The experiment was conducted in four treatment groups and the data were collected under different storage days in refrigeration and frozen storage. The obtained results from these experiments are presented below.
Proximate composition
Moisture
Under refrigeration storage, the moisture percentage were evaluated on 8 days and 16 days of storage. The mean values of moisture content on refrigeration storage for R1 and R2 sample on day 8 was 43.66±0.21 and 43.36±0.25 respectively. Moisture content for all the sample was gradually decreases with the increasing of storage periods (Table 2).
Statistically highly significant (p<0.01) difference was observed in moisture percentage for both R1 and R2 sample between 8 days and 16 days of storage periods but there was a non- significant difference was observed in between the sample.
In frozen storage it is also noticed that moisture percent was gradually decreases with the increasing of storage periods but loss of moisture was more in F2 sample as compare with F1 sample (Table 3).
In F1 sample moisture percentage non-significantly (p>0.05) decreased from 51.33±0.21 (D0) to 51.01±0.40 (D30) while in F2 sample moisture percentage significantly (p<0.01) decreased from 50.90±0.17 (D0) to 47.94±0.27(D30) with the increasing of storage periods.
Anandh and Lakshmanan (2010) also noticed that gradually decreasing of moisture content during refrigeration storage of smoked buffalo tripe rolls and also concluded that the moisture content decreases during storage because of dehydration of product by the permeable flims.
Jin et al., (2010) also found the similar results in dry cured pork neck.
Protein
In case of R1 sample protein content was non-significantly (p>0.05) increases from 21.04±0.40 (D8) to 22.11±0.36 with the increasing of storage periods and for R2 sample protein content was increased significantly (p<0.01) from 21.47±0.33 (D8) to 22.80±0.33 (D16) during storage (Table 4).
Statistically a non-significantly (p>0.05) increasing trends in frozen storage of both F1 and F2 sample was observed with the increasing of storage periods (Table 5).
The mean protein value of TWM and MWM was significantly (p<0.01) different on 0 day among the treatment. Also there was a highly significant (p<0.01) difference observed in between the sample in 12 days of storage.
Similar finding was also reported by the
Kumar and Radhakrishnan (2006) significant increase of protein content in cured and smoked broiler chicken.
Fat
Under refrigeration storage fat percentage of R1 and R2 sample was estimated on 8 day and 16 days of storage periods. On the basis of mean value of fat percentage in R1 sample non-significantly (p>0.05) decreasing of fat value was observed from 30.09±0.31 to 29.75±0.38 from day 8 to day 16 days of storage. In R2 sample, fat value was also non-significantly decreases (p>0.05) 30.69±0.23 to 30.51± 0.19 from day 8 to day 16 days of refrigeration storage (Table 6).
There was also a non- significant (p>0.05) different was observed in between the sample in 8 day and 16 days of storage periods. The mean fat percentage was non-significantly higher in R2 sample then the R1 sample during the storage periods.
In frozen storage fat value of F1 sample was non- significantly (p>0.05) decreases from 20.11±0.18 (D0) to 19.53±0.24 (D30) with the increasing of storage periods but in case of F2 sample fat value was decreases significantly (p<0.01) from 21.51±0.38 to 19.71±0.19 from 0 day and 30 days of storage periods respectively (Table 7).
In 0 day a non- significant (p>0.05) difference was observed in between the samples but in 30 days of storage periods highly significant (p<0.01) difference was observed in between the samples.
Similar findings were also reported by the
Huang et al., (2011) in Chinese-style sausages,
(Reddy et al., 2012) in low fat chicken sausag.
Anti-oxidant activity
Anti-oxidant activities of modified and traditional
Wahan Mosdeng were evaluated by the DPPH and FRAP methods and the anti-oxidant activity was expressed in mg Trolox equivalent (TE) per gram of that extract.
Anti-oxidant activity by DPPH methods
Anti-oxidant activity of refrigeration storage sample R1 and R2 was evaluated on 1 and 16 days of storage periods. With the advancement of storage periods anti-oxidant activity was decreased significantly (Table 8).
In case of R1 sample antioxidant activity was decreased significantly (p<0.01) from 0.56±0.003 (D1) to 0.11±0.03 (D16) but in case of R2 sample anti-oxidant activity was decreased statistically Non-significantly (p>0.05) from 0.69 ±0.10 (D1) to 0.33±0.02 (D16) with the increasing of storage periods.
In between R1 and R2 sample Non- significant (p>0.05) difference was observed on 1
st day and highly significance (p<0.01) difference was observed on 16th days of storage sample for the anti-oxidant activity.
Anti-oxidant activity of frozen storage sample F1 and F2 was evaluated on 0 and 30 days of storage periods. With the advancement of storage periods anti-oxidant activity was decreased significantly (Table 9).
In case of F1 sample antioxidant activity was decreased significantly (p<0.01) from 0.63±0.03 (D0) to 0.17±0.11 (D16) but in case of R2 sample anti-oxidant activity was decreased statistically Non-significantly (p>0.05) from 0.71±0.02 (D0) to 0.35±0.02 (D30) with the increasing of storage periods.
In between F1 and F2 sample non-significant (p>0.05) difference was observed on 0 day and highly significance (p<0.01) difference was observed on 30th days of storage sample for the anti-oxidant activity.
Anti-oxidant activity by FRAP methods
Anti-oxidant activity of refrigeration storage sample R1 and R2 was evaluated on 1 and 16 days of storage periods. With the advancement of storage periods anti-oxidant activity was decreased significantly (Table 10).
In case of R1 and R2 sample antioxidant activity was decreased significantly (p<0.01) from 0.08±0.001 (D1) to 0.0006±0.0001 (D16) and from 0.09±0.001to 0.0043±0.002 respectively.
In between R1 and R2 sample Non- significant (p>0.05) difference was observed on 1
st day and 16
th days of storage periods.
Anti-oxidant activity of frozen storage sample F1 and F2 was evaluated on 0 and 30 days of storage periods. With the advancement of storage periods anti-oxidant activity was decreased significantly (Table 11). In case of F1 and F2 sample antioxidant activity was decreased significantly (p<0.01) from 0.08±0.002 (D0) to 0.0007±0.0002 (D30) and from 0.09±0.01 (D0) to 0.002±0.0003 (D30) respectively.
In between F1 and F2 sample Non- significant (p>0.05) difference was observed on 0 day and significant difference (p<0.01) 30
th days of storage periods.
Similar finding was also observed by
Fasseas et al., (2008) in bovine and porcine meat.