EFFECT OF DIFFERENT LEVEL OF NATURAL ANTIOXIDANT AS AN ENROBING MATERIAL ON THE QUALITY OF CHEVON MEAT BALL

ANJANA MANJHI¹, AMIT CHAURASIYA², POOJA TAMBOLI³*, KULADIP PRAKASH SHINDE^4
1Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001, Madhya Pradesh, India
²Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001, Madhya Pradesh, India
³Division of Livestock Production Management, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, 132001, Haryana, India
⁴Division of Livestock Production Management, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, 132001, Haryana, India
* Corresponding Author : tamboli.pooja307@gmail.com

Received : 18-03-2017     Accepted : 21-03-2017     Published : 12-04-2017
Volume : 9     Issue : 17       Pages : 4142 - 4144
Int J Agr Sci 9.17 (2017):4142-4144

Keywords : Enrobing, Chevon meat balls, Natural antioxidant, GSE (grape seed extract).
Academic Editor : Jyoti Yadav
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author are thankful to Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001, Madhya Pradesh and Division of Livestock Production Management, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, 132001, Haryana, India
Author Contribution : None declared

The present study was conducted to evaluate the antioxidant property of Grape seed extract (GSE) used as enrobing material on the quality of chevon meat ball. The batter mixes were prepared by incorporating different levels of GSE (0.25%, 0.50% and 0.75%) and quality of meat ball was assessed with respect to different physic-chemical and sensory attributes. The results of present study indicated that Thiobarbituric acid (TBA) value, Free fatty acids (FFA) content and fat percent of meat were significantly (P≤0.05) decreased with addition of different levels of GSE. Whereas pH and moisture % of meat were significantly (P≤0.05) increased with addition of GSE, but the increasing trend was not consistent with different levels of GSE. Addition of 0.75% of GSE in batter mix significantly (P≤0.05) improved flavour and overall palatability.

1. AOAC (1995) Official methods of analysis.16 edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
2. Barbut S. (2006) Swiss Society of Food Sci. and Technol., 39, 660–664.
3. Cunningham F.E. (1989) Elsevier Science Publication Limited, 325.
4. Das A.K., Rajkumar V. and Dwivedi B.K. (2011) Int. Food J. 18. 559-565.
5. Elston (1975) Fifhinh news international, 14, 30.
6. Garg V. and Mendiratta S.K. (2006) Meat Sci., 74, 718–726.
7. Halliwell B. and Gutteridge J.M.C. (1989) Oxford science publications, 22–85.
8. Jacob J.K., Hakimuddin F., Paliyath G. and Fisher H. (2008) Food Res. Int., 41, 419-428.
9. Kang H.J., Job C., Kwon J.H., Kim J.H., Chung H.J. and Byun M.W. (2007) J Food cont., 18, 430-435.
10. Keeton J.T. (1983) J Food Sci., 48, 878–881.
11. Kroger M. and Lgoe R.S. (1971) J Food product Development, 5, 75 -76.
12. Mukprasirt T.J., Heraldand D.L. and Boyle E.A.E. (2001) Poultry Sci., 80, 988–996.
13. Narkhede H.K. (2012) M.V.Sc. thesis submitted to Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur.
14. Park H.J. and Chinnan M.S. (1990) ASASE paper no.96510. St. Joseph, MI.
15. Snedecor G.W. and Cochran W.G. (1989) Statistical Methods, 8th Ed., Iowa State Press, Iowa City, IA.
16. Strange E.D., Benedict R.C., Smith J.L. and Swift C.E. (1977) J. Food. Prot., 910-915.