UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA TERENGGANU
PRACTICAL REPORT STM3111 FOOD CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Proximate Analysis of Chemical Components of Chicken Ball GROUP NO: 5 (Morning Session) GROUP MEMBERS: Matrix No.
Name
S39044
Yong Pui Yee
S38971
Maisarah binti Ali
S38978
Nabilah binti Mohamed Mukhtar
S39002
Nur Hidayanis binti Nahrowi
S40410
Norsafika binti Sulaiman
S39007
Nur Syahira Afiza binti Zakaria
S38965
Hanna Sofea binti Azmi
S39013
Nurul Afifah binti Ahmad Zhari
Signature
DATE OF PRACTICAL: From 21st February 2017 until 14 th March 2017
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26th March 2017
Bachelor of Food Science (Food Technology) School of Food Science and Technology
Proximate Proximate Composition of Chicken Ball Yong, P.Y., Hidayanis.N. , N.S.Sul aiman. , Nabilah.M. , A’fifah.M. , Hanna.S.A. , S.Afiza. , and Maisarah.A. Maisarah.A.
School of Food Science and Technology Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Terengganu Terengganu, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
The experiment was conducted to investigate the contents of t he major food component which are moisture and ash, crude fat, crude protein and crude fiber in chicken ball. We also want to investigate the methods that used to analyse each of the composition in chicken ball. In addition, we also used different test to determine the content of each composition in chicken ball. Moreover, the moisture content was determined by standard oven drying and infrared drying method, total ash was determined by b y standard oven drying, crude fat was used LABTEC ST310 system, for protein was used Kjeltec method whereas crude fiber was determined by using Gerhard FiberBag system. All data were reported in wet basis. This study found that the proximate composition of chicken ball, on average, 63.5725% moisture content, 2.0% total ash, 13.59% crude fat, 9.9875% crude protein, 0.5492% crude fiber and 10.3008% carbohydrate. From the result, we can conclude that chicken ball has higher fat content and lower fiber content.
Keywords: Chicken ball, moisture content, ash, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, carbohydrates
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Meatballs are classified as finely comminute meat products, sometimes referred to as meat emulsions (Hsu and Sun, 2006). Meatballs are among popular meat products in Mala ysia. Commonly meatballs are consumed with noodles in the Southeast Asian Region (Huda et al., 2009). Bennet (1947), points out that proximate analysis can be defined as the determination
of a group of closely related components together like total protein and fat. It conventionally includes the determinations of moisture content, ash, crude protein, crude fat and crude fiber. The quality of meatballs can be affected by various types of factors either in terms of nutritional value or the acceptability among its consumer. Oat bran and rice bran were used as replacement for fat in order to produce low fat emulsified meatballs (Yilmaz and Daglioglu, 2003; Huang et al., 2005). They found that lower concentration of total fat and total trans-fat acid as compared to the control in the meatballs containing oat and rice bran. Previously, Huda et al (2009) found that the decrease in protein content and the increase in carbohydrate content due to the increase in starch content that act as extender as substitute for raw meat in the manufacturing of chicken balls. In addition, starch can also increase the gel strength and freezethaw stability of meatballs if appropriate starch is added in proper level (Serdaroglu et al., 2005). According to Food Act (1983) and Food Regulations (1985), the minimum requirement of meat content in manufacturing of any processed meat includes chicken balls, must contain not less than 65 per cent of meat. It shall contain not le ss than 1.7 per cent of nitrogen in organic combination and shall not contain more than 30 per cent of fat. There are many varieties of meatballs can be found in the Malaysian market. The types of meatballs can be found in Malaysia are including chicken ball, fish ball, squid ball and prawn ball. However, the most popular and commonly consumed are chicken balls and fish balls. Huda et al (2009) stated that, chicken is the primary source of meat and is used in most meat based products such as meatballs, sausages and nugget in Malaysia. Statistics have shown that per capita consumption of chicken meat is about 50.1 kg, followed by 6.4 kg for beef (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2016). In previous study, the proximate analysis for Ayamas chicken ball plain are 64.94% of moisture content, 2.53% of ash, 9.87% of fat and 10.04% of protein (Babji and Seri Chempaka, 1995). Although chicken balls are popular food among Malaysian, but there are increasing concerns among the consumer regarding the nutritive value of these chicken balls. These days, consumers more prefer to have real meats than processed meats in the products. Due to the demands of consumers, many researchers had been conducted on the nutritional and quality aspects of chicken balls. This study was carried out to investigate the major amount of food component which are moisture and ash content, crude fat, crude protein and crude fiber in the chicken balls.
2.0
Literature review
2.1
Chicken balls
2.1.1
Definition and history of Chicken ball
Chicken balls are a food consisting of small, spherical or nearly spherical pieces of chicken. They are prepared and eaten in several different cuisines. Chicken balls are a type of modern Chinese food served in Canada, United States, and the United Kingdom as a staple of Chinese take-out. The dish consists of small chunks of fried chicken breast meat covered in a crispy batter coating. They are often served with curry sauce, sweet and sour sauce or plum sauce. These are largely unheard of in China, depending on the recipe and referred name. Another kind of chicken balls, which are similar to southern Chinese fish balls, may be found in countries in East and Southeast Asia. In Malaysia, chicken is the primary source of meat and is used in most meat-based products such as meatballs, nugget and sausages. Statistics have shown that per capita consumption of chicken meat is about 37.7 kg, followed by 5.06 kg for beef (Ministry of Agriculture, 2005). In the past, meatballs production originated from small family-based enterprises. However, increasing demand for meatballs products in recent year have changed the meatballs manufacturing into large-scale production. Many factories have been developed in Malaysia to increase output and to fulfil the i ncreasing demand for meatballs in the country.
2.1.2
Proximate composition
The varying proximate composition of chicken balls among brands was mainly due to the different formulations used for the production of these products. Protein content in meatballs mainly comes from meat. Generally, the protein content present in chicken meat is not significantly different. The amount and the type of meat used in each formulation make the protein content in the products different. Fat present in meatballs may come from the meat naturally or from oil/fats added into the meatballs to serve several functions. The higher range fat content may indicate higher usage of fatty material in some brands in place of chicken meat. Vegetables oil is often added in meatball formulation to improved mouth feel and gives a lubrication effect in meat emulsions. The carbohydrate content in meatballs varied greatly among the brands of chicken balls, indicating higher usage of meat substitute in some brands. Starch is added to act as a source of carbohydrate and to thicken the texture of meatballs in the past. Today, starch is extensively used as stabilizers, texturizers, water or fat binders and
emulsifier. Apart from these, starch can also increase gel strength and freeze-thaw stability of meatballs if appropriate starch are added in proper level (Serdaroglu et al., 2005).
Table 1: Ingredient information on the package of commercial chicken balls.
Source: Mal J Nutr 1: 83-94, 1995
Table 2.1: Proximate composition of commercial chicken balls (%)
Source: Mal J Nutr 1: 83-94, 1995
According to table 2.1 the total moisture is in the range of 64.33 -72.81. The total protein is between of 9.93-15.06. The fat content is 1.92-2.82, and carbohydrate content is from 8.43-20.85. Based on table, all chicken balls varied slightly in protein and ash content but showed big differences in their fat and carbohydrate content
2.1.3
Antioxidant Properties
Meat products are susceptible to rancidity, which is fat oxidation. Some commonly used meat processing ingredients moderately counteract oxidation, e.g. nitrite, ascorbic acid, phosphates and also some spices. Normally the presence of some of the substances such as nitrite, ascorbic acid/erythorbate and phosphates will provide sufficient protection in the short
term. For longer storage, the products should be vacuum-packed, not exposed to light and kept under good refrigeration, all measures, which can help to protect against oxidation. In industrial meat processing, additional chemicals antioxidants (such as tocopherol/chemically equivalent to vitamin E) may be used in particular for products with high fat content. Antioxidants are added to fresh and processed me at and meat products to prevent lipid oxidation, retard development of off-flavours, and improve colour stability. In the food industry, they can be divided into natural and synthetic antioxidants. However, synthetic antioxidants have been identified as toxicological and carcinogenic agents in some studies (Abraham and others 1986; Ahmad and others 1995; Sarafian and others 2002; Faine and others 2006). Thus, the food industry now chooses natural products over synthetic ones. Mariutti and others (2011) studied the effect of the addition of sage and garlic on lipid and cholesterol oxidation in chicken meat, in the presence of salt as prooxidant. These authors found that the content of unsaturated fatty acids di d not change in the presence of sage; on the contrary, with garlic, the contents of these fatty acids were decreased after cooking and storage.
2.2
Composition of chicken burger
In North America, the sandwich usually consists of a chicken filet or patty, toppings and bread. The chicken can be deep fried, grilled, roasted or boiled, served hot or cold, and white or dark meat chicken can be used. Shredded chicken in one form or another, such as chicken salad, can also be used in chicken sandwiches. Wrap versions of the sandwich can also be made, in which the ingredients are rolled up inside a flatbread, such as a tortilla.
2.2.1
Proximate compositions
According to table 2.2, moisture content were varies from 49.43-57.89%. Fats content were ranged from 9.08-19.47%. Food Regulation of Malaysia states that the fat content in processed meat products should not exceed 30% (Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations, 1985). The function of Fat is mainly influencing the sensory quality of burgers, particularly its f lavour (Suman and Sharma, 2003). Low-fat burgers usually consist of fat contents at 10% or below (Dreeling et al., 2000; Suman and Sharma, 2003; Troy et al., 1999; Turhan et al., 2009). Some of the brands are considered to have low fat burgers such as CCB1, CCB3. Low fat can be achieved as more water is added in meat batter and this will increase the moisture content (Jiménez Colmenero, 1996). Protein contents of burgers analysed in this study were ranged from 12.71-18.77%. Food Regulation of Malaysia requires a mi nimum limit of nitrogen content in organic form for processed meat products to be less than 1.7%, which is
equal to 10.625% protein content (Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations 1985). However, many of the protein sources used in commercial burger’s ingredients used presently are p artially substituted with non-meat protein source. Carbohydrates content determined in the present study were ranged from 10.4221.27%. Carbohydrates in burgers are mainly from the use of starches as ingredients. Starches, such as maize, tapioca, rice, potato, and wheat, have been used in processed meat products as meat filler and water binder (Joly and Anderstein, 2009). Apart from that, ash content analysed were varies from 1.92-2.56%. Ashes are sum of the total minerals presented in food such as sodium, phosphorus and iron, which can be contributed by the meat as raw material, salt and spices added (Fernández-López et al., 2006). Table 2.2 the proximate composition of commercial burgers
Sample
Moisture (%)
Fat (%)
Protein (%)
Ash (%)
CCB1
54.50 +0.13
9.08 +0.21
12.71 +1.24
2.45 +0.03
Carbohydrate (%) 21.27 ±1.29
CCB2
49.43 +0.28
19.47 +0.11
18.77 +0.19
1.92 +0.02
10.42 ± 0.00
CCB3
57.89 +0.22
9.60 +0.03
17.25 +0.21
2.56 +0.03
12.71 ± 0.42
Source: International Food Research Journal CCB1: Chicken meat, soy protein, salt, food conditioner, flavouring, monosodium glutamate (MSG). CCB2: Chicken meat, soy protein, spices, salt, flavouring, food conditioner. CCB3: Chicken meat, vegetable oil, spices, sugar, salt, starch, flour, food conditioner
2.2.2
Dietary Fiber
Dietary Fiber (DF) is defined as lignin and the polysaccharide components of plants which are indigestible by enzymes in human gastrointestinal tract. Increased intake of DF has been strongly recommended because of their effects in decreasing the risk of diabetes, colon cancer, obesity and cardiovascular illnesses in human. Various works have showed the useful
influences of DF consumption against many diseases (McKee and Latner, 2000; WHO/FAO, 2003).Dietary Fiber is one of the components (amino acids, peptides and proteins, vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, oligosaccharides, sugars/alcohols, glucosides, etc.) that have been identified as having potentially useful functional effects for human health. Dietary Fiber can be added into meat products, to reduce the caloric value by fat replacement and to improve the stability and texture of meat products. Various types of dietary fibers (wheat bran, oat bran, rye bran, rice bran, peach dietar y Fiber, carrot dietary Fiber, lemon albedo, sugar beet Fiber, brewer’s spent grain, etc.) have been examined with other ingredients for the formulation of reduced-fat and Dietary Fibers rich meat products. Dietary Fiber added into foods can stabilize high fat food and emulsions, modify textural properties, improve shelflife and avoid synaeresis. Meat products are certainly main source of food proteins with high biological value in various countries. Meat is also a perfect source of some soluble vitamins and minerals, essential fats, and all these components have specific function to our body (Biswas et al., 2011). However, most of the meat products are lack in complex carbohydrates like DF. Nowadays, supplementation of DF in meat products has acquiring higher prestige. Sufficiency of the dietary Fiber supplementation in foods is rising due to the plenty of effectual properties (Akoh, 1998; Jimẻnez-Colmenero, 1996).
2.3
Principle of Proximate Analysis
Proximate are used in the analysis of biological materials as a decomposition of a human-consumable good into its major constituents. Nutritional assay must be conducted on the product to qualify. Substance will be extracted from its complex form without destroying or altering its chemical properties. Proximate include five constituents which are Ash, Moisture, Proteins, Fat and Carbohydrates. There are additional ingredients that may fall under the category of one of the five constituents. It is important to remember that proximate analysis is not a nutrient analysis, rather it is a partitioning of both nutrients and non-nutrients into categories based on common chemical properties. Although proximate analysis does not give the entire nutritional assay, they are an inexpensive way to track deviations from the quality of foods. The analyses included in this group are applied firstly to materials to be used in formulating a diet as a protein or energy source as a control to check that they meet the specifications or requirements established during formulation. These analyses will show the moisture, crude protein (total nitrogen), crude fibre, crude lipids, ash and nitrogen-free extract
content of the sample. A fuller description of these analyses can be found in Osborne and Voogt (1978), MAFF (1982) and AOAC (1984).
2.3.1
Analysis of moisture
According to AOCS standard methods, analysis of moisture content in food is basically based on the fact that Moisture content is one of the most commonly measured properties of food materials. It is important to determine food quality. The texture, taste, appearance and stability of foods depend on the amount of water they contain. It also important for food processing operations. Knowledge of the moisture content is often necessary to predict the behavior of foods during processing, e.g. mixing, drying, flow through a pipe or packaging.
2.3.2
Analysis of ash
According to AOCS standard methods, analysis of ash content in food is basically based on the fact ash content is a measure of the total amount of minerals present within a food, whereas the mineral content is a measure of the amount of specific inorganic components present within a food, such as Ca, Na, K and Cl. Ash is the inorganic residue remaining after the water and organic matter have been removed by heating in the presence of oxidizing agents which gives the total amount of mineral in the food. The ash content is determined by ignition of a known weight of the food at 550
℃
until all carbon has been removed. The residue is the
ash and is taken to represent the inorganic constituents of the food. Firstly, dry ashing for the majority of the samples, then wet ashing the sample if high in fat content.
2.3.3
Analysis of crude fat
Determination of Crude Fat Crude fat is the term used to refer to the crude mixture of fat-soluble material present in a sample. Crude fat is the traditional measure of fat in food products. The lipid materials may include triglycerides, diglycerides, monoglycerides, phospholipids, steroids, free fatty acids, fat soluble vitamins, carotene pigments, chlorophylls, etc. They include an acid hydrolysis method (AOAC Method 954.02), a traditional Soxhlet extraction method with diethyl ether (AOAC Method 920.39), Soxhlet extraction with petroleum ether (AOAC Method 945.16), a modifie d Soxhlet procedure for meat products by submerging test samples in the boiling diethyl ether for reducing testing time, also known as Randall submersion method (AOAC Method 991.36; Randall, 1974).
2.3.4
Analysis of crude protein
Crude protein is measured using Kjeldahl’s method. In this method the food is digested with sulphuric acid, which converts to ammonia all nitrogen present except that in the form of nitrate and nitrite. This ammonia is liberated by adding sodium hydroxide to the digest, distilled off and collected in standard acid, the quantit y so collected being determined by titration or by an automated colorimetric method. Because of its cost this is the most important dietary nutrient in a commercial operation; proper evaluation of it means that the quality of protein intake or of the feed being provided can be controlled. Analysis is by Kjeldahl's method, which evaluates the total nitrogen content of the sample after it has been digested in sulphuric acid.
2.3.5. Analysis of crude Fiber
Determination of Crude Fiber which is the organic residue remaining after digesting with H2SO4 and NaOH. The compounds removed are predominantly protein, sugar, starch, lipids and portions of both the structural carbohydrates and lignin. The difference in weight after calcination indicates the quantity of fiber present.
3.0
MATERIAL AND METHOD
3.1
Materials
Chicken ball samples were donated by Chemical Anal ysis Laboratory, School of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Terengganu, Mala ysia.
3.2
Proximate Analyses
All the following analyses were done in two replications. All data were reported in wet basis in the form of mean ± standard deviation.
3.2.1. Determination of Moisture Content
The moisture content of chicken ball was used standard oven drying. The crucible and the lid were dried in the oven at 100
℃
(30 minutes). After that, it was cold in the desiccator
and the weighed was measured accurately without the lid. Then they were weighed 2.0g accurately the sample in crucible. After weighed, they were dried the sampl e in oven drying at 105°C. The lift was not properly closed. Then, the dried ingredients were dried for 6 hours while the moist ingredients were dried for 24 hours until t he weight constant. After drying, the sample in the crucible was cold in the desiccator and was weighed without lid.
The percentage of moisture content was calculated as follows: Moisture content (%) = [100 – Weight of dry matter] x 100 Weight of fresh sample
The moisture content analysis was done in duplicates.
3.3.2. Determination of Total Ash
Total ash content in chicken ball The total ash of chicken ball was used by using infrared drying method.
The
5g
sample was put on infrared tray and spread it evenly. Secondly, the infrared ra y equipment was ‘ON’ and the time was set until 30 minutes at temperature 110oC. The changes of water loss every 2 minutes were recorded until the reading constant. Then, it was cooled for a while and the procedure was repeated to get accurate reading. Ash % = [Weight of crucible with ash (g)- weight of crucible] × 100 Original weight of sample
3.3.3. Determination of Crude Fat
Crude fat was determined by using LABTEC ST310 system. First, the ‘MAINS’ on the Control Unit was pressed. The light switch should be lighted up. Second, the appropriate temperature was set up according to the solvent used (135
℃
), to reach the level reflux solvent
which is 3-5 droplets per second. The appropriate program specified in the Control Unit was selected to determine the time of boiling (15 min), flushing (30 min), foaming (10 min) and pre-drying (5 min) on the Control Unit. Thirdly, the tap was opened to allow the reflux occurs in a condenser at Unit Extraction. With the cooling process by water at about 15
℃
, the water
flow was adjusted to the rate of 2 liter per min to prevent foaming solvents from the condenser. Next, the thimbles were prepared and matched to adapter. Then, the sample was prepared by weighing accurately 2g into the thimbles by using filter paper. After that, the thimble was placed on thimble stand. The thimble handler was used to enter the thimble with its supporter into the Extraction Unit. Then, the supporter was removed from the thimble by attaching it to the magnet in the Extraction Unit. After that, the aluminium extraction cup which has been dried was weighed. The 70 ml petroleum ether solvent was filled into the extractor cup and the extractor cup was put into Extraction Unit by using handle. Then, the RUN/STOP button was pressed. The temperature in the hotplate, which was sufficient to lower the thimble for the boiling process was indicated by the sound signal. Boiling was allowed to be proceed for 15
min as determined. Condenser valve was opened. After boiling, the position of the thimble was switched to ‘RINSING’ and was allowed to be proceed for 30 min as deter mined. After rinsing, the thimble’s position was switched to ‘RECOVERY’. Next, the thimble was switched to position ‘PRE-DRYING’ and was let to remove almost all the solvent from the cup extractor. A solvent was collected back through the duct tube collector. The cup was removed from the extractor Extraction Unit and the water taps was closed. The extractor cup containing fat was dried to the 103oC oven for 2 hours. Lastly, the extractor cup was cooled in the desiccator and was weighed. The thimbles were cleaned. Percentage of crude fat (%) = (W3 – W2 ) / W1 × 100% W1 = weight of the sample (g) W2 = weight of the extraction cup (g) W3 = weight of the extraction cup + fat
3.3.4. Determination of Crude Protein
Crude protein was determined by using KJELDHAL method. The sample was weighed accurately 1g in the 250ml digestion tube. Then, 2 tablets of Kieltec Cu 3.5 was added into the tube. 12ml of concentrated H2SO4 was added with caution into the tube and the tube was shaken gently to moisten the sample with acid. After that, the tube exhaust system was connected and the aspirator is made sure to be started functioning. The rack and exhaust system was locked to the block heater DS6 Digester which has been preheated to 420oC to begin the process of digestion of the solution. After 5 minutes, the as pirator system was turned off until the acid fumes can only be formed on the top exhaust system. The digestion process was continued until the formation of the green or blue clear tube sample. Upon completion of the digestive process, The rack was removed from tubes. The tubes was cooled vertically for 1020 min. 75ml of distilled water was added carefully into the tube which has cooled. This step was followed by the refining process. The recipient solution was prepared by adding 25ml of 4% boric acid with 10 drops of bromocresol green indicator into a 250ml conical flask. The receiver solution was subsequently placed into the distillation unit Kieltec 2100. The tube was placed into the Distillation Unit and the safety door was closed. 50ml 40% NaOH into the tube was flowed automatically into the tube. The process of distillation was allowed to proceed for 4 min to form a clear green colour on a strip solution. The distilled product was titrated with 0.1N HCl standard solution until clear green colour changed to blue/grey. Lastly, the volume of titration used was recorded.
Nitrogen content %= (T-B) ×N×14.007×100% Weight of sample (mg) Crude protein content %= % nitrogen × F
T = volume of titrate for sample B = volume titrate for blank N = normality of HCL / acid F = protein factor: 6.25 / 5.7 / 6.38 depends on type of sample
3.3.5. Determination of Crude Fibre
Crude fibre was determined by using Gerhard FiberBag s ystem. First, they weighed the dried empty fiberbag by using analytical balance. Then, they weighed the sample accurately 1g into the fiberbag. The fiberbag was inserted into carousal with glass spacers. Then, the sample was boiled in 360ml of 0.13M H2SO4 for 30 min using Gerhardt Fiberbag System. It was then rinsed for 3 times with hot distilled water to remove the acid. The sample was boiled in 360ml of 0.13M NaOH for 30 min. then the sample was then rinsed for 3 times with hot distilled water to remove the alkali. The fiberbag and empty crucible were dried in the oven for 4 hours at 105 and was cooled in the desiccator. The fiberbag was inserted into the pre-dried crucible and was weighed together and the fiberbag was incinerated in the furnace for overnight at 550. The crucible that containing ash was cooled in the desiccator and was weighed. Lastly, the crude fiber content was calculated. Crude fiber % = W3 – (W1 – C) – ( W5 – W4 – D ) × 100 W2 W1 = initial weight of capsule (g) W2 = weight of sample (g) W3 = weight of capsule + residue of weught (g) W4 = weight of crucible ashing (g) W5 = weight of total ashing (include weight of crucible ashing) ( g ) C = blank solution D = blank capsule ashing (g) C= W3/W1 D= W5 – W4
4.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1
RESULTS
Table 3: This table shows the proximate analysis of food components in Chicken ball.
Properties
Moisture content Ash Crude fat Crude protein Crude fibre Carbohydrates
4.2
Percentage in chicken ball sample %
63.93±2.2769 2.0±0.0523 13.59±0.5233 9.9875±0.2109 0.5492±0.0232 9.9433
DISCUSSIONS
The proximate composition of the chicken ball sample was shown at the table 3 above. The highest of chemical composition in chicken ball is moisture content while the lowest is crude fiber. This is because chicken ball was made from meat and the water is the highest percentage that contained in meat. However, the chicken ball contained lowest fiber because the most components of poultry meat are fat and protein, except water. And fiber is the most component of fruits and vegetables. First of all, we analyzed the sample using oven-drying method such as vacuum oven drying and infra-red moisture balance drying to determine the moisture and dry basis. In vacuum oven drying, the percent of the wet basis of the chicken ball sample was (63.93%± 2.2769) while the percent of moisture content in chicken ball sample by infrared drying was (63.5725% ± 0.9935).The moisture content (63.93% and 63.5725%) was low compared to that reported for Ayam Al chicken ball (AI cb) (71.36%) and Ayamas chicken ball vegetables (AY cbv) (64.67%) (Babji AS and Seri Chempaka MY, 1995). However, the moisture content of the chicken ball sample that we analysed showed a slight higher than Ayamas chicken ball rending (AY cbr) (61.22%) (Babji AS and Seri Chempaka MY,1995).There are differences moisture content between our samples with other brands of the chicken ball reported by (Babji AS and Seri Chempaka MY,1995) because of addictive, binders, spices, colourants, preservatives and ingredients involved to make this product. Other than that, different brands produced different manufacturers also resulted different in their proximate composition.
Besides, other samples that had the similar characteristics with our sample (chicken ball) was commercial chicken burgers. The percentage of moisture for the sample chicken burger (CCB1) (54.50% ± 0.13), chicken burger sample (CCB2) (49.43% ± 0.28) and chicken burger sample (CCB3) (57.899% ± 0.22) reported by (Ramadhan, K., Huda, N. and Ahmad, R., 2011) was lower than moisture content of the chicken ball samples analysed in our laboratory. The term “burgers” was taken originally from the word “hamburger” which presumably is a product that originated from Hamburg. Most of European countries regulated that burgers should contain at least 80% meat and 20-30% of fat content. In other circumstances, burgers are also recognized as patties (Al-Mrazeeq et al., 2008; Ranken, 2000). So, we could presumably low fat burger has a high value of weight loss due to its higher moisture content. This study indicated that Pearson’s correlation value between diameter shrinkage and weight loss is significant at the 0.01 level (R2= 0.654). Moreover, chicken ball vegetables (2.56%) and Ayamas chicken ball rending (3.03%) (Babji AS and Seri Chempaka MY, 1995). Ashes are sum of the total minerals presented in food such as sodium, phosphorus and iron, that can be contributed by the meat as raw material, salt and spices added (Fernández-López et al., 2006).So, chicken ball rendang showed highest ash content due to the containing more sodium, phosphorus and iron (contributed by meat as raw materials, salts, additives, more spices added) compared to the other brands of the chicken ball products. The samples that having the similar characteristics with our sample (chicken ball) was commercial chicken burgers. The percent of ash content for the sample chicken burger (CCB1) (2.45% ± 0.03), chicken burger sample (CCB2) (1.92% ± 0.02) and chicken burger sample (CCB3) (2.56% ± 0.03) reported by (Ramadhan K., Huda N. and Ahmad R.,2011). However, sample chicken burger (CCB1) (2.45% ± 0.03) and sample chicken burger (CCB3) (3.03%±0.03) were higher than chicken ball sample (2.0± 0.5233). Ashes was part of proximate analysis for nutritional evaluation. So, sample chicken burger (CCB3) (3.03%) was highest percent of the ash content because of the high in particular minerals whereas promoted highest nutritional evaluation. The analysis of proximate composition of crude fat in chicken ball sample was (13.59% ± 0.5233) which was higher than that of reported same samples: Ayamas A1 Chicken Ball and Ayamas Chicken Ball Rendang with crude fat (6.84% ± 0.96) and (10.96% ± 0.37) respectively. However, our chicken ball sample contained lower crude fat compared to that of Ayamas Chicken Ball Vegetable which was (21.59% ± 5.77) (Babji, A.S. and Mohd. Yusof, S.C., 1995). According to Huda, N., Yap, H.S., Yong, L.H. (2009), the higher crude fat might indicated the added of fat materials or the fat that came from chicken naturally. Therefore, we
believed that the sample that we used might added some fat material such as vegetable oil or chicken fat. Besides, the reported similar samples that we used are different types of chicken burgers. According to Ramadhan, K., Huda, N. and Ahmad, R. (2011), the crude fat of the sample commercial chicken burger 2 (CCB2) was (19.47% ± 0.11) higher than that of our sample. However, the samples CCB1 and CCB3 were (9.08% ± 0.21) and (9.60% ± 0.03) respectively which were lower when compared to our sample. The reason that we chose commercial chicken burgers as the similar samples that can be compared with our sample is both of the products are processed chicken products and thus the ingredients used are slightly similar. Moreover, the CCB1 and CCB3 contained lower crude fat due to the burgers were might made from skinless chicken breast which contains 43.4 mg cholesterol per 100g lower compared with the other parts of chicken which is 95.3mg per 100g (Ramadhan, K., Huda, N. and Ahmad, R., 2011). Therefore, from this information, we believed that the sample that we used might made from other parts of chicken rather than chicken breas t. Furthermore, the nitrogen content of our sample is (1.598±0.0337), while the crude protein of our sample that has been proximate analyzed was (9.9875% ± 0.2109) which were slightly lower than that of reported same samples: Ayamas A1 Chicken Ball and Ayamas Chicken Ball Vegetable with crude protein (10.74% ± 0.06) and (10.12% ± 0.02) respectively. However, the crude protein of Ayamas Chicken Ball Rendang was (7.62% ± 0.51) which was lower than that of our sample) (Babji, A.S. and Mohd. Yusof, S.C., 1995). According to Huda, N., Yap, H.S., Yong, L.H. (2009), the differences of protein content that present in the chicken meat among these samples were not significant. Thus, we believed that non-meat protein source is not added purposely in making chicken ball. According to Ramadhan, K., Huda, N. and Ahmad, R. (2011), the crude protein of the commercial chicken burgers: CCB1, CCB2, and CCB3 were (12.71% ± 1.24), (18.77% ± 0.19), and (17.25% ± 0.21) respectively. Based on the data that we obtained, the crude protein of our sample was lower than that of the reported similar samples. This is because the addition of plant-based protein such as soy protein and hydrolysed or texturized vegetable protein into the chicken burgers. Therefore, we believed that our sample might not added or slightly added non-meat protein source. We analysed the sample using Gerhardt FiberBag System to determine the crude fiber content. In Gerhardt fiberbag, the percent of crude fiber of the chicken ball sample was (0.5492%± 0.0232). The crude fiber content was low compared to that reported for apple pomace in mutton nuggets content of control was found significantly (p ≤ 0.05) lower in
comparison to nuggets formulated with 5%, 10% and 15% apple pomace and was found to increase significantly (p ≤ 0.05) with the increasing l evels of apple pomace (Verma et al. (2010) ). Apple pomace is considered as a rich source of nutrition and typically contains crude fibre, 1.50-2.50% (Vasil’ev et al., 1976). This shows the crude fiber content in the sample chicken balls is low. This is possible because only a small amount of crude fiber content used in chicken balls ingredient. So, we believed that our sample had added some fiber source such as carrots. The mistakes or errors that we usually did during doing experiment. For instance, the level of eye is incorrect while reading the meniscus in the graduated cylinder or any measuring container can cause slightly difference of the data that we obtained. In addition, a miscalibrated balance will cause all the measured masses to be wrong. Although these problems are just bring a little different among the data, we still have to avoid in order to get most accurate and precision data. Therefore, we have to pay more attention during doing experiments and practice more on reading the meniscus by using correct method. Based on the data that we obtained, the crude fiber is was the lowest, this is because crude fiber refers to the indigestible carbohydrate component that is present in plants. Crude fiber method is one of the gravimetric method that measures the organic food residue remaining after sequential digestion. Moreover, based on the result, the percent of carbohydrates of the chicken ball sample was 9.9433%. The percentage of other samples of chicken balls using different formulations was 9.43% same with percent of our sample. The carbohydrate content in meatballs varied greatly among the brands of chicken balls, indicating higher usage of meat substitute in some brands. Starch is added to act as a source of carbohydrate and to thicken the texture of meatballs in the past. Today, starch is extensively used as stabilizers, texturisers, water or fat binders and emulsifier. Apart from these, starch can also increase gel strength and freeze-thaw stability of meatballs if appropriate starch are added in proper level (Serdaroglu et al., 2005). In order to get more accurate data, the other method that we could use is the nitrogenfree extract. A.L. Moxon believed that a new method for determining fiber in feeds has been shown to retain both the cellulose and the lignin in a single fraction. The nitrogen- free extract resulting from this determination has been shown to be almost completely digestible. The proposed method makes possible more determinations within a given time since it is shorter and requires less equipment than the AOAC method for crude fiber. The values determined by this method have more meaning with respect to nutritional value of feeds since the division into digestion-resistant and readily-digestible fractions is more accurate and more complete than by other simple methods
Besides, the other method that we could use to get accurate data in determining moisture content is microwave analyser which is the first precise and rapid technique that allowed some segments of the food industry to make in-process adjustment of the moisture content in food products before final packaging. A particular microwave moisture/solids analyser (CEM Corporation, Matthews, NC), or equivalent, is specified in the AOAC International procedures for total solids analysis of moisture analysis of meat and poultry products (AOAC Method 985.14). Microwave drying provides a fast, accurate method to analyze many foods for moisture content. The method is sufficiently accurate for routine assay. There are some considerations when using a microwave analyzer for moisture determination: (1) the sample must be of a uniform, appropriate size to provide for complete drying under the conditions specified; (2) the sample must be centrally located and evenly distributed, so some portions are not burned and other areas are under processed; and (3) the amount of time used to place an appropriate sample weight between the pads must be minimized to prevent moisture loss or gain before weight determination (Nielson, 2010). Furthermore, the other method could use to determine ash content of the food sample accurately by using microwave dry ashing. Advantages of this method compared with conventional dry ashing in a muffle furnace that often takes many hours, microwave muffle furnaces (Fig. 7-3) can ash samples in minutes, decreasing analysis time by as much as 97%. Microwave muffle furnaces can reach temperatures of up to 1200◦C. These systems may be programmed with various methods and to automatically warm up and cool down. In addition, they are equipped with exhaust systems that circulate the air in the cavity to help decrease ashing times. Some also have scrubber systems to neutralize any fumes. Any crucible that may be used in a conventional muffle furnace may be used in a microwave furnace, including those made of porcelain, platinum, quartz, and quartz fiber. Quartz fiber crucibles cool in seconds and are not breakable. Some systems can process up to 15 (25 ml) crucibles at a time (Nielson, 2010). Since the Food Regulation of Malaysia states that the fat content in processed meat products should not exceed 30%, nitrogen content should be less than 1.7%, which is equal to10.625% protein content (Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations, 1985). Therefore, I believed that the methods of those analysis are suitable for determining the crude fat and protein of chicken ball.
5.0
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that the moisture content was the highest food component contains in the chicken ball followed by the crude fat, the carbohydrates, crude protein, ash and crude fiber. Each food components used different method and equipment to determine its contents. Besides, the components that contained in the chicken ball can be either natured or added purposely. For instance, fiber and carbohydrates are seldom found in meat, thus the fiber source ingredients can be added into the chicken ball and also the most of the amount of carbohydrates might come from the flour while processing chicken ball. Therefore, different brands of chicken ball might have slightly different amount of chemical components.
REFERENCES
Aamina H., Shahnaz P., Sajad A.R, Rehana A , Massarat H. )2014). Effect of Incorporation Of Apple Pomace on the Physico-Chemical, Sensory and Textural Properties Of Mutton Nuggets. Retrieved from http://www.journalijar.com AOAC, 2000. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 17th edition. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC Babji,A.S. (1995). The Nutritional Value of Some Processed Meat Products In Malaysia. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.752&rep=rep1&type=p df Babji, A. S. and Seri Chempaka, M. Y. (1995). Nutritional value of some processed meat products in Malaysia. Malaysia Journal of Nutrition, 1:83-94. Bennet, H. (1947). Concise chemical and technical dictionary. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 51(5):1217-1218. Biswas AK, Kumar V, Bhosle S, Sahoo J, Chatli MK, 2011: Dietary Fiber As Functional Ingredients in Meat Products And Their Role In Human Health. Int J Livestock Prod, 2 (4), 45-54. Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2016). Supply and Utilization Accounts Selected Agricultural Commodities, Malaysia 2011-2015, https://www.dosm.gov.my. Date of accessed March 16, 2017.
Fernández-López, J., Jiménez, S., Sayas-Barberá, E., Sendra, E. and Pérez-Alvarez, J . A. (2006). Quality Characteristics of Ostrich (Struthio Camelus) Burgers. Meat Science 73(2): 295-303. Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations 1985. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MDC Publishers SDN BHD. Hsu, S. Y. and Sun, L. Y. (2006). Effects of salt, phosphates, potassium sorbate and sodium erythorbate on qualities of emulsified meatball. Journal of Food Engineering, 73: 246252. Huda, N., Yap, H. S., Yong, L. H. (2009). Proximate composition, colour, texture profile of Malaysian chicken balls. Pakistani Journal of Nutrition, 8(10): 1555-1558 Huang, S. C., Shiau, C. Y., Liu, T. E., and Hwang, D. F. (2005). Effects of rice bran on sensory and physico-chemical properties of emulsified pork meatballs. Meat Science, 70:613619. Joly, G. and Anderstein, B. (2009). Starches. In Ingredients in Meat Products: Properties, Functionality and Applications, Tarte, R. ed ., pp. 25-55. New York: Springer Science Business Media, LLC. Lyijynen, T. (1998).Towards precision food packaging by optimization-VT. Retrieved from http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/1998/T1915.pdf McKee, L.H. & Latner, T.A. (2000). Underutilized Sources of Dietary Fiber : A review. Plants Foods Hum Nutr, 55, 285-304. Nielson, S.S. (2010).Handbook of Food Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/44491564/Compositional_Analysis_of_foods_-_ Food_Analysis_-_S.S._Nielsen.pdf Ramadhan K., Huda N., and Ahmad R. (2009). Physicochemical Characteristics and Sensory Properties Of Selected Malaysian Commercial Chicken Burgers. Retrieved from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/9/2316.full Serdaroglu, M., (2006). Improving Low Fat Meatballs Characteristics by Adding Whey Powder . Meat Sci., 72: 155-163. Serdaroglu, M., Yildiz-Turp, G. and Abrodimov, K. (2005). Quality of low meatballs containing legume flours as extender. Meat Science, 70: 99-105. Yilmaz, I. and Daglioglu, O. (2003). The effect of replacing fat with oat bran on fatt y acid composition and physiochemical properties of meatballs. Meat Science, 65: 819-823.
APPENDICES
̅= ∑ ̅ of =sum
Formula for mean value:
= Mean value
n= Number of value in data set Formula for standard deviation:
̅ ̅ ∑ [( −x ) +( −x ) = √ − ] S
= Standard deviation of sample
x 1
= Value for sample A1 in data set = Value for sample A2 in data set = Mean value in data set = Number of value in data set
=sum of ̅ x 2
n
APPENDIX A
DETERMINATION OF WET & DRY BASIS
() (%) = ℎ 100 ℎ (2) =100− (%) (%) = 0.2.70573100 100 =100−37. 6 8 % = . % = . % = 0.2.60917071 100 =100−34. 4 6 % = . % = . %
SAMPLE
WEIGHT OF CRUCIBLE (g)
WEIGHT OF SAMPLE (g)
WEIGHT OF SAMPLE AFTER DRYING (g)
A1
70.6856
2.0100
0.7573
A2
54.0478
2.0071
0.6917
CALCULATIONS
(%)
̅x ∴ =.±. Mean, : 63.93% Standard deviation: 2.2769
INFRA-RED MOISTURE BALANCE A1
A2
LOST OF WEIGHT 0.000 0.385 0.667 0.866 1.004 1.104 1.165 1.210 1.232 62.870 %
MEAN
LOST OF WEIGHT 0.000 0.436 0.754 0.974 1.108 1.192 1.239 1.250 1.266 64.275 %
MINUTES
WEIGHT
WEIGHT
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 %M
1.993 1.608 1.326 1.127 0.989 0.889 0.828 0.783 0.761
1.979 1.543 1.225 1.005 0.871 0.787 0.740 0.729 0.713
0.000 0.411 0.711 0.920 1.056 1.148 1.202 1.230 1.249
̅x ∴% =.±. Mean, : 63.5725% Standard deviation: 0.9935
GRAPH OF MEAN LOSS OF WEIGHT (g) AGAINST TIME (MINUTES) 1.4 1.3
1.202
1.23
1.249
1.148
1.2 1.056
1.1
) g 1 ( T H0.9 G I E 0.8 W F O0.7 T S 0.6 O L N0.5 A E 0.4 M
0.92
0.711
0.411
0.3 0.2
0.1 0 0 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
TIME (min)
Graph 1: This graph shows the mean loss of weight against time.
14
16
18
APPENDIX B ASH DETERMINATION
() ℎ (%) = ℎ ℎ () 100
SAMPLE
A1
WEIGHT OF CRUCIBLE (g)
WEIGHT OF SAMPLE (g)
59.2988
5.0060
WEIGHT OF SAMPEL AFTER DRYING (g)
0.1045
CALCULATIONS
ℎ0.(1%045) = 5.0060 100 . % ℎ(%) = 5.0.01178010 100 . % =
A2
65.8795
5.0178
0.1010
=
̅x ∴(%)=.±. Mean, : 2.05% Standard deviation: 0.0523
APPENDIX C
CRUDE FAT CONTENTS
ℎ (%)= (ℎ +)− 100 ℎ WEIGHT WEIGHT OF WEIGHT OF OF EXTRACTOR SAMPLE EXTRACTOR SAMPLE CUP + FAT CUP (g) (g) (g)
A1
2.0052
46.5684
46.8485
CALCULATIONS
46.8485g−(%) 46.5684g = 2.0052 100 . % 46.4980g−(%) 46.2327g = 2.0070 100 . % =
A2
2.0070
46.2327
46.4980
=
̅x ∴ =.±. Mean, : 13.59% Standard deviation: 0.5523
APPENDIX D
CRUDE PROTEIN DETERMINATION – KJELDAHL METHOD
×. (%) = (−) × 100 ℎ () (%) = (%)
KEYS: T = Titration Volume of Sample (ml) B = Titration Volume of Blank (ml) N = Normality of HCl / acid F = Protein factor; 6.25 / 5.7 / 6.38 (depends on type of sample) WEIGHT OF SAMPLE SAMPLE (g)
TITRATION VOLUME OF SAMPLE (ml)
A1
1.0191
11.8
A2
1.0500
11.8
CALCULATION NITROGEN CONTENT
CRUDE PROTEIN CONTENT
( ) ( % (%) ) 11. 8 −0. 0 × 0. 1 ×14. 0 07 == 1.62181.%0191 × 1000 100 =× 6.1.622185 % =10.1366 % (%) (11. (%) 1 ×14.007 100 =× 6.1.527415 % == 1.57418−0.1.%00191) ××0.1000 =9.8383 %
NITROGEN CONTENT (%)
CRUDE PROTEIN CONTENT (%)
Mean, : 1.598% Standard deviation: 0.0337
Mean, : 9.9875% Standard deviation: 0.2109
̅x ∴ (%) =.±.
̅x ∴ =.±.
APPENDIX E CRUDE FIBER CONTENTS SAMPLE A1 A2
m1 0.2602 0.2638
m2 1.0322 1.0255
m3 59.5613 51.7896
m4 59.2980 51.5224
m5
m6
m7
0.0024
61.8271
61.8295
KEYS: m1: Weight of empty FibreBag (g) m2: Weight of sample (g) m3: Weight of empty FibreBag (g) + pre-dried crucible (g) m4: Weight of crucible (g) + ash (g) m5: Blank value (g) m6: Incinerating crucible for blank FibreBag (g) m7: Incinerating crucible and ash for blank FibreBag (g)
− )] 100 (%) = [( − )−( ( ) % = [(59.5613− 0.26021.)0−322(59.g 2980− 0.0024)] 100 =. % ( ) % = [(51.7896− 0.26381.)0−255(51.g 5224− 0.0024)] 100 =. % (%) ̅x ∴ (%)=.±. A1
A2
Mean, : 0.5492%
Standard deviation: 0.0232
APPENDIX F
The percentage of Carbohydrates =100%− (Moisture content+Ash+Crude Fat+Crude Protein+Crude Fiber ) =100%− (63.93+2.0+13.59+9.9875+0.5492)% =100%−(90.0567%) =9.9433%
