The Comparison between Tanzanian Indigenous (Ufipa Breed) and Commercial Broiler (Ross Chicken) Meat on the Physicochemical Characteristics, Collagen and Nucleic Acid Contents

Abstract

The objective of this study was to characterize the meat quality traits that affect the texture and savory taste of Ufipa indigenous chickens by comparing the proximate composition, physical characteristics, collagen, and nucleic acid contents with those of commercial broilers. It was found that Ufipa chicken breast and thigh meat had a higher protein content (p<0.05) than broiler chicken meat, whereas the fat content was lower (p<0.01). The moisture content of thigh meat was lower in Ufipa chicken meat than in broiler chicken meat (p<0.05). Regarding meat color, broiler chickens had considerably higher L* and b* than Ufipa chickens in both the breast and the thigh meat, except for a* (p<0.01). Regarding water holding capacity, Ufipa chicken breast exhibited higher drip loss but lower thawing and cooking losses than broiler chicken (p<0.01). In contrast, its thigh meat had a much lower drip and thawing losses but higher cooking losses (p<0.01). The shear force of Ufipa chickens' breasts and thighs was higher than that of broiler chickens (p<0.05), while the amount of total collagen in the thigh meat was higher than that of broiler chickens (p<0.05). Additionally, the inosine-5'-monophosphate (IMP) of Ufipa chicken breast and thigh meat was higher than that of broiler meat (p<0.05). The principal component analysis of meat quality traits provides a correlation between the proximate and physical-chemical prosperties of both breeds with some contrast. In conclusion, the present study provides information on healthy food with good-tasting Ufipa indigenous chickens, which offer a promising market due to consumers' preferences.

Keywords: inosine-5’-monophosphate; meat science; native chicken; principal component analysis (PCA).

Fig. 1.. Different carcass traits of Ufipa and commercial Ross chicken breeds.

(A) Ufipa indigenous chicken breed, (B) Commercial Ross chicken breed, (C) Defeathered carcass of Ufipa chicken, (D) Defeathered carcass of Ross chicken, (E) Skinless carcass of Ufipa chicken, (F) Skinless carcass of Ross chicken, (G) Thigh meat of Ufipa chicken, (H) Thigh meat of Ross chicken, (I) Breast meat of Ufipa chicken, (J) Breast meat of Ross chicken.

Fig. 2.. Effect of chicken breeds on the proximate compositions (fat, ash, protein, and moisture) of breast and thigh meats; values are given as mean±SE.

(A) Breast meat, (B) thigh meat. ^a,b Superscript letters within proximate composition parameters indicate significant differences (p<0.05).

Fig. 3.. Effect of chicken breeds on the nucleic acid contents (AMP, IMP, and inosine) of breast and thigh meats (mg/100 g); values are given as mean±SE.

(A) Breast meat, (B) thigh meat. ^a,b Superscript letters within nucleic acid content parameters indicate significant differences (p<0.05). AMP, adenosine-5’-phosphate; IMP, inosine-5’-monophosphate.

Fig. 4.. Projection of meat constituents and quality characteristics parameters in (A) Ufipa chickens and (B) commercial chickens by two principal components.

AMP, adenosine-5’-phosphate; IMP, inosine-5’-monophosphate; INO, inosine.