Research ArticleOpen Access

Quality of Spent Hen Surimi as Affected by Surimi Type and Storage Time

Nesrin S Mohammed1, Amal A Hassan2, Esam H Mansour2*, Atef S Osheba1 and Abo El-Fath A El-Bedawey

1Department of Meat and Fish Technology Research, Food Technology Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt
2Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Menoufia University, Shibin El-Kom, Egypt

*Corresponding Author: 
Esam H Mansour
  Department of Food Science and Technology
  Faculty of Agriculture, Menoufia University
  Shibin El-Kom, Egypt
  Tel: (+02) 01222328188
  Fax: (+02) 048-2228187
  E-mail: esam_mansour@yahoo.com

Received: June 08, 2017; Published: September 11, 2017

Citation: Nesrin S Mohammed, Amal A Hassan, Esam H Mansour, Atef S Osheba, Abo El-Fath A El-Bedawey (2017) Quality of Spent Hen Surimi as Affected by Surimi Type and Storage Time. J Nutr Diet Suppl 1(1): 103

Abstract

Breast and leg spent hen meat were used in the preparation of surimi. Proximate composition, total volatile basic nitrogen (TVBN), thiobarbituric acid (TBA), pH and microbiological analysis of breast and leg meat during preparation of surimi and their storage at -18oC for 3 months were evaluated. Chicken breast meat had higher protein (21.97%), carbohydrates (0.27%) and TVBN (10.44 mg N/100g) and lower moisture (76.22%), fat (0.88%), total ash (0.70%), TBA (0.23 mg malonaldehyd/kg), pH (6.52) values, total bacterial (6.12×104 cfu/g), proteolytic bacteria (4.70×102 cfu/g) and psychrophilic bacteria (4.65×103 cfu/g) counts than chicken leg meat. Moisture content and pH value were increased by increasing the washing steps of chicken meat. However, crude protein, crude fat, total ash, carbohydrates, TVBN, TBA values, total bacterial, proteolytic bacteria and psychrophilic bacteria were decreased by increasing washing steps. Breast type surimi had higher protein (19.37%) and TVBN (10.18 mg N/100g) and lower moisture content (72.69%), fat (0.43%), total ash (0.54%), TBA (0.22 mg malonaldehyd/kg), pH (6.95) values, total bacterial (2.28×104 cfu/g), proteolytic bacteria (1.21×102 cfu/g) and psychrophilic bacteria (1.38×103 cfu/g) counts than leg type surimi. Moisture and protein contents of surimi were not affected by storage time. Crude fat, total ash and carbohydrates contents did not change until two month of storage followed by an increase up to the end of storage time. The TVBN, TBA, pH values were increased as storage time increased. However, total bacterial, proteolytic bacteria and psychrophilic bacteria counts of surimi were decreased as storage time increased.

Keywords: Spent hen meat; Washing steps; Surimi; Storage time; Microbiological quality

Introduction

At the end of egg lying cycle, chicken meat (spent laying hen meat) had tough muscle, due to formation of a high amount of heat stable collagen. Therefore these meats need adequate processing to improve their acceptability [1-3]. Surimi defines a concentrate of myofibrillar proteins obtained after mincing and water washing of meat or fish. Surimi technique includes washing, leaching, additive addition and freezing. The main purpose of leaching is to retain myofibrillar proteins by removing sarcoplasmic proteins, lipids, pigments and enzymes. Lipid and enzyme removal can prolong the storage time and enhance the stability of surimi, while pigment removal increases its whiteness [4,5]. Many advantages of surimi production were (1) long shelf life (2) highly functional protein ingredient of good nutritional quality (3) the availability and simplicity of its technology, which permits mass production with consistent product quality (4) prepare from abundant sources of underutilized fish species (5) high content of protein and low fat (6) have slight odor, color, and good gelling ability [1,6-10].

Little information is available on the preparation of surimi from spent hen meat. Therefore the objective of this study was to prepare surimi from breast and leg spent hen meat. Proximate composition, total volatile bass nitrogen, thiobarbituric acid, pH and microbiological analysis of breast and leg meat during preparation of surimi and their storage at -18oC for 3 months were evaluated.

Materials and Methods

Two years old chicken females (spent laying hens) weighing 5-6 kg were purchased from the local market, Cairo, Egypt. Chicken was slaughtered, allowed to bleed for 5 minutes, scalded for 2 min at 60ºC, plucked by hand, eviscerated, rinsed with tap water, skinned, deboned and finally trimmed of fat, as required for the processing. Sorbitol and sodium tripolyphosphate were obtained from El-Gomhoria Company, Cairo, Egypt. Sucrose was purchased from local market, Cairo, Egypt.

Preparation of surimi

Surimi was prepared as described by Jin., et al. [10]. The lean chicken meat of breast and leg were separately ground in a meat grinder (MISANO, Italy). The ground lean chicken meat of breast and leg were separately washed three times with cold water (pH 7, 4°C) for 1 min each cycle at a ratio of ground chicken meat:water 1:3 (w/v). The last washed contained 0.3% NaCl. After each washing cycle, the ground lean chicken meat of breast and leg were separately filtered through a 1-mm mesh metal screen to remove connective tissues. The filtrates were centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 25 min and the supernatants containing fat and water-soluble proteins were discarded. The resulting sediments were separately mixed with cryoprotectants (4% sucrose, 4% sorbitol and 0.2% sodium tripolyphosphate). Surimi of chicken breast and leg were separately packaged in polyethylene bags and stored at -18°C for 3 months. Samples were taken at specific time intervals for analysis.

Proximate composition

AOAC methods were used to determine moisture (method 985.14), crude fat (method 960.39), crude protein (method 992.15) and total ash (method 900.02 A) contents [11]. Total carbohydrates content was calculated by difference.

Chemical quality characteristics and pH values

Total volatile basic nitrogen (TVBN) was determined by the method described by Winton and Winton [12]. Thiobarbituric acid value (TBA) was determined according to the procedure described by Kirk and Sawyer [13]. The TBA values were expressed as mg malonaldehyd/kg of dry sample. The pH value was determined using 10% dispersion of surimi sample in distilled water using a Jenway Digital pH meter (Model 3510).

Bacteriological Methods
Total bacterial count and psychrophilic bacteria

The procedure of APHA [14] was followed for total bacterial count and psychrophilic bacteria count using the standard plate count agar and enumerated after incubation at 30°C for 3 days and 8°C for 5 days, respectively.

Lipolytic bacteria count

Lipolytic bacteria were counted according to the methods mentioned by Difco manual [15] using 10% olive oil. The Plates were incubated at 37 ºC for 5 days.

Coliform bacteria count

The coliform bacteria were determined using MacConkey agar medium according to the method described by APHA [14]. The plates were incubated at 37oC for 24-48 hrs.

Salmonella spp: The Salmonella spp was determined according to the method described by FAO [16]. The plates were incubated at 35oC for 24h.

Staphylococcus aureus count: The S. aureus bacteria was determined according to the method described by APHA and Difco Manual using Baird-Parker medium plus 5 ml egg yolk telluride emulsion to each 100 ml of sterilize media which mixed well before pouring in the plates [14,15]. The plates were incubated at 37oC for 24 hr.

Yeast and mold counts

The procedures of Difco manual were followed for the determination of yeast and mold counts using potato-dextrose agar medium. The plates were incubated at 20-25ºC for 5 days [15].

Statistical analysis

Data were presented as mean of three replicates ± standard deviations. Two way randomized blocks design was used for surimi type data. Comparisons among means were performed using LSD test. The differences were considered significant at the 5% level (p ≤ 0.05) using a Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, 2008).

Results and Discussions
Proximate composition of chicken used in preparation of surimi

Proximate composition of chicken was affected (p ≤ 0.05) by chicken part and washing steps (Table 1). Chicken breast had higher (p ≤ 0.05) crude protein and carbohydrates contents than chicken leg. However, chicken leg had higher (p ≤ 0.05) moisture, crude fat and total ash contents than chicken breast. Vecerek., et al. reported that light-red breast muscles contain more protein and less fat as compared with dark-red leg muscles [17].

Washing steps Chicken part Means1
Breast Leg
Moisture % Unwashed 73.71 ± 0.68 74.94 ± 0.69 74.33d
First washing 76.03 ± 0.75 78.59 ± 0.77 77.31c
Second washing 76.97 ± 0.67 79.62 ± 0.68 78.30b
Third washing 78.16 ± 0.81 80.51 ± 0.82 79.34a
Means2 76.22b 78.42a
Crude protein % Unwashed 22.97 ±0.72 20.06 ± 0.68 21.52a
First washing 22.13 ± 0.49 19.16 ± 0.71 20.75b
Second washing 21.87 ± 0.60 18.62 ± 0.66 20.15c
Third washing 20.89 ± 0.55 17.95 ± 0.57 19.42d
Means2 21.97a 18.95b
Crude fat % Unwashed 1.63 ±0.06 3.17 ± 0.07 2.40a
First washing 0.97 ± 0.05 1.26 ± 0.06 1.12b
Second washing 0.54 ± 0.04 0.92 ± 0.04 0.73c
Third washing 0.39 ± 0.03 0.79 ± 0.04 0.59d
Means2 0.88b 1.54a
Total ash % Unwashed 1.40 ± 0.05 1.48 ± 0.06 1.44a
First washing 0.62 ± 0.04 0.75 ± 0.03 0.69b
Second washing 0.41 ± 0.03 0.57 ± 0.04 0.59c
Third washing 0.36 ± 0.02 0.54 ± 0.02 0.45d
Means2 0.70b 0.84a
Carbohydrates % Unwashed 0.29 ± 0.02 0.35 ± 0.03 0.32a
First washing 0.25 ± 0.03 0.24 ± 0.02 0.27b
Second washing 0.21 ± 0.02 0.27 ± 0.02 0.24c
Third washing 0.20 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.01 0.20
Means2 0.27a 0.24b

Each value in the table is the mean of three replicates ± standard deviation
1Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
2Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
Table 1: Proximate composition of chicken as affected by chicken part and washing steps

Moisture content was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) increased by increasing the washing steps. However, crude protein, crude fat, total ash and carbohydrates contents were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) decreased by increasing washing steps. The increase in moisture content was mainly due to the absorption of water by hydrophilic residues of myofibrillar proteins [18]. However, the decrease in crude protein, crude fat, total ash and carbohydrates contents was attributed to the increment in moisture content after washing process. Ismail., et al. reported that the main functions of washing process during preparation of surimi were to remove fat, blood, enzyme and sarcoplasmic proteins [19]. These results are in agreement with those reported by Nowsad., et al. for unwashed and washed spent hen [1].

Total volatile basic nitrogen, thiobarbituric acid and pH value of chicken used in preparation of surimi

The TVBN, TBA and pH value of chicken were affected (p ≤ 0.05) by chicken part and washing steps (Tables 2). Chicken breast had a higher (p ≤ 0.05) TVBN value and lower (p ≤ 0.05) TBA and pH values than chicken leg. These could be attributed to high protein and low fat contents of chicken breast as compared with chicken leg (Table 1). Bhattacharyya., et al. found that lipid oxidation is close related to fat levels and the higher the amount of fat, the greater the TBA value [20]. Rasha reported that fresh spent hen meat had 12.16 mg N/100 g total volatile nitrogen and 0.21 mg malonaldehyd/kg thiobarbituric acid [21].

Washing steps Chicken part Means1
  Breast Leg  
TVBN
mg N/100g
Unwashed 12.57 ± 0.17 12.23 ± 0.15 12.40a
First washing 10.76 ± 0.19 10.36 ± 0.17 10.56b
Second washing 9.57 ± 0.18 9.17 ± 0.19 9.37c
Third washing 8.86 ± 0.21 8.29 ± 0.18 8.58d
Means2 10.44a 10.01b
TBA
mg malonaldehyd/kg
Unwashed 0.339 ± 0.03 0.461 ± 0.02

0.40a

First washing 0.261 ± 0.04 0.257 ± 0.04 0.26b
Second washing 0.187 ± 0.02 0.215 ± 0.01 0.20c
Third washing 0.116 ± 0.01 0.192 ± 0.03 0.15d
Means2 0.23b 0.28a
pH Unwashed 6.13 ± 0.02 6.21 ± 0.03 6.17d
First washing 6.52 ± 0.04 6.60 ± 0.04 6.56c
Second washing 6.64 ± 0.03 6.88 ± 0.02 6.76b
Third washing 6.78 ± 0.02 6.95 ± 0.03 6.87a
Means2 6.52b 6.66a

Each value in the table is the mean of three replicates ± standard deviation
1Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
2Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
Table 2: Total volatile basic nitrogen, thiobarbituric acid and pH value of chicken as affected by chicken part and washing steps

The TVBN and TBA values of chicken meat were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) decreased by increasing the washing steps. However, pH value of chicken meat was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) increased by increasing the washing steps. The decrease in TVBN and increase in pH were attributed to the removal of soluble proteins, free nitrogen, free fatty acids, free amino acids or other water soluble compounds during the washing process [18]. The decrease in TBA might be explained by the removal of some part of fat and blood which encouraging the lipid oxidation [22]. Mean TVBN (8.58- 12.40 mg N/100g) and TBA (0.15-0.40 mg malonaldehyd/kg) values of chicken breast and leg were below the maximum permissible limit (20 mg N/100g and 0.9 mg malonaldehyd/kg) reported by Egyptian standard specifications [23].

Microorganisms Chicken breast Chicken leg
(cfu/g) Washing steps Washing steps
  Unwashed 1 2 3 Unwashed 1 2 3
Total  bacterial 6.12 ×104 4.21×104 3.65×104 2.32 ×104 8.83 ×104 6.71 ×104 4.96 ×104 3.51 ×104
Proteolytic bacteria 4.70 ×102 1.88 ×102 1.49 ×102 1.35 ×102 6.40 ×102 3.12 ×102 2.31 ×102 2.16 ×102
Psychrophilic bacteria 4.65 ×103 2.96 ×103 1.78 ×103 1.47 ×103 5.60 ×103 3.81 ×103 2.62 ×103 2.18 ×103

Lipolytic bacteria, Coliform bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp and Yeast and mold = Not detected
Table 3: Effect of washing steps on microorganism counts of unwashed and washed chicken breast and le

Microbiological analysis of unwashed and washed chicken breast and leg

Chicken breast had lower total bacterial, proteolytic bacteria and psychrophilic bacteria counts than chicken leg (Table 3). Lipolytic bacteria, coliform bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp and yeast and mold are not detected in chicken breast and leg indicating the sanitary conditions of raw chicken meat. Total bacterial counts of chicken breast and leg in the present study were 2.32-8.83×104 cfu/g. Comparable total bacterial counts of chicken breast and leg were reported by Kamil., et al. and El-Safy, (4.9×103 to 2.8×105 cfu/g) [24,25]. Marwa found that fresh chicken breast meat were completely free from coliform bacteria, lipolytic bacteria, Salmonella spp and yeast and mold [26]. Total bacterial, proteolytic bacteria and psychrophilic bacteria counts were decreased by increasing washing steps. Mello., et al. reported that the washing process may have a beneficial effect on the reduction of microorganisms [27].

Proximate composition of surimi

There are differences (p ≤0.05) in moisture, crude protein, crude fat and total ash contents between breast and leg type surimi (Tables 4). However non-significant (p > 0.05) difference in carbohydrates content was observed between breast and leg type surimi. Breast type surimi had a higher (p ≤ 0.05) crude protein content than leg type surimi. This could be attributed to a high protein content of raw chicken breast compared with chicken leg (Table 1). However, breast type surimi had lower (p ≤ 0.05) moisture, crude fat and total ash contents than leg type surimi. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Menezes., et al. for surimi from mechanically deboned chicken meat, Hur., et al. for alaska pollack with spent laying hen surimi, Nowsad., et al. for unwashed and washed spent hen surimi [1,28,29]. Moisture and protein contents of surimi were not significantly (p > 0.05) affected by storage time. However, crude fat, total ash and carbohydrates contents did not significantly (p > 0.05) change until two month of storage followed by an increase up to the end of storage time. Jin., et al. reported that moisture, crude fat and carbohydrate contents of imitation crab stick prepared from chicken surimi were not significantly different during storage at 10°C for 4 weeks [10].

 

Storage

time

(months)

Surimi type

Means1

Breast

Leg

 

Moisture (%)

0

72.96 ± 0.71

74.94 ± 0.73

73.95a

1

72.84 ± 0.68

74.88 ± 0.69

73.86a

2

72.63 ± 0.70

74.68 ± 0.72

73.66a

3

72.34 ± 0.66

74.39 ± 0.66

73.37a

Means2

 

72.69b

74.72a

 

Crude protein (%)

0

19.32 ± 0.49

16.55 ± 0.41

17.94a

1

19.35 ± 0.39

16.56 ± 0.38

17.96a

2

19.37 ± 0.42

16.58 ± 0.49

17.98a

3

19.42 ± 0.38

16.59 ± 0.39

18.01a

Means2

 

19.37a

16.57b

 

Crude fat (%)

0

0.40 ± 0.017

0.89 ± 0.015

0.65b

1

0.42 ± 0.018

0.91 ± 0.018

0.67ab

2

0.44 ± 0.016

0.93 ± 0.019

0.69ab

3

0.45 ± 0.019

0.94 ± 0.017

0.70a

Means2

 

0.43b

0.92a

 

Total ash (%)

0

0.51 ± 0.012

0.74 ± 0.015

0.63b

1

0.53 ± 0.017

0.75 ± 0.014

0.64b

2

0.55 ± 0.014

0.77 ± 0.013

0.66ab

3

0.57 ± 0.013

0.79 ± 0.012

0.68a

Means2

 

0.54b

0.76a

 

Carbohydrates (%)

0

6.81 ± 0.15

6.88 ±0.18

6.85b

1

6.86 ± 0.17

6.90 ±0.19

6.88b

2

7.01 ± 0.18

7.04 ±0.16

7.03b

3

7.22 ±0.16

7.29 ±0.17

7.26a

Means2

 

6.98a

7.03a

 

Each value in the table is the mean of three replicates ± standard deviation
1Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
2Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
Table 4: Proximate composition of surimi as affected by surimi type and storage at -18°C for 3 months

Total volatile basic nitrogen, thiobarbituric acid and pH values of surimi

There are differences (p ≤ 0.05) in TVBN, TBA and pH values between breast and leg type surimi (Table 5). Breast type surimi had a higher (p ≤ 0.05) TVBN and lower TBA and pH values than leg type surimi. Similar observation was reported for chicken breast and leg meat (Table 2).

The TVBN, TBA and pH values of surimi were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) increased as storage time increased. Kaba reported that positive relationship was found between TVBN and TBA values and time of storage [22]. Jin., et al. found that the pH values increased with storage time in all sausage containing spent hen surimi samples [9]. The increment of pH values might be attributed to the production of volatile basic components such as ammonia and total volatile nitrogen by meat spoilage bacteria reported by Lawrie and Ledward and Osheba [30,31]. Mean total volatile nitrogen (11.55 mg N/100g) and TBA (0.33 mg malonaldehyd/kg) values of surimi after 3 months of storage were below the maximum permissible limit (20 mg N/100g and 0.9 mg malonaldehyd/kg) reported by Egyptian standard specifications [23].

 

Storage

Time

(months)

Surimi type

Means1

Breast

Leg

 

TVBN mg N/100g

0

8.75 ± 0.12

8.40 ± 0.14

8.58d

1

8.97 ± 0.13

8.72 ± 0.11

8.85c

2

11.29 ± 0.15

10.61 ± 0.13

10.95b

3

11.72 ± 0.11

11.37 ± 0.15

11.55a

Means2

 

10.18a

9.78b

 

TBA mg malonaldehyd/kg

0

0.118 ± 0.01

0.198 ± 0.02

0.16d

1

0.191 ± 0.03

0.262 ± 0.04

0.23c

2

0.248 ± 0.02

0.296 ± 0.03

0.27b

3

0.307 ± 0.04

0.352 ± 0.04

0.33a

Means2

 

0.22b

0.28a

 

pH

0

6.78 ± 0.02

6.96 ± 0.03

6.87d

1

6.82 ± 0.04

7.18 ± 0.02

7.00c

2

6.97 ± 0.03

7.25 ± 0.04

7.11b

3

7.21 ± 0.02

7.47 ± 0.03

7.34a

Means2

 

6.95b

7.22a

 

Each value in the table is the mean of three replicates ± standard deviation
1Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
2Means in the same row with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
Table 5: Total volatile basic nitrogen, thiobarbituric acid and pH value of surimi as affected by surimi type and storage at -18°C for 3 months

Microbiological analysis of surimi

Data in (Table 6) showed that total bacterial counts of surimi (1.79-2.28×104 cfu/g) did not exceed the maximum levels (105 cfu/g) of microbiological criteria for fresh and frozen poultry given by Egyptian standard specifications [23]. Breast type surimi had lower total bacterial, proteolytic bacteria and psychrophilic bacteria counts than leg type surimi. Lipolytic bacteria, coliform bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp and yeast and mold were not detected in breast and leg type surimi. Similar observation was for chicken breast and leg meat (Table 3). Mohammed., et al. reported that lipolytic bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp and coliform bacteria were not detected in kobeba prepared from spent hen meat [3].

Microorganisms (cfu/g)  Surimi type  Storage time (months)
0  1  2  3
Total bacterial count  Breast  2.28×104 2.07×104 1.96×104 1.79×104
 Leg  3.45×104  3.21×104  3.17×104  3.09×104
 Proteolytic bacteria  Breast 1.21×102  1.07×102  1.0×102  9.00×10
 Leg  1.85×102  1.31×102  1.18×102  1.02×102
 Psychrophilic bacteria  Breast  1.38×103  1.29×103  1.16×103  1.15×103
 Leg  2.11×103  1.98×103  1.64×103  1.48×103

Lipolytic bacteria, Coliform bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp and Yeast and mold = Not detected Table 6: Effect of storage at -18οC for 3 months on microorganism counts of breast and leg type surimi

Total bacterial, proteolytic bacteria and psychrophilic bacteria counts of breast and leg type surimi were decreased as storage time increased. This decrease might be due to the addition of sodium tripolyphosphate during the preparation of surimi which has antimicrobial activity. The reduction of microorganism counts during 2-3 months of storage might be due to the breakdown of microorganisms cell wall by ice-crystals formed during freezing process [3].

Conclusion

From the above results, it could be concluded that breast type surimi had higher crude protein and carbohydrates contents and lower moisture, crude fat and total ash contents than leg type surimi. The TVBN, TBA and pH values of surimi were increased during storage time. However, total bacterial, proteolytic bacteria and psychrophilic bacteria counts of surimi were decreased as storage time increased. Lipolytic bacteria, coliform bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp and yeast and mold were not detected in surimi.

References
  1. 1. AA Nowsad, E Kanoh, E Niwa (2000) Thermal gelation characteristics of breast and thigh muscles of spent hen and broiler and their surimi. Meat Science 54: 169-175.
  2. 2. D Ilayabharathi, FR Sheriff, G Raj-Manohar (2012) Shelf-life of spent chicken sausage and its organoleptic qualities. Journal Veterinary & Animal Science 8: 60-67.
  3. 3. NS Mohammed, EH Mansour, AS Osheba, AA Hassan, AA El-Bedawey (2017) Effect of acidic marination on the quality characteristics of spent hen kobeba during frozen storage. Arab University Journal of Agricultural Science. In press.
  4. 4. AK Balange, S Benjakul (2009) Effect of oxidized tannic acid on the gel properties of mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) mince and surimi prepared by different washing processes. Food Hydrocolloids 23: 1-9.
  5. 5. AM Martin-Sanchez, C Navarro, JA Perez-Alvarez, V Kuri (2009) Alternatives for efficient and sustainable production of surimi: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 8: 359-374.
  6. 6. TC Lanier, CM Lee (1992) Surimi Technology. Marcel Dekker, INC. New York. ISBN 0-8247-8470-7.
  7. 7. H Park, SY Cho, M Kimura, H Nozawa, N Seki (2005) Effects of microbial transglutaminase and starch on the thermal gelation of salted squid muscle paste. Journal of Fish Science 71: 896-903.
  8. 8. A Zhou, S Benjakul, K Pan, J Gong, X Liu (2006) Cryoprotective effects of trehalose and sodium lactate of tilapia (Sarotherodon nilotica) surimi during frozen storage. Journal of Food Chemistry 96: 96-103.
  9. 9. SK Jin, IS Kim, HJ Jung, DH Kim, YJ Choi, et al. (2007) The development of sausage including meat from spent laying hen surimi. Poultry Science 86: 2676-84.
  10. 10. SK Jin, IS Kim, YJ Choi, BG Kim, SJ Hur (2009) The development of imitation crab stick containing chicken breast surimi. LWT-Food Science and Technology 42: 150-6.
  11. 11. AOAC (2000) Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, (17th Ed., Washington, DC, USA.
  12. 12. AL Winton, RB Winton (1985) Okol off Mangnesium Oxide Distillation Volumetric Methods, The Analysis of Food, (John Wiley, New York and Chapmann Hull, London 848.
  13. 13. RS Kirk, R Sawyer (1991) Pearson’s Composition and Analysis of Foods. Flesh Food, 9th edn, (Longman Scientific Technical. Inc., New York, USA) 450-471.
  14. 14. APHA (1976) American Public Health Association. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods, (Speck, M.L. ed., Washington, DC, USA).
  15. 15. Difco (1984) Manual of Dehydrated Culture Media and Reagents for Microbiological and Clinical Laboratories Procedures. (Detroit, Michigan, USA).
  16. 16. FAO (1979) Manuals of food-quality control, 4, microbiological analysis. Food and Agriculture organization of the united nations. Rome 9-12.
  17. 17. V Vecerek, P Such, E Strakova, F Vitula (2005) Chemical composition of breast and thigh muscles in fattened pheasant poults. Krmiva 3: 119-25.
  18. 18. M Karthikeyan, BA Shamasundar, S Mathew, PR Kumar, V Prakash (2004) Physico-chemical and functional properties of proteins from pelagic fatty fish (Sardinella longiceps) as a function of water washing. International Journal of Food Properties 7: 353-65.
  19. 19. I Ismail, N Huda, F Ariffin, N Ismail (2010) Effects of Washing on the Functional Properties of Duck Meat. International Journal of Poultry Science 6: 556-1.
  20. 20. D Bhattacharyya, M Sinhamahapatra, S Biswas (2007) Preparation of sausage from spent duck-an acceptability study. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 42: 24-9.
  21. 21. AT Rasha (2011) Effect of some spices and type of frying oil on quality attributes of semi-fried chicken fingers during frozen storage. M.Sc Thesis Fac Agric Cairo Univ Egypt 192.
  22. 22. N Kaba (2006) The determination of technology & storage of surimi production from anchovy (Engraulis encrasicholus L., 1758). Turkish Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 6: 29-35.
  23. 23. Egyptian Standard Specifications, Poultry meat products treated with heat (2009) Egyptian Organization for Standardization and Quality Control, Ministry of Industry and Trade. Egypt. No 3493.
  24. 24. MM Kamil, GF Mohamed, A Nadir (2003) Chicken meat as a source of pasterma product. Minufiya Journal Agriculture Research 28: 1565-87.
  25. 25. SF El-Safy (2004) Chemical and organoleptic study on some frozen foods during handling and processing. Fac Agric Al-Azhar Univ Egypt 132.
  26. 26. FA Marwa (2014) Improvement of quality and safety of dried chicken fillets using some spices or their essential oils. Fac of Agric Cairo Univ Egypt 349.
  27. 27. SC Mello, MQ Freitas, SC Clemente, RM Franco, EB Nogueira, et al. (2012) Development and bacteriological, chemical and sensory characterization of fish burgers made of Tilapia minced meat and surimi. Arq Bras Medicina Veterinaria Zootecnia 64: 1389-97.
  28. 28. BS Menezes, B Zanette, JT Souza, WR Cortez-Vega, C Prentice (2015) Comparison of physicochemical and functional properties of surimi and protein isolate obtained from mechanically deboned meat of chicken. International Food Research Journal 22: 1374-9.
  29. 29. SJ Hur, BD Choi, YJ Choi, BG Kim, SK Jin (2011) Quality characteristics of imitation crab sticks made from Alaska Pollack and spent laying hen meat. Food Science and Technology 44: 1482-9.
  30. 30. RA Lawrie, DA Ledward, Lawrie’s Meat Science (2006) 7th English edn. Wood head Publishing Limited and CRC Press LLC, p. 464.
  31. 31. AS Osheba (2013) Technological attempts for production of low sodium smoked herring fish (Renga). Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology 5: 695-706.

We welcome your research work...!!!Submit Manuscript