---Beslenme ve D iyet D ergisi /J N u tr and Diet 36(I-2):47-58/2008
STANDARDIZING THE RECIPES MAINLY USED IN THE
MENUS OF COMMERCIALLY OPERATING
INSTITUTIONAL FOOD SERVICES: THEIR NUTRITIONAL
VALUES AND COST ANALYSIS
--- D r. A y h a n D A Ğ * , P ro f . D r. T ü r k a n K u tlu a y M E R D O L * * —
A B S T R A C T
T h is r e s e a r c h w a s c a r r ie d o u t at B ilk e n t U niversity cafeterias to standardize the recipes that are not available f o r specific dishes which are m ainly used by commercially operating mass fe e d in g institutions. Throughout the study, 75 fo o d recipes classified under 9 categories (soups, meat, chicken, fish , vegetables cooked with meat, cold vegetable dishes cooked with olive oil, p a s tries, salads and desserts) were standardized fo r 100 portions and written to the fo rm s redevelo p e d by the researchers. A ll o f the dishes were prepared, cooked and served by the cooks wor
king at B ilkent University main kitchen. Recipe base line information was created by combining the data collected both from the well experienced cooks and fa m o u s cook books. The organoleptic evaluation o f the recipes to be standardized were made by using a 5 points scale evaluation form w hich w as b a sed on 5 criteria (colour-shape, g en era l appearance, flavour-taste, texture-con- sistency, portion size) and graded by the pa n e lists com posed o f dietitians, university students, u n iv ersity s t a f f a n d cooks. F ifty nine o f these recipes were standardized follow ing their initial, 9 after their second, and 7 after their third trial o f production. The recipes which were perceived to be average and/or below by the panelists were pro d u ced again considering their shortcomings until the d esired p o in ts were achieved. Energy and nutrient content o f the recipes were calcula ted using B E B İS (com puterized program giving the energy and nutrient values o f given fo o d and recipes that are specific fo r Turkish dishes) prog
* D ir ec to r o f th e F o o d S e r v ic e at B ilk e n t U n iv e r sity
** P r o fe s so r and F o rm er D ir ec to r o f the D ep artm en t o f N utrition and D ie te tic s at H a c e tte p e U n iv e r sity
ram. The cost o f the recipes was calculated as fo o d cost and the total cost. The fo o d cost was calculated by the ingredients* cost indexed to the value o f American Dollar due to its consistent rate compared to Turkish Liras. Total cost was achieved by the factors affecting the cost o f the dish such as the cost o f employee and other tech nical costs. Total cost was calculated to determi ne the sale price o f the dishes. Energy and nutri ent content and the total cost o f the dishes were shown on the standardized recipe forms. It was fo u n d that the percentages o f the food, labour and the operational cost o f the total cost were 33.3 %, 29.9 % and 26.4% o f the total cost res
pectively. .
Key Words: Standardized recipes, cost evaluati on, fo o d cost, nutritional values.
Ö ZE T
T ic a ri K u r u m M e n ü le r in d e Yer A la n
Yemeklerin Standartlaştırılması Besin D eğerleri ve M aliyet Analizi
Bu araştırma Bilkent Üniversitesi kafeteryaların da toplu beslenme yapılan kurumlar için gereksi nim duyulan ve standart tarifesi bulunm ayan yem ek tarifelerinin standartlaştırılm ası, besin değerlerinin hesaplanması ve maliyet analizleri nin yapılması amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Çalışma da 9 grup (çorbalar, et, tavuk, balık, etli sebze yem ekleri, zeytinyağlı yem ekler, börek ham ur işleri, salatalar, tatlılar) altında toplanan ve özellikle ticari işletm e m ö n ü lerin d e y e r alan yemeklerden seçilen 75 adet yem ek tarifesi stan- dartlaştırılmıştır. Yemekler Bilkent Ü niversitesi merkez mutfağında deneyimli aşçılar tarafından
4 8 D A Ğ A ., M E R D O L T.K..
y a p ılm ış ve d e ğ e r le n d ir ilm e le r i d iy e tisy e n , öğrenci, üniversite personeli ve aşçıdan oluşan bir panel grubu tarafından 5 değerlendirme kri terinin (renk-şekil, lezzet, porsiyon yeterliliği, tekstür-kıvam , g en el görünüm ) esas a lındığı puanlama testi kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Tarifeleri denenen yemeklerden 59 tanesi birinci, 9 tanesi ikinci, 7 tanesi ise üçüncü üretimleri sonunda standartlaş tırılmış tır. Değerlendirme kriterleri nin herhangi birine göre vasat sın ıfın a giren yemeklerin tespit edilen eksiklikleri dikkate alı
narak üretimleri tekrarlanmış ve üretim tekrarla rında yemeklerin puanlarındaki artışlar istenen
d ü ze y e g e le n le r s ta n d a r tla ş tır ılm ış tır .
Standartlaştırılan tarifelerin bir porsiyonlarının besin değerleri BEBİS program ı kullan ıla ra k hesaplanmış ve tarifelere yazılmıştır. Tarifelerin ayrıca m aliyetleri de dolara en d eksli o lara k hesaplanmıştır. Maliyet hesabında yemeğin içine giren besinlerin maliyeti yanında emek ve işletme maliyeti de dikkate alınmıştır. Buna göre yiyecek maliyeti % 33.3, emek maliyeti % 29.9, işletme maliyeti ise % 26.4 olarak bulunmuştur.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Standartlaştırılmış tarifeler, maliyet hesabı, yiyecek maliyeti, besin değeri.
INTRODUCTION
Standard recipes are one o f the factors influen cing the quality, effectiveness and the cost con trol at food service establishments together with purchasing methods, well trained staff, layout and equipments and quality control procedures. By using standardized recipes, it is possible to serve the food with the same cost, quality, consis tency, and taste. They also allow the operators to control the portion size and the total yield to be produced (1-11).
The first advantage o f using standardized recipes is consistency. Standard recipes are one o f the four factors that help to achieve the quality, con sistency and controlling costs at Institutional Food Services. By using standardized recipes, prepared foods will have the same cost, quality, portion control, consistency, and taste, regardless o f whom they are prepared for, who prepared the
food and the time o f preparation. The other fac tors that help to achieve quality, consistency and con tro llin g costs are s ta n d a rd iz e d p u rc h a sin g methods, w ell trained s ta ff and q u ality control procedures (2,9,12-14).
Standardized recipes and stan d ard p o rtio n s are the main pillars o f cost control program , and give constant and valid inform ation for the program . By using the information gathered from standar dized recipes, exact cost o f item s and services could be calculated and analyzed. T his is very critical for the strategic planning and control o f the business (4,11).
Today most o f the com m ercially operating insti tutions in Turkey do not use standardized recipes, thus nutritio n al v alu e o f fo o d s se rv e d are n o t known and their cost analysis o f the foods is not easy to substantiate (15). This study w as planned and carried out to standardize the recipes that are not available for the dishes m ostly served in the commercially operating institutions and to define their nutritional values and total cost.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The recipes chosen for standardization:
In this study seventy-five different d ishes w ere standardized for one hundred portions. T he crite ria for the selection o f the dishes for th eir recipe standardization were:
1) to be seen in the m enus o f com m ercially operating institutional food services.
2) not having standardized recipes.
The dishes w ere ch o sen from 9 d iffe re n t dish groups i.e. soups, meat, chicken, fish, vegetables cooked with meat, cold vegetables dishes cooked with olive oil, bôrek-pasta, salads and desserts. A ll re c ip e s w ere tr ie d a n d p r o d u c e d a t th e Bilkent University kitchens by w ell trained cooks under the supervision o f the researchers. T he dis hes that are chosen for standardization are show n in Table 1.
Standardizing the R ecip es M ainly U sed in the M enus o f Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: Their Nutritional V alues and C ost A nalysis
Methods Used in Writing The Recipes to the Forms:
Recipes were docum ented on a form redeveloped by the researchers. This form contains informati on about the name o f the dish, group number o f the dish, po rtion size, utensils used to control portion size, equipments used in preparation and co o k in g , p re p a ra tio n and cooking tim e, total yield, ingredients; their net, gross weights and average measurements, the steps to be followed for preparation and cooking, the cost and energy and nutrient content o f one serving size.
W h ile c a lc u la tin g the energy and n u tritional value o f the dishes, the net quantity o f the foods in the dishes were used. Gross quantities o f the foods w ere shown on a separate column at the form to determ ine the purchasing amount and transferrin g am ount o f the foods from the dry and cold stores to the kitchen on a given day. Net values o f the food were calculated by subtracting the w aste from the gross values. All net and gross v alues o f the foods w ere given in k ilo gram s. F o r sim p lify in g the procedure for the
T a b l e 1. T h e d ish e s ch o sen for standardization.
users, third column is allocated for the ingredi ents average amounts such as pieces, bunches, glass etc. Some foods that were not purchased as kilograms but in pieces, such as lemon, parsley etc, were stated in kilograms to be used in calcu lating their nutritional values. The order o f the ingredients were written as the order o f their process in the preparation and the cooking o f the dish. Each new step to be processed were sepa rated by a horizontal line to make the recipe easy to follow.
O rganoleptic Evaluation of the Dishes:
Each dish was evaluated by ten panelists consis ting o f two dietitians, two staff members, two cooks and four university students from Bilkent U niversity. A form , created by K urtcan and Gônül (16) based on grading the criteria determi ned for the evaluation, was given to the panelist to be filled after they tasted the given dish.
The criteria stated on this form were colour- shape, general appearance, flavour-taste, texture- consistency, and portion size o f the dish. As the appearance o f quality criteria on the form s is
D ish G r o u p N u m b e r N am e
S o u p s 1 0 C arrot, broccoli, m inestrone, spinach, vegetable, b ezir, m ushroom , chicken, ezogelin, com soups.
M e at 18 K ebabs (kağıt, orm an, yörük, islim, w ith puree), lam b tendaur, shepherds sautee, roasted lamb, A nkara tava, bo iled veal, hünkar beğendi, b e e f w ith sauce, m eat sautee w ith m ushroom , elbasan tava and m eatballs (roast, hasanpaşa, grilled, dalyan). C h ic k e n 13 C hicken w ith soybean sauce, chicken stuffed w ith spinach,
roasted chicken, sauteed chicken w ith m ushroom , Chinese chicken, roasted chicken roti, chicken sautee w ith vegetables, chickenball, fried chicken, chicken Topkapi, grilled chicken, köylüm chicken, chicken shinitzel,
F ish 1 T rout sautee.
V e g e ta b le s C o o k e d W ith M e a t
3 V egetables augratin, cauliflow er augratin, zucchini m ousakka. C o ld V eg e tab le D ishes
C o o k e d W ith O liv e O il**
4 A rtichoke, stuffed aubergine, stuffed cabbage, şakşuka.
B o re k s, P asta s 5 Spagetti napoletana, su böreği, m ilföy börek w ith cheese, yu fk a böreği w ith spinach, verm icelli w ith cheese and w alnut.
S alad s a n d A p p e tiz e rs 7 Salads (M editerranean, garden, shepherds, aubergine and potatoes), carrot tarator and fava.
D esse rts 14 Cheesecake, triam isu, tulum ba tatlısı, kalburabastı, keşkül, şekerpare, revani, irmik tatlısı, supangle, lokm a tatlısı, fırın sütlaç, krem şokola, kazandibi, sakızlı m uhallebi.
5 0 D A Ö A ., M E R D O L T .K . T a b le 2. The points o f grading and their explanation used in the evaluation o f the standardized recipes.
P oints o f G ra d in g E x p la n atio n 10-17 Unacceptable 1 8 - 2 5 Acceptable 2 6 - 3 3 Average 3 4 - 4 1 G ood 42 + Excellent
T ab le 3. Percentage o f the vegetable waste.
V egetable W aste (% ) V egetable W a s te (% ) P o tato Peeling By H an d Peeling By M achine Peeling A fter Boiling
25 10
10
T o m a to
P ittin g only th e top Peeling Scooping__________ 1 20 30 Z ucchini Scooping 20 45 O nion S p rin g onion 12 30
C elery R oot 35 A u b erg in e 20
C a rr o t 20 C a b b a g e 30
C auliflow er 45 R a d ish 25
G arlic G re en P e p p e r 10
Dill 35 P arsley 40
Broccoli 25 S p in ac h 25+
B russel S p ro u t 10 Ice b erg 25
G ard en C ress 30 L em on (80g) juice 25 g
important, they were written as above mentioned order. These five criteria have been graded on a 1 to 5 points scale (17) which are: Unacceptable: 1 point, Acceptable: 2 points, Average: 3 points, Good: 4 points, Excellent: 5 points. Each dish would get a minimum o f ten and a maximum of fifty points on this grading method with a panel of ten evaluators. The range o f points in grading and their explanation are shown in Table 2.
At the end o f the evaluation, the dishes that were graded as an average o f 34 points and above were considered acceptable and standardized consequently. The dishes that were graded below 34 points w ere reproduced until they get the acceptable grade (17).
Each panelist was trained on the purpose and the grading criteria o f the study prior to the evaluati on. The dishes to be tested were served on the plates standardized for each panelist and the sur vey. As one o f the evaluation criteria is portion adequacy, the dishes were served at lunch time (12.00-13.00) in the cafeteria. Much effort was
given to make sure each panelist w ere served the dishes at the same inner tem perature (18).
Points Considered D uring the T rials o f the Recipes
D ishes w ere p rep ared by the co o k s u n d e r th e supervision o f the research e rs and so m e n o tes such as preparation and cooking tim e and m easu rements results such as w astes and absorbed oil etc w ere taken. T h e a m o u n t o f w a s te d u rin g vegetable preparation can be seen in Table 3.
Preparation Time
The time spent for p reparation w as categ o rized into 3 groups to show the tim e spent by the cooks (during w ash in g , p e e lin g , c h o p p in g e tc .), th e time that passes to hold the food for specific re a son (soaking the bean s in w ater, th e ris in g o f dough etc.) and tim e sp en t b y th e c o o k s afte r cooking the food (slicing the roasted m eat etc.).
Standardizing the R ccip cs M ainly U sed in the M enus o f Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: T heir Nutritional V alu es and C ost A nalysis
5 1 .9 -' o N -T3 - a G o JD o B 03 X <D C < JDas H o I Q on D Ü Q Ë u . s H c/3 Z S o , aj q e 8 s § ® ' a Æ U - D - U H Z W 2 2 D <yj w < H N W O on S
Pm
Z O O O Z P P 2o O o oQu
u C/3 W H O Z Q O2
w c-H « C/3 2 ^ g 3 c/3 £ W5
w Od U5
o 2 rS £ — u . ~ o ~ 2I I
~ u — Ü : u C/5 J2 ■” 0) I s s § o 5 <— o •T t rri — w £ ^ u' -o' S 8 CO • - < .£2 — W 4> >> rr -û i "> >T3 * 22 > , C3 ■S & f i a £ o CJ u . cd D. u i— B. T3 c 3 O J2 u PQ E * U oo D -T 3 CL c c o o o o _ D- D- D-J oo oo c/o ro ro CO O O O wo un O o o ^ o o o o o o in uo O o o —* o o o a a a a* XJ '*■' 3 * Pi c/3 U XI T3 TD TD £ fc£ u o i2 •— oo 2 o O S (N s VO CÛ £ U CD £ CO E O X u o o o a a a> a« e 4)V U Ü Cl £ 01 c PQ o U u 3 Z, TJ >►> W) CO ^r Tf w ** V eg et a b le s lo os e m uc h of th ei r n u tr iti o n a l va lu e w hi le ho ld in g in w a te r. D ar ke ni ng of ve g et a b le s is al so im p o rt a n t du ri ng m as s production, th us ho ld in g tim e of ve g et a b le s in w at er m us t be k e p t as sh o rt as po ss ib le .5 2 d aG a., m e r d o l t.k.
Cooking Time:
The time spent for cooking was also categorized into 3 to show the time spent by cooks (frying, sauteing, stirring the food etc.), the time not nee ded staff interference (in the oven, boiling in the pots etc.) and the time needed to make the dish ready to serve (holding rice to becom e fluffy, cooling deserts and olive oil dishes that are ser ved cold etc.) Preparation and cooking times that are seen on the recipe forms are the averages o f the staff performance for one person.
Cost Analysis of the Recipes
Standardized recipes’ portion food costs were calculated with the help o f an MRP (M aterial Requirement Program) system and the unit prices that were used on food cost analysis were taken from purchasing lists o f the production kitchen. Food Cost was calculated by taking into conside ration the gross weights o f the ingredients and the prices were indexed to the American Dollar due to its co n sisten t rate. W hile ca lcu la tin g energy and nutritional value o f the fried foods, oil absorption were taken into consideration and noted on the recipe charts. In addition to the above mentioned analysis, labor cost and opera tional cost were also calculated to find the total cost o f the dishes. In determining these costs the following procedure was used. Food costs were calculated with the help o f an MRP (M aterial Requirement Program) system, labor and running costs were calculated by dividing the number o f meals produced annually by the number o f cafe terias producing meals.
RESULTS
From the seventy nine foods produced,
fifty nine (79% ) w ere standardized during the first, nine (12% ) w ere standardized during the second, and seven (9%) were standardized during the third trial o f the production. All recipes were written into a specific standardization form rede veloped by the researchers. Table 3 shows an exam ple o f a standardized recipe for “Chicken
Stuffed w ith S pinach” . T he n u tritio n a l v alu e, food cost and the total cost o f the standardized recipes are given in Table 4. T he co m p o n en ts which are the basis for cost an aly sis and th e ir p ercentages are show n in T able 5. F o o d c o st w ere found to be as 33.3 % o f the to tal co st. Labor cost and the operational cost w ere 29.9 % and 26.4 % re sp e c tiv e ly . T h e s e fig u re s are shown in Table 6.
DISCUSSION
S tandardization o f the recip es w e re a c h ie v e d mostly after the first trial. D issatisfaction reasons stated by the panelists for the dishes th at w ere needed to be tried for second and third tim e con centrated on two evaluation criteria, consistency and taste. Taste stan d s m u ch h ig h e r b e tw e e n other sensory quality factors for acc ep tan c e o f food by the consum er and differs w id ely from individual to individual. W hen d is s a tis fa c tio n reasons were analyzed; surface d ry n ess, u n d e r cooking, too much fat content, m ushy, u n sa tis factory taste, improper cooking tim e w ere found to be the m ostly stated p oints. N o in a d e q u a c y was found on color-shape and portion size crite ria o f the dishes. There were no low grading for the portion size show ing the q u an tity o f foods that form the stan d ard ized p o rtio n size o f the recipes were normal. As the energy value o f the lunch meal is suggested to be one th ird o f the daily energy value, the energy content o f the d is hes were also consequently in d icatin g the a d e quacy as most o f the m eals consist o f three co u r se and bread.
Vegetable waste percentages found in this study were in accordance w ith another study (1) carried out for standardization o f the recipes m ostly used in public institutions. It can be c o n c lu d e d th at these vegetable w astage values can be used as a guidance for institutional food services to calcu late the amount to purchase and to calcu late the nutritional value o f foods served.
Food cost was found to be as 33.3% o f the total cost. This figure w as betw een 30-35 % in the stu d ie s c a rrie d o u t in o th e r c o u n t r i e s ( 1 9 - 2 3 ) .
Standardizing the R ccipcs M ainly U sed in the Menus o f Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: Their Nutritional V alues and Cost A nalysis
5 3
Running costs were calculated as 26.4% and this is a m uch higher ratio than other studies’ 20% ratio (19-22). Energy prices (electricity, natural gas, gasoline etc), corporate tax ratio, VAT ratio and income tax ratios, transportation, and sanita tion costs are all affecting factors o f this cost w h ich are m uch h ig h e r in Turkey than other countries. Labor costs were found to be 29.9% of total cost. This figure is consistent with other stu dies. O ne w ould expect a low er cost with the in d u stries’ w age rate, how ever lack o f techno lo g y in k itc h e n s an d u n q u a lifie d p erso n n el increases the labor cost. This affects the profit. As it is seen in Table 5, the profit is 10.4 % for our study which is lower than other study figures o f 1 5-20% (19-22).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Standardized recipes are the main component of the food services to maintain the quality and cost control in a desired level. With the help o f this study, food cost, total cost, energy and nutritional value o f the dishes mostly used in commercially operating establishments were standardized. This m ay help the institutions where quality and cost control is the prim ary objective.
B ecau se m ass caterin g industry is profitable, continuous and meets bare necessities, the num ber o f investments in this field is increasing day by day. H owever, due to increasing costs and international com petitiveness and technological advances affect the mass catering industry and thus com panies should keep up with these deve lopments.
Increased com petitiveness in the field o f mass catering industry has decreased the flexibility for errors. For this reason, companies could achieve custom er satisfaction through using standardiza tion recipes which would improve their producti vity and decrease costs in every aspect of their work, from procurem ent to cooking and service.
Standardized recipes are not just lists of cooking procedures. At the same time they are preparati on and service directions for the people who are
responsible for them. In addition, these are used by managers when deciding on the equipm ent and amount to buy for the company as well as personnel needs and qualities.
By using standardized recipes the production sta ges of food can be tracked. Besides, food cost control, the quality, taste and portion standards and nutritient ingredients can be achieved. For this reason, recipes should be standardized in all mass feeding institutions and these should be made available in bulletin boards, a feeding list, and calculation folders and the control m echa nism should be established accordingly.
When standardizing recipes it is essential that HACCP regulations should be considered when producing meals with the risk o f hygienic con cerns, especially those which are prepared witho ut cooking.
In addition to all of these, it is very important to choose appropriate sample recipes prepared by experts which would be used during the standar dization process. Otherwise, the resulting reci pes might not be practical.
Moreover, price determination strategies can be created by using standardized recipes. P rice determination strategies and cost controls are important not only for a lot of catering services but also for institutional food services as well. A ll co m p a n ies sh o u ld ch ec k th e ir c o s ts . Commercial institutions should do this in order to have appropriate profit. In addition, institutio nal food services should also do this within their budget.
Because cost calculation and total cost determ i nation are important when determining company profit check, cost calculations on standardized recipes would give im portant clues as to the amount of costs. Having standardized recipes in mass feeding services would benefit controlling the food costs.
Companies can improve their productivity and their profits and control their costs by applying appropriate procurement, production, service and marketing programs.
Ta b le 5. E ne rg y an d n u tr ie n t co n te n t, fo od co st an d to ta l co st of th e st an d ar d iz ed re c ip e s. 5 4 D A Ğ A ., M E R D O L T .K . ( a s n ) } S0 3 [ B j o jL r-' p 1^ p inp 1 p 1 .0 6 .- 1^ CN O 1 Ö O 1 O 1 O s O s p 1 .3 3 .- 1 CN O 1 r n rj; 1 OO* in 1 in r n 1 r n 1 .4 4 .- 1 ON O CN 1 r n CN 1^ CN m CN 1 ON 1 r n VO in ( a s n ) J S0 3 p o o j 1^ in Ö 0.6 0 .-0 .5 0 .- 1 OO Ö 1 i n Ö 0.4 9 .-0 .4 6 .-0 .4 3 .- r—I m Ö 0.6 2 .-0 .5 2 .- 1 VO r -Ö 0.4 6 .-0 .8 2 .-p 0 .9 7 .- 1 VO 1^ i r i o o Ö I_ o o o o Ö 1^ CN i n 1 VO i n i n r ^ 1 v o o o o o o o 1 O O ( S u i ) -v q r n O r n i n r n CN r n r n i n r n CN O s i n o o CN v q O r n O s CN i n o o i n ON x f v q CN ON o o p r n v q O i r i ( S u i ) u p t > i N CN r n VO Ö i n <N VO Ö r -o CN O s CN r - CN O s VO ON i n m VO i n VO CN i n ON i r i v o CN o VO VOCN i n o oi r i ( • S u i ) 3 9 u i u i B j i A Ö Ö Ö m Ö CN Ö Ö CN Ö CN Ö O CN Ö m o m Ö CN Ö CN Ö m Ö m o Ö m Ö Ö m Ö i n m Ö m Ö m Ö T f O ( S u i ) l a u i u i B j i A Ö CN Ö CN O Ö CN Ö CN Ö CN Ö CN O Ö CN Ö CN Ö m Ö CN Ö m Ö CN Ö CN Ö CN Ö Ö CN O Ö CN o o CN O o CN O ( S u i ) B Q r -CN 29 4 .8 i n i n m o o CN v q u S r -r n CN i n VO p i n o CN CN r f r n o o 21 2 .1 o o i n ON O s ON O s Ö OO 16 9 .0 i n i r i ON v o OS m VO O o i n o o o o r i n m i m CNr n r n o o v o ( S u i ) 3 U I U I B J I ^ Ö m VO m o o Ö o o i n VO o o CN O s CN OO Ö o o O OO CN 33 .0 ON r n 4 8 .6 r n ON 32.0 On o Ö V I Z rin m oo oo r-* ( S r i) v U I U I B J l y \ p 00 oo 70 8 .6 oo i r i oo 138 .3 1 0 4 1 .8 1 1 2 .0 4 9 0 .9 9 5 .9 r n oo oo 675 .5 4 6 1 .2 7 4 0 .9 1 4 6 .6 2 3 3 .0 6 5 7 .1 1 3 8 .1 LL Î Z 8 5 6 .3 1 3 9 .8 VO 5 6 2 6 .1 1 4 1 .1 p o 1 0 4 8 .6 4 8 .2 0 s ) O H 3 c n mCN r-VO vqCN r nr n CN r n VO OS TT O s i n VO 40.2 r n i n OO m CN OO CN VO r n r n v o ON r n v qo o i n m i CN r n CN ('S) JBJ Or nn CN CN p r n CN O ON v q CNİ o o o o o v q CNr n i n r n CN OO VO v o CN O s 2 3 .9 2 5 .7 2 2 .4 Y0 Z i n CN ON Ö CN CN O CN 25 .9 On 2 2 .5 (S ) u p jo jd 3 9 .9 4 6 .4 4 3 .0 '^r m 34 .0 4 3 .3 CN wS m in m 40 .7 4 7 .8 4 0 .5 5 4 .7 in m m CN in 36 .2 4 2 .2 3 8 .5 3 5 .6 3 8 .5 2 7 .9 4 3 .0 4 2 .0 i r i CN 36 .6 3 8 .9 ( ™ ) 3 1 5 .1 3 0 8 .4 4 0 5 .3 2 2 9 .7 j 3 0 2 .9 3 5 9 .2 06 6 3 4 9 1 .8 3 0 6 .1 3 3 7 .6 4 4 4 .4 5 3 4 .2 3 6 0 .1 4 8 9 .6 3 6 7 .8 4 5 7 .1 4 5 2 .4 4 0 1 .4 4 0 9 .7 3 6 3 .1 4 1 6 .6 3 8 5 .2 3 4 9 .4 3 6 9 .4 4 5 3 .3 N am e of th e Dish C h ic k en sa u te e w ith so y sa u c e C h ic k en st u ff ed w ith sp in ac h R o as te d c h ic k e n C h ic k en sa u te e w ith m u sh ro o m C h in es e c h ic k e n R o as te d ch ic k en th ig h s C h ic k en sa u te e w ith v e ge ta b le C h ic k en b a ll CU cd Cu o H c > pu a <D o 15 o "O ‘oU. CQ Köy lü m C h ic k e n 2 C h ic k en sc h in it z e l C h ic k en sa u te e R ai nb ow tr o u t S a u te e & -O ¡3 >5b cd ¡*í ■<1- Q-cd X> : 2 :0 > »o Oh cd X><L> E 'Iri vO D-, cd - O <D C cd o Keb ab w ith p u re e L am b te n d o u r R o as te d la m b A n k ar a T a v a 7 Ç ob an K a v u rm a 8 B oi le d v e a l B ee f w ith m as h ro o m sa u c e
T ab le 5. E n er g y an d n utr ie nt c on te n t, fo od co st an d to ta l co st of th e sta ndardiz ed recipes (c o n t. ).
Standardizing the R ccip es M ainly U sed in the M enus o f Com mercially Operating Institutional Food Services: T heir Nutritional V alu es and C ost A nalysis
5 5 ( a s n ) }S0 3 iBjox 1 on r-1 ON CN1 CN 1 VO CN 1^ on CN VOon l_ un p 1^ VO CN 0 .8 8 .- l# un on 0 .7 9 .-0 .6 4 .-0 .7 2 .-0 .6 7 .- 1 VO vq d 0.6 8 .-0 .7 3 .-0 .7 3 .-0 .7 5 .-ON un d 0.6 2 .-VO d 0.6 8 .-0 .6 5 .-0 .6 7 .-( a s n ) 1S0 3 p o o j 1 0 .6 3 .-0 .6 6 .-0 .6 9 .-0 .6 7 .- 1 o oo Ö 0.4 9 .-O Ö 1^ CN m Ö 0.9 5 .- 1 un r-o 0.2 3 .- 1 o Ö 0.1 6 .- 1 Ö 0.0 7 .- 1^ d 0.1 6 .-0 .1 8 .- I# d 0.0 2 .-0 .0 6 .-o d 1 d 0.0 8 .- 1 d d ( S u i) UTOBIfvJ VO un OOun vqun OO un pun on on rn on on OO VO CN -un Ö OO r-d d on ood ood CNd CNd d CNd ond p ( S u i) ZQ UIUIBJI/V un Ö ono o onÖ o Tfo o o onÖ uno Ö Ö Ö O o d CN d d on d CN d 1 d d d 1 d (•Sui) I e UIUIBJlyV CN Ö CN Ö CN Ö CN Ö CN Ö CN Ö CN Ö CN Ö CNÖ CN Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö d d d d d 1 1 d 1 1 1 ( S ui) s¿ on ON CO ON on CO Tf ON On on 00 CN 00CN T}- ON t}1 CN CN CN -un CN oo Ö p CN -un d d 00 d un Tf d d ( Su i) 3 uiiuBjiA CN oo oo CN OO ON vq ON r - o VO CN un 22.8 24. 0 vq on rt- CNr -49 .4 2 6 .4 28.7 VO d vq on 22.4 un un oo oo vo on ( Sui) b o 2 3 9 .7 vd un 248 .5 99 9 86 .4 1 8 2. 3 2 5 3 .6 27 6 .3 77.5 34 .7 98 .3 51.5 on o on 103. 6 28 .5 34. 6 1 3 8 .0 1 5 4 .7 61 9 Z 1 7 7 .7 VO on on oo un 28.9 ON on r- 27 .9 21 .0 (•Sii) Y UIUIBJIy\ 139.2 114 .6 117 .0 3 7 2 .2 7 8 0 .2 1 0 8 .3 561.1 113.3 159.4 84 .2 6 6 0 .7 ¿9 6 2 2 3 .7 82 .7 87 .2 14 1 .4 18 2.2 2 9 .0 3 3 0 .9 7 2 6 .9 7 0 9 .0 oo d T f 43 7 .0 4 0 1 .6 2 5 5 .7 5 4 .9 ('S) OHD 29.5 vq oi 31.5 oo oo 2 5 .2 ON V O Z 25.8 CNOOunVO OTj-‘ p un un CNVO unoo 4 4 .6 29 .0 43 .3 3 9. 4 4 8 .0 on oo p un un CN rf‘ OO ON ( S ) jbj V IZ on oo 21 .8 T f oo V IZ 26 .2 unun CN T t; un o unON on 22 .5 mÖ CO mrf oo On un un rn ON , 38.2 rn un d oo un pvo vq CN vq un (•§) u p i o j j 4 4 .2 3 0 .9 3 6 .0 CN on V 9 Z 3 5 .7 24. 5 L'LZ oo VO on oo rr CN ON TT CN un oo Tf On ON CN CN un oCN unCN pCN un ON (l*” Pl) ÁSJ0U3 491 .1 339 .2 4 6 8 .6 370 .9 43 9 .3 4 5 6 .4 4 0 9 .7 35 5 .3 2 5 7 .4 346 .1 2 3 1 .8 2 7 8 .7 1 4 1 .7 2 3 8 .2 171.6 391 .1 VÍ 6 Z 6 '6 6 £ 559 .7 3 6 8 .5 13 1.5 168 .2 6Z Z I 156 .4 14 9.8 OO N am e of th e D is h Hü nka r B e ğ e n d i 9 R o as te d K ö ft e H asa np asa K ö ft e10 G ri ll ed m e a tb a ll s D al y an K ö ft e 11 CN ”cd g H c cd C/3 . cd £ 5 Ve g e ta b le s au g ra ti n C a u li flo w e r au g ra ti n Z u c c in i m o u sa k k a V ea l sa u te e w it h m u sh ro o m s A rt ic h o k e s co o k ed w ith ol iv e o il S tu ff ed a u b e rg in e s co o k ed w ith oi lv e oi l r o "cd > cd Uh Stu ff ed cabba ge co o k ed w ith ol iv e oi l ""cd ■i* c/> Sp a g h e tt i N a p o li te n L aye re d b ö re k V e rm ic e ll i w ith w aln u ts an d c h e e se P h y ll o p as tr y st u ff ed w ith c h e e se B ö re k w it h sp in a c h C a rr o t so u p B ro c c o li so u p M in e str o n e Ç o rb a Sp in ac h so up w ith c re a m V e g e ta b le s so up w ith c re a m M u sh ro o m s so up w ith c re a m
T ab le 5. E ne rg y an d n u tr ie n t co n te n t, fo od co st an d to ta l co st of th e st an d ar d iz ed re ci p es (co nt.). 5 6 D A Ğ A ., M E R D O L T .K . ( a s n ) 1S0 3 [EJOX 1 in r-> Ö 1 Os' VO Ö -0 9 0 1 vo Ö CN oo o 1 Ö Ö 1 OO* vo Ö it oo VO O 1 VO* r-Ö 0.6 4 .- 1 OO tT 1 CNrn r-Ö 1 vq Ö 1 r-Ö 1 o OO vo Ö 0.6 9 .-in* r-Ö 1 Ö r-o CN r-Ö 1 O OO Ö 0.6 9 .- in1 Os Ö ( a s n ) }so3 poo ¿ 00 Ö 1 cn Ö 1 rn o Ö 1 in o Ö 1 m’ CN o 1 Ö Ö 1 Ö 1 Ö CN Ö Öo 0.9 2 .- in1 vo Ö 0.1 7 .- 1 Ö Ö 1 O CN Ö 1 m* Ö 1 Ö 1 CN* Ö 1 ON Ö rn Ö 0.1 6 .- rn1 CN Ö 0.1 2 .-0 .3 8 .-(•3ui) UIOBIfsI CNr- ino ^ro VOÖ r-o voo OOÖ p pCNÖ cn ÖCN OsÖ Tí"Ö Ö Ö OCN mÖ inO) CNÖ cno Ö VOO (S ui) ZQ UIUIBJIA CN Ö • 1 o CNO o Ö o o Ö mÖ VOÖ Ö Ö mo ’ Ö Ö CNÖ rrÖ Ö mÖ mÖ CNO mO) (•3ux) I Huiuibua o 1 1 1 Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö CNÖ Ö Ö 1 Ö o' 1 1 • Ö o 1 Ö 1 o (•8ui) 3 j - m Ö in TfÖ CN ooÖ osÖ CN CN CNÖ CNcn ÖOO- Ör- OsÖ OOÖ CNO p OSÖ CNÖ CN CNÖ O (•8ui) D UIUIBJIA OinnCNÖ Tt;CN vo VO Os r-; oo CNCNm CNin in in rn vo oo Ö Öm CNo CNÖ oo CNo CNo rn mo r-; — rn rnCN ('Sill) BQ voON os vq CN m Ö CN m CN 12 8 .5 CN CN Os m 41 .9 in tt* 3 2 .0 1 4 5 .1 p in r-vq in rn CN 260 .5 rn in CN VO Os 183 .8 oo o CN o Os 24 4 .7 Z'9 1 3 183 .5 2 3 5 .0 (■Sri) V UIUIBJIA V L O Z o oo in in o vo rn CN m 37,6 61 1 0 7 1 10 8 9. 4 18 4. 2 17 8.9 116 .9 4 5 8 .5 2 0 7 .6 4 2 .7 1 0 2 .1 in Os* VO 122 .2 14 5 .4 4 5 .0 vo* vo in Tf* OO) vo O rr in m in VO in Cs ) OHD ONÖ VO- ooOs rn O CNVOo CNin CN 47 .6 in oo in Os Ö r-O CN oo Os Ö VO 49 .4 r-VO vo vovo 64 .4 rn CN r-oo vo m rn r-( S) JBJ r- r Tf VOvd r-Ö oo CN vq Os COoo oo rt; oo 4 1 .2 inoo CN Os CN CNinrn vqcn in oO) CN OŞrn CNVO r-; (•8) UI3J0JJ r Os mvo CNpCNOVOr-cn oo vqCNoorn cn CNCN rnrr m oo pin OO CNin CNOs Osrn p in ON (IB5PT) XSiaug 241 .3 1 8 1 .5 11 4. 7 14 2 .7 2 6 9 .8 1 3 0 .1 1 0 6 .1 113 .0 O o CN 18 4. 9 610.2 54 9 .0 51 2.3 4 1 1. 4 4 5 5 .0 48 2 .6 36 7 .6 2 70 .4 40 8 .5 383.3 355 .0 4 4 7 .6 306.8 43 1 .6 N am e of th e Dish Kre m al ı B ez ir ç o rb a C h ic k en so up w ith cr ea m E zo g el in ç o rb a Co m so u p C arr o t sa u te e w ith y o g h u rt Med itarran ea n sa la d G ar de n sa la d S he ph er ds sa la d A u b er gi ne sa la d P o ta to es sa la d C h e e se c a k e T ri a m is u T u lu m b a T a tl ıs ı1 7 oo C/3 co 2 3 jO CO On <L> o f'j i & <U <D C/> cs ’5CO > (D <N (N to H Js<J 1 fN ÖÛ G CO a 3 GO ■'* CN Zo Sto H CO O rs O CO :3 GO a s o CO O O GO-e ä r fS 'Jo ”a § S ak ız lı M u h a ll e b i2 8 = 1 1 E > VJ D "O O. S» S Si £C3 ? q¡*o E ‘ Dû S -5 > I.E * -2 3 : a c. ■ -^ 5/3 ö .c >, -^3 £ ~ w < U U w C Q U < S i OÍ» ? 6 8 « .s «- £ T 5 x; - « •s 3 & 3 .2 ö C -5 ti r\ iî (L> ~ 12 ^ c c S § .2 -5> E o e . cq i n ' O > o o o \ £
Standardizing the R ccip cs M ainly U sed in the M enus o f Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: Their Nutritional V alu es and C ost A nalysis
5 7
R E F E R E N C E S
1. K u tlu a y , M erdol. T. S tan d a rt Y em ek T arifeleri. 3. Baskı, H atipoğlu Yayınları, 2003;77.
2. N inem eier, J. D. Planning and Control for Food and B e v e ra g e O p e ra tio n s . T h ird E d itio n , E d ucational I n s titu te A m e ric a n H o tel and M otel A sso c iatio n , 1995;30-33.
3. G issle n , W . T he R ecipe: Its stru ctu re and its use. Professional Cooking. 4th Edition, 1999;64-73. 4. M izer, A. D ., P o rter, M ., S onnier, B. R ecipes and
M easurem ent. Food Preparation for The Professional. Second Edition, John W illey and Sons, 1987;93-95. 5. M a g r is , M ., M e C r e e r y , C ., B rig h to n , R. M enu
Planning. Introduction to Catering. Oxford, 1993;242- 249.
6. T iir k s o y , A . Y iy e c e k ve İ ç e c e k H iz m e tle ri Y önetim i.Turhan Kitapevi, 2. Baskı, Ankara, 2002. 7. K inton, R., C eserani, V., Fosket, D. The Theory o f
C a te rin g . E ig h th E d itio n , H o d d er and S tonghton Publishing. London, 1995.
8. T olve, P, A. Standardizing Foodservice For Quality a n d E f f ic ie n c y . R e s ta u ra n t an d In s titu tio n a l F o o d s e r v ic e M a n a g e m e n t D e p a rtm e n t o f H om e E c o n o m ic s, B o w lin g G reen S tate U niv ersity , Avi P u b lis h in g C o m p an y , Inc. W e stp o rt C onnecticu t,
1984.
9. Cousins, J., Foskett, D., Shortt, D. Food and Beverage M anagem ent. T ham es V alley U niversity, Longman, Second Edition, 1998.
10. C o ltm a n , M , M . C o st C ontrol F or the H ospitality Industry. Van N ostrand Reinhold, New York, Second Edition, 1998
11. M easuring Success With Standardized Recipes U. S. D epartm ent o f Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service and The N ational Food Service Management Institute, 2002.
12. Scanlon, N. L. Criteria for menu pricing. C atering Menu Management. New York, 1992;88-93.
13. Ninem eier, D. J. Standart product costs and pricing strategies. Food and Beverage M anagement. Second Edition, Educational Institute Am erican H otel and Motel Association, 1995; 131-138.
14. Kivela, J. Menü Planning For the Hospitality Industry. Hospitality Press, Melbourne, 1994; 138-148.
15. B a şo ğ lu , S. Y ö re se l Y em ek T a r if e le r in in Standartlaştırılm ası ve Besin Değerleri Üzerine Bir A raştırm a. H acettepe Ü niversitesi Sağlık B ilim leri Enstitüsü Bilim Uzmanlığı Tezi, Ankara, 1985. 16. K u rtc a n , Ü ., G ö n ü l, M. G ıd a la rın D u y u sa l
Değerlendirmesinde Puanlama Metodu. Ege Üniversi te si M ü h e n d islik F a k ü lte si D e rg isi, S eri B : 5 ,l.
1987; 137-145
17. Sümbüloğlu, K., Sümbüloğlu, V. Biyoistatistik, Özde mir Yayıncılık, 5. Baskı, 1994.
18. D ağ, A. Y iy ec ek İçecek İşle tm e le rin d e S tan d art Tarifeler Maliyet ve Hijyen Kontrolü, Birinci Baskı, Ankara, 2006.
19. Miller, J. E., Pavesic, D. V. Menu Pricing Strategies. M enu P rin c in g and S tra te g y . F o u rth . E d itio n , Newyork, 1996; 133-145.
20. S eaberg, A. G. P roducing a m enu. M enu D esin g M e rc h a n d is in g and M a rk e tin g , F o u rth Edition,Newyork, 1991; 1-4.
21. Davis, B., Sally, S. Food and Beverage Management. Heinemann- London, 1985;45-46.
22. Iv e rso n , M. K. F ood and b e v e ra g e o p e a tio n s . Introduction to H ospitlity M anagem ent, N ew york,
1989;60-78.
23. K otschevar, L. H. M anagem ent by M enu. S econd E d itio n , T he E d u c a tio n a l F o u n d a tio n N a tio n a l Restaurant Association, 1987; 100-114.
