Comparative characterization of proximate nutritional compositions, microbial quality and safety of camel meat in relation to mutton, beef, and chicken

Comparative characterization of proximate nutritional compositions, microbial quality and safety of camel meat in relation to mutton, beef, and chicken

Journal Pre-proof Comparative characterization of proximate nutritional compositions, microbial quality and safety of camel meat in relation to mutton...

1MB Sizes 0 Downloads 109 Views

Journal Pre-proof Comparative characterization of proximate nutritional compositions, microbial quality and safety of camel meat in relation to mutton, beef, and chicken H.H.M. Hammad, Guofeng Jin, Meihu Ma, Ibrahim Khalifa, Rizwan Shukat, Abdeen E. Elkhedir, Qi Zeng, Abeer E. Noman PII:

S0023-6438(19)31056-4

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108714

Reference:

YFSTL 108714

To appear in:

LWT - Food Science and Technology

Received Date: 8 January 2019 Revised Date:

6 August 2019

Accepted Date: 6 October 2019

Please cite this article as: Hammad, H.H.M., Jin, G., Ma, M., Khalifa, I., Shukat, R., Elkhedir, A.E., Zeng, Q., Noman, A.E., Comparative characterization of proximate nutritional compositions, microbial quality and safety of camel meat in relation to mutton, beef, and chicken, LWT - Food Science and Technology (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108714. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1

Comparative Characterization of Proximate Nutritional Compositions, Microbial

2

Quality and Safety of Camel Meat in Relation to Mutton, Beef, and Chicken

3

Hammad HHMa,b, Guofeng Jina∗, Meihu Maa∗, Ibrahim Khalifaa, Rizwan Shukatc, Abdeen E

4

Elkhedira, Qi Zenga, Abeer E. Nomana,d

5

a

6

China

7

b

8

North Sudan

9

c

College of Food Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070,

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, National Food Research Centre, P. O Box 213, Khartoum

Faculty of Food, Nutrition & Home Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Jail road

10

38000, Pakistan

11

d

12

Alwehdah street, P. O. Box 19509, Sana'a, Yemen

Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Sana'a University,



Corresponding Author: Meihu Ma, College of Food Science and Technology, Huazhong

Agricultural University, Shizishan Street, Wuhan, Hubei 430070, PRC. Tel: +86-27-8728-3177 Fax: +86-27-8728-3177, E-mail: [email protected] Guofeng Jin, College of Food Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Shizishan Street, Wuhan, Hubei 430070, China, Tel.: +86-27-87283177, Fax: +86-27-87283177. E-mail: [email protected]

1

13

Abstract

14

Camel meat is presented as a primary source of nutritional supplement for fulfil human’s

15

nutritional needs in Arabian, African, and in some Asian countries, particularly in areas where

16

weather is hot. In this study, the proximate compositions and microbial property of camel meat

17

was compared with beef, mutton and chicken by analyzing the contents of moisture, total fat,

18

crude protein, minerals, vitamins, amino acids and fatty acids. The results revealed that camel

19

meat has higher (P < 0.05) moisture, minerals, vitamins and amino acids content but lower total

20

fat, cholesterol, and ash content than other meats. The results also found that camel meat has

21

lowest total microbial count (TBC) and it was free from pathogenic bacteria as compared to

22

other meats. Moreover, camel meat was better in all the examined samples and healthier for

23

human consumption. These results suggested that camel is a low-fat, nutritious and safe meat.

24

Keywords: Camel meat; Beef; Mutton; Chicken; Meat quality; Microorganisms.

25

Chemical Compounds studied in this article: Nitrogen (PubChem CID: 947); Nitrate

26

(PubChem CID: 943); Urea (PubChem CID: 1176); Ornithine decarboxylase (PubChem

27

SID: 254561550); Alkaline phosphatase (PubChem CID: 378); HCl (PubChem CID: 3130);

28

Sulphuric acid (PubChem CID: 1118); Ammonia (PubChem CID: 222); Ammonium (PubChem

29

CID: 223); Ammonium sulphate (PubChem CID: 6097028); Lithium sulfate (PubChem CID:

30

66320); Distilled water (PubChem CID: 962); Selenium (PubChem CID: 6326970); Sodium

31

sulfate (PubChem CID: 24436); Sodium citrate (PubChem CID: 6224); Sodium pentadecyl

32

sulfate (PubChem CID: 23700089); Methanol (PubChem CID: 887); L-alanine (PubChem CID:

33

5950); L-threonine (PubChem CID: 6288); L-glutamic acid (PubChem CID: 33032.

2

34

1. Introduction

35

Camel meat is an important source of animal protein in numerous African and Asian

36

countries, particularly in areas where severe weather affects the net reproduction rate of other

37

animals (Siham, Elshafia, & Huda, 2015). The peoples in some Arab and African countries

38

usually like camel meat far more than any other kinds of meat. The main reason for this

39

preference is due to the high quality and low price of camel meat, as well as it is more accessible

40

than other meat in these areas. In addition, Maqsood, Abushelaibi, Manheem, Al Rashedi, &

41

Kadim (2015) reported that camel meat is especially attractive to a health conscious consumer

42

due to its lower fat and cholesterol content, and relatively higher polyunsaturated fatty acids

43

related to other types of red meats. The people in these countries also believe that camel meat has

44

medicinal benefits (Bekhit & M. Farouk, 2013), such as reduce the risk of cardiovascular

45

diseases (Maqsood et al., 2015). Because camel meat is comprised of rich sourced of essential

46

amino acids, minerals, vitamins, bioactive compounds (carnosine, anserine, glutathione), and

47

some fundamental unsaturated fats, for example, omega-3 fatty acids (Bekhit & Farouk, 2013).

48

Aside from the aforementioned nutritional properties, camel meat has several other

49

characteristics, which result in greater satisfaction from consumption as compared to other

50

sources of protein. Although, the health and/or nutrition associated benefits of camel meats.

51

However, not only camel meat-based products but also other meats, namely beef, mutton, and

52

poultry once, as well as their stuffs are the key source of pathogenic like E. coli, S. aureus, and

53

Salmonella which could be subsequently conveyed to human (Abdalla, Suliman, Ahmed, &

54

Bakhiet. 2009; Shi et al., 2012).

55

So far, however, the research on camel meat is relatively rare compared with other meats

56

products such as beef, mutton, chicken, and so on. Especially, the differences of the nutritional

3

57

components and microbial safety between camel meat and beef, mutton, chicken, and other meat

58

products worldwide were systematically compared and studied. Thus, the main purpose of the

59

present study was to compare the nutritional properties of camel meats such as physicochemical

60

composition, amino acid profile, microbial counts, mineral concentrations, fatty acid

61

composition and vitamin with beef, mutton and chicken for awareness of the consumers.

62

2. Materials and Methods

63

2.1. Materials

64

Five (5) kg sample of each meat species (camel, beef, mutton, and chicken) were purchased

65

from randomly selected commercial markets after being butchered in a slaughterhouse. The

66

samples were carefully packed in sterile polyethylene bags and stored in an insulated box filled

67

with ice during transportation to laboratory. Upon arrival in the lab, the meat was washed with

68

chilled sterilized and deionized water, deport fat and connective tissues were then removed. The

69

samples used for proximate composition were stored under hygienic conditions at 4 °C in a

70

chilling lab while those used for nutritional composition analysis were stored at -18 °C until

71

further experimentation.

72

2.2. Methods

73

2.2.1. Proximate Analysis

74

Moisture, fat, and protein contents were analyzed using the methods of the Association of

75

Official Analytical Chemists (Lu et al., 2010; Seong et al., 2015). Essential and non-essential

76

amino acid compositions were evaluated in the raw meat treated with vacuum packaging. The

77

samples were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Virgili, Saccani,

78

Gabba, Tanzi, & Bordini, 2007). Amino acid content are reported as the average of three

4

79

replications of testing in mg/100g as described in the methods (Lorieau et al., 2018; Virgili et al.,

80

2007).

81

Amino acids composition was determined by firstly hydrolyzing the meat samples with 6

82

N HCl solution for 24 h at 110 °C. Then the hydrolyzed samples were concentrated at 50 °C and

83

diluted with 50 mL of 0.2 N sodium citrate buffers (pH 2.2). Finally, the hydrolysates were

84

passed through 0.45 µm filters (Millipore Corp, Bied Ford, USA). The amino acid composition

85

was determined using an automatic amino acid analyzer (Model L-8900 A) equipped with an

86

exchange column (4.6 µ 60 mm) (Hitachi, Japan Hitachi high technologies corporation Tokyo,

87

japan).

88

Fat content was determined using the method of partial drying of weighed samples. These

89

methods are necessary to remove moisture and prevent entrapment of fat (James, 2013). Ash

90

content was determined by residue samples in a muffle furnace at 550 ºC for 24 h (Mahgoub, Al-

91

Marzooqi, & Khalaf, 2009). The mineral compositions of meat samples were determined

92

according to the methods of Chaijan, Jongjareonrak, Phatcharat, Benjakul, & Rawdkuen (2010).

93

Fatty acids were prepared by extracting oil from meats with n-hexane to obtain pure methyl

94

esters, and analyzed using gas-liquid chromatography (Shimadzu, GC-14A) with a flame

95

ionization detector according to the method of Ichihara & Fukubayashi (2010).

96

The vitamin's content were determined according to the measures of AOAC (2000) by a

97

reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) (Biswas, Sahoo, & Chatli,

98

2011; Seong et al., 2015).

99

2.2.2. Microbiological analysis

100

The microorganisms including Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) ATCC31888, Coliform

101

bacteria (CFB) (Sporolactobacillus ATCC700382 and Clostridium ATCC25772), Escherichia 5

102

coli strain (E. coli O157:H7 ATCCBAA-1883), Salmonella (Salmonella Javiana ATCC10721

103

and Salmonella Typhi ATCC19430) were investigated in raw and 1-wk storage. In addition,

104

molds (Aspergillus flavus ATCC204304 and Eurotium chevalieri ATCC28248), and yeasts

105

(Debaryomyces hansenii ATCC10619 and Brettanomyces custersianus ATCC34446) of fresh

106

meats (camel, beef, mutton, and chicken) were also determined in the present study.

107

2.2.2.1. Preparation of Sample Serial Dilutions

108

The preparations of serial dilutions was following the Harrigan methods (Harrigan, 1998).

109

Firstly, 10 grams of meat samples was mixed with 90 mL of aseptical water in a sterile conical

110

flask having 0.1% peptone. The solution that was used in this step is referred as stock solution

111

(dilution 10-1). Then taking one mL of first dilution (10-1) and then adding to 9 mL peptone water

112

(10-2) mL and this step was repeated four times, until the solution was diluted up to 10-6.

113

2.2.2.2. Detection of Total Bacterial Count

114

A Plate Count Agar (PCA) medium was used to determine the total bacterial counts of

115

previous bacteria. The PCA medium was prepared and sterilized at 121 ℃ for 15 minutes at 15

116

psi pressure by utilizing an autoclave (Harrigan, 1998).

117

2.2.2.3. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus

118

A solution of Baird Parker Agar (BPA) media was used to detect S. aureus in different

119

meat samples. This solution of BPA was prepared by suspending 63 g of BPA mixed with 1 liter

120

peptone water. The isolation and separation of pathogenic staphylococci (PS) from meat was

121

accomplished using the BPA, a particular selective medium (Finegold & Sweeney, 1961).

122

Coagulase-positive colonies of staphylococci cells have a black spot surrounded by shiny and

123

glazy zone due to the interaction between this cell and the enzymes on the egg yolk (Harrigan,

124

1998). 6

125

2.2.2.4. Detection of Coliform Bacteria (CFB)

126

The MacConkey Broth (MCB) medium has been used to detect the coliform bacteria. The

127

dilutions 10-1, 10-2, and 10-3 were used. One milliliter of diluted sample was transferred into each

128

of the MCB tubes (three tubes for each dilution), and one tube is control. The tubes were then

129

incubated at 37° C for 48 hours. The positive results were indicated by presence of acid and gas

130

in Durham's tube. One mL from positives pervious tubes was transferred into each of the brilliant

131

green broth (BGB) tubes (three tubes for each dilution), and one tube was used for control. The

132

tubes were then incubated at 44 °C for 24 h. Positive tubes were indicated by presence of acid

133

and gas (Harrigan, 1998). Moreover, CFB by standard methods (Rompré, Servais, Baudart, De-

134

Roubin, & Laurent, 2002) were used.

135

2.2.2.5. Detection of E. coli O157:H7

136

The general procedure was applied to detect E. coli, from the MCB stage of the CFB test,

137

each test tube was observed carefully. The tube having gas was stirred. Then, from each

138

previously stirred tube, 1 mL of this medium was added to the selective medium Brilliant Green

139

Broth (BGB) tubes. Afterwards, the mixtures were incubated at 44 °C for 24 h. Then, a loop

140

sample was transferred from the positive tubes (the tubes that has gas) to the surface of selective

141

agar medium Eosin Methylene Blue agar (EMB). This time, the selective agar medium was

142

incubated at 37 °C for 24 h to obtain isolated colonies (Kodaka et al., 2006). A high density

143

microelectrode array biosensor was used for the identification of E. coli O157:H7 (Radke &

144

Alocilja, 2005).

145

2.2.2.6. Detection of Salmonella

146

The detection of Salmonella was achieved by mixing 25 g of meat sample with 225

147

mL of buffer peptone solution with nutrient broth (NB) contained in a sterile microbiological 7

148

flask and incubated at 37 ℃ for 24 h to obtain pre-enrichment of the Salmonella (Waltman,

149

2000). The sample was transferred from a 10 mL NB to a 100 mL selenite broth (SB) and

150

incubated at 37 °C for 24-48 h. Then, transferring a loop from the previous medium to the

151

surface of a selective agar medium, bismuth sulphite agar (BSA), and incubated at 37 °C for

152

24-48 h to obtain isolated colonies (Hammad, Ma, Jina, et al., 2019; Zadernowska & Chajęcka-

153

Wierzchowska, 2017). To confirm the results of the previous study, samples were collected by

154

sterile steel needle, and colonies taken and cultured in tubes contains kliger iron agar (KIA),

155

which were then incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. The presence of the gas and color changing to red

156

and yellow indicated the existence of salmonella colonies in the KIA (Qianwang, 2015).

157

2.2.2.7. Detection of Yeasts and Molds

158

Malt Extract Agar medium (MEA) was used to cultivation, count and isolation yeast and

159

mold. The MEA was composed of malt extract, yeast extracts, peptone, glucose, and agar. The

160

MEA was prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions, a method previously used by

161

Harrigan (1998). Then, transferring one to two drops from the diluted samples (10-2, 10-3, and 10-

162

4

163

yeast/mold colonies.

164

2.3. Statistical Analysis

) to the surface of the selective medium and incubated at 28 °C for 24-48 h, we obtained the

165

All experiments were replicated three times and the data generated from each replicate for

166

different quality properties were analyzed using the Statistic Analysis System (SAS). The results

167

of microbial tests were expressed as log colony forming units per grams (log10 CFU/g). All data

168

were subjected to one-way analysis of variance to determine the differences of samples. Means

169

were compared using Duncan's multiple range test, with a significance of (P < 0.05) (Khezrian

170

& Shahbazi, 2018).

8

171

3. Results and Discussion

172

3.1. Chemical Composition of Meats

173

Chemical composition of different species of raw meats (camel, beef, mutton, and

174

chicken) including moisture, crude proteins, total fats, and total ash contents were listed in Table

175

1.

176

3.1. 1. Moisture Content

177

Moisture content usually plays an important role in maintaining the qualities of meat. The

178

moisture contents of different meat species were significantly (P < 0.05) different. Moisture

179

content varied widely between different meats, which was 74.72%, 71.52%, 73.51% and 71.14%

180

for camel, beef, mutton, and chicken, respectively. Camel meat had higher moisture content than

181

all other meats (P < 0.05). The results did not agree with Reza Gheisari, Aminlari, & Shahram

182

Shekarforoush (2009). The moisture content changes for different meat samples during 1-wk

183

storage was further investigated to evaluate the quality stability of different meats. These results

184

are in agreement with those reported in a previous study (Hammad, Ma, Damaka, Elkhedir, &

185

Jin, 2019). The results indicated that there was no obvious change in the moisture content of the

186

camel meats during 1-wk storage (SP1). However, the moisture content of beef, mutton, and

187

chicken was slight changed after 1-wk storage (SP1). These results indicate that the storage of

188

SP1 significantly affects the moisture quality of meat as shown in Fig. 1A.

189

3.1. 2. Crude Protein Contents

190

The crude protein contents were 21.83%, 20.64%, 21.62%, and 22.73% in camel, beef,

191

mutton, and chicken, respectively. This study found that there was slight difference in protein

192

content between camel and meat from other species. These findings were inconsistent with the

193

literature reports (Dawood & Alkanhal, 1995). The protein content in camel, beef, mutton, and 9

194

chicken meats were significantly (P ≤ 0.05) decreased during storage SP1. And camel meat

195

protein was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) lower effects than other meat species. During storage, the

196

protein was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) decreased in chicken as compared with other meat species

197

(Fig. 1B). The result of crude protein of camel meat was similar to those previously reported in

198

the literatures (Kargozari et al., 2014; Maqsood, Al Haddad, & Mudgil, 2016).

199

3.1. 3. Crude Fat Content

200

The crude fat contents were 1.51%, 6.83%, 4.56%, and 0.89% in fresh camel, beef,

201

mutton, and chicken, respectively, which differed significantly (P < 0.05) among different

202

species. Camel meat contains less fat than beef and mutton. Camel is considered to be healthier

203

as compared with other meats, due to camel meat containing significantly (P < 0.05) less fat.

204

Moreover, camel meat has lower levels of cholesterol. With the exception of chicken, the results

205

of this study were in accordance with the previous reports (Kadim et al., 2013; Maqsood et al.,

206

2015). The crude fats of all four meat species were significantly (P < 0.05) decreased after 1-wk

207

storage. The changes in fat in camel and chicken meats were not significantly (P ≤ 0.05) during

208

1-wk storage. Moreover, large changes and high decreases in crude fat during the SP1 of beef

209

and mutton were observed. The changes in fat content could be associated with the oxidation or

210

hydrolysis of fat as illustrated in Fig. 1C. Similar results have been reported in other studies

211

examining the fat contents of meats (Khezrian & Shahbazi, 2018)

212

3.1. 4. Total Ash Contents

213

The total ash contents of camel, beef, mutton, and chicken were 0.83%, 1.53%, 0.84%

214

and 0.96%, respectively. The ash content of beef was significantly (P < 0.05) higher as

215

compared to chicken, mutton, and camel meat. But there was no significant difference of ash for

10

216

camel meat and mutton. However, after 1-wk storage, the ash content of chicken was

217

significantly (P ≤ 0.05) high than the other meat species (Fig. 1D).

218

3.2. Amino acids (AA) Contents

219

The amino acids (AA) contents of meat samples were shown in Table 2. The results

220

represent amino acids, including essential amino acids (EAA) and non-essential amino acids

221

(NEAA).

222

3.2.1. Essential Amino Acids (EAA)

223

The EAA with different levels are found among meat samples. EAAs including histidine

224

(HIS), isoleucine (ILEU), leucine (LEU), lysine (LYS), methionine (MET), phenylalanine (PHE),

225

threonine (THR), valine (VAL), and tryptophane (TRY) were detected in all samples examined.

226

Camel meat was rich in EAA such as HIS, ILEU, LYS, MET, THR, and VAL, which was 6.35,

227

6.43, 7.84, 3.91, 5.96, and 7.76 mg/100g, respectively. LEU, LYS, and VAL were significantly

228

(P < 0.05) higher compared with other EAAs. The results are in line with Seong et al. (2015).

229

Beef contains the highest levels of LEU, compared to other meats. In general, these results

230

revealed that the EAAs content of camel meat was significantly (P < 0.05) highest compared to

231

other meats. In general, the beef and camel meats had high EAAs contents in this study. Daily

232

intake of EAAs is important for human health because these chemicals cannot be synthesized in

233

the body and thus must be supplied, that’s why they are called dietary essential amino acids.

234

Consequently, it is suggested that beef and camel meats contribute to energy intake. The

235

presence of AA enables minerals and vitamins to perform all their physiological functions (Ak &

236

Sözcü, 2016; Wu, 2010). However, high daily meat consumption has been associated with

237

diseases such as; obesity, heart diseases and cancer risk (Zelber-Sagi et al., 2018).

11

238

3.2.2. Non-Essential Amino Acids (NEAA)

239

The NEAA with different levels were found among different meat species. NEAA

240

include Glutamic acid (GLU), Prolene (PRO), Tyrosine (TYR), Arginine (ARG), Alanine (ALA),

241

Serine (SER), Glycine, (GLY), and Aspartic acid (ASP) were evaluated. Camel meat was very

242

rich in NEAA such as GLU, PRO, ARG, GLY, and ASP, appeared as 19.35, 4.85, 7.96, 7.84,

243

and 9.93 mg/100g, respectively. And the GLU content in camel meat was the highest among four

244

different meat sprcies (P < 0.05). This suggested that the camel meat is a good source of GLU.

245

These results are in agreement with the literature (Khezrian & Shahbazi, 2018). There was large

246

difference in the amounts of total NEAA between camel, beef, mutton and chicken meat samples.

247

The compositional values appears to be fewer TYR in the chicken samples as compared to other

248

meat samples. In the present study, camel meat was found to be a significantly better source of

249

NEAA.

250

3.3. Microbial Counts (log10 CFU /g) of Fresh Meat Carcass

251

The mean (log10 CFU /g) values of TBC, S. aureus, M&Y, CFB, E. coli and Salmonella

252

of meats were evaluated (Table 3). The TBC of meat samples were 1.85, 3.26, 3.84, and 6.18 for

253

camel, beef, mutton and chicken samples, respectively. Camel meat has less TBC than beef

254

mutton, and chicken. And chicken meat has a significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher values of TBC than

255

other meats. This result was agreed well with the findings of Khezrian & Shahbazi (2018).

256

Several investigators indicated that higher moisture content (or water activity) is quite conducive

257

to microbial growth. But these results were not in line with other authors (Aider, 2010; Slongo et

258

al., 2009; Yalçın & Şeker, 2016). The discrepancies between different studies could be due to the

259

nature of the meat. Chicken meat had higher (P ≤ 0.05) S. aureus, CFB, E. coli and Salmonella

260

as compared with other meats. Camel, beef and mutton samples were free from E. coli and

12

261

Salmonella. Moreover, camel meats were free from S. aureus, and CFB. The results indicate that

262

chicken has a higher microbial load than other meats. It could be assumed that the deterioration

263

of chicken meat quality within short time period is due to the high microbial loads. The effects of

264

the storage period (a week) at 4 oC on the TBC in camel meat samples are decreased

265

significantly (P ≤ 0.05). It was also found that the microbial loads of fresh and refrigerated

266

samples were approximately 1.85 and 0.35 log10 CFU /g, respectively. In refrigerated samples,

267

the microbial counts were significantly decreased (P ≤ 0.05) in all meat samples stored with the

268

exception of mold and yeast as compared with fresh samples. Selective enrichment of the

269

refrigerated samples might be explained by death or cellular injury. On the other hand, mold and

270

yeast were significantly (P ≤ 0.05) increased in all samples stored throughout the period under

271

refrigeration at 4 oC for 1-wk. The mold and yeast were 0.89, 3.16, 4.46, and 1.85 in camel, beef,

272

mutton, and chicken respectively. The results agreed with the literature (Patsias, Chouliara,

273

Badeka, Savvaidis, & Kontominas, 2006).

274

3.4. Mineral Concentrations in Fresh Meat Carcass Fatness (mg/100g)

275

The concentrations of minerals in different meats were shown in Table 4. Camel meat

276

samples was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher in mineral concentration such as Co, Cr, Fe, Mn, Mo

277

and S, which was 0.015, 0.0128, 45.5, 0.195, 0.097, and 37.56 mg/100g, respectively. However,

278

beef, mutton, and chicken were significantly (P ≤ 0.05) rich in K, Na, and Cu (409, 59.75, and

279

0.53, respectively). Camel meat has significantly (P ≤ 0.05) less P than beef, mutton, and

280

chicken. But in comparison with chicken, camel meat was rich in Mn and Na, which are

281

necessary to the human diet and healthy food. Moreover, the results also showed that camel meat

282

samples contained significantly higher Fe (P ≤ 0.05) than other meats. This was close to the

283

values reported in the literature of (Dawood & Alkanhal, 1995). Moreover, camel meat contains

13

284

significantly (P ≤ 0.05) high levels of K. However, beef, mutton, and chicken meats exhibited

285

significantly (P ≤ 0.05) high K, compared to camel meat. The results agreed with Maqsood et al.

286

(2016).

287

3.5. Fatty Acid Composition (mg/100 g) of Meat Fat The concentrations of fatty acid (lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitoleic acid, palmitic acid,

288 289

oleic

acid,

stearic

acid,

linoleic

acid,

and

arachidonic

acid)

in

different

meat

290

samples were shown in Table 5. The fatty acids as measured by HPLC were observed to be

291

significantly (P < 0.05) lower in camel meat than other meats. The results were in agreement

292

with the literature (Hoffman, 2008; Kargozari et al., 2014; Maqsood et al., 2015). However,

293

camel meat has significantly (P < 0.05) higher myristic acid than others appeared as 7.46, 0.37,

294

0.46, and 0.22 mg/100 g in camel, beef, mutton, and chicken, respectively.

295

3.6. Vitamin (100 g) Composition of Meat

296

The vitamin contents such as A, Beta-carotene, B1, B3, B6, B12, C, D, and Alpha-

297

tocopherol (vitamin E) of meat samples were shown in Table 5. The camel meat contains

298

significantly (P < 0.05) higher levels of vitamins B1, B3, B6, B12, C, D, and E with 0.89, 0.48,

299

0.45, 0.65, 0.0015, 0.005, and 0.86/100 g, respectively, as compared with others. However,

300

camel meat was a very poor source of vitamins A and Beta-carotene and good source of vitamin

301

C. The results suggested that camel meat is a significantly better source of vitamin B1, E, and

302

B12. Extensive vitamin contents of camel meat are beneficial to overall body function, and a

303

regular part of a healthy diet. The results are in line with the literature (Yin, Chen, Gu, & Han,

304

2009).

305

The result indicated that the variation in moisture, protein, fat and ash content within

306

different meat samples was due to different meat species. In proximate composition (protein and 14

307

ash), camel meat is generally like mutton. However, significant differences (P < 0.05) in

308

moisture and fats were found between samples. Furthermore, camel meat has medicinal value,

309

comprising a rich source of numerous essential amino acid minerals (e.g. zinc, iron, and

310

selenium) and vitamins (vitamin E and vitamin B groups). From a health and wellness point of

311

view, the nutritional value of camel meat is much better than other animals. Moreover, camel

312

meat contains a high amount of protein and moisture as compared to the beef and mutton while

313

the chicken meat has higher protein content than other meats.

314

Conclusion

315

The study was done to compare the quality of raw camel meat with beef, mutton, and

316

chicken. The comparison of chemical composition, namely fat, proteins, moisture, ash, amino

317

acids, microbial counts, minerals, fatty acids and vitamins, were evaluated. Moisture content

318

varied significantly between different meat samples. Camel meat had higher moisture, mineral

319

concentrations, vitamins, and proteins than others. Camel meat has a high ratio and quality of

320

amino acids. Significantly, lower levels of fat (cholesterol), ash and lowest TBC than others were

321

also observed. Moreover, camel meat was free from pathogenic bacteria, which indicated that it

322

is healthier for human consumption.

323

Acknowledgements

324

This study was carried out in College of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of

325

Agricultural, Huazhong Agricultural University, China and International Food Research Center,

326

Khartoum, Sudan. The scientific staff of both of these institutions is highly acknowledged.

15

327

References

328 329

Abdalla, M., Suliman, S., Ahmed, D., & Bakhiet, A. (2009). Estimation of bacterial

330

contamination of indigenous bovine carcasses in Khartoum (Sudan). African Journal of

331

Microbiology Research, 3(12), 882-886.

332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339

Aider, M. (2010). Chitosan application for active bio-based films production and potential in the food industry. LWT-food science and technology, 43(6), 837-842. Ak, İ., & Sözcü, A. (2016). Importance of Methionine For Immune System Development and Performance in Broiler Nutrition. Journal of Poultry Research, 13(1), 5-8. Bekhit, A., & Farouk, M. (2013). Nutritive and health value of camel meat. Camel Meat and Meat Products. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK, 205-223. . Bekhit, A. E.-D., & Farouk, M. M. (2013). 13 Nutritive and Health Value of Camel Meat. Camel Meat and Meat Products, 205.

340

Biswas, A., Sahoo, J., & Chatli, M. (2011). A simple UV-Vis spectrophotometric method for

341

determination of β-carotene content in raw carrot, sweet potato and supplemented

342

chicken meat nuggets. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 44(8), 1809-1813.

343

Chaijan, M., Jongjareonrak, A., Phatcharat, S., Benjakul, S., & Rawdkuen, S. (2010). Chemical

344

compositions and characteristics of farm raised giant catfish (Pangasianodon gigas)

345

muscle. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 43(3), 452-457.

346 347

Dawood, A. A., & Alkanhal, M. A. (1995). Nutrient composition of Najdi-camel meat. Meat Science, 39(1), 71-78.

16

348

Finegold, S. M., & Sweeney, E. E. (1961). New selective and differential medium for coagulase-

349

positive staphylococci allowing rapid growth and strain differentiation. Journal of

350

bacteriology, 81(4), 636.

351

Hammad, H., Ma, M., Damaka, A., Elkhedir, A., & Jin, G. (2019). Effect of Freeze and Re-

352

freeze on Chemical Composition of Beef and Poultry Meat at Storage Period 4.5 Months

353

(SP4. 5). J Food Process Technol, 10(791), 2.

354

Hammad, H., Ma, M., Jina, G., Jina, Y., Khalifaa, I., Zenga, Q., & Liua, Y. (2019). Nitroso-

355

Hemoglobin increased the color stability and inhibited the pathogenic bacteria in a

356

minced beef model: A combined low-field NMR study.

357

Harrigan, W. F. (1998). Laboratory methods in food microbiology: Gulf professional publishing.

358

Hoffman, L. (2008). The yield and nutritional value of meat from African ungulates, camelidae,

359 360 361

rodents, ratites and reptiles. Meat science, 80(1), 94-100. Ichihara, K. i., & Fukubayashi, Y. (2010). Preparation of fatty acid methyl esters for gas-liquid chromatography. Journal of lipid research, 51(3), 635-640.

362

James, C. S. (2013). Analytical chemistry of foods: Springer Science & Business Media.

363

Kadim, I., Al-Karousi, A., Mahgoub, O., Al-Marzooqi, W., Khalaf, S., Al-Maqbali, R., . . .

364

Raiymbek, G. (2013). Chemical composition, quality and histochemical characteristics of

365

individual dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius) muscles. Meat Science, 93(3), 564-

366

571.

367

Kargozari, M., Moini, S., Basti, A. A., Emam-Djomeh, Z., Ghasemlou, M., Martin, I. R., . . .

368

Szumny, A. (2014). Development of Turkish dry-fermented sausage (sucuk) reformulated

369

with camel meat and hump fat and evaluation of physicochemical, textural, fatty acid and

17

370

volatile compound profiles during ripening. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 59(2),

371

849-858.

372

Khezrian, A., & Shahbazi, Y. (2018). Application of nanocompostie chitosan and carboxymethyl

373

cellulose films containing natural preservative compounds in minced camel’s meat.

374

International journal of biological macromolecules, 106, 1146-1158.

375

Kodaka, H., Mizuochi, S., Teramura, H., Nirazuka, T., Goins, D., Odumeru, J., & Kokubo, Y.

376

(2006). Comparison of the Compact Dry EC with the Most Probable Number Method

377

(AOAC Official Method 966.24) for Enumeration of Escherichia coli and Coliform

378

Bacteria in Raw Meats: Performance-Tested Method SM 110402. Journal of AOAC

379

International, 89(1), 100-114.

380

Lorieau, L., Halabi, A., Ligneul, A., Hazart, E., Dupont, D., & Floury, J. (2018). Impact of the

381

dairy product structure and protein nature on the proteolysis and amino acid

382

bioaccessiblity during in vitro digestion. Food Hydrocolloids, 82, 399-411.

383

Lu, D., Zhang, M., Wang, S., Cai, J., Zhou, X., & Zhu, C. (2010). Nutritional characterization

384

and changes in quality of Salicornia bigelovii Torr. during storage. LWT-Food Science

385

and Technology, 43(3), 519-524.

386

Mahgoub, O., Al-Marzooqi, O., & Khalaf, S. (2009). Effect of low voltage electrical stimulation

387

and splitting the carcass on histochemical and meat quality characteristics of Longissimus

388

thoracis muscle from the one-humped camel (Camelus dromedarius).

389

Maqsood, S., Abushelaibi, A., Manheem, K., Al Rashedi, A., & Kadim, I. T. (2015). Lipid

390

oxidation, protein degradation, microbial and sensorial quality of camel meat as

391

influenced by phenolic compounds. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 63(2), 953-959.

18

392

Maqsood, S., Al Haddad, N. A., & Mudgil, P. (2016). Vacuum packaging as an effective strategy

393

to retard off-odour development, microbial spoilage, protein degradation and retain

394

sensory quality of camel meat. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 72, 55-62.

395

Patsias, A., Chouliara, I., Badeka, A., Savvaidis, I., & Kontominas, M. (2006). Shelf-life of a

396

chilled precooked chicken product stored in air and under modified atmospheres:

397

microbiological, chemical, sensory attributes. Food Microbiology, 23(5), 423-429.

398

Qianwang, Z. (2015). Development And Optimization For Molecular-Based Rapid Detection Of

399 400 401

Salmonella In Raw Duck Meats And Mug Bean Sprouts. Radke, S. M., & Alocilja, E. C. (2005). A high density microelectrode array biosensor for detection of E. coli O157: H7. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 20(8), 1662-1667.

402

Reza Gheisari, H., Aminlari, M., & Shahram Shekarforoush, S. (2009). A comparative study of

403

the biochemical and functional properties of camel and cattle meat during frozen storage.

404

Veterinarski arhiv, 79(1), 51-68.

405

Rompré, A., Servais, P., Baudart, J., De-Roubin, M.-R., & Laurent, P. (2002). Detection and

406

enumeration of coliforms in drinking water: current methods and emerging approaches.

407

Journal of microbiological methods, 49(1), 31-54.

408

Seong, P. N., Cho, S. H., Park, K. M., Kang, G. H., Park, B. Y., Moon, S. S., & Van Ba, H.

409

(2015). Characterization of chicken by-products by mean of proximate and nutritional

410

compositions. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, 35(2), 179.

411

Shi, Q., Wang, Q., Zhang, Y., Chen, C., Fang, H., Yuan, Z., & Xia, L. (2012). Situation of

412

Salmonella contamination in food in Hebei Province of China in 2009-2010. African

413

Journal of Microbiology Research, 6(2), 365-370.

414

Siham, A., Elshafia, S., & Huda, M. (2015). Pyrex Journals 2035-4344. Reading, 10, 100.

19

415

Slongo, A. P., Rosenthal, A., Camargo, L. M. Q., Deliza, R., Mathias, S. P., & de Aragão, G. M.

416

F. (2009). Modeling the growth of lactic acid bacteria in sliced ham processed by high

417

hydrostatic pressure. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 42(1), 303-306.

418

Virgili, R., Saccani, G., Gabba, L., Tanzi, E., & Bordini, C. S. (2007). Changes of free amino

419

acids and biogenic amines during extended ageing of Italian dry-cured ham. LWT-Food

420

Science and Technology, 40(5), 871-878.

421 422 423 424

Waltman, W. D. (2000). Methods for cultural isolation. Salmonella in domestic animals. CAB International, London, 355-372. Wu, G. (2010). Functional amino acids in growth, reproduction, and health. Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal, 1(1), 31-37.

425

Yalçın, M. Y., & Şeker, M. (2016). Effect of salt and moisture content reduction on physical and

426

microbiological properties of salted, pressed and freeze dried turkey meat. LWT-Food

427

Science and Technology, 68, 153-159.

428

Yin, H., Chen, Z., Gu, Z., & Han, Y. (2009). Optimization of natural fermentative medium for

429

selenium-enriched yeast by D-optimal mixture design. LWT-Food Science and

430

Technology, 42(1), 327-331.

431

Zadernowska, A., & Chajęcka-Wierzchowska, W. (2017). Prevalence, biofilm formation and

432

virulence markers of Salmonella sp. and Yersinia enterocolitica in food of animal origin

433

in Poland. LWT, 75, 552-556.

434

Zelber-Sagi, S., Ivancovsky-Wajcman, D., Isakov, N. F., Webb, M., Orenstein, D., Shibolet, O.,

435

& Kariv, R. (2018). High red and processed meat consumption is associated with non-

436

alcoholic fatty liver disease and insulin resistance. Journal of hepatology, 68(6), 1239-

437

1246.

20

438

Captions List

439

Figure caption

440

Fig. 1: The effect of meat type and storage at 4 °C for 1-wk (SP1) on the chemical composition

441

(moisture, crude protein, crude fat, and ash content).

442

Table caption

443

Table 1: A comparison of the composition of fresh meats carcass.

444

Table 2: Essential and non-essential amino acid composition of fresh meats carcass fatness

445

(mg/100 g).

446

Table 3: Microbial counts (log10 CFU /g) of fresh and storage meat carcass.

447

Table 4: Mineral concentrations in fresh meat carcass fatness (mg/100 g).

448

Table 5: Fatty acid and vitamin composition (mg/100 g) of meats.

21

Table 1: A comparison of the chemical composition of fresh meats carcass Parameters %

Camel

Beef

Mutton

Poultry

Moisture

74.72±2.45a

71.52±3.99c

73.51±2.05b

71.14±3.46d

Crude protein

21.83±1.33b

20.64±1.03d

21.62±1.77c

22.73±0.68a

Total fat

1.51±0.05c

6.83±0.33a

4.56±0.67b

0.89±0.01d

Total ash

0.83±0.01d

1.35±0.02a

0.84±0.02c

0.96±0.02b

Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. *a, b, c, d

different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

Table 2: Essential and non-essential amino acid composition of fresh meats carcass fatness (mg/100 g) Amino acids

Camel

Beef

Mutton

Poultry

HIS

6.35±0.46a

5.23±0.86c

5.9±0.04b

0.3±0.02d

ILEU

6.43±0.02a

5.2±0.43c

6.2±0.77b

0.83±0.03d

LEU

9.8±0.04b

10.93±1.67a

8.4±1.13c

1.13±0.09d

LYS

7.84±0.04a

7.73±0.90b

7.52±0.98c

0.98±0.03d

MET

3.91±0.67a

3.11±0.34c

3.73±0.86b

0.75±0.02d

PHE

4.75±0.04c

5.76±0.98a

4.93±0.77b

1.06±0.07d

THR

5.96±0.33a

5.57±0.67b

5.45±0.03c

0.94±0.02d

TRY

-b

-b

-b

0.25±0.01a

VAL

7.76±.09a

6.23±0.77c

6.65±0.9b

0.94±0.03d

GLU

19.35±1.33a

16.55±1.78c

17.85±1.03b

1.09±0.04d

PRO

4.85±0.97a

4.45±0.68b

4.24±0.08c

0.49±0.01d

TYR

4.43±0.07c

4.74±0.98a

4.45±0.04b

0.19±0.02c

ALA

4.25±0.03d

7.15±0.96a

5.35±0.08b

0.55±0.02d

ARG

7.96±1.09a

6.95±0.77b

6.45±0.33c

1.75±0.34d

SER

4.23±0.35b

5.63±0.09a

3.65±0.05c

0.45±0.07d

GLY

7.84±0.77a

7.41±0.07b

6.45±0.34c

0.61±0.03d

ASP

9.93±0.33a

9.85±0.78b

9.65±0.43c

0.82±0.01d

Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. *a, b, c, d

different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

HIS, Histidine; ILEU, isoleucine; LEU, leucine; LYS, lysine; MET, methionine; PHE, phenylalanine; THR, threonine; TRY, tryptophane; VAL, valine; GLU, Glutamic acid; PRO, Prolene; TYR ,Tyrosine; ALA, Alanine; ARG, Arginine; SER, Serine; GLY, Glycine; ASP, Aspartic acid.

Table 3: Microbial counts (log10 CFU/g) of fresh and storage meat carcass Bactria

Camel

Beef

Mutton

Poultry

TBC

1.85±0.04d

3.26±0.02c

3.84±1.04b

6.18±0.02a

S. aureus

0.00±0.00d

1.40±0.03b

0.50±0.00c

3.49±0.02a

Mold & yeast

0.65±0.01d

2.66±0.44a

2.46±0.02b

1.65±0.44c

CFB

0.00±0.00d

1.23±0.03c

1.52±0.01b

3.70±0.01a

E. coli

0.00±0.00b

0.00±0.00b

0.00±0.00b

0.73±0.07a

Salmonella

0.00±0.00b

0.00±0.00b

0.00±0.00b

0.75±0.01a

Effect of storage period (a week) at 4 oC on the microbial counts TPC

0.35±0.02d

2.85±0.33c

3.64±0.03b

5.95±0.06a

S. aureus

0.00±0.00d

0.87±0.02b

0.45±0.01c

1.97±0.02a

Mold & yeast

0.89±0.01d

3.16±0.01b

4.46±0.34a

1.85±0.07c

CFB

0.00±0.00d

0.83±0.02c

0.92±0.02b

2.25±0.02a

E. coli

0.00±0.00b

0.00±0.00b

0.00±0.00b

0.61±0.01a

Salmonella

0.00±0.00b

0.00±0.00b

0.00±0.00b

0.68±0.01a

Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. The valid range we used in our study is ranging from 25–250 (Log10 CFU). *a, b, c, d

different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

TBC, total bacterial count Staphylococcus (ATCC31888, S. aureus); Moulds (ATCC204304, Aspergillus flavus and ATCC28248, Eurotium chevalieri); Yeasts (ATCC10619, Debaryomyces hansenii and ATCC34446, Brettanomyces custersianus); CFB, (ATCC700382, Sporolactobacillus and ATCC25772, Clostridium); E. coli strain (ATCCBAA-1883, E. coli O157:H7); Salmonella (ATCC10721, Salmonella Javiana and ATCC19430, Salmonella Typhi).

Table 4: Mineral concentrations in fresh meat carcass fatness (mg/100 g) Factor

Camel

Beef

Mutton

Poultry

Ca

6.52±0.05d

6.63±0.04c

10.55±1.73a

7.12±0.76b

Co

0.015±0.00a

0.009±0.00b

0.00±0.00c

0.00±0.00c

Cr

0.0128±0.00a

0.0011±0.00c

0.0021±0.00b

0.00±0.00d

Cu

0.16±0.00d

0.18±0.00c

0.34±0.02b

0.53±.018a

Fe

45.5±1. 22a

1.8±0.01c

4.05±0.04b

0.41±0.00d

K

195±8.34d

409±13.87a

345±16.56b

245±11.18c

Mg

13.5±2.0c

18.5±2.02b

18.9±3.28a

11.06±0.27d

Mn

0.19±0.01a

0.00±0.00d

0.08±0.00b

0.0017±0.00c

Mo

0.09±0.00a

0.01±0.01b

0.00±0.00c

0.00±0.00c

Na

44.9±2.24c

49.55±1.78b

59.75±3.11a

0.5±0.01d

P

113±7.54d

159±13.87a

152.5±6.11b

128.3±5.54c

S

37.56±2.92a

11.78±1.18b

9.09±0.18c

2.56±0.01d

Zn

3.49±0.02d

3.5±0.06d

4.09±0.02a

3.91±0.04c

Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. *a, b, c, d

different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

Mineral: Ca, Calcium; Co, Cobalt; Cr, Chromium; Cu, Copper; Fe, Iron; K, Potassium; Mg, Magnesium; Mn, Manganese; Mo, Molybdenum; Na, Sodium; P, Phosphorus; S, Sulfate; Zn, Zinc.

Table 5: Fatty acid and vitamin composition (mg/100 g) of meats

Fatty acids Lauric acid Myristic acid Palmitoleic acid Palmitic acid Oleic acid Stearic acid Linoleic acid Arachidonic acid Vitamin Vitamin A Beta-carotene Vitamin B1 Vitamin B3 Vitamin B6 Vitamin B12 Vitamin C Vitamin D Alpha-tocopherol (Vitamin E)

Fatty Acid Composition (mg/100 g) of Meats Fat Carbon Camel Beef Mutton atoms C12 1.49±0.02b 1.15±0.01c 2.54±0.04a C14 7.46±0.27a 0.37±0.01c 0.46±0.01b C16 7.32±0.18d 21.13±2.43c 34.18±2.12a d b 72.27±3.38 66.15±5.12c C16 33.00±2.33 C18 26.79±1.34d 87.12±2.14b 44.40±2.12c d c C18 19.87±1.23 54.85±3.28 65.65±4.13a c b C18 3.41±0.02 34.24±1.44 26.25±1.23d 18.95±1.23c 21.01±2.04b C20 0.57±0.01d Vitamin (100 g) Composition of Meats Camel Beef Mutton c b 0.004±0.00 0.005±0.00 0.0086±0.00a 0.008±0.00b 0.019±0.00a 0.007±0.00c a c 0.89±0.00 0.67±0.00 0.85±0.01b a b 0.48±0.01 0.45±0.00 0.35±0.00c 0.45±0.00a 0.36±0.01c 0.33±0.00d a b 0.65±0.00 0.0032±0.00 0.0029±0.00c a 0.0015±0.00 0.00±0.00b 0.00±0.00b 0.005±0.00a 0.0036±0.00b 0.0024±0.00d 0.86±0.00a 0.66±0.00b 0.35±0.00c

Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. *a, b, c, d

different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

Poultry 1.05±0.01d 0.22±0.00d 27.40±2.42b 84.96±2.14a 95.97±2.77a 45.95±1.14b 55.22±2.16a 23.55±1.23a Poultry 0.00±0.00d 0.0064±0.00d 0.53±0.00d 0.24±0.00d 0.42±0.00b 0.003±0.00d 0.00±0.00b 0.0034±0.00c 0.18±0.00d

Fig. 1: The effect of meat type and storage at 4 °C for 1-wk (SP1) on the chemical composition (moisture, crude protein, crude fat, and ash content).

Highlights Camel meat has high moisture, minerals, vitamins, and amino acids than other meats. Camel meat has less cholesterol, lowe TPC, and free from pathogenic bacteria. Camel meat is better in all the examined samples and healthier for a human. Meat quality maintained at a constant low temperature to avoid freeze-thaw cycles. The nutritional value of camel meat is much better than other animal’s meats.

Declaration of interests ☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. ☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

Hammad HHM