STORAGE STABILITY OF HIGH FIBRE: LOW FAT KADAKNATH CHICKEN NUGGETS UNDER REFRIGERATION

S. UIKEY¹, N.K. NAYAK²*, M.K. MEHTA³, D. CHHABRA⁴, L. CHAUHAN^5
1Department of Livestock Products Technology, College of Veterinary Science & A.H., Mhow, 453446, Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001
²Department of Livestock Products Technology, College of Veterinary Science & A.H., Mhow, 453446, Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001
³Department of Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science & A.H., Mhow, 453446, Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001, India
⁴Department of veterinary Microbiology, College of Veterinary Science & A.H., Mhow, 453446, Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001, India
⁵Department of Poultry Science, College of Veterinary Science & A.H., Mhow, 453446, Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001, India
* Corresponding Author : nayaknarendra11@rediffmail.com

Received : 10-10-2018     Accepted : 26-10-2018     Published : 30-10-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 10       Pages : 1381 - 1385
Int J Microbiol Res 10.10 (2018):1381-1385

Keywords : Kadaknath, storage study, functional nuggets, sensory attributes
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to College of Veterinary Science & A.H., Mhow, Indore, 453446, Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, 482001, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

The nuggets were developed to increase the functional value of products with increasing fibre and decreasing the fat content. Gram hulls and carrageenan were used in different combination and finally nuggets with 6% gram hulls and 0.5 % carrageenan was found superior and most acceptable by the sensory panelists, hence, selected for further storage stability under refrigeration. The pH, TBA and FFA values of developed high fibre-low fat kadaknath chicken nuggets were lower as compared to control throughout the storage period. A progressive and significant (P<0.05) increment in the pH, TBA and FFA values of control as well as developed kadaknath chicken nuggets were observed with the advancement of storage. The total plate count (TPC) followed a significantly(P<0.05) increasing pattern from 0 to 12 day in control as well as developed high fibre-low fat kadaknath chicken nuggets. Psychrotrophs were detected on 12 day of storage. The mean scores for all the sensory attributes for both control as well as developed high fibre-low fat kadaknath chicken nuggets decreased gradually with increasing storage period. From the study it was concluded that the developed high fibre- low fat kadaknath chicken nuggets may be considered as health full product which was very well accepted up to 12 day under refrigeration.

1. Brian D.T., Maurice G., O’Sullivan R., Hamill M. and Kerry J.P. (2012) Meat Science,91, 460– 465.
2. Jimenez-Colmenero F. (2007) Trends in Food Science and Technology, 18, 567-578.
3. Muguerza E., Gimeno O., Ansorena D. and Astiasarán I. (2004) Trends in Food Science and Technology, 15,452–457.
4. Kristchevsky, D. (2000) 1st International Conference on Dietary Fibre, Dublin, Ireland; Oxford, U.K, Blackwell Science, pp 38.
5. Tarladgis B.G., Watts B.M., Younathan M.T. and Dugan L.R. (1960) Journal of American Oil Chemists Society, 37, 403–406.
6. Koniecko E.K. (1979) Handbook for meat chemists, NJ: Avery Publishing Group Inc. New Jersey, pp. 68–69.
7. A.P.H.A. (1992) American Public Health Association. 2nd edn. Will behington, DC, pp. 5–99.
8. Keeton J.T. (1983) Journal of Food Science and Technology, 48, 878–881.
9. Snedecor G.W. and Cochran W.G. (1994) Statistical methods, 8th Edn. The Iowa state college press, INC. American Iowa, (USA), pp 237-238.
10. Das S.K., Biswas S. and Mandal P.K. (2014) International Journal of Meat Science, 4(1), 1-14.
11. Nayak N.K. and Tanwar V.K. (2004) Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 39(2), 142-146.
12. Teets A.S., Sundararaman, M. and Were L.M. (2008) Food Chemistry, 111(4), 934-941.
13. Nayak N.K., Pathak V., Singh V.P., Goswami M. and Bharti S.K. (2015) Livestock Research International, 3(1), 7-13.
14. Malav O.P., Sharma B.D., Talukder S., Kumar R. R. and Mendiratta S.K. (2013) International Food Research Journal, 20(1), 105-110.
15. Chandralekha S., Jagadeesh B.A., Moorthy S. and Karthikeyan B. (2012) Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research,2, 107-112.
16. Das A.K., Anjaneyulu A.S.R., Verma A.K. and Kondaiah N. (2008) International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 43, 383-392.
17. Nayak N.K., Pathak V., Bharti S.K. and Goswami M. (2015) Journal of Meat Science, 11(1), 11-16.
18. Bhat Z.F. and Pathak V. (2012) Journal of Food Science and Technology, 49(5), 620-625.
19. Cremer M.L. and Chipley J.R. (1977) Journal of Food Protection, 40, 603-607.
20. Kandeepan G., Anjaneyullu A.S.R., Kondaiah N. and Mendiratta S.K. (2010) African Journal of Food Science,4(6), 410-417.
21. Das A., Nath D. R., Kumari S. and Saha R. (2013) Veterinary World, 6(7), 419–423.
22. Kala R.J., Kondaiah N., Anjaneyulu A.S.R and Thomas R. (2007) International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 42(7), 842-851.
23. Jo C., Lee J.L. and Ahn D.U. (1999) Meat Science, 51(4), 355-361.
24. Nayak N.K., Tanwar V.K. and Naruka S.S. (2006) Indian Veterinary Journal, 83(10), 1084-1086.