FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT international 1/2017

............................................
............................................
Fleischwirtschaft international 1_2017
57
Research &Development
chicken meat while the treated group had 50% minced chicken meat.
Noodles were formed by amanuallyoperated stainless steel extruder
into around shape in atray and were dried in ahot air oven (SciTech) at
65±2 °C for the required time (7 to 8h). The dried and cooled noodles
were manuallybroken into 10 to 15 cm and were packed and sealed with
asealer (Singhal, HSP-200, India) in pre-sterilised LDPE. The LDPE bags
containing chicken meat noodles and control were kept at ambient
temperature for further analysis of different physico-chemical parameters
(moisture, fat, protein, crude fibre and ash), pH, water activity (aw),
water absorption index (WAI), water solubility index (WSI), free fatty acid
(FFA), 2-Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) value, textural
profile analysis (TPA), microbial quality and sensory attributes during the
storage study at ambient temperature of 35±2 °C up to 30 days.
Analytical techniques
Proximate composition
The moisture, protein, fat and ash content of the chicken meat noodles
were determined following standard methods as per (AOAC 1995).
Crude fiber
Crude fiber was determined by refluxing 2gof each sample with 100mlof
0.3 NH2SO4 for 1h.The hot mixture was filtered through afibre sieve cloth.
The residue obtained was returned to the flask and refluxed for another
1hwith 100mlof0.3N NaOH solution. The mixture was filtered through a
sieve cloth and the residue washed with 10 ml of acetone. The residue
was then washed with 50 ml hot distilled water twice on the sieve cloth
before it was finallytransferred into the crucible. The crucible with
residue was oven dried at 105°Covernight, and weighed. The crucible and
its content was then transferred into amuffle furnace set at 550 °C and
heated for 4h,cooled and re-weighed. The weight of crude fibre was
then calculated as g/100gof original sample (SAURA-CALIXTO et al. 1983).
pH
The pH of the noodles was determined according to (TROUT et al., 1992) by
blending 10 gofsample with 100mldistilled water for 1min. using pestle
and mortar.The pH of the suspension was recorded by dipping acombined
glass electrode of an Elico pH meter (Model LI 127).
Water activity (aw)
Water activity was determined using ahand held portable digital water
activity meter (Rotonix Hygro Palm AW1Set/40). Afinelyground sample
was filled up (80%) in amoisture free sample cup provided along with the
aw meter.The sample cup was placed into the sample holder, and then
Source: VERMA et al. FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT international 1_2017
Fig.:Change in the TBARS (malondialdehyde mg/kg) values during the storage
study of chicken meat noodle under aerobic condition.
sensor was placed on it for 5min. Duplicate readings were performed for
each sample.
Free fatty acids (FFA)
The method described by KONIECKO (1979) was followed: 5gof the chicken
meat noodles sample was blended for 2min with 30 ml of chloroform in
the presence of anhydrous sodium sulphate (5 g). Then it was filtered
through Whatman filter paper No. 1into a450 ml conical flask. About 2or
3drops of 0.2% phenolphthalein indicator solution was added to the
chloroform extract, which was then titrated against N/10 alcoholic
potassium hydroxide to get pink color at the end point. The quantity of
potassium hydroxide consumed during titration was recorded. Free fatty
acids percentage was calculated as follows:
Tab. 2: Change in nutritive values of chicken meat noodles at ambient temperature under aerobic condition
Composition (%) Treatment 0Day 10 Days 20 Days 30 Days
Moisture C 9.31 b ±0.03 9.39 b ±0.03 9.49 ab ±0.02 9.52 Ba ±0.02
T 9.39 c ±0.04 9.46 cb ±0.04 9.54 b ±0.05 9.67 Aa ±0.07
Fat C 2.38 B ±0.09 2.33 B ±0.08 2.23 B ±0.07 2.13 B ±0.10
T 4.33 Aa ±0.13 4.23 Aab ±0.12 4.15 Aab ±0.11 4.00 Ab ±0.12
Protein C 8.97 B ±0.46 8.79 B ±0.45 8.95 B ±0.55 8.77 B ±0.36
T 22.11 A ±0.99 21.93 A ±0.68 21.75 A ±1.14 21.56 A ±0.71
Crude fibre C 1.68 Aa ±0.02 1.62 Ab ±0.02 1.56 Ac ±0.02 1.49 Ad ±0.01
T 0.81 B ±0.01 0.79 B ±0.01 0.79 B ±0.02 0.76 B ±0.01
Ash C 2.59 Ba ±0.07 2.43 Bab ±0.05 2.33 Bb ±0.04 2.33 Bb ±0.03
T 3.78 Aa ±0.12 3.72 Aa ±0.07 3.64 Aab ±0.05 3.52 Ab ±0.05
Mean ±S.E.withdifferent superscripts row wise (small alphabets) and column wise (capital alphabets) differ significantly(P