Go to Top Go to Bottom
Anim Biosci > Volume 34(12); 2021 > Article
Benli and Barutcu: Sequential use of real-time polymerase chain reaction and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay techniques verifies adulteration of fermented sausages with chicken meat

Abstract

Objective

Detection of adulteration in processed meats is an important issue for some countries due to substitution of beef with a cheaper source of protein like poultry. In this study, the presence of chicken meat was investigated using real-time polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) techniques to verify adulteration of fermented sausage samples.

Methods

A total of 60 commercial samples were collected from 20 establishments in three replicates including 10 fermented sausage manufacturers and 10 butchers to investigate the presence of chicken meat with the sequential use of real-time PCR and ELISA techniques. In addition, pH, moisture content, water activity and color values of the samples were determined.

Results

Both real-time PCR and ELISA showed agreement on the presence or absence of chicken meat in 55 out of 60 fermented sausage samples and chicken meat was identified with both methods in 16 samples. Five samples produced inconsistent results for the presence of chicken meat in the first run. Nevertheless, the presence of chicken meat was verified with both methods when these samples were analyzed for the second time. In addition, the average physico-chemical values of the fermented sausage samples tested positive for chicken meat were not significantly different from some of those fermented sausage samples tested negative for the chicken meat.

Conclusion

The sequential use of real-time PCR and ELISA techniques in fermented sausages could be beneficial for the government testing programs to eliminate false negatives for detection of adulteration with chicken meat. Furthermore, consumers should not rely on some of the quality cues including color to predict the adulteration of fermented sausages with chicken meat since there were no statistical differences among some of the samples tested positive and negative for chicken meat.

INTRODUCTION

Food authenticity and adulteration are among the issues concerning consumers [1]. Authentication of food ingredients is important for human health due to allergenic and toxic substances. In addition, consumers demand to know the ingredients in their foods because of their religious beliefs or preferences [2]. Many countries require meat species must be clearly labelled for processed meat products to inform their consumers. Although meat species are mostly distinguishable for wholesale cuts, the authentication of the species requires more detailed analysis in processed meats due to changes in texture, flavor and color [3]. Nevertheless, intentional adulteration of processed meats to gain economic advantages has been practiced by some producers all around the world [46]. Combining an expensive meat such as beef with a cheaper source of protein such as poultry or pork has been a significant issue for countries like Korea, Japan, China, and Turkey [2]. Thus, combining beef with poultry or any other type of meat is prohibited when preparing processed meats including beef sucuk in Turkey due to the concerns of the intentional adulteration [7]. Traditional Turkish sucuk is considered a dry or semi-dry, fermented sausage produced without any heat treatment. However, heat treated sucuks are also available in the market and produced following a short period of fermentation (12 to 24 h) and a drying step [8].
Fast, accurate and reliable analysis methods have been developed to detect the intentional or unintentional adulteration related to the use of different types of meat in processed meats. Immunological, electrophoretic, serological, and genetic methods are among these methods although real-time polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) techniques are the most preferred methods due to their sensitivity, accuracy, reliability, and rapid results [3,9,10]. The PCR is a method based on the amplification of a specific sequence of DNA. The number of copies of the target sequence is increased exponentially in each cycle of the PCR to produce millions of copies after repeating the cycles numerous times. Thermal cycling is applied for melting the DNA into single strands and replicating the target sequence via enzymatic replication. In addition, real-time PCR method is a quantitative PCR method that can be achieved by measuring the fluorescence signal that increases simultaneously with the amplification. The real-time PCR method uses an optical reading system and probes consisting of synthetic oligonucleotides. When PCR amplification is performed, the probes form fluorescent radiation by binding amplified target DNA strands. They have been designed to fit the specific sequence of the target DNA to be able to produce fluorescent radiation [912]. ELISA is a protein-based immunological technique in which a soluble antigen or antibody is bound to a solid surface (immunosorbent), such as a 96-well plastic microtiter plate. Then a blocking buffer including a nonspecific protein like bovine serum albumin is applied to block the remaining uncoated surface on the plate. Different immunoassay reagents can be used to incubate for a specified time and at a temperature. The coated surface is then washed to separate free or unbound molecules from bound molecules. A colored end product is obtained due to the conversion of a colorless substrate to a colored product by an enzyme. The developed color can be detected visually or spectrophotometrically [12].
Real-time PCR and ELISA techniques are extremely sensitive identifying meat species in mixtures [3,9]. Although this sensitivity could be advantageous for detecting different meat species in processed products, it could also create some problems due to the cross contamination since most of the manufacturers produce beef and poultry products in the same facilities. Therefore, in Turkey, public and private laboratories have been using the ELISA method to search for poultry meat and use the real-time PCR method as a verification approach. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the presence of chicken meat by sequential use of real-time PCR and ELISA techniques to effectively verify the detection of adulteration in sucuk samples. In addition, pH, moisture content, water activity, and color values of the samples were investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 beef fermented sausage samples were collected from 20 establishments in three replicates considering different production dates. Thirty of the samples were collected from 10 establishments which had business approval certificates in accordance with the Turkish Food Codex Communiqué on Meat, Prepared Meat Mixtures, and Meat Products (Communiqué No: 2018/52) for sucuk production. In addition, a total of 30 samples produced with the traditional method were collected from 10 different butchers located in the areas known to have intensive sucuk production in Adana region. However, none of these butchers had a business approval certificate for sucuk production.

DNA extraction and quantification

DNA extractions were performed from 100 mg of homogenized sucuk sample using the Nucleospin Blood kit (Macherey-Nagel GmbH & Co. KG, Dueren, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Lysis was accomplished by incubating at 65°C for 30 min using a dry block thermostat (Boeco, TDB-100, Hamburg, Germany). Preheated elution buffer BE (70°C) was used to elute DNA. The purity and concentration (ng/μL) of the resulting DNA was measured using BioSpec-nano spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Japan).

Real-time polymerase chain reaction

The samples were treated with real-time PCR Kit for Chicken Species Detection (SNP Biotechnology, Ankara, Turkey) and qualitatively analyzed using a Real-time PCR (Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast, Thermoscientific, Foster City, CA, USA) according to the kit’s protocol. The PCR amplification cycles included an initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 min, followed by 30 cycles of 95°C for 15 s and 60°C for 1 min. Positive and negative controls were included for each PCR run. After the end of the PCR procedure, the amplifications obtained with the target gene dye FAM (dye absorbing 494 and 515 nm wavelengths) and the internal control dye HEX (dye absorbing 535 and 555 nm wavelengths) were evaluated. The results were presented as the presence or absence of chicken meat in the fermented sausage samples according to Ct (cycle threshold) values.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

Fermented sausage samples were extracted, and the poultry meat was determined with the species-specific type of sandwich ELISA test kit (ELISA-TEK Cooked Meat Poultry Species Kit, ELISA Technologies, Inc., Gainesville, FL, USA). Approximately 20 g of homogenized samples were weighed for the extraction. Then 40 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride solution was added and samples were subjected to heat treatment in a microwave oven (Vestel, MD,700 W, Istanbul, Turkey) for 2 min. Approximately 1 mL was taken into 1.5 mL capped tubes from the upper phase of the samples after cooling down to the room temperature. The tubes were then centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 2 min (Eppendorf, 5424, Enfield, CT, USA). The supernatant was transferred into 1.5 mL tubes to obtain the extract. The extracts then treated according to manufacturer’s instruction before the absorbance values were taken at 414 and 492 nm wavelengths using an ELISA reader (Thermo, Multiscan Spectrum, Waltham, MA, USA) and the results were determined as the presence or absence of chicken meat in the fermented sausage samples.

pH, moisture content, and water activity

pH values in the slurries were measured using a calibrated pH meter (S220, Mettler-Toledo, LLC, Columbus, OH, USA). The samples were dried in drying oven (Memmert, Universal Oven Tech., Schwabach, Germany) at 100°C for 16 h to determine the moisture contents [12,13]. A calibrated instrument of LabMASTER-aw system (Novasina, Lachen, Switzerland) was used to determine water activity (aw) values of the samples.

Color analysis

A Konica Minolta Colorimeter (CR-400, Minolta C., Ramsey, NJ, USA) was used to take color space values of L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b* (yellowness) from the outer and inner surfaces of samples. The colorimeter equipped with an 8 mm aperture size was calibrated using a standard white tile (Y = 93.7, x = 0.3157, y = 0.3323) with the setting of illuminant D-65 and 2° observer. Three random measurements were taken from different locations of outer and inner surfaces [14].

Statistical analyses

Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS software version 20 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY, USA). Significant differences were determined using analysis of variance (One-way) procedures and Tukey multiple comparison test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Real-time polymerase chain reaction and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

Both real-time PCR and ELISA results agreed on the presence or absence of chicken meat in 55 out of 60 fermented sausage samples (Table 1). Among the 55 samples, the presence of chicken meat was detected in 16 samples with both methods. Thus, both real-time PCR and ELISA results indicated that the second and third samples of Manufacturers 3 and 8 and all three samples of Butchers 6, 7, 8, and 9 were adulterated with chicken meat.
Conversely, five samples produced inconsistent results for the presence of chicken meat with both methods. ELISA results indicated the presence of chicken meat in the first samples of Manufacturer 3 and 8 and all three samples of Manufacturer 5. However, the presence of chicken meat was not detected in these samples by real-time PCR in the first run. Nevertheless, all these 5 controversial samples were analyzed for the second time using real-time PCR and ELISA methods to verify the results (Table 2). The results indicated the presence of chicken meat in all five samples and verified the adulteration of all samples collected from Manufacturers 3, 5, and 8. These results suggested that sequential use of real-time PCR and ELISA techniques could be beneficial to verify adulteration of fermented sausages with chicken meat to eliminate false negatives. Similarly, Perestam et al [3] reported that using both real-time PCR and ELISA techniques together could be a beneficial approach for identification of species in meat products that contain additional ingredients [3]. Furthermore, the inconsistent results obtained in the first run could be due to a number of reasons including the presence of some inhibitory ingredients, amount of the sample used for the testing and difficulties to determine species in high fat processed meats. The extreme sensitivity of the real time PCR technique is mentioned in the literature [3,15,16]. However, it was also reported that the mixing distributes the ingredients through the sausage in an unpredictable manner [17]. Thus, addition or cross contamination of small amounts of chicken meat might not be distributed thoroughly in sausages. Consequently, the lower amount of sample used (100 mg) in the real-time PCR technique could have reduced the adequate representation of the samples in the current study. Conversely, the amount of sample (20 g) used in the ELISA method was thought to affect the results since it might have represented the sample more adequately than the real-time PCR method.
Moreover, the samples collected from 4 out of 10 butchers (Butchers 6, 7, 8, and 9) were positive for the presence of chicken meat when analyzed with both real-time PCR and ELISA methods in the first run. This might be an indication of intentional adulteration of the products with chicken meat. Chicken meat is a cheaper alternative to beef for manufacturing sucuk in Turkey. In addition, none of the butchers had business approval certificates to produce sucuk, thus their products might not be tested regularly by the government agency for the presence of chicken meat. Conversely, real-time PCR was only able to positively identify chicken meat in 4 out of 9 samples collected from 3 manufacturers (Manufacturer 3, 5, and 8) in the first run. However, all three samples collected from those 3 manufacturers were positive for the presence of chicken meat with ELISA. All these manufacturers had business approval certificates to produce sucuk and their products regularly tested for the presence of chicken meat according to government testing program. Thus, failure of real-time PCR to detect chicken meat in the first run might be an indication of an unintentional adulteration of the products with chicken meat. The production of sucuk using only chicken meat (chicken meat sucuk) is not prohibited according to Turkish Food Codex Communiqué on Meat, Prepared Meat Mixtures, and Meat Products (Communiqué No: 2018/52). Therefore, cross contamination could be the reason during the production of different types of fermented sausages using the same equipment or processing line.

Physico-chemical analyses

Table 3 shows the mean pH, moisture, and water activity (aw) values of fermented sausage samples. Butcher 1 (4.64) and Manufacturer 9 (6.50) had the lowest and highest pH values, respectively (p<0.05). pH values were highly variable regardless of the producer (manufacturer or butcher) and the type of sucuk (heat treated or traditional). In a study, Gencelep et al [18] reported that pH values were between 4.53 and 6.29 for 30 sucuk samples purchased from different cities. Similarly, Siriken et al [19] collected 100 sucuk samples from Afyon province and reported that pH values were between 4.84 and 6.50. Benli [8] also indicated a higher variation among the pH values of 36 sucuk samples purchased from Adana province ranging from 4.69 to 6.56. High pH values observed in sucuk samples might be related to use of DFD (dark, firm, and dry) meat which had an ultimate pH in the range of 6.5 to 6.8 and/or poor manufacturing techniques [20]. Since lactic acid formation is essential for the fermented sausage products [21], the previous studies and the current study indicated a lack of standardized methods for sucuk production in Turkey.
Manufacturers 7 and 9 had the highest average moisture contents of 46.52% and 47.86%, respectively while butcher 2 had the lowest moisture content (32.72%) (p<0.05). All the fermented sausage samples produced by the manufacturers with a business approval certificate (except manufacturer 2) were heat treated sucuks and the average moisture contents of the samples were less than the specified maximum value (50%) in Turkish Food Codex, Meat and Meat Products Communiqué (Communiqué No: 2012/74). However, the average moisture contents of the fermented sausage samples produced with a traditional method by seven butchers and manufacturer 2 were above the specified maximum value (40%) in the communiqué, although some values were close to the limit.
Butcher 2 and manufacturer 9 had the lowest (0.8580) and highest (0.9100) mean aw values, respectively (p<0.05). Gencelep et al [18] were reported that aw values of the sucuk samples were between 0.761 and 0.960. The results reported in the current study and the previous studies were also indicated a higher variation and a lack of standardized production methods for the sucuk manufacturing among the producers.
Consumers are influenced by the expected product quality of food products before making a buying decision. The quality cues are observed by consumers during shopping for the prediction of the quality performance of that product while consuming. As an intrinsic cue, the color is among the most important quality cues for consumer acceptability of the meat products [22]. The mean outer and inner surface L* values of fermented sausage samples ranged between 37.20 to 47.76 and 42.81 to 52.44, respectively (Tables 4, 5). The mean outer and inner surface a* values of samples ranged between 5.31 to 18.55 and 14.25 to 26.36, respectively. The mean outer and inner surface b* values of samples ranged between 14.31 to 28.31 and 24.34 to 37.18, respectively. Although the color is among the most important quality cues for consumer acceptability of the meat products, outer and inner surface L*, a*, b* values of fermented sausage samples tested positive for chicken meat were not significantly different from some of those samples tested negative for the chicken meat. Thus, the consumers might not be able to detect any adulteration of sucuks with chicken meat by visually inspecting the products during the purchase.

CONCLUSION

Fermented sausage samples collected from local manufacturers and butchers were tested using real-time PCR and ELISA techniques to verify detection of chicken meat. In the first run, both real-time PCR and ELISA methods identified the presence of chicken meat in all samples of 4 out of 10 butchers (Butchers 6, 7, 8, and 9) indicating an intentional adulteration. Although five samples produced inconsistent results in the first run, all samples were tested positive for the presence of the chicken meat in the second run. All of five controversial samples were collected from the fermented sausage manufacturers with business approval certificates. Since these manufacturers’ products were tested for the presence of chicken meat regularly by the government agency, the controversial results might be an indication of unintentional adulteration of the products with chicken meat due the cross contamination. However, these manufacturers would be still considered as adulterating their products intentionally since there is a zero tolerance policy for the presence of the chicken meat in beef sucuks. In addition, physico-chemical analyses indicated higher variabilities regardless of the producer (manufacturer or butcher) and the type of sucuk (heat treated or traditional) among the sucuk samples. As a conclusion, a sequential use of real-time PCR and ELISA techniques in fermented sausages could be beneficial for government testing programs to eliminate false negatives for detection of chicken meat adulteration.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Cukurova University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit (Project No: FYL-2016-7675).

Table 1
Real-time PCR and ELISA results of a total of 60 sucuk samples
Sucuk Sucuk type Real-time PCR results ELISA results


Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Manufacturer 1 Heat treated
Manufacturer 2 Traditional
Manufacturer 3 Heat treated + + + + +
Manufacturer 4 Heat treated
Manufacturer 5 Heat treated + + +
Manufacturer 6 Heat treated
Manufacturer 7 Heat treated
Manufacturer 8 Heat treated + + + + +
Manufacturer 9 Heat treated
Manufacturer 10 Heat treated
Butcher 1 Traditional
Butcher 2 Traditional
Butcher 3 Traditional
Butcher 4 Traditional
Butcher 5 Traditional
Butcher 6 Traditional + + + + + +
Butcher 7 Traditional + + + + + +
Butcher 8 Traditional + + + + + +
Butcher 9 Traditional + + + + + +
Butcher 10 Traditional

PCR, polymerase chain reaction; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Table 2
Real-time PCR and ELISA results of 5 controversial sucuk samples analyzed for the second time
Sucuk Sucuk type Real-time PCR results ELISA results


Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Manufacturer 3 Heat treated + NA1) NA + NA NA
Manufacturer 5 Heat treated + + + + + +
Manufacturer 8 Heat treated + NA NA + NA NA

PCR, polymerase chain reaction; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

1) Not available.

Table 3
Mean pH, moisture, and water activity values of a total of 60 sucuk samples
Sucuk Sucuk type pH±SD Moisture (%)±SD aw±SD
Manufacturer 1 Heat treated 4.84±0.06ef 45.05±0.47abcd 0.8820±0.0044cd
Manufacturer 2 Traditional 4.92±0.10ef 41.76±6.20cdefg 0.8780±0.0111de
Manufacturer 3 Heat treated 5.76±0.47bc 41.74±1.18cdefg 0.8833±0.0067bcd
Manufacturer 4 Heat treated 5.11±0.16def 44.72±1.57abcd 0.8860±0.0046bcd
Manufacturer 5 Heat treated 4.86±0.05ef 36.54±2.63h 0.8880±0.0053bcd
Manufacturer 6 Heat treated 5.07±0.15def 44.15±1.60abcde 0.9020±0.0046abc
Manufacturer 7 Heat treated 5.20±0.33cdef 46.52±0.65a 0.9047±0.0055ab
Manufacturer 8 Heat treated 4.66±0.03f 45.94±1.56ab 0.8997±0.0045abc
Manufacturer 9 Heat treated 6.50±0.43a 47.86±0.61a 0.9100±0.0053a
Manufacturer 10 Heat treated 5.01±0.02ef 42.58±0.62bcdef 0.8897±0.0032abcd
Butcher 1 Traditional 4.64±0.01f 38.07±1.87gh 0.8890±0.0036abcd
Butcher 2 Traditional 5.40±0.12cde 32.72±0.46i 0.8580±0.0200e
Butcher 3 Traditional 5.02±0.01ef 39.32±0.84fgh 0.8877±0.0015bcd
Butcher 4 Traditional 4.72±0.18f 44.72±1.34abcd 0.8890±0.0046abcd
Butcher 5 Traditional 4.70±0.07f 41.57±1.01defg 0.8963±0.0035abcd
Butcher 6 Traditional 4.68±0.03f 45.40±0.19abc 0.8923±0.0038abcd
Butcher 7 Traditional 4.86±0.02ef 42.74±0.66bcdef 0.8943±0.0070abcd
Butcher 8 Traditional 5.02±0.04ef 45.92±0.55ab 0.9043±0.0038ab
Butcher 9 Traditional 5.63±0.27bcd 40.84±0.36efg 0.8920±0.0070abcd
Butcher 10 Traditional 6.20±0.05ab 42.43±0.28bcdef 0.8967±0.0059abcd

SD, standard deviation.

a–i Means with different superscript letters are significantly different in the same column (p<0.05).

Table 4
Mean outer surface L*, a*, b* values of a total of 60 sucuk samples
Sucuk Sucuk type L*±SD a*±SD b*±SD
Manufacturer 1 Heat treated 43.67±1.38bcd 14.66±0.82cd 25.14±3.03abc
Manufacturer 2 Traditional 41.02±3.28cdefg 13.97±3.89d 21.01±4.45de
Manufacturer 3 Heat treated 44.68±5.37abc 17.32±2.51ab 21.57±4.43cde
Manufacturer 4 Heat treated 41.18±1.33bcdef 18.55±1.35a 22.54±1.37bcd
Manufacturer 5 Heat treated 44.44±1.76abc 17.14±0.96ab 26.49±1.71ab
Manufacturer 6 Heat treated 47.76±2.84a 15.64±0.48bcd 27.80±1.44a
Manufacturer 7 Heat treated 44.97±1.18ab 15.09±1.04bcd 28.31±2.50a
Manufacturer 8 Heat treated 40.53±1.50defg 14.41±0.79cd 18.99±1.83de
Manufacturer 9 Heat treated 39.68±2.70efg 16.34±1.89abc 19.55±3.00de
Manufacturer 10 Heat treated 37.75±1.20fg 13.92±0.89d 18.56±1.10e
Butcher 1 Traditional 38.61±1.68efg 14.38±1.12cd 21.27±2.31cde
Butcher 2 Traditional 37.20±1.88g 14.42±0.91cd 21.53±2.21cde
Butcher 3 Traditional 39.21±1.94efg 13.91±0.55d 21.33±1.73cde
Butcher 4 Traditional 39.42±2.74efg 13.86±1.09d 21.23±2.10cde
Butcher 5 Traditional 41.10±1.70bcdef 11.13±0.62e 22.88±1.59bcd
Butcher 6 Traditional 42.48±2.16bcde 14.47±0.87cd 20.25±1.34de
Butcher 7 Traditional 41.27±1.84bcdef 5.31±0.56f 14.31±1.24f
Butcher 8 Traditional 41.54±1.51bcdef 13.87±0.83d 20.08±1.63de
Butcher 9 Traditional 39.84±2.16defg 15.78±0.60bcd 21.78±1.60cde
Butcher 10 Traditional 44.91±1.65abc 16.73±2.96abc 26.38±2.07ab

SD, standard deviation.

a–g Means with different superscript letters are significantly different in the same column (p<0.05).

Table 5
Mean inner surface L*, a*, b* values of a total of 60 sucuk samples
Sucuk Sucuk type L*±SD a*±SD b*±SD
Manufacturer 1 Heat treated 49.62±2.00abcd 20.93±1.00cd 35.60±2.69ab
Manufacturer 2 Traditional 50.53±3.06abc 18.59±1.83cdef 29.66±6.75cdef
Manufacturer 3 Heat treated 46.68±4.65cdef 21.32±1.83bc 26.23±2.92ef
Manufacturer 4 Heat treated 43.78±3.59ef 26.36±1.94a 32.76±2.03abc
Manufacturer 5 Heat treated 52.44±1.81a 19.97±1.70cde 33.76±1.93def
Manufacturer 6 Heat treated 51.62±2.14abc 18.53±1.44cdef 28.99±3.64cdef
Manufacturer 7 Heat treated 51.73±2.48ab 17.39±1.67efg 37.18±1.57a
Manufacturer 8 Heat treated 48.55±1.46abcde 24.12±1.36ab 29.80±4.20cdef
Manufacturer 9 Heat treated 43.90±3.56ef 18.83±2.10cdef 24.34±1.83f
Manufacturer 10 Heat treated 51.24±0.94abc 17.47±2.01ef 30.87±4.09bcde
Butcher 1 Traditional 50.58±2.30abc 20.02±1.42cde 29.63±3.69cdef
Butcher 2 Traditional 42.81±3.33f 18.49±1.67cdef 26.30±1.72ef
Butcher 3 Traditional 47.49±2.74abcdef 19.52±1.30cdef 32.97±2.48abc
Butcher 4 Traditional 47.34±2.94bcdef 18.00±1.17def 29.11±2.79cdef
Butcher 5 Traditional 46.63±2.64cdef 14.25±1.93g 28.92±2.80cdef
Butcher 6 Traditional 49.40±5.50abcd 19.00±2.25cdef 27.19±5.24def
Butcher 7 Traditional 49.33±1.49abcd 16.46±3.61fg 36.26±2.29ab
Butcher 8 Traditional 46.88±2.85bcdef 20.65±2.09cd 31.88±2.25abcd
Butcher 9 Traditional 45.12±2.36def 20.54±1.73cde 28.57±1.74cdef
Butcher 10 Traditional 48.02±3.38abcde 18.19±1.44cdef 28.49±2.46cdef

SD, standard deviation.

a–g Means with different superscript letters are significantly different in the same column (p<0.05).

REFERENCES

1. Mandli J, El Fatimi I, Seddaoui N, Amine A. Enzyme immunoassay (ELISA/immunosensor) for a sensitive detection of pork adulteration in meat. Food Chem 2018; 255:380–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.184
crossref pmid
2. Ha J, Kim S, Lee J, et al. Identification of Pork adulteration in processed meat products using the developed mitochondrial DNA-Based Primers. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour 2017; 37:464–8. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2017.37.3.464
crossref pmid pmc
3. Perestam AT, Fujisaki KK, Nava O, Hellberg RS. Comparison of real-time PCR and ELISA-based methods for the detection of beef and pork in processed meat products. Food Control 2017; 71:346–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.07.017
crossref
4. Meira L, Costa J, Villa C, et al. EvaGreen real-time PCR to determine horse meat adulteration in processed foods. LWT-Food Sci Technol 2017; 75:408–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.08.061
crossref
5. Guntarti A, Martono S, Yuswanto A, Rohman A. Analysis of beef meatball adulteration with wild boar meat using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Int Food Res J 2017; 24:2451–5.

6. Jiru M, Stranska-Zachariasova M, Kocourek V, et al. Authentication of meat species and net muscle proteins: updating of an old concept. Czech J Food Sci 2019; 37:205–11. https://doi.org/10.17221/94/2019-cjfs
crossref
7. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Turkish Food Codex Communiqué on meat, prepared meat mixtures, and meat products (Communiqué No: 2018/52 [Internet]. Beştepe, Ankara, Turkey: Presidency of the Republic of Turkey, General Directorate of Law and Legislation; c2019. [cited 2019 Aug 01]. Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2019/01/20190129-4.htm

8. Benli H. Some chemical characteristics of sucuk and salami samples available at retail in Adana. Turkish J Agric Food Sci Technol 2017; 5:1307–11. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v5i11.1307-1311.1357
crossref
9. Vlachos A, Arvanitoyannis IS, Tserkezou P. An updated review of meat authenticity methods and applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2016; 56:1061–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.691573
crossref pmid
10. Kumar A, Kumar RR, Sharma BD, et al. Identification of Species origin of meat and meat products on the DNA basis: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2015; 55:1340–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.693978
crossref pmid
11. Kubista M, Andrade JM, Bengtsson M, et al. The real-time polymerase chain reaction. Mol Aspects Med 2006; 27:95–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2005.12.007
crossref pmid
12. Nielsen SS. Food analysis. 3rd edNew York, USA: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2003.

13. Horwitz William. AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 17th edGaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International; 2000.

14. Benli H, Sanchez-Plata MX, Keeton JT. Efficacy of epsilon-polylysine, lauric arginate, or acidic calcium sulfate applied sequentially for Salmonella reduction on membrane filters and chicken carcasses. J Food Prot 2011; 74:743–50. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-463
crossref pmid
15. Ballin NZ, Vogensen FK, Karlsson AH. Species determination - Can we detect and quantify meat adulteration? Meat Sci 2009; 83:165–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.003
crossref pmid
16. Bohme K, Calo-Mata P, Barros-Velazquez J, Ortea I. Review of recent DNA-based methods for main food-authentication topics. J Agric Food Chem 2019; 67:3854–64. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b07016
crossref pmid
17. Djurkin Kušec I, Samac D, Margeta V, Radišić Ž, Vincek D, Kušec G. Efficiency of PCR-RFLP and species-specific PCR for the identification of meat origin in dry sausages. Czech J Food Sci 2017; 35:386–91. https://doi.org/10.17221/243/2016-cjfs
crossref
18. Gencelep H, Kaban G, Aksu MI, Oz F, Kaya M. Determination of biogenic amines in sucuk. Food Control 2008; 19:868–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.08.013
crossref
19. Siriken B, Cadirci O, Inat G, Yenİsey C, Serter M, Ozdemİr M. Some microbiological and pysico-chemical quality of Turkish sucuk (sausage). J Anim Vet Adv 2009; 8:2027–32.

20. Aberle ED, Forrest JC, Gerrard DE, et al. Principles of meat science. 4th edDubuque, IA, USA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company; 2001.

21. Pearson AM, Gillett TA. Processed meats. 3rd edGaithersburg, MD, USA: Aspen Publishers, Inc; 1996.

22. Kerry J, Kerry J, Ledward D. Meat processing: improving quality. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2002.

TOOLS
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •  0 Scopus
  • 784 View
  • 57 Download
Related articles


Editorial Office
Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies(AAAP)
Room 708 Sammo Sporex, 23, Sillim-ro 59-gil, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08776, Korea   
TEL : +82-2-888-6558    FAX : +82-2-888-6559   
E-mail : animbiosci@gmail.com               

Copyright © 2021 by Animal Bioscience.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next