The Comparison between Tanzanian Indigenous (Ufipa Breed) and Commercial Broiler (Ross Chicken) Meat on the Physicochemical Characteristics, Collagen and Nucleic Acid Contents
Food Science of Animal Resources, ISSN: 2636-0780, Vol: 42, Issue: 5, Page: 833-848
2022
- 11Citations
- 13Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations11
- Citation Indexes11
- 11
- Captures13
- Readers13
- 13
Article Description
The objective of this study was to characterize the meat quality traits that affect the texture and savory taste of Ufipa indigenous chickens by comparing the proximate composition, physical characteristics, collagen, and nucleic acid contents with those of commercial broilers. It was found that Ufipa chicken breast and thigh meat had a higher protein content (p<0.05) than broiler chicken meat, whereas the fat content was lower (p<0.01). The moisture content of thigh meat was lower in Ufipa chicken meat than in broiler chicken meat (p<0.05). Regarding meat color, broiler chickens had considerably higher L*and b*than Ufipa chickens in both the breast and the thigh meat, except for a*(p<0.01). Regarding water holding capacity, Ufipa chicken breast exhibited higher drip loss but lower thawing and cooking losses than broiler chicken (p<0.01). In contrast, its thigh meat had a much lower drip and thawing losses but higher cooking losses (p<0.01). The shear force of Ufipa chickens' breasts and thighs was higher than that of broiler chickens (p<0.05), while the amount of total collagen in the thigh meat was higher than that of broiler chickens (p<0.05). Additionally, the inosine-5'-monophosphate (IMP) of Ufipa chicken breast and thigh meat was higher than that of broiler meat (p<0.05). The principal component analysis of meat quality traits provides a correlation between the proximate and physical-chemical prosperties of both breeds with some contrast. In conclusion, the present study provides information on healthy food with good-tasting Ufipa indigenous chickens, which offer a promising market due to consumers' preferences.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85139434639&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2022.e35; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36133634; http://www.kosfaj.org/archive/view_article?doi=10.5851/kosfa.2022.e35; https://dx.doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2022.e35; https://www.kosfaj.org/archive/view_article?pid=kosfa-42-5-833
Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know