----- Beslenme ve Diyet Dergisi /JN utr 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 an D A Ğ *, P ro f. D r. T ü rk a n K u tlu a y M E R D O L * * —
ABSTRACT ram. The cost o f the recipes was calculated as food cost and the total cost. The food cost was This research was carried out at Bilkent calculated by the ingredients* cost indexed to the University cafeterias to standardize the recipes value of American Dollar due to its consistent that are not available for specific dishes which rate compared to Turkish Liras. Total cost was are mainly used by commercially operating mass achieved by the factors affecting the cost o f the feeding institutions. Throughout the study, 75 dish such as the cost of employee and other tech fo o d recipes classified under 9 categories (soups, nical costs. Total cost was calculated to determi meat, chicken, fish, vegetables cooked with meat, ne the sale price of the dishes. Energy and nutri cold vegetable dishes cooked with olive oil, pas ent content and the total cost o f the dishes were tries, salads and desserts) were standardized for shown on the standardized recipe forms. It was 100 portions and written to the forms redevelo found that the percentages of the food, labour ped by the researchers. All of the dishes were and the operational cost of the total cost were prepared, cooked and served by the cooks wor 33.3 %, 29.9 % and 26.4% o f the total cost res king at Bilkent University main kitchen. Recipe pectively. . base line information was created by combining the data collected both from the well experienced Key Words: Standardized recipes, cost evaluati cooks and famous cook books. The organoleptic on, food cost, nutritional values. evaluation o f the recipes to be standardized were made by using a 5 points scale evaluation form ÖZET which was based on 5 criteria (colour-shape, Ticari Kurum Menülerinde Yer Alan general appearance, flavour-taste, texture-con- Yemeklerin Standartlaştırılması Besin Değerleri sistency, portion size) and graded by the pane lists composed of dietitians, university students, ve Maliyet Analizi university staff and cooks. Fifty nine of these Bu araştırma Bilkent Üniversitesi kafeteryaların recipes were standardized following their initial, da toplu beslenme yapılan kurumlar için gereksi 9 after their second, and 7 after their third trial nim duyulan ve standart tarifesi bulunmayan of production. The recipes which were perceived yemek tarifelerinin standartlaştırılması, besin to be average and/or below by the panelists were değerlerinin hesaplanması ve maliyet analizleri produced again considering their shortcomings nin yapılması amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Çalışma until the desired points were achieved. Energy da 9 grup (çorbalar, et, tavuk, balık, etli sebze and nutrient content of the recipes were calcula yemekleri, zeytinyağlı yemekler, börek hamur ted using BEBİS (computerized program giving işleri, salatalar, tatlılar) altında toplanan ve the energy and nutrient values of given food and özellikle ticari işletme mönülerinde yer alan recipes that are specific for Turkish dishes) prog yemeklerden seçilen 75 adet yemek tarifesi stan- dartlaştırılmıştır. Yemekler Bilkent Üniversitesi * Director of the Food Service at Bilkent University ** Professor and Former Director of the Department of Nutrition merkez mutfağında deneyimli aşçılar tarafından and Dietetics at Hacettepe University DAĞ A ., M ERDO L T.K.. 4 8 yapılmış ve değerlendirilmeleri diyetisyen, food and the time of preparation. The other fac öğrenci, üniversite personeli ve aşçıdan oluşan tors that help to achieve quality, consistency and bir panel grubu tarafından 5 değerlendirme kri controlling costs are standardized purchasing terinin (renk-şekil, lezzet, porsiyon yeterliliği, methods, well trained staff and quality control tekstür-kıvam, genel görünüm) esas alındığı procedures (2,9,12-14). puanlama testi kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Tarifeleri denenen yemeklerden 59 tanesi birinci, 9 tanesi Standardized recipes and standard portions are ikinci, 7 tanesi ise üçüncü üretimleri sonunda the main pillars of cost control program, and give standartlaş tırılmış tır. Değerlendirme kriterleri constant and valid information for the program. nin herhangi birine göre vasat sınıfına giren By using the information gathered from standar yemeklerin tespit edilen eksiklikleri dikkate alı dized recipes, exact cost of items and services narak üretimleri tekrarlanmış ve üretim tekrarla could be calculated and analyzed. This is very rında yemeklerin puanlarındaki artışlar istenen critical for the strategic planning and control of düzeye gelenler standartlaştırılmıştır. the business (4,11). Standartlaştırılan tarifelerin bir porsiyonlarının Today most of the commercially operating insti besin değerleri BEBİS programı kullanılarak tutions in Turkey do not use standardized recipes, hesaplanmış ve tarifelere yazılmıştır. Tarifelerin thus nutritional value of foods served are not ayrıca maliyetleri de dolara endeksli olarak known and their cost analysis of the foods is not hesaplanmıştır. Maliyet hesabında yemeğin içine easy to substantiate (15). This study was planned giren besinlerin maliyeti yanında emek ve işletme and carried out to standardize the recipes that are maliyeti de dikkate alınmıştır. Buna göre yiyecek not available for the dishes mostly served in the maliyeti % 33.3, emek maliyeti % 29.9, işletme commercially operating institutions and to define maliyeti ise % 26.4 olarak bulunmuştur. their nutritional values and total cost. Anahtar Sözcükler: Standartlaştırılmış tarifeler, MATERIALS AND METHODS maliyet hesabı, yiyecek maliyeti, besin değeri. The recipes chosen for standardization: INTRODUCTION In this study seventy-five different dishes were Standard recipes are one of the factors influen standardized for one hundred portions. The crite cing the quality, effectiveness and the cost con ria for the selection of the dishes for their recipe trol at food service establishments together with purchasing methods, well trained staff, layout standardization were: and equipments and quality control procedures. 1) to be seen in the menus of com m ercially By using standardized recipes, it is possible to operating institutional food services. serve the food with the same cost, quality, consis tency, and taste. They also allow the operators to 2) not having standardized recipes. control the portion size and the total yield to be produced (1-11). The dishes were chosen from 9 different dish groups i.e. soups, meat, chicken, fish, vegetables The first advantage of using standardized recipes cooked with meat, cold vegetables dishes cooked is consistency. Standard recipes are one of the with olive oil, bôrek-pasta, salads and desserts. four factors that help to achieve the quality, con All recipes were tried and produced at the sistency and controlling costs at Institutional Bilkent University kitchens by well trained cooks Food Services. By using standardized recipes, under the supervision of the researchers. The dis prepared foods will have the same cost, quality, hes that are chosen for standardization are shown portion control, consistency, and taste, regardless in Table 1. of whom they are prepared for, who prepared the Standardizing the Recipes Mainly Used in the Menus of Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: Their Nutritional Values and Cost Analysis
Methods Used in Writing The Recipes to the users, third column is allocated for the ingredi Forms: ents average amounts such as pieces, bunches, glass etc. Some foods that were not purchased as Recipes were documented on a form redeveloped kilograms but in pieces, such as lemon, parsley by the researchers. This form contains informati etc, were stated in kilograms to be used in calcu on about the name of the dish, group number of lating their nutritional values. The order of the the dish, portion size, utensils used to control ingredients were written as the order of their portion size, equipments used in preparation and process in the preparation and the cooking of the cooking, preparation and cooking time, total dish. Each new step to be processed were sepa yield, ingredients; their net, gross weights and rated by a horizontal line to make the recipe easy average measurements, the steps to be followed to follow. for preparation and cooking, the cost and energy and nutrient content of one serving size. Organoleptic Evaluation of the Dishes:
While calculating the energy and nutritional Each dish was evaluated by ten panelists consis value of the dishes, the net quantity of the foods ting of two dietitians, two staff members, two in the dishes were used. Gross quantities of the cooks and four university students from Bilkent foods were shown on a separate column at the University. A form, created by Kurtcan and form to determine the purchasing amount and Gônül (16) based on grading the criteria determi transferring amount of the foods from the dry ned for the evaluation, was given to the panelist and cold stores to the kitchen on a given day. Net to be filled after they tasted the given dish. values of the food were calculated by subtracting the waste from the gross values. All net and The criteria stated on this form were colour- gross values of the foods were given in kilo shape, general appearance, flavour-taste, texture- grams. For simplifying the procedure for the consistency, and portion size of the dish. As the appearance of quality criteria on the forms is
Table 1. The dishes chosen for standardization.
Dish Group Number N am e Soups 1 0 Carrot, broccoli, minestrone, spinach, vegetable, bezir, mushroom, chicken, ezogelin, com soups. M eat 18 Kebabs (kağıt, orman, yörük, islim, with puree), lamb tendaur, shepherds sautee, roasted lamb, Ankara tava, boiled veal, hünkar beğendi, beef with sauce, meat sautee with mushroom, elbasan tava and meatballs (roast, hasanpaşa, grilled, dalyan). C hicken 13 Chicken with soybean sauce, chicken stuffed with spinach, roasted chicken, sauteed chicken with mushroom, Chinese chicken, roasted chicken roti, chicken sautee with vegetables, chickenball, fried chicken, chicken Topkapi, grilled chicken, köylüm chicken, chicken shinitzel, Fish 1 Trout sautee. Vegetables Cooked With 3 Vegetables augratin, cauliflower augratin, zucchini mousakka. M eat Cold Vegetable Dishes 4 Artichoke, stuffed aubergine, stuffed cabbage, şakşuka. Cooked With Olive Oil** Boreks, Pastas 5 Spagetti napoletana, su böreği, milföy börek with cheese, yufka böreği with spinach, vermicelli with cheese and walnut. Salads and Appetizers 7 Salads (Mediterranean, garden, shepherds, aubergine and potatoes), carrot tarator and fava. D esserts 14 Cheesecake, triamisu, tulumba tatlısı, kalburabastı, keşkül, şekerpare, revani, irmik tatlısı, supangle, lokma tatlısı, fırın sütlaç, krem şokola, kazandibi, sakızlı muhallebi. 5 0 DAÖ A., MERDOL T.K.
Table 2. The points of grading and their explanation used in the evaluation of the standardized recipes.
Points of G rading Explanation 10-17 Unacceptable 1 8 -2 5 Acceptable 2 6 -3 3 Average 3 4 -4 1 Good 42 + Excellent
Table 3. Percentage of the vegetable waste. W aste (% ) W aste (% ) Vegetable Vegetable Potato T om ato Peeling By Hand 25 Pitting only the top 1 Peeling By Machine 10 Peeling 20 Peeling After Boiling 10 Scooping______30 Zucchini 20 Onion 12 Scooping 45 Spring onion 30 Celery Root 35 Aubergine 20 C arro t 20 C abbage 30 Cauliflower 45 R adish 25 G arlic Green Pepper 10 Dill 35 Parsley 40 Broccoli 25 Spinach 25+ Brussel Sprout 10 Iceberg 25 Garden Cress 30 Lemon (80g) juice 25 g
important, they were written as above mentioned given to make sure each panelist were served the order. These five criteria have been graded on a 1 dishes at the same inner temperature (18). to 5 points scale (17) which are: Unacceptable: 1 point, Acceptable: 2 points, Average: 3 points, Points Considered During the Trials of the Good: 4 points, Excellent: 5 points. Each dish Recipes would get a minimum of ten and a maximum of Dishes were prepared by the cooks under the fifty points on this grading method with a panel supervision of the researchers and some notes of ten evaluators. The range of points in grading such as preparation and cooking time and measu and their explanation are shown in Table 2. rements results such as wastes and absorbed oil At the end of the evaluation, the dishes that were etc were taken. The amount of waste during graded as an average of 34 points and above vegetable preparation can be seen in Table 3. were considered acceptable and standardized consequently. The dishes that were graded below Preparation Time 34 points were reproduced until they get the The time spent for preparation was categorized acceptable grade (17). into 3 groups to show the time spent by the cooks Each panelist was trained on the purpose and the (during washing, peeling, chopping etc.), the grading criteria of the study prior to the evaluati time that passes to hold the food for specific rea on. The dishes to be tested were served on the son (soaking the beans in water, the rising of plates standardized for each panelist and the sur dough etc.) and time spent by the cooks after vey. As one of the evaluation criteria is portion cooking the food (slicing the roasted meat etc.). adequacy, the dishes were served at lunch time (12.00-13.00) in the cafeteria. Much effort was Standardizing the Rccipcs Mainly Used in the Menus of Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: 5 1 Their Nutritional Values and Cost Analysis
S C/5 J2u (N o 2 ■” 0) o rS £ — u . I C/3 ~ o I s W ~ 2 s § Q H on O o<— 5o •Tt— rriW D Z II~ u —— Ü w :4> >> £ ^ rr -û i "> >T3 s u' -o' * 22 VO S 8 > , C3 CO • - ■S & < .£2 f i a
Q O 2 w c-
Ü
CÛ U £ XI T3
£ o CJ cdu . D. ui— B. U TD T3 c TD 3 O
J2 D- T 3 CD £ £ fc£
CL
E *
CO i2 •— E Q u PQ U oo u o Ë u . c c s o o oo o o _ H D- D- D-J 2 c/3 oo oo c/o o O Z .9 - ro ro CO O 'o X S , aj q eo 8 s u O O O N ' a H wo un O U§ - ® D - UÆ « o o ^ -T3 o o o -a G
C/3 o o o o H in uo O o Z 2 ^ o o —* o o W U o g 3 o o o 2 CO JD ^r o 2 u B D 03
O Vegetables ** loose much of their nutritional value while holding in water. Darkening of vegetables is also during important mass production, thus holding time of vegetables in water must be kept H o o 5 as short possible. as Qu u Pi3 c/3 * Ü PQ 5 2 d a G a ., m e r d o l t .k .
Cooking Time: Stuffed with Spinach”. The nutritional value, food cost and the total cost of the standardized The time spent for cooking was also categorized recipes are given in Table 4. The components into 3 to show the time spent by cooks (frying, which are the basis for cost analysis and their sauteing, stirring the food etc.), the time not nee percentages are shown in Table 5. Food cost ded staff interference (in the oven, boiling in the were found to be as 33.3 % of the total cost. pots etc.) and the time needed to make the dish Labor cost and the operational cost were 29.9 % ready to serve (holding rice to become fluffy, and 26.4 % respectively. These figures are cooling deserts and olive oil dishes that are ser shown in Table 6. ved cold etc.) Preparation and cooking times that are seen on the recipe forms are the averages of DISCUSSION the staff performance for one person. Standardization of the recipes were achieved Cost Analysis of the Recipes mostly after the first trial. Dissatisfaction reasons stated by the panelists for the dishes that were Standardized recipes’ portion food costs were needed to be tried for second and third time con calculated with the help of an MRP (Material centrated on two evaluation criteria, consistency Requirement Program) system and the unit prices and taste. Taste stands much higher between that were used on food cost analysis were taken other sensory quality factors for acceptance of from purchasing lists of the production kitchen. food by the consumer and differs widely from Food Cost was calculated by taking into conside individual to individual. When dissatisfaction ration the gross weights of the ingredients and reasons were analyzed; surface dryness, under the prices were indexed to the American Dollar cooking, too much fat content, mushy, unsatis due to its consistent rate. While calculating factory taste, improper cooking time were found energy and nutritional value of the fried foods, to be the mostly stated points. No inadequacy oil absorption were taken into consideration and was found on color-shape and portion size crite noted on the recipe charts. In addition to the ria of the dishes. There were no low grading for above mentioned analysis, labor cost and opera the portion size showing the quantity of foods tional cost were also calculated to find the total that form the standardized portion size of the cost of the dishes. In determining these costs the recipes were normal. As the energy value of the following procedure was used. Food costs were lunch meal is suggested to be one third of the calculated with the help of an MRP (Material daily energy value, the energy content of the dis Requirement Program) system, labor and running hes were also consequently indicating the ade costs were calculated by dividing the number of quacy as most of the meals consist of three cour meals produced annually by the number of cafe se and bread. terias producing meals. Vegetable waste percentages found in this study RESULTS were in accordance with another study (1) carried out for standardization of the recipes mostly used From the seventy nine foods produced, in public institutions. It can be concluded that these vegetable wastage values can be used as a fifty nine (79%) were standardized during the first, nine (1 2 % ) were standardized during the guidance for institutional food services to calcu second, and seven (9%) were standardized during late the amount to purchase and to calculate the the third trial of the production. All recipes were nutritional value of foods served. written into a specific standardization form rede Food cost was found to be as 33.3% of the total veloped by the researchers. Table 3 shows an cost. This figure was between 30-35 % in the stu example of a standardized recipe for “Chicken dies carried out in other countries (19-23). Standardizing the Rccipcs Mainly Used in the Menus of Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: 5 3 Their Nutritional Values and Cost Analysis
Running costs were calculated as 26.4% and this responsible for them. In addition, these are used is a much higher ratio than other studies’ 20% by managers when deciding on the equipment ratio (19-22). Energy prices (electricity, natural and amount to buy for the company as well as gas, gasoline etc), corporate tax ratio, VAT ratio personnel needs and qualities. and income tax ratios, transportation, and sanita By using standardized recipes the production sta tion costs are all affecting factors of this cost ges of food can be tracked. Besides, food cost which are much higher in Turkey than other control, the quality, taste and portion standards countries. Labor costs were found to be 29.9% of and nutritient ingredients can be achieved. For total cost. This figure is consistent with other stu this reason, recipes should be standardized in all dies. One would expect a lower cost with the mass feeding institutions and these should be industries’ wage rate, however lack of techno made available in bulletin boards, a feeding list, logy in kitchens and unqualified personnel and calculation folders and the control mecha increases the labor cost. This affects the profit. nism should be established accordingly. As it is seen in Table 5, the profit is 10.4 % for our study which is lower than other study figures When standardizing recipes it is essential that of 15-20% (19-22). HACCP regulations should be considered when producing meals with the risk of hygienic con CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS cerns, especially those which are prepared witho ut cooking. Standardized recipes are the main component of the food services to maintain the quality and cost In addition to all of these, it is very important to control in a desired level. With the help of this choose appropriate sample recipes prepared by study, food cost, total cost, energy and nutritional experts which would be used during the standar value of the dishes mostly used in commercially dization process. Otherwise, the resulting reci operating establishments were standardized. This pes might not be practical. may help the institutions where quality and cost Moreover, price determination strategies can be control is the primary objective. created by using standardized recipes. Price determination strategies and cost controls are Because mass catering industry is profitable, important not only for a lot of catering services continuous and meets bare necessities, the num but also for institutional food services as well. ber of investments in this field is increasing day All companies should check their costs. by day. However, due to increasing costs and Commercial institutions should do this in order international competitiveness and technological to have appropriate profit. In addition, institutio advances affect the mass catering industry and nal food services should also do this within their thus companies should keep up with these deve budget. lopments. Because cost calculation and total cost determi Increased competitiveness in the field of mass nation are important when determining company catering industry has decreased the flexibility for profit check, cost calculations on standardized errors. For this reason, companies could achieve recipes would give important clues as to the customer satisfaction through using standardiza amount of costs. Having standardized recipes in tion recipes which would improve their producti mass feeding services would benefit controlling vity and decrease costs in every aspect of their the food costs. work, from procurement to cooking and service. Companies can improve their productivity and Standardized recipes are not just lists of cooking their profits and control their costs by applying procedures. At the same time they are preparati appropriate procurement, production, service and on and service directions for the people who are marketing programs. 4 5
Table 5. Energy and nutrient content, food cost and total cost of the standardized recipes. (S ) upjojd ) (S A i j B i u i u 9 3 A i j B i u i u a l v ^ I J B I U I U 3 ) s 0 }S JS Q B ) i u S ( ('S) JBJ ('S) ) i u S ( ) ™ ( 3 0 N i > t p u 3 0 UI l \ Jly IB IU U ) n s a ( ) i u S ( ) n s a ( ) i u S ( Sri) r (S ) i u S • ( ) i u S ( 3 H O j o o p Name of the Dish jL jo B [
oo 00 n c n r O p CN - r Ö Ö Ö CN - Ö in p r-' n
Chicken sautee with soy sauce 315.1 39.9 1^ CN m CN CN m VO m Ö CN Ö n r n r vq
Chicken stuffed with spinach 308.4 46.4 708.6 2 9 4 . 8 0.60.- 1^ VO r- oo n r p i ir CN oo Ö o o m n i n i O CN Ö Ö VO n r O p Roasted chicken 405.3 43.0 0.50.- CN vq ON O o o o o CN Ö n i m '^r Ö m Chicken sautee with mushroom 229.7 j 138.3 1 q v n r n r VO q v CNİ - r uS Ö CN Ö Ö CN Ö VO CN n r Ö n i p 1 Chinese chicken 302.9 34.0 1041.8 1 o o CN n r CN CN Ö o o CN o - r n r n r Roasted chicken thighs 359.2 43.3 112.0 0.49.- 1.06.- 3 6 6 0 o o VO VO n r Ö wS CN n i CN Ö m CN CN n r n i O CN Chicken sautee with vegetable 490.9 0.46.- 1^ o O TT OS m in o n i p CN CN Os O Ö CN Os O Ö Chicken ball 491.8 95.9 0.43.- 1 Os q v CN Ö oo oo n r Ö OO f r CN CN pu CN H Ö m r—I O c> o Cu cd CU 306.1 40.7 1 o o n r Ö VO o o CN n i n r CN Ö CN Os CQ ‘o "O 15 Os U. o o 457.1 42.2 23.9 138.1 169.0 0.97.- 1 »o ÎZ L L Ö CN Ö VO n i ON i ir n i VO CN VO n r X> 'Iri h 452.4 38.5 25.7 48.6 vO n i o o Ö Ö Ö m n i CN OS o v ON n r m n r n r Ö o o ri ir -O o cd cd 401.4 35.6 22.4 856.3 1^ Z 0 Y ON i r i ON f x O CN O VO n r o o Ö o o Kebab with puree 409.7 38.5 139.8 32.0 I_ 1.44.- q v o v CN Ö m Ö o CN O ON n i VO O CN n i o v CN n i 1 1^ Lamb tendour 363.1 27.9 n o o ON o CN n i o CN o o o o CN n r VO o n i Ö ON n r Ö CN ON 1 Roasted lamb 416.6 43.0 5626.1 1 DA Ğ A ., M ERDO L T.K. L ERDO M ., A Ğ DA IZ V p VO Ö m o CN m CN r ^ r n i n i o o q v O CN CN Ankara Tava7 385.2 42.0 141.1 1^ n r VO CN Ö m ON O CN o o o v o m i m r m in p o i r i CN 1 Çoban Kavurma8 349.4 25.9 1 q v n i n r Ö m o o o o CN oo n r oo n i i m O 1 Boiled veal 369.4 36.6 n 1048.6 O i r i o o i r i VO in O f T O CN O O o v o o n r r-* CN n r CN Beef with mashroom sauce 453.3 38.9 22.5 48.2 1 Their Nutritional Values and Cost Analysis Cost and Values Nutritional Their Standardizing the Rccipes Mainly Used in the Menus o f Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: Food Institutional Operating Commercially f o Menus the in Used Mainly Rccipes the Standardizing Table 5. Energy and nutrient content, food cost and total cost of the standardized recipes (cont.). ZQ I }S 1 •)upiojj j o i p u (•§) 3 uiiuBjiA 3 Y UIUIBJIy\ Y S e ('S) OHD ('S) ( Sui) Sui) ( ( Sui) Sui) ( 3 0 3 0 ) n s a ( ) n s a ( UTOBIfvJ (S ) ) (S UIUIBJI/V ÁSJ Sui) u (S (•Sui) Sui) u (S S ( l”Pl) (l*” UIUIBJlyV (•Sii) iBjox poo j poo ui 0 Name of the Dish jbj U bo s ) 3 ¿ Oun VO VIZ Ö un r- on Ö CN nON on CN 1 1 Hünkar Beğendi9 491.1 44.2 29.5 139.2 239.7 ON on o o Ö CN CO oo oo vd un vq oi on oo Roasted Köfte 339.2 30.9 114.6 0.63.- 1 un OO CN CN Ö CN ON OO CN on 1 Hasanpasa K öfte10 468.6 36.0 21.8 31.5 117.0 248.5 0.66.- 999 vq un VO CN o Ö on Ö CN Tf CO ON oo oo f T oo on CN Grilled meatballs 370.9 372.2 0.69.- 1 VIZ OO un V9Z CN on Ö CN ON ON vq 1^ 11 439.3 25.2 780.2 86.4 0.67.- Dalyan cd . K öfte p non un VO o on Tf Ö CN oo o O Ö on CN - r cd ” ON H 5 £ 1 g C/3 cd c 182.3 n 456.4 35.7 26.2 108.3 VOZ o p un Ö CN 00 OCN VO CN o CN un un Vegetables au gratin 409.7 24.5 561.1 253.6 0.49.- l_ on rn CN VO o Ö CN L'LZ 00 O CN Ö un t; T un Cauliflower au gratin 355.3 25.8 113.3 276.3 1^ on on on Ö Ö CN T}- m CN Ö OO CN o oo Zuccini mousakka 257.4 159.4 77.5 22.8 1^ 0.88.- VO OO un Ö Ö Ö o un Ö CN ON t VO un VO on ON un l# Veal sautee with mushrooms 346.1 84.2 34.7 24.0 }1 0.95.- CN on Ö vq CN - r un o Tj-‘ O oo on rr Artichokes cooked with olive oil 231.8 660.7 98.3 1 ¿96 - Ö Ö CN CN rt- on p un CN Stuffed aubergines cooked with oilve oil 278.7 22.5 51.5 0.23.- 0.79.- Ö un o r "cd o Ö - CN o - r on on un Ö m ON U cd > 1 h 141.7 223.7 0.64.- O OO d Ö Ö un CN VO CN CO TT Stuffed cabbage cooked with olive oil 238.2 82.7 103.6 49.4 0.16.- 0.72.- ""cd d r- o oo Ö Ö oo un rf m CN c/> ■i* 171.6 87.2 28.5 26.4 1 0.67.- vq VO d d oo oo O un 1 Spaghetti Napoliten 391.1 n 44.6 141.4 34.6 28.7 0.07.- d Í6Z V d d CN d p d VO un O Tf un 1^ Layered börek n 29.0 182.2 138.0 0.68.- 6'66£ oo on d d CN d ON CN rn ON Vermicelli with walnuts and cheese 43.3 29.0 154.7 0.16.- 0.73.- 619Z d d on - on vq CN un Phyllo pastry stuffed with cheese 559.7 , 38.2 39.4 330.9 0.18.- 0.73.- oo d d CN d d nun rn Börek with spinach 368.5 48.0 726.9 177.7 22.4 I# 0.75.- CN d ON d un d un VO on oo d on 1 Carrot soup 131.5 709.0 1 1 0.02.- CN d d d oo on un d oo un un f T oo un p CN o un Broccoli soup 168.2 0.06.- 0.62.- d d VO d 6ZZI o d d 00 d oo un vo p CN un Minestrone Çorba 437.0 28.9 d CN d d un ON oo r- on rf‘ CN p CN 1 Spinach soup with cream 156.4 401.6 1 0.68.- on d d Tf on vo OO vq CN un 1 Vegetables soup with cream 149.8 255.7 27.9 1 0.08.- 0.65.- p d d ON d d vq ON un OO 1 Mushrooms soup with cream 54.9 21.0 1 0.67.- 5 5 6 5 Table 5. Energy and nutrient content, food cost and total cost of the standardized recipes (cont.). (•8) UI3J0JJ(•8) ZQ V UIUIBJIA V IH D Cs ) OHD ) Cs 1 }so ('Sill) BQ ('Sill) S XSiaug •u)3j 3 (•8ui) ( S) JBJS) ( UIUIBJIA (IB5PT) 3 0 UIOBIfsI ) n s a ( ) n s a ( UIUIBJIA (•8ui) (■Sri) (•3ux) (Sui) (•3ui) uiuibua 3 [EJOX Name of the Dish poo ¿ Os VLOZ r r- Ö ON os ON vo in O - o Ö 00 Ö Ö CN r-> in CN n Kremalı Bezir çorba 241.3 1 vo m Tf VO r oo in o CN vq Ö CN Ö m Ö cn Ö VO Os' r- 1 • 1 Chicken soup with cream 181.5 1 CN vd VO - 0 9 -0 vo o in CN m Ö CN Tt; in Ö o rn o in 1 1 1 Ezogelin çorba 114.7 1 CN p Os oo Ö r- m CN rn CN m oVO vo Ö Tf Ö o o in o Ö vo ^r 1 Com soup 142.7 1 VO O oo 37,661 rn CN CN Ö o CN O CN m’ Ö VO o oo CN Carrot sautee with yoghurt 269.8 128.5 1 O vq cn r- Os CN sm Os CN Os Ö oo Ö Ö Ö Ö o Ö o r- Ö 1 Meditarranean salad 130.1 1071 1 VO CN oo CO oo r-; Ö os Ö o vo Ö vo OO* Garden salad 106.1 1089.4 1 oo o oo m CN CN CN Ö Ö Ö o o Ö OO O VO oo 1 Shepherds salad 113.0 184.2 41.9 it vq oo rt; CN o O CN tt in in in CN NCNCN Ö CN Ö p p Ö VO* r- 1 1 Aubergine salad 178.9 * oo CN in CN rn vo rn in Ö CN Ö Ö o CN Potatoes salad 184.9 116.9 32.0 0.64.- CN cn Ö oo Ö Ö Ö Ö m nÖ cn Ö CN t OO T Cheesecake 610.2 41.2 47.6 458.5 145.1 0.92.- 1 p Ö CN in r- in CN m oo in cn CN VO Ö vo Ö in CN 1 Triamisu 549.0 207.6 1 vq o CN Os Os oo rn rn in Ö in rr OO Ö Ö Ö r- rn Tulumba Tatlısı17 512.3 42.7 1 0.17.- oo Ö jO CN CN CN r- Ö CN m - Ö Ö vq Ö Ö Ö Os CO 3 2 co C/3 1 411.4 102.1 1 O oo Ö r- O VO Os* in oo rn in Ö o' CN O Ö r- Ö Ö ’ o m Ö Tí" n 355.0 64.4 244.7 1 0.16.- Z'913 Ö Ö OO O CN rn o o cn NCNCN m Ö Ö — O in rr rn rn OŞ r- CN GO- ä 1 1 O O CO e 447.6 fS r Ö Ö O CN nrn rn m VO vo oo m CN in 'Jo ”a § 306.8 183.5 1 0.12.- 0.69.- Os Ö in O VO O) m O o CN VO in in rn r- r-; ON 235.0 0.38.- 1 Sakızlı Muhallebi28 431.6 . .K T L O D R E M A., DAĞ 1 =1 S < U Q C w U U < w J "O DVJ ^ 5/3 ^ ~ ö >,.c O. S»^3 £ S s & 3•s « x; - ti ti - 5 T £ «- .s « 8 . ö C -5 ö .2 3 E > OÍ» 6 ? r\ î (L> ~ iî Si£ ? C3 i q ¡* o . ‘ E O > oo o\ o o o > 'O n i a c. a : * cq e -2 3 I.E > -5 ■- Dû £ 12 c c ^ §S.2 -5> S o E Standardizing the Rccipcs Mainly Used in the Menus of Commercially Operating Institutional Food Services: 5 7 Their Nutritional Values and Cost Analysis REFERENCES 12. Scanlon, N. L. Criteria for menu pricing. Catering Menu Management. New York, 1992;88-93. 1. Kutluay, Merdol. T. Standart Yemek Tarifeleri. 3. 13. Ninemeier, D. J. Standart product costs and pricing Baskı, Hatipoğlu Yayınları, 2003;77. strategies. Food and Beverage Management. Second 2. Ninemeier, J. D. Planning and Control for Food and Edition, Educational Institute American Hotel and Beverage Operations. Third Edition, Educational Motel Association, 1995; 131-138. Institute American Hotel and Motel Association, 14. Kivela, J. Menü Planning For the Hospitality Industry. 1995;30-33. Hospitality Press, Melbourne, 1994; 138-148. 3. Gisslen, W. The Recipe: Its structure and its use. 15. Başoğlu, S. Yöresel Yemek Tarifelerinin Professional Cooking. 4th Edition, 1999;64-73. Standartlaştırılması ve Besin Değerleri Üzerine Bir 4. Mizer, A. D., Porter, M., Sonnier, B. Recipes and Araştırma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Measurement. Food Preparation for The Professional. Enstitüsü Bilim Uzmanlığı Tezi, Ankara, 1985. Second Edition, John Willey and Sons, 1987;93-95. 16. Kurtcan, Ü., Gönül, M. Gıdaların Duyusal 5. Magris, M., Me Creery, C., Brighton, R. Menu Değerlendirmesinde Puanlama Metodu. Ege Üniversi Planning. Introduction to Catering. Oxford, 1993;242- tesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, Seri B:5,l. 249. 1987; 137-145 6. Tiirksoy, A. Yiyecek ve İçecek Hizmetleri 17. Sümbüloğlu, K., Sümbüloğlu, V. Biyoistatistik, Özde Yönetimi.Turhan Kitapevi, 2. Baskı, Ankara, 2002. mir Yayıncılık, 5. Baskı, 1994. 7. Kinton, R., Ceserani, V., Fosket, D. The Theory of 18. Dağ, A. Yiyecek İçecek İşletmelerinde Standart Catering. Eighth Edition, Hodder and Stonghton Tarifeler Maliyet ve Hijyen Kontrolü, Birinci Baskı, Publishing. London, 1995. Ankara, 2006. 8. Tolve, P, A. Standardizing Foodservice For Quality 19. Miller, J. E., Pavesic, D. V. Menu Pricing Strategies. and Efficiency. Restaurant and Institutional Menu Princing and Strategy. Fourth. Edition, Foodservice Management Department of Home Newyork, 1996; 133-145. Economics, Bowling Green State University, Avi 20. Seaberg, A. G. Producing a menu. Menu D esing Publishing Company, Inc. Westport Connecticut, Merchandising and Marketing, Fourth 1984. Edition,Newyork, 1991; 1-4. 9. Cousins, J., Foskett, D., Shortt, D. Food and Beverage 21. Davis, B., Sally, S. Food and Beverage Management. Management. Thames Valley University, Longman, Heinemann- London, 1985;45-46. Second Edition, 1998. 22. Iverson, M. K. Food and beverage opeations. 10. Coltman, M, M. Cost Control For the Hospitality Introduction to Hospitlity Management, Newyork, Industry. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, Second 1989;60-78. Edition, 1998 23. Kotschevar, L. H. Management by Menu. Second 11. Measuring Success With Standardized Recipes U. S. Edition, The Educational Foundation National Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Restaurant Association, 1987; 100-114. and The National Food Service Management Institute, 2002.