at the end
of the experiment (9 d) were higher (P < 0.05) than 7
Log10cfu/g which is considered spoilage level for this type
of product (Jackson et al., 1997).
TBARS values of all batches increased during storage
time, Formula 3 showing higher (P < 0.05) TBARS values
than Formulas 1 and 2, at all sampling times (Fig. 4). These
diVerences are in accordance with the high fat content of
samples from Formula 3. The rate of TBARS evolution
during storage time was faster than that reported for
ostrich meat stored under refrigeration conditions. It could
be due to the mincing process (which favours the oxygen
access) and to the prooxidant eVect attributed to some
additives used in burger formulation, especially salt. In all
batches, TBARS values increased more quickly after three
days of storage.
From the 10 sensory attributes evaluated, only two
(rancid Xavour and overall acceptability) provided useful
information on the changes due to formulation and stor-
age time, whereas for colour intensity, hue, shine, salti-
ness, fatiness, residual parameters, Wrmness and juiciness
no diVerences (P > 0.05) were detected for any of the fac-
tors (data not shown). The products were fairly stable for
the Wrst three days, with some diVerences becoming appar-
ent between day 3 and 6. Fig. 5 shows at day 6 of storage,
the diVerences in rancid Xavour between treatments
(P < 0.05) were consistent with diVerences measured as
TBARS values (Fig. 4). This correlation between sensory
and chemical methods was less evident at days 1 and 3,
because at these points, changes in TBARS seem to show
diVerences before panelist could perceive the increased
rancidity. Whereas these results suggest that panelists may
not be sensitive enough to detect diVerences in TBARS
values below a threshold, sensory scores provided better

a, w

3 a, x
TBARS (mg MA/Kg sample)

b, w

b, w
b, x
a, y
2
a, z b, x
b, y
b, z
b, y
1 b, z

0
1 3 6 9
Storage time (days)

Formula 1 Formula 2 Formula 3

Fig. 4. Lipid oxidation (TBARS) evolution during storage time in diVerent types of ostrich burgers (Formula 1, 30% second class ostrich meat; Formula 2,
30% beef; Formula 3, 30% pig backfat). a–b Values in the same storage time bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05). w–z Values in the
same formula bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).
302 J. Fernández-López et al. / Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303

10

8 a, x 6 a, x a, x
7 a, x a, x
Sensor ial scores

a, x
6 b, x a, x
b, x
5 b, y
b, x
4 a, y a, y b, x
a, y 14
3 a, y
a, y a, y
2

0
0 3 6
Storage time (days)
F1-Rancid flavor F2-Rancid flavor F3-Rancid flavor
F2-Overall acceptability F3-Overall acceptability F1-Overall acceptability

Fig. 5. Evolution of sensory scores for perception of “rancid Xavor” and “overall acceptability” of ostrich burgers (Formula 1, 30% second class ostrich
meat; Formula 2, 30% beef; Formula 3, 30% pig backfat) during storage time. a–b Values in the same storage time bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly
diVerent (P < 0.05), for each attribute. x–y Values in the same formula bearing diVerent letters are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05), for each attribute.

discrimination at day 6 in comparison to TBARS. Overall References

acceptability scores (Fig. 5) showed an inverse relation
with TBARS and rancid Xavour perception (Figs. 4 and 5,
respectively).
4. Conclusions
The results from this study indicate that the manufac-
ture of burgers from ostrich meat is a viable option for an
industry that has largely released its products to the fresh
meat market. The three formulas assayed had good over-
all acceptability. Burgers formulated with 100% ostrich
meat (Formula 1) or mixed beef and ostrich meat (For-
mula 2) are the preferred formulas and result in more
healthy products based on their chemical composition
(less fat). The highest fat content in Formula 3 is responsi-
ble for its increased lipid oxidation. The changes in fat
and meat pigments that occur during burgers storage
reduce the acceptability of the burgers. Regarding their
shelf life, all types of burgers had an unacceptable micro-
bial load at the end of the storage time which is a sign of
spoilage. Further studies should evaluate the use of pre-
servatives and antioxidants in order to enhance burgers
presentation.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to “Avestruces El
Rincón” for meat samples. The Wnancial support of BAN-
CAJA and Miguel Hernández University through the
Research Project IPLP-01 is greatly acknowledged.
ACADE. (2004). Informe anual de la Asociación de Criadores de Avestruces
de España. Madrid, Spain.
AWW, A. A., & Azen, S. P. (1979). Statistical analysis. A computer oriented
approach. London: Academic.
AMSA (1995). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and
instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. Chicago: Ameri-
can Meat Science Association in cooperation with National Livestock
and Meat Board.
AOAC (1995). OYcial methods of analysis (15th ed.). Washington, DC:
Association of OYcial Analytical Chemist.
ASTM (1986). Physical requirements. Guidelines for sensory evaluation
laboratories. In STP 913. Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing
and Materials.
ASTM (1988). Standard and sensory evaluation of materials and products.
In R. C. Storer (Ed.), ASTM manual series. Philadelphia, PA: American
Society for Testing and Materials.
Aznar, A., Sendra, E., Fernández-López, J., Sayas-Barberá, E., Flores, A.,
& Pérez-Alvarez, J. A. (2000). Evaluación de parámetros de calidad de
tres categor´as comerciales de carne de avestruz. Alimentaria, 316, 65–
67.
Böhme, H. M., Mellet, F. D., Dicks, L. M. T., & Basson, D. S. (1996). Pro-
duction of salami from ostrich meat with strains of Lactobacillus sake,
Lactobacillus curvatus and Micrococcus sp. Meat Science, 3, 173–180.
Bond, J. M., Marchello, M. J., & Slanger, W. D. (2001). Physical, chemical
and shelf-life characteristics of low-fat ground beef patties formulated
with waxy hull-less barley. Journal of Muscle Foods, 12, 53–69.
Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture proWle analysis (p. 72).. Food Technology,
32, 62–66.
Cavestanty, M., Colmenero, F. J., Solas, M. T., & Carballo, J. (1994).
Incorporation of sardine surimi in bologna sausage containing diVer-
ent fat levels. Meat Science, 38, 27–37.
Cofrades, S., Guerra, M. A., Carballo, J., Fernández-Mart´n, F., & Jimé-
nez-Colmenero, F. (2000). Plasma protein and soy Wber content eVect
on bologna sausage properties as inXuenced by fat level. Journal of
Food Science, 65, 281–287.
 J. Fernández-López et al. / Meat Science 73 (2006) 295–303
Fernández-López, J., Fernández-Ginés, J. M., Aleson-Carbonell, L., Sayas-
Barberá, E., Sendra, E., & Pérez-Alvarez, J. A. (2003). Functional com-
pounds from citrus by-products and their application in meat prod-
ucts. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 15, 176–185.
Fernández-López, J., Pérez-Alvarez, J. A., & Aranda-Catalá, V. (2000).
EVect of mincing degree on colour properties in pork meat. Color
Research and Application, 25, 376–380.
Fernández-López, J., Pérez-Alvarez, J. A., & Fernández-López, J. A.
(1997). Thiobarbituric acid test for monitoring lipid oxidation in meat.
Food Chemistry, 59, 345–353.
Fernández-López, J., Sayas-Barberá, E., Navarro, C., Serra, E., & Pérez-
Alvarez, J. A. (2003). Physical, chemical and sensory properties of
cooked sausage made with ostrich meat. Journal of Food Science, 68,
1511–1515.
Fisher, P., HoVman, L. C., & Mellet, F. D. (2000). Processing and nutri-
tional characteristics of value added ostrich products. Meat Science,
55, 251–254.
Hunt, M. C., Acton, J. C., Benedict, R. C., Calkins, C. R., Cornforth, D. P.,
Jeremiah, L. E., et al. (1991). Guidelines for meat color evaluation. Chi-
cago: American Meat Science Association and National Live Stock
and Meat Board.
Hunt, M. C., Sorheim, O., & Slinde, E. (1995). EVects of myoglobin form on
internal cooked color development in ground beef. In Proceedings of
41st international congress of meat science and technology (pp. 394–395).
Hunt, M. C., Sorheim, O., & Slinde, E. (1999). Color and heat denaturation
of myoglobin forms in ground beef. Journal of Food Science, 64, 847–851.
IFT (1981). Institute of Food Technologists. Sensory evaluation guide for
testing food and beverage products. Journal of Food Science, 11, 50–59.
Jackson, T. C., AcuV, G. R., & Dickson, J. S. (1997). Carne de mam´feros,
aves y pescado. In M. P. Doyle, L. R. Beuchat, & T. J. Montville (Eds.),
Microbiolog´a de los Alimentos: fundamentos y fronteras. Zaragoza,
Spain: Acrib.
Johanson, G., Tornberg, E., & Lundström, K. (1991). Meat colour in loin
and ham muscle of normal meat quality from Hampshire, Swedish
Landrace and Yorkshire pigs. In 37th International Congress of Meat
Science and Technology (pp. 394–397), 1–6 September 1996, Kulmbach,
Germany.
Jones, S. D. M., Robertson, W. M., & Bereton, D. (1995). The ostrich as a
meat animal. Canadian Ostrich, 4, 18–20.
Judge, M., Aberle, E., Forrest, J., Hedrich, H. Y., & Merkel, R. (1989). Prin-
ciples of meat science. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
KauVman, R., Joo, S. T., Schultz, C., Warner, R., & Faustman, C. (1991).
Measuring water-holding capacity in post-rigor muscle. In 47th annual
303
reciprocal meat conference (pp. 70–72). American Meat Science Associ-
ation.
Kennedy, O., Stewart-Knox, B., Mitchell, P., & Thurnham, D. (2004). The
inXuence of context upon consumer sensory evaluation of chicken-
meat quality. British Food Journal, 106, 158–165.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1999). Sensory evaluation of food: princi-
ples and practices. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.
Littinandana, S., Kenney, P. B., & Slider, S. D. (2005). Cryoprotectants
aVect physical properties of restructured trout during frozen storage.
Journal of Food Science, 70, C35–C42.
Paleari, M. A., Camisasca, S., Beretta, G., Renon, P., Corsico, P., Bertolo,
G., et al. (1998). Ostrich meat: physico-chemical characteristics and
composition with turkey and bovine meat. Meat Science, 48, 205–210.
Papadina, S. N., & Bloukas, J. G. (1999). EVect of fat level and storage con-
ditions on quality characteristics of traditional Greek sausages. Meat
Science, 51, 103–113.
Park, J., Rhee, K. S., Kccton, J. T., & Rhee, K. C. (1989). Properties of low-
fat frankfuters containing monounsatured and omega-3 polyunsatu-
rated oils. Journal of Food Science, 54, 500–504.
Phillips, A. L., Mancini, R., Sun, Q., Lynch, M. P., & Faustman, C. (2001).
EVect of erythorvic acid on cooked color in ground beef. Meat Science,
57, 31–34.
Pietrasik, Z. (1999). EVect of content of protein, fat and modiWed starch on
binding textural characteristics and colour of comminuted scalded sau-
sages. Meat Science, 51, 17–25.
Rosmini, M. R., Perlo, F., Perez-Alvarez, J. A., Pagan-Moreno, M. J.,
Gago-Gago, M. A., Lopez-Santoveña, F., et al. (1996). TBA test by
extractive method applied to pate. Meat Science, 42, 103–110.
Sales, J., & Hayes, J. P. (1996). Proximate, amino acid and mineral compo-
sition of ostrich meat. Food Chemistry, 56, 167–170.
Sales, J. (1996). Histological, biophysical, physical and chemical character-
istics of diVerent ostrich muscles. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agricultural, 70, 109–114.
Sales, J. (1998). Fatty acid composition and cholesterol content of diVerent
ostrich muscles. Meat Science, 49, 489–492.
STATISTICA. (1989). Statistica for Windows Release 5.0A (320 p.). Tulsa,
OK, USA: Statsoft Inc.
Walter, J. M., Soliah, L., & Dorsett, D. (2000). Ground ostrich: a compari-
son with ground beef. Journal of the American Dietary Association, 100,
244–245.
Yu, L., Scalin, L., Wilson, J., & Schmidt, G. (2002). Rosemary extracts as
inhibitors of lipid oxidation and color changes in cooked turkey prod-
ucts during refrigerated storage. Journal of Food Science, 67, 582–585.