Processing of Jerky meat in Iraq using soya sauce, sweet chili sauce and special spices

الملخص EN

This research was done in it in the laboratories of department of animal production/agriculture college/Tikrit university from 2/12/2016 to 2/2/2017 the beef meat loin samples collected from the butchers shop.

Then the muscle (longissimussdorsi) separated for use in the manufacture of jerky.

The meat dried in the oven after treated with some additives divided into four treatments: control treatment1(without additions) , treatment2 (Soya Sauce added) , treatment3 (special spices added) , treatment4(sweet chili sauce added).

The moisture and protein percentage of jerky pieces were measured then panel test was conducted by specialized professors in the department .

The results showed a significant differences in moisture contents between four treatments where the percentage was low in the third treatment than the others (23.45±0.45)% also the control treatment which was (25.16 ±0.22) %.

protein percentage, the results indicated that there was a significant decreased in the protein percentage for treatment 2 and 4 which were (64.94±0.28)% and (65.02±0.74)% respectively .

while this percentage was increased significantly in1 and 3 treatments ( 67.02±0.33)% and (68.52±0.11)% respectively.

For the PH value, the results indicated that there was a significant decreased in the pH value for treatments 2,3 and 4 (5.66±0.04)(5.59±0.00)(5.71±0.01) compared to the control treatment which was (5.93±0.03).

For the panel test, the results indicated that there was no significant differences in rancidity except accounting differences only where treatment 4 was superior than the other treatments .

as for the color, treatment 2,3 and 4 showed significant differences for the desired color of the Jerky by the consumer as it reached (4.11±0.63) (4.74±0.17) and (4.90±0.62) respectively compared to the treatment 1 (3.12 ± 0.22).

For the tenderness, there was no significant differences between the four treatments where the tenderness was decreased for all treatments.

Finally, for the general acceptance, treatment 1 and 3 were superior as it reached (4.94±0.71)(5.00±0.65) respectively compared to treatment 2 and 4 as it reached (3.11±0/61)(4.28±0.58).