Development of Poultry Sausages Utilizing Manually and Mechanically Deboned Meat from Spent Laying Quails

Abstract

The growth in quail egg production presents opportunities to utilize spent laying quail meat in value-added products, thereby enhancing the poultry industry. This study aimed to develop and evaluate sausages made with quail breast meat (QBM), chicken breast meat (CBM), mechanically deboned quail meat (MDQM), and mechanically deboned chicken meat (MDCM). The poultry breast and deboned meat samples were characterized and used to prepare five sausages (S1 = 100% CBM, S2 = 100% QBM, S3 = 60% CBM + 40% MDQM, S4 = 60% QBM + 40% MDCM, and S5 = 50% MDCM + 50% MDQM). QBM exhibited a higher protein content (25.26%) than CBM (22.33%), while MDQM contained higher collagen (1.23%) and ash (3.78%) contents than that of MDCM. MDCM displayed a darker (lower L*), redder (lower h), and more intense (higher C*) color than MDQM. Sausages containing mechanically deboned poultry meat (S3, S4, and S5) exhibited a more yellowish (h = 62.9°) tone compared to those containing only breast meat (h = 56.2°). S4 sausages exhibited the highest sensory acceptability (score 7.2), whereas S5 sausages, described as having a dark, non-uniform appearance and sandy texture, were less preferred (score 5.1). These findings highlight the potential of spent quail meat in sausage production, offering a promising avenue for product innovation and market expansion.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, quail farming has emerged as a promising industry. Quails are well adapted to domestic conditions, demonstrating high disease tolerance, resistance to elevated temperatures, high reproductive potential, rapid growth rates, efficient feed conversion, and sexual precocity. They can produce approximately five generations per year, reaching maturity at 40–42 days, and have an incubation period of only 17 days [1]. Quail farming offers a viable alternative for producing animal protein due to the species’ adaptability and minimal space requirements. Quails thrive in small environments, reducing the need for substantial investments while offering quick returns [2]. However, challenges persist regarding production and consumption, which directly affect costs and product quality.

Quails raised in Brazil originate from two main breeds: the Asian breed, known as the Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica), primarily used for egg production, and the European breed, referred to as the European quail (Coturnix coturnix coturnix), with specific strains utilized in the meat quail industry [3]. Although quail meat is prized for its tenderness, juiciness, and exotic flavor— making it well received by consumers [4]—Brazilian quail production is predominantly focused on egg production. According to the IBGE [5], the national flock size amounts to 15 million birds, which produce 273 thousand dozen eggs annually. The Southeast region leads production, contributing over 67% of the national total, followed by the South, Northeast, Center-West, and North regions [6]. The average laying cycle lasts 10–12 months, and spent quails weigh approximately 120–150 g, yielding approximately 60% meat post-deboning [7]. However, after the laying cycle, these quails are discarded, resulting in considerable nutritional and economic losses. Nutritionally, spent quails represent a high biological value protein source and an excellent supply of vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids [8]. Economically, as with layer hens, labor and transportation costs associated with slaughtering quails make it challenging for farms to sell these birds at reasonable profits. Generally, birds are sold to slaughterhouses at low prices, introducing meat with no defined quality standards into a market that is not yet consolidated. The carcasses obtained from spent quails are small, weighing between 70 and 130 g, and the meat is often of lower quality [9].

In Brazil, quail meat consumption is either seasonal or limited to special occasions, leading to market price variations at municipal, state, and national levels. Most commercial quail meat is still sold as whole carcasses, and limited efforts have been made to research and develop value-added quail meat products. Given the lower consumer demand for quail meat, introducing value-added meat products may be a good strategy to improve the market potential. Processing spent laying quails into ready-to-eat (RTE) meat products for distribution through supermarkets, fast-food outlets, and restaurants [8], would offer both convenience and diversity to consumers while improving economic viability.

One viable option for the post-productive cycle of Japanese egg-laying quails is the production of mechanically deboned poultry meat, which can subsequently be utilized in cooked RTE meat products. In the poultry industry, slaughter and automated processing lines commercially separate legs, wings, and breasts, while mechanical separation processes meat from commercially low-value parts, such as backbones, necks, and wingtips. For spent laying poultry, mechanically deboned meat is typically obtained from the entire carcass [10]. Mechanically deboned poultry meat finds application in various meat products and is frequently used in comminuted meat products, particularly emulsified sausages, due to its fine consistency and relatively low cost [11]. The mechanical separation processes may help diversify spent laying quail meat, supporting the development of processed meat products.

To better utilize quail carcasses at the end of their egg-laying period, it is imperative to study the feasibility of obtaining mechanically deboned meat from these birds and its application as an ingredient in meat products. Although quail farming has been extensively studied, research on the quality of processed products made with young or spent quail meat remains limited. Some studies have reported the use of manually deboned quail meat in restructured products such as non-emulsified breakfast sausages [12,13], nuggets, and kofta [12]. Additionally, Ikhlas et al. [14] described the use of MDQM in meatball formulations. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the industrial potential of spent laying quail meat by obtaining and characterizing its mechanically deboned meat and developing emulsified poultry sausages using breast meat and mechanically deboned meat from quail and chicken.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials

Frozen Japanese laying quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) carcasses from three different lots (slaughter days) were purchased from a slaughterhouse in São Paulo, SP, whereas frozen chicken breasts, backs, and necks were purchased on three different days from a local market in Lavras, MG. The meats were transported to the Laboratory of Meat Science and Technology (LabCarnes) at the Federal University of Lavras (UFLA) and stored at −18 °C until processing. Prior to processing, the meats were thawed for 24 h at 4 °C.

The quail carcasses from each lot (n = 30) were thawed for 24 h at 4 °C, and the breasts were manually deboned. The remaining parts of the carcass, including bones and breast skin, were used for the mechanical separation process. Similarly, chicken breasts (n = 6) were manually deboned, and the breast bones, necks, and backs, including the skin, were processed by mechanical separation. The quail breast meat (QBM) and chicken breast meat (CBM) were ground using a 20 mm disc (Beccaro Ltd., Rio Claro, SP, Brazil). Mechanically deboned quail meat (MDQM) and chicken meat (MDCM) were obtained using a mechanical deboning machine (PV Máquinas; Chapecó, SC, Brazil). The meats and bones were processed in three batches (repetitions, corresponding to each lot or day of purchase), and the ground meat and mechanically deboned meat were individually identified, packed in polyethylene bags, and immediately frozen at −18 °C for further processing and analysis.

2.2. Sausage Manufacturing

The potential use of laying quail meat in four RTE-cooked and emulsified poultry sausages (hot dog-type) was investigated and compared to those made with chicken meat. The treatments were as follows: S1 = 100% CBM (reference), S2 = 100% QBM, S3 = 60% CBM and 40% MDQM, S4 = 60% QBM and 40% MDCM, and S5 = 50% MDQM and 50% MDCM. The products were prepared following a standard formulation for emulsified poultry sausages (

Table 1. Poultry sausage formulations with mechanically deboned quail (MDQM) and chicken (MDCM) meats.

Ingredients (%)	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5
Chicken breast (CBM)	72	-	43	-	-
Quail breast (QBM)	-	72	-	43	-
MDCM	-	-	-	29	36
MDQM	-	-	29	-	36
Vegetable fat	7	7	7	7	7
Ice (water)	15	15	15	15	15
Salt	1.6	1.6	1.6	1.6	1.6
Soy protein isolate (SPI)	2.5	2.5	2.5	2.5	2.5
Cassava starch	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0
Sodium tripolyphosphate (TPP)	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3
Curing salt (sodium nitrite)	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05
Antioxidant (sodium erythorbate)	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02
Monosodium glutamate (MSG)	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
Sausage seasoning	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30

S1 = sausage made with 100% CBM; S2 = sausage made with 100% QBM; S3 = sausage made with 60% CBM and 40% MDQM; S4 = sausage made with 60% QBM and 40% MDCM; and S5 = sausage made with 50% MDCM and 50% MDQM.

). The proportions of meat used in each formulation were initially defined to comply with Brazilian legislation [15], which specifies the acceptable ranges for meat and mechanically deboned meat contents.

Meats from each lot or day of purchase were used to prepare the evaluated sausages; therefore, the experiment was conducted in three independent batches (repetitions) of 1 kg/treatment. Frozen raw meat and mechanically deboned meat were minced using a cutter (Sire Cutter; Filizola S.A., São Paulo, Brazil) with added salt and phosphate. After 30 s, ice and vegetable fat were added, and mincing continued for an additional 30 s. Subsequently, the other ingredients (soy protein, seasoning, curing salt, antioxidant, and cassava starch) were added. The emulsified meat batters were stuffed (Picelli, EP-5 model, Rio Claro, SP, Brazil) into 20 mm cellulose casings, producing sausages of 8–10 cm in length, and cooked in a water bath (at 80 °C) until the internal temperature of the product reached 72 °C. Once the endpoint temperature was achieved, the sausages were immediately chilled in ice for 5 min, vacuum-packaged (BD420; R. Baião Indústria e Comércio Ltd., Ubá, MG, Brazil), and stored at 4 °C until analysis.

2.3. Physicochemical Analysis

The chemical composition (%) of the raw materials and sausages was determined according to the methods described by AOAC [16]: the moisture content was measured using the oven-drying method at 105 °C (AOAC 950.46B); the ash content was determined by incineration in a muffle furnace at 550 °C (AOAC 950.46); the protein content was analyzed using the micro-Kjeldahl method (AOAC 981.10) with a nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor of 6.25; and the fat content was quantified by the Soxhlet extraction method (AOAC 960.39). The total collagen content (mg/g) of the raw materials was assessed following the AOAC 990.26 method [16]. Briefly, 4 g of the sample was hydrolyzed with 30 mL of 7 M sulfuric acid at 105 °C for 16 h. The hydrolyzed homogenate was diluted 1:5 with distilled water and filtered, and a 2 mL aliquot was oxidized with 2 mL of distilled water and 1 mL of 60 mM chloramine-T solution (in citrate buffer; pH 6.0). Ehrlich solution (1 mL) was added in perchloric acid/isopropanol and incubated at 60 °C for 15 min, and absorbance was measured at 558 nm. Hydroxyproline content was quantified using an analytical curve and converted to collagen content (mg/g) using a factor of 8.0.

The pH values of the raw materials and sausages were determined (in triplicate) by directly inserting a penetration electrode coupled to a digital pH meter (DM20; Digimed Analítica Ltd., São Paulo, SP, Brazil) into the ground meat, the mechanically deboned meat, and the central regions of the sausage.

Finally, the colors of the raw materials and sausages were measured using the CIELAB and CIELCH systems using the colorimeter NIX Color Sensor (Nix Sensor Ltd., Hamilton, ON, Canada). Illuminant A was used for the raw materials, and D65 for the sausages, both with a 10° observer angle. The ground raw meat and mechanically deboned meat were placed in glass Petri dishes (94 mm diameter and 16 mm height) and exposed to atmospheric air for 15 min at 4 °C for blooming, and the color readings were taken as the averages of five surface readings. For the sausages, two samples from each treatment were cut into three parts, and internal surface readings were obtained. Lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), chroma (C*), and hue angle (h, °) were recorded from the average readings.

2.4. Sensorial Evaluation

The sensory qualities of the formulated sausages were evaluated using the check-all-that-apply (CATA) method after obtaining ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of UFLA, registered under the protocol code CAAE 61293522.1.0000.5148 on the National Research Ethics System (SISNEP, Brazil). Participation in this study was voluntary, and all panelists signed a Free and Informed Consent Form (FICF). Only those who provided consent participated in the sensory evaluation, while those who did not were excluded from this study. The tests were conducted in individual cabins with white light at the Sensorial Laboratory of the Food Science Department (DCA/UFLA). The approval date by the Ethics Committee was 25 August 2022.

First, CATA questions (terms describing the product characteristics) were defined by 10 untrained panelists (undergraduate and graduate students) who were regular consumers (more than once a week) of cooked sausage, using the network method [17]. The cooked sausage samples were cut into 20 mm high cylinders, served, and presented in a single testing session, during which the evaluators used an open-ended question to establish the appropriate terms to describe their appearance, flavor, and texture. The frequently listed descriptors among the terms selected for the CATA questions were as follows: appearance—non-uniform, pale, dark, pinkish, and brownish; aroma characteristic—mild, chicken, and spicy; texture—characteristic, sandy, juicy, firm, and rubbery; and flavor—, spicy, tasty, and mild. These 18 sensory terms were used to compose the questionnaire and presented together with the acceptance test.

In the second stage, 100 untrained undergraduate and graduate students (48 males and 52 females; age range 18–46 years), who were regular consumers of sausages, were recruited at the UFLA. Sensory analysis was performed in a single session, during which sample cylinders (approximately 20 mm in height) were served in a randomly balanced monadic sequence to each panelist in plastic cups labeled with a three-digit code. Mineral water was provided to cleanse the palate between sample trials. The panelists evaluated the samples using a hedonic scale of 1 (Dislike Extremely) to 9 (Like Extremely) for acceptance and recorded their impressions on sensory evaluation forms. On the same form, the panelists were instructed to check all the terms of the 18 predefined CATA questions that they considered appropriate for describing each sample.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The experiment was conducted using a completely randomized design (CRD), with three replicates (batches of breast meats, mechanically deboned meats, and sausages from different lots). Data on chemical composition, pH, and instrumental color were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a significance level of 5%. When significant differences were observed, means were compared using Tukey’s test.

For the acceptance test and CATA, statistical analysis was conducted using a randomized block design (RBD), in which each panelist represented a block. Acceptance data were presented as a frequency distribution for each treatment, based on the structured 9-point scale (1 = Disliked Extremely to 9 = Liked Extremely) for the overall impression. To identify relationships between the selected CATA terms for each sample, an External Preference Map (EPM) was generated, correlating the hedonic values assigned by the assessors to the overall impression attribute of the samples.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Raw Materials

Differences in raw materials play a crucial role in determining the characteristics and consumer acceptance of processed sausages. The pH values and components of the chemical composition (protein, collagen, fat, ash, and moisture content) exhibited significant differences among the treatments (

Table 2. Chemical composition and color indices of breast and mechanically deboned meats from quail and chicken.

	Breast Meat		Mechanically Deboned Meat
Characteristics	Quail	Chicken	Quail	Chicken	SEM
pH	5.94 b	5.87 b	7.01 a	6.96 a	0.04
Chemical composition (%)
Moisture	70.41 b	73.87 a	67.28 c	66.29 d	0.89
Total Protein	25.26 a	22.33 b	19.36 c	16.38 d	1.00
Collagen	0.49 b	0.65 c	1.23 a	0.17 d	0.12
Fat	2.60 c	1.96 d	9.57 b	14.80 a	1.60
Ashes	1.73 c	1.84 c	3.78 a	2.51 b	0.25
Color indices
Lightness (L*)	43.13 c	47.91 b	46.23 cb	59.93 a	1.99
Redness (a*)	6.20 c	−0.70 d	9.03 b	25.39 a	2.89
Yellowness (b*)	9.57 c	3.70 d	12.10 b	22.65 a	2.08
Chroma (C*)	11.40 c	3.79 d	15.11 b	34.02 a	3.37
Hue angle (h, °)	57.07 b	101.83 a	53.36 b	41.74 c	6.93

Means in the same line followed by different letters differ (p < 0.05) by the Tukey test. SEM = standard error of the means.

). The pH values of the chicken breast meat did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) from those of the quail breast meat. However, the mechanically deboned meat from both poultries revealed higher pH values (p < 0.05) than their corresponding raw breast meats. This increase in pH may be attributed to the inclusion of red bone marrow and basic calcium phosphate from bone during the mechanical separation process [18]. Similar trends were observed by Ikhlas et al. [19] in mechanically deboned meat from young (pH 6.53) and spent (pH 6.62) quails.

Overall, quail breasts exhibited (p < 0.05) higher total protein content and lower collagen content (1.94% vs. 2.91% of total protein) than that of chicken breasts. They also revealed significantly lower moisture and higher fat contents. Mechanically deboned meat had (p < 0.05) lower protein and higher fat contents than breast meats. However, apart from the fat content, the chemical composition was significantly higher in MDQM than in MDCM. These differences in mechanically deboned meat composition may be attributed to the “diluting effect” of fat, which was more pronounced in chickens, likely due to their greater skin content. Nevertheless, both mechanically deboned meats met the Brazilian regulatory requirements for protein (minimum 12%) and fat (maximum 30%) contents [15].

A similar chemical composition of quail breast meat (71.41% moisture, 23.68% protein, and 4.53% fat) was reported by Kokoszyński et al. [20]. Additionally, Ikhlas et al. [19] observed a comparable chemical composition for mechanically deboned meat from spent quails (66.97% moisture and 17.48% protein) to that in this study, though with slightly higher fat (12.91%) and lower ash (1.44%) contents.

Regarding instrumental color, significant differences were observed between treatments for all color indices (Table 2). Quail breast meat was darker (lower L* values), redder (lower h values), and more intense (higher C* values) in color than that of chicken breast meat. These differences suggest a higher heme pigment content in quail breast meat than in chicken breast meat. Berri et al. [21] reported that broiler commercial lines selected for increased body weight and breast yield had lower heme pigment content, which was associated with higher L* and lower a* values in the breast meat than in the unselected control lines. Conversely, MDQM exhibited lower L* and C* values and higher h values than MDCM. This could be attributed to the mechanical deboning process, which incorporates unsaturated fat and hemoglobin from the spinal cord [11], with this effect appearing more pronounced in chickens than in quails. Overall, marginal variations were observed in color index values when comparing the findings of this study with those reported by Kokoszyński et al. [20] for 52 wk old spent quail breast meat (L* = 39.71, a* = 11.64, and b* = 3.32) and by Ikhlas et al. [19] for MDQM (L* = 58.93, a* = 12.36, and b* = 20.86). These variations are expected, as they depend on several factors, including breeding and nutrition, age, slaughter conditions, and, in the case of mechanically separated meat, processing conditions (e.g., type of machine, pressure applied) [22].

3.2. Poultry Sausages

The chemical composition, pH, and instrumental color of sausages prepared using different proportions of chicken and quail breast meats and mechanically deboned meats are presented in

Table 3. The effects of the addition of different proportions of chicken (CBM) and quail (QBM) breast meats and mechanically deboned chicken (MDCM) and quail (MDQM) meats on the chemical composition, pH, and color indices of poultry sausages.

Characteristics	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	SEM
pH	6.30 c	6.31 c	6.47 b	6.43 b	6.62 a	0.02
Chemical composition (%)
Moisture	67.19 a	66.28 ab	65.17 b	64.50 bc	63.09 c	0.55
Total Protein	18.38 ab	20.19 a	17.52 bc	17.91 bc	15.17 c	0.88
Fat	8.41 c	8.87 c	10.62 bc	12.41 ab	15.77 a	0.95
Ashes	2.92	2.85	3.49	3.07	3.86	0.20
Color indices
Lightness (L*)	45.80 b	44.10 c	49.30 a	49.70 a	49.90 a	0.81
Redness (a*)	5.90 ab	6.10 a	5.20 bc	5.25 bc	4.30 c	0.21
Yellowness (b*)	8.90 b	9.05 b	9.25 ab	9.45 ab	10.10 a	0.15
Chroma (C*)	10.68	10.91	10.77	10.81	10.98	0.06
Hue angle (h, °)	56.46 c	56.00 c	60.94 b	60.92 b	66.95 a	1.33

S1 = sausage made with 100% CBM; S2 = sausage made with 100% QBM; S3 = sausage made with 60% CBM and 40% MDQM; S4 = sausage made with 60% QBM and 40% MDCM; and S5 = sausage made with 50% MDCM and 50% MDQM. SEM = standard error of the means. ^a–c The means in the same line followed by different letters differ (p < 0.05) by the Tukey test.

. Significant differences in pH were observed among the treatments, with the sausages made solely from mechanically deboned meats (S5) showing the highest pH values. Furthermore, samples containing mechanically deboned meat (S3 and S4) also exhibited higher pH values than those containing breast meat only (S1 and S2). This was probably due to differences in the pH values of the raw materials (Table 2). Pereira et al. [11] similarly reported higher pH values in sausages prepared with higher proportions of MDCM.

In general, the addition of mechanically deboned meat significantly altered the composition of the sausages, reducing their moisture and protein contents while increasing their fat content. These changes align with the characteristics of the raw materials used (Table 2). All sausages met the Brazilian regulatory [15] requirements for protein (minimum 12%) and fat (maximum 30%) contents. However, samples formulated with only breast meats (S1 and S2) and S3 exceeded the maximum allowed moisture content of 65%. According to this regulation, based on their formulation and composition, sausages S1, S2, S3, and S4 could be designated as “poultry sausages” (maximum 40% mechanically deboned meat), and S1 and S2 could also be defined as “quail sausage” and “chicken sausage”, respectively, as they contain meat from only one species. However, S5 did not meet the designation of “sausage”, as it contained more than 60% mechanically deboned meat.

In terms of instrumental color, significant variations (p < 0.05) were observed across treatments for all indices except C* values, indicating that the color intensity of the sausages was not affected by the raw material used. However, the inclusion of mechanically deboned meat in the formulation made the sausages paler, as reflected by increasing L* values, and resulted in a less red color tone, as indicated by higher h values. The sausages prepared with CBM were also significantly lighter (p < 0.05) than those made with QBM. These differences were also related to the color indices of the raw materials (Table 2) and were visually noticeable (Figure 1).

The sensory traits of the poultry sausages, evaluated in terms of acceptance, are depicted in Figure 2. Overall, the sausages made with breast meat (S1 and S2) were preferred, with a higher frequency of score ratings above 7 (“Like Moderately”) for those made with quail (64%) than those made with chicken (56%) meats. Remarkably, the incorporation of MDCM into quail meat sausages potentially improved its acceptability, increasing the frequency of scores above 7 to 72% in S4 sausages, with the highest frequency (18%) of maximum scores (9—“Like Extremely”) among all sausages. This can be attributed to the habitual consumption of emulsified sausages containing high amounts of MDCM (up to 60%) by Brazilians, as reported by Pereira et al. [23], who observed a linear increase in flavor acceptance with greater amounts of MDCM in the formulation. Conversely, sausages composed solely of mechanically deboned meats (S5) received unfavorable feedback, with the lowest frequency (35%) of scores above 7, a higher frequency of scores below 4 (“Dislike Moderately”), and no score of 9 given by the panelists. This may be attributed to the presence of MDQM, as the frequency of scores above 7 decreased from 56% in sausages made with CBM (S1) to 50% in sausages incorporating both CBM and MDQM (S3). Despite individual factors, such as age, gender, and education level, or other extrinsic factors that affect consumer perception, such as nutritional value, price, and packaging, intrinsic attributes—flavor, texture, appearance, and color—were identified as the most relevant factors influencing consumer acceptance [24]. Therefore, a better understanding of the reasons for the differences in acceptance between treatments can be obtained through the sensory descriptors evaluated in the CATA test.

Regarding the CATA data, 79.25% of the variation (R² = 0.88) was jointly explained by the first (PC1) and second (PC2) principal components, which revealed four distinct groups (Figure 3). Consumers distinctly differentiated the sensory profiles of sausages, particularly their appearance and textural attributes. PC1, which accounted for the largest variation, distinctly separated the least preferred sample (S5) from the others. These samples, made exclusively with mechanically deboned meats, were primarily characterized by their dark, brownish, and non-uniform appearance, sandy texture, and spicy aroma and flavor. These attributes may explain their lower acceptance (mean score of 5.1). In contrast to PC1, the most preferred sample (S4; mean score of 7.2) was strongly associated with the aroma, flavor, and texture attributes of poultry sausages. This reinforces the premise that their higher acceptance stemmed from panelists’ familiarity with consuming sausages with high MDCM content, as aforementioned. The samples prepared with 100% QBM (S2; mean score of 6.6) exhibited intermediate characteristics between samples S4 and S5, whereas those containing CBM (S1 and S3, with and without MDQM) were separated from S4 by PC2. These samples exhibited similar acceptance (mean score of 6.4 and 6.2, respectively) and were described as having a pale appearance, firm and rubbery texture, and mild flavor and aroma.

4. Conclusions

The findings of this study demonstrated the high potential of quail meat and MDQM in poultry sausage production. Sausages made exclusively with quail breast meat were preferred by consumers over those made with chicken meat. Furthermore, replacing chicken meat with MDQM did not negatively affect the sensory characteristics or overall acceptance of the sausages. In conclusion, poultry sausages made from spent laying quail meat offer considerable potential for product development and value addition, addressing the disposal of spent laying quail carcasses while contributing to the diversification of meat products. Future research should focus on evaluating additional quality parameters, such as fatty acid and amino acid profiles, and microbiological and oxidative stability during storage. Additionally, the use of MDQM in other RTE meat products should be evaluated.