Anisul Islam
Department of Animal Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
Md. Sadakuzzaman
Department of Animal Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
Md. Anwar Hossain
Department of Animal Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
Md. Mujaffar Hossain
Department of Animal Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
Md. Abul Hashem
Department of Animal Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
Gamma Irradiation, Indigenous chicken meat, kGy, Safety, Quality, Chicken
Local market of Mymensingh.
Animal Health and Management
Sample collection and processing- The study was conducted in 2017 in the Department of Animal Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. About 3.5 kg of fresh indigenous chicken meat samples from four birds at the age of 12-18 month (on the basis of seller interview) were collected from local market of Mymensingh. The treatment time of sample was 24 hours after slaughtered. The samples were divided into four treatment groups. Each group was exposed to the irradiation dose of 0 (T0), 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 kGy (T3)) at the Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture. Meat sample was irradiated at Cobalt 60 GC-5000 (BRIT, India) machine; whose central dose rate was 4.29 kGy /hr. Time had taken for each group of sample was 14 min, 28 min. and 35 min 55sec. which was treated with 1.00, 2.00, and 3.00 kGy, respectively. Proximate components- Dry Matter (DM), Ash, Crude protein (CP), Ether extract (EE) was determined as per the standard procedures of Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 1995). All determination was done in triplicate and the mean value was reported. The proximate determination was conducted to know the nutrient composition of chicken meat changed with irradiation. Sensory evaluation- Sensory evaluation was executed by a trained 6-member panel (color, flavor, tenderness, juiciness and overall acceptability). Prior to sample evaluation, all panelists participated in orientation sessions to familiarize with the scale attributes (color, smell, juiciness, tenderness, and overall acceptability) of indigenous chicken meat using an intensity scale. Each sample was evaluated by using a 9-point hedonic scale (9 = like extremely, 8 = like very much, 7 = like moderately, 6 = like slightly, 5 = neither like nor dislike, 4 = dislike slightly, 3 = dislike moderately, 2 = dislike very much and 1 = dislike extremely) Sensory evaluation was accomplished at 0 days and repeated at 30 and 60 days, respectively. Physicochemical and bio-chemical assessment- pH value of raw meat and cooking loss was measured using pH meter (Hanna HI99163) from raw meat homogenate. The homogenate was prepared by blending 5 g of meat with 10 ml distilled water. FFA value, POV value and TBARS value were determined by (Sharma et al, 2012). All determination was done in triplicate and mean value was reported. Microbial assessment- Ten grams of sample were aseptically homogenized after adding 90 ml of sterile solution in a sterile Stomacher bag for 2 min (BagMixer 400, Interscience, France). Consequently the diluents were planted onto aerobic plated count agar (Difco Laboratories), incubated at 370C for 45 h. The total number of colonies observed on plate of each sample after incubation was counted and expressed as log of colony forming units per gram (Log CFU/g). Statistical model and analysis- The proposed model for the planned experiment was a factorial experiment with two factors-A (Treatments) and B (Days of Intervals) is: yijk = µ + Ai + Bj +(AB)ij + åijk i = 1,…,A; j = 1,…,B; k = 1,…,n; Where: yijk = observation k in level i of factor A and level j of factor B; µ = the overall mean; Ai = the effect of level i of factor A; Bj = the effect of level j of factor B; Data were statistically analyzed using SAS Statistical Discovery Software (2002-2003), NC, USA. DMRT test was used to determine the significance of differences among treatment means.
J Bangladesh Agril Univ 17(4): 560–566, 2019
Journal