Classical Laboratory Techniques to Distinguish Broiler Chicken Meat from Slaughtered and Dead Birds for Effective Detection of Meat Adulteration

IF 3 3区 农林科学 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Priyanka Kar, Suman Talukder, A. K. Biswas, A. R. Sen, R. K. Agrawal, P. Kumar
{"title":"Classical Laboratory Techniques to Distinguish Broiler Chicken Meat from Slaughtered and Dead Birds for Effective Detection of Meat Adulteration","authors":"Priyanka Kar,&nbsp;Suman Talukder,&nbsp;A. K. Biswas,&nbsp;A. R. Sen,&nbsp;R. K. Agrawal,&nbsp;P. Kumar","doi":"10.1007/s12161-025-02865-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To achieve unscrupulous economic gain, some chicken meat retailers use dead broiler chickens to replace the meat from properly slaughtered birds, which may lead to severe health consequences for the chicken meat consumers. This study was undertaken to differentiate the quality attributes of chicken from dead and slaughtered broiler birds to judge the substitution. Therefore, slaughtered, dead, and a mix of the both samples were comparatively evaluated for different quality parameters. Results showed a significant difference (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) in water holding capacity, extract release volume, drip loss, total pigments, myoglobin content, thiobarbituric acid reactive substance, total volatile basic nitrogen, myoglobin content, and L-lactate among the chicken meat samples. The malachite green test could efficiently differentiate the slaughtered, dead, and mix samples based on the available residual blood in them. The color parameters (redness, chroma) and histopathological parameters could also differentiate slaughtered, dead, and admixture samples. The sensory scores were higher for the dead than for both slaughtered and mix samples. Higher microbial counts were (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) observed in dead samples as compared to others. On the basis of the findings, we could conclude that the physicochemical, histopathological, microbiological evaluation, and malachite green test could efficiently differentiate the slaughtered, dead, and mix chicken samples.\n</p></div>","PeriodicalId":561,"journal":{"name":"Food Analytical Methods","volume":"18 10","pages":"2291 - 2303"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Analytical Methods","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12161-025-02865-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To achieve unscrupulous economic gain, some chicken meat retailers use dead broiler chickens to replace the meat from properly slaughtered birds, which may lead to severe health consequences for the chicken meat consumers. This study was undertaken to differentiate the quality attributes of chicken from dead and slaughtered broiler birds to judge the substitution. Therefore, slaughtered, dead, and a mix of the both samples were comparatively evaluated for different quality parameters. Results showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) in water holding capacity, extract release volume, drip loss, total pigments, myoglobin content, thiobarbituric acid reactive substance, total volatile basic nitrogen, myoglobin content, and L-lactate among the chicken meat samples. The malachite green test could efficiently differentiate the slaughtered, dead, and mix samples based on the available residual blood in them. The color parameters (redness, chroma) and histopathological parameters could also differentiate slaughtered, dead, and admixture samples. The sensory scores were higher for the dead than for both slaughtered and mix samples. Higher microbial counts were (p < 0.05) observed in dead samples as compared to others. On the basis of the findings, we could conclude that the physicochemical, histopathological, microbiological evaluation, and malachite green test could efficiently differentiate the slaughtered, dead, and mix chicken samples.

经典实验室技术区分肉鸡肉与屠宰和死禽有效检测肉类掺假
为牟取不法的经济利益,一些鸡肉零售商使用死肉鸡代替经过适当屠宰的禽肉,这可能对鸡肉消费者的健康造成严重后果。本研究旨在区分死肉鸡和屠宰肉鸡的品质属性,以判断是否存在替代。因此,对屠宰、死亡和混合两种样品进行不同质量参数的比较评价。结果表明,不同鸡肉样品在持水量、提取物释放量、滴漏损失、总色素、肌红蛋白含量、硫代巴比妥酸活性物质、总挥发性碱性氮、肌红蛋白含量、l -乳酸盐等方面存在显著差异(p < 0.05)。孔雀石绿检测能有效区分屠宰、死亡和混合样品。颜色参数(红度、色度)和组织病理学参数也可以区分屠宰、死亡和混合样品。死亡样本的感官得分高于屠宰样本和混合样本。与其他样品相比,在死亡样品中观察到较高的微生物计数(p < 0.05)。结果表明,理化、组织病理学、微生物学评价和孔雀石绿试验均能有效区分屠宰、死鸡和混鸡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Food Analytical Methods
Food Analytical Methods 农林科学-食品科技
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
244
审稿时长
3.1 months
期刊介绍: Food Analytical Methods publishes original articles, review articles, and notes on novel and/or state-of-the-art analytical methods or issues to be solved, as well as significant improvements or interesting applications to existing methods. These include analytical technology and methodology for food microbial contaminants, food chemistry and toxicology, food quality, food authenticity and food traceability. The journal covers fundamental and specific aspects of the development, optimization, and practical implementation in routine laboratories, and validation of food analytical methods for the monitoring of food safety and quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信