From Traditional to Exceptional: Impact of the

Full text

Turn on search term navigation

1. Introduction

Tarhana is a traditional fermented food product that was discovered and produced by the Turks in Central Asia and has spread to Anatolia, the Balkans, and many other countries [1]. According to the Turkish Standards Institute, tarhana is defined as “a food product obtained by mixing and kneading wheat flour, cracked wheat, semolina, or their mixture with yogurt, pepper, salt, onion, tomato, flavorings, and harmless plant substances, followed by fermentation, drying, grinding, and sieving process,” and it is categorized into four types: göce, flour, semolina, and mixed [2]. Uşak tarhana, classified under the “flour tarhana” category in this standard, is a registered geographical indication product and can be distinguished from other tarhanas by its higher vegetable content and a fermentation period of 21 days instead of the usual 1–7 days [3]. Fermentation in tarhana production is carried out by yeasts and lactic acid bacteria (LAB). Metabolites produced by LAB contribute to the unique taste, aroma, and flavor of tarhana, while also increasing the acidity of the environment and extending the product’s shelf life [4]. Due to its low pH (3.8–4.2) and low moisture content (6–9%), tarhana is non-hygroscopic.It is reported to have bacteriostatic activity against pathogens and spoilage organisms, and can be stored for 2–3 years without spoilage [5]. Tarhana is considered a good source of carbohydrates, proteins, minerals, vitamin A, and B-group vitamins with a unique acidic and sour taste, and strong yeast aroma [6]. Moreover, its preparation is cost-effective, and lactic acid fermentation offers benefits such as improved preservation, nutritional value, and sensory properties, enhancing the overall quality of the product [7]. Considering the absence of a standardized protocol for tarhana production, the nutritive values of tarhana exhibit a close correlation with the constituents and proportions of its ingredients. By modifying the types and quantities of ingredients employed in its formulation, it is feasible to exert control over the nutritive and sensory attributes of tarhana [8]. As part of the study, tarhana samples were prepared according to an Uşak tarhana recipe with geographical indication, as the control group. The ingredients used in tarhana production are provided in Table 1 [9].

Several researchers have discussed the microbiological, chemical, and sensorial characteristics of tarhana, mainly focusing on different production techniques or the substitution of wheat with other grains or the substitution of yogurt with other dairy products to evaluate the effects on quality and consumer acceptance in tarhana, as well as the enrichment of tarhana formulations with functional/bioactive components [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22].

This study is innovative in two key ways. A thorough evaluation of findings and perspectives from previous studies indicated that no prior study included chicken meat in tarhana recipes. Furthermore, there is no commercially available product labeled as “chicken meat powder (CMP)” and no description of any production methods in which chicken meat is cooked via a sous vide technique, dried with a conventional drying technique, and then ground to powder.

Consumers generally add chicken bouillon or chicken broth to boost the aroma and taste while making tarhana soup, as well as to enrich the nutritional value by supplementing deficient components such as minerals, protein, fat, and Na with chicken constituents. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to process a dried “chicken meat powder” that could be used in the Uşak tarhana soup process and to determine the impact of CMP addition on the nutritional and sensorial properties of tarhana samples. Visual representations of the traditional Uşak tarhana (T), chicken meat powder (CMP), and Uşak tarhana samples with 30% chicken meat powder (TCMP₃₀) are shown in Figure 1. The rate of incorporation of CMP into tarhana matrix was determined through sensory evaluations. Uşak tarhana has geographical indication; thus, limitations in permitted modifications to the product’s recipe presented a challenge in testing the hypothesis of the present study and guaranteeing distinctiveness, quality, and reputation. Another challenge was to produce a chicken meat powder that met consumer demand for enhanced nutritional value in ready-to-eat food formulations. This study contributes to existing literature on this topic by providing new insights into the nutritional properties of tarhana enhanced by the addition of dried chicken meat powder.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Material

For the production of Uşak tarhana with geographical indication, the formulation comprised wheat flour (Balikesir, Türkiye), full-fat yoğurt (Balikesir, Türkiye), sourdough (Balikesir, Türkiye), salt (Balikesir, Türkiye), red peppers [capia pepper (Capsicum annuum L. cv. Kapya) (Balikesir, Türkiye) and Sivaslı pepper (Balikesir, Türkiye) (Üç Burun)], onion (Balikesir, Türkiye), tomato (Balikesir, Türkiye), and dried mint (Balikesir, Türkiye). The ingredients for the tarhana (Balikesir, Türkiye) were obtained from a local market. The chicken meat utilized in this study was procured from HasTavuk Company (Balikesir, Türkiye).

2.2. The Production of Tarhana Enriched with Dried Chicken Meat Powder

Within the scope of this study, a control group was established, to produce tarhana in accordance with the geographical indication Uşak tarhana recipe (T). An innovative tarhana product enriched with dried chicken meat powder was prepared by incorporating varying proportions of chicken powder into the innovative recipe. The decision regarding the addition rate of chicken powder was based on sensory evaluations. Through preliminary production tests, the experimental design was narrowed down to four tarhana recipes, which were enriched with 20% (TCMP₂₀), 25% (TCMP₂₅), 30% (TCMP₃₀), and 35% chicken powder (TCMP₃₅), respectively.

To obtain CMP, chicken breast meat was separated from the bones and skin, diced, and vacuum-packed (Novac Kardelen 850 horizontal manual vacuum packaging machine, Sakarya, Türkiye). These packages were maintained in a water bath using the sous vide technique until the center temperature reached 72 °C. The chicken breast meat was then allowed to dry slowly in an oven at 50 °C, and the dried chicken breast meat was ground and made ready for use in the tarhana formulations.

To produce geographically indicated Uşak tarhana, red peppers, onion, tomato, and dried mint were passed through a food processor and mixed with full-fat yogurt in a mortar. The mixture was kept at room temperature (22 °C) overnight to allow spontaneous fermentation. To prepare sourdough, a dough composed of flour and water was allowed to rest at room temperature. The resulting mixture, along with the sourdough, underwent kneading with the addition of wheat flour, transforming it into dough. The dough was then covered and allowed to undergo fermentation for a period of 21 days at room temperature (22 °C) [9].

After the fermentation process was complete, the tarhana mixture was spread onto trays and subjected to drying in an oven (Memmert UNE 400, Büchenbach, Germany) at 50 °C. To enhance the drying efficiency, the tarhana dough was periodically divided into smaller pieces throughout the drying period. The drying process was considered complete when the water content in the tarhana dropped below 10%. Once the drying process was finalized, the tarhana was pulverized using a Waring blender until a uniform consistency was achieved. Once the grinding process was complete, the tarhana was sieved, leading to a final homogeneous product.

While preparing CMP containing-tarhana samples, 20, 25, 30, and 35% dried chicken meat powder was used, and the remaining percentage of the sample comprised traditional Uşak tarhana. To provide a clearer understanding of the percentage expression, one of the enrichment processes can be explained in more detail as follows: for TCMP₂₀ (Uşak tarhana sample with 20% chicken meat powder), 80 g of traditional Uşak tarhana was mixed with 20 g of chicken meat powder, resulting in a total mixture of 100 g. The formulations for TCMP₂₅ (75 g of traditional Uşak tarhana mixed with 25 g of chicken meat powder), TCMP₃₀ (70 g of traditional Uşak tarhana mixed with 30 g of chicken meat powder), and TCMP₃₅ (65 g of traditional Uşak tarhana mixed with 35 g of chicken meat powder) were calculated. The same process steps of traditional tarhana production were followed for the CMP added samples. The process flow chart for tarhana enriched with dried chicken meat powder is presented in Figure 2.

2.3. The Production of Tarhana Soup Enriched with Dried Chicken Meat Powder

Within the scope of the study, 100 g of tarhana sample and 1.5 L of distilled water were mixed over medium heat and cooked for 10 min. The prepared tarhana soup samples (control and CMP added) were presented for sensory evaluation.

2.4. Sensory Analyzes

The sensory evaluations were conducted with the tarhana soups by a team of 12 people from Susurluk Agriculture & Forestry Vocational School and HasTavuk R &D Center, consisting of eight men andfour women.

Before performing the sensory evaluations, the panelists received informative training. The aim of this training was to familiarize them with the relevant considerations for the evaluation process.

Each sample was assigned a unique, non-sequential code and presented to the panelists for sensory evaluation. The evaluations were conducted in a well-lit environment, and the samples were provided to the evaluators with water and bread. The tarhana soup samples were presented to the panelists in porcelain bowls at 60 °C.

The organoleptic attributes analyzed included appearance, flavor, odor, taste, texture, and overall score. The samples were rated using a scale on which the most preferred sample received a score of five and the least preferred sample received a score of one. Then, the sensory evaluation results were subjected to statistical analysis.

The dried chicken meat powder-enriched tarhana sample that received the highest score was selected for further analysis depending on the sensory evaluation.

2.5. Physicochemical Analyses

In order to assess the quality attributes of the 30% CMP added tarhana sample (not soup, but the ground powder), several physicochemical analyzes were performed. This evaluation relied on the comparison of the enriched tarhana samples with the control samples prepared according to the geographical indication Uşak tarhana recipe.

2.5.1. Moisture Content

Approximately 10 g of the sample was evenly distributed into aluminum drying containers to measure the moisture content. The containers were then placed in an oven (Memmert Universal UNE 400, Büchenbach, Germany) and dried at 105 ± 2 °C until a consistent weight was achieved, as specified in the AACC-approved methods [23].

2.5.2. Protein Content

The protein content was determined by multiplying the nitrogen content in the samples, measured using the Kjeldahl method, by a conversion factor of 6.25 [23].

2.5.3. Fat Content

To determine the oil content, approximately 10 g of the sample was extracted using petroleum ether via Soxhlet extraction. Fat fractions were then determined using this extraction method, as described in the AACC-approved methods [23].

2.5.4. Ash Content

To determine the amount of ash in the samples, approximately 1 g of each sample was taken and burned in a muffle furnace at 550 °C. The combustion process continued until a constant weight was reached for the resulting residue. The ash content was then expressed as a percentage, as specified in the AACC-approved methods [23].

2.5.5. Energy and Carbohydrate Content

The carbohydrate content of the samples was determined by subtracting the percentages of moisture, ash, protein, and oil obtained through analysis from 100. To calculate the energy value of 100 g of tarhana sample, the FAO guidelines were followed. This approach involves using specific “Atwater values” to calculate the total energy derived from the combustion of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates in food. The energy and carbohydrate values of the samples were determined in accordance with the methodology outlined by the FAO [24].

2.5.6. Salt Content

The determination of salt content was performed using the Mohr method according to TS 3190 [25]. The sample, weighing 20 g, was transferred into a 200 mL measuring flask and mixed thoroughly after the flask was filled with water up to the mark line, followed by filtration. Subsequently, 5 mL of the filtrate was extracted and combined with 1 mL of 5% potassium chromate indicator, and titration was carried out using a 0.1 N AgNO₃ solution.

2.5.7. Total Dietary Fiber and Water-İnsoluble Dietary Fiber Content

The dietary fiber amounts in the samples were analyzed with the Megazyme (Megazyme International Ireland Ltd., Wicklow, Ireland) total dietary fiber kit containing α-amylase, protease, and amyloglycosidase enzymes according to the method of AOAC 991.43 [26] and AACC 32-07 [23].

The sample weighed for analysis was gelatinized at 95–100 °C with heat-resistant α-amylase to hydrolyze the digestible starch. Then, enzymatic degradation was performed with protease and amyloglycosidase enzymes, respectively, at 60 °C to remove digestible proteins, and thus the fraction containing insoluble dietary fiber, insoluble salts, and indigestible proteins was collected. In order to precipitate the soluble fraction of dietary fiber, ethanol was added to the collected filtrate and left for 1 h at room conditions. The total amount of dietary fiber was calculated by summing the amount of soluble dietary fiber and the amount of insoluble dietary fiber.

2.5.8. Sucrose Content

The sucrose content of the samples was determined according to Chen et al. [27] using the HPLC (high-performance liquid chromatography) method:

Mobile gas flow mL min⁻¹: 0.6
Column Temperature °C: 80
Column Type: A Carbosep Coregel 87p (Transgenomic, Omaha, Nebraska)
Detector: Refractive Index

2.5.9. Color Measurement

The color of tarhana samples was measured using the L*a*b* color space HunterLab (MiniScan EZ 45/0 LAV, Murnau, Germany). L* is the luminance or lightness component, which ranges from 0 to 100, and parameters a* (from green to red) and b* (from blue to yellow) are the two chromatic components, which range from −120 to +120. In the Hunter colorimeter, L* is the lightness coordinate (L* = 0 indicates black, and L* = 100 is white) a* is the red/green coordinate, (+a* indicates red, and −a* indicates green), and b* is the yellow/blue coordinate (+b* indicates yellow, and −b* indicates blue). The reported values are the means of two replicates [28].

2.5.10. Determination of Total Phenolic Compound Content and Antioxidant Value

The total phenolic compound content of the samples was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu colorimetric method, according to Singleton and Rossi [29]. Its absorbance was determined at 760 nm with a spectrophotometer, and the results were calculated as gallic acid equivalent (GAE) in mg/100 g. A reduction in DPPH radicals, which is an expression of the antioxidant capacity of tarhana samples, was reported by Singh et al. using their method [30].

2.5.11. Determination of Mineral Content

Mineral element contents of the samples were determined by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry) device according to NMKL methodology [31].

Carrier gas flow L min⁻¹: 1.2
Plasma gas flow L min⁻¹: 15
Auxiliary gas flow L min⁻¹: 1.0
Spray chamber temperature °C: 2
Mass resolution: 0.8
Integration time points/ms: 3
Replicates: 3

2.5.12. Determination of Fatty Acid Composition

Fatty acid composition was determined using gas chromatography. To measure the fatty acid composition, the oil samples obtained after extraction were esterified following the guidelines outlined by AOAC [32]. The resulting esters were then analyzed via gas chromatography to determine their respective percentages (%). The specific operational parameters of the gas chromatography instrument used were reported to be as follows [33]:

Column: DB-23 Fused silica capillary column (30 m, 0.2 mm ID, 0.25 μm film thickness)
Column Temperature: 190 °C
Detector: Flame Ionization Detector (FID)
Detector Temperature: 240 °C
Carrier Gas: Helium
Flow Rate: 1.00 mL/min
Injection Block Temperature: 230 °C
Injection Amount: 1 µL
Split Ratio: 1.80

2.6. Statistical Analyses

All the experiments were conducted in two independent trials, and all the trials were performed in triplicate. Where appropriate, statistical analyses were conducted using Minitab Release 17. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the least significant difference test were conducted to determine differences. Differences were considered significant at the 95% confidence level (p < 0.05) or at the 99% confidence level (p < 0.01).

3. Results and Discussion

Sensory analysis played a crucial role in determining the final formulation of the tarhana samples, which involved the addition of dried chicken powder. The sensory evaluation results for the appearance, flavor, odor, taste, texture, and general assessment criteria of tarhana samples enriched with chicken powder in various combinations are presented in Table 2 and Figure 3.

Considering the sensory evaluation results and the scores provided by the panelists on their sensory evaluation forms, it can be observed that the scores for the appearance criterion decrease as the amount of added chicken powder increases. This is attributed to the fact that the addition of chicken powder results in a lighter-colored product compared to the traditional tarhana appearance, which is negatively evaluated in terms of visual quality. Similarly, in the odor criterion, it was determined that the increase in added chicken powder led to a reduced perception of the traditional tarhana aroma, resulting in a negative evaluation by the consumers. Although no significant increasing or decreasing trend was observed in the criteria of flavor, taste, texture, and general assessment with the addition of chicken powder, it was found that the TCMP₃₀ sample received the highest scores after the control tarhana sample. According to the thorough analysis of each sensory criterion, TCMP₃₀ was noted as the most flavorful product and thus was selected as the formulation for further evaluation.

In the variance analysis conducted on the sensory evaluation results, it was determined that the effect of the sample type on the sensory evaluation criteria was statistically significant (p < 0.01). According to the LSD test conducted to determine the differences between the samples, the control tarhana sample and the TCMP₂₀ sample, as well as the TCMP₂₅ and TCMP₃₀ samples, were statistically placed in the same group for the appearance and odor criteria. For the flavor criterion, the control tarhana sample and the TCMP₃₀ sample were statistically in the same group. For the taste, texture, and general assessment criteria, the control tarhana sample and the TCMP₃₀ sample, as well as the TCMP₂₀, TCMP₂₅, and TCMP₃₅ samples, were statistically placed in the same group. The aforementioned statistical analyzes and interpretations are summarized in Table 2.

The data in Table 3 show the carbohydrate, ash, moisture, protein, fat, and energy values for the initial tarhana sample produced following the Uşak tarhana formulation, as well as the dried chicken meat powder and the enriched tarhana samples produced by incorporating dried chicken meat powder into the formulation.

A noticeable distinction (p < 0.01) can be observed in the moisture levels among the tarhana samples (Table 3). In previous studies on plain tarhana samples, Ertas et al. [34] reported an average moisture content of 11.28%, while Kılıç Keskin [35] found it to be 9.22%. The moisture content of tarhana is influenced by various factors, including the physicochemical properties of the raw materials utilized in the recipe and the chosen drying method [28]. Moisture content is a critical parameter for food producers, as it directly affects factors such as food quality, preservation, and susceptibility to spoilage. Additionally, determining the moisture content is essential for calculating the composition of other components in the food, often based on a uniform basis such as “dry weight basis” [36]. Dried foods generally have a lower moisture content compared to fresh foods, which contributes to their longer shelf life. It is generally considered that food is protected against microbial spoilage when the moisture content falls below 10% [37]. Notably, among the samples, the tarhana product supplemented with dried chicken meat powder exhibited a relatively higher moisture value, indicating further experiments should be carried out to achieve improved microbial safety, compared to plain tarhana.

The tarhana samples enriched with dried chicken powder exhibited higher ash content compared to the dried chicken meat powder alone. This disparity resulted in an increased ash content in the final product when compared to the traditional tarhana. In a previous study investigating the physicochemical properties of Maraş tarhana, the average ash value was reported as 4%, which closely corresponds to the findings of our study [38]. Ash determination is commonly employed as a general quality assessment tool and is frequently used to verify the authenticity of food products [39]. It represents the inorganic residue remaining after the combustion of the food sample at high temperatures (500–600 °C). While ash determination provides insights into the mineral components of food, it should be noted that the obtained ash may not precisely reflect the mineral composition of the original food due to potential evaporation losses or interactions between components [40]. Tarhana samples with a higher ash content are generally considered to be rich in mineral components [41].

The practical nutritional importance of tarhana lies in the improvement of a basic cereal protein diet by adding dairy protein in an acceptable form. As wheat flour has a low lysine and threonine content, yogurt is added in order to increase the protein quality of tarhana [30]. Chicken meat is a protein-rich food with a low carbohydrate content [42]. On the other hand, tarhana, being a grain-based food, is known for its higher carbohydrate content compared to its protein and fat content. From Table 1, it is evident that the addition of dried chicken meat powder to tarhana resulted in a product with a well-balanced nutritional profile, compensating for the nutritional components that are relatively lacking in both tarhana and chicken meat [43]. Furthermore, both the protein and fat content of the tarhana samples with chicken meat powder were found to be significantly higher compared to the control sample due to the higher protein and fat content of chicken meat. Atar and Ozsisli [44] stated that the carbohydrate content of Beyşehir tarhana, another geographical indication tarhana, was 61.90% and the protein content was 16.90%. Cagindi et al. [45] found average protein and fat contents for domestic tarhana samples of 5.32% dm and 3.47% dm, respectively, whereas for commercial samples, these were lower, at 5.09% dm and 1.82% dm. Çalışkan Koç and Özçıra [46] reported that the replacement of wheat flour with wheat germ in tarhana production resulted in significantly higher values for protein and fat.

Herken and Aydin [13] found that the protein (12.02%) and fat (4.17%) content of tarhana did not significantly change with carob flour supplementation. It should be mentioned that fermentation had a positive effect on fat content, which might be linked to the increased activity of lipolytic enzymes that may have produced more fatty acids during the fermentation, the extensive breakdown of large molecules of fat into simple fatty acids, the fat depleted from the dead microflora, and/or the assumption that the fermenting microflora did not use the fat as a source of energy [47]. Moreover, fermentation also leads to the synthesis of prebiotics, bioactive peptides, and functional fatty acids, which have diverse health benefits and enhances the quality and functional properties of plant-based proteins by cleaving the bonds between proteins and antinutritional compounds [48,49,50].

To meet the body’s daily energy, growth, maintenance, and tissue repair requirements, it is crucial to consume carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. These macronutrients, which also serve as energy sources, play vital roles in satisfying both physiological and psychological needs. Carbohydrates and fats represent the primary sources of energy in human diets, while proteins are essential to various biological processes, although their contribution an energy source is relatively less significant [30]. Significant differences were observed among the results, with the pure tarhana sample having the highest energy content. The addition of carbohydrate-poor chicken powder resulted in a decrease in the energy content. Although the dried chicken powder and the tarhana enriched with this powder had the same fat content, the disparity in their carbohydrate content is believed to have contributed to the difference in energy values per 100 g consumed. The ingredients incorporated into the tarhana recipe can impact the energy yield per unit of tarhana. For instance, Beyşehir tarhana is reported to provide 423.1 kcal per 100 g, which has been attributed to the inclusion of butter in the product formulation [44].

Table 4 summarizes the contents of crude cellulose (g/100 g), dietary fiber (g/100 g), sucrose (g/100 g), and total salt (g/100 g) in the traditional Uşak tarhana formulation, dried chicken meat powder, and the tarhana samples enriched through the incorporation of this chicken meat powder into their formulation.

The traditional tarhana sample and the enriched tarhana formulation contained both pure cellulose and dietary fiber, which are primarily derived from plants used in production. On the grounds that the dried chicken powder did not contain these components, a slight reduction was observed in the enriched tarhana compared to the original formula (Table 5). Dietary fiber is known for its resistance to digestion and absorption in the small intestine, and it can undergo partial or full fermentation in the large intestine. Cellulose is a structural polysaccharide found in plant cell walls, and it cannot be digested by humans, making it a valuable dietary fiber. Cellulose, along with modified cellulose compounds, is a significant component of dietary fiber [51]. Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive effects of dietary fiber on consumer health. These effects are attributed to its ability to promote intestinal health, regulate bowel movements, increase water retention in the digestive system, slow down the absorption of nutrients, and reduce the risk of various types of cancer, including colon cancer [52]. Furthermore, diets rich in cellulose and dairy products have been shown to decrease urease activity and ammonia production in the digestive tract, contributing to improved health in animals and humans. The fermentation of dietary fibers by intestinal microorganisms leads to the production of short-chain fatty acids, such as acetate, propionate, and butyrate, which have been linked to suppressed tumor growth and cancer cell metastasis in certain cancer types [53]. The presence of dietary fiber in the tarhana formulation is expected to positively influence the demand for innovative food among consumers.

It is evident that in the formulations, tarhana, as a plant-based product with a high carbohydrate content, serves as the primary source of carbohydrates and sugars. The sucrose found in tarhana mainly originates from wheat and added vegetables. In the absence of sufficient glucose, which is an easily accessible energy source for yeast and lactic acid bacteria, microorganisms enzymatically convert sucrose into glucose and fructose [54]. This enzymatic breakdown of sucrose might explain why sucrose was not detected in either tarhana formulation. A study conducted by Tamer et al. [55] examined the composition of 21 tarhana samples collected from various regions of Turkiye. The authors reported that the reduced sugar content of the samples ranged from 0.22% to 1.85%. Glucose and fructose, which are considered reducing sugars, are formed as a result of the enzymatic hydrolysis of sucrose.

The salt contents of CMP and TCMP₃₀ were lower than that of the original tarhana recipe. However, when CMP was included in the recipe containing an average of 0.25% salt, the salt content decreased to 1.33% in TCMP₃₀. The salt content of both the traditional and enriched tarhana doughs was consistent with findings reported by Erbaş et al. (2004) [54]. In their study, when 2.2% salt was added to tarhana dough, the salt content was measured as 6.48% after the fermentation process. Previous studies on various tarhana samples have reported salt contents ranging from 0.62% to 9.01% [55].

Table 5 summarizes the values of L*, a*, and b* for the traditional Uşak tarhana formulation, dried chicken powder, and the tarhana samples enriched through the incorporation of chicken meat powder into the formulation.

Food scientists who establish quality control specifications for their products are very aware of the importance of color and appearance. The psychology of color and visual appearance with regard to persuasion and influence is one of the most fascinating and, sometimes even controversial, aspects of marketing and consumer behavior. The perception of a food is based on their personal preferences, upbringing, and even culture. For tarhana, the preference for color is red, due to the inclusion of tomato, red peper, or even tomato paste. The change in color directly influences consumer choices. In another study by the authors, hygienic quality of tarhana enriched with CMP was investigated. Therefore, Total mesophilic aerobic bacteria, Escherichia coli, total coliform, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas spp., yeast and mold counts were performed on days 0, 7, 14 and 21 days of storage. The counts of S. aureus and Pseudomonas spp., major human pathogens that cause a wide range of clinical infections, were higher than the allowed limits on day 14th. Besides, for tarhana to be safe for consumption the moisture content should be lower than 10%, limiting the microbial growth and enzymatic activity. However, for the TCMP sample it was almost 2-fold higher than required value. Therefore, on 0 and 14th of storage color, phenolic and antioxidant analysis were conducted for evaluating consumer acceptance and maintaining the safety of the food product.

While subjective visual assessment and visual color standards are still used in the food industry, objective instrumental color measurements are extensively employed. The Hunter (L, a, b) and International Commission on Illumination (CIE) L*, a*, and b* color measurement systems or color spaces are primarily used in the food, textile, and pharmacy industries. Color measurements of the samples were carried out with the HunterLab device. When the day 0 and day 14 measurements were examined, a decrease in L* values was observed, while an increase in a* and b* values was detected. Upon examining Table 6, it is observed that the L* value of traditional Uşak tarhana was measured at 44.09 on the 0th day, which decreased to 43.67 on the 14th day. Additionally, the b* value was recorded at 22.97 on the 0th day and increased to 23.13 on the 14th day. In the measurements for dried chicken powder, the L* value, which was 53.92 on the 0th day, decreased to 52.74 on the 14th day, while the a* value increased from 2.57 on the 0th day to 2.97 on the 14th day. For the Uşak tarhana sample containing 30% dried chicken meat powder, the L* value decreased from 36.97 on the 0th day to 36.11 on the 14th day, the a* value increased from 8.62 on the 0th day to 8.98 on the 14th day, and the b* value increased from 21.75 on the 0th day to 21.91 on the 14th day. Although tarhana is a traditional Turkish food, it is still considered one of the indispensable dishes in Turkish cuisine. Establishing standard L*, a*, and b* values is challenging due to the variability in the recipe across different regions. However, the changes in these values during storage can be corroborated through similar studies in the literature [56,57,58].

The total antioxidant capacity (TAC) (measured by DPPH radical scavenging activity) and total phenolic content (TPC) (measured using the Folin–Ciocalteu method) of tarhana were significantly increased via enrichment with chicken meat powder (p < 0.05) (Table 6). The TPC and TAC were higher in the Uşak tarhana recipe at the beginning of storage, and thereafter detected as low on day 14th; however, for TCMP₃₀, these values increased remarkably. The TPC in Uşak tarhana was 71.50 mg GAE/100 g on day 0 and 34.38 mg GAE/100 g on day 14, whereas, in tarhana enriched with dried chicken powder, it was 51.34 mg GAE/100 g on day 0 and 58.37 mg GAE/100 g on day 14. Uşak tarhana had an antioxidant capacity of 33.10 μmol TE/g on the 0th day and 28.07 μmol TE/g on the 14th day. The TAC increased with CMP supplementation from 21.19 to 24.89 μmol TE/g, while the TPC varied from 51.34 to 58.37 mg GAE/100 g. The total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity values for Uşak tarhana decreased over the storage time; however, on the contrary increased for the tarhana enriched with dried chicken meat powder. As evident from the results, the addition of dried chicken meat powder to tarhana could bring an improvement in the product’s shelf life associated with the increased antioxidant capacity, an outcome which is favorable.

Previous studies indicated that tarhana includes notable quantities of plant-derived phenolic compounds that significantly increase its antioxidant activity. Since Uşak tarhana already has a high vegetable content, it is inevitable that its antioxidant capacity will also be higher. Karakaya and Şimşek [59] found a strong correlation between antioxidant capacity, as measured using the DPPH assay, and the total phenolic content, suggesting that phenolic compounds are major contributors to the antioxidant properties of tarhana. The antioxidant capacity values ranged from 1.59 to 2.34 mmol TE/g dry weight. Herken and Aydın [13] produced tarhana using 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% carob flour as a wheat flour substitute and determined the antioxidant capacity values. In their study, the antioxidant capacity of the control sample was 7.70 mmol/L TE/g, the antioxidant capacity of the sample with 5% carob flour was 13.60 mmol/L TE/g, the antioxidant capacity of the sample with 10% carob flour was 18.50 mmol/L TE/g, the antioxidant capacity of the sample with 15% carob flour was 22.60 mmol/L TE/g mmol/L TE/g, and the antioxidant capacity of the sample with 20% carob flour was 23.10 mmol/L TE/g. Abdullah et al. [60] stated significant variations in TPC among tarhana samples, which ranged from 3.76 to 6.45 mg GAE/g dry weight. The highest phenolic content was observed in the whole-grain tarhana, which can be attributed to the higher presence of bioactive compounds in whole grains compared to in refined grains. Tepe et al. [61] reported that the total phenolic content of tarhana samples from Sivas, Tokat, and Malatya was 193.25, 12.37, and 8.52 mg/kg, respectively, whereas the antioxidant activity was found to be 0.77, 0.57, and 0.46 μmol Trolox/g, respectively. The Sivas sample stood out, as the recipe contained fresh tomatoes. In a study preparing tarhana using 3%, 5%, and 10% terebinth, Kiyak [62] determined the antioxidant capacity value of the control sample to be 0.39 mg TE/g, that of the 3% terebinth added sample to be 1.48 mg TE/g, that of the 5% terebinth addition to be 3.26 mg TE/g, and that of the 10% terebinth addition to be 5.39 mg TE/g. Gediz [63] produced tarhanas for gluten-free and vegan consumers by using a gluten-free flour mixture instead of wheat flour and using soy yogurt instead of yogurt. She observed an antioxidant capacity value for the control sample (with wheat flour, and dairy yogurt) of 14.06 μM TEAC/g; for the vegan tarhana, this value was 15.55 μM TEAC/g, for gluten-free tarhana, it was 15.16 μM TEAC/g, and finally, for vegan gluten-free tarhana, it was 20.29 μM TEAC/g.

The variability in the total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of tarhana can be primarily attributed to the diversity in its ingredients and preparation methods. Whole-grain-based tarhana samples have displayed higher TPC, which is consistent with the literature that suggests that whole grains retain more phenolic compounds by undergoing less processing [64]. Moreover, the inclusion of spices and fruits known for their antioxidant properties further augmented the TPC and antioxidant capacity [65,66,67]. The fermentation process included in tarhana production may also be responsible for the increase in bioactive compounds. Fermentation has been known to enhance the bioavailability of phenolics through the breakdown of complex compounds into simpler absorbable forms [16,68,69,70,71,72,73]. However, the specific microbial cultures and the duration of fermentation could affect the extent of this enhancement.

The variability in total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of tarhana can be primarily attributed to the diversity in its ingredients and preparation methods. Whole-grain-based tarhana samples have displayed higher TPC, which is consistent with the literature that suggests whole grains retain more phenolic compounds due to lesser processing [64]. Moreover, the inclusion of spices and fruits known for their antioxidant properties further augmented the TPC and antioxidant capacity [65,66,67]. The fermentation process involved in tarhana production may also be responsible for the increase in bioactive compounds. Fermentation has been known to enhance the bioavailability of phenolics through the breakdown of complex compounds into simpler absorbable forms [16,68,69,70,71,72,73]. However, the specific microbial cultures and the duration of fermentation could affect the extent of this enhancement.

Table 7 summarizes the contents of calcium (mg/kg), copper (mg/kg), iron (mg/kg), potassium (mg/kg), magnesium (mg/kg), phosphorus (mg/kg), sodium (mg/kg), and zinc (mg/kg) in the traditional Uşak tarhana formulation, dried chicken powder, and the tarhana samples enriched via the incorporation of this chicken meat powder into the formulation.

When the compositions of tarhanas produced with different techniques, flours, and additives are evaluated in general terms, we can see that tarhana includes a rich variety of minerals, including copper, zinc, iron, calcium, magnesium, manganese, and potassium [74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. The mineral composition of tarhana is mainly influenced by the raw materials used in the recipe and their usage ratios. For example, the type and amount of yogurt added to the recipe have a direct impact on the calcium content, as the yogurt is a vehicle for calcium supplementation [81]. Regarding the analysis of calcium and sodium levels, the Uşak tarhana samples contained 1065.25 mg/kg calcium and 1468.25 mg/kg sodium. In contrast, the dried chicken powder had a lower calcium content (71.67 mg/kg) and sodium content (423.25 mg/kg). The addition of dried chicken powder to tarhana reduced both calcium content (428.06 mg/kg) and sodium levels (1125.68 mg/kg). In a study evaluating the functional properties of tarhana, the average calcium content was reported to be 109 mg/100 g, and the sodium content was 634 mg/100 g [67]. Kiyak et al. [67] stated that different tarhana samples indicated an average calcium content of 1.268 mg/kg. Phytic acid, an “antinutrient” found in cereals, legumes, oil seeds, and nuts, is known to lead to a higher affinity towards positively charged ions and proteins, either directly or indirectly, and reduces the digestibility and absorption of nutrients, and thus, their bioavailability [82,83,84,85]. This poor bioavailability has mainly been attributed to a polyanionic nature that chelates minerals and forms phytic acid–mineral complexes that are insoluble at physiological pH. Fermentation is one of the processes known to reduce phytic acid. In general, a low pH, longer fermentation time, and greater yeast addition result in a more intensive degradation of phytic acid. Tarhana is a good source of total minerals (Ca, Mg, and K) with favorable bioavailibities (Ca, Mg, Zn, and K). A fermentation medium with increasing acidity, in addition to the use of phytase sources like Bakers’ yeast, causes an increase in the total amounts of minerals and proteins as a result of phytic acid fermentation loss [43,86]. Kilci and Göçmen [12] reported that the substitution of wheat flour in a tarhana formulation with steel-cut oats positively affected the mineral content. Rosanoff et al. [87] found potassium and magnesium in significant quantities in tarhana; both are vital to cardiovascular health and other physiological functions. The relatively high levels of these minerals could be attributed to the utilization of whole grains and certain spices during the production of tarhana, as these ingredients are known reservoirs for K and Mg [88]. Considering global dietary concerns over excessive sodium consumption, the relatively low sodium content in tarhana is a favorable attribute that aligns with recommendations for reduced sodium intake to prevent hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, supporting the inclusion of tarhana as a health-promoting food in balanced diets [89].

Fatty acids have the widest distribution in all living cells; they are aliphatic mono-carboxylic acids that occur in nature as a homologous series ranging in chain length from 4 to 26 carbons [90,91]. They may be fully saturated or unsaturated based on the presence of double bonds in their structure. Unsaturated fatty acids are further categorized as monounsaturated or polyunsaturated, depending on the number of double bonds, with the position of the double bond dictated by the route of biosynthesis. Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are fatty acids that contain two or more double bonds. They have attracted much interest due to their biological activities. They play crucial roles in cellular membrane structure, hemostasis, and brain and nervous system tissues. Among PUFAs, essential fatty acids (EFAs) are a subset of fatty acids that cannot be synthesized in mammals “de novo” and therefore have to be provided through dietary sources in order to meet biological demands. These EFAs include linoleic acid (omega-6) and alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3), primary PUFAs in the diet, which can be converted into other longer-chain fatty acids and mediators that regulate biological processes [92,93,94,95]. On the other hand, studies have shown that a diet rich in saturated fatty acids can lead to elevated cholesterol levels in the blood and an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases in the long term. Consequently, consumers generally prefer foods with lower levels of saturated fatty acids. Table 8 presents the fatty acid distribution data for the Uşak tarhana formulation, CMP, and samples enriched via the incorporation of CMP into the tarhana formulation. Uşak tarhana had higher saturated fatty acid levels than both CMP and TCMP₃₀, which displayed higher unsaturated fatty acid values. The enrichment of the Uşak tarhana recipe with CMP reduced the total saturated fatty acid content and increased the monounsaturated fatty acid content; however, it reduced the PUFA content. Nevertheless, enrichment with CMP reduced the trans fatty acids in TCMP₃₀. Uşak tarhana and chicken powder displayed a significant presence of unsaturated fatty acids. This characteristic extends to the innovative tarhana product designed by incorporating dried chicken powder into the formulation. Since CMP had a lower saturated fatty acid content than Uşak tarhana, the saturated fatty acid values in TCMP₃₀ were more or less similar to CMP.

The fatty acid compositions of tarhana and TCMP₃₀ were quite similar, except for the absence of linolelaidic acid (trans,trans-9,12-octadecadienoic acid) and trans-α-linolenic acid (all trans-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid) in traditional tarhana. The fatty acid analysis of T and TCMP₃₀ revealed a favorable profile dominated by unsaturated fatty acids, particularly oleic acid and linoleic acids. The predominant fatty acids identified in traditional tarhana samples were lino-leic, palmitic, and oleic acids that comprised 83.82% of fatty acids, whereas, for TCMP₃₀, the abundant fatty acids were the same; however, their order differed as oleic > linoleic > palmitic acids (83.89% of total fatty acids). In CMP, oleic, linoleic, and palmitic acids were the most abundant fatty acids, comprising 84.11% of total fatty acids. Moreover, CMP demonstrated a notable presence of stearic acid, at 10.06%. The profile of SFAs displayed lower concentration ratios in comparison to UFAs, which is advantageous from a nutritional standpoint. A high SFA intake has been correlated with increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and associated with higher cardiovascular risk [96,97]. Consequently, the low SFA-to-UFA ratio in TCMP₃₀ could contribute positively to lipid profiles when included in the diet. The differences in fatty acid composition could be attributed to the ingredients in the tarhana recipe, as various raw materials, such as whole-grain wheat flour, yogurt, vegetables, and various spices, with diverse fatty acids, are included in the tarhana mix and the chicken meat constituents [98]. Furthermore, the fermentation process might induce enzymatic pathways or transformations in amino acids and carbohydrates that have an effect on fatty acid production. Fatty acids can be synthesized de novo from acetyl-CoA, which is produced through the breakdown of glucose or other metabolic intermediates during fermentation.

Omega(ω)-6 and omega(ω)-3 fatty acids are not interconvertible, metabolically and functionally distinct, and often have important opposing physiological effects; therefore, their balance in human diets is important. The recommended ratio of ω-6–ω-3 fatty acid is 1:1; however, in today’s modern diets, the ratio has shifted to a ratio of 15:1–16.7:1, indicating a deficiency in ω-3 PUFAs. Excessive amounts of omega-6 PUFAs and a very high ω-6–ω-3 ratio promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, whereas increased levels of ω-3 PUFAs exert suppressive effects [99,100]. It is worth noting that cereal products have been recognized among the favorable sources of omega-3 fatty acids, which are essential for maintaining healthy ageing throughout life [101]. The enrichment of the tarhana recipe with CMP seems to increase ω-3 PUFAs and reduce ω-6 PUFAs. Numerous studies have indicated that trans fatty acids, similar to saturated fatty acids, can increase LDL cholesterol levels, lower HDL cholesterol levels, and contribute to the development of various diseases [102,103]. With the rise in health awareness in the information age, consumers have become more cautious about trans fatty acids and tend to avoid them. As CMP has fewer trans fatty acids, TCMP₃₀ also has a lower level of trans fatty acids than Uşak tarhana, making TCMP₃₀ appealing in the food market, as it aligns with consumer preferences.

4. Conclusions and Future Studies

Tarhana, with its rich phenolic content and antioxidant capacity, holds potential as a functional food. Given the growing interest in health-promoting dietary sources, it is critical that we respect cultural dietary preferences while enhancing the health aspects of traditional foods such as tarhana.

This study aimed to investigate the physicochemical properties of an innovative tarhana product developed by enriching traditional tarhana with dried chicken powder at several predetermined ratios. A sensory evaluation determined the preferred formulation of enriched tarhana and traditional Uşak tarhana out of formulations containing 20, 25, 30, and 35% dried chicken powder. The highly favored 30% dried chicken meat powder-enriched tarhana formulation was subjected to further analysis. The findings revealed that the addition of dried chicken powder significantly influenced various components of tarhana, including the protein and total fat contents, fatty acid profile, total phenolic content, and antioxidant activity (p < 0.05). These findings support the potential of fortifying tarhana with dried chicken meat powder as a beneficial process for boosting its nutritional and functional properties for health-conscious consumers.

Future research should focus on optimizing the fermentation process and ingredient selection, as well as the bioavailability of constituents in tarhana enriched with chicken meat powder and the long-term effects of consumption on health markers, to articulate the roles of these constituents in diet-related chronic disease prevention.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.U.C., Z.K., K.A. and A.A.-B.; Methodology, R.U.C., Z.K., K.A. and D.K.; Formal analysis, Z.K., K.A. and D.K.; Investigation, R.U.C. and A.A.-B.; Data curation, R.U.C., Z.K., K.A. and D.K.; Writing—original draft, R.U.C. and K.A.; Writing—review & editing, Z.K. and A.A.-B.; Supervision, A.A.-B.; Funding acquisition, K.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Hastavuk Company for their valuable support in production of dried chicken meat powder.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Kivilcim Ates was employed by the company HasTavuk Company. Author Dogan Kaya was employed by the company Aroma Bursa Fruit Juices and Food Industry, Inc. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

View Image - Figure 1. (a) Visual representations of the traditional Uşak tarhana (T), (b) chicken meat powder (CMP), and (c) Uşak tarhana samples with 30% chicken meat powder (TCMP30) produced within the scope of the study.

Figure 1. (a) Visual representations of the traditional Uşak tarhana (T), (b) chicken meat powder (CMP), and (c) Uşak tarhana samples with 30% chicken meat powder (TCMP30) produced within the scope of the study.

Figure 2. Flow Chart of Tarhana Enriched with Dried Chicken Meat Powder.

View Image - Figure 3. The results of the sensory evaluation of tarhana samples enriched by adding chicken meat powder at different rates + (+ T: Uşak tarhana sample without the addition of chicken meat powder, TCMP20: Uşak tarhana sample with 20% chicken meat powder, TCMP25: Uşak tarhana sample with 25% chicken meat powder, TCMP30: Uşak tarhana sample with 30% chicken meat powder, TCMP35: Uşak tarhana sample with 35% chicken meat powder).

Figure 3. The results of the sensory evaluation of tarhana samples enriched by adding chicken meat powder at different rates + (+ T: Uşak tarhana sample without the addition of chicken meat powder, TCMP20: Uşak tarhana sample with 20% chicken meat powder, TCMP25: Uşak tarhana sample with 25% chicken meat powder, TCMP30: Uşak tarhana sample with 30% chicken meat powder, TCMP35: Uşak tarhana sample with 35% chicken meat powder).

Table 1

The formulation of traditional Uşak tarhana (100 g) is as follows.

Ingredients	Amount (g)
Wheat Flour	40
Pepper
Capia Pepper (Capsicum annuum L. cv. Kapya)	17
Sivaslı Pepper (Üç Burun)	3
Yogurt	16
Onion	12
Tomato	10
Salt	1
Mint	0.5
Sour Dough	0.5

Table 2

The results of the sensory evaluation of tarhana samples enriched by adding chicken powder at different rates ⁺, ⁺⁺.

Tarhana Samples	N	Appearance	Flavor	Odor	Taste	Texture	General Assessment
T (Control)	12	4.67 ± 0.49 ^a	4.67 ± 0.49 ^a	4.67 ± 0.49 ^a	4.33 ± 0.78 ^a	4.33 ± 0.78 ^a	4.33 ± 0.78 ^a
TCMP₂₀	12	4.33 ± 0.49 ^a	1.92 ± 0.67 ^c	4.33 ± 0.49 ^a	2.25 ± 1.54 ^b	2.25 ± 1.54 ^b	2.25 ± 1.54 ^b
TCMP₂₅	12	2.25 ± 0.87 ^b	2.67 ± 0.49 ^b	2.58 ± 0.51 ^b	2.75 ± 1.29 ^b	2.75 ± 1.29 ^b	2.75 ± 1.29 ^b
TCMP₃₀	12	2.33 ± 0.65 ^b	4.33 ± 0.49 ^a	2.42 ± 0.51 ^b	4.17 ± 0.83 ^a	4.17 ± 0.83 ^a	4.17 ± 0.83 ^a
TMCP₃₅	12	1.42 ± 0.67 ^c	1.42 ± 0.79 ^d	1.17 ± 0.39 ^c	2.50 ± 1.09 ^b	2.50 ± 1.09 ^b	2.50 ± 1.09 ^b
ANOVA		**	**	**	**	**	**

⁺ T: Uşak tarhana sample without the addition of chicken meat powder, TCMP₂₀: Uşak tarhana sample with 20% chicken meat powder, TCMP₂₅: Uşak tarhana sample with 25% chicken meat powder, TCMP₃₀: Uşak tarhana sample with 30% chicken meat powder, TCMP₃₅: Uşak tarhana sample with 35% chicken meat powder. ⁺⁺ Means with different letters are different from each other, ** p < 0.01.

Table 3

Moisture, ash, total protein, fat and carbohydrate content, and energy values of Uşak tarhana, dried chicken powder, and tarhana samples enriched with dried chicken powder ⁺, ⁺⁺.

Samples	Moisture (g/100 g)	Ash (g/100 g)	Protein (g/100 g)	Fat (g/100 g)	Carbohydrate (g/100 g)	Energy Value (kcal/100 g)
CMP	29.18 ^a	3.01 ^c	62.65 ^a	4.970 ^a	0.003 ^c	296.00 ^b
T	9.89 ^c	5.65 ^a	12.46 ^c	2.41 ^b	63.17 ^a	337.00 ^a
TCMP₃₀	20.33 ^b	4.62 ^b	34.07 ^b	3.60	31.56 ^b	316.00 ^b
Statistical Significance	*	*	*	*	*	*

⁺ T: Traditional Uşak tarhana, CMP: Chicken meat powder, TCMP₃₀: Uşak tarhana sample with 30% chicken meat powder. ⁺⁺ Means in columns followed by different letters are significantly different, * p < 0.05.

Table 4

Cellulose, dietary fiber, sucrose, and total salt values of Uşak tarhana, chicken meat powder, and tarhana samples enriched with dried chicken powder ⁺, ⁺⁺.

Samples	Cellulose (g/100 g)	Dietary Fiber (g/100 g)	Sucrose (g/100 g)	Total Salt (g/100 g)
CMP	0.00 ^c	0.00 ^c	0.00	0.25 ^c
T	1.78 ^a	6.42 ^a	0.00	4.40 ^a
TCMP₃₀	1.59 ^b	4.35 ^b	0.00	1.33 ^b
Statistical Significance	*	*	*	*

Table 5

L*, a*, b* values of Uşak tarhana, chicken meat powder, and tarhana samples enriched with dried chicken powder ⁺, ⁺⁺.

Samples	Days	L*	a*	b*
CMP	0	53.92 ^a	2.57 ^f	20.20 ^f
CMP	14	52.74 ^b	2.97 ^e	20.32 ^e
T	0	44.09 ^c	9.29 ^b	22.97 ^b
T	14	43.67 ^d	9.42 ^a	23.13 ^a
TCMP₃₀	0	36.97 ^e	8.62 ^d	21.75 ^d
TCMP₃₀	14	36.11 ^f	8.98 ^c	21.91 ^c
Statistical Significance		**	**	*

⁺ T: Traditional Uşak tarhana, CMP: chicken meat powder, TCMP₃₀: Uşak tarhana sample with 30% chicken meat powder. ⁺⁺ Means in columns followed by different letters are significantly different, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Table 6

Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of Uşak tarhana and tarhana samples enriched with dried chicken powder ⁺, ⁺⁺.

Samples	Days	Total Phenolic Content(mg GAE/100 g of Sample)	Total Antioxidant Capacity(μmol TE/g)
T	0	71.50 ^a	33.10.^a
T	14	34.38 ^d	28.07.^b
TCMP₃₀	0	51.34 ^c	21.19.^d
TCMP₃₀	14	58.37 ^b	24.89.^c
Statistical Significance		*	*

⁺ T: Traditional Uşak tarhana, TCMP₃₀: Uşak tarhana sample with 30% chicken meat powder. ⁺⁺ Means in columns followed by different letters are significantly different, * p < 0.05.

Table 7

Calcium, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, sodium, and zinc values of Uşak tarhana, chicken meat powder, and tarhana samples enriched with dried chicken powder ⁺.

Samples	Calcium (mg/kg)	Copper (mg/kg)	Iron (mg/kg)	Potassium (mg/kg)	Magnesium (mg/kg)	Manganese (mg/kg)	Phosphorus (mg/kg)	Sodium (mg/kg)	Zinc (mg/kg)
CMP	71.67 ± 11.31	0.49 ± 0.02	8.73 ± 1.48	8909.37 ± 765.12	798.37 ± 151.74	0.00 ± 0.00	6212.13 ± 931.82	423.25 ± 68.33	14.32 ± 0.57
T	1065.25 ± 170.44	2.70 ± 0.11	42.32 ± 7.19	5304.28 ± 823.32	1147 ± 218.03	15.70 ± 0.00	2677.15 ± 401.57	1468.25 ± 896.51	14.10 ± 0.56
TCMP₃₀	428.06 ± 68.49	2.31 ± 0.09	37.53 ± 6.38	6007.02 ± 532.32	969 ± 184.30	11.30 ± 0.00	3179.96 ± 496.99	1125.68 ± 237.49	15.13 ± 0.61

⁺ T: Traditional Uşak tarhana, CMP: chicken meat powder, TCMP₃₀: Uşak tarhana sample with 30% chicken meat powder.

Table 8

The profile of fatty acids in Uşak tarhana, dried chicken powder, and tarhana samples enriched by adding dried chicken powder ⁺.

Fatty Acids (%)	CMP	T	TCMP₃₀
*Saturated*
Butyric Acid (C₄H₈O₂)	<LOD	0.41	0.28
Caproic Acid (C₆H₁₂O₂)	<LOD	0.41	0.28
Caprilic Acid (C₈H₁₆O₂)	<LOD	0.41	0.28
Capric Acid (C₁₀H₂₀O₂)	<LOD	0.83	0.28
Lauric Acid (C₁₂H₂₄O₂)	0.20	0.83	0.69
Myristic Acid (C₁₄H₂₈O₂)	0.60	3.32	2.08
Pentadecanoic Acid (C₁₅H₃₀O₂)	<LOD	0.41	0.28
Palmitic Acid (C₁₆H₃₂O₂)	24.55	28.22	24.72
Margaric Acid (C₁₇H₃₄O₂)	0.20	0.41	0.28
Stearic Acid (C₁₈H₃₆O₂)	10.06	4.56	6.94
Arachidic Acid (C₂₀H₄₀O₂)	0.20	0.41	0.28
Behenic Acid (C₂₂H₄₄O₂)	<LOD	<LOD	<LOD
*Unsaturated*
- Mono-Unsaturated
Myristoleic Acid (cis-9-tetradecenoic acid, C₁₄H₂₆O₂)	<LOD	0.41	0.28
Palmitoleic Acid (cis-9-hexadecenoic acid, C₁₆H₃₀O₂)	2.01	0.41	1.39
Margaroleic Acid (cis-9-heptadecenoic acid, C₁₇H₃₂O₂)	0.20	0.41	0.28
Oleic Acid (cis-9-octadecenoic acid, C₁₈H₃₄O₂)	32.80	24.48	31.39
Elaidic Acid (trans-9-octadecenoic acid, C₁₈H₃₄O₂)	<LOD	0.41	0.28
Gadoleic Acid (cis-9-eicosenoic acid, C₂₀H₃₆O₂)	0.20	0.83	0.42
- Poly-Unsaturated Fatty Acids
Linoleic Acid (cis-9,12-octadecadienoic acid, C₁₈H₃₂O₂)	26.76	31.12	27.78
Linolelaidic Acid (trans,trans-9,12-octadecadienoic acid, C₁₈H₃₂O₂) + trans-α-Linolenic Acid (all trans-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid, C₁₈H₃₀O₂)	0.17	<LOD	0.13
α-Linolenic Acid (cis-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid, C₁₈H₃₀O₂)	2.01	1.45	1.59
*Trans Fatty Acids*
Elaidic Acid (trans-9-octadecenoic acid, C₁₈H₃₄O₂)	0.17	0.41	0.28
Linolelaidic Acid (trans,trans-9,12-octadecadienoic acid, C₁₈H₃₂O₂) + trans-α-Linolenic Acid (all trans-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid, C₁₈H₃₀O₂)	0.20	<LOD	0.11
*Omega 3/6 Fatty Acids*
Omega-3 Fatty Acids	2.01	1.45	1.59
Omega-6 Fatty Acids	26.76	31.12	27.78
*Saturated Fatty Acids*	35.58	40.02	36.28
*Unsaturated Fatty Acids*	64.32	59.93	63.82
- Mono-unsaturated Fatty Acids	35.01	26.95	33.04
- Poly-unsaturated Fatty Acids	28.94	32.57	30.50
*Trans Fatty Acids*	0.37	0.41	0.28
TOTAL	99.90	99.95	100.10

⁺ T: Traditional Uşak tarhana, CMP: Chicken Meat powder, TCMP₃₀: Uşak tarhana sample with 30% chicken meat powder.

References

1. Daglioğlu, O. Tarhana as a traditional Turkish fermented cereal food. Its recipe, production and composition. Food/Nahrung; 2000; 44, pp. 85-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3803(20000301)44:2<85::AID-FOOD85>3.0.CO;2-H]

2. TS 2282 Tarhana Standardı; TSE: Ankara, Turkey, Available online: https://intweb.tse.org.tr/standard/standard/Standard.aspx?081118051115108051104119110104055047105102120088111043113104073099085078077109118073073119066066 (accessed on 11 November 2023).

3. Şimşek, Ö.; Zehir, D. Bebek Beslenmesi için zenginleştirilmiş formülasyonla hazırlanan uşak tarhanası hamurunun fermantasyonunda mikrobiyolojik ve kimyasal değişimler. Akad. Gıda; 2018; 16, pp. 403-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24323/akademik-gida.505511]

4. Şimşek, Ö.; Özel, S.; Çon, A.H. Comparison of lactic acid bacteria diversity during the fermentation of tarhana produced at home and on a commercial scale. Food Sci. Biotechnol.; 2017; 26, pp. 181-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-017-0024-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30263526]

5. Hassan, M.F.; Gadallah, M.G. Physico-chemical and sensory properties of tarhana prepared from different cereals and dairy ingredients. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Technol.; 2018; 29, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9734/CJAST/2018/38459]

6. Arslan-Tontul, S.; Mutlu, C.; Candal, C.; Erbaş, M. Microbiological and chemical properties of wet tarhana produced by different dairy products. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2018; 55, pp. 4770-4781. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-3410-9]

7. Magala, M.; Kohajdová, Z.; Karovičová, J. Preparation of lactic acid bacteria fermented wheat-yoghurt mixtures. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment.; 2013; 12, pp. 295-302.

8. Köse, E.; Çağındı, Ö.S. An investigation into the use of different flours in tarhana. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2002; 37, pp. 219-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2621.2002.00559.x]

9. Türk Patent Enstitüsü. Coğrafi İşaret Belgesi. T.R. 209, Uşak Tarhanası, Uşak. Available online: https://ci.turkpatent.gov.tr/cografi-isaretler/detay/38156 (accessed on 11 November 2023).

10. Koca, A.; Yazici, F.; Anil, M. Utilization of soy yoghurt in tarhana production. Eur. Food Res. Technol.; 2002; 215, pp. 293-297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00217-002-0568-0]

11. Ozboy-Ozbas, O.; Hancer, A.; Gokbulut, I. Utilization of sugarbeet fiber and brewers’ spent grain in the production of tarhana. Zuckerindustrie; 2010; 135, pp. 496-501.

12. Kilci, A.; Gocmen, D. Phenolic acid composition, antioxidant activity and phenolic content of tarhana supplemented with oat flour. Food Chem.; 2014; 151, pp. 547-553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.11.038]

13. Herken, E.N.; Aydin, N. Use of carob flour in the production of tarhana. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci.; 2015; 65, pp. 167-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pjfns-2015-0010]

14. Eker, T.; Bozuk, F. Effect of edible mushroom powder on antioxidant activity of tarhana. Indian J. Pharm. Educ. Res.; 2017; 51, pp. 268-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5530/ijper.51.3s.27]

15. Isık, A.; Yapar, A. Effect of tomato seed supplementation on chemical and nutritional properties of tarhana. J. Food Meas. Charact.; 2017; 11, pp. 667-674. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11694-016-9436-7]

16. Demirci, A.S.; Palabiyik, I.; Ozalp, S.; Tirpanci Sivri, G. Effect of using kefir in the formulation of traditional Tarhana. Food Sci. Technol.; 2019; 39, pp. 358-364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/fst.29817]

17. Gulbandilar, A. Hops (Humulus lupulus L.): A novel ingredient in tarhana. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2021; 45, e15686. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.15686]

18. Koten, M. Development of tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) based gluten-free tarhana. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2021; 45, e15133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.15133]

19. Atasoy, R.; Ertop, M.H. Assessment of nutritional and bioactive properties for gluten-free tarhana containing various legumes and cereals. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2021; 45, e15606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.15606]

20. Sensoy, E.; Tarakci, Z. Effect of almond pulp addition on physical. chemical and functional properties of tarhana. J. Tekirdağ Agric. Fac.; 2023; 20, pp. 620-630.

21. Ogurlu, M.N.; Tarakci, Z. Effect of hazelnut pulp addition on physical and chemical properties of tarhana. KSU Tarim Ve Doga Derg.-KSU J. Agric. Nat.; 2023; 26, pp. 1358-1367. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1197006]

22. Soguksu, S.; Kulcu, D.B. Determining some quality characteristics of vegan tarhana added with red beet (Beta vulgaris var. Cruenta) powder. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol.; 2023; 66, e23220844. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-4324-2023220844]

23. AACC. Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists; Cereals & Grains Association: Eagan, MN, USA, 1990.

24. FAO. Food Energy: Methods of Analysis and Conversion Factors; Report of a Technical Workshop, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2003; ISBN 978-92-5-105014-9 Available online: https://www.fao.org/uploads/media/FAO_2003_Food_Energy_02.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2023).

25. TS 3190 Hazır Kuru Çorbalık Standardı; TSE: Ankara, Turkey, 1995; Available online: https://intweb.tse.org.tr/Standard/Standard/Standard.aspx?081118051115108051104119110104055047105102120088111043113104073098086065114043052075088122097070 (accessed on 11 November 2023).

26. AOAC Internatıonal. AOAC Internatıonal. AOAC Method 991.43. Total, soluble, and insoluble dietary fiber in foods. 16th Edition of Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International; AOAC International: Rockville, MD, USA, 1999.

27. Chen, Y.; Yan, Y.; Xie, M.Y.; Nie, S.P.; Liu, W.; Gong, X.F.; Wang, Y.X. Development of a chromatographic fingerprint for the chloroform extracts of Ganoderma lucidum by HPLC and LC–MS. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.; 2008; 47, pp. 469-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2008.01.039] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18337046]

28. Erkan, H.; Çelik, S.; Bilgi, B.; Köksel, H. A new approach for the utilization of barley in food products: Barley tarhana. Food Chem.; 2006; 97, pp. 12-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.03.018]

29. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic.; 1965; 16, pp. 144-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5344/ajev.1965.16.3.144]

30. Singh, P.; Kesharwani, R.K.; Keservani, R.K. Protein, Carbohydrates, and Fats: Energy Metabolism. Sustained Energy for Enhanced Human Functions and Activity; Bagchi, D. Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 103-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805413-0.00006-5]

31. Nordic Committee on Food Analysis. NMKL Procedure No. 9: Evaluation of Results Derived from the Analysis of Certified Reference Materials; National Veterinary Institute: Oslo, Norway, 2001.

32. AOAC International. AOAC International. AOAC Method 996.06 for Analysis of Fatty Acid in Meat By-products. 19th Edition of Official Methods of Analysis; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Rockville, MD, USA, 2012.

33. Jiménez, J.J.; Bernal, J.L.; Nozal, M.; Martin, M.; Bernal, J. Sample preparation methods for beeswax chracterization by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection. J. Chromatogr. A; 2006; 1129, pp. 262-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2006.06.098]

34. Ertaş, N.; Sert, D.; Demir, M.K.; Elguen, A. Effect of whey concentrate addition on the chemical, nutritional and sensory properties of tarhana (a Turkish fermented cereal-based food). Food Sci. Technol. Res.; 2009; 15, pp. 51-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3136/fstr.15.51]

35. Kılıç Keskin, H. Glutensiz Tarhana Üretimi Üzerine Araştırmalar. Master’s Thesis; Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Konya, Türkiye, 2022.

36. Nielsen, S.S. Determination of Moisture Content. Food Analysis Laboratory Manual; Nielsen, S.S. Food Science Texts Series; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 17-27. ISBN 978-1-4419-1463-7

37. Zambrano, M.V.; Dutta, B.; Mercer, D.G.; MacLean, H.L.; Touchie, M.F. Assessment of moisture content measurement methods of dried food products in small-scale operations in developing countries: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2019; 88, pp. 484-496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.04.006]

38. Aytunç, R.; Özsisli, B. Determination of some properties of the traditional maras tarhana produced by tempered corn addition. Turk. J. Agric.-Food Sci. Technol.; 2020; 8, pp. 1067-1073.

39. Kirk, S.; Sawyer, R. Pearson’s Composition and Analysis of Foods; Longman Group Ltd.: Harlow, UK, 1991.

40. Park, Y.W. Moisture and Ash Contents of Food. Handbook of Food Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996.

41. Bilgiçli, N. Tarhananın Fitik Asit İçeriği ve Bazı Besin Öğeleri Üzerine Maya, Malt ve Fitaz Katkılarının Etkiler. Ph.D. Thesis; Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Konya, Türkiye, 2004.

42. Meluzzi, A.; Sirri, F.; Castellini, C.; Roncarati, A.; Melotti, P.; Franchini, A. Influence of genotype and feeding on chemical composition of organic chicken meat. Ital. J. Anim. Sci.; 2009; 8, pp. 766-768. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.766]

43. Ozdemir, S.; Gocmen, D.; Yildirim Kumral, A. A traditional Turkish fermented cereal food: Tarhana. Food Rev. Int.; 2007; 23, pp. 107-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87559120701224923]

44. Atar, Ş.; Özsisli, B. Determination of some characteristics of traditional Beyşehir Tarhana production with poppy seed substitution. Turk. J. Agric.-Food Sci. Technol.; 2022; 10, pp. 1293-1299.

45. Cagindi, O.; Aksoylu, Z.; Savlak, N.Y.; Kose, E. Comparison of physicochemical and functional properties of domestic and commercial tarhana in Turkey. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci.; 2016; 22, pp. 324-330.

46. Çalışkan Koç, G.; Özçıra, N. Chemical composition, functional, powder, and sensory properties of tarhana enriched with wheat germ. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2019; 56, pp. 5204-5213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-019-03989-y]

47. Adebo, J.A.; Njobeh, P.B.; Gbashi, S.; Oyedeji, A.B.; Ogundele, O.M.; Oyeyinka, S.A.; Adebo, O.A. Fermentation of cereals and legumes: Impact on nutritional constituents and nutrient bioavailability. Fermentation; 2022; 8, 63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8020063]

48. Herken, E.N.; Çon, A.H. Use of different lactic starter cultures in the production of tarhana. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2014; 38, pp. 59-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.2012.00744.x]

49. Alrosan, M.; Tan, T.-C.; Koh, W.Y.; Easa, A.M.; Gammoh, S.; Alu’datt, M.H. Overview of fermentation process: Structure-function relationship on protein quality and non-nutritive compounds of plant-based proteins and carbohydrates. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2022; 63, pp. 7677-7691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2049200]

50. Gul, S.; Durante-Mangoni, E. Unraveling the puzzle: Health benefits of probiotics-a comprehensive review. J. Clin. Med.; 2024; 13, 1436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051436]

51. Dhingra, D.; Michael, M.; Rajput, H.; Patil, R.T. Dietary fibre in foods: A Review. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2012; 49, pp. 255-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0365-5]

52. Burdock, G.A. Safety assessment of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as a food ingredient. Food Chem. Toxicol.; 2007; 45, pp. 2341-2351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2007.07.011]

53. Meier, R.F. Basics in clinical nutrition: Fibre and short chain fatty acids. E-SPEN Eur. e-J. Clin. Nutr. Metab.; 2009; 4, pp. 69-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclnm.2008.07.008]

54. Erbaş, M.; Certel, M.; Uslu, M.K. Yaş ve kuru tarhananın şeker içeriğine fermentasyon ve depolamanın etkisi. Gıda; 2004; 29, pp. 299-305.

55. Tamer, C.E.; Kumral, A.; Aşan, M.; Şahin, İ. Chemical compositions of traditional tarhana having different formulations. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2007; 31, pp. 116-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.2007.00113.x]

56. Wang, H.; Qin, X.; Li, X.; Wang, X.; Lei, Y.; Zhang, C. Effect of chilling methods on the surface color and water retention of yellow-feathered chickens. Poult. Sci.; 2020; 99, pp. 2246-2255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.020] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32241510]

57. Khare, A.K.; Biswas, A.K.; Sahoo, J. Comparison study of chitosan, EDTA, eugenol and peppermint oil for antioxidant and antimicrobial potentials in chicken noodles and their effect on colour and oxidative stability at ambient temperature storage. LWT Food Sci. Technol.; 2014; 55, pp. 286-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.08.024]

58. Kilci, Z.; Cetin, R.U.; Ates, K.; Tutak, D. An innovative application developed to determine the blood output of chickens and its impact on the meat quality in poultry slaughtering. Poult. Sci.; 2023; 102, 103080. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.103080]

59. Karakaya, S.; Şimşek, S. Bioavailability of phenolic compounds. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2013; 53, pp. 1111-1129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408690490886683] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615428]

60. Abdullah, N.; Chin, N.L.; Yusof, Y.A. Phytochemicals and antioxidant activity of different cereals and their significance for a healthy diet. J. Cereal Sci.; 2018; 80, pp. 33-40.

61. Tepe, T.K.; Otağ, F.B.; Ağan, C.; Kadakal, Ç.; Özer, Ç.; Batu, H.S. Comparatıve analysıs of anatolıan fermented food: Tarhana. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on “Traditional Foods from Adriatic to Caucasus”; Kyrenia, Cyprus, 19–21 April 2018; 61.Available online: https://bhi.nku.edu.tr/basinyonetim/resim/images/editorresimleri/288/files/tffatc2018.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2023).

62. Kiyak, S.N. Çitlembik (Celtis australis L.) ilave edilerek üretilmiş tarhananın kimyasal ve mikrobiyolojik özelliklerinin incelenmesi ve Gediz tarhanası ile karşılaştırılması. Master’s Thesis; Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Kütahya, Türkiye, 2020.

63. Gediz, Y. Vegan ve çölyak bireyler için geliştirilen tarhanaların bazı karakteristik özellikleri ile antioksidan potansiyonelinin belirlenmesi. Master’s Thesis; Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Manisa, Türkiye, 2020.

64. Sharma, P.; Gujral, H.S. Antioxidant activity of barley as affected by extrusion cooking. Food Chem.; 2010; 120, pp. 673-678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.10.059]

65. Şemşimoğlu, E. Çeşitli üzümsü meyvelerin ilavesi ile tarhana üretimi üzerine bir araştırma. Master’s Thesis; Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Afyonkarahisar, Türkiye, 2019.

66. Ghafoor, K.; Al-Juhaimi, F.; Özcan, M.M.; Babiker, E.E.; Ahmed, I.A.M.; Alsawmahi, O.N. Bioactive compounds, antioxidant activity and sensory properties of Tarhana, a traditional fermented food, enriched with pickling herb (Echinophora tenuifolia L.). Food Sci. Technol.; 2021; 56, pp. 3600-3606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14989]

67. İstek, Ö.; Tomar, O.; Çağlar, A. Orman meyveli tarhananın fonksiyonel özellikleri. Avrupa Bilim Ve Teknol. Derg.; 2021; 22, pp. 118-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.848163]

68. Hur, S.J.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, Y.C.; Choi, I.; Kim, G.B. Effects of fermentation on the antioxidant activity in plant-based foods. Food Chem.; 2014; 160, pp. 346-356. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.03.112]

69. Zhao, Y.S.; Eweys, A.S.; Zhang, J.Y.; Zhu, Y.; Bai, J.; Darwesh, O.M.; Zhang, H.B.; Xiao, X. Fermentation affects the antioxidant activity of plant-based food material through the release and production of bioactive components. Antioxidants; 2021; 10, 2004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox10122004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34943107]

70. Balli, D.; Bellumori, M.; Pucci, L.; Gabriele, M.; Longo, V.; Paoli, P.; Melani, F.; Mulinacci, N.; Innocenti, M. Does fermentation really increase the phenolic content in cereals? a study on millet. Foods; 2020; 9, 303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9030303] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32156034]

71. Sharma, R.; Garg, P.; Kumar, P.; Bhatia, S.K.; Kulshrestha, S. Microbial fermentation and its role in quality improvement of fermented foods. Fermentation; 2020; 6, 106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fermentation6040106]

72. Işık, M.S.; Bilgin, R.; Gökırmaklı, Ç.; Şatır, G.; Güzel-Seydim, Z.B. Determination of the effects of different drying methods on tarhana with improved functional properties. Turk. J. Agric.-Food Sci. Technol.; 2023; 11, pp. 460-469.

73. Knez, E.; Kadac-Czapska, K.; Grembecka, M. Effect of fermentation on the nutritional quality of the selected vegetables and legumes and their health effects. Reprod. Dev. Biol.; 2023; 13, 655. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life13030655] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36983811]

74. Erbaş, M.; Certel, M.; Uslu, M.K. Microbiological and chemical propertiesof Tarhana during fermentation and storage as wet-sensorial properties of Tarhana soup. LWT-Food Sci. Technol.; 2005; 38, pp. 409-416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2004.06.009]

75. Hurrell, R.; Egli, I. Iron bioavailability and dietary reference values. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2010; 91, pp. 1461S-1467S. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2010.28674F]

76. Aktaş, M. Grain foods as a source of minerals for the general population. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia; 2015; 7, pp. 7-13.

77. Güldür, M.E.; Ceylan, I.; Pekşen, A. The mineral content of Turkish Tarhana as influenced by its ingredients. Int. J. Food Prop.; 2016; 19, pp. 432-440.

78. Çekal, N.; Aslan, B. Gastronomik bir değer olarak tarhana ve coğrafi işaretlemede tarhananın yeri ve önemi. Güncel Tur. Araştırmaları Derg.; 2017; 1, pp. 124-135.

79. Çalışkan Koç, G.; Tekgül, Y.; Erten, E.S.; Akdoğan, A. Mineral content, fatty acid composition, and volatile compounds of gluten-free tarhana formulated with different cereal and pulse flours. J. Food Sci.; 2021; 86, pp. 4376-4392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15897] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34514600]

80. Başlar, M.; Özçelik, G.; Çalışkan, H. A comprehensive review on Beyşehir Tarhana, a Turkish traditional food. Int. J. Gastron. Res.; 2022; 1, pp. 35-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.56479/ayed.2022.07071]

81. Coşkun, F. Tarhana ve beslenme yönünden önemi. Gıda Ve Yem Bilim. Teknol. Derg.; 2003; 3, pp. 46-49.

82. Angel, R.; Tamim, N.M.; Applegate, T.J.; Dhanndu, A.S.; Ellestad, L.E. Phytic acid chemistry: Influence on phytin-phosphorus availability and phytase efficacy. J. Appl. Poult. Res.; 2002; 11, pp. 47-480. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/japr/11.4.471]

83. Vitali, D.; Dragojević, I.V.; Šebečić, B. Bioaccessibility of Ca, Mg, Mn and Cu from whole grain tea-biscuits: Impact of proteins, phytic acid and polyphenols. Food Chem.; 2008; 110, pp. 62-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.01.056] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26050166]

84. Lydia Pramitha, J.; Subhalakshmi, V.K.I.; Jeeva, G.; Surendar, A. Small Millets Exploring the Hidden Potential; Scripown Publications: Delhi, India, 2021.

85. Lydia Pramitha, J.; Jeeva, G.; Neethu, F.; Ravikesavan, R.; Thinakaran, J. Revitalization of small millets for nutritional and food security by advanced genetics and genomics approaches. Front. Genet.; 2023; 13, 1007552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.1007552] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36699471]

86. Ertaş, N. Effects of baker’s yeast additıon on some properties and phytic acid content of tarhana prepared with different cereal and legume products. Food Health; 2017; 4, pp. 9-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3153/JFHS18002]

87. Rosanoff, A.; Weaver, C.M.; Rude, R.K. Suboptimal magnesium status in the United States: Are the health consequences underestimated?. Nutr. Rev.; 2012; 70, pp. 153-164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00465.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22364157]

88. Özcan, M.M. Mineral contents of some plants used as condiments in Turkey. Food Chem.; 2011; 126, pp. 1749-1755. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00263-2]

89. World Health Organization. Guideline: Sodium Consumption and Potassium Intake; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.

90. Akpinar, A. Transformations of Fatty Acids in Filamentous Fungi. Ph.D. Thesis; The University of Hull: Kingston upon Hull, UK, 1997.

91. Akpınar-Bayizit, A. Doymamış yağ asitlerinin beslenme ve sağlık açısından önemi. Gıda Ve Yem Bilim.-Teknol. Derg.; 2003; 2, pp. 28-31.

92. Simopoulos, A.P. The importance of the ratio of ω-6/ω-3 essential fatty acids. Biomed. Pharmacother.; 2002; 56, pp. 365-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0753-3322(02)00253-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909]

93. Simopoulos, A.P. An Increase in the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio ıncreases the risk for obesity. Nutrients; 2016; 8, 128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu8030128] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26950145]

94. Wilson, B.A.; Pollard, R.D.; Ferguson, D.S. Nutriential Hazards: Macronutrients: Essential Fatty Acids. Encyclopedia of Food Safety; Yasmine, M. Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 95-102.

95. Jana, S.; Gandhi, A.; Jana, S. Nanotechnology in Bioactive Food Ingredients: Its Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Approaches. Nanotechnology Applications in Food: Flavor, Stability, Nutrition and Safety; Oprea, A.E.; Grumezescu, A.M. Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 21-41.

96. Siri-Tarino, P.W.; Sun, Q.; Hu, F.B.; Krauss, R.M. Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2010; 91, pp. 502-509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2008.26285] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734]

97. World Health Organization. Dietary Recommendations on the Amount and Types of Fat for Adults; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.

98. Ovando-Martinez, M.; Daglioglu, O.; Guner, K.G.; Gecgel, U.; Simsek, S. Analysis of the fatty acids and phenolic compounds in a cereal-based fermented food (Tarhana). Food Nutr. Sci.; 2014; 5, pp. 1177-1184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.513128]

99. Simopoulos, A.P. Importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids: Evolutionary aspects. Omega–6/Omega–3 Essential Fatty Acid Ratio: The Scientific Evidence; Simopoulos, A.P.; Cleland, L.G. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics; Karger: Basel, Switzerland, 2003; Volume 92, pp. 1-22.

100. Simopoulos, A.P. The omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio: Health implications. Oilseeds Fats Crops Lipids; 2010; 17, pp. 267-275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ocl.2010.0325]

101. Calder, P.C. Omega-3 fatty acids and inflammatory processes: From molecules to man. Biochem. Soc. Trans.; 2017; 45, pp. 1105-1115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1042/BST20160474] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28900017]

102. Shojaei Saadi, H.A. trans-Fatty Acids. Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences: Encyclopedia of Toxicology; 3rd ed. Wexler, P. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 798-801.

103. Eshak, E.S.; Yamagishi, K.; Iso, H. Dietary Fat and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. Encyclopedia of Cardiovascular Research and Medicine; Vasan, R.S.; Sawyer, D.B. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 60-89.

Word count: 11920

Show less

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Translate

Tarhana is a popular Turkish fermented food, made of a mixture of cereal and yoghurt, generally consumed as soup. Both lactic acid bacteria and yeasts are responsible for the fermentation. The selection and proportions of ingredients integrated along with the production process specify the nutritional value and sensory properties of the final product. Therefore, the first objective of the present study was to process a dried “chicken meat powder (CMP)” that could be used in food formulations. The second objective was to determine the impact of CMP addition on the nutritional and sensorial properties of Uşak tarhana recipe with geographical indication. In order to fulfill these challenges dried chicken meat powder (CMP) at levels of 20, 25, 30, and 35% were included in tarhana recipes for the very first time. Within the scope of the study, organoleptic properties of tarhana soups (control and CMP added) were determined, and the formulation with 30% CMP (TCMP₃₀) achieved the highest sensory evaluation scores. This sample was analyzed further, and its physicochemical properties were compared to a control sample strictly following the traditional Uşak tarhana recipe. In the tarhana samples, the moisture, protein, and total fat content increased with higher CMP additions, while the ash, crude cellulose, carbohydrates, energy, salt, and dietary fiber decreased significantly (p < 0.05). The calcium and sodium contents decreased, however, potassium, phosphorus, and zinc contents increased. The fatty acid composition analysis revealed that Uşak tarhana contained more saturated fatty acids than either CMP or TCMP₃₀; adding 30% CMP reduced the total saturated fatty acids while increasing the monounsaturated fatty acids. The main fatty acids in traditional samples were linoleic, palmitic, and oleic acids, comprising 83.82% of the total fat. In TCMP₃₀, the order changed to oleic > linoleic > palmitic with 83.89% of total fat. Over time, the total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity decreased in the control sample but increased in TCMP₃₀. These results suggest that a formulation including 30% CMP effectively enhances the sensory, functional, and nutritional aspects in tarhana.

Details

Title

From Traditional to Exceptional: Impact of the Use of Dried Chicken Meat Powder on Sensory and Nutritional Quality of Tarhana

Author

Ramazan Ulku Cetin¹

; Kilci, Zeynep¹; Ates, Kivilcim²

; Kaya, Dogan³

; Akpinar-Bayizit, Arzu⁴

¹ Department of Food Processing, Agriculture and Forestry Vocational School of Susurluk, Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Balikesir 10250, Türkiye; [email protected] (R.U.C.); [email protected] (Z.K.); Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa 16059, Türkiye; [email protected]
² Research & Development Department, HasTavuk Company, Susurluk 10600, Türkiye; [email protected]
³ Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa 16059, Türkiye; [email protected]; Aroma Bursa Fruit Juices and Food Industry, Inc., Bursa 16580, Türkiye
⁴ Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa 16059, Türkiye

First page

501

Publication year

2024

Publication date

2024

Publisher

MDPI AG

e-ISSN

23115637

Source type

Scholarly Journal

Language of publication

English

DOI

https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10100501

ProQuest document ID

3120632666