English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this study, the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of chicken press ham not fed with citrus byproduct (T0) and fed with citrus byproduct (T1) were compared. There was not a significant difference in moisture, crude protein, crude fat, crude ash, crude fiber, Hunter's L * (lightness), a * (redness), b * (yellowness), hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess, chewiness, shear force, water holding capacity and pH between T0 and T1. There was not a significant difference between T0 and T1 in terms of the chicken ham's VBN (volatile basic nitrogen) content for the first three weeks of storage, but after the fourth week of storage, the VBN content was 15.1 and 13.7 ㎎% for T0 and T1, respectively, which implies that feeding citrus byproduct significantly reduced the VBN content. There was not a significant difference between T0 and T1 in terms of the chicken press ham's TBARS (2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances) value for the first two weeks of storage. However, the TBARS value was 0.31 and 0.22 ㎎ malonaldehyde/㎏ for T0 and T1 during the third week of storage, and 0.49 and 0.32 ㎎ malonaldehyde/㎏ for T0 and T1 during the fourth week of storage. There was not a significant difference between T0 and T1 in terms of the chicken press ham's TPC (total plate counts) for the first three weeks of storage, but after the fourth week of storage, the TPC was 4.96 and 4.72 log CFU/g for T0 and T1, respectively, which implies that T1 showed a significantly lower TPC than T0. T1 showed significantly higher aroma, taste, and palatability of the chicken press ham than T0, but there was a not significant difference in texture and juiciness between T0 and T1.

Physicochemical Properties and Sensory Score of Press Ham Made from Chicken Fed with Citrus Byproduct