A comparative Study of Chemical Composition and Quality Attributes of fresh and Processed Meat Of Calf, Camel and Goat

Abstract

The study aimed to evaluate the chemical composition and quality attributes of fresh and processed Camel, beef and goat meat. The result showed the chemical composition of camel, beef and goat meat were significantly different (P<0.05). Chemically, camel and goat meat had higher moisture content compared to beef as (77.92, 75.55 and 72.12%) respectively. Beef had higher protein content as (21.07%) compared to camel and goat meat as (19.25 and 20.32%) respectively. Whereas, camel meat had the lowest fat content (1.17%) compared to beef and goat meat as (2.74 and 1.66%). Camel meat had the highest ash content (0.78%) followed by beef (0.47%) and goat meat (0.43%). The present result showed that the camel meat had lowest cholesterol content (59.2 mg/100g) compared to beef and goat meat as (73.6 and 71.2mg/100g) respectively. The present results showed that myofibrillar proteins, sarcoplasmic proteins and non-protein-nitrogen were not significantly (P> 0.05) different among the three types of meat. The result showed concentration of myofibrillar protein was similar in the camel, beef and goat meat as (11.24, 11.48 and 11.24% respectively). Also the sarcoplasmic proteins values were (5.50, 5.35 and 5.40%) for camel, beef and goat meat respectively. The non-protein-nitrogen values were (1.35, 1.05 and 1.16%) in camel, beef and goat meat respectively. Results showed that hunter lightness (L) values were highly significant (P< 0.001) between three types of meat. Beef and goat meat recorded higher values of lightness compared to camel meat as (33.27, 32.44 and 29.76) respectively. Redness (a) values were not significantly (P>0.05) different between the three types of meat studied, hence goat meat recorded the highest values followed by beef and camel meat as (18.53, 17.69 and 17.04) respectively. The yellowness (b) values were significantly (P< 0.001) different between treatments, However, beef recorded the highest values followed by camel and goat meat as (8.82, 7.48 and 5.82) 15 respectively. In general, camel meat appeared brighter red than beef and goat meat. Water holding capacity (WHC) was highly significant (P< 0.01) different among the three types of meat. The WHC values were (1.37, 2.44 and 2.19) for camel, beef and goat meat respectively. Camel meat recorded the lowest values compared to beef and goat meat (camel meat had superior WHC compared to beef and goat meat). The results of cooking loss were highly significant (P< 0.01) among the three types of meat. Cooking loss percent of camel meat was the highest values followed by goat meat and beef as (36.3, 34.15 and 31.75%) respectively. The pH values in this study showed no significant (P> 0.05) different between the three types of meat. However the pH values were (5.88, 5.77 and 5.68) in camel, beef and goat meat respectively. The moisture content showed significant (P< 0.05) different among the three types of sausage. The moisture percent in this study was (73.45, 70.32 and 71.0%) in camel, beef and goat sausages respectively. Camel and goat sausages had higher moisture content compared to beef. Whereas, Beef sausages had higher protein content (18.53%) compared to camel (16.0%) and goat sausages (18%). The fat content was highly significant (P< 0.01) among the treatment sausages. However, the fat content of beef sausages was the highest followed by goat and camel sausages as (3.45, 3.0 and 2.31%) respectively. Ash content was highly significant (P< 0.01) different among the three types of sausage. Camel sausages had the highest amount of ash followed by beef and goat sausages as (2.0, 1.33 and 1.12%) respectively. The non-protein-nitrogen was not significantly (P> 0.05) different among the three type of sausages. Their values were (6.47, 6.23 and 5.89%) respectively. Lightness (L) values were highly significant (P< 0.001) between the three types of sausage. Goat sausages recorded the highest values compared to beef and camel sausages as (32.15, 31.8 and 28.5) respectively. Redness (a) values were not significantly (P>0.05) 16 different. Goat sausages recorded higher values followed by beef and camel sausages as (11.56, 11.45 and 10.40) respectively. Similarly, yellowness (b) values were not significant (P> 0.05) different. Goat sausages recorded the highest values followed by beef and camel sausages as (8.56, 8.48 and 7.67) respectively. Water Holding Capacity in camel sausages recorded the lowest values (0.48) compared to beef and goat sausages as (1.06 and 0.69) respectively, (camel sausages had the highest water holding capacity compared to beef and goat sausages). Camel sausage had higher cooking loss (24.12%) compared to beef and goat sausages as (21.45 and 22.0%) respectively. The pH values showed no significant (P> 0.05) different between the three types of sausage. pH values were (5.65, 5.73 and 5.66) for camel, beef and goat sausages respectively. Sensory evaluations showed that camel and goat meat were palatable and desirable to panelists. Panelist scores for color were not significant (P>0.05) between the three types of meat. The result indicated that the color was acceptable to panelists. Panelist’s scores for tenderness were lower for camel and goat meat compared to beef. Panelist’s scores for juiciness were higher for camel meat and beef compared to goat meat. The result of this study showed that Camel meat and beef were more desirable compared to goat meat. However, the goat meat was also desirable to the panelists. Camel and goat sausage resembled beef sausage in taste, appearance and palatability. Sausages made from camel and goat meat were also acceptable to the panelists. Camel sausage recorded higher scores in sensory evaluation compared to beef and goat sausage. Sausages processed by adding sweet potato and bread crumbs were acceptable. However, addition of sweet potato slightly improved the texture and juiciness. The average bacterial load of the fresh and frozen samples for camel meat were (3 x 106- and 2 x106- CFU/gm), for beef were (2 x10-5 and 1 x 10-5 CFU/gm) and for goat meat were (2x10-6 and 17 1x10-6 CFU/gm) respectively. The average bacterial load of the fresh and frozen camel sausages were (3 x 106- and 2x106- CFU/gm), beef sausages were (2 x 106- and 1 x 106- CFU/gm) and goat sausages were (2x106- and 1x106- CFU/gm) respectively. In general there was considerable decrease in the bacterial count with increase in storage period. The results indicated that, meat products contamination occurred at various stage of processing. This calls for proper and good manufacturing procedure during processing of meat products. The study also indicated that the mineral concentrations were highly significant (P< 0.01) in camel meat compared to that in beef and goat meat. The study concluded that camel and goat fresh and processed meat have prospective future as a healthy nutritive meat.