Study of some chemical, physical, sensory and bacteriology characteristics of canned chicken meat imported to Sulaymaniyah markets, Iraq

This study was conducted to assess the quality of imported four brands of canned chicken meat that were (A, B, C and D ) by using different quality standard inspection tests; these are, determination the chemical compositions of moisture, protein, fat, ash, energy and as well as studying the changes in the organoleptic characters represented by measuring peroxide value, free fatty acids, thiobarbituric acid and total volatile nitrogen were carried out. The microbiological investigations involved examination of total bacteriological count, coliform bacteria, proteolytic, lipolytic and sporoforming bacteria (anaerobic) also were tested. In addition, sensory attributes were measured. There are significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among trademarks in chemical analyses that indicated that A trademark of canned chicken meat had the highest percentage of moisture (67.05%) compared to the lowest percentages of D trademark (59.31%) and high protein contents were in B (32.10%) trademarks, while lower contents were in A 20.72% trademark. B trademarks contained low percentage of lipid (2.69%), while D trademark contained a high percentage of lipids (12.53%). C trademark appeared to have higher contents of ash (3.40%), while lower contents were in A (2.66%) trademark, and the total volatile nitrogen values for the all trademarks were non-significant. There were no significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among all trademarks in contents of free fatty acids and thiobarbituric acid (TBA), but there are significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among all trademarks in contents of peroxide values. Peroxide values (PV) for A, B, C and D trademarks were 0.95, 0.45, 0.65 and 0.80 meq oxygen/kg fat, respectively. Also, PV was through the allowance limits for all trademarks. There are not significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) in microbial tests among all trademarks that indicated there were no aerobic bacteria in any of these trademarks. Significant differences in the sensory properties among the four trademarks observed, while there are non-significant differences in the overall acceptability of the four trademarks.