KEYWORDS

Broiler feed, Fat source, Feed

additives, Chicken burger,

Quality characteristics.

PAGES

1 – 11

REFERENCES

Vol. 5 No. 1 (2018)

ARTICLE HISTORY

Submitted: November 17, 2017

Accepted: February 11 2018

Published: February 15 2018

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

Engy, F. Zaki

Animal Breeding Department,

Desert Research Center, ,

1 Matariya St., B.O.P.11753

Matariya Cairo, Egypt

mail: angyfayz@yahoo.com.

phone: +202 26332846

Fax: +202 26357858

JOURNAL HOME PAGE

riviste.unimi.it/index.php/haf

Article

Quality characteristics of chicken

burger processed from broiler

chicken fed on different types of

vegetable oils and feed additives

Engy F. Zaki
1,

*, El Faham A.I.
2
and Nematallah G.M.

1
Meat Production and Technology Unit, Animal Breeding Department,

Desert Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.

2
Poultry Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams

University, Cairo, Egypt.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of feeding broiler
chicken on different vegetable oils with commercial multi- enzyme feed
additives on the quality characteristics of chicken burger. A total of 216 one-
day-old chicks of (Hubbard) strain were randomly assigned to six dietary
treatments as (2×3) factorial designs where two sources of dietary oil
contained soybean oil and palm oil with three levels of commercial multi-
enzyme feed additives. Treatments were: soybean oil only (T1), soybean oil+
ZAD (T2), soybean oil+ AmPhi-BACT (T3), palm oil only (T4) , palm oil + ZAD
(T5) and palm oil + AmPhi- BACT (T6). Results showed that chicken burger
of T1 group had the higher pH value (6.22); slight difference was found in pH
value of T3 group (6.18). No significant difference was found in burger of T5
and T6 group. Burger processed from T1 group had the higher T.B.A value
(0.115) followed by burger of T5 (0.076); while the lowest T.B.A value found
in burger of T2 group (0.031). No significant differences were found in
shrinkage measurements. Burger processed from T6 group had the higher
score of sensory attributes and overall acceptability, while the differences
between the other burger groups were not significant.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 2

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

1 Introduction

Chicken has been considered an appropriate model in lipid nutrition studies, since it is highly

sensitive to dietary fat modifications and many of the studies done with chickens deal with the

degree of saturation or source type of the dietary replaced fat and how it influences the

performance and carcass quality improvement of the animal (Rymer and Givens, 2005). Vegetable

oils are a widely used source of energy in broiler diets. However, most of the vegetable oils are

mainly used for human consumption and also for biodiesel production. In this regard, interest is

growing in using alternative fat sources in poultry nutrition rather than using crude oil sources,

which would increase competition between bio fuel industry and food and feedstuff markets.

Palm oil or mixtures of palm oil, fatty acids distilled from the palm and calcic soap are sources of

vegetal oils with a fatty acid profile that might replace animal fats without any kind of negative

impact on carcass quality (Rodriguez et al., 2002). The inclusion of soybean oil in broiler diets does

not affect the moisture and ether extract in the breast and thigh muscles. Furthermore, the

deposition of fat on the breast muscle and viscera is not affected by the inclusion of the oil in the

diet. Dietary fat quality not only affects animal growth performance and health (Lin et al., 1989;

Enberg et al., 1996) but also influences the quality of broiler meat and meat products (Lin et al.,

1989; Asghar et al., 1989). Lipid oxidation is a major cause of quality deterioration in meat and

meat products and can give rise to rancidity and the formation of undesirable odours and

flavours, which affect the functional, sensory, and nutritive values of meat products (Gray et al.,

1996).

Commercial enzyme preparations have been used widely to enhance nutritive value of wheat

and rye-based diets because of high insoluble non-starch polysaccharides found in these

feedstuffs which induce high digesta viscosity (Lázaro et al., 2003). Additionally, it was reported

that enzyme cocktail feed additives improve bird's productivity (Saleh et al., 2005) and

digestibility of corn-soybean meal based diets, which in turn, induces less viscosity of ingested

feed for broilers (Olukosi et al., 2007).

Enzyme such as microbial phytase has been used as commercial feed additive in broiler feed

production to improve nutritive values of plant based diets. Addition of microbial phytase to

broiler diet leads to hydrolysis of phytase, which bind phosphorus of the plant based diet (Kies, et

al., 2001). Moreover, interest in the use of phytase as feed additive has now increased due to

problems posed by phosphates in animal wastes. Inclusion of exogenous enzyme in animal’s diet

has been shown to improve broiler’s performance. But the effect on meat quality has to be

determined as certain feed additives have been found to affect meat qualities (Wang, et al., 2013;

Omojola, et al., 2014).

Therefore, this research aims to study the effect of using different vegetable oil sources and

feed additives in finisher diets of broiler chicken, on the processing of chicken burger and its

impact on the quality characteristics.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 3

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

2 Material and method

2.1 Experimental Design

The experimental procedures were approved by the Poultry Production Department, Faculty

of Agriculture, Ain Shams University and as followed by the Animal Breeding Department, Animal

and Poultry Production Division, Desert Research Center.

The current study was conducted at Poultry Experimental Unit, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain

Shams University, located in Agricultural Research Station, Shalaqan, Qalyobia Governorate,

Egypt. The experiment was a 2 × 3 factorial design with two sources of vegetable oils (soybean oil

and palm oil) with three levels of commercial multi-enzyme feed additives as shown in the Table 1.

A total of 216 one-day-old chicks of (Hubbard) strain were used for this study, the chicks were

randomly assigned to six treatment groups. Each group consisted of six replicates and each

replicate was made up of six chicks. The basal diet was formulated to meet the nutrient

requirements of broiler chicken following the National Research Council (NRC, 1994) as shown in

Table 2.

• Starter: one-day-old till 11 days-of-age (basal diet – without additives - all birds).

• Grower: 12 days till 22 days (basal diet - without additives - all birds).

• Finisher: 23 days till 35 days (experimental diets specified per treatment).

Chicks were housed in galvanized cages, where nine birds were allotted to a pen cage of 100

cm long, 40 cm width and 40 cm height. The farm building was aerated naturally. Lighting

program was controlled to provide 23 hours light and one hour dark daily by candescent bulb

lighting system. Room temperature was maintained around 32° C for the first week and was

decreased by 3° C weekly afterwards.

At the end of experiment, four chickens were randomly selected for slaughtering from each

treatment to use in the processing of chicken burger. Slaughtered birds were scalded in hot

water bath, plucked and eviscerated manually. Chicken meat from thigh and abdominal muscles

were collected, packed and frozen at -18ºC until further analyses and processing of chicken burger

were completed.

Table 1: Experimental design

Type of oil
Feed additives

Without addition ZAD1 0.5kg/ton AmPhi-BACT2 0.5kg/ton

Soybean oil Treatment 1 (T1) Treatment 2 (T2) Treatment 3 (T3)

Palm oil Treatment 4 (T4) Treatment 5 (T5) Treatment 6 (T6)

1 (ZAD) which contains bacteria (Ruminococcus flavefaciens) with concentration of (28 x 104). Also it contains a mixture
of enzymes (Cellulase - Xylanase - α-Amylase -Protease).

2(AmPhi-BACT), which contains bacteria (Lactobacillus acidophilus) and (Lactobacillus planterum) and (Bifidobacterium
bifidum) and extract ferment of both (Bacillus subtilus) and (Aspergillus niger) with concentration of 5 g / kg and also
contains a mixture of enzymes that is estimated as 34.5 units / gram, that is equivalent to 2 g / kg (Cellulase - Beta-
glucanase - Hemicellulase).

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 4

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Table 2: Feed ingredients and chemical analyses of experimental diets

Ingredients
Starter

(0-11)

Grower
(12-22)

Finisher (23-35)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Corn (grains) 52.05 55.91 56.80 56.80 56.80 56.80 56.80 56.80

Soybean Meal (44%) 31.50 30.00 28.25 28.25 28.25 28.25 28.25 28.25

Corn Gluten Meal (62%) 7.20 4.86 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40

Soybean Oil 3.00 3.65 5.00 5.00 5.00 - - -

Palm Oil - - - - - 5.00 5.00 5.00

Wheat Bran 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Di-Calcium Phosphate 1.85 1.60 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34

Calcium Carbonate 1.30 1.50 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35

Premix* 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

Salt (NaCl) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

DL-Methionine 0.29 0.28 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

L-Lysine HCL 0.21 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Nutrient content (Calculated) **

Crude Protein % 23.00 21.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Crude Fat % 5.69 6.39 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76

Crude Fiber % 3.88 3.75 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70

ME Kcal/ Kg diet 3029 3076 3171 3171 3171 3171 3171 3171

Calcium % 1.00 1.01 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Available Phosphorus % 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

Lysine % 1.30 1.15 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Methionine & Cystein % 0.97 0.93 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

* Each 3 Kg of premix contains: Vitamins: A: 12000000 IU; Vit. D3 2000000 IU; E: 10000 mg; K3: 2000 mg; B1:1000 mg; B2: 5000
mg; B6:1500 mg; B12: 10 mg; Biotin: 50 mg; Coline chloride: 250000 mg; Pantothenic acid: 10000 mg; Nicotinic acid: 30000 mg;
Folic acid: 1000 mg; Minerals: Mn: 60000 mg; Zn: 50000 mg; Fe: 30000 mg; Cu: 10000 mg; I: 1000 mg; Se: 100 mg and Co: 100 mg.

** Nutrient content calculated based on chemical analysis data of feedstuffs provided by NRC (1994).

2.2 Preparation of chicken burger

Chicken meat from each experimental diet was ground through a 3mm plate grinder. Chicken

burger samples were prepared as follows ingredients; 7.5% onion, 0.5%black pepper, spices0.5%,

salt 1.5% (Mikhail et al., 2014). Batches of 2kg of each dietary treatment were handily mixed and

formed by using manual burger press machine (1cm thickness, 10cm diameter and 60±2g weight).

Burgers were placed in plastic foam trays packed in polyethylene bags and frozen at -18ºC±1until

further analysis.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 5

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

2.3 Physical analysis

2.3.1 pH value

pH of raw chicken burger was measured as described by Hood(1980). Ten grams of sample

was homogenized with 100ml distilled water and measured using a digital pH-meter Jenway 3310

conductivity and pH meter. pH values were done on three replicates per treatment. Two burgers

were used for each replication.

2.3.2 Cooking measurements

Chicken burger samples of each treatment were cooked in preheated grill at110°C (to an

internal temperature 72°C±2). All cooking measurements were done on four replicates per

treatment. For each replication three burgers were examined for cooking loss, reduction in

thickness, reduction in diameter and shrinkage.

The cooking loss was determined as reported by Naveena et al. (2006) as follows:

2.3.3 Shrinkage measurements

Raw and cooked samples were measured for diameter and thickness of chicken burger as

described by Berry (1993) using the following equation:

Dimensional shrinkage was calculated using the following equation as reported by Murphy et

al. (1975):

2.4 T.B.A. value

Measurement of lipid oxidation: The extent of lipid oxidation in raw chicken burger was

assessed by measuring 2- thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), as described by AOCS

(1998).TBA values were done on three replicates per treatment. Three burgers were used in each

replication.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 6

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

2.5 Sensory evaluation

Chicken burger was subjected to organoleptic evaluation as described by AMSA (1995). Ten

trained panelists of staff members of Food Sciences Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain-

Shams University were scored appearance, texture, juiciness, flavour, tenderness and overall

acceptability using a 9-point hedonic scale. The mean scores of the obtained results of

organoleptic evaluation were then statistically analyzed.

2.6 Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the obtained data using the general linear

modelling procedure (SAS, 2000). The used design was one way analysis. Duncan’s multiple tests

(1955) were applied for comparison of means.

3 Results

Table 3 showed the physiochemical properties of chicken burger processed from broiler

chicken fed on different types of vegetable oil and feed additives. Chicken burger of T1 group had

the higher pH value (6.22); slight difference was found in pH value of T3 (6.18) burger. No

significant difference was found in burger of T5 and T6 group. However, burger of T2 and T4

group had the lower pH value (6.05).

Table 3: Physicochemical properties of chicken burger

Treatments
Parameters

pH Cooking loss (%) T.B.A (mgMDA/kg)

T1 6.22 ± 0.06
a
36.21±2.95

a
0.115± 0.010

T2 6.05±0.03
c
32.48±2.29

ab
0.031±0.017

T3 6.18± 0.01
ab

31.75±4.37
b
0.061±0.011

T4 6.05±0.04
c
31.68±2.20

b
0.063±0.010

T5 6.14± 0.015
b
34.29±0.68

ab
0.076±0.010

T6 6.14±0.02
b
35.83±1.53

a
0.065±0.010

SEM 0.020 1.30 0.003

a-d means within the same column with different superscripts letters are different (p<0.05). T1, T2 and T3:
Treatments for soybean oil/ soybean oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and soybean oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton.
T4, T5andT6: Treatments for palm oil/ palm oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and palm oil with AmPhi-BACT
0.5kg/ton. Means ± standard deviation. SEM: standard error of means

Data of cooking loss of chicken burger processed from broiler chicken fed on different types

of vegetable oil and feed additives indicated that burger of T1 and T6 groups had the higher

cooking loss, followed by burger of T2 and T5. No significant differences were found in burger of

T3 and T4.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 7

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Data of T.B.A value of burger processed from broiler chicken fed on different types of

vegetable oil and feed additives were showed in Table 3. Burger processed from T1 group had the

higher T.B.A value followed by burger of T5, while the lowest T.B.A value found in burger of T2

group. No significant differences were found in T.B.A value of other burger samples (T3, T4 and

T6).

Data in Table 4 showed the shrinkage measurements of chicken burger processed from broiler

fed on different types of vegetable oil and feed additives. Burger of T1 group had the higher

reduction in diameter; no significant differences were found in burger of T5 group and burger of

T6 group. Also, no significant differences were found in burger samples of other dietary

treatments.

Table 4: Shrinkage measurements of chicken burger

Treatments

Parameters

Reduction in diameter

(%)

Reduction in thickness

(%)

Shrinkage

(%)

T1 23.30±2.65
a
28.51±5.70

a
26.64±2.80

T2 16.61±1.31
c
27.85±2.58

a
16.46±2.58

T3 14.74±1.14
c
21.02± 4.18

a
16.62±1.19

T4 16.33±1.33
c
24.07±5.25

a
17.76±0.43

T5 19.33±1.30
b
23.24±6.38

a
20.23±1.71

T6 19.99±0.75
b
29.04±0.83

a
21.77±2.29

SEM 0.76 2.64 1.00
a-d means within the same column with different superscripts letters are different (p<0.05). T1, T2 and T3: Treatments for
soybean oil/ soybean oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and soybean oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. T4, T5andT6: Treatments for palm
oil/ palm oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and palm oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. Means ± standard deviation. SEM: standard error of
means.

From the same Table 4, it can be found that no significant differences were found in the

reduction in thickness% of chicken burger processed from broiler fed on different types of

vegetable oil and feed additives. Burger of T1 group had the higher shrinkage % followed by

burger of T6. Slight significant differences were found between the other burger samples.

Sensory evaluation of chicken burger processed from broiler fed on different types of

vegetable oil and feed additives are showed in Table 5. Burger of T6 had the higher score for

appearance and slight significant differences were found in burger of T2, T4 and T5 groups. No

significant differences were found between burger of T1 and T3 which had the lower score. Burger

of T6 had the higher score of texture, juiciness and tenderness followed by burger of T2, T4 and T5

and no significant differences were found between the other burger samples. Burger of T6

recorded the higher score for flavour while the lower score found in burger of T1 and no

significant differences were found between other burger samples. However, burger processed

from T6 had the higher score of overall acceptability, while the differences between the other

burger samples were slightly significant.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 8

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Table 5: Sensory evaluation of chicken burger

Treatments Appearance Texture Juiciness Flavor Tenderness
Overall

acceptability

T1 7.00± 1.41
b
6.71± 1.11

b
6.85±1.35

b
6.42±1.90

b
6.57±1.27

b
6.71±1.25

T2 7.57±0.98
ab

7.14±1.35
ab

7.28±1.38
ab

6.71±1.80
ab

7.14±1.35
ab

7.42±0.98
abc

T3 7.14±1.07
b
6.85±0.69

b
6.57±1.27

b
6.71±1.60

ab
6.57±0.98

b
7.28±0.49

T4 8.00±1.15
ab

7.28±1.60
ab

7.42±1.40
ab

7.85±0.69
ab

7.57±0.79
ab

7.71±0.76
ab

T5 7.71±1.11
ab

7.28±1.70
ab

7.28±1.50
ab

6.85±1.21
ab

7.14±1.68
ab

7.14±1.07
bc

T6 8.57±0.53
a
8.28±0.76

a
8.28±0.76

a
8.14±0.69

a
8.28±0.49

SEM 0.40 0.47 0.49 0.53 0.43 0.33

a-c means within the same column with different superscripts letters are different (p<0.05). T1, T2 and T3: Treatments for soybean
oil/ soybean oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and soybean oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. T4, T5andT6: Treatments for palm oil/ palm oil with
ZAD 0.5kg/ton and palm oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. Means ± standard deviation. SEM: standard error of means.

4 Discussion

Addition of feed additives had no significant effects on pH value of T5 and T6 or between T2

and T4, while a slight different was found between T1 and T3. These results are close to that

obtained by Zakaria et al. (2010) they found that enzymes addition had no effect on pH value of

broiler chicken meat. However, the effect of dietary enzyme on pH value of chicken meat was

difficult to understand. These may be due to that enzymes are difficult to predict since enzyme

action may be affected by many factors, including environment, amount of enzyme in the

reaction, and interactions between enzyme and other substances, which are still not fully

understood.

Type of dietary oil had a significant effect on cooking loss of chicken burger. These results are

disagrees with that obtained by Pekel et al. (2012) they indicated that dietary fat source did not

affect cooking loss of chicken meat. Although cooking loss decreased with the increasing levels of

dietary fat, there were no significant differences between the dietary fat sources. The effects of

feed additives on cooking loss of chicken burger were significantly different. Addition of (ZAD

with palm oil and soybean oil) had no significant effect on cooking loss, while addition of (AmPhi-

BACT with palm oil) caused a significant increase in cooking loss. Omojola et al. (2014) found that

chicken fed diets containing sesame and soybean diet supplemented with enzymes had higher

cooking loss than those on sesame and soybean diet without enzymes. While Zakaria et al. (2010)

found that dietary enzyme had no effect on cooking loss of broiler chicken meat.

Data of T.B.A. values showed significant differences in chicken burgers processed from

chicken feed different types of oils and feed additives. These results are close to that obtained by

Abdulla et al. (2015) they found that a significant difference in lipid oxidation was observed

among the dietary oils. Breast muscles from broilers fed a diet supplemented with palm oil (PO)

had a lower TBARS value (P <0.05) compared with soybean oil (SO) throughout the post-mortem

storage. On the other hand, the present result disagrees with the findings of Pekel et al. (2012)

they found that no significant differences were found in T.B.A. value of thigh meat from broilers

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 9

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

fed diets with different levels of fat from soybean oil (SO) or neutralized sunflower soap stock

(NSS).

Data of shrinkage measurements showed that dietary fat sources had significant effect on

reduction in diameter and shrinkage percentages of chicken burgers. However, addition of

enzymes had no significant effect on shrinkage measurements. These results are consonance with

that obtained by Omojola et al. (2014) they reported that there was no significant effect on the

meat characteristics of broiler chickens fed on diets (soybean and sesame) supplemented with or

without microbial phytase.

Fat sources and addition of feed additives had no significant effects on reduction in thickness

of chicken burgers. These results are close to that obtained by Dalólio et al. (2015) they found that

enzyme supplementation in diets based on corn and soybean meal did not influence the

parameters of chicken meat quality. The same results were found by Pekel et al. (2012).

Sensory evaluation of chicken burger processed from different vegetable oil and feed

additives showed that the differences between sensory attributes were not significant, although

the burger of T6 had the higher score in overall acceptability, but the differences between the

other sensory attributes were not significant. These results are consonance with (Stanaćev et al.,

2014) they found that dietary addition of vegetable oils did not show any improvement of chicken

breast meat sensory quality. Also, Kalakuntla et al. (2017) concluded that sensory attributes of

chicken broiler meat were not influenced due to dietary incorporation of n-3 PUFA oil sources.

5 Conclusion

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the quality characteristics of chicken burger

processed from broiler chicken fed on different type of vegetable oils and feed additives. The

addition of soybean oil and palm oil as fat sources for use in chicken diets in combination with

feed additives (enzymes) had no negative effects on the quality traits of chicken burger. Further

studies on the effects of feeding broiler chicken on dietary oils and commercial feed additives on

the processing and quality characteristics of chicken meat products are suggested.

References

Abdulla, N. R., Loh, T.C., Akit, H., Sazili, A.Q., Foo, H.L., Mohamad, R., Abdul Rahim, R.,

Ebrahimi, M., Sabow, A.B., 2015. Fatty acid profile, cholesterol and oxidative status in

broiler chicken breast muscle fed different dietary oil sources and calcium levels. South

African Journal of Animal Science. 45(2), 153-163.

AMSA, 1995. American Meat Science Association. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory

evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh beef. Chicago, IL, USA.

AOCS, 1998. American Oil Chemists' Society. Official method Cd 19-90. 2-Thiobarbituric acid

value. Direct method. In: Firestone D, editor. Official Methods and Recommended

Practices of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 5th ed. Champaign, p.3.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 10

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Asghar, A., Lin, C. F., Gray, J. I., Buckly, D. J., Booten, A. M., Flagal, C. J., 1989. Influence of

oxidized dietary oil and antioxidant supplementation on membrane bound lipid stability in

broilers meat. British Poultry Science. 30, 815-823.

Berry, B.W., 1993. Fat level and freezing temperature affect sensory, shear cooking and

composition properties of ground beef patties. Journal of Food Science. 58 (1), 34-42.

Dalólio, F. S., Vaz, D. P., Moreira, J., Albino, L. F. T., Valadares, L. R., 2015. Carcass characteristics

of broilers fed enzyme complex. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry. 31 (2), 153-162.

Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple Ftests. Biometrics. 11, 1- 42.

Engberg, R. M., Lauridsen, C., Jensen, S. K., Jakobson, K., 1996. Inclusion of oxidized vegetable

oil in broiler diets. Its influence on nutrient balance and on the antioxidant status of broiler.

Poultry Science. 75, 1003-1011.

Gray, J.I., Gomaa, E.A., Buckley, D.J., 1996. Oxidative quality and shelf life of meats. Meat

Science. 43, S111-S123.

Hood, D. E., 1980. Factors affecting the rate of metmyoglobin accumulation in prepackaged

beef. Meat Science. 4 (4), 47–50.

Kalakuntla, S., Nagireddy, N. K., Panda, A. K., Jatoth, N.,Thirunahari, R., Vangoor, R. R., 2017.

Effect of dietary incorporation of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids rich oil sources on fatty

acid profile, keeping quality and sensory attributes of broiler chicken meat. Animal

Nutrition. 3, 386-391.

Kies, A.K., VanHemert, K.H.F., Sauer, W.C., 2001. Effect of phytase on protein and amino acid

digestibility and energy utilization. World Poultry Science Journal. 57, 109-126.

Lázaro, R., García, M., Araníbar, M.J., Mateos, G.G., 2003. Effect of enzyme addition to wheat-,

barley- and rye-based diets on nutrient digestibility and performance of laying hens. British

Poultry Science. 44, 256-265.

Lin, C. F., Asghar, A., Gray, J. I., Buckly, D. J., Boome, A. M., Crackel, R. L., Flegal, C. J., 1989.

Effect of oxidized dietary oil and antioxidant supplementation on broiler growth and meat

stability. British Poultry Science. 30, 855-864.

Mikhail, W.Z.A., Sobhy, H.M., Khallaf, M.F., Ali, H. M.Z., El-Askalany, S. A., Ezz El-Din, M. M.,

2014. Suggested treatments for processing high nutritive value chicken burger. Annals of

Agricultural Science. 59(1), 41–45.

Murphy, E. W., Criner, P. E., Grey, B. C., 1975. Comparison of methods for calculating retentions

of nutrients in cooked foods. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 23, 1153–1157.

NRC, 1994. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry 9th Ed. Composition

of poultry feedstuffs. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Naveena, B. M., Muthukumar, M., Sen, A. R., Babji, Y., Murthy, T. R. K., 2006. Quality

characteristics and storage stability of chicken patties formulated with finger millet flour

(Eleusine coracana). Journal of Muscle Foods. 17 (1), 92–104.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 1 - 11 11

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Olukosi, O.A., Cowieson, A.J., Adeola, O., 2007. Age-related influence of a cocktail of xylanase,

amylase and protease or phytase individually or in combination in broilers. Poultry Science.

86, 77-86.

Omojola, A. B., Otunla, T. A., Olusola, O. O., Adebiyi, O. A., Ologhobo, A. D., 2014. Performance

and Carcass Characteristics of Broiler Chicken Fed Soybean and Sesame/Soybean Based

Diets Supplemented With or Without Microbial Phytase. American Journal of Experimental

Agriculture.4 (12), 1637-1648.

Pekel, A. Y., Demirel, G., Midilli, M., Yalcintan, H., Ekiz, B., Alp, M., 2012. Comparison of broiler

meat quality when fed diets supplemented with neutralized sunflower soapstock or

soybean oil. Poultry Science. 91, 2361–2369.

Rodriguéz, M.A., Crespo, N.P., Cortés, M., CREUS, E., Medel, P., 2002. Efecto del tipo de grasa

de la dieta en la alimentacion del broiler, con enfasis en los productos derivados del aceite

de palma. Selecciones avícolas. 44(10), 693-702.

Rymer, C., Givens, D.I., 2005. Omega-3 fatty acid enrichment of edible tissue of poultry: A

review. Lipids. 40, 121-130.

Saleh, F., Tahir, M., Ohtsuka, A., Hayashi, K., 2005. A mixture of pure cellulase, hemicellulase

and pectinase improves broiler performance. British Poultry Science. 46, 602-606.

SAS, 2000. User’s Guide Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, N.C., USA.

Stanaćev, V. Ž., Milošević, N., Pavlovski, Z., Milić, D., Vukić Vranješ, M., Puvača, N., Stanaćev, V.

S., 2014. Effects of dietary soybean, flaxseed and rapeseed oil addition on broilers meat

quality. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry. 30 (4), 677-685.

Wang, W., Wang, Z., Yang, H., Cao, Y., Zhu, X., Zhao, Y., 2013. Effects of phytase

supplementation on growth performance, slaughter performance, growth of internal

organs and small intestine and seum biochemical parameters of broilers. Open Journal of

Animal Science. (3), 236-241.

Zakaria, H. A. H., Mohammad, A. R. J., Abu Ishmais, M. A., 2010. The Influence of Supplemental

Multi-enzyme Feed Additive on the Performance, Carcass Characteristics and Meat Quality

Traits of Broiler Chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science. 9 (2), 126-133.