Impact of Cooking Conditions on Proximate Composition and Textural Properties of Chicken Breast Meat

Samson Ugochukwu Alugwu *

Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, Canada and Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.

Thomas M. Okonkwo

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.

Michael O. Ngadi

Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, Canada.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of cooking conditions on proximate composition and textural properties (cohesiveness and chewiness) of chicken breast meat.  Eight packs of industrial skinless chicken breast meat were cooked by air frying (AF), baking (BK), deep fat frying (DF) and grilling (GR) at 170, 180 and 190oC for 0, 4, 8, 12 and 16 min. The chicken breast packs were frozen and sliced into dimensions, thawed, cooked and analysed by a two way analysis of variance. The results revealed that cooking methods significantly (p < 0.05) decreased moisture and protein contents from 75.14 to 58.25 % and 89.17 to 82.98 %, but increased fat content from 4.26 to 7.78 %, ash content from 1.95 to 2.39 %, carbohydrate content from 4.63 to 6.95 %, cohesiveness content from 0.40 to 0.52 and chewiness value from 3.63 to 6.05 kg. An increases in cooking temperatures and times decreased  moisture  content  from  60.58 to 56.34 % and 75.14 to 47.40 % and protein content from 83.77 to 82.11 % and 89.17 to 79.45 %. Similarly, increases in cooking temperatures and times significantly (p < 0.05) increased fat content from 7.00 to 8.44 % and 4.26 to 10.12 %, ash content from 2.15 % to 2.59 % and 1.95 to 2.67 %. This study showed that increases in cooking temperatures decreased non-significantly (p > 0.05) carbohydrate content from 7.02 to 6.92 %, but increases in cooking times increased carbohydrate content from 4.63 to 7.76 %. An increases in cooking temperatures and times increased cohesiveness content from 0.50 to 0.54 and 0.40 to 0.63, chewiness value from 5.50 to 6.77 kg and 3.63 to 8.54 kg, respectively. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in chewiness values of samples cooked by AF and GR methods. The best cooking method/ temperature / time for low nutrient losses was BK, 170oC and 4 min.

Keywords: Chicken breast, cooking conditions, proximate composition, cohesiveness, chewiness


How to Cite

Alugwu, S. U., Okonkwo, T. M., & Ngadi, M. O. (2023). Impact of Cooking Conditions on Proximate Composition and Textural Properties of Chicken Breast Meat. European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety, 15(6), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.9734/ejnfs/2023/v15i61313

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Xiong YL. Meat processing. In; Nakai J, Modier HW (Eds.), food proteins processing application, New York, Chichester Wiley-Vch. 2000;89–146.

Sharma BD, Sharma K. Outlines of meat science and technology. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd, India; 2011.

Riovanto R, Marchi MD, Cassandro M, Penasa M. Use of near infrared transmittance spectroscopy to predict fatty acid composition of chicken meat. Food Chemistry. 2012; 134:2459 – 2464.

Chumngeon W, Chen HY, Tan FJ. Validation of feasibility and quality of chicken breast meat cooked under various water- cooking conditions. Animal Science Journal. 2016; 87:1536–1544.

Alugwu SU, Okonkwo TM, Ngadi MO. Effect of cooking methods on protein and essential amino acids contents of chicken breast meat. Nigerian Food Journal. 2022c; 40(1):113–125.

Alugwu SU, Okonkwo TM, Ngadi MO. Effect of thermal treatments on selected minerals and water soluble vitamins of chicken breast meat. European Journal of Nutrition and Food Safety. 2023; 15(1):10 – 43.

Kumar S, Nema PK, Kumar S, Chandra A. Kinetics of change in quality parameters of Khaja during deep fat frying. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2021:e16265–16274.

Available:https//doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16265

Alugwu SU, Okonkwo TM, Ngadi MO. Effect of different frying methods on cooking yield, tenderness and sensory properties of chicken breast meat. Asian Food Science Journal. 2022b; 21(10):1 – 14.

Tornberg E. Effect of heat treatment on meat proteins – implications on structure and quality of meat products: A review. Meat Science. 2005; 70:493–508.

Alugwu SU, Okonkwo TM, Ngadi MO. Effect of different cooking methods on fatty acid composition of chicken breast meat. Proceedings of the 8th Regional Food Science and Technology Summit (REFOSTS) on 10th June, 2022 held in Enugu. 2022a; 8:93-99.

Einarsson S, Josefsson B, Lagerkvist S. Determination of amino acids with 9-fluorenylmethyl chloroformate and reversed-phase HPLC. Journal of Chromatography. 1983; 282:609 – 618.

AOAC. Official methods of Analysis (18th edition) Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C; 2010.

Bourne MC. Texture profile analysis. Food Technology. 1978; 32:62 – 66.

Bourne MC. Food texture and viscosity, concept and measurement. Academic Press. An Elsevier Science Imprint, New York. 2002:175 – 253.

Rosa R, Bandrarra NM, Nunes MI. Nutritional quality of African catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell 1822): A positive criterion for the future development of European production of Siluroidei. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2007; 42:342–351.

Aaslyng MD, Bejerholm C, Erthjerg P, Benjamin HC, Anderson HJ. Cooking loss and juiciness of pork in relat to raw meat quality and cooking procedure. Food Quality Preference 2003; 14:277-288.

Elgasim EA, Alkanhal MA. Proximate composition, amino acid and inorganic mineral content of Arabian camel meat: Comparative study. Food Chemistry 1992; 45(1):1–4.

Menezes EA, Oliveira AF, Franca CJ, Souza GB, Nogueira RA. Bio accessibility of Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Zn and Crude protein in beef, pork and chicken after thermal processing. Food Chemistry. 2014; 240:75 – 83.

Alugwu SU. Effect of different temperature and time on protein content of chicken breast meat. Canadian Society of Bioresource Engineering (CSBE) /SCGAB Annual General Meeting and Technical Conference in Guelph, 22 - 25th July, 2018; 2018.

Achir N, Vitrac O, Trystram G. Heat and mass transfer during frying. In Advances in Deep Fat Frying of Foods, (Sahin S, Sumnu SG, eds.), CRC Press, New York, 2009:115-142.

Hussain AI, Chatha SIS, Arshad TM, Adzahoor A, Afzal S. Comparative study of different cooking methods on nutritional and fatty acid profile of chicken meat. Journal of Chemical Society of Pakistan. 2013; 25(3):678–684.

Gokoglu N, Yerlikaya P, Cengiz E. Effects of cooking methods on proximate composition and mineral contents of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus). Food Chemistry. 2004; 84:P19-22.

Salawu SO, Adu OC, Akindahunsi AA. Nutritive value of fresh and brackish water catfish as a function of size and processing methods. European Food Research Technology. 2005; 220:531- 534.

Oparaku NF, Mgbenka BO. Effects of electric oven and solar dryer on a Proximate and water activity of Clarias gariepinus fish. European Journal of Scientific Research. 2012; 83(1): 139–144.

Davidson NMD. The Students’ cookery book (2nd edition), University press, Hong Kong. 1985:19–283.

Pandey CM, Harilal PT, Radhakrishna K. Effect of processing conditions on physio-chemical and textural properties of shami kebab. International Food Research Journal. 2014; 21(1):223–228.

Nithyalakshmi V, Preetha R. Effect of cooking conditions on physicochemical and textural properties of emu. (Dramius novaehollandia) meat. International Food Research Journal. 2015; 22(5):1924–1930.

Li C, Wang D, Xu W, Gao F, Zhou G. Effect of final cooked temperature on tenderness, protein solubility and microstructure of duck breast muscle. LWT – Food Science and Technology. 2013; 51:266–274.

Alugwu SU, Okonkwo TM, Okoye JI. Effect of heat processing methods on mineral contents of chicken broiler meat. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference/ AGM of Nigerian Institute of Food Science and Technology. 2014; 38:33–34.

SPSS. Statistical Package for Social Sciences Research (SPSS version 23.0) Inc., Chicago; 2015.