INTRODUCTION

Globally, meat is a major portion of diet with strong implications in human health, economy and culture (Pighin et al., 2016). Production of meat includes various domestic animals, depending on factors like religious, cultural beliefs, convenience and availability (Paredi et al., 2013). These animals include sheep, buffalo, goat, camel, cow, and some other wild animals i.e. hog, dear and rabbit (Arain et al., 2010). It is well recognised that meat has high biological value with numerous key nutritional factors, like proteins, lipids, vitamins and trace elements (Zhang et al., 2010). Beside these, it is also a valuable source of vitamin B-complex including riboflavin, biotin, thiamin, pyridoxine, niacin, cyanocobalamin pantothenic and minerals like phosphorus, iron, selenium and zinc (Pereira and Vicente, 2013). Intrinsic properties of meat quality such as tenderness, texture, colour, juiciness, flavour and odour and as well as its nutritional characteristics of meat depend on, livestock practices, genetics, slaughter processes, storage conditions and animal feeding (Hocquette et al., 2012).

Preservation is the method or process of keeping something valuable alive, intact, or free from damage and

the preservation of meat is the process of maintaining the quality of the meat for a period of time. For the development and rapid growth of supermarkets, meat preservation is essential to transport meat over long distances without compromising the texture, colour and nutritional value of meat (Nychas et al., 2008). The traditional methods of meat preservation are such as drying, smoking, desalination, fermentation, refrigeration and canning, and these have been replaced by new preservation techniques such as chemical, bio-preservative and non-heating method. The purpose preservation is to prevent the microbial damage and to reduce oxidation and enzymatic activity (Pal and Devrani, 2018).

Bearing in mind the perishable nature of meat and health perspective of consumers, the present study was designed to evaluate the low temperature preservation techniques and post thawing influence on chemical attributes of buffen, chevon and chicken meat.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Collection of samples and preservation

Meat (buffen, chevon and chicken) samples (n= 10 of each) were collected from Tandojam market and brought to the laboratory of Animal Products Technology for further analysis. Meat samples were divided into four groups i.e. Group-1 control, Group-2 chilled at 2 to 4oC, Group-3 frozen at -15 to -20oC and Group-4 thawed at room temperature. All these samples were analysed for their chemical properties. Group 1 was analysed on zero day of collection, while samples from Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4 were analysed up to deterioration.

Chemical analysis

Moisture content, protein content, fat content and ash contents was determined according to the methods, as described by AOAC (2000), Kjeldhal method, soxhlet extraction method and gravimetric method, respectively. Furthermore, glycogen content of meat samples were determined according to Kemp et al. (1954).

Nutritive value

Nutritive values were analysed on the base of following formula.

K.cal (per 100g) = [(% protein) (4)] + [(% fat) (9)] + (% Carbohydrates) (4)]

Statistical analysis

The obtained data was analysed statistically with computerized statistical package i.e. Student Edition of Statistix (SXW), version 8.1 (Copyright 2005, Analytical software, USA).

RESULTS

Moisture content

Table I shows the effect of low temperature preservation and thawing of frozen chicken meat on moisture content of buffen, chevon and chicken meat. The results showed that the moisture content in fresh buffen, chevon and chicken meat samples were 75.65%, 74.60% and 72.70%, respectively. However, in chilled meat with the passage of time the moisture content was decreased gradually. On 15th day the moisture content was 61.83%, 60.45% and 59.19%, respectively in buffen, chevon and chicken. In frozen meat the moisture content in buffen, chevon and chicken meat was 70.71%, 69.45% and 68.43% after 15 days and 65.44%, 64.11% and 63.33% on 30th day. In thawed meat, the moisture content was 61.22%, 60.88% and 58.65%, respectively, in buffen, chevon and chicken. It was observed that moisture percentage of chilled, frozen and thawed meat was significantly decreased as storage period increased in all groups.

Protein content

Table II shows the effect of low temperature and thawing of frozen chicken meat on protein content of buffen, chevon and chicken meat. The protein content of different samples groups decline as storage time of meat increased. In control sample, protein content of buffen, chevon and chicken meat was noted as 78.53%, 82.27% and 82.96%, on DMB (dry matter base), respectively. In chilled meat the protein content was 55.09%, 60.54% and 64.92% after 3 days and 23.95%, 26.17% and 33.69% after 15 days, respectively. In frozen meat, protein content was 74.67%, 79.38% and 80.40% after 3 days and 35.65%, 34.86% and 39.08%, on DMB after 30 days, respectively. In thawed meat, the protein content of buffen, chevon and chicken meat was reduced from 65.26%, 71.23% and 70.26%, on DMB 03rd day to 23.49%, 28.60% and 29.60%, on DMB 30th day, respectively. Results indicate that protein content of chilled, frozen and thawed meat decreased with passage of time.

 

Table I. The moisture content (%) of fresh, chilled, frozen and thawed meat with time interval.

Time interval (days)	Meat	Fresh	Chilled	Frozen	Thawed
0	Buffen	75.65a	-	-	-
	Chevon	74.60ab	-	-	-
	Chicken	72.70cde	-	-	-
03	Buffen	-	70.45fgh	74.65ab	73.63bc
	Chevon	-	69.92ghij	73.71bc	72.54cde
	Chicken	-	68.76ijklm	71.84def	70.04ghi
05	Buffen	-	67.22nop	73.32bcd	72.35cde
	Chevon	-	66.29pqrs	72.38cde	71.43efg
	Chicken	-	65.22rst	70.54fgh	69.46hijkl
10	Buffen	-	64.38tuv	72.32cde	71.66ef
	Chevon	-	63.44uvw	71.45efg	70.54fgh
	Chicken	-	62.22wxy	69.63hijkl	68.23klmn
15	Buffen	-	61.83xy	70.71fgh	69.69hijk
	Chevon	-	60.45z	69.45hijkl	68.14lmno
	Chicken	-	59.19z	68.43jklmn	66.69opqr
20	Buffen	-	-	69.69hijk	67.22nop
	Chevon	-	-	68.32klmn	66.46pqr
	Chicken	-	-	67.68mnop	64.88stu
25	Buffen	-	-	67.02nopq	64.74tuv
	Chevon	-	-	66.32pqrs	63.35uvwx
	Chicken	-	-	65.56qrst	61.74y
30	Buffen	-	-	65.44rst	61.22y
	Chevon	-	-	64.11tuv	60.88yz
	Chicken	-	-	63.33vwx	58.65z

 

LSD (0.05) = 1.5343; SE ± = 0.7715

 

Table II. The protein content (% on DMB) of fresh, chilled, frozen and thawed meat with time interval.

Time interval (days)	Meat	Fresh	Chilled	Frozen	Thawed
0	Buffen	78.53b	-	-	-
	Chevon	82.27ab	-	-	-
	Chicken	82.96a	-	-	-
03	Buffen	-	55.09lmno	74.67c	65.26gh
	Chevon	-	60.54ijk	79.38ab	71.23cde
	Chicken	-	64.92gh	80.40ab	70.26def
05	Buffen	-	44.63tu	68.33efg	60.58ijk
	Chevon	-	48.71qrs	72.48cd	64.89gh
	Chicken	-	53.65mnop	72.13cd	67.15fg
10	Buffen	-	34.03xy	62.83hi	54.52lmnop
	Chevon	-	36.73vwx	67.67efg	58.49ijk
	Chicken	-	43.86tu	67.63efg	62.20hij
15	Buffen	-	23.95z	57.77jkl	46.92rs
	Chevon	-	26.17z	60.39ijk	51.26opqr
	Chicken	-	33.69xy	60.56ijk	55.30klmn
20	Buffen	-	-	52.29nopq	40.05uv
	Chevon	-	-	55.02lmno	44.75st
	Chicken	-	-	56.87klm	49.94qrs
25	Buffen	-	-	42.51tu	32.50y
	Chevon	-	-	46.88st	36.07wxy
	Chicken	-		50.12pqr	40.98uv
30	Buffen	-	-	35.65wxy	23.49z
	Chevon	-	-	34.86xy	28.60y
	Chicken	-	-	39.08vw	29.60y

 

LSD (0.05) = 3.7077; SE ± = 1.8645

 

Fat content

Table III shows the effect of different preservation and thawing temperature on fat content of buffen, chevon and chicken meat. In fresh buffen, chevon and chicken meat, fat content was 9.93%, 8.57% and 7.94%, on DMB, respectively. The fat percentage of chilled buffen, chevon and chicken meat was 7.41%, 6.95% and 6.56% on day 3 and 4.03%, 3.77% and 3.46%, on DMB, respectively on day 15. In frozen meat it was recorded as 9.51%, 8.25% and 7.67% on day 3, 7.55%, 6.45% and 6.15% on day 15 and 5.32%, 4.65% and 4.47%, DMB after thirty days of storage, respectively. In each cycle of thawed meat, fat content on day 3 was 8.72%, 7.87% and 7.18%; and 4.33%, 4.43% and 3.85% on DMB on day 30. There was a significant difference in each meat in every interval of storage from 3rd day to 30th day of thawed storage and also there was a significant variation in each storage time interval.

 

Table III. The fat content (% on DMB) of fresh, chilled, frozen and thawed meat with time interval.

Time interval (days)	Meat	Fresh	Chilled	Frozen	Thawed
0	Buffen	9.93a	-	-	-
	Chevon	8.57c	-	-	-
	Chicken	7.94efg	-	-	-
03	Buffen	-	7.41hij	9.51b	8.72c
	Chevon	-	6.95klmn	8.25d	7.87fg
	Chicken	-	6.56o	7.67gh	7.18jk
05	Buffen	-	6.07q	8.81c	8.07def
	Chevon	-	5.75rst	7.68gh	7.32ij
	Chicken	-	5.32uv	7.16jkl	6.87lmn
10	Buffen	-	4.94wx	8.24de	7.45hij
	Chevon	-	4.60x	7.15jkl	6.72mno
	Chicken	-	4.29y	6.65no	6.17pq
15	Buffen	-	4.03y	7.55hi	6.66no
	Chevon	-	3.77z	6.45op	6.03qr
	Chicken	-	3.46z	6.15pq	5.67st
20	Buffen	-	-	6.99klm	5.89qrs
	Chevon	-	-	5.93qrs	5.49tu
	Chicken	-	-	5.72st	5.21uvw
25	Buffen	-	-	6.09q	5.08vw
	Chevon	-	-	5.34uv	4.69x
	Chicken	-	-	5.14vw	4.44y
30	Buffen	-	-	5.32uv	4.33y
	Chevon	-	-	4.65x	4.43y
	Chicken	-	-	4.47y	3.85z

 

LSD (0.05) = 0.3070; SE ± = 0.1544

 

Ash content

Table IV shows the ash content of fresh, chilled, frozen and thawed buffen, chevon and chicken meat at the various intervals for thirty days. Ash content in fresh buffen, chevon and chicken meat samples was 6.73%, 4.21% and 5.46%, on DMB respectively, while in chilled treatment of storage, the ash content was 4.67%, 2.96% and 3.91% on day 3 and 2.23%, 1.21% and 1.69%, on DMB, respectively on day 15. After frozen treatment, these content were as 6.11%, 4.11% and 5.11% on day 3 and 2.58%, 2.26% and 1.61%, on day 30, respectively. In thawed meat, ash was 5.42%, 3.71% and 4.57% on day 3 and 2.24%, 1.21% and 1.35%, on DMB on day 30 respectively. Results indicate that ash content of chilled, frozen and thawed meat decreased with passage of time.

 

Table IV. The ash content (% on DMB) of fresh, chilled, frozen and thawed meat with time interval.

Time interval (days)	Meat	Fresh	Chilled	Frozen	Thawed
0	Buffen	6.73a	-	-	-
	Chevon	4.21hij	-	-	-
	Chicken	5.46c	-	-	-
03	Buffen	-	4.67fg	6.11b	5.42c
	Chevon	-	2.96rst	4.11ijk	3.71lmn
	Chicken	-	3.91jkl	5.11de	4.57g
05	Buffen	-	3.69lmno	5.28cd	4.92ef
	Chevon	-	2.17x	3.55mnop	3.40opq
	Chicken	-	2.96rst	4.58g	4.26hi
10	Buffen	-	2.81tuv	4.77fg	4.48gh
	Chevon	-	1.64y	3.19qrs	3.05rst
	Chicken	-	2.14x	4.12ij	3.81klm
15	Buffen	-	2.23wx	4.20hij	3.93jkl
	Chevon	-	1.21z	2.75tuv	2.61uvw
	Chicken	-	1.69y	3.67lmnop	3.42nopq
20	Buffen	-	-	3.76lm	3.39opq
	Chevon	-	-	2.43xy	2.21wx
	Chicken	-	-	3.37pq	3.02rst
25	Buffen	-	-	3.21qr	2.89stu
	Chevon	-	-	2.11xy	1.77y
	Chicken	-	-	2.85tuv	2.40wx
30	Buffen	-	-	2.58vw	2.24wx
	Chevon	-	-	2.26wx	1.21wx
	Chicken	-	-	1.61yz	1.35z

 

LSD (0.05) = 0.3070; SE ± = 0.1544

 

Glycogen content

Table V shows glycogen content of fresh, chilled, frozen and thawed buffen, chevon and chicken meat. In the fresh buffen, glycogen level was 4.81% on DMB. In chilled buffen it was 3.42% on day 3 and 1.57% on DMB on day 15, respectively. In frozen meat, glycogen level was 4.58% on day 3 and 2.31% on DMB (dry matter base), respectively, on 30th day. Whereas in thawed buffen, it was 4.32% on day 3 and 1.93% on DMB on day 30. Glycogen level in results indicates that as time period increased, glycogen level was decreased. Based on ANOVA results, it was found that the glycogen level of different treatments were different significantly (P≤0.05) from one another.

Nutritive value

Table VI shows that the nutritive value was 422.73 k.cal/100g, 425.97 k.cal/100g and 417.82 k.cal/100g, on DMB in fresh buffen, chevon and chicken meat samples respectively. The calorific value of various chilled meats was 300.73, 318.79 kand 329.36 k.cal/100g on day 3 and 138.35, 145.89 and 171.50 k.cal/100g on DMB, respectively on day 15. In frozen treatment of meat, it was calculated as 402.59, 410.77 and 404.39 k.cal/100g on day 3 and 199.72, 191.45 and 203.43 k.cal/100g on DMB respectively after thirty days. Whereas in thawed seven cycles of buffen, chevon and chicken meat samples, calorific value was 356.80, 373.67 and 358.34 k.cal/100g on day 3 and 140.65, 163.59 and 160.29 k.cal/100g on DMB, respectively after 30 days. Results revealed that calorific value of chilled, frozen and thawed meats was decline as storage period increased.

 

Table V. The glycogen content (% on DMB) of fresh, chilled, frozen and thawed meat with time interval.

Time interval (days)	Meat	Fresh	Chilled	Frozen	Thawed
	Buffen	4.81b	-	-	-
0	Chevon	4.94a	-	-	-
	Chicken	3.63j	-	-	-
	Buffen	-	3.42l	4.58c	4.32e
03	Chevon	-	3.52k	4.75b	4.48d
	Chicken	-	2.66qr	3.44kl	3.17mn
	Buffen	-	2.65qr	4.20f	3.94h
05	Chevon	-	2.70qr	4.38e	4.10g
	Chicken	-	2.13v	3.19mn	2.94op
	Buffen	-	2.13v	3.90h	3.63j
10	Chevon	-	2.30u	4.10g	3.77i
	Chicken	-	1.72x	2.96op	2.61rs
	Buffen	-	1.57y	3.52k	3.10n
15	Chevon	-	1.82x	3.67j	3.26m
	Chicken	-	1.40z	2.69qr	2.28u
	Buffen	-	-	3.17mn	2.68qr
20	Chevon	-	-	3.38l	2.89p
	Chicken	-	-	2.48t	2.02w
	Buffen	-	-	2.73q	2.33u
25	Chevon	-	-	3.00o	2.48qr
	Chicken	-	-	2.18v	1.70p
	Buffen	-	-	2.31u	1.93w
30	Chevon	-	-	2.54st	2.33u
	Chicken	-	-	1.72x	1.51y

 

LSD (0.05) = 0.3070; SE ± = 0.1544

 

Table VI. The calorific/nutritive value (% on DMB) of fresh, chilled, frozen and thawed meat with time interval.

Time interval (days)	Meat	Fresh	Chilled	Frozen	Thawed
0	Buffen	422.73a	-	-	-
	Chevon	425.97a	-	-	-
	Chicken	417.82ab	-	-	-
03	Buffen	-	300.73ikk	402.59b	356.80def
	Chevon	-	318.79hi	410.77ab	373.67cd
	Chicken	-	329.36gh	404.39b	358.34cdef
05	Buffen	-	243.75opq	369.41cde	330.71gh
	Chevon	-	257.39nop	376.56c	341.84fg
	Chicken	-	271.00mn	365.72cde	342.19fg
10	Buffen	-	189.10wx	341.08fg	299.65jkl
	Chevon	-	197.52vw	351.43ef	309.52ij
	Chicken	-	220.93stu	342.21fg	314.77hij
15	Buffen	-	138.35z	313.11hij	260.02no
	Chevon	-	145.89z	314.29hij	272.35mn
	Chicken	-	171.50xy	308.35ij	281.35lm
20	Buffen	-	-	284.75klm	223.93rst
	Chevon	-	-	286.97klm	239.97pqr
	Chicken	-	-	288.88klm	254.73nop
25	Buffen	-	-	235.77qrs	185.04wx
	Chevon	-	-	247.58opq	196.41vw
	Chicken	-	-	255.46nop	210.68tuv
30	Buffen	-	-	199.72vw	140.65z
	Chevon	-	-	191.45w	163.59y
	Chicken	-	-	203.43uvw	160.29y

 

LSD (0.05) = 0.0478; SE ± = 1.5869

 

DISCUSSION

With the long period of storage in chiller, freezer and freeze thawed meat, moisture content of buffen, chevon and chicken meat significantly decline. These findings agree with the Naveen et al. (2016), who indicated that the overall average moisture percentage in sausages of duck meat decreased during refrigerated/chilled storage for fourteen days. This may be due to the loss of drip during the storage and the evaporation of liquid from the meat in the refrigerator. The declining trend of moisture content during the refrigerated/chilling storage recorded in the current research is consistent with the findings of Biswas et al. (2011) in chicken meat loaves and in duck patties. And also in buffalo meat sausages which are kept in chilling conditions (Abdolghafour and Saghir, 2014). Consequently, Kondaiah et al. (1986) reported that the percent of moisture in frozen meat (beef) decline as storage period increased. The noticeable loss moisture percentage in the advancement of storage time may be due to alteration of myofibrillar in the frozen meat which may cause decline in capability water retention in meat (Kandeepan and Biswas, 2007).

Protein percentage of buffen, chevon and chicken meat decreased in various groups of meat with increase in period of storage. In chilled meat, the reduced protein percentage may be due to higher bacterial load which lead to greater activity of water and increased autolysis by enzymes in meat (Rao et al., 1998). These results also agreed with the results of Kandeepan and Biswas (2007) who stated that buffen kept for in the refrigerator (4 ± 1°C) for four days displayed significantly lower protein content than meat stored in the freezer (-10 ± 1°C). Additionally, it was found that the protein content in seventh day of cold meat was lower than in the seventh and fourteenth day of meat stored in the freezer. However, protein loss in meat significant (p <0.05) occur on thirtieth, sixtieth and seventy fifth day of frozen storage. This steady loss in advanced of experiment may be due to ice crystal formation in muscle tissue which results increased the solute concentration in muscle. Further Hammad et al. (2019) also observed that the effect of storage on crude protein in beef meat resulted in protein 17.50%, 15.40%, and 15.00%, respectively, and in poultry meat resulted in protein of 18.20%, 17.60%, and 16.70%, respectively, at -20°C during his study. Hammad et al. (2019) stated that the poultry contained more portion of protein (P <0.05) in meat than buffen and the percent of protein obtained during this research was declining, which may be associated with the denaturation of meat protein during the frozen storage. Storage of meat in freezer stimulate the protein carboxylation and the development of schiff bases of chicken meat. Both thawing and freezing storage have effect on the activity of proteolytic (endogenous) enzymes, which is responsible for the breakdown of meat protein and the relaxation of structures of meat tissues (Utrera et al., 2013).

Fat content of meat was decreased as the time of storage advanced in freezer and chiller. The meat fat is responsible for the species specific flavor present in the meat products. The clear difference in chilled meat sample might be due to the strong light exposure in display cabinets such as freezer and refrigerator, which enhanced the oxidation of fat and causing decline in fat percentage (Kandeepan and Biswas, 2007). This deterioration of fat in meat took place due to intermediary endogenous enzymes activities which leading to hydrolysis of meat fat. Kandeepan and Biswas (2007) also reported that the content of fat on the seventh day of chilled meat significantly (p<0.05) changed with the percentage of frozen on the same day of storage. There was a steady decline in fat percentage on seventh and fourteenth day of buffalo meat during storage. Similarly, Hammad et al. (2019) observed that the crude fat content of beef and poultry meats decreased at half-shelf life. Fat content decreased from 4.83% to 3.00% in beef meat during the 2, and 4.5 months storage. Poultry meat showed a decrease in crude fat content from 7.63% to 6.90%. This variation in fat percentage during the frozen storage up to four and half months might be connected with the fat hydrolysis. Furthermore, these results also corroborate with findings observed by the Soyer et al. (2010). Nannur et al. (2017) reported that about 6.98% of fat was extracted from fresh cooked beef sample which was highest among all other samples. The loss of lipid content in the refrigerated storage samples is mainly considered to be related with auto-oxidation of lipids (Sampaio et al., 2012). Furthermore, Sabow et al. (2016) and Soyer et al. (2010) also reported that refrigeration storage has significant influence on lipid and protein oxidation resulting in loss of fat. This is the agreement with the findings reported by Maqsood et al. (2015). They said that decrease in total fats in meat during refrigeration storage is could be due to changing in the triglycerides levels.

Ash is the powdery residue left after the burning of a substance. Kandeepan and Biswas (2007) reported that there is gradual decline in ash content as storage period increase in buffalo meat. Okeyo et al. (2009) also reported that in frozen Nile perch, ash percentage decline with storage time in freezer. Nannur et al. (2017) stated that the ash percentage of all meat samples was almost same. Further this study is also correlated with Hammad et al. (2019), who stated that there was gradual decline in ash content as storage period increased in beef and chicken meat. Ivanovic et al. (2012), further stated that, the percentage of ash in fresh and frozen chicken meat was (1.00 and 2.10%), respectively, and these values were different than the ash content in the chest muscle meat and thigh chicken meat from (1.30 and 1.08%), respectively, which was comparable to the percentage obtained from the percentage of ash in chicken meat was (1%), and this percentage was less than the ash content in chicken meat (1.24%). Additionally, Augustynska-Prejsnar et al. (2018) reported that the continued storage in freezing can cause decline in the ash percentage. The reduction in ash content may be due to increased meat drip during the process of thawing, hence the subsequent loss of mineral salts increased.

In this study, the glycogen content of chilled, frozen and thawed buffen, chevon and chicken meat showed decreased trend with increased storage period of meat. Dave and Ghaly (2011) reported that during cold storage of muscle, glycogen is changed into lactic acid due to presences of amylolytic enzymes are responsible which cause gradual decline in glycogen of muscle. Rahman et al. (2015) also reported that in the anaerobic conditions glycogen of muscle also breakdown into lactic acid which also cause decrease of muscle glycogen during storage. Onopiuk et al. (2016) showed in obtained results that the muscles from commercial crossbred bulls, with higher glycogen levels measured at 2 h post-slaughter had higher lactic acid content, which indicates a higher degree of meat tissue acidification. Furthermore, Zelechowska et al. (2012) demonstrated that the reduced water binding capacity and resultant cooling loss are higher when the pH of meat is lower which cause reduction in glycogen of meat.

Kandeepan and Biswas (2007) also observed the various macronutrients during the low temperature preservation of beef meat, from his results it was noted that there was quit decrease in various macronutrients of beef, which indicate that there was decrease in calorific/nutritive value during the cold storage. Nannur et al. (2017) reported in his study that during the cold storage of cocked beef, there was a decline in proximate composition of meat, which cause decrease in nutritional quality of meat. The calorific/nutritive value of meat showed decreased trend with increase storage period of chilled, frozen and thawed buffalo meat. Rao et al. (1998) reported that nutritive/calorific value decreased trend with increased bacterial growth which resulted higher water activity and enzymatic autolysis of meat. Apart from this deterioration of fat in meat took place due to intermediary enzymatic activities (hydrolysis of lipids) which cause decline in calorific/nutritive value of meat (Kandeepan and Biswas, 2007). Hammad et al. (2019) indicted in his study that in chicken meat has higher values in macronutrients as compare to beef meat, which also indicated that chicken meat has higher percentage of calorific/nutritive value as compared to beef meat. Furthermore, he also observed effect of freeze and re-freeze the chemical composition of beef and poultry meat at storage period, from the results it was observed that there was decline in macronutrients in both meats, which also indicated that during the storage there was a decrease in calorific/ nutritive values.

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that low temperature treatment have effect on meat quality with the passage of time. Here it was observed that in chemical attributes such as, moisture, protein, fat, ash and glycogen decreased with the increase of storage time. It is recommended that in chilled storage meat quality is good up to five days, in frozen storage meat can be utilized up to 25 days while thawing cycles up to four are suitable for human consumption. Beyond these meats unfit for human consumption due to low quality.

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Abdolghafour, B., and Saghir, A., 2014. Buffalo: A potential animal for quality meat production. A review. Int. J. Livest. Res., 2: 19-29.

Arain, M.A., Khaskheli, M., Rajput, I.R., Rao, S., Faraz, S., Fazlani, S.A., and Umer, M., 2010. Examination of physical properties of goat meat. Pak. J. Nutr., 9: 422-425. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2010.422.425

Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC). 2000. Official methods of analysis of AOAC.International Gaithersburg.

Augustynska-Prejsnar, A., Ormian, M., and Sokołowicz, Z., 2018. Physicochemical and sensory properties of broiler chicken breast meat stored frozen and thawed using various methods. J. Fd. Qual., 3: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6754070

Biswas, S., Chakraborty, A., Patra, G., and Dhargupta, A., 2011. Quality and acceptability of duck patties stored at ambient and refrigeration temperature. Int. J. Livest. Prod., 2: 1-6.

Dave, D., and Ghaly, A.E., 2011. Meat spoilage mechanisms and preservation techniques: A critical review. Am. J. Agric. biol. Sci., 6: 486-510. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajabssp.2011.486.510

Hammad, H.H.M., Ma, M., Damaka, A.W.H.Y., Elkhedir, A., and Jin, G., 2019. Effect of freeze and re-freeze on chemical composition of beef and poultry meat at storage period 4.5 months (SP4. 5). Int. J. Fd. Process. Technol., 10: 1-6.

Hocquette, J.F., Botreau, R., Picard, B., Jacquet, A., Pethick, D.W., and Scollan, N.D., 2012. Opportunities for predicting and manipulating beef quality. Meat Sci., 92: 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.007

Ivanovic, S., Pisinov, B., Savic, D.M.S.B., and Stojanovic, Z., 2012. Influence of probiotics on quality of chicken meat. Afr. J. agric. Res., 7: 2191-2196.

Kandeepan, G., and Biswas, S., 2007. Effect of domestic refrigeration on keeping quality of buffalo meat. J. Fd. Technol., 5: 29-35.

Kemp, A., and Van Heijningen, A.J.K., 1954. A colorimetric micro-method for the determination of glycogen in tissues. Biochem. J., 56: 646. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0560646

Kondaiah, N., Anjaneyulu, A.S.R., Rao, V.K., and Sharma, N., 1986. Effect of different handling conditions on quality of minced buffalo meat. Short communication. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 56: 277-279.

Maqsood, S., Abushelaibi, A., Manheem, K., and Kadim, I.T., 2015. Characterisation of the lipid and protein fraction of fresh camel meat and the associated changes during refrigerated storage. J. Fd. Compos. Anal., 41: 212-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2014.12.027

Nannur, R.M., Habibur, R.R.B., Islam, S., and Rahim, A., 2017. Nutritional quality changes of cooked beef due to refrigeration storage. IOSR J. environ. Sci., Toxicol. Fd. Technol., 11: 49-56.

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, 5: 2061-2077. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3743-7

Nychas, G.J.E., Skandamis, P.N., Tassou, C.C., and Koutsoumanis, K.P., 2008. Meat spoilage during distribution. Meat Sci., 78: 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.06.020

Okeyo, G.O., Lokuruka, M.N.I. and Matofari, J.W., 2009. Nutritional composition and shelflife of the Lake Victoria Nile perch (Lates niloticus) stored in ice. Afr. J. Fd. Agric. Nutr. Dev., 9: 901-919. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajfand.v9i3.43017

Onopiuk, A., Połtorak, A., and Wierzbicka, A., 2016. Influence of post-mortem muscle glycogen content on the quality of beef during aging. J. Vet. Res., 60: 301-307. https://doi.org/10.1515/jvetres-2016-0046

Pal, M., and Devrani, M., 2018. Application of various techniques for meat preservation. J. exp. Fd. Chem., 4: 2472-2542. https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-0542.1000134

Paredi, G., Sentandreu, M.A., Mozzarelli, A., Fadda, S., Hollung, K., and de Almeida, A.M., 2013. Muscle and meat: New horizons and applications for proteomics on a farm to fork perspective. J. Proteom., 88: 58-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2013.01.029

Pereira, P.M.D.C.C., and Vicente, A.F.D.R.B., 2013. Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Meat Sci., 93: 586-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.09.018

Pighin, D., Pazos, A., Chamorro, V., Paschetta, F., Cunzolo, S., Godoy, F., and Grigioni, G., 2016. A contribution of beef to human health: A review of the role of the animal production systems. Sci. World J., 2016: Article ID 8681491. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8681491

Rahman, M.H., Hossain, M.M., Rahman, S.M.E., Amin, M.R., and Oh, D.H., 2015. Evaluation of physicochemical deterioration and lipid oxidation of beef muscle affected by freeze-thaw cycles. Korean J. Fd. Sci. Anim. Resour., 35: 772-782. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2015.35.6.772

Rao, D.N., Nair, K.K.S., and Sakhare, P.Z., 1998. Meat microbiology and spoilage in tropical countries. The microbiology of meat and poultry, Blackie Academic and Professional, London, pp. 220-265.

Sabow, A.B., Sazili, A.Q., Aghwan, Z.A., Zulkifli, I., Goh, Y.M., Ab-Kadir, M.Z.A., and Adeyemi, K.D., 2016. Changes of microbial spoilage, lipid-protein oxidation and physicochemical properties during post mortem refrigerated storage of goat meat. Anim. Sci. J., 87: 816-826. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12496

Sampaio, G.R., Saldanha, T., Soares, R.A.M., and Torres, E.A.F.S., 2012. Effect of natural antioxidant combinations on lipid oxidation in cooked chicken meat during refrigerated storage. Fd. Chem., 135: 1383-1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.05.103

Soyer, A., Ozalp, B., Dalmış, U., and Bilgin, V., 2010. Effects of freezing temperature and duration of frozen storage on lipid and protein oxidation in chicken meat. Fd. Chem., 120: 1025-1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.11.042

Utrera, M., and Esteevez, M., 2013. Oxidative damage to poultry, pork, and beef during frozen storage through the analysis of novel protein oxidation markers. J. Agric. Fd. Chem., 61: 7987-7993. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf402220q

Zelechowska, E., Przybylski, W., Jaworska, D., and Sante-Lhoutellier, V., 2012. Technological and sensory pork quality in relation to muscle and drip loss protein profiles. Eur. Fd. Res. Technol., 234: 883-894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-012-1705-z

Zhang, W., Xiao, S., Samaraweera, H., Lee, E.J., and Ahn, D.U., 2010. Improving functional value of meat products. Meat Sci., 86: 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.018