Comparison of quality characteristics of muscle and edible by-products of Uttarafowl and Kadaknath
| dc.contributor.advisor | Anita | |
| dc.contributor.author | Bora, Bedika | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-07-29T09:53:53Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-07-29T09:53:53Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-06 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Uttarafowl is a native breed of chicken found in few regions on Pithoragarhand.Nainital districts of state Uttarakhand. It gives economic as well as nutritional security to the bird rearing families in those regions Uttarafowl is a recently recognized breed by NBAGR (Accession no. INDIA_CHICKEN_2400_UTTARA_12019). However, there is very less data regarding comparison of meat quality characteristics of Uttarafowl.So, present investigation is designed to evaluate thequalitycharacteristics of muscle and edible by-products of Uttarafowl in comparison to a well recognized indigenous breed of poultry i.e. Kadaknath. Uttarafowl (Purebred and Crossbred) and Kadaknathwere compared for their carcass quality characteristics, physico-chemical characteristicsof muscle and edible offals and storage stability characteristics of the products developed i.e.chicken roast. Comparison of fatty acid profile revealed that the skeletal and heart muscle of Kadaknath had higher (P<0.05) value of omega-9 fatty acid, while muscle of Purebred Uttarafowl had a higher (P<0.05) omega-3 fatty acid value. Physico -chemical analysis of the cooked product (Chicken Roast) revealed that cooking yield was higher (P<0.05) in case of chicken roast prepared fromUttarafowl meat. Texture profile analysis showed higher (P<0.05) hardness value of Kadaknath whereas, higher(P<0.05) cohesiveness, springiness and chewiness in case of Purebred Uttarafowl . TBARS, FFA and Peroxide value of Purebred Uttarafowl was lowest (P<0.05)whereas, DPPH value was highest(P<0.05)representing the higher antioxidant capacity of the meat of indigenous hilly breed of chicken. Microbiological analysis revealed that TPC, Y/M as well as coliform were significantly (P<0.05) lower in Purebred Uttarafowl, followed by Kadaknath and Crossbred Uttarafowl. Sensory analysis revealed a higher (P<0.05) score for overall acceptability of Kadaknath and higher (P<0.05) juiciness of Purebred Uttarafowl. Hence, based on the following results, we can conclude that both Uttarafowl and Kadaknathhave the potential to provide quality meat to the consumers. While Uttarafowl was found superior to Kadaknath for some quality attributes like dressing %, cooking yield omega-3 fatty acid content and antioxidant quality, the meat of Kadaknath was comparatively found better in protein content, having lower cholesterol content, higher omega-9 fatty acid,WHC, and sensory characteristics. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810117509 | |
| dc.keywords | meat quality, muscles, edible foods, byproducts, Uttarafowl, fowls, Kadaknath | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.pages | 131 | en_US |
| dc.publisher | G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar - 263145 (Uttarakhand) | en_US |
| dc.research.problem | Fowls | en_US |
| dc.sub | Livestock Product Technology | en_US |
| dc.subject | null | en_US |
| dc.theme | Poulltry Meat | en_US |
| dc.these.type | M.V.Sc. | en_US |
| dc.title | Comparison of quality characteristics of muscle and edible by-products of Uttarafowl and Kadaknath | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |