editorial board
past issues
contributors
feedback
contact us

 

printer friendly page    email page

2008, Vol. 3 No. 2, Article 27

 

Quality Evaluation of Rogenjosh Available in Srinagar City

  Asif. H. Sofi*a, Sarfaraz A. Wania, Mir Salahuddina, A. H. Malika, M. A. Pala and Z. H. Munshib

 


a Division of Livestock Products Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry,
Shuhama, SK University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Kashmir.
b Division of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry,
Shuhama, SK University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Kashmir. (SKUAST-K)

 

*Corresponding Author; Tel.: +91-9419539204;
e-mail address: sofihassanasif@yahoo.co.in

 

Part of M.V.Sc thesis submitted by corresponding author to SKUAST- K


ABSTRACT

A study was carried out to find out the quality of Rogenjosh - a traditional Kashmiri meat product, available at various outlets of Srinagar city, in terms of physico-chemical (pH, moisture, protein, ether extract and ash), microbiological (Total Viable Count, Coliform count & presence of E. coli) and sensory quality. On the basis of infrastructure and services provided, outlets were divided into High standard (HS), Medium standard (MS) and Low standard (LS) restaurants. The results for moisture (%) and ether extract (%) differed significantly (p<0.05) between the outlets whereas pH, protein (%) and ash (%) showed non-significant (p>0.05) differences. The TVC and Coliform count showed increasing trend from HS to LS type. However, E. coli was present in 16.6 % of sample, (all from LS type). The overall acceptability score of the product from HS, MS and LS was found to be 6.46 0.10, 5.90 0.12 and 6.17 0.12 respectively, on 8 point descriptive scale (8= extremely desirable, 1= extremely undesirable).

KEY WORDS

Market, Quality evaluation, Rogenjosh, Srinagar city, Traditional meat products.

INTRODUCTION

Kashmir is well known for its traditional meat products like Rista, Kabab, Goshtaba, Korma etc collectively termed as Wazwan. Rogenjosh forms an important component of wazwan and is a non-comminuted meat product prepared from meat chunks along with bones, cooked with various spices and condiments in gravy. The demand for ready-to-eat meat products including different Wazwan products like Rogenjosh is increasing day by day due to growing awareness about their nutritional and palatability characteristics, changing socio-economic status and life style. These products also cater to the fast food requirement of a large number of domestic and foreign tourists visiting the valley. Thus these products need to be prepared hygienically so as to safe guard the health of consumers.
The present study was conducted with the objective of evaluating physico-chemical, microbiological and sensory quality of Rogenjosh available at different types of outlets in Srinagar city.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Survey

104 restaurants available in Srinagar city were surveyed. On the basis of their infrastructure and services provided, outlets were divided in to High standard (HS), Medium standard (MS) and Low standard (LS) restaurants.

Collection

A total of 18 samples, six from each type of outlet, were collected randomly and transported to the laboratory under aseptic and chilled conditions within shortest possible time for analysis.

Laboratory Analysis

The pH of the samples in duplicate was determined by using the method of Strange et al. (1977). Ten grams of sample was blended with 50 ml of distilled water for 1 minute. The pH of the resultant meat slurry was recorded by dipping the combination electrode of digital pH meter in it. The percentages of moisture, crude protein, ether extract and ash of Rogenjosh samples were determined as per standard procedure of Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 1995). Microbiological quality in terms of Total Viable Count (TVC), Coliform count and presence of E. coli was determined as per Anon (2001). Sensory quality in terms of appearance, flavour, texture, saltiness, juiciness, mouth coating and overall acceptability was determined on 8 point descriptive scale (8= extremely desirable, 1= extremely undesirable) of Keeton (1983) modified and adopted by Division of LPT, Indian Veterinary Research Institute (Sharma et al. 1997).

Statistical analysis

Data obtained from the study were analyzed statistically following the method of Box et al. (1978). The data was processed in a computer using SPSS software package. The ANOVA of group means was computed and significance of means was tested by using least significant difference test (LSD) at 5% level of significance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The pH of Rogenjosh (Table1) did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) among the samples with values of 6.10 0.06, 5.98 0.05 and 6.14 0.08 from HS, MS and LS respectively. The moisture in case of HS (68.60 0.67 %) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than both MS (62.70 1.51%) and LS (65.04 1.23 %). The probable reason for difference in moisture content could be because of difference in fat content in respective meat chops as fat and moisture is having an inverse relation (Samoon, 1988). Crude protein content in HS, MS and LS were comparable with values of 17.12 0.45 (%), 17.82 0.60 (%) and 17.99 0.57 (%) respectively. Ether extract content did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between HS (8.32 0.99%) and LS (10.61 1.10 %). The samples from MS had significantly (p < 0.05) higher ether extract content of 11.89 1.38 (%) than samples of HS. However, MS and LS showed comparable values. The significant variation in fat (%) between different outlets might be because of difference in nature of meat chops used in developing such products. It could be due to liking, towards fatty chops, of customers visiting MS and LS type restaurants. Ash content of samples under study did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) among the three types with values as 2.81 0.20 (%), 2.69 0.28 (%), 3.21 0.29 (%). Ash (%) in LS was slightly higher than HS and MS which could be because of addition of more spices and other condiments in LS than HS and MS.
Total Viable Count was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for samples of LS (2.95 0.08 logcfu/g) than HS (2.59 0.06 logcfu/g) and MS (2.55 0.07 logcfu/g), whereas the latter two were comparable. The differences in microbiological counts could be because of differences in the manner of raw material handling during processing, before cooking and post-processing contamination before serving. The slightly higher pH in LS than HS and MS can also be explained by the higher microbial count in LS as an increase in microbial count causes an increase in pH (Das and Radhakrishana, 2001). Coliform count showed increasing trend from HS through MS to LS with values of 1.62 0.19, 1.64 0.14 and 2.36 0.08 logcfu/g respectively. Both HS and MS samples differed significantly (p < 0.05) from LS. E. coli was reported only from Rogenjosh of LS origin where it showed 16.6% presence. The presence of E. coli from LS samples is suggestive of comparatively poor hygienic conditions which need to be given due consideration. However, the microbiological quality parameters studied were well within satisfactory limits (Gilbert et al., 2000; Goldenberg and Elliot, 1973).
The results regarding sensory characteristics of Rogenjosh procured from different types of outlets have been presented in Table 3. The appearance scores of Rogenjosh did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) and were between good to very good (6-7) in the samples from the three types of outlets. Since appearance scores depend upon colour, shape of meat chunks etc (Sharma et al., 1997) so comparable scores among the outlets prove that all the outlets are presenting Rogenjosh to the customers in more uniform shaped chunks and with good appearance. From the Table, it is also clear that the flavor scores of HS (6.28 0.09) and LS (6.31 0.18) were significantly higher than that of MS (5.93 0.12). However, HS and LS did not differ significantly. The lower scores ranging between slightly desirable (6) to moderately desirable (7) in MS could possibly be due to the differences in cooking methods and ingredients added during cooking. Texture scores averaging moderately desirable (6) to very desirable (7) in HS was different from MS and LS, both of which showed scores between slightly desirable (5) to moderately desirable (6). The lower scores in MS and LS could probably be due to the difference in quality of raw material used, possibly use of meat from aged animals which is tougher. The scores of juiciness, mouth coating and saltiness showed non-significant difference among various outlets. The scores of these three sensory parameters were between moderately juicy (6) to very juicy (7), traces (6) to nil (7) and moderately desirable (6) to very desirable (7) respectively. These scores indicated that the product was acceptable from consumer point of view. Overall acceptability score for HS (6.46 0.10) was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of MS (5.90 0.12) but both were comparable with LS (6.17 0.12). Similarly HS and LS values did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The lower overall acceptability scores in MS could possibly be due to lower scores of flavour and texture as the attributes of flavour, texture and tenderness are having more bearing on final overall acceptability of the product than other attributes (Bartholomew and Osualo, 1986).

CONCLUSION

The physico-chemical quality of Rogenjosh analysed showed varying results between the outlets. TVC and Coliform count showed increasing trend from HS to LS, however were well within permissible limits. E. coli detected from only LS type of outlets is an indication of poor hygiene during processing and post processing in LS than HS and MS. All the sensory parameters showed mixed scores between 5-7.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Anonymous, . Bacteriological Analytical Manual. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. 2001

  2. AOAC. Official methods of Analysis. 16th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, D C. Vol II, 1995; chapter 39, pp 1-23.

  3. Bartholomew DT, Osualo CI. Acceptability of flavour, texture and appearance in mutton processed meat products made by smoking, curing, spicing, adding starter culture and modifying fat source. Journal of Food Science, 1986; 51 (6): 1560- 62.

  4. Box EPG, Hunter GW, Hunter SJ. An introduction to design data analysis and model Building. In: (Ist Ed) Statistics for Experimenters, Willy and company., 1978 pp. 38-53, 107-152.

  5. Das H, Radhakishana K. Preservation of mutton as ready to eat curry by hurdle technology. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2001; 38: 287-289.

  6. Gilbert JL, Donavan T, Little C, Nye K, Ribeiro, CD, Richards J, Bolton, FJ. Guidelines for the microbiological quality of some ready to eat food samples at the time of sale. Communicable Disease and Public Health. 2000; 3 (3): 163-167.

  7. Goldenberg N, Elliot DW. The value of agreed non-legal specifications. In: The Microbiological Safety of Food, Hobbs BC, Christian JHB (Ed.), Academic Press, New York., 1973; pp. 363.

  8. Keeton, JT. Effect of fat and Sodium chloride, Phosphate level on the chemical and sensory properties of pork patties. Journal of Food Science. 1983; 48: 878-81.

  9. Samoon AH. Processing and preservation of Goshtaba and Rista. (Kashmiri meat products). M.V.Sc Thesis submitted to Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar. 1988; pp 32-50, 56.

  10. Sharma BD, Wani SA, Sharma N. In: Sensory Evaluation Mannual for meat and meat products (Ist Ed.), IVRI Pub No. 36., 1997; pp. 14, 15, 41.

  11. Strange ED, Benedict RC, Smith JC, Swift CE. Evaluation of Rapid tests for monitoring alterations in meat quality during storage. Journal of Food Protection 1977; 40 (12): 843-847.


Table 1: Physicochemical quality of Rogenjosh marketed in Srinagar city.

Parameter

High standard (HS) restaurants

Medium standard (MS) restaurants

Low standards (LS)

restaurants

pH

6.10 0.06

5.98 0.05

6.14 0.08

Moisture (%)

68.60 0.67b

62.70 1.51a

65.04 1.23a

Crude protein (%)

17.12 0.45

17.82 0.60

17.99 0.57

Ether extract (%)

8.32 0.99a

11.89 1.38b

10.61 1.10ab

Ash content (%)

2.81 0.20

2.69 0.28

3.21 0.29

Row-wise group means ( S.E) with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05).

 

Table 2: Microbiological Quality of Rogenjosh marketed in Srinagar city.

Parameter

High standard (HS)

 restaurants

Medium standard (MS) restaurants

Low standard (LS)

restaurants

Total viable count

(logcfu/gm)

 

2.59 0.06a

 

2.55 0.07a

 

2.95 0.08b

Coliform count

(logcfu/gm)

 

1.62 0.19a

 

1.64 0.14a

 

2.36 0.08b

Percent samples

positive for E. coli

 

-

 

-

 

16.6

Row-wise group means ( S.E) with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05).

 

Table 3: Sensory Quality of Rogenjosh marketed in Srinagar city.

 

Parameter*

High standard

restaurants

Medium standard restaurants

Low standards

restaurants

 

Appearance

 

6.31 0.10

 

6.46 0.12

 

6. 41 0.12

 

Flavour

 

6.28 0.09b

 

5.93 0.12a

 

6.31 0.18b

 

Texture

 

6.24 0.10b

 

5.81 0.14a

 

5.93 0.15ab

 

Juiciness

 

6.11 0.11

 

6.07 0.18

 

6.04 0.15

 

Mouth coating

 

6.56 0.14

 

6.43 0.14

 

6.39 0.17

 

Saltiness

 

6.63 0.13

 

6.41 0.17

 

6.33 0.17

Over all

Acceptability

 

6.46 0.10b

 

5.90 0.12a

 

6.17 0.12ab

Row-wise group means ( S.E) with different superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05)
* 8-point descriptive scale (8 = extremely desirable, 1= extremely undesirable)

 

 

Fig 1: Proximate Composition of Rogenjosh procured from different outlets in Srinagar city.

fig1 

 

Fig 2: Microbiological quality of Rogenjosh procured from different outlets in Srinagar city.

fig 2

 

Fig 3: Sensory characteristics of Rogenjosh procured from different outlets in Srinagar city.

Fig 3

 

 


Copyright Vet Scan 2005-

All Right Reserved with VetScan
www.vetscan.co.in and www.kashvet.org
ISSN 0973-6980

 

Home | e-Learning |Resources | Alumni | Forum | Picture blog | Disclaimer

                   

 

 

powered by eMedia Services