الفهرس 
Nutritional analysisOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 116 |  |  |
| | | from | 116 | | |
Abstract
A total of 120 random samples of processed chicken meat products were collected from different supermarkets located in Kalyobia governorate. The examined samples were half cooked chicken fingers, cooked chicken fingers, half cooked chicken fillet pane, cooked chicken fillet pane, half cooked cordon bleu, cooked cordon bleu, half cooked chicken fillet and cooked chicken fillet (15 of each product) to evaluate their quality and to detect the effect of heat treatment on the chemical and nutritional aspect of such products.
The obtained results indicated that the mean value of moisture % in the examined samples of half cocked and cooked chicken fingers, chicken pane, chicken fillets and cordon bleu were 61.840.22 & 58.72 0.14 % , 61.090.17 & 58.35 0.21 %, 59.670.19 & 56.88 0.15 % and 60.250.16 & 57.14 0.18, respectively.
The mean values of protein % in the examined samples of halfcocked and cooked chicken fingers, chicken pane, chicken fillets and cordon bleu were 14.78 0.13 % & 15.83 0.15 % for chicken fingers , 15.10 0.18 % & 16.05 0.14 % for chicken pane, 15.36 0.15 % & 15.69 0.12 % for chicken fillets and 14.92 0.16 % & 15.97 0.17 % for cordon bleu ,respectively.
Furthermore, The mean values of fat % in the examined samples of half cooked and cooked chicken fingers, chicken pane, chicken fillets and cordon bleu were 6.570.14&7.1211, 6.260.09 & 6.690.10, 12.80o.11&13.460.13 and 13.240.12&14.010.17, respectively.
The mean values of carbohydrates % in the examined samples of halfcocked and cooked chicken fingers, chicken pane, chicken fillets and cordon bleu were 10.130.09 & 11.050.13, 9.920.12 &10.730.11, 9.580.08 & 9.980.09 and 9.690.10 & 10.060.14.
The mean value of ash % in the examined samples of half cooked and cooked chicken fingers, chicken pane, chicken fillets and cordon bleu were 3.46±0.06 & 4.21±0.10, 3.18±0.09 & 3.79±0.08, 1.77±0.04 & 1.95±0.05 and 1.39±0.07 &1.280.07, respectively.
The mean values of phosphate (%) in the examined samples of half cooked and cooked chicken fingers, chicken pane, chicken fillets and cordon bleu were 0.380.02 & 0.430.03, 0.410.03 & 0.450.02, 0.350.01 & 0.380.01 and 0.490.02 & 0.520.03, respectively.
Application of keeping quality tests declared that the average values of pH, TVN%, TBA% and peroxide in half cooked and cooked samples were 5.920.01 & 6.010.02, 8.170.31 & 8.580.24, 0.070.01 & 0.080.01 and 0.130.02 & 0.150.02, respectively for chicken fingers, 5.860.01 &5.900.01, 7.060.26 & 7.610.23, 0.050.01 & 0.060.01 and 0.110.01 & 0.120.01, respectively for chicken pane, 5.950.01 & 5.970.01, 7.890.28 & 8.030.27, 0.030.01 & 0.050.01 and 0.080.01 & 0.090.01, respectively for chicken fillets, and 5.730.01 & 5.810.02, 5.930.19 & 6.440.20, 0.100.01 & 0.110.01 and 0.180.02 & 0.210.03, respectively for cordon blue samples.
The differences between the examined samples of chicken meat products were highly significant (P<0.01), as regarding the result of pH, TVN, TBA and peroxide. The effect of heat treatment were significant (P<0.05) as regarding the result of pH and highly significant (P<0.01) as regarding the results of TVN, TBA and peroxide.
On other hand, the half cooked chicken fingers had the highest content of Glycine (12.13%), Tryptophan (10.49%), Glutamic acid (8.92%), leucin (8.25%), Methionine (7.12%), Alanine (6.87%) and Phenylalanine (6.77%). In the same time, half cooked chicken pane had the highest content of Tryptophan (11.28%), Glycine (10.47%), Glutamic acid (9.30%), Phenylalanine (7.97%), Alanine (7.96%) and leucin (5.85%).
Moreover, the half cooked chicken fillets, had the highest content of Tryptophan (12.07%), Glycine (11.27%), Phenylalanine (9.26%), Alanine (8.16%), Glutamic acid (9.30%), leucin (6.38%) and Aspartic acid (5.54%). Concerning, half cooked cordon bleu , had the highest content of Tryptophan (11.06%), Glycine (10.18%) , Leucine (9.39%), Glutamic acid (7.86%), Alanin (7.44%), Phenylalanine (6.82%), Aspartic acid (6.43%) and Methionine (5.10%).
In cooked chicken fingers, the highest contents of amino acid were Glycine (11.94%), Tryptophan (10.81%), Glutamic acid (8.72%), leucin (8.66%), Methionine (7.24%), Alanine (6.69%) and Phenylalanine (6.27%). Furthermore, the cooked chicken pane had the highest content of Tryptophan (11.52%), Glycine (10.16%), Glutamic acid (9.95%), Alanine (8.13%), Phenylalanine (7.39%) and Aspartic acid (5.61).
Concerning the cooked chicken fillets, they had the highest content of Tryptophan (11.89%), Glycine (11.80%), Phenylalanine (9.62%), Alanine (9.02%), Glutamic acid (7.99%), leucin (6.59%) and Aspartic acid (6.07%). However, cooked cordon bleu, had the highest content of Tryptophan (10.75%), Glycine (10.39%), Leucine (9.72%), Glutamic acid (8.10%), Alanin (7.85%), Phenylalanine (6.19%) and Aspartic acid (6.17%).
Regarding the examined sample of half cooked and cooked chicken fingers, chicken pane, chicken fillets and cordon blue, the total unsaturated fatty acids were 47.4 &45.2%, 44.8 &43.1%, 44.3 & 42.8% and 48.1& 45.6, however the total saturated fatty acids were 52.6 & 54.8, 55.2 & 56.9, 55.7 & 57.2 and 51.954.4 and the ratio between them were 0.90 &0.82, 0.81 & 0.76, 0.79 &0.75 and 0.93 & 0.84, respectively.
Presence of tryptophan (essential A.A) increases the nutritional value of the product; accordingly, the chicken fillets had higher percentage of tryptophan (12.07) than chicken pane, cordon blue and chicken fingers, respectively. Also presence of hydroxyproline (non essential A.A) decrease the nutritive value of the product, so the chicken fingers had lower nutritional value than cordon blue, chicken pane and fillets, respectively. Moreover, the presence of unsaturated fatty acids in the products increases the nutritive value and decreases the shelf-life of the product. Accordingly, cordon blue had higher nutritive value and lower shelf-life than chicken fingers, chicken pane and chicken fillets, respectively. Also the high percent of saturated fatty acids of the product decreased the nutritional value and increased the shelf-life of the product, so chicken fillets had lower nutritive value and higher shelf-life than other products.
Finally, there are great variation between the examined samples of chicken meat products based on their nutritional and chemical criteria as well as their amino acid fractionation and fatty acid profile this variation result of different manufacturing process including raw material preparation as well as additives.