الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 199 |  |  |
| | | from | 199 | | |
Abstract
properties which increased the cooking yield and the water holding capacity whereas decreased the cooking loss and shrinkage.
• Increased the poly unsaturated fatty acids content.
• Reduced the total bacterial count, yeasts and mold count compared with control.
• Affect significantly on sensory evaluation of the final product at zero time but during frozen storage these affect was not significantly.
• Finally it reduced the final coasts by 8.3 %.
Replacement of beef meat by (20%) chickpea flour for preparing beef sausages
• Improved the proximate composition by increasing the crude fiber and carbohydrate contents but, decreasing the fat and ash contents as well as the caloric value.
• Affected the physiochemical properties which decreased the cooking loss and shrinkage but increased the water holding capacity, cooking yield.
• Incorporating of chickpea flour improved the fatty acids profile.
• Reduced the total bacterial count, yeasts and mold count compared with control.
• On significant between control and the prepared product overall acceptability.
• Finally it reduced the final coasts by 16%.
Addition of (2%) pomegranate peel for preparing beef sausages
• Increased the ash, and carbohydrate contents while decreased moisture and protein contents.
• Decreased the TBA value and peroxide value in control and treated products.
• Decreased the total bacterial count, yeasts and mold count in control and treated products.
• Improved the sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages.
Chemical and Technological Studies on Beef Sausages Fortified with Flaxseed and Chickpea
BY
Zeinab Abd El Hameid Salam Gad El Rab
B.Sc. Agriculture (Food Science and Technology)
Fac. Agric., Assiut University., (2012)
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Degree of
master OF SCIENCE
In
Agricultural Sciences
(Food Science and Technology)
Supervised by
Prof. Dr.
Ahmed Hamed Abd-Elghany khalifa
Prof. and Head of Food Sci. and Tech., Dept., Fac. of Agric., Assiut University
(Main supervisor)
Prof. Dr.
Mohamed Kamal E. Youssef (deceased)
Prof. of Food Sci. and Tech., Fac.
of Agric., Assiut University
Dr.
Safaa Abd El Hameed Mohamed
Lecturer of Food Sci. and Tech.,
Fac. of Agric., Assiut University Prof. Dr
Badawy Mohamed Darwiesh Mostafa
Prof. of Meat and Fish Tech. Res.
Dept., Food Tech. Res. Inst., Agric.
Res. Center, Giza.
2019
APPROVAL SHEET
Chemical and Technological Studies on Beef Sausages Fortified with Flaxseed and Chickpea
BY
Zeinab Abd El Hameid Salam Gad El Rab
B.Sc. Agriculture (Food Science and Technology)
Fac. Agric., Assiut University, (2012)
THESIS
Submitted in partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
master DEGREE
IN
Agricultural Sciences
(Food Science& Technology)
Department of Food Science & Technology
Faculty of Agriculture- Assiut University
(2019)
Approved by:
Approved
Prof. Dr. Samy I. Elsyiad …………
Prof. of Food Science and Technology,
Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University
Prof. Dr. Ahmed Hamed A. Khalifa …………
Prof.and head of Food Science and Technology
Dept. Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University
Prof. Dr. Mostafa A. A. Awad-allah …………
professor and dean of Faculty of Specific Education,
South Valley University
Date of examination Committee in charge
17/10/2019
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
رَبِّ أَوْزِعْنِي أَنْ أَشْكُرَ نِعْمَتَكَ الَّتِي أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ وَعَلَى وَالِدَيَّ وَأَنْ أَعْمَلَ صَالِحًا تَرْضَاهُ وَأَدْخِلْنِي بِرَحْمَتِكَ فِي عِبَادِكَ الصَّالِحِينَ
سورة النمل الآية (19)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to ALLAH, the sustainer of the heavens and the earth and all that they contain to make this work possible for me.
I would like to express my extremely grateful to Prof. Dr. Mohamed K. E. Youssef, Professor of Food Science and Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University. I will never forget his support and for providing me numerous opportunities to learn and develop as a researcher.
I would like to express my deepest thanks and sincerest gratitude Prof. Dr. Ahmed Hamed Abd-Elghany khalifa, Professor of Food Science &Technology, faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, for his encouragement and Continuous stimulation, valuable suggestions and discussions and unfailing support to preparing, writing and revising the manuscript. Realy without his assistance, this thesis would never be achieved.
Acknowledgement is also extended to Prof. Dr. Badawy M. Darweish, Professor of Meat and Fish Technology Research Department, Food Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, for his guiding the work and providing the necessary laboratory facilities.
A special appreciation and my deepest thanks are due to Dr. Safaa Abd El Hameid Mohamed, Lecturer of Food Science and Technology Department, Fac. of Agric., Assiut University, for her supervision, trustful help, unfailing advice and given me the power to complete this work.
Many thanks are also extended to all the staff of Food Science and Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, and all staff of Institute of Food Technology, Agriculture Research Center, Egypt.
I wish to express my deep thanks to my family especially my mother, my dear friends especially Samar Amin who were always in my side to help during this study.
Zeinab Abd El Hamied Salam Gad El Rab
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
% Percent
°C Degree Celsius
Α Alpha
ALA Alpha linolenic acid
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists
APHA American Public Health Association
APC Aerobic plate count
BHA butylated hydroxy anisole
BHT butylated hydroxytoluene
Ca Calcium
CFU Colony forming units
Cm Centi meter
CP Chickpea
Cu Copper
Difco Dehydrated Culture Media and Ingredients
DHA Docosahexaenoic
E.coli Escherichia coli
E.F Expressible fluid
EFEs Ethanolic flaxseed extract
EPA Ecosapentaenoic
E.O.S Egyptian organization for standardization
ERMC Extended restructured mutton chops
F1 Formula(1)
F2 Formula(2)
Fe Iron
FF Flaxseed flour
FO Flaxseed oil
FS Flaxseed
FSP Flaxseed powder
g/100g Gram per 100 gram
GA Gallic acid
GC Gas chromatography
G gram
gN Gram nitrogen
HPLC High performance liquid chromatography
H2SO4 Sulfuric acid
K Potassium
kcal/100 gm Kilo calories per 100 germ
Kg Kilogram
LDPE Low density polyethylene
M. equiv. O2 / kg fat Milli equivalent per kilogram fat
mg Milli gram
mg/100g Milli gram per 100 gram
Mg malonaldehyde/ kg Milli gram of malonaldehyde per kg
mg/kg Milli gram per Kilogram
LA Linoleic acid
Mn Manganese
mL
n-3: n-6 Milli litter
Omega -3: Omega-6
Na :Sodium
NaOH Sodium hydroxide
ND Not detected
N.F.E Nitrogen free extract
p < 0.05 Significance level of 0.05
P Phosphorus
PE Pomegranate peel extract
pH Potential hydrogen
PM Pumpkin pulp and seed mixture
PUFA Poly unsaturated fatty acid
PPM Part per million
PV Peroxide value
PUFA Polyunsaturated fatty acids
RB Rice bran
S Sulfur
SFA Saturated fatty acid
Se Selenium
TBA Thiobarbituric acid
TBC Total bacterial count
TBARS Thiobarbituric acid reactive substance
TPC Total plate count
T.S.N Total soluble protein nitrogen
TYM Total yeast and mold
UFA Un saturated fatty acid
V/V Volume per volume
WHC Water holding capacity
UV Ultraviolet
Zn Zinc
CONTENTS
No. Title page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………… I.
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………… II.
LIST OF FIGUAR…………………………………………... III.
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………… 1
2. AIM OF INVESTIGATION……………………………….. 6
3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………... 7
3.1. Historical background of non-meat ingredients…… 7
3.2.Beef meat………………………………………………... 7
3.2.1. Gross chemical composition of raw beef meat……... 7
3.2.2. Minerals of raw beef meat…………………………... 8
3.2.3. Fatty acid of raw beef meat…………………………. 8
3.2.4. Amino acid of raw beef meat………………………... 9
3.3. Non –meat ingredient products used in study……….. 9
3.3.1. flaxseed ………………………………………………. 9
3.3.1.1. Chemical composition of flaxseed……………………………... 11
3.3.1.2. Mineral content of milled flaxseed…………………………….. 12
3..3.1.3. Fatty acid composition of flaxseed……………………………. 12
3.3.1.4. Amino acid composition of flaxseed………………………… 13
3.3.2. chickpea flour………………………………………… 14
3.3.2.1. Chemical composition of chickpea flour………………………. 14
3.3.2.2. Minerals content of chickpea flour…………………………….. 15
3.3.2.3. Fatty acid composition of chickpea flour………………………. 16
3.3.2.4. Amino acid composition of chickpea flour…………………….. 16
3.3.3. pomegranate peel powder (Punica granatum)……… 17
3.3.3.1. pomegranate peels powder as an antioxidant…………………... 19
3.3.3.2. pomegranate peels powder as antimicrobial………………… 20
3.4. Effect of addition of non–meat ingredients on meat products properties…………………………………………. 21
3.4.1. Chemical composition………………………………………… 21
3.4.2. Physico-chemical ;properties………………………………… 23
3.4.3. Sensory properties…………………………………………….. 27
3.5. Effect of storage (refrigeration or freezing) on meat products quality…………………………………………… 29
3.5.1. Chemical composition………………………………………… 30
3.5.2. Physico-chemical properties…………………………………. 32
3.5.3. Microbiological quality………………………………………. 35
3.5.4. Sensory evaluation……………………………………………. 36
4. Materials and methods……………………………………. 38
4.1. Materials………………………………………………... 38
4.1.1. beef meat ………………………….………………...…………… 38
4.1.2. flaxseed …………………………………….…………………… 38
4.1.3. chickpea ……………………………………….………………… 38
4.1.4 Low-fat soy flour……………………………….………………… 38
4.1.5 pomegranate peel powder ………………………………………... 38
4.1.6 Spices……………………………………………………………... 39
4.1.7. Chemicals…………….………………………………………….. 39
4.2. Methods………………………………………………… 39
4.2.1. Technological methods………………………………. 39
4.2.1.1. Preparation of chickpea flour………………………………....... 39
4.2.1.2. Preparation of milled flaxseed…………………………………. 40
4.2.1.3. Preparation of pomegranate peel powder………………………. 40
4.2.1.4. Preparation of beef sausages samples………………………….. 40
4.2.2. Analytical methods…………………………………... 43
4.2.2.1. Chemical analysis………………………………….. 43
4.2.2.1.1. Moisture, crude protein, ash and crude fat contents…………. 43
4.2.2.1.2. Carbohydrate content………………………………………… 43
4. 2.2.1.3. Determination of crude fiber………………………………… 43
4.2.2.1.4. Caloric value (kcal/100g)…………………………………...... 44
4.2.2.1.5. Determination of minerals content of beef sausages………… 44
4.2.2.1.6. Determination of Amino acids composition of the prepared beef sausages……………………………………………………………. 44
4.2.2.1.6.1. Determination of tryptophan……………………………….. 45
4.2.2.1.7. Determination of fatty acids composition of the prepared beef sausages…………………………………………………………………. 45
4.2.2.1.7.1 Preparation of methyl ester of fatty acids…………………... 45
4.2.2.1.7.2. Gas liquid chromatography of methyl esters of fatty acids... 45
4.2.2.1.8. Determination of phenolic and flavonoid compounds in pomegranate peel powder………………………………………………. 46
4.2.2.2. Physico-chemical properties of the prepared beef sausages……………………………………………………… 46
4.2.2.2.1. PH value……………………………………………………… 46
4.2.2.2.2. Water holding capacity (W.H.C) ……………………………. 47
4.2.2.2.3. Cooking loss………………………………………………….. 47
4.2.2.2.4. Cooking yield………………………………………………… 47
4.2.2.2.5. Shrinkage…………………………………………………….. 47
4.2.2.2.6. Determination of Thiobarbituric acid value (TBA) of the prepared beef sausages………………………………………………….. 48
4.2.2.2.7. Determination of Peroxide Value of the prepared beef sausages…………………………………………………………………. 48
4.2.2.3. microbiological quality of the prepared beef sausages……………………………………………………… 48
4.2.2. 3.1. Sample preparation………………………………………….. 48
4.2.2.3.2. Total plate bacterial counts…………………………………... 49
4.2.2.3.3. Yeast and Mould counts (YMC)……………………………... 49
4.2.2.4. Sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages.. 49
4. 2.2.5. Economic evaluations of the prepared beef sausages………………………………………………………. 49
4.2.2.6. Statistical analysis of the prepared beef sausages 50
5. Results and Discussion……………………………………… 51
5.1. Proximate composition of raw material used in beef sausages preparation……………………………………………………………… 51
5.2. Effect of replacement of beef meat by milled flaxseed and chickpea flour of the prepared beef sausages quality properties…………………………………………………….. 52
5.2.1. Gross chemical composition and caloric value of the prepared beef sausages (dry weight basis)………………………………………… 52
5.2.2. Minerals content of the prepared beef sausages (dry weight basis)…………………………………………………………………….. 55
5.2.3. Amino acids profile of the two studied beef sausages formulas. 56
5.2.4. Fatty acids composition of the two studied beef sausages formulas………………………………………………………………….. 57
5.2.5. Physio-chemical properties of the prepared beef sausages……….. 61
5.2.6. Microbiological quality of the prepared beef sausages……….. 62
5.2.7. Sensory evaluation…………………………………………….. 63
5.2.8. Economic evaluations of the prepared beef sausages…... 64
5.3. Analysis of pomegranate peel powder………………… 65
5.3.1. HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds of pomegranate peel powder (mg/100g dry weight)…………………………………………… 65
5.3.2. HPLC analysis of flavonoids compounds of pomegranate peel powder (mg/100g dry weight)…………………………………………… 67
5.4. Effect of using naturel antioxidant (2%pomegranate peel powder) and refrigeration storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks on the prepared beef sausages quality properties…. 68
5.4.1. Gross chemical composition and caloric value of the prepared beef sausages……………………………………………….... 68
5.4.1.1. Moisture content…………………………………………….. 68
5.4.1.2. Protein content………………………………………………. 70
5.4.1.3. Crude fat content…………………………………………….. 72
5.4.1.4. Ash content…………………………………………………... 74
5.4.1.5. Carbohydrate content………………………………………... 76
5.4.1.6. Caloric value (kcal/100g)……………………………………. 78
5.4.2. Physio-chemical properties of the prepared beef sausages.. 79
5.4.2.1. pH value…………………………………………………….. 79
5.4.2.2. Water holding capacity (WHC) value……………………….. 81
5.4.2.3. Cooking loss…………………………………………………. 83
5.4.2.4. Cooking yield………………………………………………... 85
5.4.2.5. Shrinkage value…………………………………………….... 87
5.4.2.6. TBA values………………………………………………….. 89
5.4.2.7. Peroxide Value……………………………………………… 91
5.4.3. Microbiological quality of the prepared beef sausages……. 93
5.4.3.1. Total bacterial counts……………………………. 93
5.4.3.2. Yeast and mold counts………………………………………. 95
5.4.4. Sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages………… 97
5.5. Effect of using naturel antioxidant (2%pomegranate peel powder) and frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months of the prepared beef sausages quality properties… 102
5.5.1. Gross chemical composition and caloric value of the prepared beef sausages………………………………………………… 102
5.5.1.1. Moisture content…………………………………………….. 102
5.5.1.2. Protein content………………………………………………. 104
5.5.1.3. Crude fat content…………………………………………….. 106
5.5.1.4. Ash content…………………………………………………... 108
5.5.1.5. Carbohydrate content………………………………………... 109
5.5.1.6. Caloric value………………………………………………… 111
5.5.2. on Physio-chemical properties of the prepared beef sausages... 112
5.5.2.1. pH value…………………………………………………….. 112
5.5.2.2. Water holding capacity (WHC)……………………………... 114
5.5.2.3. Cooking loss…………………………………………………. 115
5.5.2.4. Cooking yield………………………………………………... 117
5.5.2.5. Shrinkage …………………………………………………… 118
5.10.6. TBA values…………………………………………………... 120
5.5.2.6. Peroxide value………………………………………………. 122
5.5.3. microbiological quality of the prepared beef sausages…... 123
5.5.3.1. Total bacterial counts…………………………………………… 123
5.5.3.2. Yeast and mold counts………………………………………….. 125
5.5.4. Sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages ……… 127
6 SUMMARY ……………………………………………………… 132
7 Conclusion……………………………………………………… 135
8 REFERENCES ………………………………………………… 136
9 ARABIC SUMMARY …………………………………………. 165
LIST OF TABLES
No.
Title page
Table (1) Basal beef sausages formula (100g)…………………….
40
Table (2) Suggested treatments of beef sausages formula / (1 Kg)...
41
Table (3) Meat replacer ratios and natural antioxidant used in beef sausages formulation……………………………………..
42
Table (4) Proximate composition of raw material used in beef sausages preparation (dry weight basis)………………….
43
Table (5) Chemical composition and caloric value of the prepared beef sausages (dry weight basis)………………………..
51
Table (6) Minerals content of the prepared beef sausages (mg/100g dry weight basis)…………………………………………
55
Table (7) Amino acids composition of the prepared beef sausages (g/ 100g protein)…………………………………………
57
Table (8) Fatty acid composition of the prepared of beef sausages (as % of total fatty acids)………………………………...
60
Table (9) Physiochemical properties of the prepared beef sausages at zero time………………………………………………
61
Table (10) Microbiological quality of the prepared beef sausages (cfu/g×104) at zero time…………………………………
63
Table (11) Sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages……… 64
Table (12) Economic evaluation of the prepared beef sausages (Egyptian pound/kg)……………………………………..
64
Table (13) HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds of pomegranate peel powder (mg/100g dry weight)……………………..
65
Table (14) HPLC analysis of flavonoids compounds of pomegranate peel powder (mg/100g dry weight)………………………
67
Table (15) Changes in moisture content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……………………………………………………...
69
Table (16) Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)……………………………………………...
71
Table (17) Changes in crude fat of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)……………………………………………………...
73
Table (18) Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)……………………………………...………
75
Table (19) Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)……………………………...….
77
Table (20) Changes in caloric value (kcal/100g) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)……………………………..…..
78
Table (21) Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during Refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…………..
80
Table (22) Changes in water holding capacity (WHC) (%bound water) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……………………..….
82
Table (23) Changes in cooking loss of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……
84
Table (24) Changes in cooking yield of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…....
86
Table (25) Changes in shrinkage value of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…....
88
Table (26) Changes in TBA value (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…………………………...…… 90
Table (27) Changes in peroxide value (m. equiv. / kg fat) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…………………………………..….
92
Table (28) Changes in total bacterial counts (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……………………………………...
94
Table (29) Changes in yeast and mold counts (cfu/g ×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…………………………………...…
96
Table (30) Changes in sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks………………………………………………...……
99
Table (31) Changes in moisture content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………………………….
103
Table (32) Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight basis)………………………………………….
105
Table (33) Changes in curd fat content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight basis)…………………………………………
107
Table (34) Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight)……………………………………………..…
108
Table (35) Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight basis)………………………….…
110
Table (36) Changes in caloric values (kcal/100g) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight)…………………………………………..
111
Table (37) Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months……...
113
Table (38) Changes in water holding capacity (WHC) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months……………………………………….…
114
Table (39) Changes in cooking loss percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………………………....
116
Table(40) Changes in cooking yield percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………………………...
117
Table (41) Changes in shrinkage percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months……………………………………………………
119
Table (42) Changes in thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months……………………………………………………
121
Table (43) Changes in peroxide value (m. equiv. / kg fat) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………...……..
122
Table (44) Changes in total bacterial counts (cfu/gx104) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months………………………………………..
124
Table (45) Changes in yeast and mold counts (cfu/g×104) count of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months………………………………….…
126
Table (46) Changes in sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months……………………………………………………
128
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
Title page
Figure (1) Changes in moisture content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…………………………………………………..
69
Figure (2) Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)……………………………….
71
Figure (3) Changes in crude fat of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)………………………………………
73
Figure (4) Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)………………………………………
75
Figure (5) Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)………………………………..
77
Figure (6) Changes in caloric value (kcal/100g) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)………………………….
79
Figure (7) Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during Refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
81
Figure (8) Changes in water holding capacity (WHC) (%bound water) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……………………....
83
Figure (9) Changes in cooking loss of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…
84
Figure (10) Changes in cooking yield of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks….
86
Figure (11) Changes in shrinkage value of the prepared beef sausages burger during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……………………………….………..
88
Figure (12) Changes in TBA values (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks………….
90
Figure (13) Changes in peroxide value (m. equiv. / kg fat) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……………………………………
92
Figure (14) Changes in total bacterial counts (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……………………………………
94
Figure (15) Changes in yeast counts (cfu/g ×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks…………………………………………….
96
Figure (16) Changes in mold counts (cfu/g ×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks……………………………………………
97
Figure (17) Changes in taste of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks……….……………….
100
Figure(18) Changes in odor of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks………………………..
100
Figure(19 Changes in texture of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks……………………...
101
Figure(20) Changes in color of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks…………………….….
101
Figure(21) Changes in overall acceptability of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks………..….
102
Figure (22) Changes in moisture content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months………………………………………………….. 104
Figure (23) Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight basis)…………………………..
106
Figure (24) Changes in curd fat content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight basis)…………………………..
107
Figure (25) Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight)……………………………………………
108
Figure (26) Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight basis)…………………………..
110
Figure (27) Changes in caloric values (kcal/100g) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight)………………………………...
112
Figure (28) Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…….
113
Figure (29) Changes in water holding capacity (WHC) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………..
115
Figure (30) Changes in cooking loss percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………………….
116
Figure(31) Changes in cooking yield percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months………………………………………….
118
Figure (32) Changes in shrinkage percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………………………...
119
Figure (33) Changes in thiobarbituric acid(TBA) values (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………………………..
121
Figure (34) Changes in peroxide value (m. equiv. / kg fat) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………... 123
Figure (35) Changes in total bacterial counts (cfu/gx104) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………
125
Figure (36) Changes in yeast and mold counts (cfu/g×104) count of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………………..
126
Figure (37) Changes in taste of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………… 129
Figure(38) Changes in odor of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months………………………….
129
Figure(39) Changes in texture of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………...
130
Figure(40) Changes in color of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…………………………...
130
Figure(41) Changes in overall acceptability of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months…...
131
1-Introduction
Meat and meat products are important sources for protein, fat, essential amino acids, minerals, vitamins and other nutrients (Biesalski, 2005). Most of the meat products produced today is based on traditional practices. These products are attractive to consumers because they offer a wide variety of colors, flavors, and textures (Ahmad and Amer, 2013). Sausage is one of the old meat products in which fresh comminuted meat are modified by processing methods to yield desirable organoleptic and keeping properties. Beef sausage is one of the most traditional meat products in Egypt and it is mostly produced from beef meat, fat tissues, dry rusk, salt and spices (Lin and Huang, 2008).
Foods, in fact, are not intended to only satisfy hunger and to provide basic nutritional requirements but also to prevent nutrition-related diseases and to improve physical and mental well-being of the consumers. Consumer demand for foods with greater beneficial effects, led food industries in increasing the production of functional foods that now represents a significant share of new food products. (Bernacchia et al., 2014).
In recent years, much attention has been paid to develop meat and meat products with physiological functions to promote health conditions and prevent the risk of diseases (El-Nashi et al., 2015).
With increase in the cost of meat, certain alternatives in processing technologies have become a necessity. This can be done by incorporation of a range of non-meat ingredients to alter taste, flavor, appearance, color, texture, water binding, counteracting fat separation and preservation besides reducing the cost and improving yield (Muthulakshmi, 2010).
The non-meat ingredients are used in meat products to improve the quality and reduce the cost of the products. These ingredients of very wide sources such as dairy, eggs, plants and microbial including probiotics are incorporated in these meat products (Xiong, 2012 and Yadav et al., 2013). These additives able to increase nutritional value, consumer acceptability and benefits to human health’s (Abdolghafour and Saghir, 2014).
The dietary fiber content of meat is low concentration and it can be added in meat products in order to improve the nutritive value and functional properties of meat. They also provide various health benefits such as reduced intestinal retention time, control of type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Talukder, 2015).
Dietary fibers are the key ingredient lacking in the meat and meat products and regular consumption of latter is being associated with various health disorders such as colon cancer, obesity and cardiovascular diseases (Tarrant, 1998 and Larsson and Wolk, 2006). Dietary fibers are the remnants of the edible part of plants and analogous carbohydrates that are resistant to digestion and absorption in the human small intestine (Prosky, 1999). Various reports have revealed that intake of fiber reduces the risk of such diseases (Johnson and Southgate, 1994). Hence, enrichment of meat products with dietary fibers from various sources would help to enhance their nutritional composition and desirability as well.
Incorporation of functional ingredients in meat product formulation has great importance for development of health meat products; on the other hand with negotiating the product quality to an acceptable limit (Yogesh et al., 2015).
Flax is an attractive nutrition crop because of the high content of alpha-linolenic acid in the flaxseed oil and its dietary fiber and high quality proteins. Flaxseed contains 40– 45% oil, 20–25% fiber, 20–25% proteins, and 1% lignans secoisolariciresinol diglucoside (Nykter and Kyma¨ la¨ inen, 2006).
Flaxseed is emerging as an important functional food ingredient because provides oil rich in omega-3, digestible proteins, and lignans. In addition to being one of the richest sources of α-linolenic acid oil and lignans, flaxseed is an essential source of high quality protein and soluble fiber and has considerable potential as a source of phenolic compounds (Oomah, 2001 and Pengilly, 2003).
Flaxseed can be used as a functional ingredient in emulsified meat products to improve emulsion properties such as emulsion stability, capacity and rheology (Kurt and Ceylan, 2018).
Pulses are known to be low in fat compared with oilseed grains. However, they contain mainly monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), and plant sterols (Havemeier et al., 2017). In addition, pulses contain some bioactive compounds, making them an important food for human health. Pulse intake was associated with a lower risk of coronary heart diseases (Singh et al., 2017), diabetes mellitus (Jenkins et al., 2012), overweightness and obesity as well as some types of cancers (Mollard et al., 2012).
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the most important pulse crops in world. It is an important pulse crop among the legumes and accounts for 12 % of the world production (Channe et al., 2014).
Consumers of chickpeas and/or hummus have been shown to have higher nutrient intakes of dietary fiber, polyunsaturated fatty acids, vitamin A, vitamin E, vitamin C, folate, magnesium, potassium, and iron as compared to non-consumers (Wallace et al., 2016).
Due to their good balance of amino acid, high protein bioavailability and relatively low levels of anti- nutritional factors, chickpea seed have been considered a suitable source of dietary proteins (Abou Arab et al., 2010).
The purpose of replacing part of the animal protein with vegetable protein is to increase the utilities and offer a product with proteins of high biological value and adequate functionality. It should be noted that the incorporation of meat extenders is not always to replace part of the animal protein, but also to replace much of the fat contained in the product (Albarracín and Acosta, 2010).
Oxidation of lipid and auto-oxidation are one of the major causes of quality deterioration and reduction of shelf life of meat products. This may produce changes in meat quality parameters such as color, flavor, odor, texture and even nutritional value (Fernandez et al., 1997).
Lipid oxidation leading to rapid quality deterioration and development of rancidity (Tichivangana and Morrissey, 1985). The rate and extent of oxidative deterioration can be reduced through various means such as curing vacuum, packaging, modified atmosphere packaging and most importantly addition of synthetic or natural antioxidants.(El-Nashi et al., 2015).
Although synthetic antioxidants such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and butylated hydroxy anisole (BHA) have been used extensively, recent studies have implicated them to have toxic effects (Lindenschmidt et al., 1986 and Shahidi et al., 1992).
Due to their high phenolic compound content, fruits, vegetables and other plant materials provide a good alternative to conventional natural antioxidants, and can serve as a source of natural antioxidants for meat products (Phillips et al., 1993; Slattery et al., 2000 and Karre et al., 2013).
Pomegranate fruit parts contain a high concentration of antioxidants (Sa, nchez-Zapata et al., 2011). The peel and rind are good sources of tannins anthocyanins, and flavonoids (Naveena et al., 2008).
Pomegranate components could be used as antioxidants in refrigerated chicken and goat patties and it is effective in inhibiting lipid oxidation and does not significantly affect the overall sensory attributes of the finished product (El-Nashi et al., 2015).
The current investigation was performed to evaluate the effects of partial replacement of beef meat with flaxseed or chickpea in beef sausages formulas as well as adding pomegranate peels as natural antioxidant. Moreover, evaluation the final product quality during cold and frozen storage.
2-Aim of investigation
This investigation was carried out to fulfill the following objects:
1- Replacement of beef meat by 10% milled flaxseed or 20% chickpea flour with addition of 2% pomegranate peel powder for preparing beef sausages.
2- Studying the quality properties of the prepared beef sausages.
3- Increasing the shelf life of the prepared product.
4- Reducing the final costs of the prepared product.
5- Studying the quality properties of the prepared beef sausages during the cold and frozen storage.
3- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
3 .1 Historical background
It has revitalized the interests not only in consumer, but also among researchers and meat food product processors to develop formulated products, which are “natural, functional and nutritional” as well. Functional meat products either possess nutritional ingredients that improve health or contain lesser quantity of harmful compounds like cholesterol and fat etc., (Yue, 2001). These products are generally produced by reformulation of meat by incorporating health producing ingredients like variety of fibers, protein, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), antioxidants etc. Meat products which contain dietary fibers are excellent meat substitutes due to their inherent functional and nutritional effects (Hur et al., 2009).
The non-meat ingredients are generally added in meat products to improve the quality attributes and functional properties. It was concluded based on literature that non-meat ingredients reduced the cost, improved the quality attributes and consumer acceptability of meat products.
(Abdolghafour and Saghir, 2014).
Incorporation of functional ingredients in meat product formulation has great importance for development of health meat products (Yogesh et al., 2015).
3.2. Beef meat
3.2.1. Gross chemical composition of raw beef meat
Abdl El-Aal (2016) reported that, gross chemical composition of fresh minced beef meat was moisture (73.66%). Meanwhile crude protein, crude fat and ash were 74.99, 16.69 and 4.53% (on dry weight basis), respectively.
Ali (2008) found that the chemical composition of frozen beef was 75.23% for moisture content, 73.47% for protein content, 14.85% for fat content and 6.12% for ash content (on dry weight basis).
Hashem (2011) reported that, the chemical composition of beef meat were moisture 65.67%, crude protein 53.89%, crude fat 40.49%, ash 2.71% and carbohydrate 2.91%.
3.2.2. Minerals of raw beef meat
The minerals content of the raw and dried beef meat for sodium, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, copper, manganese, zinc and iron content were 0.35 - 1.84%, 1.24 - 6.76%, 0.8- 3.45 %, 0.12 - 0.43%, 0.09 - 0.53%, 1.5 - 8.6%, 2.6 - 9.1%, 120 - 449%, and 132 - 443%, respectively (Oladejo and Adebayo-Tayo, 2011).
Williams et al. (2002) and Sinclair et al. (1999) reported that, the minerals composition of beef meat were sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium, phosphorus and copper 51, 363, 4.5, 1.8, 4.6, 25, 215 and 0.12 mg/100g, respectively. While selenium was 17 μg/100g.
3.2.3. Fatty acids of raw beef meat
About 80% of the fatty acid in beef is composed palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0), and oleic acid (C18:1). The remaining 20% is distributed among 30 different fatty acids. Inference of the health effect of fatty acids is based on experimental diets enriched with selected fatty acids. Oleic acid (C18:1) is the primary monounsaturated fatty acid in beef and accounts for about 33% of the fatty acid in beef. Available evidence indicates that while most saturated fatty acids raised serum cholesterol concentrations the monounsaturated oleic acid did not (Denke, 1994).
The major important polyunsaturated fatty acids found in beef are linoleic acid (C18:2) (about 3.5 %), alpha-linolenic acid (C18:3) (about 1.5%), arachidonic acid (C20:4) (about 1%), eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5) (<1%), docosanpentae noic acid (C22:5) (<1%) and ocosahexaenoic acid (C22:3) (<1%) as reported by Enser et al. (1998).
3.2.4. Amino acids of raw beef meat
Desimone (2011) reported that, the amino acid composition in beef meat were histidine 0.95; isoleucine 1.4 ; leucine 2.4; lysine 2.5; (methionine + cysteine)1. 2; (phenylalanine+ tyrosine) 2.1; threonine 1.2; tryptophan 0.2 ; valine 1.5.g/100g sample.
Wu et al. (2016) indicated that, the amino acid composition of round beef cut was alanine 44.5, arginine 51.0, asparagine 32.9, aspartate 40.3, cysteine10.8, glutamate 73.8, glutamine 73.8, glycine 33.3, histidine31.0, 4-hydroxyproline 1.74, isoleucine 40.5, leucine 65.1, lysine 70.4, methionine 24.8, phenylalanine 33.1, proline 31.5, serine 34.2, threonine 35.8, tryptophan 9.77, tyrosine 28.9, valine 46.9 mg/g dry weight.
3.3. Non –meat ingredients products used in this study
3.3.1. Flaxseed
The Latin name of flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) means “very useful”, and it has two basic varieties: brown and yellow or golden (Daun et al., 2003).
Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) is an important oilseed crop and its seeds are a valuable source of many bioactive compounds (Toure and Xueming, 2010). Flaxseed is one of the richest sources of alinolenic acid, an important source of high-quality protein and soluble fiber (Katare et al., 2012). Moreover, the seed contains phenolic compounds (Kasote, 2013) such as lignans, phenolic acids (p-coumaric, ferulic, p-hydroxybenzoic, caffeic, and sinapic acids) and their glucosides, as well as flavonoids (herbacetin and campherol diglucoside). Among the phenolic compounds, flax lignans are in focus because of their estrogenic/antiestrogenic and antioxidant activity (Sok et al., 2009). Therefore, flaxseeds and their products are used as a component of functional food (Oomah, 2001).
There has been an increasing interesting the use of proven functional ingredients with multidimensional health benefits in the product formulation in order to improve the nutritional and functional value of meat products. (Yogesh et al., 2015).
Flaxseed has recently gained attention as a functional food because of its unique nutrient profile. It is rich in lignans with high omega-3 fatty acid content. The phenolic compounds of interest that are accumulated in flaxseed include ferulic and vanillic acid (Siger et al., 2008).
Asccording to Valencia et al. (2008), linseed oil can be used successfully as enhancer in the manufacture of healthier functional meat products.
Fibers incorporation in frequently consumed foods (meat, dairy and bakery products) could help to overcome the fiber deficit. Dietary fiber plays a major role in the human diet, not only for its nutritional properties but also for its functional and technological properties (Choi et al., 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011). Fiber is suitable for meat products and it has previously been used in cooked meat products to increase the cooking yield due to its water and fat binding properties and to improve texture (Cofrades et al., 2000). The dietary fiber content of meat is low concentration and it can be added in meat products in order to improve the nutritive value and functional properties of meat. They also provide various health benefits such as reduced intestinal retention time, control of type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Talukder, 2015). The addition of fiber provides the functional property to meat products.
3.3.1.1. Gross chemical composition of flaxseed
An analysis of brown Canadian flax averaged 41% fat, 20% protein, 28% total dietary fiber, 7.7% moisture and 3.4% ash, which is the mineral-rich residue left after samples are burned. (Morris, 2007 and Rubilar et al., 2010).
Gaafar et al. (2010) found that, chemical composition of whole flaxseed (% on dry weight basis) was moisture 7.06, Oils 39.69, protein 24.87, carbohydrates 23.19, ash 3.51, fiber 8.74.
Flaxseed is a good source of oil, protein and fiber. It contains 40-45% oil, 20–25% fiber, 20–25% proteins, and 1% lignans (Rabetafika et al., 2011).
Flaxseeds are a source of many vitamins and minerals as calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. It is of great importance, being that a 30g portion of the seed constitutes 7% to 30% of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for these minerals (Singh et al., 2011).
Deepak et al. (2018) reported that, the proximate analysis of the plain flaxseed flour revealed moisture (6.71%), ash (3.55%), crude fat (41.3%), crude protein (25.3%), crude fiber (6.8%) and carbohydrate (16.34%).
Kelapure et al. (2018) found that, the proximate analysis of the flaxseed flour revealed moisture (5.51), protein (17.20), fat (38.22), minerals (3.33), fiber (8.09), carbohydrate (27.64).
3.3.1.2 Minerals of flaxseed
Lee et al. (1995) indicated that, mineral content of flaxseed were sodium (%) 0.08, potassium (%) 1.50, magnesium (%) 0.50, iron (ppm) 236, copper (ppm) 22, zinc (ppm) 91.
Flax Council of Canada (1997) found that, minerals in flaxseed was calcium 0.24 % , magnesium 0.43% , phosphorus 0.62 % , potassium 0.83% , copper 10 ppm , iron 50 ppm , manganese 30 ppm , sodium 270 ppm , zinc 40 ppm.
Minerals in flaxseed mg/100g were Calcium 236, Magnesium 431, Phosphorus 622, Potassium 831, Sodium 27, Zinc 4, Copper 1, Iron 5, Manganese 3 as reported by Mercier et al. ( 2014).
3.3.1.3. Fatty acids of flaxseed
Flaxseed has a unique fatty acid profile. It is high in polyunsaturated fatty acids (73% of total fatty acids), moderate in monounsaturated fatty acids (18%), and low in saturated fatty acids (9%). Linoleic acid, an omega-6 fatty acid, constitutes about 16% of total fatty acids, whereas a-linolenic acid constitutes about 57%, the highest of any seed oil (Ramcharitar et al., 2005).
DeClercq (2006) found that, the fatty acid composition of flaxseed (%) were palmitic acid C16:0 (5.2), steric acid C18:0 (3.4), oleic acid (omega-9) C18:1 (18.1), linoleic acid (omega-6) C18:2N-6 (15.0), linolenic acid (omega-3) C18:3N-3 (57.9).
Of all lipids in flaxseed (approximately 30%), 53% are α-linolenic acid (ALA), 17% linoleic acid (LA), 19% oleic acid, 3% stearic acid, and 5% palmitic acid, which provides an excellent n-6: n-3 fatty acid ratio of approximately 0.3 (Simopoulos, 2002). Therefore, the seed may be an alternative for supplying this fatty acid to populations concentrated in regions of the world where there is not large access to marine foods, which are the best sources of n-3 fatty acids (El-Beltagi et al., 2007).
Mercier et al. (2014) found that, the fatty acid composition of flax seed (g/100mg) were α-linolenic acid 22.8, Linoleic acid s 5.9, Oleic acid 7.3, Stearic acid 1.3 and Palmitic acid 2.1.
Flaxseed oil is one of the richest sources of α-linolenic acid (ALA) as reported by Abbasi et al. (2019).
3.3.1.4. Amino acids of flaxseed
Oomah and Mazza (1993) reported that, amino acid composition (g/100 g protein) of flaxseed were arginine 9.2, cystine 1.1, histidine 2.2, isoleucine 4.0, leucine 5.8, lysine 4.0, methionine 1.5, phenylalanine 4.6, threonine 3.6, tryptophan 1.8, valine 4.6.
Lee et al. (1995) found that, amino acid content (% as received) of flaxseed were methionine 0.37, cysteine 0.42, lysine 0.99, tryptophan 0.22, threonine 0.89, isoleucine 1.07, histidine 0.53, valine 1.43, leucine 1.43, arginine 2.23, phenylalanine 1.15.
Amino acids in flaxseed (g/100g proteins) were glutamic acid 19.6, aspartic acid 9.3 arginine 9.2, glycine 5.8, cysteine 1.1, histidine 2.2, isoleucine 4, leucine 5.8, lysine 4, methionine 1.5, proline 3.5, serine 4.5, threonine 3.6, tryptophan 1.8, tyrosine 2.3, valine 4.6 (El-Beltagi et al., 2007).
Flaxseed are rich in glutamic acid, arginine and aspartic acid as found by Chung et al. (2005).
3.3.2. Chickpea
Chickpea (Cicer arientum L.) is considered the 5th valuable legume in terms of worldwide economical standpoint and cheap source of legume protein which can be used as a substitute for animal protein (Pelletier, 1994 and Ionescu et al., 2009). It is a legume, grown in tropical and subtropical areas, that presents high potential as a functional ingredient for the food industry (Gamlath and Ravindran, 2009).
Due to their good balance of amino acid, high protein bioavailability and relatively low levels of anti-nutritional factors, chickpea seed have been considered a suitable source of dietary proteins. )Abou Arab et al., 2010).
Chickpea is the second-most important pulse crop in the world (after dry bean), covering 15% (10.2 million ha) of the area dedicated to pulse cultivation and accounting for 14% (7.9 million tons) of pulse production worldwide (FAOSTAT, http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx, 2012).
3.3.2.1. Gross chemical composition of chickpea
Chemical composition of raw chickpea flours (on dry weight) protein 24.63, fat 5.62, ash 3.30, crude fiber1.85, total carbohydrates 64.60 (Abou Arab et al., 2010).
Wani and Kumar (2014) found that, chemical composition of chickpea flour were moisture 8.40, ash 2.79, crude protein 24.61, crude fat 4.64, crude fibre 1.75, total carbohydrate 57.78.
Desalegn (2015) found that, Proximate Composition of chickpea flours(%) were moisture 7.69, protein 21.07, ash 2.70, fat 5.94, total carbohydrates 62.60, fiber 6.56, energy 388.12
Simona et al. (2015) studied the chemical composition of chickpea flour and reported that, moisture, g% 8.9, ash, g% 3.24, crude protein, g% 21.9,total lipids, g% 6.3, crude fibre g% 9.9 .
Dandachy et al. (2019) studied the chemical composition of chickpea flour and reported that, protein 18.9, fat 6.9, ash 0.2.9, moisture 9.46, total carbohydrates 59.99, total dietary fibers 14.70, crude fibers 0.12.
3.3.2.2. Minerals of chickpea
Mineral contents of chickpea seeds (mg/100 g dry weight basis) were Na 121, K 870, Ca 176, Mg 176, P 226, Mn 2.11, Zn 4.32, Cu 1.10, Fe 7.72 as reported by (Alajaji and El-Adawy, 2006).
Abou Arab et al. (2010) found that, mineral content of chickpea flour (mg/100 g) were potassium (K) 771.77, calcium (Ca) 156.13, sodium (Na) 107.34, magnesium (Mg) 152.58, copper (Cu) 0.98, iron (Fe) 6.85, zinc (Zn) 3.83.
Ghribi et al. (2015) found that, mineral content was calcium 187.25, 177.94; sodium 11.26, 7.35; manganese 15.53, 133.63; magnesium 3.88, 3.71; iron 51.11, 48.26, copper 0.7, 0.58 and zinc 4.18, 3.32. (mg/100g) for kabuli type and desi type chickpea flour, respectively.
Wallace et al. (2016) found that, mineral content of chickpea flour (mg/100 g) were calcium mg 57, Iron mg 4.31, magnesium mg79, phosphorus mg 252, potassium mg 718, sodium mg 24, zinc mg 2.76, copper mg 656, manganese mg 21.306.
3.3.2.3. Fatty acids of chickpea
Baker et al. (2002) reported that, fatty acid of chickpea seeds (wt-% of total elute) were myristic 0.3, palmitic 12.7, palmitoleic.0.1, stearic 1.5, oleic 19.3, 62.9, linolenic 3.3.
Chickpea is composed of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; ~ 66%), monounsaturated fatty acids (~19%) and ~ 15% saturated fatty acids. Chickpea is relatively a good source of nutritionally important PUFA, linoleic acid (51.2 %; LA) and monounsaturated oleic acid (32.6%; OA). Chickpea has higher amounts of linoleic and oleic acid compared to other edible pulses as reported by Jukantil et al. (2012).
Wang and Daun (2004) reported that, fatty acid of chickpea seeds were linolenic 3.15, 2.69; linoleic 61.62, 51.20; oleic 22.31,32.56; stearic 1.16,1.42; palmitoleic 0.26, 0.30; palmitic 9.09, 9.41; myristic 0.22, 0.21; lauric 0.02, -; arachidic 0.51, 0.66; gadoleic 0.50, 0.57; eicosadienoic 0.12, 0.06 ; behenic 0.42, 0.37; erucic 0.13,0.07; lignoceric -, 0.17 %for Desi type and Kabuli type chickpea flour, respectively.
Dandachy et al. (2019) reported that, fatty acid of chickpea seeds (as%) were palmitic acid C16:0 12.21, palmitoleic acid C16:1 0.26, stearic acid C18:0 4.86, oleic acid C18:1 24.20, linoleic acid C18:2 56.26, linolenic acid C18:3 2.31.
3.3.2.4. Amino acids composition of chickpea
Alajaji and El-Adawy (2006) indicated that, the amino acid composition of chickpea seeds (g/16gN) was isoleucine 4.1, leucine 7.0, lysine 7.7, cystine 1.3, methionine 1.6, total sulfur amino acids 2.9, tyrosine 3.7, phenylalanine 5.9, total aromatic amino acids 9.6, threonine 3.6, tryptophan1.1, valine 3.6, total essential amino acids 39.6, histidine 3.4, arginine 10.3, aspartic acid 11.4, glutamic acid 17.3, serine 4.9, proline 4.6, glycine 4.1, alanine 4.4, total non-essential amino acids 60.4, leucine/isoleucine ratio1.7:1.
Chickpea proteins are considered suitable source of dietary protein due to excellent balance of essential amino acid composition as reported by Zhang et al. (2007).
Abou Arab et al. (2010) found that, amino acids of chickpea (g/100g protein) leucine 7.59, isolucine 4.76, lysine 6.00, methionine 1.54, phenyl alanine 5.57, therionine3.89, valine 5.60, cystine 1.36, tyrosine3.58, alanine 4.88, alanine 7.82, aspartic acid 11.18, glutamic acid 18.05, glycine 4.30, histidine 2.96, proline 4.68, serine 4.77.
Hefnawy et al. (2012) indicated that, the amino acid composition of chickpea flour (g/16gN) arginine 8.3, histidine 3.0, isoleucine 4.8, leucine 8.7, lysine 7.2, methionine 1.1, phenylalanine 5.5, threonine 3.1, tryptophan 0.9, valine 4.6, alanine 4.8, aspartic acid 11.0, cystine 0.6, glutamic acid 17.3 glycine 3.7, proline 3.8, serine 3.7, tyrosine 3.0.
Ghribi et al. (2015) found that, amino acid (mg/100g protein) were histidine 3.27, 2.70; leucine 4.24, 2.48; lysine 7.25, 7.63 methionine 1.41, 1.14; phenylalanine 5.84, 4.53threonine 4.02, 4.02; valine 4,69, 3.20; alanine 4.11, 3.52; aspartic acid 10.73, 11 .30; glutamic acid 14.90,; glycine 3.90,3.90 and 16.71; tyrosine 2.87, 6.93; arginine 8.90, 8.84; proline 3.63, 2.95 serine 5.40,7.33 for Desi type Kabuli type chickpea flour, respectively.
3.3.3. Pomegranate peels powder
In recent years, much attention has been paid to develop meat and meat products with physiological functions to promote health conditions and prevent the risk of diseases. Oxidation of lipid and auto-oxidation are one of the major causes of quality deterioration and reduction of shelf life of meat products. This may produce changes in meat quality parameters such as color, flavor, odor, texture and even nutritional value (Fernandez et al., 1997).
The rate and extent of oxidative deterioration can be reduced through various means such as curing, vacuum packaging, modified atmosphere packaging and most importantly addition of synthetic or natural antioxidants. Although synthetic antioxidants such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and butylated hydroxy anisole (BHA) have been used extensively, recent studies have implicated them to have toxic effects (Lindenschmidt et al., 1986 and Shahidi et al., 1992).
In response to recent claims that synthetic antioxidants have the potential to cause toxicological effects and consumers’ increased interest in purchasing natural products, the meat and poultry industry has been seeking sources of natural antioxidants. Due to their high phenolic compound content, fruits, vegetables and other plant materials provide a good alternative to conventional natural antioxidants, and can serve as a source of natural antioxidants for meat products (Phillips et al., 1993; Slattery et al., 2000 and Karre et al., 2013).
Parts of pomegranate fruit contain high concentrations of bioactive compounds (Li et al., 2006 and Naveena et al., 2008a) reported that pomegranate peel had the highest antioxidant activity among the fruit parts (peel, pulp and seed) of 28 fruits. Pomegranate peel and rind are sources of tannins, anthocyanins, and flavonoids (Naveena et al., 2008b). Pomegranate peels extracts were inhibited the growth of several foodborne pathogens (Agourram et al., 2013). Studies reported the efficacy of pomegranate extracts against the growth of Gram positive, and Gram negative bacteria (Rani and Khullar, 2004). Pomegranate fruit parts contain a high concentration of antioxidants (Sa´ nchez-Zapata et al., 2011).
According to Karre et al. (2013), pomegranate components could be used as antioxidants in refrigerated chicken and goat patties. Pomegranate is effective in inhibiting lipid oxidation and does not significantly affect the overall sensory attributes of the finished product.
El-Nashi et al. (2015) found that, prepared beef sausage samples containing pomegranate peels powder recorded high cooking quality and sensory characteristics in comparison with control beef sausage samples.
3.3.3.1. Pomegranate peels powder as an antioxidant
Pomegranate peels or rind powder and pomegranate seeds are reported to possess significant antioxidant activity due to their polyphenolic compounds. Use of pomegranate peels powder as natural antioxidant in chicken and goat meat products had been investigated (Naveena et al., 2008a and Devatkal et al. 2010).
Kanatt et al. (2010) found that, addition of pomegranate peel extract (PE) to popular chicken meat products enhanced its shelf life by 2–3 weeks during chilled storage. PE was also effective in controlling oxidative rancidity in these chicken products
The inhibitory effect of pomegranate peels powder on lipid oxidation might be related to its phenolic constituents and other biochemical compounds that mainly contribute to the antioxidant activity, (Zhang et al., 2010 and Jia et al., 2012).
El-Nashi et al. (2015) reported that, addition of pomegranate peels powder reduced the rate of increase of TBA values, especially at concentration of 2% and 3% in prepared beef sausage samples containing 0%, 1%, 2%, and 3% pomegranate peels powder .Therefore, pomegranate peels powder could be used as a natural antioxidant for preventing lipid oxidation in meat products.
Abdel Fattah et al. (2016) found that, the positive effect of addition of pomegranate peels powder as a natural antioxidant source was noticed with significant differences (P≤0.05) in TBARS values of different prepared beef burger samples containing 1, 2 and 3% pomegranate peels powder compared to the control sample.
3.3.3.2. Pomegranate peels powder as antimicrobial
Kanatt et al. (2010) concluded that, the results of microbiological analyses (TVC, PTC) confirmed that pomegranate peel extract used in silver carp fillet leads to a reduction in microbial contamination during refrigerated storage.
Agourram et al. (2013); Al-Zoreky (2009) and Kanatt et al. (2010) evaluated the antimicrobial characteristics of pomegranate peels and they found that pomegranate peels have an inhibition effect against gram positive and gram negative bacteria.
El-Nashi et al. (2015) indicated that, E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella sp. (as pathogenic criteria) were not detected in all prepared beef sausage samples containing 0%, 1%, 2% and 3% of pomegranate peels powder. On the other hand, the obtained data revealed that, the other prepared beef sausage samples which contained different concentrations of pomegranate peels powder (1%, 2% and 3%) showed a progressive reduction in total bacterial count over the time of storage period; where, total plate counts of prepared beef sausages samples contained 1%, 2% and 3% of pomegranate peels powder reached 2.93, 2.71 and 2.54 log cfu/g. These results could be due to the antimicrobial effect of pomegranate peels powder especially when the concentration of pomegranate peels powder was increased.
Abdel Fattah et al. )2016) mentioned that, the prepared beef burger, which contained different ratios of pomegranate peels powder (1, 2 and 3%) showed a progressive reduction in total bacterial counts over the time of refrigerated storage period compared with control. Beside, results should be mentioned that E.coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella sp. (as pathogenic criteria) were not detected in all prepared beef burger samples containing 0, 1, 2 and 3% of pomegranate peels powder.
3.4. Effect of addition of non–meat ingredients on meat products properties
3.4.1. Chemical composition
Valencia et al. (2008) studied cooked pork sausages substituted with 15% linseed oil and reported a n-6/n-3 ratio of 1.64. Cooking increased the SFA content and decreased the PUFA content of beef patties. This decrease was most marked in the 18:2n-6c and 18:2n-3 of patties with added flaxseed flour. The increase in SFA and decrease in PUFA could be attributed to the oxidation of PUFA during cooking because, heat catalyses the initiation of lipid peroxidation and the formation of oxidation products.
Bilek and Turhan (2009) found that, addition of flaxseed flour decreased the moisture and protein contents and increased the fat, Ash, carbohydrate and energy value contents of raw beef patties with increased flaxseed flour. The addition of flaxseed progressively increased the PUFA/SFA ratio and decreased the n-6/n-3 ratio leading to values closer to those considered optimal.
Asmare and Admassu (2013) reported that, With increasing levels of chickpea flour from 0 to 20% and to 30%, moisture content significantly (P < 0.05) decreased while, the mineral components of chickpea-blended dry fermented sausages were significantly (P < 0.05) increased compared to the sausage batter. There was also an increase in energy values, protein, carbohydrate and the fiber contents with higher levels of chickpea flour in the sausage batter formulation.
Novello and Pollonio (2013) found that, in raw beef patties, the addition of 5.0% golden flaxseed flour (FF) or seed (FS) increased the ash, protein, and carbohydrate contents. However, the addition of 5.0% golden flaxseed oil (FO) is the ingredient that more increased the lipid content (P<0.05), followed by the flour and seed. The control formulation (FC) showed the lowest lipid content and also increased the ash content in FF and FS samples. According to Trucom (2006), flaxseed and its derivatives are high in fat, which explains the increased lipid contents in FO, FF, and FS. The addition of golden flaxseed flour, oil, and seed decreased the moisture content in raw and grilled beef patties (P<0.05), due to the increased amount of dry matter in the formulations.
Sharma et al. (2014) found that, addition of flaxseed flour (FF) increased the fat content of product significantly due to higher fat content of FF (37.13%).
Owon et al. (2014) prepared low–fat beef burger by partial replacement (2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10%) chickpea flour as fat replacer and they found a significant decreases (P≤ 0.05) in fat content and caloric value by increasing chickpea replacement levels. Regarding to protein, ash and carbohydrates content, data show an increase in there contents of all treatments comparing with control.
Addition of flax seed powder has been associated with reduction (P <0.05) in moisture content while fat, carbohydrate and ash contents were increased (Yogesh et al., 2015).
Kumar et al. (2017) reported that, there was significant difference (p _ 0.01) in dietary fiber content of control and treatment products, the value being higher for 8 percent flaxseed flour-incorporated in mutton nuggets product.
3.4.2. Physico-chemical characteristics
Desmond et al. (1998) studying addition of functional ingredient based on carbohydrates to low-fat beef burger formulae found that most adjuncts increased the water holding capacity(WHC) by comparison with the full-fat (23% fat),control, which had the lowest WHC (26.15%). Likewise, they reported that burger containing oat fiber had significant reduced shear values.
Chen et al. (2004) reported that, flaxseed had good water holding capacity (WHC). There was a non-significant decrease in pH values as the levels of flaxseed flour increased.
Blackeye bean and chickpea flours added at 10% to low-fat beef meatballs did not show significant differences in TBA values before cooking (Serdaroğlu et al., 2005).
Mohamed (2012) noticed that, during 6 months of frozen storage at– 18oC for chicken burger, spices and herbs additives incorporation, the moisture, protein contents for all treated samples were lower than that of control sample. Significant decrease in the moisture and crude protein contents while, significant increase in the crude fat, ash, total carbohydrate contents of different treatments compared to the control sample were found.
Bilek and Turhan (2009) reported that, addition of flaxseed flour did not significantly affect the pH values of raw and cooked beef patties. The addition of flaxseed flour improved the cooking loss in beef patties.
Kohajdova et al. (2011); Sanjeewa et al. (2010); Modi et al. (2004); Dzudie et al. (2002); Elhardallou and Walker (1993) in which legumes were reported to be added to various food products including meats to increase the WHC and yield as well as decrease cooking losses.
Asmare and Admassu (2013) reported that, did not found any significant differences in the pH of pulverized beef mixtures with chickpea flour. During fermentation, the pH values in all sausage batter started to fall very fast between 24 and 48 h, with respect to the increase in blending ratio of chickpea flour. On the other hand, the initial mean acid values of the sausage batters before fermentation were between 0.25 (control) and 0.29 (20% CP). They concluded that, higher yield was obtained from the dry fermented sausages processed by blending of chickpea flour at 30% with meat.
Novello and Pollonio (2013) found that, adding 5.0% golden flaxseed flour (FF) or seed (FS) reduced the pH of the raw samples, while in the grilled beef patties only FF showed lower pH than control(P<0.05).
Sharma et al. (2014) stated that, flaxseed gum is a hydrocolloid with good water-holding capacity (WHC), owing to its marked swelling capacity and high viscosity in aqueous solution.
Waszkowiak and Rudzin´ska (2014) concluded that, Both defatted meals and aqueous extracts from flaxseeds show an antioxidant effect towards lipids during storage of meat products in a freezer.
Ibrahium et al. (2015) found that, the partial replacement of beef fat with flaxseed oil (FO) and ascending levels of rice bran (RB) greatly improved the cooking yield and cooking shrinkage of burger samples as well as their moisture retention and fat retention. The observed improvement was pronounced with increasing level of the added bran fibers. Cooking yield% of beef burger samples containing FO/RB at different levels was higher (82.21 - 89.41%) than control sample (75.77%). Cooking shrinkage % of beef burger samples containing FO/RB formulations were lower (24.44 - 30.24%) than control sample (35.68%). This may be due to add bran fibers to emulsion meat products, which caused the reduction of cooking loss due to its water and fat binding properties and to enhance texture. A slight decrease in the pH values of burger samples when compared with pH value of control sample while, water holding capacity (WHC) of beef burger samples increased (from 80.22 to 81.20%) by increasing flaxseed oil/ rice bran (FO/RB) level, but less than value of control sample (83.36%). On other hand, total bacterial, mold and yeast counts of beef burger samples significantly decreased (P<0.05) with increasing the replacement level of beef fat by FO/RB, which may be due to the reducing of free water resulting from the high water binding capacity of bran fibers.
Motamedi et al. (2015) reported that, the lowest shrinkage was recorded in the treatment with 12% chickpea and lentil flour. As in the case of diameter reduction (19.60%), the highest ‘‘thickness increase” (34.01%) was observed in the control hamburger. The controls had the lowest pH (5.88) and the samples with 12% chickpea (6.04) and lentil flours had the highest pH(6.05).
Yogesh et al. (2015) reported that, incorporation of flaxseed powder (FSP) up to 5 % did not alter most of the technological or physico-chemical properties of raw and cooked meat batter. However, the TBARs values, redness values and most sensory scores were lower in FSP incorporated samples which might be due to the high mono and polyunsaturated fatty acid content of FSP.
Shariati -levari et al. (2016) found that, burgers containing micronized chickpea flour had significantly higher pH than burgers containing non micronized chickpea flour.
Kumar et al. (2017) prepared that, mutton nuggets product and indicated that, there was no significant difference (p - 0.05) between the cooking yield of control and treatment products, although gradual increasing trend was observed with increase in the incorporation level of flaxseed flour. It might be due to higher dry matter content in flaxseed flour as compared to the lean meat in control.
Deepak et al. (2018) mentioned that, the pH and TBARS values represent stability and found to be low in flaxseed fortified chicken nuggets.
Kurt and Ceylan (2018) indicated that, flaxseed can be used as a functional ingredient in emulsified meat products to improve emulsion properties such as emulsion stability, capacity and rheology of beef.
3.4.3. Sensory properties
Sensory evaluation is an important factor in judging about food stuffs quality. Also, consumer is a major factor for selecting a product and among the main characteristics related to product quality are color, odor, taste and texture (Pereira et al., 2013 and Akesowan, 2015).
Verma et al. (1984) found that, fresh skinless sausages were prepared in which some of the meat (mutton, pork or beef) was replaced by a protein of chickpea flour. The acceptability of mutton sausages containing chickpea flour was not affected at levels of substitution up to 40%, whereas pork and beef sausages were significantly less acceptable when substituted with more than 30%. In all the sausages incorporation of chickpea flour led to increase cooking losses and softer textures. Incorporation of chickpea flour caused discoloration of the raw sausages, which became more prominent during storage at 0º C.
Acceptability of low-fat meatballs extended with a variety of pulse flours at a level of 10% were rated as “liked moderately” for appearance, texture, flavor, and overall palatability by a small group of trained evaluators (Serdaroğlu et al., 2005).
Bilek and Turhan (2009) concluded that, generally, the sensory scores of samples decreased with more than 6% flaxseed addition in beef patties. Thus, flaxseed flour could be added to enhance the nutritional value and health benefits of beef patties with minimal changes in composition and/or sensory properties.
Holliday et al. (2011) found that, cooking losses were significantly reduced in beef patties with pulse flours compared to patties with no pulse flours concluding that this factor demonstrated a juicier patty.
Owon et al. (2014) prepared low - fat beef burger by partial replacement (2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10%) chickpea flour as fat replacer and they indicated that, no significant differences (P≤ 0.05 on sensory evaluation were found among replacement treatments and control sample. On other hand, an increase in water holding capacity WHC with increasing chickpea flour replacement level as well as a decrease in cooking loss.
Sharma et al. (2014) reported that, textural profile analysis revealed a significant increase in hardness with replacement of lean meat with flaxseed flour which was probably due to increased shear force value of product and binding strength, which indicates binding efficiency of flaxseed flour.
Yogesh et al. (2015) indicated that, the sensory scores of cooked meat batter were decreased as the flaxseed content increased (P <0.05) and at 5 % FSP level product was moderately acceptable. Therefore, 5 % FSP level is considered optimum for use as an enhancer to the nutritive value in meat batter.
Shariati -levari et al. (2016) concluded that, the pulse flours were added to low-fat beef burgers at 6% and measured for consumer acceptability and physicochemical properties. Formulation of low-fat beef burgers containing 6% micronized gluten-free binder made from lentil and chickpea flour is possible based on favorable results for physicochemical properties and consumer acceptability.
Deepak et al. (2018) concluded that, 2.5 percent addition of flaxseed has increased the nutritive value of chicken nuggets without much affecting the sensory acceptability of the product and increased level leads to sensory rejection.
Kurt and Ceylan (2018) reported that, flaxseed can be used as a functional ingredient in emulsified meat products to improve emulsion properties such as emulsion stability, capacity and rheology.
Torres et al. (2018) studied the effect of chickpea flour (Cicer Arietinum L.) on cooking during chorizos frying. For this purpose, four treatments were evaluated: T1, T2, T3 and T4 with incorporation of chickpea flour at 0%, 3%, 6%, and 9%, respectively. The sensory evaluation was carried out with 30 untrained panelists. It was reported that the best degree of acceptance of color, odor and fattyness was for T4 (9%), and for the taste it was T1. All treatments had significant statistical differences for cooking losses; that is, chickpea flour influenced this characteristic, obtaining better results (6%) treatment. The use of chickpea flour in meat sausages can be beneficial for both the consumer and the food industry, obtaining proteins of high biological value and affordable costs.
3.5. Effect of storage (Refrigeration & freezing) on beef sausages quality
Oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids occurs extensively during refrigerated storage of beef, poultry and fish meat. It is considered a major cause of meat quality deterioration. Undesirable changes in color, flavor and nutritive value occur as meat lipid are oxidized (Sklan and Tenne, 1983).
Mohammed (2006) reported that, there are various forms of meat such as fresh meats, cured meats, sausage products, canned meats, pickled meats and fermented meat products. Because of difference in production, processing and composition of these products different microbiology problems are encountered in them. The microbiology of meat is highly dependent on the conditions under which animals are reared, slaughtered and processed. Any additional handling such as the preparation of individual cuts may increase the bacterial load, resulting primarily from contact with contaminated equipment and utensils. It is important to keep microorganisms at low for reasons of aesthetics, public health and product’s shelf - life (Jay, 1996a).
3.5.1. Effect of storage on gross chemical composition
Moawad (1995) found that, frozen storage of beef samples at -20˚C for 3 months was accompanied by losses in protein content by about 10.6%. Such findings could be explained by the loss of soluble nitrogen compounds in drip taking into consideration that the level of drip loss during thawing increased with advancement of frozen storage.
El-Naggar (1999) studied the production and evaluated of low fat meat products and he found that, during frozen storage the total carbohydrates increased for all treatments. This probably might be due to losses in either moisture or protein content
Abd-El-Qader (2003) found that, moisture content of chicken burger formulated by some spices, herbs and their volatile oils decreased slightly, slight losses in protein contents as well as slight increases in the fat and ash contents during frozen storage period at -18ºC for 6 months.
Ali (2008) found that, protein content of the uncooked low-fat beef burger samples at zero time storage ranged from 60.3 to 61.4% ( on dry weight basis) and decreased with the progression of frozen storage at -20˚C for 3 months to59.4 - 60.3% (on dry weight basis).
Hashem (2011) reported that, frozen storage resulted in decreasing moisture content in all treatments whether high or low-fat beef burger continuously as the time of storage increased till 3 months with a significant statistical difference. Protein content decreased as the levels of fat replacers increased. However, by advancement of frozen storage, the protein content of all treatments was decreased with a significant statistical difference. All treatments containing additives ingredients as fat replacers had the highest significant difference for ash content when compared to control. Fat content of all treatments was increased as long as frozen storage period increased with a significant statistical difference on the expense of losses in moisture and protein percentage. The total carbohydrate increased for all treatments with a significant difference in comparison between treatments and time of frozen storage. With advancement of frozen storage time, the caloric value of all treatments increased with a significant statistical difference.
The reduction of protein content of prepared beef sausage samples during storage period could be explained by the loss of soluble and volatile amino compounds associated protein with the loss of water content of beef sausage samples (El-Nashi et al., 2015).
Girgis et al. (2015) found that, the moisture content for fresh and frozen sausage samples decreased by increasing palm olein substitute ratio from zero to 100% from the fatty materials (15gr). Moisture content decreased from 62.30 to 60.52% for the control sample (100% sheep fat tail) at zero time and after three months from frozen storage, respectively. Crude protein in the fresh sausage (zero time), slightly decreased by increasing palm olein substitute ratio .Also, crude protein of all treatments slightly decreased by increasing frozen storage period to 3 months The percentage of ash for all sausage samples increased gradually with increasing time of storage. Carbohydrates increased by increasing frozen storage time during the storage (3 months) for all sausage samples.
3.5.2. Effect of storage on physico-chemical properties
Water holding capacity (WHC) is considered as one of the very important technological properties of meat as it affects the tenderness, juiciness, thawing drip and cooking yield of meat and meat products. The larger the (W.H.C) value, the smaller the zoom area which absorbs the water released from meat on pressing (Labuza and Busk, 1979).
Abd-El-Qader (2003) studied the changes of peroxide values (PV) of spiced chicken burgers and control sample during frozen storage at -18ºC up to 4 months, and he found that, the peroxide values (PV) were gradually increased with increasing storage period especially at the end of storage period.
Hegazy (2004) found that, replacement of 10 and 20% hens meat with soy flour found to improved WHC of the prepared sausage more than control.
Cooking loss of all samples increased during frozen storage for 3 months. The cooking yield decreased with increasing frozen storage time. Cooking losses of sausages decreased with decreasing in fat level, (EmelCengiz and NalanGokoglu, 2007).
Hashem (2011) found that, as the time of storage increased, there were a significant statistical decrease in the WHC of all treatments in comparison between each treatment and time of storage, while the pH values gradually increased with no significant statistical difference in comparison between each treatment and time of storage except in the treatment which had carragenan at 0.3%, 0.5%. pH values increased for all samples till the end of storage period.
As frozen storage time increased the shrinkage values increased for all treatments with a significant statistical difference in comparison between each treatment and time of storage. By advancement of frozen storage the cooking loss of all formulae was increased with a significantly statistical increased in comparison between each treatment and time of storage
Mohamed (2012) concluded that, change of peroxide and (TBA) values of spiced chicken burgers and control sample during frozen storage at -18ºC up to 6 months. The data revealed that peroxide values (PV) took the same trend of (TBA) values. Also, peroxide values (PV) and (TBA) in all chicken burger treatments tended to significant increase with the progressive of frozen storage period. the addition of spices and herbs at level 1% caused decrement in (PV) and (TBA) values in fresh chicken burger compared with chicken burger formulated with spices and herbs at level 0.5% and unspiced one (control).
Sharma et al. (2014) found that, there was non-significant increase in pH values of control and treatment extended restructured mutton chops products with increase in storage period due to degradation of carbohydrates present in the bind enhancing agents. However, a significantly higher pH (p<0.01) was observed in the control than in the treatment product. Acidic nature of flaxseed flour could be the contributory factor for reduction in pH of treatment product. Mean score values for TBARS showed a significant increase (p<0.05) in values for both control and treatment product (ERMC) with increasing storage period.
Waszkowiak et al. (2014) reported that, lipid oxidation is a major factor that causes deterioration of meat product quality during frozen storage. At the beginning of meatball storage, the rapid increase of lipid oxidation was observed. The highest PVs were recorded after 60-day and 90-day storage and they rapidly decreased then. The increase of TBARS content was detected in all samples after 60 days of storage and again in the control after 120 days. However, the addition of extracts exhibit antioxidant (EFEs) significantly limited lipid oxidation in stored meatballs and burgers.
As the storage period increased, the WHC of different prepared beef sausage was non-significantly decreased during all storage periods. The plasticity of control beef sausage samples was significantly affected and decreased during storage period (El-Nashi et al., 2015).
Ibrahium et al. (2015) studied the partial replacement of beef fat with flaxseed oil (FO) and ascending levels of rice bran (RB) and found that, TBA contents of all beef burger samples gradually increased during frozen storage up to 3 months. The partial replacement of beef fat with flaxseed oil and ascending levels of rice bran resulted in continuously increased pH value in all beef burger patties during frozen storage at - 18 ± 2°C for 3 months while, continuously reduced WHC values in all beef burger samples with extending of the frozen storage periods as the result of breakdown hydrogen bonding between the water molecules and gross chemical components of beef burgers. The cooking yield values decreased with increasing frozen storage period in all burger samples. Regarding, cooking shrinkage which is considered one of the most important physical quality changes that occurs in beef burgers during cooking process due to protein denaturation and releasing of fat and water from beef burger patties. In addition, cooking shrinkage % increased linearly for all beef burger samples during frozen storage, but it was more evident in control sample than other samples containing FO/RB.
Girgis et al. (2015) reported that, WHC values for all treatments slightly increased with increasing palm olein substitution. On the other hand, WHC values of all sausage treatments decreased by advancement of storage period. The loss of WHC during storage may be attributed to protein denaturation and loss of protein solubility (Osheba et al., 2013).
Abd El-Aal (2016) noticed that, there was a continuous decrease in the pH value of all smoked beef sausages samples during cold storage periods at (4˚C±1) up to three months.
3.5.3. Effect of storage on microbiological quality
El-Khateib et al. (1988) found that, the total bacterial count of chicken Products as sausage, burger, luncheon and frankfurter was 107, 107, 106 and 106 respectively, while S. aureus was isolated from the same products at incidence of 40%, 70% 20% and 40%, respectively.
Sharma et al. (2014) concluded that, on the basis of physico-chemical characteristics and sensory scores of the products, 1% level of incorporation was selected as optimum level for the preparation of extended restructured mutton chops (ERMC) and could be successfully added as bind enhancing agent. Products incorporated with the optimum level of flaxseed flour (1%) were assessed for microbiological quality and it was found that they could be safely stored under refrigeration (4°C±1°C) in LDPE pouches for 15 days without marked deterioration in sensory and microbiological quality. Total plate count followed a significant increasing trend (p<0.05) from 0 to 15th day of refrigerated storage in treatment product as well as control; however these counts were well below the permissible limit i.e. log107 cfu/g for cooked meat products (Jay, 1996b) There was no significant difference (p>0.05) noticed in TPC between control and ERMC incorporated with flaxseed flour except on 10th day of storage period where TPC of the treatment product was comparatively lower (p>0.05) than that of control. However, like PC, TPC of control and treatment product always remained below log105.33 cfu/g which is indicative of unacceptability of cooked meat products (Cremer and Chipley, 1977).
Ibrahium et al. (2015) indicated that, microbiological quality criteria of different beef burger formulations were affected by partial replacement of beef fat with flaxseed oil and ascending levels of rice bran at either initial time or at any frozen storage period. it is clear that the total bacterial, psychrophilic bacteria, coliform bacteria group, mold and yeast counts of beef burger samples significantly decreased (P<0.05) with increasing the replacement level of beef fat by FO/RB, which may be due to the reducing of free water resulting from the high water binding capacity of bran fibers (Oroszvári et al., 2006). Also, the count of microorganisms linearly increased (P<0.05) with progressing the storage period of all tested samples. Generally, microbial quality criteria of all tested beef burger samples were within permissible counts reported by E.O.S. (2005), which recommend that the total bacterial and coliform group counts not exceed 5 and 3 log cfu /g, respectively.
3.5.4. Effect of storage on sensory evaluation
Yogesh et al. (2015) reported that, the lower hardness values were observed at more flax seed powder (FSP) levels, thus FSP incorporation decreased the hardness values of cooked meat batter. The values were increased continuously from day zero to day eight, indicating hardness were increased due to the effect of refrigerated storage. However increase in hardness values during storage was not more than that of increase in control samples thus stability of FSP treated samples was comparable to that of control samples. Springiness was observed more (P <0.05) in control samples than FSP treated samples. Except for one instance the values for springiness were decreased as FSP levels were increased between treatments. Again like hardness these values were also increased as the storage days progressed and stability was somewhat similar to that of control samples.
Ibrahium et al. (2015) reported that, beef burger samples containing different. Flax seed oil/rice bran (FO/RB) formulations exhibited a good sensory properties and better acceptability after frozen storage for 3 months.
4- MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.1. Materials
4.1.1. Meat and fat
15kg of fresh lean beef meat and 2kg fat from about 2 years old cow were obtained from Assiut slaughter house during November 2017. Visible fat and connective tissues were manually eliminated (Martinez, et al., 2009). The lean beef samples were minced using meat mincer and was used for processing of beef Sausages.
4.1.2. Flaxseed
5Kg Flaxseed (Sakha 1 variety) was obtained from Agriculture Research Center, Giza, Egypt during November 2017.
4.1.3. Chickpea
5Kg chickpea (Cicer arientimum L.); (Giza 195variety) was obtained from Assiut city, Egypt during November 2017
4.1.4 . Low-fat soy flour
3Kg of low-fat soy flour was purchased from the Food Technology Institute, Agriculture Research Center- Giza, Egypt during November 2017.
4.1.5. Pomegranate peels powder
Pomegranate fruits used in preparing pomegranate peel powder were purchased from local markets during November 2017 at Assiut city.
4.1.6. Spices
Spices mixture was prepared using (clove, black pepper, Chinese cubeb, word press button, cinnamon, lura, ginger, seasonings and nutmeg), also salt and fresh garlic were obtained from the local market during November 2017 at Nasr city, Cairo, Egypt.
4.1.7. Chemicals
All chemicals used in this study as well as sodium nitrite, nutrient agar medium, dextrose, sterile peptone were obtained from EL-Gamhouria for Trading Chemicals and Drugs Co., Assiut city, Egypt.
4.2. Methods
4.2.1. Technological methods
4.2.1.1. Preparation of chickpea flour
Chickpea seeds were cleaned and subjected to different processing treatments.
Chickpeas were processed by following treatments to remove the anti-nutritional factors
1- Soaking: Chickpea seeds were soaked in sufficient amount of tap water for 8 hrs. The soaked seeds were removed from the water, rinsed three times with distilled water.
2- Pressure Cooking: The soaked seeds were pressure cooked in a pressure cooker at 15 psi using water ratio 1:2 for 15 minutes then dehulled followed with drying in an electric oven at 50 C° for 20 hrs, then grounded to flour fineness using Laboratory Mill then packaged in polyethylene bags until use (Mittal et al.,2012).
4.2.1.2. Preparation of flaxseeds
Flaxseeds were cleaned from impurities and grinded when used directly.
4.2.1.3. Preparation of pomegranate peels powder
Pomegranate fruits were washed then peeled and their edible portions were carefully separated. The peels were air-dried in a ventilated oven at 40C°for 48hs and grounded to a fine powder, then packaged in polyethylene bags until use as described by (El-Nashi et al., 2015).
4.2.1.4. Preparation of beef sausages samples
The Basel beef sausages formula was shown in Table (1) according to (Egyptian standard for sausage, 1991).
Table (1): Basal beef sausage formula (100g)
Ingredients %
Minced beef meat 75
Fat 12
Low –fat soy flour 10
Fresh garlic 0.5
Salt 1.00
Sodium nitrite 0.01
Mixed spices 1.49
Total 100
Beef sausages with chick pea flour (20%) Beef sausages with milled flaxseed (10%) Control Ingredients
60 67.5 75 Beef meat minced
12 12 12 Fat
- 7.5 - milled flax seed
15 - - Chick pea flour
10 10 10 low- fat soy flour
1 1 1 Salt
0.01 0.01 0.01 Sodium nitrite
0.5 0.5 0.5 Garlic
1.49 1.49 1.49 Spices
For studying the suggested treatments, the beef meat was replaced by 10% milled flaxseed or 20% chickpea flour as indicated in Table (2) Table (2): Suggested treatments of beef sausages formula (g / 100g)
For studying the effect of the suggested natural antioxidant, pomegranate peel powder was added by 2% as additive in the samples which were cold or frozen storage as indicated in Table (3).
Table (3): Meat replacer ratios and natural antioxidant used in beef sausages formulation.
Treatments Ingredients
Control Basal formula in Table (1) without any added ingredients.
Treatment 1 Basal formula + 2% pomegranate peels powder
Treatment 2 Basal formula -10% meat + 10% milled flaxseed
Treatment 3 Basal formula - 10% meat + 10% milled flaxseed + 2% pomegranate peels powder
Treatment 4 Basal formula - 20% meat +20% chickpea flour
Treatment 5 Basal formula - 20% meat+ 20% chickpea flour + 2% pomegranate peels powder
The sausage samples were prepared as following
For each batch (5 kg) of the sausage, meat, fat, and other ingredients as indicated in Table (1) were emulsified by using a bowl cutter (Nr-963009, scharfen, Witten, Germany) according to Abd El Aal (2016). Chilled water was added as 7ml/100g then homogenized for 2 min. After emulsification, all batter was stuffed into natural sheep casing mechanically. The prepared sausages was packaged on foam dishes in polyethylene pages and used for analysis as control (the first batch). In the second batch, the beef meat was replaced by flaxseed or chickpea flour as indicated in Table (2). Chilled water was added as 9 and 20 ml/100g for F1 and F2; respectively and treated as above mentioned. In the third batch, 2% pomegranate peel powder was added as indicated in Table (3) and sausages were prepared and stored at 4 ± 1°C for three weeks or at -18 ± 1°C for three months for studying the effect of natural antioxidant during cold or frozen storage.
4.2.2. Analytical methods
4.2.2.1. Chemical analysis
4.2.2.1.1. Moisture, crude protein, ash and crude fat contents
They were determined according to Official Methods (A.O.A.C, 2000).
4.2.2.1.2. Carbohydrate contents
Carbohydrates were calculated by difference (Turhan et al., 2005) as follows:
% carbohydrate = 100 – (% moisture + % protein + % ash + % fat)
4.2.2.1.3. Determination of crude fiber
Crude fiber was estimated by acid-base digestion with 1.25% H2SO4 (prepared by diluting 7.2 ml of 94% conc. Acid of specific gravity 1.835g ml-1 per 1000 ml distilled water) and 1.25% NaOH (12.5 g per 1000 ml distilled water) solutions. The residue after crude lipid extraction was put into a 600 ml beaker and 200 ml of boiling 1.25% H2SO4 added. The contents were boiled for 30 minutes, cooled, filtered through a filter paper and the residue washed three times with 50 ml aliquots of boiling water. The washed residue was returned to the original beaker and further digested by boiling in 200 ml of 1.25% NaOH for 30 minutes. The digest was filtered to obtain the residue. This was washed three times with 50 ml aliquots of boiling water and finally with 25 ml ethanol. The washed residue was dried in an oven at 130oC to constant weight and cooled in a dessicator. The residue was scraped into a pre–weighed porcelain crucible, weighed, ashed at 550oC for two hours, cooled in a dessicator and reweighed. Crude fiber content was expressed as percentage loss in weight on ignition (A.O.A.C, 1990).
4.2.2.1.4. Caloric value
Caloric value was calculated as follows
Caloric value was calculated (kcal/100 gm) as described by Mohamed (2005).
Caloric value = (% carbohydrate x 4 ) + (% protein x 4) + (% fat x 9)
4.2.2.1.5. Determination of minerals content of beef sausages
Minerals content of sample were determined by a flam photometer 410 for sodium, spekoll1spectrophotometer for phosphorus and a perki-Elmer Atomic Absorption spectrophotometer 2380 for calcium, iron, zinc and potassium. The determination was carried out in Central Laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, as described in A.O.A.C (1995).
4.2.2.1.6. Determination of Amino acids in beef sausages
Amino acids were determined according to the method described by Pellett and Young (1980). With some modifications, which could be summarized as follows: A known weight of the dry, fat free samples, was hydrolyzed with 5ml of 6 N HCl, in closed test tube at 110°C for 24hs. The hydrolysate was filtered. The residue was washed with distilled water and the volume of the filtrate was completed to 50 ml distilled water. Then 5ml of the filtrate were evaporated on water bath at 50°C. The residue was dissolved in 5 ml loading buffer (0.2 N sodium citrate buffer of pH 2.2). Amino acids were determined chromatography using Beckman Amino Acid Analyzer Model119CL, at Agriculture Research Center Giza- Cairo.
4.2.2.6.1. Determination of tryptophan
Tryptophan was determined using spectrophotometric method as described by Sastry and Tummuru (1985).
4.2.2.7. Determination of fatty acids composition
4.2.2.7.1. Preparation of methyl ester of fatty acids
The methyl esters of fatty acids were prepared from aliquots of total lipids using 5ml 3% H2SO4 in absolute methanol and 2ml benzene as mentioned by (Rossell et al., 1983). The contents were heated for methanolysis at 90ºC for 90 minutes and after cooling, phase separation was performed by addition of 2 ml distilled water and methyl ester were extracted with 2 ml aliquots of 5 ml hexane each. The organic phase was removed, filtered through anhydrous sodium sulfate and then concentrated by using rotary evaporator.
4.2.2.7.2. Gas liquid chromatography of methyl esters of fatty acids
The methyl esters of fatty acids were separated using a PYE Unicam Pro-GC gas liquid chromatography with a dual flame ionization, and were carried out on (1.5m x 4mm) SP-2310 column, packed with 55% cyanopropyl phenyl silicone dimensions. Column temperature: At first the temperature was programmed by increasing the temperature from 70-190ºC at the rate of 8ºC/ minute. Then isothermal for 10 minutes at 190ºC.
The injector and detector temperatures were 250ºC and 300ºC; respectively. Carrier gas: nitrogen at the rate 30 ml/minute, hydrogen flow rate 33 ml/minute, and air flow rate 330 ml/minute.
The chart speed was 0.4 cm/minute. Peak identifications were established by comparing the retention times obtained with standard methyl esters. The areas under the chromatographic peak were measured with electronic integrator.
4.2.2.8. Determination of phenolic and flavonoid components in pomegranate peels powder
To determine phenolic acids and flavonoids, samples were prepared according to the method described by (Jakopič et al., 2009). The chromatographic conditions (mobile phase, gradient program, temperature of column) were similar to those described by (Schieber et al., 2001). All chromatograms were plotted at 280 nm to estimated phenolic acids and at 330 nm for flavonoids. All components were identified and quantified by comparison of peak areas with external standards.
4.2.2.2. Physicochemical properties
4.2.2.2.1. pH value
pH values of studied beef sausage samples were measured in a homogenate prepared with 10g sample and distilled water (100 ml), using ICM 41150 pH meter (Turhan et al., 2005).
4.2.2.2.2. Water holding capacity (W.H.C)
Water holding capacity (WHC) was determined using expression of the juice of centrifugation method as described by (Hamm, 1960). The expressible fluid (E.F) was determined by difference between the sample weight before and after centrifugation.
4.2.2.2.3. Cooking loss
Prepared beef sausage samples were weighted before cooking and then allowed to cool after cooking to room temperature. After cooling, the cooked beef sausage samples were reweighted and the cooking loss was calculated according to Lee et al. (2008) method as follows:
4.2.2.2.4. Cooking yield
Cooking yield was calculated as given by El- Nemr (1979).
% Cooking yield = 100 - % Cooking loss
4.2.2.2.5. Shrinkage
Change in beef sausage diameter and length (Shrinkage) was measured on cooked samples as mentioned by George and Berry (2000) using the following equations:
Uncooked diameter or length(cm) − Cooked diameter or length(cm)
% Shrinkage= ___________________________________________________ ×100
Uncooked diameter or length (cm)
4.2.2.2.6. Determination of Thiobarbituric acid (T B A)
Thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values were determined in cooled beef sausage samples at 0, 1, 2 and 3 weeks of storage at 4˚C and in freezed sausage samples at 0, 1, 2 and 3 months of storage at – 18 C° according to the method of (Lemon, 1975) to evaluate efficiency of additives as natural antioxidants. 20 g sample + 40 ml of trichloroacetic acid (7.5%) were homogenized for 1 minute and left for 30 minutes. Filtration was carried out using whatman No. 1 filter paper. 5ml of the filtrate + 5 ml of TBA solution (0.2883 g TBA/ 100 ml water) were poured in a test tube. Blank was carried out using 5 ml distilled water + 5ml TBA solution. Tubes were covered and heated in boiling water bath for 40 min. After rapid cooling in ice bath, Absorbance at 538 nm was carried out colorimetrically using ultraviolet visible scanner Spectrophotometer (LKB 4054 Cambridge, England).
4.2.2.2.7. Determination of Peroxide Value (PV)
Peroxide value was determined according to method of (AOAC, 2000) as follows: 5mg of sample +30 ml acetic acid + chloroform 2:1(v/v) were mixed for 1 min and 1 ml of potassium iodide was added and neutralization titration with sodium thiosulfate, and the values were expressed in mEq O2/Kg.
4.2.2.3. Microbiological analysis
4.2.2.3.1. Sample preparation
Ten grams of each sample were mixed with 90 ml of sterile peptone solution (9 gm peptone/1L distilled water) in a blender, under sterile conditions to give 1/10 dilution. Serial dilutions were prepared to be used for counting several types of bacteria.
4.2.2.3.2. Total plate bacterial count
The total plate bacterial counts were determined using the plate counts technique on a nutrient agar medium according to procedures by A.P.H.A (1976) and Difco- Manual (1984). The plates were incubated at 37oC for 48 hrs.
4.2.2.3.3. Yeast and mold count (YMC)
Yeast and mold count (YMC) were determined using Bacto yeast malt (Y.M) agar medium according to the methods described by Difco –Manual (1998). The plates were incubated at 30 ±2 oC for 5-7 days.
4.2.2.4. Sensory evaluations
Beef sausages samples were evaluated organoleptically immediately after grilling (zero time analysis) and after 1 and 2 weeks of storage at 4˚C and in freezed sausage samples at 1, 2 and 3 months of frozen storage at -18 ºC. Sensory quality attributes included color taste, flavor, texture and overall acceptability. Sausages samples were presented to 10 staff members in the Food Science and Technology Department, Faculty of agriculture, Assuit University and Assiut Agricultural Research Center. A 10- point hedonic scale (1 being dislike very much to 10 being like very much) for color, taste and flavor, texture and overall acceptability was used to evaluate the sensory attributes of sausages sample according to (Gelman and Benjamin, 1989).
4.2.2.5. Economic evaluations of the prepared beef sausages
The final costs of the prepared beef sausages samples were calculated according the local market costs of the used ingredients by Egyptian pound.
4.2.2.6. Statistical analysis
The data obtained from three replicates were analyzed by ANOVA using the SPSS statistical package program, and differences among the means were compared using the Duncan’s Multiple Range test (SPSS, 2011). A significance level of 0.05 was chosen.
5 - Results and discussion
5.1. Proximate composition of raw material used in beef sausages preparation
Data for proximate chemical analysis (on dry weight) of raw beef meat, chickpeas, flaxseeds and soybeans used in formulating are presented in Table (4).
Table (4): Chemical composition of the ingredients included in the studied formulas (on dry weight)
Parameters (%) Ingredients
Beef meat Milled flaxseeds Chickpea flour Low fat soy flour
Moisture 73.62a 7.52c 10.22b 4.28d
Protein 77.56a 24.88c 22.3d 48.98b
Fat 10.54b 41.21a 5.35d 7.27c
Ash 3.87c 4.47b 2.19d 6.69a
Carbohydrates 8.04d 29.44c 70.16a 37.04b
*Carbohydrates were calculated by difference
Different liters in the same row means significantly differences (p<0.05)
The obtained data reveled a significant differences between the studied ingredients in their content of moisture. However beef meat recorded the highest value (73.62%) while low-fat soy flour recorded the least (4.28%). Beside, flaxseed and chickpea flour recorded intermediate values of moisture (7.52 and 10.22%); respectively. The protein content was ranged from 22.3 to 77.56% in the used ingredients as shown in Table (4). Regarding to crude fat content, it is clear that flaxseed was superior which recorded 41.21% while, beef meat, chickpea flour and low-fat soy flour were recorded 10.54,5.35, and 7.27%; respectively. Flax seeds fat considered one of the richest dietary sources of the omega-3 fatty acid ALA ”an essential fatty acid, which means that the body cannot produce it (Abbasi et al., 2019). On the other hand, the studied ingredients contained 3.87, 2.19, 4.47 and 6.69% of ash for beef meat, chickpea flour, flaxseed and low-fat soy flour; respectively. As indicated in Table (4), beef meat had the lowest value of carbohydrate (8.04% on dry weight basis) while, chickpea flour had the highest value (7.16%). moreover flaxseed and low-fat soy flour recorded 29.44 and 37.04%; respectively. However, the obtained data was in the same line with the results of Abou Arab et al. (2010); Wani and Kumar (2014) for chickpea flour and Morris (2007); Rubilar et al. (2010) and Deepak et al. (2018) for flaxseed ; (Ail, 2008) and Abd El- Aal (2016) for beef meat.
5.2. Effect of partial replacement of beef meat by milled flaxseed and chickpea flour on the prepared beef sausages properties
5.2.1. Gross chemical composition and caloric value of the prepared beef sausages (dry weight bases)
Table (5): Effect of the partial replacement of beef meats by flaxseed or chickpea flour on chemical composition and caloric value of the studied beef sausages formulas (on dry weight basis).
Sample
Parameter(%) Control Replacement level of meat
Formula 1 (F1)
10% milled flaxseed Formula 2 (F2)
20%chickpea flour
Moisture 58.84a 52.80c 53.56b
Protein 51.87a 46.65b 41.17c
Fat 30.44b 31.28a 25.30c
Ash 7.17b 7.20a 6.74c
Crude fiber 4.90c 10.22a 7.93b
N.F.E 5.62b 4.65c 18.86a
Total Carbohydrates 10.52c 14.87b 26.79a
Energy (K.Cal/100g) 523.52b 527.6a 499.54c
N.F.E=Nitrogen free extract (% total carbohydrates-%crude fiber).
Different liters in the same rows means significantly differences (p<0.05)
Effect of the partial replacement of beef meats by flaxseed or chickpea on chemical composition and caloric value of the studied beef sausages formulas (on dry weight basis) are presented in Table (5). The obtained data revealed that, the control sample recorded the higher content of moisture (58.84%) while, F1 recorded the lowest (52.80%). However F2 had intermediate level of moisture (53.56%). On other hand, the protein content in control sample was the higher and that reflect the high content of protein in beef meat (77.56%) as indicated in Table(4). It was expected that the % of protein in F1 would be the greater due to the highest protein content in flaxseeds (23.1%) which overcome the protein content in row beef meat (20.46%), but due to the highly moisture content in fresh meat (73.62%) compared with 7.52% in flaxseeds, we obtained the logic results that the highest protein content were found in control sample when calculated on dry weight. Regarding to the fat content, the control, F1 and F2 recorded 30.44, 31.28 and 25.30%; respectively. Moreover, F1 recorded the highest fat level while, F2 recorded the lowest and that reflect the high content of fat in flaxseed (31.28%) and its low content in chickpea flour (25.30%) as indicated in Table (4). However the obtained result were in agreement with those of Mansour (2003) and Owon et al. (2014). Besides, the ash content was 7.17, 7.20 and 6.74% in control, F1 and F2; respectively. One of the aims of this study was to increase the fiber content in meat products which was done by the partial replacement of meat by flaxseed or chickpea flour. As indicated in Table (5), the crude fiber content increased from 4.90% in control to 10.22 and 7.93% in F1 and F2; respectively. As known, the dietary fiber content of meat is low concentration and it can be added in meat products in order to improve the nutritive value and functional properties of meat. They also provide various health benefits such as reduced intestinal retention time, control of type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Talukder, 2015). As shown in Table (5), the carbohydrate content was increased from 10.52% to 14.87% when replaced the meat by flaxseed or 26.79% when replaced by chickpea flour. On other hand, the prepared sausages recorded 523.52, 527.6 and 499.56 K.cal/100g for control, F1 and F2; respectively. The lowest caloric value was obtained in F2 (499.56K.cal/100g), this is due to the low fat and protein content in chickpeas flour. These results are confirmed with Owon et al. (2014).
5.2.2. Minerals content of the prepared beef sausages (dry weight bases)
Minerals analysis in Table (6) indicated that, F1 contained the greater amounts of some elements such as Ca, Fe, Zn and P compared with their concentrations in control and F2 samples. As mentioned above in Table (4), flaxseeds had the highest ash content (4.47%) (Which is the mineral-rich residue left after samples are burned) compared with beef meat (3.87%) and chickpeas (2.19%). Due to the highly mineral content in flaxseeds it was expected that F1 would have the highest content in several minerals, this agreed with what have been said by Singh et al. (2011) who reported that flaxseeds are a source of many vitamins and minerals as calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. It is of great importance, being that a 30g portion of the seed constitutes 7% to 30% of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for these minerals.
Table (6): Minerals composition of the prepared beef sausages (mg/100g)
Minerals
Sample Ca K Na P Fe Zn
Control 169.74 776.95 1630.11 175.13 39.90 9.95
F1 246.85 491.26 1341.71 248.60 45.77 15.23
F2 146.61 456.79 922.81 214.89 36.93 8.61
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas flour replacement of beef meat.
On other hand, F2 had the lowest minerals content except of P and that might be due to its leaching from the chickpea seeds into the water during soaking and pressure cooking treatments as recorded by Alajaji and El-Adawy (2006).
5.2.3. Amino acids profile of the prepared beef sausages formulas
The obtained data for effect of replacement beef meat by flaxseed or chickpea flour on the amino acid composition of the prepared sausage samples are presented in Table (7). However, protein from meat provides all essential amino acids (lysine, leucine, isoleucine, threonine, methionine, phenylalanine, tryptophan and valine) and has no limiting amino acids (Schaafsma, 2000). Chickpea protein is rich in essential amino acids such as isoleucine, lysine, total aromatic amino acids and tryptophan compared with the FAO/WHO (1973) reference. Alajaji and El-Adawy (2006) mentioned that, chickpea protein could very well complement those protein sources that are low in lysine and tryptophan. They pointed that, leucine, total sulfur amino acids, threonine and valine were slightly deficient in chickpea protein compared with the reference pattern. Results in Table (7) postulated that the amino acid composition were nearly similar in the three formulas in both essential and non essential amino acids. Moreover, F2 was superior in lysine content and total essential amino acids while, F1 had the highest methionine content.
Table (7): Amino acids composition of the prepared beef sausages (g/100g protein)
Non essential amino acids Control F1 F2
Aspartic 7.19 7.22 7.21
Serine 2.85 2.59 5.10
Glutamic 12.96 13.25 9.81
Glycine 3.72 4.01 3.33
Alanine 4.32 4.24 3.81
Histidine 2.56 2.42 2.45
Arginine 4.97 5.51 5.54
Proline 3.53 3.47 2.96
Cystine 1.66 1.93 2.94
Tyrosine 2.58 2.49 2.55
Total non essential amino acids 46.34 47.31 45.70
Essential amino acids
Lysine 5.86 5.23 6.63
Leucine 5.98 5.55 5.85
Isoleucine 3.39 3.28 3.72
Methionine 1.79 2.23 1.92
Phenylalanine 3.23 3.26 3.62
Therionine 3.20 2.92 3.28
Valine 3.82 3.77 3.98
Tryptophane 0.93 0.94 0.91
Total essential amino acids 28.20 27.18 29.91
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas flour replacement of beef meat
5. 2.4. Fatty acids composition of the prepared beef sausages formulas
The profile of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids (percentage contribution of each fatty acid to total fatty acids) of the three studied beef sausages formulas are shown in Table (8).
Data in Table (8) shows that, the total saturated fatty acids were higher in control sample (50.02%) than F1 (43.95%) and F2 (47.66%), this is because meat is seen to be a major source of fat in the diet and especially of saturated fatty acids (Wood et al., 2003). It was recorded that saturated fatty acids have been implicated in diseases associated with modern life, especially in developed countries. These include various cancers and especially coronary heart disease. And so, adding flaxseeds in F1 and chickpea in F2 lowered saturated fatty acids content. On the other hand, both of F1 and F2 had higher amounts of total unsaturated fatty acids than control sample, Table (8). Neither omega -3 nor omega-6 fatty acids can be synthesized by humans, only plants (including marine phytoplankton) can do, there for it is recommended that humans consume more omega-3 fatty acids from vegetables and marine sources (Mahan and Escott-Stump, 2008). The detected % unsaturated fatty acids (USF) in control sample specially linoliec and linolenic acids may be due to the 10% soy beans addition in basal formula besides that ruminant meats, especially from animals that have consumed grass contains high levels of linolenic acids. Moreover, Farno (1996) mentioned that, soybean oil is composed of approximately 60% polyunsaturated fatty acids (linoleic [C18:2] and linolenic [C18:3]). However, the most differences in fatty acid composition between studied formulas was that linoleic acid 18:2 was higher in F2 (9.37%) than in F1 (7.10%) while control sample had the least concentration (5.78%). On other hand F1 was superior in linolenic acid content which marked (9.62 %) compared to (1.03%) in F2 and (0.62%) in control sample. This is can be explained as mentioned by Simopoulos (2002) who obtained that of all lipids in flaxseed 53% are α-linolenic acid (ALA), 17% linoleic acid (LA) and 19% oleic acid which provides an excellent n-6: n-3 fatty acid ratio of approximately 0.3:1. Therefore, the flaxseed may be an alternative supply of this fatty acid to populations where there is not large access to marine foods, which are the best sources of n-3 fatty acids (Bernacchia et al., 2014). It was reported by Kris-Etherton et al. (2000) that although both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are essential in the diet, excess omega 6 fatty acids in the diet saturate the enzymes that desaturate and elongate both n-3 and n-6 fatty acids and prevent conversion of ALA into longer EPA and DHA forms. Moreover, Haag (2003) concluded that the omega-6/omega-3 ratio in the diet influences neurotransmission and thus brain function. While, Enser (2001) mentioned that, the ratio of n-6 : n-3 PUFA is a risk factor in cancers and coronary heart disease, especially the formation of blood clots leading to a heart attack.
Table (8): Fatty acids composition of the prepared beef sausages (as % of total fatty acids)
Fatty acids Carbon Chain Control F1 F2
Butyric acid C4:0 0.25 -
Capric acid C10:0 0.52 - -
Lauric acid C12:0 0.06 - -
Myristic acid C14:0 2.63 2.52 2.73
Pentadecanoic acid C15:0 0.36 0.34 0.38
Palmitic acid C16:0 21.21 20.29 21.84
Margarinic acid C17:0 1.31 1.04 1.19
Stearic acid C18:0 23.40 19.22 21.32
Arachidic acid C20:0 0.22 0.18 0.20
Docosanoic acid C22:0 0.05 - -
Total saturated fatty acids 50.02 43.59 47.66
Myristioleic acid C14:1 0.40 0.14 0.16
14,Pentadecenooic acid C15:1 - 0.17 0.18
Palmitolcic acid C16:1 1.73 1.68 1.67
Heptadecenoic acid C17:1 0.63 0.48 0.52
Oleic acid C18:1 38.43 34.68 36.55
Linoleic acid C18:2 5.78 7.10 9.37
C18:2T 0.696 0.38 0.60
Linolenic aid C18:3n3 0.62 9.62 1.03
Eicoaaenoic acid C20:1 0.27 0.39 0.34
Total Unsaturated fatty acids - 48.56 54.64 50.42
n-6 : n-3 - 9.32:1 1.07:1 9.09:1
P:S* - 0.97 1.3 1.06
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas flour replacement of beef meat.
n-6 : n-3= omega-6/omega-3 ratio.
*=Poly unsaturated fatty acids: Saturated fatty acids.
It is recommended that the ratio of n-6: n-3 PUFA should not exceed 4 )Mahan and Escott- Stump, 2008). In our investigation we succeeded to low the n-6: n-3 ratio from 9.32:1 in control to 1.07:1 in F1 by incorporating flaxseeds which considered a very good source of ALA, while it slightly decreased by using chickpea flour to be 9.09:1. Besides, partial replacement using flaxseeds or chickpea improved the P: S ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) to saturated fatty acids (SFA) which recorded in control, F1 and F2 0.9, 1.3 and 1.06 ; respectively leading to the balanced fatty acid intake of today’s consumers.
5.2.5. Physiochemical properties of the prepared beef sausages
Table (9): Physical properties of the prepared beef sausages
Sample Cooking loss% Cooking yield% Shrinkage% Moisture% E.F.*% W.H.C
(as%
bound water)
Control 10.01 a 89.99 c 6.8 a 58.84 a 2.02a 56.82 a
F1 8.66 b 91.34 b 5.72 b 52.80 c 1.52b 51.28 c
F2 8.18 c 91.82 a 5.36 c 53.56 b 1.05c 52.15 b
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flax seeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chick peas replacement of beef meat
E.F.*= Expressible water (% Moisture – W.H.C)
W H C= Water holding capacity.
Different liters in the same columns means significantly differences (p<0.05)
The physical properties of the prepared beef sausages are shown in Table (9). The obtained data indicated that, replacement of beef meat by both of flaxseeds and chickpea flour improved cooking yield, WHC, cooking loss and shrinkage significantly, this is might be due to the high fiber content in both flaxseeds and chickpea flour. As a consequent of increasing cooking yield and WHC, the shrinkage % and cooking loss were decreased by using chickpea flour or milled flaxseeds. However, chickpea flour was characterized with good water holding and emulsifying capacities (Kohajdova et al., 2011). Flaxseeds contain both soluble and insoluble dietary fiber. It contains cellulose “the main structural material of plant cell walls”, mucilage gums “a type of polysaccharide that becomes viscous when mixed with water or other fluids”. Flax mucilage consists of three distinct types of arabinoxylans which form large aggregates in solution and contribute to its gel qualities and lignins. Yogesh et al. (2015) found that cooking loss decreased significantly in treated meat batter with flaxseed powder when compared with control sample, due to flaxseed ability of keeping the moisture in the matrix. For the water holding capacity, the expressible water values explained how the addition of flaxseeds and chickpeas flour improved the water holding capacity in F1 and F2 compared with control sample.
5.2.6. Microbiological quality of the prepared beef sausages
The mean values of the total bacterial count are presented in Table (10). The data revealed that, the addition of flaxseed or chickpea flour reduced the total bacterial count compared with control and that might be due to the low moisture content of flaxseed or pressure cooking treatment of chickpea seed Similar results were reported by Ibrahium et al. (2015) who found that, the total bacterial, psychrophilic bacteria, coliform bacteria group, mold and yeast counts of beef burger samples significantly decreased (P<0.05) with increasing the replacement level of beef fat by flaxseed oil or rice bran, which may be due to the reducing of free water resulting from the high water binding capacity of bran fibers (Oroszvári et al., 2006). As shown in Table (10), yeast and molds were not detected in both control or treated products.
Table (10): Microbiological quality of the prepared beef sausages (cfu/g×104)
Formula(2) Formula(1) Control (C) Sample
Parameter
102 98 103 Total bacterial count
ND ND ND yeast and molds
F1 = (10%) milled flax seeds Replacement of meat
F2 = (20%) chickpea flour Replacement of meat
ND = Not detected
5. 2.7. Sensory evaluation
According to the means given by the panelists of grilled samples at zero time, sensory scores for studied parameters such as taste, texture, odor, color and general acceptability were varied and affected significantly by the replacement of beef meat by chickpea flour or milled flaxseeds as indicated in Table (11).
Results revealed that, there were no significant differences in general acceptability between the control sample and F2. However, the control sample had the highest taste, odor and color values while had similar texture value with F1 which is in line with what Bilek and Turhan (2009) reported, that the addition of flaxseed flour significantly affected the appearance, flavor, tenderness, juiciness and overall acceptability of beef patties. However, while there were differences between the control and treated samples, the prepared tow formulas still well accepted by the panelists they given F1 and F2 93.74% and 96.14% of the total score of panel test.
Table (11): Sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages
Sample Taste Texture Odor Color overall acceptability
Control 9.95 ͣ 9.63 ͣ 9.88 ͣ 9.92 ͣ 9.90 ͣ
F1 9.50c 9.30 ͣ b 9.33 c 9.20c 9.54 b
F2 9.83 b 9.00c 9.64 ͣ b 9.75b 9.85 ͣ b
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat
Different liters in the same columns means significantly differences (p<0.05)
5.2.8. Economic evaluation of the prepared beef sausages
Data in Table (12) revealed the final costs of the prepared beef sausages as affected by replacement of beef meat by 10% flaxseed or 20% chickpea flour by Egyptian pound/kg. Compared with control using of flaxseed reduced the final costs by 8.3 % while using of chickpea flour reduced the final costs by16%. However reducing the final costs was one of the aim of this study. Generally, meat products are widely consumed throughout the world; but unfortunately, their cost is high. To reduce this cost there is increasing interest in use of various non-meat ingredients (ELbakheet et al., 2017). However, flaxseed is widely recognized as a nutritious raw material for incorporation into food product formulations. According to Valencia et al. (2008) linseed oil can be used successfully as enhancer in the manufacture of healthier functional meat products. Beside, incorporation of non-meat ingredients in various meat products has long been an important research topic to improve product functionality, provide a healthier profile and reduce costs. The use of chickpea flour in meat sausages can be beneficial for both the consumer and the food industry, obtaining proteins of high biological value and affordable costs Torres et al. (2018).
Table (12): Economic evaluations of the prepared beef sausages (Egyptian pound / 1Kg)
Formulas-price
Ingredients Control F1 F2
Gm Cost (EP)
Gm
Cost (EP)
gm
Cost (EP)
Beef meat 750 97.5 675 87.75 600 78
Fat 120 2.4 120 2.4 120 2.4
Flaxseeds - - 75 1.125 - -
Chickpea seeds - - - - 150 3
Soy Flour 100 1.9 100 1.9 100 1.9
Salt 10 0.04 10 0.04 10 0.04
Garlic 5 0.013 5 0.013 5 0.013
Spices 14.9 1.49 14.9 .49 14.9 1.49
Sodium nitrite 0.1 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.1 0.072
Final cost - 103.415 - 94.79 - 86.915
% of reduction 8.3 16
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
EP= Egyptian pound.
5.3. Analysis of pomegranate peel powder
5.3.1. HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds of pomegranate peels powder (mg/100g dry weight) are presented in Table (13).
The data revealed that, there are 20 different phenolic compounds presented in pomegranate peel. Pyrogallol consteduted the major compound witch recorded 7068.012 mg/100g followed by catechein (248.748mg/100g), caffeine (139.390 mg/100g), protocatchoic (117.876 mg/100g) and gallic (114.797 mg/100g). Similar results were reported by Mohamed (2018). The very high content of pyrogallol in pomegranate peels (7068.012 mg/100g dry weight) reflex its highly antioxidant activity thus, it could be recommended to use pomegranate peels powder as natural antioxidant in the prevailed foods instead of scincytic one. Samuel et al. (2017) mentioned that Gallic acid (GA), widely distributed in plants and feeds, is known to have a diverse range of activities such as anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, anti-allergic, anti-mutagenic, and anticarcinogenic. Both flavonoids and many other phenolic components have been reported on their effective antioxidants, anticancer, antibacteria, cardioprotective agents, anti-inflammation, immune system promoting, skin protection from UV radiation, and interesting candidate for pharmaceutical and medical application ( Kumar and Pandey, 2013 ); Chen et al. (2015); Działo et al. (2016);Andreu et al. (2018) and Meng et al. (2018).
Table (13): HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds of pomegranate peels powder (mg/100g dry weight)
pomegranate peels powder Phenolic compounds
114.797 Gallic
7068.012 Pyrogallol
28.878 4-Aminobenzoic
117.876 Protocatchoic
37.862 Chlorogenic
248.748 Catechein
79.103 Catechol
139.390 Caffeine
62.421 P-OH- benzoic
11.214 caffeic
15.692 Vanillic
8.213 P-Coumaric
5.921 Ferulic
4.272 Iso-Ferulic
84.406 Ellagic
1.242 Alpha- coumaric
62.136 Benzoic
49.681 Salycillic
8.973 3,4,5-methoxy-cinnamic
1.599 Cinnamic
5.3.2. HPLC analysis of flavonoids compounds of pomegranate peels powder (mg/100g dry weight)
Flavonoids are widely distributed group of plant phenolic compounds, which are very effective antioxidants. Fractionation of pomegranate peel powder flavonoid by HPLC are presented in Table (14). The obtained data revealed that, there were 14 different flavonoids compounds presented. Naringin recorded the major flavonoid (189.752 mg/100g) in pomegranate peel powder followed by Apiening 6-rhamnose 8-glucose (30.840 mg/100g), Luteolin 7 glucose (29.321mg/100g) and Rutin (27.547 mg/100g).However, Mohamed (2018) found that, pomegranate fruits contained high amounts of narengin, hisperidin, luteolin, rosmarinic, rutin and quercetrin.
Table (14): HPLC analysis of flavonoids compounds of pomegranate peels powder (mg/100g dry weight)
Pomegranate peels powder Flavonoids compounds
15.584 Apiening 6-arabinose 8-glactose
30.840 Apiening 6-rhamnose 8-glucose
29.321 Luteolin 7 glucose
189.752 Naringin
27.547 Rutin
3.906 Apigenin 7-o-neohespiroside
6.721 Quercetrin
0.910 Quercetin
9.070 Kampferol 3-2-p coumaroyle glucose
5.403 Acacetin 7-neo rutinoside
0.271 Naringenin
1.045 Hespirtin
1.271 Kampferol
0.834 Apigenin
5.4. Effect of using naturel antioxidant (2% pomegranate peels powder) and refrigeration storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks on gross chemical composition of the prepared beef sausages
5.4.1. Gross chemical composition of the prepared beef sausages
5.4.1.1. Moisture content
The date in Table (15) and figure (1) revealed the changes in moisture content of the prepared beef sausage during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks. The moisture content was significantly decreased by addition of pomegranate peels, flaxseed and chickpea flour and that, might be due to the low content of moisture in flaxseeds (7.52%) and chickpea (10.24%) as shown in Table (4). Moisture content was significantly decreased with increase of storage period. These decreases might be attributed to drip loss and partially evaporation of moisture during cold storage period. Similar results were reported by (Yogesh et al., 2015) for addition of flaxseed powder has been associated with reduction (P <0.05) in moisture content. Also, Asmare and Admassu (2013) found that, with increasing levels of chickpea flour from 0 to 20% and to 30%, moisture content significantly (P < 0.05) decreased for beef sausages.
Table (15): Changes in moisture content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
52.74dA 53.56cA 51.94fA 52.80eA 57.96bA 58.84aA 0
49.65dB 50.39cB 48.65fB 49.48eB 53.59bB 54.32aB 1
45.89dC 46.6cC 44.83fC 45.63eC 48.61bC 49.32aC 2
41.49dD 42.18cD 40.36fD 41.15eD 43.01bD 43.7aD 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (1) Changes in moisture content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.1.2. Protein content
Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis) are presented in Table (16) and figure (2). The date revealed that, addition of flaxseed or chickpea flour lead to significantly decrease in protein content compared with control and that , might be due to the low of protein content in flaxseed (24.88%) and chickpea (22.3%) compared with protein content of beef meat (77.56%) as shown in Table (4). Protein content was significantly decreased with increase of storage period. These decreases might be due to slight loss of nitrogen (as volatile nitrogen) as a result of slight protein breakdown during cold storage period. Our results are in the same line with the results of Ahmed (2008); Mohamed (2012) and Naveen et al. (2016). However, an opposite trend was reported by Hussein et al. (2017) who found that, the protein content was significantly (p≤0.05) increased in all beef sausages samples during cold storage.
Table (16): Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
40.88fA 41.17eA 46.17dA 46.65cA 51.18bA 51.87aA 0
36.46fB 36.50eB 41.25dB 41.45cB 43.85bB 44.05aB 1
31.57dC 31.46eC 36.02cC 36.07cC 36.87bC 36.94aC 2
26.92eD 26.74fD 30.99cD 30.94dD 30.57aD 30.55aD 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (2) Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis)
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.1.3. Crude fat content
Changes in crude fat of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis) are presented in Table (17) and figure (3). The crude fat content was significantly increased as a result of addition of pomegranate peels powder or replacement of beef meat by flaxseed and that reflect the high content of crude fat in flaxseed as well as the essential oil of pomegranate peels. The obtained result was agreement with the result of Bilek and Turhan (2009) who indicated that addition of flax seed caused an increase of fat content in raw beef patties. On the other hand ;replacement of beef meat by chickpea flour caused a significantly decrease in crude fat content of prepared beef sausages compared with control and that, might be due to the low fat content of chickpea seed (5.35 %). The result was in the same trend with Owon et al. (2014) who prepared low – fat beef burger by partial replacement (2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10%) chickpea flour as fat replacer and they found a significant decreases (P≤ 0.05) in fat content. On the other side, with the progressive of cold storage period the crude fat content was significantly increased in control as well as the prepared formulas and that might be due to the loss of moisture and protein contents. The trend in fat content; it was similar to protein content in a significantly (p≤0.05) increased in all samples during storage at 4°C as reported by Hussein et al. (2017).
Table (17): Changes in crude fat of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
25.41eD 25.30fD 31.41aD 31.28bD 30.57cD 30.44dD 0
25.85Ec 25.79fC 31.98aC 31.9bC 31.08cC 30.99dC 1
26.6eB 26.54fB 32.83aB 32.78bB 31.87cB 31.82dB 2
27.5eA 27.46fA 33.93aA 33.9bA 32.94cA 32.88dA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) betwee
storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (3): Changes in crude fat of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.1.4. Ash content
Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (18) and figure (4). Data revealed that, addition of pomegranate peel increased the ash content of the prepared beef sausages. Also, Abdel Fattah et al. (2016) noticed that the ash content of different prepared beef burger showed a significant (P≤0.05) increased, with addition pomegranate peels powder. However, replacement of beef meat by chickpea flour caused a significant decrease of ash content and that reflect the low ash content of chickpea (2.19) as indicated in Table (4). On other hand, replacement of beef meat by flaxseed caused a significant increase of ash content in the prepared products and that might be due to the high content of ash (4.47%) and carbohydrates (29.44 %) in flaxseed as shown in Table (4). A significant increase of ash content in the prepared beef sausages were found during the cold storage period for three weeks and that might be due to the decrease of moisture and protein contents. Ahmed (2008) indicated an increase of ash content during cold storage of beef sausages. Also, ash content was almost significantly (P≤0.05) increased in beef sausages during the storage period at 4°C as found by Hussein et al. (2017).
Table (18): Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
6.9eD 6.74fD 7.39aD 7.20bD 7.35cD 7.17dD 0
7.17eC 6.95fC 7.98aC 7.76bC 7.5cC 7.25dC 1
7.73eB 7.51fB 8.17aB 7.93bB 7.76cB 7.52dB 2
8.19cA 7.97eA 8.70aA 8.46bA 8.04dA 7.78fA 3
Different the capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different the small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment
Figure (4): Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.1.5. Carbohydrate content
Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (19) and figure (5). Data revealed that, addition of pomegranate peel increased the carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages. Also, Abdel Fattah et al. (2016) noticed that addition of pomegranate powder during the preparation of beef burger led to significant (P≤0.05) increasing in total carbohydrates values. On the other hand, replacement of beef meat by flaxseed and chickpea flour caused a significant increase of carbohydrate content in the prepared beef sausages and that might be due to the high content of carbohydrates in flaxseed and chickpea flour (70.16% and 29.44%; respectively) as shown in Table (4). During the cold storage period for three weeks there were a significant increase of carbohydrate content in the prepared beef sausages and that might be due to the decrease of moisture and protein contents. Similar results were reported by Ahmed (2008) who found an increase of carbohydrate content during cold storage of beef sausages.
Table (19): Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
26.81aD 26.79aD 15.04bD 14.87cD 10.89dD 10.52eD 0
30.51bC 30.76aC 18.79 dC 18.88cC 17.58fC 17.71eC 1
34.12bB 34.49aB 22.98 fB 23.23eB 23.49dB 23.72cB 2
37.4bA 37.82aA 26.37fA 26.69eA 28.46dA 28.79cA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (5): Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.1.6. Caloric value (kcal/100g)
Data in Table (20) and figure (6) revealed the changes in energy values of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks. Addition of pomegranate peels powder and replacement of beef meat by chickpea flour decreased the energy content of the prepared beef sausages and that reflect the low content of energy in chickpea flour as a result of low crude fat content (5.35%) as indicated in Table (4). The same observation was reported by Ali et al. (2017). However, replacement of beef meat by flaxseed caused a significant increase of energy value and that might be due to the high fat present in flaxseed (41.21%) as shown in Table (4). On the other side, with the advancement of cold storage period the energy value was significantly increased in control as well as the prepared formulas and that might be due to the increase in fat and carbohydrate contents.
Table (20): Changes in caloric value of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
499.45fD 499.54eD 527.53bD 527.6aD 523.41dD 523.52cD 0
500.53fC 501.15eC 527.98bC 528.42aC 525.44dC 525.95cC 1
502.16fB 502.66eB 531.47bB 532.22aB 528.27dB 529.02cB 2
504.78fA 505.38eA 534.81bA 535.62aA 532.58dA 533.28cA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (6): Changes in caloric value of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks (dry weight basis).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.2. Effect of using naturel antioxidant (2%pomegranate peel powder) and refrigeration storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks on physico-chemical properties of the prepared beef sausages
5.4.2.1. pH value
Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (21) and figure (7). Addition of pomegranate peel powder had insignificantly effect on pH value while replacement of beef meat by flaxseed significantly decreased the pH value. However, the obtained result was in agreement with the results of Novello and Pollonio (2013) who found that, adding 5.0% golden flaxseed flour or flax seed reduced the pH of the raw samples. While Chen et al. (2004) and Bilek and Turhan (2009) reported that, addition of flaxseed flour did not significantly affect the pH values of raw and cooked beef patties.
On the other hand, the replacement of beef meat by chickpea flour significantly increased the pH value as compared with control. However Polizer et al. (2015) reported that, partial substituted of the meat or fat by pea fiber presented lower (p<0.05) values pH. With increasing the cold storage period the pH value was significantly decreased. The decrease of pH may be ascribed the breakdown of glycogen with the formation of lactic acid. The obtained result was in agreement with the results of Ahmed (2008) who indicated that pH value was significantly (p<0.05) decreased with increase of storage period in beef sausages.
Table (21): Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during Refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
6.78aA 6.77abA 6.72eA 6.74edA 6.75cdA 6.76cdA 0
6.26dB 6.31bB 6.29cB 6.35aB 6.19fB 6.24eB 1
5.56eC 5.61dC 5.73bC 5.81aC 5.52fC 5.65cC 2
4.72fD 4.80eD 5.03bD 5.13aD 4.85dD 4.97cD 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (7): Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during Refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.2.2. Water holding capacity (W H C)
Changes in WHC (% bound water) of the prepared beef sausages refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (22) and figure (8).The data revealed that, by adding both of pomegranate peel and replacement of the beef meat by flaxseed the water holding capacity was increased and that might be due to high of crude fiber and protein contents. An increase in water holding capacity (WHC) due to protein addition reduced the insignificant DROP in cooking losses (Anjaneyulu et al., 1991). Ibrahium et al. (2015) found that, water holding capacity (WHC) of beef burger samples increased (from 80.22 to 81.20%) by increasing flaxseed oil or rice bran level, but less than value of control sample (83.36%). Also, replacement of the beef meat by chickpea flour caused an increase in water holding capacity (WHC) of the prepared products. The increment of (WHC) might be due to high of crude fiber of chickpea flour. Owon et al. (2014) found that. The increase in water holding capacity may be due to the ability of chickpea powder to absorb and keep more of water. As show in Table (22) with the progressive of cold storage period, the water holding capacity (WHC) was significantly decreased. This could be due to secretion of water from sausages samples throughout the storage period as shown in Table (22).
Table (22): Changes in water holding capacity (WHC) (% bound water) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
51.63dA 52.15cA 50.74fA 51.28eA 56.3bA 56.82aA WHC 0
1.11 1.42 1.2 1.52 1.65 2.02 E.F %
46.2cB 46.17dB 44.11eB 44.03fB 47.65aB 46bB WHC 1
3.45 4.22 4.54 5.45 5.94 8.32 E.F %
40.35aC 38.79bC 38.22dC 36.69eC 38.61cC 35.88fC WHC 2
5.54 7.81 6.61 8.94 10 13.44 E.F %
33.38aD 31.97bD 29.93cD 29.15eD 28.51dD 27.33fD WHC 3
8.11 10.21 10.43 12 14.5 16.37 E.F %
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (8): Changes in water holding capacity (W.H.C) (% bound water) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.2.3. Cooking loss
Data in Table (23) and figure (9) revealed the Changes in cooking loss of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks. The cooking loss of the prepared beef sausages was decreased as a result of replacement of the beef meat by flaxseed and that might be due to the high content of protein and crude fiber beside low moisture content of flaxseed. Similar results were reported by Bilek and Turhan (2009) who concluded that, the addition of flaxseed reduced the cooking loss of beef patties. Also replacement of the beef meat by chickpea flour decreased the cooking loss of the prepared beef sausages as a result of high crude fiber content and the obtained results in the same line with the results of Torres et al. (2018). During storage period, the cooking loss of the prepared beef sausages was significantly increased and that might be due to loss of moisture in the form of drip loss. The obtained results were in agreement with Bilek and Turhan (2009).
Table (23): Changes in cooking loss of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks
Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
8.11fD 8.18eD 8.58dD 8.66cD 9.96bD 10.01aD 0
10.02fC 10.89eC 10.6dC 11.52cC 11.93bC 13.15aC 1
13.52fB 14.46dB 14.15eB 15.11cB 15.53bB 16.81aB 2
18.24fA 19.23eA 19.31dA 20.33cA 21bA 22.32aA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (9): Changes in cooking loss of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.2.4. Cooking yield
Changes in cooking yield of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (24) and figure (10). Addition of pomegranate peel powder or replacement of the beef meat by flaxseed caused a significant increase in cooking yield and that might be due to low of moisture content as well as high carbohydrate content compared with beef meat. Our results were in the same line Ibrahium et al. (2015) who found that, the partial replacement of beef fat with flaxseed oil and ascending levels of rice bran greatly improved the cooking yield and cooking shrinkage of burger samples as well as their moisture retention and fat retention. Also, replacement of the beef meat by chickpea flour caused a significantly increase in cooking yield and that might be due to low of moisture content as well as high carbohydrate content compared with beef meat. Also, Asmare and Admassu (2013) concluded that higher yield was obtained from the dry fermented sausages processed by blending of chickpea flour at 30% with meat. By progressive of cold storage period, the cooking yield was significantly decreased as a result of cooking loss increased. However Rajani et al. (2007) found that, the cooking loss of refrigerated chicken emulsions decreased with the progression of storage period, thereby increasing the cooking yield.
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
91.89aA 91.82bA 91.42cA 91.34dA 90.04eA 89.99fA 0
89.98aB 89.11cB 89.4bB 88.48dB 88.07eB 86.85fB 1
86.48aC 85.54cC 85.85bC 84.89dC 84.47eC 83.19fC 2
81.76aD 80.77bD 80.69bD 79.67cD 79dD 77.68eD 3
Table (24): Changes in cooking yield of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (10): Changes in cooking yield of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.2.5. Shrinkage
Changes in shrinkage value of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (25) and figure (11). Compared with control, addition of pomegranate peels powder or replacement of the beef meat by flaxseed caused a significant decrease in shrinkage value. The decrease of shrinkage value by adding flaxseed might be due to its ability to bind water and fat. Also, the decrease of shrinkage value by adding chickpea flour might be due to its ability to bind water and fat. Olivo (2006) reported that, the non-meat ingredients are attracted by the meat proteins, forming a protein net that stabilizes the product. The cooking process also influences the matrix structure formed in the restructured product. Sites that enable the flow of water or denaturing will cause lower shrinkage levels and greater water retention. Also, Gujral et al. (2009) found that, addition of fiber and non-meat protein ingredients may reduce diameter shrinkage and weight loss. Loss of weight occurred during cooking beef sausage mainly due to moisture evaporation and drip of melted fat. However increase the cold storage period caused a significant increase of shrinkage value as shown in Table (25) and that might be due to loss in moisture and protein contents as well as increasing cooking loss.
Table (25): Changes in shrinkage value of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
5.30fD 5.36eD 5.68dD 5.72cD 6.76bD 6.8aD 0
6.96eC 7.18dC 6.98eC 7.91cC 9.49bC 9.66aC 1
7.91fB 8.23dB 7.95eB 8.98cB 10.61bB 10.83aB 2
8.79fA 9.39dA 9.06eA 10.13cA 11.39bA 12.11aA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment
Figure (11): Changes in shrinkage value of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.2.6. Thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values
Changes in TBA values (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (26) and figure (12).The obtained data indicated that, addition of pomegranate peel powder significantly decreased the TBA values compared with control and that might be due to its antioxidant activity as reported by El-Nashi et al. (2015) and Abdl Fattah et al. (2016). Replacement of the beef meat by flaxseed caused a significant decrease of TBA values at zero time and that might be due to its contents of phenolic compounds (El-Beltagi et al., 2007) but during storage period the TBA values of the products contained flaxseed (without antioxidant) recorded high levels of TBA compared with control and that reflect the highly unsaturation ratio of the formula contained flaxseed (54.64%) as shown in Table (8). Moreover, replacement of the beef meat by chickpea flour at zero time as well as during storage period caused a significantly decreased the TBA values compared with control and that might be due to the low fat content (5.35%) as indicated in Table (4). However, the TBA value is widely used as an indicator of the degree of lipid oxidation (Tokur et al., 2006). The acceptability recommended rate for TBA values in fish are 1-2 mg malonaldehyde/kg of fish sample (Lakshmanan, 2000). The level of TBA values for detecting rancidity varies from 0.3–1.0 mg/ kg in beef or pork to 1.98–4.40 mg/kg in fish flesh (Coronado et al., 2002).
Table (26): Changes in thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
0.221fD 0.335cD 0.330eD 0.431bD 0.332dD 0.450aD 0
0.324fC 0.462cC 0.455dC 0.625aC 0.453eC 0.621bC 1
0.448fB 0.755cB 0.587dB 1.031aB 0.584eB 1.025bB 2
0.636fA 1.012cA 0.736dA 1.109aA 0.730eA 1.102bA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (12): Changes in TBA values (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.2.7. Peroxide value
The peroxide values are used as an index of the degree of oxidative rancidity of lipids. The data in Table (27) and figure (13) cleared the change of peroxide value of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks. Addition of pomegranate peel significantly decreased the peroxide value at zero time as well as during storage period compared with control and that might be due to its antioxidant activity El-Nashi et al. (2015) and Abdl Fattah et al. (2016). Replacement of the beef meat by flaxseed caused a significant decrease of peroxide value at zero time and that might be due to its contents of phenolic compounds (El-Beltagi et al., 2007). But during storage period the peroxide value of the products contained flaxseed (without antioxidant) recorded high levels of peroxide value compared with control and that reflect the highly unsaturation ratio of the formula contained flaxseed (54.64%) as shown in Table (8). Moreover, replacement of the beef meat by chickpea flour at zero time as well as during storage period caused a significantly decrease of the peroxide values compared with control and that might be due to the low fat content (5.35%) as indicated in table(4) as well as increased fiber. However, in our study the peroxide value was ranged from 1.4 to 8.92. m. equiv. / kg fat which was less than the maximum permissible amount given for sun flower seed oil (not more than 10. m. equiv. /kg fat) as indicated by Liberman and Petrovski (1972).
Table (27): Changes in peroxide value (PV) (m. equiv. /kg fat) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
1.4fD 3.20cD 1.6eD 4bD 1.8dD 4.4aD 0
2.12fC 4.32cC 3.02dC 5.64aC 3.14eC 5.62bC 1
3.08fB 6.11cB 4.26dB 7.86aB 4.23eB 7.80bB 2
4.05fA 7.41cA 5.44dA 8.92aA 5.40eA 8.81bA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (13): Changes in peroxide value (m. equiv. / kg fat) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.3. Microbiological quality of the prepared beef sausages
5. 4.3.1. Total bacterial count
Changes in total bacterial count (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (28) and figure (14). As compared with control, the obtained data revealed that the addition of pomegranate peel as well as replacement of the beef meat by flaxseed or chickpea flour reduced the numbers of total bacterial count and that might be due to the antimicrobial activity for pomegranate peel El-Nashi et al. (2015) and Abdl Fattah et al. (2016) and low moisture content for flaxseed and Pressure cooking treatment for chickpea flour. With the advancement of cold storage period, total bacterial count was increased and this could be due to easy availability of the nutrients and more favorable conditions for microbial growth. Similar results were indicated by Soher et al. (2013); Wani and Majeed (2014); Zargar et al. (2014) and Cegielka et al. (2015).However these counts were well below the permissible limit i.e. log 107 cfu /g for cooked meat products as indicated by Jay (1996).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
74 102 69 98 88 103 0
103 130 99 120 106 150 1
120 159 110 150 140 180 2
140 186 131 179 165 201 3
Table (28): Changes in total bacterial count (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
Figure (14): Changes in total bacterial count (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.3.2. yeasts and molds
Changes in molds and yeasts count (cfu/g ×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are presented in Table (29) and figures (15, 16). No yeast and molds were detected up to one week of storage in both the control as well as treated products. Also, no yeast and molds were observed during the second week in the treated product with (2%) pomegranate peels powder with flaxseed while it were noticed in other treated products with and without pomegranate peel powder. With the end of the 3rd week, the molds and yeasts were dedicated in all samples. Ibrahium et al. (2015) found that, the total bacterial, psychrophilic bacteria, coliform bacteria group, mold and yeast counts of beef burger samples significantly decreased (P<0.05) with increasing the replacement level of beef fat by flaxseed oil or rice bran, which may be due to the reducing of free water resulting from the high water binding capacity of bran fibers. However the yeasts count was ranged from 0.33 to 2.33 cfu/g ×104 while molds count was ranged from 2 to 9 cfu/g ×104 by the end of cold storage period.
Table (29): Changes in yeasts and molds count (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
Replacement level of meat Control
Sample
Storage period
Formula(2)
(20%) chickpea flour Formula(1)
(10%) mild flaxseed
With (2%) pomegranate peel powder
Without antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peel powder Without antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peel powder
Without antioxidant
Yeast Molds Yeast molds Yeast molds Yeast molds Yeast molds Yeast Molds
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1
1 0.33 5 1.33 ND ND 5 1.33 3 0.66 9 2
2
4 0.66 10 2.33 0.33 3 8 2 7 1.67 14 3 3
ND= Not detected
Figure (15): Changes in yeasts count (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausage during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder
Figure (16): Changes in molds count (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.4.4. Effect of storage (refrigeration) on sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages.
Changes in sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks are revealed in Table (30) and figures (17, 18, 19, 20, 21).
According to the means given by the panelists of grilled samples, sensory scores for studied parameters such as taste, flavor, color, texture and overall acceptability, were varied and affected significantly by the addition of chickpeas flour or milled flaxseed. Results revealed that, there were no significant differences in general acceptability between the control sample and the two prepared formulas. The control sample had the highest taste, odor and color values while had similar texture value with F1. The results was in line with Bilek and Turhan (2009) who reported that, the addition of flaxseed flour significantly affected the appearance, flavor, tenderness, juiciness and overall acceptability of beef patties. As the storage days progressed, all the sensory attributes followed a decrease as a significant (P < 0.05) decreasing trend. However, in between treatment and control, sensory attributes were comparable (p > 0.05) throughout the storage period. Similar results were observed by Zargar et al. (2014) for chicken sausage and Naveen et al. (2016) for duck meat sausage. The decrease in color score might be due to pigment and lipid oxidation resulting in non-enzymatic browning. The lower textural scores might be due to loss of water during storage and subsequent reduction of pH and denaturation of proteins at low pH and degradation of muscle fiber proteins by bacterial action. The overall acceptability scores of both control and the treated products decreased significantly (P < 0.05) as the storage progressed. This decrease might be reflective of the decline in scores of flavor, color, and texture attributes as reported by Zargar et al. (2014) and Naveen et al. (2016).
Table (30): Changes in sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks.
Sample
Storage
period Control
Replacement level of meat
Formula(1) (10%) milled flaxseed Formula(2) (20%) chickpea flour
Without antioxidant With (2) pomegranate peels powder Without antioxidant With(2%) pomegranate peels powder Without antioxidant With(2%) pomegranate peels powder
Taste 0 9.95aA 9.90aA 9.50cA 9.67bcA 9.83abA 9.89abA
1 7.95bcB 8.46aB 7.80cBC 8.20abcB 7.92bcB 8.30abB
2 5.62abC 6.00aC 5.92ab 6.13aC 5.42cC 5.79abC
Flavor 0 9.88aA 9.92aA 9.33bA 9.58abA 9.64abA 9.75aA
1 7.92bcB 8.30aB 7.80cB 8.25abB 7.75cB 8.96aB
2 5.49cC 6.10bC 6.20abC 6.54aC 5.30cC 6.95aC
Texture 0 9.63abA 9.87aA 9.30bcA 9.54abA 9.00cA 9.38bcA
1 8.20abB 8.50abB 8.25abB 8.95aB 7.95bB 8.33abB
2 6.50cdC 7.10aC 6.70bcC 7.33aC 6.10dC 6.95abC
Color 0 9.92abA 9.90abA 9.20cA 9.00dA 9.75bA 10aA
1 8.42bB 8.83aB 8.10abB 7.96cB 8.20abB 8.96aB
2 6.33bC 6.80aC 6.00abC 5.87cC 6.10abC 6.95aC
Overall acceptability 0 9.90aA 9.92aA 9.54bA 9.70abA 9.85abA 9.89abA
1 8.25bcB 8.63abB 8.39abcB 8.70aB 8.13cB 8.50abcB
2 5.88bcC 6.00abcC 6.10abC 6.30aC 5.62cC 5.92abcC
Different the capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different the small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment
Figure (17) Changes in taste of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder
Figure (18): Changes in odor of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
Figure (19) Changes in texture of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p. p .p= pomegranate peels powder.
Figure (20): Changes in color of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p. p. p = pomegranate peels powder.
Figure (21): Changes in overall acceptability of beef sausages during refrigerated storage (4 ± 1°C) for two weeks.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p. p. p = pomegranate peels powder.
Effect of using naturel antioxidant (2%pomegranate peel powder) and frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months on chemical composition of the prepared beef sausages
5.5.1. Gross chemical composition and caloric value of the prepared beef sausages
5.5.1.1. Moisture content
Changes in moisture of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (31) and figure (22). As a general trend, the moisture content was significantly decreased by the progressive of frozen storage period in the control as well as the treated products. Moisture reduction was ranged from 0.72 to 1.6%. However, the highest moisture reduction was recorded for control and that might be due to its low crude fiber content. Similar results were reported by Mohamed (2012) for chicken burger and Girgis et al. (2015) for beef sausages.
Table (31): Changes in moisture of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
52.74eA 53.56cA 51.94fA 52.80dA 57.96bA 58.84aA 0
52.68eB 53.48cB 51.83fB 52.68dB 57.71bB 58.56aB 1
52.51dC 53.3cC 51.52fC 52.45eC 57.33bC 58.18aC 2
52.36dD 53.14cE 51.33fE 52.24eE 57.07bE 57.9aE 3
0.72 0.78 1.17 1.06 1.52 1.6 % of moisture reduction
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (22): Changes in moisture of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p .p= pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.1.2. Protein content
Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight) are presented in Table (32) and figure (23). The obtained data showed that, there were significant decrease in protein content in control as well as treated samples with increasing the frozen storage period. The reduction of protein content was ranged from 13.32 to 16.89 %. Moreover the highest protein reduction was recorded by control and that might be due to the high protein content of control compared to the treated products as shown in Table (4). However the decrement of protein content might be due to loss of nitrogen (as volatile nitrogen) as a result of protein breakdown. The obtained results are in agreement with the results of El-Harrery (1997), El- Naggar (1999), Abd-El-Qader (2003), Ali (2008), Hashem (2011), Mohamed (2012) and Girgis et al. (2015) who found that, protein contents were decreased during frozen storage for different meat products .
Table (32): Changes in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
40.88fA 41.17eA 46.17dA 46.65cA 51.18bA 51.87aA 0
39.37fB 39.57eB 44.7dB 44.99cB 48.88bB 49.28aB 1
37.14fC 37.30eC 42.33dC 42.63cC 45.82bC 46.15aC 2
34.87fD 34.98eD 40.02dD 40.24cD 42.88bD 43.11aD 3
14.70 15.04 13.32 13.72 16.22 16.89 % of protein reduction
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (23) Change in protein content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.1.3 Crude fat content
Changes in crude fat of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight) are presented in Table (33) and figure (24). The obtained data revealed that the crude fat content was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products. The increment ratio was ranged from 5.00 to 6.96%. The increment of crude fat content might be due to the decrement of moisture and protein contents. The obtained results were in the same line with the results of Moawad (1995), Abd-El-Qader (2003), Hashem (2011), Mohamed (2012) and Girgis et al. (2015).
Table (33): Changes in crude fat of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
25.41eD 25.30fD 31.41aD 31.28bD 30.57cD 30.44dD 0
25.71eC 25.67fC 31.82aC 31.76bC 30.97cC 30.88dC 1
26.26fB 26.30eB 32.64aB 32.59bB 31.71cB 31.65dB 2
27.06fA 27.11eA 33.49bA 33.55aA 32.52dA 32.56cA 3
5.25 5.61 5.25 5.64 5.00 6.96 % of fat increment
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (24): Changes in crude fat of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p. p= pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.1.4. Ash content
Presented data in Table (34) and figure (25) revealed the changes in crude ash content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight). The obtained data indicated that, crude ash content was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products during frozen storage. The increment ratio was ranged from 11.99 to 1 6.94%. However, the increment of crude ash content might be due to the decrement of moisture and protein contents. The obtained results were in the same line with the results of Hashem (2011) and Girgis et al. (2015).
Table (34): Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight)
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
6.9eD 6.74fD 7.39aD 7.20bD 7.35cD 7.17dD 0
7.14eC 7.01fC 7.85aC 7.67bC 7.76cC 7.5dC 1
7.41eB 7.26fB 8.13aB 7.93bB 7.92cB 7.63dB 2
7.79eA 7.64fA 8.63aA 8.42bA 8.29cA 8.03dA 3
12.9 13.35 16.78 16.94 12.79 11.99 % of ash
increment
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (25): Changes in ash content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight)
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels
5.5.1.5. Carbohydrate content
Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight) are presented in Table (35) and figure (26). The obtained data revealed that, the carbohydrate content was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products by advanced of frozen storage period. The increment ratio was ranged from 12.95 to 54.85%. The increment of carbohydrate content might be due to the decrement of moisture and protein contents. Similar results were reported by Hashem (2011) and Girgis et al. (2015).
Table (35): Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
26.81aD 26.79aD 15.04bD 14.87cD 10.89dD 10.52eD 0
27.77aC 27.75aC 15.63bC 15.57cC 12.39dC 12.33eC 1
29.19aB 29.12bB 16.91cB 16.85dB 14.58eB 14.56eB 2
30.29aA 30.26bA 17.85cA 17.8dA 16.31eA 16.29eA 3
12.98 12.95 18.76 19.70 49.77 54.85 % of Carbohydrate
increment
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (26): Changes in carbohydrate content of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.1.6. Caloric value
Changes in caloric value of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight) are presented in Table (36) and figure (27). The obtained data revealed that the caloric value was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products. The increment ratio was ranged from 0.95 to 1.36%. The increment of caloric value might be due to the increment of fat and carbohydrate contents. Hashem (2011) found that, with advancement of frozen storage time, the caloric value of all treatments increased with a significant statistical difference.
Table (36): Changes in caloric value of the prepare beef sausages during frozen (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (k. cal/100g on dry weight).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
499.45fD 499.54eD 527.53bD 527.6aD 523.41dD 523.52cD 0
499.95fC 500.31eC 527.7bC 528.08aC 523.9dC 524.36cC 1
501.66B 502.38eB 530.72bB 531.23aB 526.87dB 527.69cB 2
504.18fA 505.03eA 532.89bA 534.11aA 529.44dA 530.64cA 3
0.95 1.10 1.03 1.23 1.15 1.36 % of
energy
increment
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (27): Changes in caloric value of the prepare beef sausages during frozen (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (k. cal/100g on dry weight).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.2. Effect of using naturel antioxidant (2%pomegranate peel powder) and frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months on physico-chemical properties of the prepared beef sausages
5.5.2.1. pH Value
Changes in pH of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (37) and figure (28). The obtained data revealed that the pH was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products. Such increase in pH values during storage might be attributed to the breakdown of protein macromolecule to smaller fractions and to formation of basic volatile nitrogenous substances. Likewise, it is known that during storage period, denaturation of protein occurred which decrease total soluble protein nitrogen (T.S.N), moisture content, while increase the pH value and lipid oxidation, as previously reported by Dessouki (1976). The increase of pH might be due to partial proteolysis leading to an increase of free alkaline groups Bala et al. (1979). Ibrahium et al. (2015) indicated that pH value continuously increased in all beef burger patties during frozen storage at - 18 ± 2°C for 3 months.
Table (37): Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
6.78aD 6.77aD 6.72cD 6.74cD 6.75bD 6.76bD 0
6.84dC 6.88bC 6.85cC 6.92aC 6.80eC 6.86cC 1
6.82fB 6.94cB 7.01bB 7.11aB 6.84eB 6.89dB 2
7.08cA 7.19aA 6.92fA 6.97eA 7.00dA 7.12bA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (28); Changes in pH value of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three month
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.2.2. Water holding capacity (W.H.C)
Changes in WHC of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (38) and figure (29). The obtained data revealed that the WHC was significantly decreased in the control as well as treated products. But it was more evident in control sample than other samples. Oroszvári et al. (2006) found that, during frozen storage, W.H.C values continuously reduced in all beef burger samples with extending of the frozen storage periods as the result of breakdown hydrogen bonding between the water molecules and gross chemical components of beef burgers. On the other hand, (Osheba et al., 2013) and (Girgis et al., 2015) found that, the loss of WHC during storage may be attributed to protein denaturation and loss of protein solubility. Beside, Hashem (2011) found that, WHC was increased during frozen period.
Table (38): Changes in water holding capacity (W.H.C) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight) .
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
51.63dA 52.15cA 50.74fA 51.28eA 56.3bA 56.82aA WHC 0
1.11 1.42 1.2 1.52 1.65 2.02 E.F %
50.55cB 50.43dB 49.48eB 49.43fB 53.74aB 53.51bB WHC 1
2.13 3.05 2.35 3.25 3.97 5.05 E.F %
48.48cC 48.24dC 47.3 eC 47f 51.19aC 50.07bC WHC 2
4.03 5.06 4.22 5.45C 6.14 8.11 E.F %
46.43cD 45.93dD 45.01eD 44.14fD 48.54aD 47.9bD WHC 3
5.93 7.21 6.32 8.10 8.53 10 E.F %
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (29): Changes in water holding capacity (W.H.C) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight)
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.2. 3. Cooking loss
Changes in cooking loss percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight) are presented in Table (39) and figure (30). The obtained data revealed that the cooking loss was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products, but it was more evident in control sample than other samples and that may be due to low crude fiber in control compared with the treated products. On the other hand, the cooking loses might be due to loss of moisture in the form of drip loss as well as protein decrement. The obtained results were in the same line with the results of EmelCengiz and NalanGokoglu (2007) and Hashem (2011) who indicated that cooking loss of all sausage samples increased during frozen storage for 3 months.
Table (39): Changes in cooking loss percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
8.11fD 8.18eD 8.58dD 8.66cD 9.96bD 10.01aD 0
9.21fC 9.82dC 9.54eC 10.13cC 10.27bC 11.75aC 1
10.33fB 11.12dB 10.55eB 12.11cB 12.17bB 13.25aB 2
11.92fA 13.42dA 12.23eA 14.95bA 14.90cA 16.74aA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (30): Changes in cooking loss of the prepare beef sausages during frozen (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (k. cal/100g on dry weight).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.2.4. Cooking yield
Changes in cooking yield percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (40) and figure (31). The obtained data revealed that the cooking yield was significantly decreased in the control as well as treated products, but it was more evident in control sample than other samples, and that might be due to increased in cooking loss, the obtained results were agreement with the results of Mohamed (2005) for sausages and Hashem (2011) and Ibrahium et al. (2015) for beef burger who found that, the cooking yield values decreased with increasing frozen storage period.
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
91.89aD 91.82bD 91.42cD 91.34dD 90.04eD 89.99fD 0
90.79aC 90.18cC 90.46bC 89.87dC 89.73eC 88.25fC 1
89.67aB 88.88cB 89.45bB 87.89dB 87.83eB 86.75fB 2
88.08aA 86.58cA 87.77bA 85.05eA 85.1dA 83.26fA 3
Table (40): Changes in cooking yield percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (31): Changes in cooking yield percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.2.5. Shrinkage
Changes in shrinkage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (41) and figure (32). The obtained data revealed that the shrinkage was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products. But it was more evident in control sample than other samples, and that might be due to loss in moisture and protein contents as well as increasing cooking loss. Also Hashem (2011) and Ibrahium et al. (2015) found that, cooking shrinkage% increased linearly for all beef burger samples during frozen storage.
Table (41): Changes in shrinkage percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
5.30fD 5.36eD 5.68dD 5.72cD 6.76bD 6.8aD 0
5.81fC 6.33dC 6.14eC 6.55cC 7.11bC 7.56aC 1
6.50f 6.93dB 6.65eB 6.98cB 7.72bB 7.95aB 2
6.95f 7.53dA 7.20eA 7.88cA 8.14bA 8.52aA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (32): Changes in shrinkage percentage of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.2.6. Thiobarbituric acid (TBA)
Changes in TBA of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (42) and figure (33). The obtained data revealed that the TBA was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products. But it was more evident in control sample and other samples (without antioxidant) and that reflect the antioxidant role for protection the samples against oxidation. However, El-Nashi et al. (2015) found that, addition of pomegranate peels powder reduced the rate of increase of TBA values, especially at concentration of 2% and 3% in prepared beef sausage samples containing 0%, 1%, 2%, and 3% pomegranate peels powder. Therefore, pomegranate peels powder could be used as a natural antioxidant for preventing lipid oxidation in meat products.
Also Ibrahium et al. (2015) found that TBA contents of all beef burger samples gradually increased during frozen storage up to 3 months. This increase could be mainly attributed to the oxidation of lipids and formation of some TBA-reactive compounds during the storage period as reported by Stahnke (1995). However Abd-El-Qader (2003) and Mohamed (2012) reported the same observation.
Table (42): Changes in thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
0.221fD 0.335cD 0.330eD 0.431bD 0.332dD 0.450aD 0
0.228fC 0.362cC 0.356dC 0.470bC 0.354eC 0.476aC 1
0.233fB 0.391cB 0.375dB 0.509aB 0.371eB 0.503bB 2
0.248fA 0.402cA 0.389dA 0.541aA 0.383eA 0.533bA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (33): Changes in thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values (mg malonaldehyde/ kg sample) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.2.7. Peroxide value (PV)
Changes in peroxide value (PV) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (43.) and figure (34).
The obtained data revealed that the PV was significantly increased in the control as well as treated products but it was more evident in control sample and other samples (without antioxidant). The inhibitory effect of pomegranate peels powder on lipid oxidation might be related to its phenolic constituents and other biochemical compounds that mainly contribute to the antioxidant activity, (Zhang et al., 2010 and Jia et al., 2012). The obtained results were in the same line with the results of Wally (2002), Abd-El-Qader (2003) and Mohamed (2012) who reported that peroxide value was increased during storage of chicken burger.
Table (43): Changes in peroxide value (PV) (m. equiv. /kg fat) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
1.4fD 3.20cD 1.6eD 4bD 1.8dD 4.4aD 0
1.8fC 3.6cC 2.00eC 5bC 2.2dC 5.4aC 1
2.00fB 4.00cB 2.6dB 5.8aB 2.4eB 5.6bB 2
2.2fA 4.4cA 3.2dA 6.6aA 2.8eA 6.2bA 3
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (34): Changes in peroxide value (PV) (m. equiv. /kg fat) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months (On dry weight).
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.3. Effect of using naturel antioxidant (2%pomegranate peel powder) and frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months on microbiological quality of the of the prepared beef sausages
5.5.3.1. Total bacterial count
Changes in total bacterial count of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (44) and figure (35). The obtained data revealed that the total bacterial count was significantly decreased in the control as well as treated products. However the decrease of total bacterial count was more evident in treated samples compared to control and that might be due to low free water and moisture contents as well as pressure cooking for chickpea. On other hand, addition of pomegranate peel powder was more effect in decreasing the bacterial count and that might be due to its antimicrobial effect. Moreover, Al-Zoreky (2009) Kanatt et al. (2010) and Agourram et al. (2013) evaluated the antimicrobial characteristics of pomegranate peels and they found that pomegranate peels have an inhibition effect against gram positive and gram negative bacteria. However, Mohamed (2012) reported that, there were a decrease of total bacterial count during frozen storage of chicken burger, while Ibrahium et al. (2015) found that the count of microorganisms linearly increased (P<0.05) with progressing the storage period of all tested samples.
Replacement level of meat Control Sample
storage period
Formula 2
(20%)chickpea flour Formula 1
(10%)milled flaxseed With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
Antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder With out
antioxidant
74 102 69 98 88 103 0
53 79 41 61 70 89 1
34 51 23 47 43 62 2
17 30 14 22 35 46 3
Table (44): Changes in total bacterial count (cfu/gx104) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months
Figure (35): Changes in total bacterial count (cfu/gx104) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.3.2. mold and yeast count
Changes in mold and yeast of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are presented in Table (45) and figure (36).
The obtained data revealed that, no mold and yeast were detected in the control as well as treated products during the frozen storage period. The absent of yeast and mold counts during frozen storage might be attributed to effect of frozen on the destruction of microbial cell which led to death of the cells, beside the antimicrobial effect of pomegranate peel powder. Meanwhile, at the end of frozen storage molds disappeared in all different chicken burger treatments except the sample of chicken burger formula containing black seeds at level 0.5% as recorded by Mohamed (2012).
Table (45): Changes in mold and yeast count (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
Replacement level of meat Control
Sample
Storage period
Formula(2) (20%) chickpea flour Formula(1) (10%) milled flaxseed
With( 2%) pomegranate peel powder Without antioxidant With(2%) pomegranate peel powder
Without antioxidant With(2%)
pomegranate peel powder Without antioxidant
Yeast molds Yeast molds Yeast molds Yeast molds Yeast molds Yeast mods
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
2
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3
ND= Not detected
Figure (36): Changes in mold and yeast count (cfu/g×104) of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
5.5.4. Effect of using naturel antioxidant (2%pomegranate peel powder) and frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months on sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages
Changes in sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months are revealed in Table (46) and figures (37, 38 39,40 41).
According to the means given by the panelists of grilled samples, sensory scores for studied parameters such as taste, flavor, color, texture and overall acceptability revealed that, there were decreased, but no significant differences were observed (p>0.05) amongst the treatments for all the studied parameters indicating that the partial replacement of beef meat by (10%) flaxseed and (2%pomegranate peel powder) on the other hand, the addition of pomegranate peel powder was improved the panelists scores in control as well as treated products as indicated in Table (46) and figures (37,38,39,40,41). However, Ibrahium et al. (2015) reported that, beef burger samples containing different flaxseed oil/rice bran (FO/RB) formulations exhibited a good sensory properties and better acceptability after frozen storage for 3 months. Moreover there were a significant differences with (20%) chickpea flour replacement for texture and overall acceptability at the end of storage period only but the product get more than 9 degree from 10 as a total scores. The lower textural scores might be due to loss of water during storage. The decrease of overall acceptability scores might be reflective of the decline in scores of texture.
Table (46): Changes in sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
Sample
Storage
period Control
Replacement level of meat
Formula(1) (10%) milled flaxseed Formula(2) chickpea flour(%20)
Without antioxidant With (2%) pomegranate peels powder Without antioxidant With(2%) pomegranate peels powder Without antioxidant With(2%) pomegranate peels powder
Taste 0 9.95aA 9.90aA 9.50bA 9.67abA 9.83aA 9.89aA
1 9.83abA 9.89aA 9.50abA 9.58abA 9.50abAB 9.67abAB
2 9.70aA 9.83aA 9.46abA 9.54abA 9.21bB 9.48abAB
3 9.67aA 9.71aA 9.38aA 9.46aA 9.13bB 9.29abB
Flavor 0 9.88aA 9.92aA 9.33bA 9.58abA 9.64abA 9.75aA
1 9.79abAB 9.88aA 9.30bA 9.54abA 9.38bAB 9.58abA
2 9.67aAB 9.80aA 9.29abA 9.48aA 9.20bAB 9.33abAB
3 9.38abB 9.62aA 9.25abA 9.33abA 8.92bB 8.96bB
Texture 0 9.63aA 9.87aA 9.30abA 9.54aA 9.00bA 9.38abA
1 9.48abA 9.70aA 9.30abA 9.50aA 8.92bA 9.30abA
2 9.42aA 9.58aA 9.29aA 9.42aA 8.79bAB 9.20aA
3 9.33aA 9.46aA 9.20aA 9.38aA 8.63bB 9.00abA
Color 0 9.92aA 9.90aA 9.20bA 9.00bA 9.75aA 10aA
1 9.71aAB 9.83aA 9.17bA 8.88bAB 9.66aAB 9.90aA
2 9.62aAB 9.71aA 9.12bA 8.79bAB 9.50aAB 9.82aA
3 9.46abB 9.58aA 9.08bcA 8.63cB 9.25abB 9.71aA
Overall acceptability 0 9.90aA 9.92aA 9.54bA 9.70abA 9.85abA 9.89aA
1 9.79aA 9.88aA 9.50aA 9.67aA 9.42abB 9.63aAB
2 9.60abA 9.83aA 9.46abA 9.58abA 9.20bB 9.42abAB
3 9.50abA 9.70aA 9.40abA 9.50abA 9.17bB 9.29abB
Different capital letters in the same columns means significantly difference (p<0.05) between storage period.
Different small letters in the same rows means significantly difference (p<0.05) between treatment.
Figure (37): Changes in taste of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
Figure (38): Changes in odor of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
Figure (39): Changes in texture of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
Figure (40): Changes in color of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
Figure (41): Changes in overall acceptability of beef sausages during frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months.
F1= Beef sausage with 10% flaxseeds replacement of beef meat.
F2= Beef sausage with 20% chickpeas replacement of beef meat.
p.p.p = pomegranate peels powder.
6- Summary
This study was aimed to preparation of beef sausages by replacement of beef meat by (10%) milled flaxseed or (20%) chickpea flour and addition of (2%) pomegranate peel powder, and studying the quality properties of the prepared products. Besides studying the quality properties during cold storage at 4± 1ºC for three weeks as well as frozen storage at -18±1ºC for three months.
The most important obtained results could be summarized as follows:
Replacement of beef meat by (10%) milled flaxseed for preparing beef sausages
• Improved the proximate composition by increasing significantly the crude fat, crude fiber, carbohydrate contents as well as the caloric value.
• Improved the physiochemical properties which increased the cooking yield and the water holding capacity whereas decreased the cooking loss and shrinkage.
• Increased the poly unsaturated fatty acids content.
• Reduced the total bacterial count, yeasts and mold count compared with control.
• Affect significantly on sensory evaluation of the final product at zero time but during frozen storage these affect was not significantly.
• Finally it reduced the final coasts by 8.3 %.
Replacement of beef meat by (20%) chickpea flour for preparing beef sausages
• Improved the proximate composition by increasing the crude fiber and carbohydrate contents but, decreasing the fat and ash contents as well as the caloric value.
• Affected the physiochemical properties which decreased the cooking loss and shrinkage but increased the water holding capacity, cooking yield.
• Incorporating of chickpea flour improved the fatty acids profile.
• Reduced the total bacterial count, yeasts and mold count compared with control.
• On significant between control and the prepared product overall acceptability.
• Finally it reduced the final coasts by 16%.
Addition of (2%) pomegranate peel for preparing beef sausages
• Increased the ash, and carbohydrate contents while decreased moisture and protein contents.
• Decreased the TBA value and peroxide value in control and treated products.
• Decreased the total bacterial count, yeasts and mold count in control and treated products.
• Improved the sensory evaluation of the prepared beef sausages.
Effect of cold storage (4 ± 1°C) for three weeks of the prepared beef sausages
• Decreased the moisture, protein contents while increasing the crude fat, ash and carbohydrate contents as well as the caloric value.
• Affected the physiochemical properties which increased the cooking loss shrinkage, TBA value, peroxide value and decreased the water holding capacity, cooking yield in control and all treated products..
• Increased the total bacterial count, while yeasts and mold were observed in the second week of storage in control and all treated products.
• Significantly decreased the sensory evaluation in control and all treated products.
Effect of frozen storage (-18 ± 1°C) for three months of the prepared beef sausages
• Decreased the moisture, protein contents while increasing the crude fat, ash and carbohydrate contents as well as the caloric value.
• Affected the physiochemical properties which increased the cooking loss, shrinkage TBA value, peroxide value and decreased the water holding capacity, cooking yield.
• Decreased the total bacterial count, while, yeasts and mold were not detected in control and all treated products.
• Decreased un significantly the sensory evaluation in control and all treated products.
7-Conclusion
from this study it could be concluded that
1- It could be successfully replacement of beef meat by 10% flaxseed or 20% chickpea flour as well as addition of 2% pomegranate peel powder for preparing beef sausages with good chemical, sensory and microbial quality.
2- The treatments reduced the final costs by 8.3 and 16%, by using flaxseed and chickpea flour, respectively.
3- The prepared products could be stored at -18±1 oC for three months with good quality attributes.
4- Using some plant sources (flaxseed or chickpea flour) for making beef sausages could be recommended to minimize costs of sausages processing as well as improving the nutritive value.
REFERENCES
AOAC (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 14th Ed, Official methods of analysis, Washington DC. Arlington, Virginia, USA. April, 13-14, 2011.
AOAC (1995). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 16th Ed., A.O.A.C International, Washington, USA. Pages: 1141.
AOAC (2000). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 17th Ed. Of A.OA.C. International. Published by A.O.A.C. international. Maryland, U.S.A., 1250pp.
A.P.H.A. (1976). American Public Health Association, Compendium of Method for the Microbiological Examination of food. Speck, M.L. ed., Washington D.C., U.S.A.
Abbasi, F.; Samadi, F.; Jafari, S. M.; Ramezanpour, S. and Shargh, M. S. (2019). Ultrasound-assisted preparation of flaxseed oil nanoemulsions coated with alginate-whey protein for targeted delivery of omega-3 fatty acids into the lower sections of gastrointestinal tract to enrich broiler meat. Ultrasonics – Sonochemistry, 50: 208–217.
Abd El-Aal, A. R. M. (2016). Chemical and Technological Studies on some smoked meat products. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agric., Assiut Univ., Assiut., Egypt.
Abdel Fattah A.A.; Nadia, R.; Abdel-Rahman, M. M. Abd El-Razik and El-Nashi, H, B. (2016). Utilization of Pomegranate Peels for Improving Quality Attributes of Refrigerated Beef Burger. Curr. Sci. Int., 5(4): 427-441.
Abd-El-Qader, M. F. (2003). Quality Improvement of Chicken Frozen Burger Formulated with Some Spices or their Volatile Oils. M. Sc. Thesis, Food Science and Technology Dept., Faculty of Agric., Cairo Univ., Egypt.
Abdolghafour, B. and Saghir, A. (2014). Development in sausage production and practices-A review. Journal of Meat Science and Technology, 2 (3): 40-50.
Abou Arab, E. A.; Helmy, I. M. F. and Bareh, G. F. (2010). Nutritional Evaluation and Functional Properties of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Flour and the Improvement of Spaghetti Produced from its. Journal of American Science, 6(10):1055-1072.
Agourram, A.; Ghirardello, D.; Rantsiou, K.; Zeppa, G.; Belviso, S. and Romane, A. (2013). Phenolic content, antioxidant potential and antimicrobial activities of fruit and vegetable by-product extracts. Int. J. Food Prop, 16: 1092-1104.
Ahmad, S. and Amer, B. (2013). Sensory Quality of Fermented Sausages as Influenced by Different Combined Cultures of Lactic Acid Bacteria Fermentation during Refrigerated Storage. J Food Process Technol, 4:2.
Ahmed, S. I. E. (2008). Utilization of wheat germ flour in the processing of beef sausage. M. Sc. Thesis, Food Science and Technology Dept., Faculty of Agri., Khartoum Univ.
Akesowan, A. (2015). Optimization light pork burgers formulated with canola oil and linseed/sun flower seed/almond (LSA) mix. J. of Animal and Plant Sciences, 25 (1): 268-277.
Alajaji, S. A. and El-Adawy, T. A. (2006). Nutritional composition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as affected by microwave cooking and other traditional cooking methods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 03:015.
Albarracín, H.W. and Acosta, A. L. F. I. C. (2010). Elaboración de un producto cárnico escaldado utilizando como extensor harina de fríjol común (Phaseolus spp.), 17(45): 264–271.
Ali, H.A.; Mansour, E.H.; E-IBedawey, A.E.F.A.; Osheba, A.S. (2017). Evaluation of tilapia fish burgers as affected by different replacement levels of mashed pumpkin or mashed potato. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci., (in press).
Ali, M. A. (2008). Effect of Processing and Cooking Method on Chemical, Biological and Microbiological Properties of Low- Fat Meat Products. Ph. D. Thesis, Food Science and Technology Dept., Faculty of Agric., Cairo, Univ., Egypt.
Al-Zoreky, N. S. ( 2009). Antimicrobial activity of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) fruit peels. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 134 (3): 244-248.
Andreu, L.; Nuncio-Jáuregui, N.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á. A.; Legua, P. and Hernández, F. (2018). Antioxidant properties and chemical characterization of Spanish Opuntia ficus-indica Mill. cladodes and fruits. J. Sci Food Agric, 98:1566–1573.
Anjaneyulu, A. S. R.; Sham, N. and Kondaian, N. (1991). The effect of salt and phosphate pre blending of buffalo meat on its physicochemical properties during refrigerated storage. Fleschwirtschaft international,1:33-37.
Asmare, H. and Admassu, S. (2013). Development and Evaluation of dry fermented sausages processed from blends of chickpea flour and beef. East African Journal of Sciences, 7 (1) :17-30.
Baker, F.; Picton, D. and Blackwood et al. (2002). Blinded comparison of folic acid and placebo in patients with ischemic heart disease: an outcome trial. Circulation 106: 741S.
Bala, K.; Marshall, R. K.; Stringer, W. C. and Naumann, H. D. (1979). Stability of sterile beef and beef extract to protease and lise from Pseudomonas fragi. J. Food Sci., 44: 1294.
Bernacchia, R.; Preti, R. and Vinci, G. (2014). Chemical Composition and Health Benefits of Flaxseed. Austin J Nutri Food Sci., 2(8): 1045.
Biesalski, H. K. (2005). Meat as a component of a healthy diet – Are there any risks or benefits if meat is avoided in the diet? Meat Sci., 70: 509–524.
Bilek, A. E. and Turhan, S. (2009). Enhancement of the nutritional status of beef patties by adding flaxseed flour. Meat Sci., 82: 472-477.
Cegielka, A.; Chmiel, M.; Krajewska-Kaminska, E. and Hac-szymanczuk, E. (2015). Quality characteristics of chicken burgers enriched with vegetable oils, inulin and wheat fiber. Ital. J. Food Sci, 27. (3): 298-309.
Channe, J. B.; Aware, C. B. and Dalave, S. C. (2014). characterization of chickpea cultivars (Cicer arietinum L.) by sds page and analysis of antinutritional factors therein, 1(1): 022-024.
Chen, H. H.; Xu, S.Y. and Wang, Z. (2004). Separation and purification of acidic polysaccharides and neutral polysaccharides in flaxseed gum. J Food Ferment Ind, 1:96–100.
Chen, X.; Dang, T.T.T. and Facchini, P. J.(2015). Noscapine comes of age. Phytochemistry,111:7–13.
Choi, Y. S.; Choi, J. H.; Han, D. J.; Kim, H. Y.; Lee, M. A.; Kim, H. W.; Lee, J. W.; Chung, H. J. and Kim, C. J. (2010b). Optimization of replacing pork back fat with grape seed oil and rice bran fiber for reduced-fat meat emulsion systems. Meat Sci, 84: 212 - 218.
Choi, Y. S.; Choi, J. H.; Han, D. J.; Kim, H. Y.; Lee, M. A.; Kim, H. W.; Jeong, J. Y. and Kim, C. J. (2011). Effects of rice bran fiber on heat-induced gel prepared with pork salt-soluble meat proteins in model system. Meat Sci, 88: 59 - 66.
Choi, Y. S.; Choi, J. H.; Han, D. J.; Kim, H. Y.; Lee, M. A.; Jeong, J. Y.; Chung, H. J. and Kim, C. J. ( 2010a). “Effects of replacing pork fat with vegetable oils and rice bran fiber on the quality of reduced-fat frankfurters”. Meat Sci., 84 (3): 557 - 563.
Choi, Y. S.; Choi, J. H.; Han, D. J.; Kim, H. Y.; Lee, M. A.; Kim, H. W.; Jeong, J. Y. and Kim,C. J. (2009). characteristics of low-fat meat emulsion systems with pork fat replaced by vegetable oils and rice bran fiber. Meat Sci., 82: 266 - 271.
Chung, M.W.Y.; Lei, B. and Li-Chan, E.C.Y. (2005). Isolation and structural characterization of the major protein fraction from NorMar flaxseed (Linumusitatissimum L.). Food Chem. 90: 271-279.
Cofrades, S.; Guerra, M. A , Carballo, J .; Fernández-Martín, F. and Jiménez-Colmenero, F. (2000). Plasma protein and soy fiber content effect on bologna sausage properties as influenced by fat level.” J. Food Sci., 65: 281-287.
Coronado, S, A.; Trout, G. R.; Dunshea, F.R. and Shah, N.P.(2002). Effect of dietary vitamin E, fishmeal and wood and liquid smoke on the oxidative stability of bacon during 16 weeks, frozen storage. Meat Sci. 62:51-60.
Cremer, M. L. and Chipley, J. R. ( 1977). Satellite food service system: Time and temperature and microbiological and sensory quality of precooked frozen hamburger patties. J Food Prot,40:603–607.
Dandachy, S.; Mawlawi, H.; and Obeid, O. (2019). Efect of Processed Chickpea Flour Incorporation on Sensory Properties of Mankoushe Zaatar. Foods, 8: 151.
Daun, J. K.; Barthet, V. J.; Chornick, T. L. and Duguid, S. (2003). Structure, composition, and variety development of flaxseed. Flaxseed in human nutrition Thompson LU. Cunnane Sc., 1-40.
DeClercq, D. R. (2006). Quality of western Canadian flaxseed 2006. Canadian Grain Commission. www.grainscanada.gc.ca.
Deepak, S. J.; Chandre Gowda, C.T.; Ravikumar, P. and Roopa, K. (2018). Effect of Flaxseed Flour on Physio-chemical and Sensory Acceptability of Chicken Nuggets. Journal of Animal Research, 8 (1): 67-72.
Denke, M. A. (1994). Role of beef and beef tallow, an enriched source of stearic acid, in a cholesterol lowering diet. Am. J. Clin. Nutr, 60 (l):1044S-9S.
Desalegn, B. B. (2015). Effect of Soaking and Germination on Proximate Composition, Mineral Bioavailability and Functional Properties of Chickpea Flour. Food and Public Health, 5(4): 108-113.
Desimone, T. L. (2011). Nutrient analysis of the beef alternative merchandising cuts. MSc. Dept of animal sciences. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado.
Desmond, E. M. and Troy, D. J. (1998). Comparative studies of non meat adjuncts used in the manufacture of low-fat beef burgers. J. Muscle Foods, 9, 221-241.
Dessouki, T. M. (1976). Studies on the Preservation of Fish by Freeze- drying, Ph. D. Thesis, Faculty of Agric., Ain Shams Univ., Egypt.
Devatkal, S. K.; Narsaiah, K. and Borah, A. (2010). Anti-oxidant effect of extracts of kinnow rind, pomegranate rind and seed powders in cooked goat meat patties. Meat Sci., 85 (1):155 -159.
Difco -Manual (1998). Dehydrated Culture Media and Ingredients. 11th Edition. Division of Becton Dickinson and Company, Sparks, Maryland, USA.
Difco-Manual (1984). Dehydrated culture media and reagents microbiological and clinical laboratory procedures, Pub-Difco-Lab-Detroits Michigan, USA.
Działo, M.; Mierziak, J.; Korzun, U.; Preisner, M.; Szopa, J. and Kulma, A. (2016). The potential of plant phenolics in prevention and therapy of skin disorders. Int. J. Mol. Sci.,17:160.
Dzudie, T.T.; Scher, J.J. and Hardy, J.J. (2002). Common bean flour as an extender in beef sausages. J Food Eng, 52(2):143-7.
E.O.S. (2005). Egyptian organization for standardization and quality control. Frozen beef burger No. 1688 Ebrahimi, M.; Rajion, M. A and. Goh, Y. M. (2014) Effects of oils rich in linoleic and α-linolenic acids on fatty acid profile and gene expression in goat meat. Nutrients, 6: 3913 - 3928.
Egyptian Standard for sausage, (1991). Frozen sausage, Egyptian Standard No. 1973 Egyptian Organization for Standardization and Quality Control, Ministry of industry Arab Republic of Egypt.
El- Nemr, S. E. A. (1979). Studies on Meat Substitutes, M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agric., Zagazig Univ., Zagazig, Egypt.
Elbakheet, I. S.; Elgasim, A. E. and Algadi, M. Z. (2017). Proximate composition of beef sausage processed by wheat germ flour. J. Food Process Technol., 8 (11): 704.
El-Beltagi, H. S.; Salama, Z.A. and El-Hariri, D. M.(2007). Evaluation of fatty acids profile and the content of some secondary metabolites in seeds of different flax cultivars (Linum Usitatissimum L.). General Applied Plant Physiology, 33: 187- 202.
Elhardallou, S. B. and Walker, A. F. (1993). The water-holding capacity of three starchy legumes in the raw, cooked and fiber-rich fraction forms. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr, 44:171-9.
El-Harrery, A. S. (1997). Effect of Cardamom Oil on Chemical, Microbiological and Sensory Attributes of Beef Sausage. M.Sc. Thesis, Food Science and Technology Dept., Faculty of Agric., Cairo Univ., Egypt.
EL-khateib, T.; Abd El-Rahman, H.; Hamdy, M. And Lotfi, A. (1988). Poultry meat products in Egypt “ Proximal chemical composition and microbiological quality” Fleischwirtsch, 68.6, 756- 757.
El-Naggar, S. M. (1999). Production and Evaluation of Low- Fat Meat Products. M. Sc. Thesis, Food Science and Technology Dept., Faculty of Agric., Cairo Univ., Egypt.
El-Nashi, H. B.; Abdel Fattah, A. A.; Nadia, R. and Abdel Rahman, M.M. Abd El-Razik. (2015). Quality characteristics of beef sausage containing pomegranate peels during refrigerated storage . Annals of Agricultural Science, 60(2): 403–412.
EmelCengiz and NalanGokoglu. (2007). Effects of fat reduction and fat replacer addition on some quality characteristics of frankfurter-type sausages. International Journal of Food Science and Technology., 42: 366 – 372.
Enser, M. (2001). The role of fats in human nutrition. In B. Rossell (Ed.), Oils and fats, Animal carcass fats. Leatherhead, Surrey, UK: Leatherhead Publishing, 2: 77–122.
Enser, M.; Hallett, K.; Hewett, B.; Fursey, G. A. J.; Wood, D. and Harrington, G. (1998). Fatty acid content and composition of UK beef and muscle relation to production system and implications for human. Meat Sci., 49: 329-341.
FAO/WHO, (1973). Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of FAO Nutritional Meeting Series, No. 52, Rome.
FAOSTAT (2012). http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx.
Farno, L. A. (1996). Oil and fatty acid profiles of soybeans https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6667/0eccf53d0b2410dbd6a4ff0553b0cef5ac7c.pdf.
Fernandez, J.; Perej-Alvarez, J.A. and Fernandez-Lopez, J.A. (1997). Thiobarbituric acid test for monitoring lipid oxidation in meat. Food Chem, 59 (3): 345–353.
Flax Council of Canada. (1997). Contractual analysis. In: Flax – A health and nutrition primer. Morris, D. H, Flax Council of Canada, Winnipeg, MB.
Gaafar, A. m.; header, E. A.; EL-Sherif, f. A.; EL-dashlouty, M. S. and EL-brollose, S. A. (2010). Sensory, chemical and biological evaluation of some products fortified by whole flaxseed. Egypt. J. Agric. Res, 88 (1).
Gamlath, S. and Ravindran, G. (2009). Extruded products with Fenugreek (Trigonella foenumgraecium) chickpea and rice: Physical properties, sensory acceptability and glycaemic index. Journal of Food Engineering, 90:44–52.
Gelman, A. and Benjamin, E. (1989). characteristics of mince from Pond-bred silver carp (Hypopthamichthysmolitrix) and preliminary experiments on its use in sausage. J. Sci.,Food Agriculture, 47: 225- 241.
George, M. E. B. and Berry, B.W. (2000). Thawing prior to cooking affects sensory, shear force and cooking properties of beef pattie. J. Food Sci., 65 (1): 2–8.
Ghribi, A. M.; Maklouf, I.; Blecker, C.; Attia, H. and BESBES, S.( 2015). Nutritional and compositional study of Desi and Kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flours from Tunisian cultivars. Adv Food Technol Nutr Sci Open J, 1(2): 38-47.
Girgis, A. Y.; Hussein, S. A. and Shahin, M. F. S. A. (2015). Improving the properties of beef sausage. Life Science Journal, 12(1):38-43.
Gujral, H. S.; Kaur, A.; Singh, N. and Sodhi, N.S. (2009). Effect of liquid whole egg, fat and textured soy protein on the textural and cooking properties of raw and baked patties from goat meat. J. Food Eng, 53 (4): 377–385.
Haag, M. (2003). Essential fatty acids and the brain, CanPsycbiatry, 48-195.
Hamm, R. (1960). Biochemistry of meat hydration. Adv. Food Res,10:355.
Hashem, A. M. A. (2011). Chemical and Technological Studies of Low- Fat Meat Products. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agric., Assiut Univ., Assiut, Egypt.
Havemeier, S.; Erickson, J. and Slavin, J. (2017). Dietary guidance for pulses: The challenge and opportunity to be part of both the vegetable and protein food groups. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1392, 58–66.
Hefnawy, T. M. H.; El-Shourbagy, G. A. and Ramadan, M. F. (2012). Impact of adding chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flour to wheat flour on the rheological properties of toast bread. International Food Research Journal, 19(2): 521-525.
Hegazy, N. E. M. (2004). Chemical Microbiological and Technological Studies on Some Poultry Meat Products. M. Sc. Thesis, Food Industeries Dept., Faculty of Agric, El-Mansoura Univ. Egypt.
Holliday, D. L.; Sandlin, C.; Schott, A.; Malekian, F. and Finley, J. W. (2011). characteristics of meat or sausage patties using pulses as extenders. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 9(3): 158-176.
Hur, S. J.; Lim, B. O.; Park, G. B. and Joo, S. T. (2009). Effect of various fiber additions on lipid digestion during in vitro digestion of beef patties. J. Food Sci., 74(9): 653-657.
Hussein, F. H.; Razavi, S. H. and Emam-Djomeh, Z. (2017). Physicochemical Properties and Sensory Evaluation of Reduced Fat Fermented Functional Beef Sausage. Applied food biotechnology,4(2):93-102.
Ibrahium, M. I.; Hegazy, A. I. and El-Waseif, M. A. (2015). Effect of Replacing Beef Fat with Flaxseed Oil and Rice Bran on Nutritional Quality Criteria of Beef Burger Patties. Middle East Journal of Applied Sciences, 05(03): 645-655.
Ionescu, A.; Aprodu, I.; Darabă, A.; Gurău, G.; Baciu, C. and Nichita, A. (2009). Chemical and Functional characterization of Chickpea Protein Derivate. International Symposium Euro, 9th – 10th.
Jakopič, J.; Veberič, R. and Štampar, F. (2009). Extraction of phenolic compounds from green walnut fruits in different solvents. Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 93(1): 11–15.
Jay, J. (1996a). Modern Food Microbiology 5th ed. International Thomson Publishing Kentachy.
Jay, J. M. (1996b). Antioxidant. In: modern food microbi-ology. 4th Ed. CBS Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi: 265–266.
Jenkins, D. J. A.; Kendall, C.W.C.; Augustin, L. S. A.; and et al. (2012). Effect of legumes as part of a low glycemic index diet on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial. Arch. Intern. Med, 172: 1653–1660.
Jia, N.; Kong, B.; Liu, Q.; Diao, X. and Xia, X. (2012). Antioxidant activity of black currant (Ribes nigrum L.) extract and its inhibitory effect on lipid and protein oxidation of pork patties during chilled storage. Meat Sci., 91: 533-539.
Johnson, I. T. and Southgate, D. A. T. (1994). Dietary fiber and related substance. In: Food Safety Series (Ed. J. Edelman and S. Miller). Chopman and Hall London. pp. 39-65.
Jukanti1, A. K.; Gaur, P. M.; Gowda1, C. L. L. and Chibbar, R. N. (2012). Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) British. Journal of Nutrition, 108(1):S11-S26.
Kanatt, S. R.; Chander, R. and Sharma, A. (2010). Antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of pomegranate peel extract improves the shelf life of chicken products. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 45 (2): 216 - 222.
Karre, L.; Lopez, K. and Getty, J. K. (2013). Natural antioxidants in meat and poultry products. Meat Sci., 94: 220–227.
Kasote, D.M. (2013). Flaxseed phenolic as natural antioxidants. Int Food Res J, 20(1):27–34.
Katare, C.; Saxena, S.; Agrawal, S.; Prasad, G. B. K. S. and Bisen, P.S. (2012). Flax seed: a potential medicine food. J Nutr Food Sci., 2(1):120–127.
Kelapure, N. N.; Jaju, R. H.; Satwase, A. N.; Gutthe, A .V. and Tidke, S. S. (2018). Study on Quality Attributes of Flaxsee d Flour Supplemented Cookies. Int. J. Pure App. Biosci, 6 (2): 1439-1445.
Kohajdova, Z.; Karovikov, J. and Magala, M. (2011). Utilisation of chickpea flour for crackers production. Ata ChimicaSlovaca 4(2): 98-107.
Kris-Etherton, P. M.; Taylor, D. S.; Yu - Poth, S.; Huth, P.; Moriarty, K.; Fishell, V.; Hargrove, R.L.; Zhao, G. and Etherton, T.D. (2000). Polyunsaturated fatty acids in the food chain in the united states, Am Clin. Nutr, 71: 197.
Kumar, S. and Pandey, A. K. (2013). Chemistry and biological activities of flavonoids: An overview. Sci., World J. 2013: 162750.
Kumar, S.; Mendiratta, S.K. and Agrawal, R. K. (2017). Quality evaluation of mutton nuggets incorporated with optimized level of flaxseed flour. Nutrition & Food Science, 47: 67-77.
Kurt and Ceylan, (2018). Effects of Flaxseed and pH on the Emulsion Properties of Beef by Using a Model System. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 6(1): 78-83.
Labuza, T. P. and Busk, C. (1979). An analysis of the water binding in gels. J. Food Sci., 44: 1385.
Lakshmanan, P.T. (2000). Fish spoilage and quality assessment. In: quality assurance in seafood processing, Iyer, T.S.G.; Kandoran, M.K.; Mary Thomas and Mathew, P.T. (Eds.) Cent. Inst. of Fish Technol. and Society of Fish. Technol. Cochin, India, 26-40.
Larsson, S. C. and Wolk, A. (2006). Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int. J. Cancer, 119:2657-2664.
Lee, K. H.; Qi, G. H. and Sim, J. S. (1995). Metabolizable energy and amino acid availability of full-fat seeds, meals and oils of Flax and Canola. Poultry Science, 74:1341-1348.
Lee, M. A.; Han, D. J.; Jeong, J.Y.; Choi, J. H.; Choi, Y.S. and Kim, H.Y. (2008). Effect of kimchi powder level and drying methods on quality characteristics of breakfast sausage. Meat Sci., 80: 708–714.
Lemon, D. W. (1975). An improved TBA test for rancidity. New series Circular. 5: 145 pp.
Li, Y.; Guo, C.; Yang, J.; Wei, J. and Xu, J. S. (2006). Cheng, Evaluation of antioxidant properties of pomegranate peel extract in comparison with pomegranate pulp extract. Food Chem, 96: 254-260.
Liberman, S. G. and petrovski, V. P. (1972). Reference book on the production of food animal fats, Food Industry Pub., Moscow.
Lin, K. W. and Huang, C.Y. (2008). Physicochemical and textural properties of ultrasound – degraded konjac flour and their influences on the quality of low– fat Chinese – style sausage. Meat Science, 79 (4):615 – 622.
Lindenschmidt, R.; Tryka, A.; Goad, M. and Witschi, H. (1986). The effects of dietary butylated hydroxytoluene on liver and colon tumor development in mice. Toxicology, 38 (2): 151–160
Mahan, L.K. and Escott-Stump, S. (2008). Krause’s Food & Nutrition Therapy, 12 ED, SAUNDERS.
Mansour, E. H. (2003). Effect of carbohydrate- based fat replacers on the quality characteristics of low-fat beef burgers. Bull. Faculty Agri., Cairo Univ., 54: 409-430.
Martinez, B., Miranda, J. M.; Vazquez, B. I.; Fente, C. A.; Franco, C. M.; Jose L.; Rodriguez, J. L. and Cepeda, A. (2009). Development of Hamburger Patty with Healthier Lipid Formulation and Study of its Nutritional, Sensory, and Stability Properties. Food Bioprocess Technol, DOI 10.1007/s11947-009-026
Meng, X.H.; Liu, C.; Fan, R.; Zhu, L. F.; Yang, S.X.; Zhu, H.T.; Wang, D.; Yang, C.R. and Zhang, Y.J. (2018). Antioxidative flavan-3-ol dimers from the leaves of Camellia fangchengensis. J. Agric. Food Chem, 66:247–254.
Mercier, S.; Villeneuve, S.; Moresoli, C.; Mondor, M.; Marcos, B. and Power, K. A. (2014). Flaxseed-enriched cereal-based products: A review of the impact of processing conditions. Compr Rev Food Sci F, 13: 400-412.
Mittal, R.; Nagi, H. P. S.; Sharma, P. and Sharma, S. (2012). Effect of Processing on Chemical Composition and antinutritional Factors in Chickpea Flour, Journal of Food Science and Engineering (2) 180-186.
Moawad, R. K. (1995). Effect of Pre-treatment on Quality Attributes and Nutritive Value of Frozen Beef and Chicken Meats. Ph. D Thesis, Food Science and Technology Dept., Faculty of Agric., Cairo Univ., Egypt.
Modi, V. K.; Mahendrakar, N. S.; Rao, N. D.; and Sachindra, N. M. (2004). Quality of buffalo meat burger containing legume flours as binders. Meat Sci., 66:143-149.
Mohamed, H. A. A. (2005). Low Fat Meat Products as Prepared from Ostorich and other Reduced Fat Beef. Ph. D. Thesis, Nutrition and Food Science Dept., Faculty of Home Economics, Menufiya, Univ., Egypt.
Mohamed, M. I. A. (2018). Studies on Natural Antioxidants of some Fruits. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agric., Assiut Univ., Assiut Egypt.
Mohamed, R. A. A. (2012). Chemical and Microbiological Studies on Some Chicken Meat Products. M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agric., Assiut Univ., Assiut, Egypt.
Mohammed, R. A. (2006). Quality Evaluation of Beef Sausage Incorporated with Bee Honey. M.Sc. Honors (Agric.) 2006 University of Khartoum.
Mollard, R. C.; Luhovyy, B. L.; Panahi, S.; Nunez, M.; Hanley, A. and Anderson, G. H. (2012). Regular consumption of pulses for 8 weeks reduces metabolic syndrome risk factors in overweight and obese adults. Br. J. Nutr., 108, S111–S122.
Morris, D. H. (2007). Flax Primer, A Health and Nutrition Primer. Flax Council of Canada, 9-19.
Motamedi, A.; Vahdani, M.; Baghaei, H. and Borghei, M, A. (2015). Considering the Physicochemical and Sensorial Properties of Momtaze Hamburgers Containing Lentil and Chickpea Seed Flour. Nutrition and Food Sciences Research , 2( 3): 55-62.
Muthulakshmi, M. (2010). Role and limitations of non-meat ingredients in processed meat products. Training manual on Requirements and developments in processed meat sector for better utilization of meat animal resources.7-16, NRC Hyderabad, p52-5.
Naveen, Z.; Naik, B. R.; Subramanyam, B. V.; and Reddy P. M. (2016). Studies on the quality of duck meat sausages during refrigeration. Springer Plus (2016) 5:2061 DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3743-7.
Naveena, B. M.; Sen, A. R.; Kingsly, R. P.; Singh, D. B. and Kondaiah, N. (2008a). Antioxidant activity of pomegranate rind powder extract in cooked chicken patties. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 43: 1807-1812.
Naveena, B.M.; Sen, A.R.; Vaithiyanathan, S.; Babji, Y. and Kondaiah, N. (2008b). Comparative efficacy of pomegranate juice, pomegranate rind powder extract and BHT as antioxidants in cooked chicken patties. Meat Sci, 80: 1304–1308.
Novello, D. and Pollonio, M. A. R. (2013). Golden flaxseed and its byproducts in beef patties: physico-chemical evaluation and fatty acid profile. Ciência Rural, Santa Maria, 43:1707-1714.
Nykter, M. and Kyma¨ la¨ inen, H. R. (2006). Quality characteristics of edible linseed oil. Agricultural and Food Science, 15: 402–413 .
Oladejo, D. A. and Adebayo-Tayo, B. C. (2011). Moulds, proximate mineral composition and mycotoxin contamination of banda( kundi /tinko) Sold in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.AUJ.T,15:32-40.
Olivo, R. A. (2006). carne e os benefícios da fibra alimentar. In: Olivo, R. (Ed.). Tecnologia da extensão cárnea: atualidades em ciência e tecnologia de carnes. São Paulo: Varela. 12: 175-184.
Oomah, B. D. and Mazza, G. (1993). Flaxseed proteins –A review. Food Chem, 48: 109-114.
Oomah, B.D. (2001). Flaxseed as a functional food source. J Sci Food Agric, 81:889–894.
Oroszvári, B. K.; Sjohölm, I. and Tornberg, E. (2006).The mechanisms controlling heat and mass transfer on frying beef burgers. The influence of the composition and commination of meat raw material. J. Food Eng, 67: 499 - 506.
Osheba, A. S.; Hussein, S. and El-Dashlouty, A. A. (2013). Evaluation of some vegetal colloids on the quality attributes of beef sausage. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology, 5 (6): 743-751.
Owon, M. A.; El – Demery, M. E.; Lotfy, L. M. and Elmoghany, A. S. (2014). Quality attributes of low – fat beef burgers formulated with chickpea flour. J. Food and Dairy Sci., Mansoura Univ., 5 (6): 389 - 402 .
Pelletier, D.L. (1994). The potentiating effects of malnutrition on child mortality: epidemiologic evidence and policy implications. Nutrition Review, 52: 409 – 415.
Pellett, P. L. and Young, V. R. (1980). Nutritional evaluation of protein foods. Foodand Nutrition Bulletin, (Suppl. 4).
Pengilly, N. L. (2003). Traditional food and medicinal uses of, fax seed. Flax: the genus Linum. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, 252-267.
Pereira, D.; Correia, P. M. R. and Guiné, R. P. F. (2013). Analysis of the physical-chemical and sensorial properties of Maria type cookies. Acta Chim. Slovaca, 6 (2): 269 - 280.
Phillips, R.W.; Kikendall, J.W.; Luk, G. D.; Willis, S. M.; Murphy, J. R. and Maydonovitch, C. (1993). Carotene inhibits rectal mucosal ornithine decarboxylase activity in colon cancer patients. Cancer Res, 53: 3723–3725.
Polizer, Y. J.; Pompeu, D.; Hirano, M. H.; Freire, M.T.D. and Trindade, M. A. (2015). Development and evaluation of chicken nuggets with partial replacement of meat and fat by pea fiber.Brazilian J.Food and Technol Campinas, 18(1): 62-69.
Prosky, L. (1999). What is fibre? Current controversies. Trends Food Sci. Technol, 10: 271-275.
Rabetafika, H. N.; Remoortel, V. V.; Danthine, S.; Paquot, M. and Blecker, C. (2011). Flaxseed proteins: food uses and health benefits. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 46, 221–228.
Rajani, K. K.; Kondaiah, N.; Anjaneyulu, A. S. R. and Thomas, R. (2007). Evaluation of quality of chicken emulsions stored refrigerated (4 ± 1 °C) for chicken patties. Int J Food Sci Technol, 42:842–851.
Ramcharitar, A.; Badrie, N.; Mattfeldt-Beman, M.; Matsuo, H. and Ridley, C. (2005). Consumer acceptability of muffins with flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum). Journal of Food Science, 70: 504–507.
Rani, P. and Khullar, N. (2004). Antimicrobial evaluation of some medicinal plants for their potential against multidrug resistant Salmonella Typhi. Phytotherapy Res, 18: 670-673.
Rossell, J. B.; King, B. and Downes, M. J. (1983). Detection of adulteration. J. Am. Oil. Chem. Soc., 60:333.
Rubilar, M.; Gutierrez, C.; Verdugo, M.; Shene, C. and Sineiro, J. (2010). Flaxseed as a source of functional Ingredients. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr, 10: 373-377.
Sa´ nchez-Zapata, E.; Ferna´ ndez-Lo´ pez, J.; Pen˜ aranda, M.; Fuentes-Zaragoza, E.; Sendra, E. and Sayas, E. (2011). Technological properties of date paste obtained from date by-products and its effect on the quality of a cooked meat product. Food Res. Int, 44: 2401–2407.
Samuel, K. G.; Wang J.; Yue, H. Y.; Wu, S. G.; Zhang, H. J.; Duan, Z. Y.; and Qi, G. H. (2017). Effects of dietary gallic acid supplementation on performance, antioxidant status, and jejunum intestinal morphology in broiler chicks. Poultry Science, 96:2768–2775.
Sanjeewa, T. W. G.; Wanasundara, J. P. D.; Pietrasik, Z. and Shand, P. J. (2010). characterization of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flours and application in low-fat pork bologna as a model system. Food Res. Int, 43:617-626.
Sastry, C. S. P. and Tummuru, M. K. (1985). Spectrophotometric determination of tryptophan in proteins. J. food sci. Technol., 88 (7): 1452-1458.
Schaafsma, G. (2000). The Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score. J Nutr, 130: 1865S-1867S.
Schieber, A.; Keller, P. and Carle, R. (2001). Determination of phenolic acids and flavonoids of apple and pear by high-performance liquid chromatography. J. of chromatography A, 910: 265–273.
Serdaroğlu, M.; Yıldız-Turp, G. and Abrodίmov, K. (2005). Quality of low fat meatballs containing legume flours as extenders. Meat Sci., 70:99-105.
Shahidi, F.; Janita, P. K. and Wanasundara, P. D. (1992). Phenolic antioxidants. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr, 32: 67–103.
Shariati-Ievari, S.; Ryland, D.; Edel, A.; Nicholson, T.; Suh, M. and Aliani, M. (2016). Sensory and Physicochemical Studies of Thermally Micronized Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and Green Lentil (Lens culinaris) Flours as Binders in Low-Fat Beef Burgers. Journal of Food Science, 81: 5.
Sharma, H.; Sharma, B. D.; Mendiratta, S. K.; Talukder, S. and Ramasamy, G. (2014). Efficacy of Flaxseed Flour as Bind Enhancing Agent on the Quality of Extended Restructured Mutton Chops. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 27(2): 247- 255.
Siger, A.; Nogala-Kalucka, M. and Lampart-Szczapa, E. (2008). The content and antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds in cold-pressed plant oils. J. Food. Lipids., 15(2): 137–149.
Simona, M. A. N.; Paucean. A.; Mustel, S. and Pop, A. (2015). Effect of the Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Flour Addition on Physicochemical Properties of Wheat Bread. Bulletin UASVM Food Science and Technology, 72: 1.
Simopoulos, A. P. (2002). The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids. See comment in PubMed Commons below Biomed Pharmacother, 56: 365-379.
Singh, B.; Singh, J. P.; Shevkani, K.; Singh, N. and Kaur, A. (2017). Bioactive constituents in pulses and their health benefits. J. Food Sci. Tech, 54: 858–870.
Sinclair, A.; Mann, N. and O’Connell, S. (1999). The nutrient composition of Australian beef and lamb. Melbourne: RMIT.
Singh, K. K.; Mridula D.; Rehal, J. and Barnwal, P. (2011). Flaxseed: a potential source of food, feed and fiber. Food Sci, Nutr, 51: 210-222.
Sklan, D. and Tenne, Z. (1983). Changes in lipid fractions and bacteriological counts in chilled broiler meat. Poultry Sci., 63:76.
Slattery, M. L.; Benson, J.; Curtin, K.; Ma, K. N.; Schaeffer, D. and Potter, J. D. (2000). Carotenoids and colon cancer1. Am. J. Clin. Nutr, 71:575–582.
Soher E. Aly.; Sawsan El-Faham.; Mona, A. Ibrahim.; Amal S. Hathout and Bassem, A. Sabry. (2013). characterization and microbiological quality of low -fat chicken burger containing defatted peanut flour. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 9 (11): 5599- 5608.
Sok, D.; Cui, H.S. and Kim, M. R. (2009). Isolation and bioactivities of furfuran type lignan compounds from edible plants. Resent Pat Food Nutr Agric, 1:87–95.
SPSS, (2011). SPSS for windows. Release, 20.0., Standard Version, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Stahnke, L. H. (1995). Dried sausage fermented with Staphylococcus xylosus at different ingredient levels. Part I. Chemical and bacteriological data. Meat Science, 41: 179 - 191
Talukder, S. (2015). Effect of dietary fiber on properties and acceptance of meat products: a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr, 55(7): 1005-1011.
Tarrant, P. V. (1998). Some recent advances and future priorities in research for the meat industry. Meat Sci., 49:S1-S16.
Tichivangana, J. Z. and Morrissey, P. A. (1985). Metmyoglobin and inorganic metals as prooxidantes in raw and cooked muscle systems. Meat Sci., 15: 107–116.
Tokur, B.; Ozkűtűk, S.; Atici, E.; Ozyurt, G. and Ozyurt, C. E. (2006). Chemical and sensory quality changes of fish fingers, made from mirror carp (Cyprinuscarpio L., 1758), during frozen storage (- 18°C). Food Chem., 99: 335–341.
Torres, L. L.; Piedad, M.; Montero and Martelo, R. J. (2018). Effect of Chickpea Flour Addition (Cicer Arietinum L.) in Cooking Losses During Empty Frying of Chorizos Contemporary Engineering Sciences, 11(36):1781 – 1787.
Toure, A. and Xueming, X. (2010). Flaxseed lignans: source, biosynthesis, metabolism, antioxidant activity, bio-active components and health benefits. CRFSFS, 9:261–269.
Trucom, C. A. (2006). Importância da linhaça na saúde. São Paulo: Alaúde, 151p.
Turhan, S.; Sagir, I. and Ustun, N. S. (2005). Utilization of hazelnut pellicle in low-fat beef burgers. Meat Sci., 71, 312-316.
Valencia, I.; O’Grady, M.N.; Ansorena, D.; Astiasaran, I. and Kerry, J.P. (2008). Enhancement of the nutritional status and quality of fresh pork sausages following the addition of linseed oil, fish oil and natural antioxidants. Meat. Sci., 80: 1046–1054.
Verma, M. M.; Ledward, D. A. and Lawrie, R. A. (1984). Utilization of chickpea flour in sausages. J. Meat Sci., 11: 109-121.
Wallace, T. C.; Murray, R. and Zelman, K. M. (2016). The Nutritional Value and Health Benefits of Chickpeas and Hummus. Nutrients, 8: 766.
Wally, F. A. (2002). Studies on Quality Attributes of Some Semifried Chicken Products During Freezing Storage. Ph. D. Thesis, Food Science and Technology Dept., Faculty of Agric., Cairo Univ., Egypt
Wang, N. and Daun, J. K. (2004). The Chemical Composition and Nutritive Value of Canadian Pulses. Canadian Grain Commission Report 19-29.
Wani, S. A. and Kumar, P. (2014). Comparative Study of Chickpea and Green Pea Flour Based on Chemical Composition, Functional and Pasting Properties. Journal of Food Research and Technology, 2 (3): 124-129.
Wani, S. A. and Majeed, D. (2014). Evaluation of quality attributes and storage stability of pickle prepared from chicken gizzard. Journal of Meat Science and Technology, 2(4), 85-89.
Waszkowiak, K. and Rudzin´ska, M. (2014). Effect of Flaxseed Meals and Extracts on Lipid Stability in a Stored Meat Product. J Am Oil Chem Soc, 91:979–987.
Waszkowiak, K.; Szymandera-Buszka, K. and Hęś, M. (2014). effect of ethanoliIc flax (linum usitatissimum l.) extracts on lipld oxidation and changes in nutritive value of frozen-stored meat products. Acta Sci. Pol., Technol. Aliment, 13(2):135-144.
Williams, P.; Droulez, V. and Levy, G et al., (2002). Composition of Australian red meat. Nutrient profile. Food Aust, 59.
Wood, J. D.; Richardson, R. I.; Nute, G. R.; Fisher, A. V.; Campo, M. M.; Kasapidou, E.; Sheard, P.R. and Enser, M. (2003). Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: a review, Meat Science 66 (1):21–32.
Wu, G.; Cross, H. R.; Gehring, K. B.; Savell, J. W.; Arnold, A. N. and McNeill, S. H. (2016). Composition of free and peptide-bound amino acids in beef chuck, loin, and round cuts. J. Anim. Sci., 94:2603–2613.
Xiong, Y. L. (2012). Nonmeat ingredients and additives, In Handbook of Meat and Meat Processing (Eds. By Hui YH et al.). CRC press, 573-588.
Yadav, S. K.; Tanwar, V. K.; Sharma, J. K. and Yadav, S. (2013) Effect of added soy protein on physico-chemical properties of chevon patties. Journal of Meat Science and Technology, 1(1): 35-39.
Yogesh, K.; Langoo, B. A.; Sharma, S. K. and Yadav, D. N. (2015). Technological, physico-chemical and sensory properties of raw and cooked meat batter incorporated with various levels of cold milled flaxseed powder. J Food Sci Technol, 52(3):1610–1617.
Yue, X. u., (2001). Perspectives on the 21st century development of functional foods: Bridging Chinese medicated diet and functional foods. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 36: 229-242.
Zargar, F. A.; Kumar. S.; Bhat, Z. F. and Kumar, P. (2014). Effect of pumpkin on the quality characteristics and storage quality of aerobically packaged chicken sausages. Springer Plus, 3:39-49.
Zhang, T.; Jiang, B. and Wang, Z. (2007). Gelation properties of chickpea protein isolate. Food Hydrocolloids, 21:280-286.
Zhang, Y.; Li, X. and Wang, Z. (2010). Antioxidant activities of leaf extract of Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge and related phenolic constituents. Food Chem. Toxicol, 48: 2656 – 2662.
الملخص العربى
هدفت هذه الدراسة إلى اعداد السجق البقرى عن طريق استبدال اللحم البقرى بنسبة (10٪) من مطحون بذور الكتان أو (20٪) من دقيق الحمص و(2٪) من مطحون قشور الرمان، ودراسة خصائص الجودة في المنتجات المجهزة . إلى جانب دراسة خصائص الجودة أثناء التخزين بالتبريد على 4 ±1 ºم لمدة ثلاثة أسابيع، وكذلك التخزين بالتجميد على -18±1 ºم لمدة ثلاثة أشهر.
يمكن تلخيص أهم النتائج التي تم الحصول عليها على النحو التالي:
اولا : استبدال اللحم البقرى بنـسبة 10٪ من مطحون بذور الكتان لإعداد السجق البقرى أدى الى :
• تحسين التركيب الكيميائى من خلال الزيادة في الدهن الخام، والألياف الخام، ومحتوى الكربوهيدرات، وكذلك قيمة السعرات الحرارية.
• تحسين الخواص الفيزيائية والكيميائية التي زادت من عائد الطبخ وقدرة الاحتفاظ بالماء في حين انخفض فقد الطبخ والانكماش.
• زيادة محتوى الأحماض الدهنية عديدة عدم التشبع.
• انخفاض إجمالي عدد البكتيريا وعدد الخمائر و الفطريات مقارنةً بالكنترول.
• التأثير على التقييم الحسي للمنتج النهائي فى البداية ولكن اثناء التخزين بالتجميد كان التأثير غيرمعنويا.
• أخيرًا خفض التكلفة النهائية بنسبة 8.3٪ .
ثانيا: استبدال اللحم البقرى بنسبة 20٪ من دقيق الحمص لاعداد السجق البقرى أدى الى:
• تحسين التركيب الكيميائى من خلال زيادة محتوى الالياف الخام والكربوهيدرات، مع اخفاض محتوى الدهن والرماد, وكذلك قيمة السعرات الحرارية.
• تأثرت الخواص الفيزيائية والكيميائية التي أدت الى خفض فقد الطهى والانكماش وزيادة قدرة الاحتفاظ بالماء وعائد الطهى.
• دمج دقيق الحمص أدى الى تحسين تركيب الأحماض الدهنية.
• انخفاض إجمالي عدد البكتيريا وعدد الخمائر والفطريات مقارنة بالكنترول.
•عدم التأثير بشكل كبير بين الكنترول والمنتج المجهز في التقييم الحسى .
• أخيرًا خفض التكلفة النهائية بنسبة 16٪.
ثالثا: اضافة (2٪) من قشور الرمان لاعداد السجق البقرى أدى الى:
• زيادة كلا من الرماد، ومحتوي الكربوهيدرات في حين انخفض محتوى الرطوبة والبروتين.
• تحسين الخواص الفيزيائية والكيميائية التي زادت من عائد الطهى وقدرة الاحتفاظ بالماء في حين انخفض فقد الطهى والانكماش مقارنة بالكنترول.
• انخفاض قيمة TBA وقيمة البيروكسيد في المنتجات المجهزة والكنترول
• انخفاض إجمالي عدد البكتيريا وعدد الخمائر والفطريات في الكنترول والمنتجات المجهزة.
• تحسين التقييم الحسي للسجق البقرى المجهز.
رابعا: تأثير التخزين بالتبريد على 4 ±1 ºم لمدة ثلاثة أسابيع للسجق البقرى المجهز:
• انخفاض محتوى كلا من الرطوبة والبروتين مع زيادة محتوى الدهن الخام والرماد والكربوهيدرات بالإضافة إلى القيمة السعرية.
• تأثرت الخواص الفيزيائية والكيميائية التي أدت الى زيادة الانكماش و فقد الطهى، وقيمة TBA ، قيمة البيروكسيد، مع انخفاض قدرة الاحتفاظ بالماء وعائد الطهى سواء للكنترول أو جميع المنتجات المجهزة .
• زاد إجمالي عدد البكتيريا، في حين لوحظت الخمائر والفطريات في الأسبوع الثاني من التخزين في الكنترول وجميع المنتجات المجهزة.
• انخفاض كبير في التقييم الحسي لكل من الكنترول وجميع المنتجات المجهزة.
خامسا: تأثير التخزين بالتجميد على -18±1ºم لمدة ثلاثة أشهر للسجق البقرى المجهز حيث أدى الى:
• انخفاض محتوى الرطوبة والبروتين مع زيادة محتوى الدهن الخام والرماد والكربوهيدرات بالإضافة إلى السعرات الحرارية.
• تأثرت الخواص الفيزيائية والكيميائية حيث زادت من فقدالطهى، قيمة TBA، قيمة البيروكسيد وانخفضت قدرة الاحتفاظ بالماء، وعائد الطهى.
• انخفض العد الكلى للبكتيريا، بينما لم يتواجد خمائر أو فطريات في الكنترول أو جميع المنتجات المجهزة.
• انخفض التقييم الحسي بصورة غير معنوية سواء في الكنترول أو جميع المنتجات المجهزة.
من الدراسة يمكن التوصية بإستخدام بعض المصادر النباتية مثل بذور الكتان والحمص فى تصنيع السجق البقرى لتقليل التكلفة وتحسين القيمة الغذائية.
شهادة الموافقة على الرسالة
دراسات كيميائية وتكنولوجية على السجق البقرى المدعم ببذور الكتان والحمص
رسالة مقدمة من
زينب عبد الحميد سلام جاد الرب
بكالوريوس في العلوم الزراعية (علوم وتكنولوجيا الاغذية ) كلية الزراعة – جامعة اسيوط (2012)
للإستيفاء الجزئى لمتطلبات الحصول على درجة الماجستير في العلوم الزراعية
(علوم وتكنولوجياالاغذية)
قسم علوم وتكنولوجيا الأغذية - كلية الزراعة - جامعة اسيوط
(2019)
لجنة الحكم والمناقشة
أ.د/ سامى ابراهيم محمد الصياد ..................
استاذ علوم وتكنولوجيا الاغذية المتفرغ
كلية الزراعة- جامعة اسيوط
أ.د/احمد حامد عبد الغنى خليفة ..................
أستاذ ورئيس قسم علوم وتكنولوجيا الاغذية
كلية الزراعة- جامعة اسيوط
أ.د/مصطفى احمد على عوض الله ..................
أستاذ وعميد كلية التربية النوعية
جامعة جنوب الوادى
تاريخ الموافقة: 17/10/2019م
جامعة اسيوط - كلية الزراعة
قسم علوم تكنولوجيا الاغذية
دراسات كيميائية وتكنولوجيه على السجق البقرى المدعم ببذور الكتان والحمص
رسالة مقدمة من
زينب عبد الحميد سلام جاد الرب
بكالوريوس فى العلوم الزراعية (علوم و تكنولوجيا الاغذية) - كلية الزراعة - جامعة اسيوط
(2012)
للاستيفاء الجزئى لمتطلبات الحصول على درجة الماجستير فى العلوم الزراعية (علوم وتكنولوجيا الاغذية)
تحت اشراف
ا.د/ محمد كمال السيد يوسف (متوفي)
استاذ علوم و تكنولوجيا الاغذية (المتفرغ)
كلية الزراعة - جامعة اسيوط
ا.د/ بدوى محمد درويش مصطفى
رئيس بحوث متفرغ – قسم بحوث اللحوم والاسماك
معهد بحوث تكنولوجيا الاغذية
مركز البحوث الزراعية - الجيزة ا.د / احمد حامد عبد الغنى خليفه
استاذ ورئيس قسم علوم وتكنولوجيا الاغذية
كلية الزراعة - جامعة اسيوط
( مشرف رئيسى )
د / صفاء عبد الحميد محمد
مدرس علوم و تكنولوجيا الاغذية
كلية الزراعة - جامعة اسيوط
2019م