An assessment of meat quality attributes of Broiler chicken fed with Samanea saman meal

An assessment of meat quality attributes of Broiler chicken fed with Samanea saman meal | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article An assessment of meat quality attributes of Broiler chicken fed with Samanea saman meal Margaret Aba Sam Hagan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6615496/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The study examined the meat quality attributes of broiler chicken fed with unfermented and Aspergillus niger fermented Samanea saman whole pod meal. The study was conducted with 360 broiler chickens for 5 weeks. Samanea saman whole pod meal was fermented with a fungus Aspergillus niger for 10 days and included at levels of 0. 60, 90, 120 and 150g kg − 1 in diets to substitute soyabean meal. Five experimental diets were formulated: a control diet which had 0kg of Samanea saman meal and four other diets containing FFSSWP meal at various levels. The experiment commenced after brooding the broiler chickens for 21 days by randomly allotting 18 birds each into five treatments with four replications in a complete randomized design (CRD).The experimental diets and water were provided ad-libitum to the broiler chickens throughout the feeding trial. At 8weeks of age the birds were slaughtered and studies done with the carcass. Following meat qualities were assessed pH, cooking loss, water holding capacity, meat cholesterol, The results indicated that feeding of broiler chickens with the fermented whole pod meal showed no antioxidant or antimicrobial activity in the meat. Also feeding of the broiler chicken with the fermented whole pod meal reduced the total cholesterol content of the meat by 40–65%. Therefore it can be concluded that the FFSSWPM is a valuable feed ingredient to be included at 60 and 150 g kg − 1 of broiler chickens diets without any harmful effects on meat quality attributes but lowered the total cholesterol content in the chicken meat. Farmers should be encourage to use fungus fermented Samanea saman and also further studies should be conduced on how to include Samanea saman meal into the feed diet of broiler chicken. Broiler chicken Samanea saman Aspergillus niger fermented Introduction Poultry meat is a functional food that provides bioactive substances such as linoleic acid, vitamins, antioxidants and a balanced n -6 to n -3 PUFA ratio good for human health[ 1 , 2 ] With the recent consumer lifestyle demand for low fat meat with high unsaturated fatty acids, low sodium and cholesterol levels, poultry meat is the best option. Poultry production has become one of the most sustainable businesses that can make a country achieve an economic independence. In Ghana, the feed cost account for 80% of the cost of broiler production [ 3 ] and this is a major challenge to the poultry industry due to the high prices of these conventional feedstuff such as soyabean meal and fish meal. These conventional feedstuffs are mostly of protein source, expensive and sometimes scarce thus they can be substituted with legumes such as Samanea saman whole pods. Samanea saman tree bears the pods and it is abundant and widely distributed throughout the tropics. The whole pods are readily available, not expensive and most often goes to waste as they drop and litter the environment. Samanea saman whole pods are highly nutritious in terms of cabohydrates, fat, fibre and protein contents, edible and eaten by humans and livestock both domesticated and wildlife [ 4 ]. The Samanea saman, has some properties that has effect on the meat quality of broilers. The leaves, bark, root, seeds and pods of the rain tree are also used in traditional medicine to treat various ailments such as intestinal ailment, stomachache and diarrhea [ 5 ]. Some of these properties help in reducing the harmful effect of the meat of animal that fed on it. The study therefore aimed at assessing meat quality attributes of the broiler chicken fed with the Samanea saman both fermented and unfermented meal. Materials and methods The study was conducted at the Poultry Section of the Department of Animal Science of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi for a period of 8 weeks using fungus ( Aspergillus niger ) – various levels of fermented Samanea saman whole pod meal. The whole pods were milled with a hammer mill to produce the meal. A quantity of 10ml of Aspergillis niger spore suspension was used to inoculate 100g of the sterilized S . saman whole pods which had been moistened with 20ml distilled water. This was put in a container covered and kept in a room for 10 days after, which it was oven dried at 70 o C for 48 hours and milled with an electric grinder into a powder. At day 10, the sample was oven dried at 70 o C for 48 hours and milled with an electric grinder, stored and used for the various chemical analyses. Experimental Diets Five experimental diets were formulated: a control diet with 0% of the Samanea saman meal (no FFSSWPM) and four other diets containing FFSSWPM incorporated at levels of 60 g, 90 g, 120 g and 150 g kg − 1 diet to substitute soyabean meal. The compositions of the experimental broiler diets and their calculated chemical compositions are presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Composition of the Experimental Broiler Diets Fungus Fermented Samanea Saman Whole Pod Meal (FFSSWPM) Ingredeints (gkg − 1 ) Control (T1) T2 (60) T3(90) T4(120) T5(150) Maize 583.00 560.00 543.20 529.00 514.50 Soyabean meal 290.00 230.00 200.00 170.00 140.00 FFSSWPM 0.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00 Fish meal 20.00 45.00 59.80 74.00 88.50 Wheat bran 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 Oyster shell 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Dicalcium phosphate 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Vitamin premix 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Salt 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Total 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 Calculated Composition (g kg − 1 DM) Crude protein 22.41 22.22 22.22 22.21 22.21 Phosphorus 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 Calcium 1.01 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.06 Lysine 1.95 2.03 2.06 2.08 2.11 Methionine 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 Cystine 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.60 ME (Kcal/kg) 2801.25 2777.50 2777.50 2776.25 2776.25 * Vitamin premix supplied (kg − 1 diet); 10,000 IU Vit A; 2000 IU Vit D3; 10 IU Vit E; 3mg Vit K; 2.5mg Riboflvin; 0.05mg Cobalamin; 5mg Panthothenic acid; 12.5mg Niacin; 175mg Choline; 0.5mg Folic acid; 2.8mg Manganese; 0.5mg Iron; 2.5mg Zinc; 625mg Cobalt. Experimental Design The study made use of four hundred (400) unsexed one-day old Cobb 500 commercial strains of broiler chickens obtained from a commercial hatchery (Asamoah and Yamoah farms). The experimental diet was fed to the chicks after 21days of brooding. The feed and water were provided ad-libitum the feeding trial was done after 21 days of age The study adopted a completely randomized design (CRD) and the birds were maintained in a deep litter pen for 35 days during the experimental period. During the period routine and periodic management practices such as vaccination (against Gumboro, Newcastle disease), drug administration (Coccidiostat, antibacterial) and maintenance of cleanliness within and outside the poultry pens were carried out. Data Collection The following physicochemical properties of the meat samples of the birds namely, water holding capacity, pH and cooking loss were assessed following [ 6 , 7 ] procedure. Water Holding Capacity (WHC) The breast muscle was used to assess water-holding capacity of the experimental birds because it consists of only white glycolytic type IIB fibre, which brings about uniformity in the different samples used. Exactly 10 g each of the meat samples was weighed and wrapped in a tissue of 0.2 g and each was placed in a centrifuge tube. The initial weights of each centrifuge tubes as well as the weights of the centrifuge and its contents were recorded. The tubes and their contents were placed in the centrifuge machine (Heraeus Biofuge Primo Centrfuge, Jos. Hansen and Soehne GmbH Germany) and spinned at a speed of 560 rpm for 10 minutes. The tubes were then weighed after the spinning, the tissue removed and the tubes reweighed. These were done in triplicates and the percentage WHC of each sample treatment was then calculated as $$\:\%\:WHC=\frac{\left({W}_{3}-{W}_{4}\right)-{W}_{2}}{{W}_{1}}X\:100$$ Where: \(\:{w}_{1}\) = weight of meat \(\:{w}_{2}\) = weight of tissue \(\:{w}_{3}\) = weight of tube, meat and tissue \(\:{w}_{4}\) = weight of tube and meat less tissue after spinning pH Value of Chicken Meat The pH of the chicken breast was measured using a pH meter fitted with glass electrode (FC200, H19024C, Hanna Instruments, Singapore). The pH was measured by the probe method by inserting a thin electrode directly into the breast muscle of each chicken fed the various treatment diets after incision of the muscle at a minimum depth of 1 cm. This was done when the ultimate pH in the chicken meat had been reached, that is after 24 hours of slaughtering the chicken. The parameters were measured in in triplicates at 0 (immediately after deboning) and 24 hours post mortem. Cooking Loss A total of 10 g each of the breasts of chickens fed on the various dietary treatments was weighed, put in sealed bags and cooked at 100 o C for 10 minutes. The samples were in triplicates and the percentage cooking loss was calculated as: $$\:Cooking\:loss\:\left(\%\right)=\frac{Wt\:of\:sample\:before\:cooking-Wt\:of\:sample\:after\:cooking}{Wt\:of\:sample\:before\:cooking}x100$$ Proximate Analysis of the Chicken Meat Proximate composition of the ground chicken meat from the breast portion was evaluated by the methods described by [ 8 ] for moisture, crude protein, fat, and ash. The analyses were made in triplicates for all the treatments. The method for measurements of moisture in meat was oven drying. Ground muscle or meat (about 4 g) was dried in a conventional oven (air drying) at 100–102°C for 16–18 hours and then the residue was weighed. The protein was analysed using the Kjeldahl method. This method involves 2 phases namely, a catalysed mineralization of nitrogen by heating in concentrated sulphuric acid and an alkaline treatment followed by a distillation and measurement of thefree ammonia produced.2 g of the meat sample was used. Rapid solvent extraction for measurement of the total fat content was used, which involved the Soxhlet apparatus, approved by the [ 8 ] for meat analysis. 10 g of ground and homogenized meat was used. Meat Cholesterol and Saponification Cholesterol content of breast muscles from each treatment were determined using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) as described by [ 9 ] and [ 10 ]. Saponification and cholesterol measurement was done by using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) were the two steps used in the determination of the cholesterol content in the meat as described by [ 9 ] and [ 10 ]. Saponification In using the [ 11 ] method, 2 g of each sample was saponified with 4 ml of 50% potassium hydroxide and 6 ml of 95% ethanol and this was heated for complete solubilization at 40 o C and heated again for 10 minutes at 60 o C. 5 ml of water was then added to the mixture and the samples cooled. The non saponifiable portion was extracted using 10 ml of hexane (three times), after which the aliquots of hexane extract of about 3 ml were dried under nitrogen flow. Cholesterol Measurement At the end of the saponification process, the high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method was used in the measurement of the cholesterol contents. The extract was dissolved in 3 ml of acetonitrile-isopropanol solution at a ratio of 70:30 v/v and 1 ml was injected into the HPLC using the method of [ 10 ] The HPLC apparatus is made up of a SHIMADZU system which includes a ternary solvent delicery system (LAD 10), a Rheodyne 20 ml loop injector with column temperature of 30 o C, an ultra violet detector and software (CLAS-VP 10) for processing data. Also included was a Lichrospher (5RP18 150 x 4.6 mm) analytical column, a holder with guard column (Chrompack, Netherlands) as well as a mobile phase with a flow rate of 1 ml/minute consisting of acetonitrile and isopropanol in a ratio 70:30 v/v. The cholesterol identification was performed by chromatography of which the result was processed at 210 nm and also by comparing sample retention time with the standard retention times (Sigma and Polyscinec, U.S.A. C 8667). Internal standardization (0.504 mg of 6 ketocholestanol, Sigma and Polyscience, U.S.A. K1250) was used to quantify each sample after the saponification. Microbial Load The total viable bacterial count was determined on frozen stored meat samples at intervals of 7 and 14 days as described by [ 12 ]. The nutrient agar was used to determine the overall bacterial load of meat, and meat products based on the number living microorganisms in a sample. Chicken meat sample of 10 g was homogenized with 90 ml of sterile peptone water (1 g/l) in a laboratory homogenizer (AM-5 Ace homogenizer, Nihonseiki, ) and serial dilutions were prepared, then 0.1 ml of each dilution was spread with a bent sterile glass rod on duplicate plates of pre-poured and dried standard plate count agar (Nissui Pharmaceutical, Japan). After 48-h incubation at 25°C, colonies were counted and results were expressed as log 10 cfu/g of chicken sample. The chicken skin is known to have a large number of pathogenic bacteria. Therefore, further test involving selective plate count was conducted to determine if the bacteria were harmful or harmless. This was done using selective bacterial culture media such as nutrient agar, Cetrimine agar, Bismoth agar, Maconky agar and Sabouraud Dextrose agar was used as indicator bacteria as it contains chemical additives which suppress the growth of bacteria except organisms detected. The Enterobacteriaceae for example, E.coli and Salmonella are usually used as indicator bacteria. The number of these Enterobacteriaceae ideally should not exceed 100 per cm. Microbiological safety of the chicken meat including Pseudomonas , Salmonella , Escherichia coli and fungus levels were evaluated. Results Meat quality attributes of the experimental birds The physical characteristics of the meat of broilers fed the various dietary treatments are presented in Table 2 . The result failed to indicate significant differences (P > 0.05) in the following: opening or initial pH, ultimate pH, water holding capacity and cooking loss among the dietary treatments. The initial or opening pH of the chicken meat ranged from 6.17–6.33. The ultimate pH of the chicken meat of birds fed on the dietary treatments were within the range of 5.3–5.7. The water holding capacity of meat for the 60 g (T2) FFSSWPM was higher than the other treatments, which had similar values however there were no significant difference (P > 0.05) among the treatments. The cooking loss was low among the treatment diets. The cholesterol level in the chicken meat decreases with increasing level of FFSSWPM at the level of 90g FFSSWPM chicken meat registered the least cholesterol level. The total cholesterol level in the chicken meat was high in the chicken fed on the control diet (without FFSSWPM inclusion) with 0.20 mmol/l as compared to those birds fed on the FFSSWPM- containing diets with values of 0.14 (60g), 0.07 (90g), 0.12 (120 g) and 0.12 mmol/l (150g). Table 2 Meat quality attributes of meat of experimental Birds Diets (g kg − 1 ) Parameters Control (T1) 60 (T2) 90 (T3) 120 (T4) 150 (T5) SEM P- value pH at 0 hours (initial) 6.33 6.20 6.17 6.20 6.17 0.09 0.67 pH at 24 hours (ultimate) 5.43 5.33 5.59 5.46 5.47 0.06 0.12 Water holding capacity (%) 0.68 1.55 0.93 0.85 0.70 0.55 0.79 Cooking loss (%) 20.2 20.40 19.40 22.80 19.30 10.36 1.00 Total cholesterol (mmol/l) 0.20 0.14 0.07 0.12 0.12 - - Proximate analysis of the meat of experimental Birds The proximate composition of the meat of broiler chicken fed the various experimental diets is presented in Table 3 . The results revealed that meat of birds fed on the 150 g FFSSWPM and the control diets (T1) had more moisture, followed by the 90 g (T3) FFSSWPM and the 120 g (T4) FFSSWPM and lastly the 60 g (T2) FFSSWPM. Meat of the birds fed with the highest inclusion level of FFSSWPM (150 g) had the lowest crude protein, ether extract and ash contents but high nitrogen free extract (NFE). The ash content of the chicken meat decreased as the FFSSWPM inclusion level increased with the 60 g FFSSWPM having the highest value. Table 3 Proximate composition of chicken meat from birds fed the experimental diets Diets (g kg − 1 ) Parameter (%) Control(T1) 60 (T2) 90 (T3) 120(T4) 150 (T5) Moisture 70.00 67.50 68.60 67.80 70.00 Ash 2.79 3.68 1.63 1.37 1.21 Ether extract 5.00 5.81 4.85 7.81 3.46 Crude protein 19.25 22.31 20.56 21.00 15.13 NFE 2.96 0.70 4.36 2.02 10.20 Microbial Load in Chicken Meat The total microbial load of the chicken meat increased as the meat stayed longer from Day seven (7) to Day fourteen (14) for the dietary treatments Table 4 The growth of the microorganisms on the 14th day became too many and exceeded the maximum microbial load count of 300 cfu/g. Also the result showed that the FFSSWPM inclusion in the diets did not have any effect on the microbial load counts compared to the control, as their values were statistically similar when treated on the same dilution factor. The specific microorganism load counts for E. coli, Salmonella and fungus also presented same trend as those of the total load counts except that of the Pseudomonas , which had few counts. On the seventh day of storage, it was observed that meat of broilers on the 120 g (T4) FFSSWPM treatment had the highest total microbial counts with a value of 6.324 Log10 cfu/g followed by the 150 g (T5) FFSSWPM with a value of 6.318 Log10 cfu/g and the load counts reduced as the FFSSWPM inclusion level in the diet fed to the birds decreased. In comparing the test organisms it was observed that the T4 also led in the E. coli and Pseudomonas counts. The increase in time of storage produced significant proliferations in total count, Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and fungus on the 14th day, irrespective of the treatment conditions. Table 4 Microbial Counts of the meat of the experimental Birds Stored at 4 o C from Day 7 to 14 Days Treatments Log10 cfu/g Total Load E.coli Salmonella Pseudomonas Fungus 7 T1 6.209 5.954 5.973 4.699 6.107 T2 6.199 5.973 5.919 5.176 6.064 T3 6.297 6.049 6.053 ND 6.041 T4 6.324 6.097 6.049 5.439 6.149 T5 6.318 6.021 6.164 5.653 6.190 14 T1 TNTC 6.283 6.326 5.544 6.281 T2 TNTC 6.307 6.348 5.462 6.316 T3 TNTC 6.332 6.358 5.243 6.281 T4 TNTC 6.477 6.474 5.863 6.299 T5 TNTC 6.462 6.476 5.756 6.415 TNTC = Too numerous to count Cfu/g = Colony forming unit/gram ND = Not detected Discussion pH and Physical Characteristics and Total Cholesterol of Meat the experimental birds There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the initial pH, ultimate pH, water holding capacity and cooking loss among the dietary treatments (Table 2 ). The ultimate pH of the birds fed on the dietary treatments was within the range of 5.3–5.7 but was lower than that reported by [ 13 ] The water holding capacity for the 60 g (T2) FFSSWPM was higher than the other treatments which had similar values however, they did not differ significantly. This high water holding capacity will result in higher yield upon cooking, makes the meat juicier upon eating and highly nutritious because most of the nutrients are retained in the meat during cooking. The cooking loss was low among the treatments and this is a good quality as increased cooking loss leads to reduced juiciness and less palatable meat. The cooking loss was similar indicating that the test ingredients did not affect the meat negatively. The cholesterol level in the chicken meat decreased as the inclusion level of the FFSSWPM increased with the 90 g FFSSWPM chicken meat having the least cholesterol level. The total cholesterol level in the chicken meat was high 0.20 mmol/l in those fed the control diet as compared to birds fed on the FFSSWPM- containing diets.The differences in the cholesterol content of the chicken meat can be attributed to the variations in absorption and biosynthesis of cholesterol, lipoprotein metabolism, diet, muscle fiber type distribution, subcutaneous and intramuscular fat and body weight of the animal [ 14 , 15 ] Kumar and Rani [ 16 ] indicated that the cholesterol balance in the chicken meat is influenced by the crude protein content and unsaturated fatty acid profile. Poultry meat without the skin contains less cholesterol and saturated fats but the breast meat has the least cholesterol content. Cholesterol is a blood lipid, which is synthesised by the liver for the formation of bile salts for fat digestion and used by adrenal gland for hormones production. Jaturasitha et al .[ 17 ] acknowledged that chicken meat is a healthier food as compared to red meat because it contains low fat and cholesterol. The result indicated that the inclusion of the FFSSWPM probably helped to reduce the level of cholesterol in the meat, which most consumers will prefer because of health reasons. Proximate Analysis of Meat of Broiler Chickens fed the Experimental Diets The result revealed that meat of birds fed on the 150g FFSSWPM and the control diet had high moisture content than the other treatments (Table 3 ). The differences observed in the protein content of the chicken meat were probably due to the birds fed with different protein content in the treatment diets. According to [ 18] the nutrition, muscle function, age, breed and gender of the animal are factors that bring about disparities in the protein content. The result obtained from this study is in agreement with that of [ 19 ] who reported moisture content in a range of 75.51–72.50, 21.80–19.50% protein, 5.71–1.97% ether extract and ash content of 1.54–1.37% for broiler meat of chicken fed on different barley based diets. Nonetheless, [ 20 ] also reported the protein content of breast muscle-plus-skin to range from 21.9 to 23.5%, fat content of 3.9 to 8.45%, ash content of 1.02 to 1.2% and moisture content of 68.9 to 72.3%. Onibi, (2006) established that the nutritional value of meat is affected by how the animal is reared, produced and prepared. Kumar and Rani [ 16 ] also observed that the chemical composition of breast meat depends on the type of dietfed to the animal. Microbial Counts of Chicken Meat Meat though low in fat and carbohydrate is a suitable protein source. Due to the constitute elements of meat, it tends to attract and support the growth of pathogenic microorganisms which cause spoilage and food related diseases [ 21 , 22 ]. Poultry meat is nutritious and has a favourable pH making them suitable medium for microbial growth [ 23 ]. Different types of microorganisms are attracted and grow on meat and meat products. The growth and activities of this microorganism depends on several factors including, storage temperature, texture, PH of the meat and meat products [ 24 , 25 ]. Healthy muscles do not contain microorganism however, the slaughtering process, environmental conditions at the abattoir, slaughtering and transportation process as well conditions at the sales point do influence the growth of microorganism on meat and meat products [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. The result presented in Table 4 indicated that the microbial load increased with storage time. Report from [ 29 ] states that a microbial load above 10 7 cfu/g or 10000000 log10 cfu/gis an indication of spoilage. The total microbial load of the chicken meat increased as the meat stayed longer from day seven (7) to fourteen days (14) among the dietary treatments. The result showed that the FFSSWPM inclusion in the diets of the broiler did not have any effect on the microbial load of the meat compared to the control as their values are statistically similar when treated on the same dilution factor (cfu/g). The total viable counts had similar values among the treatments. The increase in time of storage produced significant proliferations (uncountable number of organisms) in total viable count on the 14th day despite the treatment conditions. The total viable counts obtained in this study on the seventh day were higher than what was obtained by [ 30 ] that is 5.25 log10 cfu g-1 from chicken breast. In comparing the test organisms it was observed that the T4 had the highest E. coli and Pseudomonas counts while T5 had the highest Salmonella , and Fungus counts. The high presence of these harmful food poisoning bacteria ( Salmonella, E. coli and Pseudomonas ) in the chicken meat is not advisable to be eaten as it can bring serious problem to consumers. This high prevalence of Salmonella and E. coli in the chicken meat on the fourteenth day was attributed to poor hygiene and the technique used in opening the abdomen such as the technique of hand evisceration practiced with infrequent hand washing probably introduced this bacteria [ 31 , 32 ]. EFSA [33] and [ 21 ] reported that Salmonella is mostly isolated from the slaughtering environments and gastrointestinal tracts of animals especially poultry. The presence of Pseudomonas,Salmonella,E. coli and fungus in the chicken meat can be attributed to contaminations from the environment hence proper hygienic measures should be followed in slaughter houses. Conclusions and recommendations Feeding of broiler chickens with the fermented whole pod meal showed no antioxidant or antimicrobial activity in the meat. Also feeding of the broiler chicken with the fermented whole pod meal reduced the total cholesterol content of the meat by 40–65%. Therefore it can be concluded that the FFSSWPM is a valuable feed ingredient to be included at 60 and 150 g kg − 1 of broiler chickens diets without any harmful effects on the meat quality attributes but lowered the total cholesterol content in the chicken meat. On the basis of the findings and conclusions it is recommended that 150 g/kg FFSSWPM diet should be used to reduce the total cholesterol content in the chicken meat. Different concentrations of the ethanolic whole pod extract should be put in the drinking water of broilers or other poultry to determine its antioxidant and antimicrobial potentials on the meat and meat product. Declarations Funding There was no funding for the study Ethics approval The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Ethics Committee approved the right to conduct this research and certify that the study was conducted in accordance of standard operating procedures of Research Ethics. Thus, this study was carried out in accordance with the university research ethics standards and guidelines. Clinical trial number: The study is not a clinical trial hence, clinical number not applicable Consent to Participate Not Applicable Consent to Publish declarations from co-authors: Not applicable. Author contribution declaration The author conceive the idea, developed the topic, design and developed the methodology undertook the study, collected data, analyze the data and develop the manuscript. Corresponding Author email address: [email protected] Data Availability The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Plant reproducibility - For this study reproducibility is not applicable References Barroeta, A. C. (2006). Nutritive value of poultry meat: Relationship between vitamin E and PUFA. Worlds Poultry Science Journal , 63: 277 – 284. Givens, D. I. (2009). Animal nutrition and lipids in animal products and their contribution to human intake and health. Nutrients ,1: 71 – 82. Osei, S. A. (2010). The influx of imported animal products onto the Ghanaian market and the impact on animal production, processing and marketing: The case of poultry meat. Ghanaian Journal of Animal Science , 5 (1): 1 – 9. Ukoha, P. O., Egbuonu, A., Cemaluk, C. Obasi, L. N. & Ejikeme, P. M. (2011). Tannins and other phytochemical of the Samanaea saman pods and their antimicrobial activities. African Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry , 5(8): 237 - 244. Duke, J.A. and Wain, K.K. (1981) Medicinal Plants of the World. Computer Index with More than 85,000 Entries, 3 Vols. A.M.S.A. (1995). Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Fresh Beef. American Meat Science Assoc., Chicago, U.S.A., pp. 240. Dirinck, P., De Winne, A., Casteels, M. & Frigg, M. (1996). Studies on vitamin E and meat quality. 1. Effect of feeding high vitamin E levels on time-related pork quality. Journal Agricultural Food Chemistry , 44: 65 - 68. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (1990).Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Edition Arlington, Virginia, USA. Naeem, E. N., Ahmad, T., & Behzahani, M. (1995). Rapid and simple method for determination of cholesterol in processed food. Journal of AOAC International , 78: 1522 - 1525. Bragagnolo, N. & Rodriguez-Amaya, D. B. (2001).Total lipid, cholesterol, and fatty acids of farmed freshwater prawn ( macrobrachium rosenbergii ) and wild marine shrimp ( penaeus brasiliensis , penaeus schimitti , xiphopenaeus kroyeri ). Journal of Food Comp. Analysis , 14: 359 - 369. Stewart, G., Gosselin, C. & Pandian, S. (1992). Selected ion monitoring of tert- butyldimethylsilyl cholesterol ethers for determination of total cholesterol content in foods. Food Chemistry , 44: 377 – 380. Okayama, T., Imai, T. & Yamanous, M. (1987). Effect of ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol on storage stability of beef steaks. Meat Science , 21: 267 - 273. Fletcher, D. L., (2002). Poultry meat quality. World’s Poultry Science Journal , 58: 131 – 145. Bragagnolo, N. (2009). In: Handbook of Muscle Foods Analysis. Nollet LML, Toldra F, editor. Florida: CRC Press; Cholesterol and Cholesterol Oxides in Meat and Meat Products; pp. 187 – 219. Padre, R. G., Aricetti, J. A., Moreira, F. B., Matsushita, M., de Souza, N. E., Visentainer, J. V., Do Prado, I. N.,& Mizubuti, I. Y. (2006). Fatty acid profile, chemical composition of longissimus muscle of bovine steers and bulls finished in pasture system. Meat Science , 74: 242 – 248. Kumar, R. P. & Rani, M. S. (2014). Chemical composition of chicken of various commercial brands available in market. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science , 7(7): 22 - 26. Jaturasitha, S., Kayan, A. & Wicke, M. (2008). Carcass and meat characteristics of male chickens between Thai indigenous compared with improved layer breeds and their crossbred. Arch Tierzucht . 51: 283 – 294. Purslow, P. P. (2005). Intramusclar connective tissue and role in meat quality. Meat Science , 70: 435 - 447. Moharrery, A. (2006). Comparison of performance and digestibility characteristics of broiler fed diets containing treated hulled barley. Czechslovakian Journal of Animal Science , 51(3): 122-145. Žledner, B., Holcman, A. & Rajar, A. (1995). The effect of provenance of chickens on dressing percentage and meat composition. Research Reports Biotechnical Faculty University of Ljubljana, Agricultural Issue (Zootechnica), Supplement 22, 3 rd International Symposium Animal Science Days. Perspectives in the production of various kinds of meat. Bled, Slovenia , Pp. 233 - 239. Nørrung, B., Andersen, J. K. & Buncic, S. (2009). Main Concerns of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Meat Safety of Meat and Processed Meat. F. Toldrá, ed. (Springer New York), Pp. 3 - 29. Komba, E. V. G., Komba, E. V., Mkupasi, E. M., Mbyuzi, A. O., Mshamu, S., Luwumbra, D., Busagwe, Z. & Mzula, A. (2012). Sanitary practices and occurrence of zoonotic conditions in cattle at slaughter in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania: implications for public health. Tanzania Journal of Health Resources , 14 (2): 6-25 Ahmad, M., Rajapaksha, A. U., Lim, J. E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S. S., & Ok, Y. S. (2014). Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: a review. Chemosphere , 99: 19 – 33 Li, M. Y., Zhou, G. H., Xu, X. L., Li, C. B. & Zhu, W. Y. (2006). Changes of bacterial diversity and main flora in chilled pork during storage using PCRDGGE. Food Microbiology , 23 (7): 607 - 611. Adu Gyamfi, A., Torgby-Tetteh, W., & Appiah, V. (2012). Microbiological Quality of Chicken Sold in Accra and Determination of D10-Value of Escherichia coli . Food Nutrition Science , 3 (5): 693 - 698. Adzitey, F. (2011). Effect of pre-slaughter animal handling on carcass and meat quality. International Food Research Journal , 18: 484 - 490. Adzitey, F., Rusul, G. & Huda, N. (2012). Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of Salmonella serovars in ducks, duck rearing and processing environments in Penang, Malaysia. Food Research International , 45: 947 – 952. Ercolini, D., Russo, F., Torrieri, E., Masi, P. &Villani, F. (2006). Changes in the spoilage-related microbiota of beef during refrigerated storage under different packaging conditions. Applied Environmental Microbiology , 72(7): 4663 - 4671. Adams, M. R. &Moss, M. O. (2008). Food Microbiology.3rd edition. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, p. 463. Alvarez-Astorga et al. (2002)Álvarez–Astorga M, Capita R, Alonso–Calleja C, Moreno B, García–Fernández C.(2002) Microbiological quality of retail chicken by–products in Spain. Meat Sci. 62(1):45–50. Ruban, S. W., Thiyageeswaran, M. & Sharadha, R. (2010). Isolation and identification of Salmonella spp. from retail chicken meat by polymerase chain reaction. International Journal of Microbiology Research , 1(3): 106 – 109. Ruban, S. W. & Fairoze, N. (2011). Effect of Proceesing Conditions on Microbiological Quality of Market Poultry Meats in Bangalore, India. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances , 10: 188 – 191. EFSA (2007). The community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and antimicrobial resistance and foodborne outbreaks in the European Union in 2006 The EFSA Journal , 130(3) 352 -378 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6615496","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":470412688,"identity":"622b0e64-c457-42b3-8f3b-7d9dc0d8efca","order_by":0,"name":"Margaret Aba Sam Hagan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kumasi Technical University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Margaret","middleName":"Aba Sam","lastName":"Hagan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-08 01:08:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6615496/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6615496/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87810242,"identity":"0d0bc425-54ac-451d-b142-a96afaca3462","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 09:09:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":961610,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6615496/v1/af4a9b09-6c26-415c-97fc-129867faa2ff.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eAn assessment of meat quality attributes of Broiler chicken fed with \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e meal\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePoultry meat is a functional food that provides bioactive substances such as linoleic acid, vitamins, antioxidants and a balanced \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e-6 to \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e-3 PUFA ratio good for human health[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e] With the recent consumer lifestyle demand for low fat meat with high unsaturated fatty acids, low sodium and cholesterol levels, poultry meat is the best option. Poultry production has become one of the most sustainable businesses that can make a country achieve an economic independence. In Ghana, the feed cost account for 80% of the cost of broiler production [ 3 ] and this is a major challenge to the poultry industry due to the high prices of these conventional feedstuff such as soyabean meal and fish meal. These conventional feedstuffs are mostly of protein source, expensive and sometimes scarce thus they can be substituted with legumes such as \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e whole pods. \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e tree bears the pods and it is abundant and widely distributed throughout the tropics. The whole pods are readily available, not expensive and most often goes to waste as they drop and litter the environment. \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003ewhole pods are highly nutritious in terms of cabohydrates, fat, fibre and protein contents, edible and eaten by humans and livestock both domesticated and wildlife [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Samanea saman, has some properties that has effect on the meat quality of broilers. The leaves, bark, root, seeds and pods of the rain tree are also used in traditional medicine to treat various ailments such as intestinal ailment, stomachache and diarrhea [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome of these properties help in reducing the harmful effect of the meat of animal that fed on it. The study therefore aimed at assessing meat quality attributes of the broiler chicken fed with the \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e both fermented and unfermented meal.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted at the Poultry Section of the Department of Animal Science of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi for a period of 8 weeks using fungus (\u003cem\u003eAspergillus niger\u003c/em\u003e) \u0026ndash; various levels of fermented \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e whole pod meal. The whole pods were milled with a hammer mill to produce the meal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA quantity of 10ml of \u003cem\u003eAspergillis niger\u003c/em\u003e spore suspension was used to inoculate 100g of the sterilized \u003cem\u003eS\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003esaman\u003c/em\u003e whole pods which had been moistened with 20ml distilled water. This was put in a container covered and kept in a room for 10 days after, which it was oven dried at 70\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 48 hours and milled with an electric grinder into a powder. At day 10, the sample was oven dried at 70 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 48 hours and milled with an electric grinder, stored and used for the various chemical analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental Diets\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFive experimental diets were formulated: a control diet with 0% of the \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e meal (no FFSSWPM) and four other diets containing FFSSWPM incorporated at levels of 60 g, 90 g, 120 g and 150 g kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e diet to substitute soyabean meal. The compositions of the experimental broiler diets and their calculated chemical compositions are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposition of the Experimental Broiler Diets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFungus Fermented \u003cem\u003eSamanea Saman\u003c/em\u003e Whole Pod Meal (FFSSWPM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIngredeints (gkg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl (T1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT2 (60)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT3(90)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT4(120)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT5(150)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaize\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e583.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e560.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e543.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e529.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e514.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoyabean meal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e230.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e200.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e170.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e140.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFFSSWPM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e150.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFish meal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e59.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e88.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWheat bran\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOyster shell\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDicalcium phosphate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVitamin premix\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSalt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1000.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1000.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1000.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1000.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1000.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCalculated Composition (g kg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cb\u003eDM)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrude protein\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhosphorus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCalcium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLysine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethionine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCystine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eME (Kcal/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2801.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2777.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2777.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2776.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2776.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003eVitamin premix supplied (kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003ediet); 10,000 IU Vit A; 2000 IU Vit D3; 10 IU Vit E; 3mg Vit K; 2.5mg Riboflvin; 0.05mg Cobalamin; 5mg Panthothenic acid; 12.5mg Niacin; 175mg Choline; 0.5mg Folic acid; 2.8mg Manganese; 0.5mg Iron; 2.5mg Zinc; 625mg Cobalt.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Experimental Design","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study made use of four hundred (400) unsexed one-day old Cobb 500 commercial strains of broiler chickens obtained from a commercial hatchery (Asamoah and Yamoah farms). The experimental diet was fed to the chicks after 21days of brooding. The feed and water were provided \u003cem\u003ead-libitum\u003c/em\u003e the feeding trial was done after 21 days of age The study adopted a completely randomized design (CRD) and the birds were maintained in a deep litter pen for 35 days during the experimental period. During the period routine and periodic management practices such as vaccination (against Gumboro, Newcastle disease), drug administration (Coccidiostat, antibacterial) and maintenance of cleanliness within and outside the poultry pens were carried out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following physicochemical properties of the meat samples of the birds namely, water holding capacity, pH and cooking loss were assessed following [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e] procedure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWater Holding Capacity (WHC)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe breast muscle was used to assess water-holding capacity of the experimental birds because it consists of only white glycolytic type IIB fibre, which brings about uniformity in the different samples used. Exactly 10 g each of the meat samples was weighed and wrapped in a tissue of 0.2 g and each was placed in a centrifuge tube. The initial weights of each centrifuge tubes as well as the weights of the centrifuge and its contents were recorded. The tubes and their contents were placed in the centrifuge machine (Heraeus Biofuge Primo Centrfuge, Jos. Hansen and Soehne GmbH Germany) and spinned at a speed of 560 rpm for 10 minutes. The tubes were then weighed after the spinning, the tissue removed and the tubes reweighed. These were done in triplicates and the percentage WHC of each sample treatment was then calculated as\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:\\%\\:WHC=\\frac{\\left({W}_{3}-{W}_{4}\\right)-{W}_{2}}{{W}_{1}}X\\:100$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{w}_{1}\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e= weight of meat\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{w}_{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e= weight of tissue\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{w}_{3}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e= weight of tube, meat and tissue\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{w}_{4}\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e= weight of tube and meat less tissue after spinning\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003epH Value of Chicken Meat\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe pH of the chicken breast was measured using a pH meter fitted with glass electrode (FC200, H19024C, Hanna Instruments, Singapore). The pH was measured by the probe method by inserting a thin electrode directly into the breast muscle of each chicken fed the various treatment diets after incision of the muscle at a minimum depth of 1 cm. This was done when the ultimate pH in the chicken meat had been reached, that is after 24 hours of slaughtering the chicken. The parameters were measured in in triplicates at 0 (immediately after deboning) and 24 hours post mortem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCooking Loss\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 10 g each of the breasts of chickens fed on the various dietary treatments was weighed, put in sealed bags and cooked at 100\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 10 minutes. The samples were in triplicates and the percentage cooking loss was calculated as:\u003cdiv id=\"Equb\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equb\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:Cooking\\:loss\\:\\left(\\%\\right)=\\frac{Wt\\:of\\:sample\\:before\\:cooking-Wt\\:of\\:sample\\:after\\:cooking}{Wt\\:of\\:sample\\:before\\:cooking}x100$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProximate Analysis of the Chicken Meat\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProximate composition of the ground chicken meat from the breast portion was evaluated by the methods described by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] for moisture, crude protein, fat, and ash. The analyses were made in triplicates for all the treatments. The method for measurements of moisture in meat was oven drying. Ground muscle or meat (about 4 g) was dried in a conventional oven (air drying) at 100\u0026ndash;102\u0026deg;C for 16\u0026ndash;18 hours and then the residue was weighed. The protein was analysed using the Kjeldahl method. This method involves 2 phases namely, a catalysed mineralization of nitrogen by heating in concentrated sulphuric acid and an alkaline treatment followed by a distillation and measurement of thefree ammonia produced.2 g of the meat sample was used. Rapid solvent extraction for measurement of the total fat content was used, which involved the Soxhlet apparatus, approved by the [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] for meat analysis. 10 g of ground and homogenized meat was used.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeat Cholesterol and Saponification\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCholesterol content of breast muscles from each treatment were determined using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) as described by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e] and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Saponification and cholesterol measurement was done by using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) were the two steps used in the determination of the cholesterol content in the meat as described by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e] and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSaponification\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn using the [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] method, 2 g of each sample was saponified with 4 ml of 50% potassium hydroxide and 6 ml of 95% ethanol and this was heated for complete solubilization at 40\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC and heated again for 10 minutes at 60\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC. 5 ml of water was then added to the mixture and the samples cooled. The non saponifiable portion was extracted using 10 ml of hexane (three times), after which the aliquots of hexane extract of about 3 ml were dried under nitrogen flow.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCholesterol Measurement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the end of the saponification process, the high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method was used in the measurement of the cholesterol contents. The extract was dissolved in 3 ml of acetonitrile-isopropanol solution at a ratio of 70:30 v/v and 1 ml was injected into the HPLC using the method of [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] The HPLC apparatus is made up of a SHIMADZU system which includes a ternary solvent delicery system (LAD 10), a Rheodyne 20 ml loop injector with column temperature of 30\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC, an ultra violet detector and software (CLAS-VP 10) for processing data. Also included was a Lichrospher (5RP18 150 x 4.6 mm) analytical column, a holder with guard column (Chrompack, Netherlands) as well as a mobile phase with a flow rate of 1 ml/minute consisting of acetonitrile and isopropanol in a ratio 70:30 v/v. The cholesterol identification was performed by chromatography of which the result was processed at 210 nm and also by comparing sample retention time with the standard retention times (Sigma and Polyscinec, U.S.A. C 8667). Internal standardization (0.504 mg of 6 ketocholestanol, Sigma and Polyscience, U.S.A. K1250) was used to quantify each sample after the saponification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMicrobial Load\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total viable bacterial count was determined on frozen stored meat samples at intervals of 7 and 14 days as described by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. The nutrient agar was used to determine the overall bacterial load of meat, and meat products based on the number living microorganisms in a sample. Chicken meat sample of 10 g was homogenized with 90 ml of sterile peptone water (1 g/l) in a laboratory homogenizer (AM-5 Ace homogenizer, Nihonseiki, ) and serial dilutions were prepared, then 0.1 ml of each dilution was spread with a bent sterile glass rod on duplicate plates of pre-poured and dried standard plate count agar (Nissui Pharmaceutical, Japan). After 48-h incubation at 25\u0026deg;C, colonies were counted and results were expressed as log\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e cfu/g of chicken sample. The chicken skin is known to have a large number of pathogenic bacteria. Therefore, further test involving selective plate count was conducted to determine if the bacteria were harmful or harmless. This was done using selective bacterial culture media such as nutrient agar, Cetrimine agar, Bismoth agar, Maconky agar and Sabouraud Dextrose agar was used as indicator bacteria as it contains chemical additives which suppress the growth of bacteria except organisms detected. The Enterobacteriaceae for example, \u003cem\u003eE.coli\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e are usually used as indicator bacteria. The number of these Enterobacteriaceae ideally should not exceed 100 per cm. Microbiological safety of the chicken meat including \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli\u003c/em\u003e and fungus levels were evaluated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeat quality attributes of the experimental birds\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe physical characteristics of the meat of broilers fed the various dietary treatments are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The result failed to indicate significant differences (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in the following: opening or initial pH, ultimate pH, water holding capacity and cooking loss among the dietary treatments. The initial or opening pH of the chicken meat ranged from 6.17\u0026ndash;6.33. The ultimate pH of the chicken meat of birds fed on the dietary treatments were within the range of 5.3\u0026ndash;5.7. The water holding capacity of meat for the 60 g (T2) FFSSWPM was higher than the other treatments, which had similar values however there were no significant difference (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) among the treatments. The cooking loss was low among the treatment diets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cholesterol level in the chicken meat decreases with increasing level of FFSSWPM at the level of 90g FFSSWPM chicken meat registered the least cholesterol level. The total cholesterol level in the chicken meat was high in the chicken fed on the control diet (without FFSSWPM inclusion) with 0.20 mmol/l as compared to those birds fed on the FFSSWPM- containing diets with values of 0.14 (60g), 0.07 (90g), 0.12 (120 g) and 0.12 mmol/l (150g).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeat quality attributes of meat of experimental Birds Diets (g kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParameters\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl (T1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60 (T2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90 (T3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120 (T4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e150 (T5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSEM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP- value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epH at 0 hours (initial)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epH at 24 hours (ultimate)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater holding capacity (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCooking loss (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal cholesterol (mmol/l)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProximate analysis of the meat of experimental Birds\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proximate composition of the meat of broiler chicken fed the various experimental diets is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. The results revealed that meat of birds fed on the 150 g FFSSWPM and the control diets (T1) had more moisture, followed by the 90 g (T3) FFSSWPM and the 120 g (T4) FFSSWPM and lastly the 60 g (T2) FFSSWPM. Meat of the birds fed with the highest inclusion level of FFSSWPM (150 g) had the lowest crude protein, ether extract and ash contents but high nitrogen free extract (NFE). The ash content of the chicken meat decreased as the FFSSWPM inclusion level increased with the 60 g FFSSWPM having the highest value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProximate composition of chicken meat from birds fed the experimental diets Diets (g kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParameter (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl(T1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60 (T2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90 (T3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120(T4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e150 (T5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoisture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEther extract\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrude protein\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNFE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMicrobial Load in Chicken Meat\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total microbial load of the chicken meat increased as the meat stayed longer from Day seven (7) to Day fourteen (14) for the dietary treatments Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e The growth of the microorganisms on the 14th day became too many and exceeded the maximum microbial load count of 300 cfu/g. Also the result showed that the FFSSWPM inclusion in the diets did not have any effect on the microbial load counts compared to the control, as their values were statistically similar when treated on the same dilution factor. The specific microorganism load counts for \u003cem\u003eE. coli, Salmonella\u003c/em\u003eand fungus also presented same trend as those of the total load counts except that of the \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e, which had few counts. On the seventh day of storage, it was observed that meat of broilers on the 120 g (T4) FFSSWPM treatment had the highest total microbial counts with a value of 6.324 Log10 cfu/g followed by the 150 g (T5) FFSSWPM with a value of 6.318 Log10 cfu/g and the load counts reduced as the FFSSWPM inclusion level in the diet fed to the birds decreased. In comparing the test organisms it was observed that the T4 also led in the \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e counts. The increase in time of storage produced significant proliferations in total count, \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa\u003c/em\u003e and fungus on the 14th day, irrespective of the treatment conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMicrobial Counts of the meat of the experimental Birds Stored at 4\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC from Day 7 to 14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDays\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatments Log10 cfu/g\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Load\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.coli\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFungus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.209\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.954\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.973\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.699\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.199\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.973\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.919\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.176\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.297\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.053\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eND\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.324\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.097\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.439\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.149\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.318\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.164\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.653\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.190\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTNTC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.283\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.326\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.544\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.281\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTNTC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.307\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.348\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.462\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.316\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTNTC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.332\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.358\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.243\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.281\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTNTC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.477\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.474\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.863\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.299\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTNTC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.462\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.476\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.756\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.415\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTNTC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Too numerous to count Cfu/g\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Colony forming unit/gram ND\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Not detected\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003epH and Physical Characteristics and Total Cholesterol of Meat the experimental birds\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was no significant difference (P \u0026gt; 0.05) in the initial pH, ultimate pH, water holding capacity and cooking loss among the dietary treatments (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The ultimate pH of the birds fed on the dietary treatments was within the range of 5.3–5.7 but was lower than that reported by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] The water holding capacity for the 60 g (T2) FFSSWPM was higher than the other treatments which had similar values however, they did not differ significantly. This high water holding capacity will result in higher yield upon cooking, makes the meat juicier upon eating and highly nutritious because most of the nutrients are retained in the meat during cooking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cooking loss was low among the treatments and this is a good quality as increased cooking loss leads to reduced juiciness and less palatable meat. The cooking loss was similar indicating that the test ingredients did not affect the meat negatively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cholesterol level in the chicken meat decreased as the inclusion level of the FFSSWPM increased with the 90 g FFSSWPM chicken meat having the least cholesterol level. The total cholesterol level in the chicken meat was high 0.20 mmol/l in those fed the control diet as compared to birds fed on the FFSSWPM- containing diets.The differences in the cholesterol content of the chicken meat can be attributed to the variations in absorption and biosynthesis of cholesterol, lipoprotein metabolism, diet, muscle fiber type distribution, subcutaneous and intramuscular fat and body weight of the animal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] \u003cb\u003eKumar and Rani\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] indicated that the cholesterol balance in the chicken meat is influenced by the crude protein content and unsaturated fatty acid profile. Poultry meat without the skin contains less cholesterol and saturated fats but the breast meat has the least cholesterol content. Cholesterol is a blood lipid, which is synthesised by the liver for the formation of bile salts for fat digestion and used by adrenal gland for hormones production. \u003cb\u003eJaturasitha\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eet al\u003c/b\u003e.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] acknowledged that chicken meat is a healthier food as compared to red meat because it contains low fat and cholesterol. The result indicated that the inclusion of the FFSSWPM probably helped to reduce the level of cholesterol in the meat, which most consumers will prefer because of health reasons.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProximate Analysis of Meat of Broiler Chickens fed the Experimental Diets\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe result revealed that meat of birds fed on the 150g FFSSWPM and the control diet had high moisture content than the other treatments (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The differences observed in the protein content of the chicken meat were probably due to the birds fed with different protein content in the treatment diets. According to [ 18] the nutrition, muscle function, age, breed and gender of the animal are factors that bring about disparities in the protein content. The result obtained from this study is in agreement with that of [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] who reported moisture content in a range of 75.51–72.50, 21.80–19.50% protein, 5.71–1.97% ether extract and ash content of 1.54–1.37% for broiler meat of chicken fed on different barley based diets. Nonetheless, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] also reported the protein content of breast muscle-plus-skin to range from 21.9 to 23.5%, fat content of 3.9 to 8.45%, ash content of 1.02 to 1.2% and moisture content of 68.9 to 72.3%. Onibi, (2006) established that the nutritional value of meat is affected by how the animal is reared, produced and prepared. \u003cb\u003eKumar and Rani\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] also observed that the chemical composition of breast meat depends on the type of dietfed to the animal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMicrobial Counts of Chicken Meat\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeat though low in fat and carbohydrate is a suitable protein source. Due to the constitute elements of meat, it tends to attract and support the growth of pathogenic microorganisms which cause spoilage and food related diseases [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Poultry meat is nutritious and has a favourable pH making them suitable medium for microbial growth [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Different types of microorganisms are attracted and grow on meat and meat products. The growth and activities of this microorganism depends on several factors including, storage temperature, texture, PH of the meat and meat products [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Healthy muscles do not contain microorganism however, the slaughtering process, environmental conditions at the abattoir, slaughtering and transportation process as well conditions at the sales point do influence the growth of microorganism on meat and meat products [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe result presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e indicated that the microbial load increased with storage time. Report from [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] states that a microbial load above 10\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e cfu/g or 10000000 log10 cfu/gis an indication of spoilage. The total microbial load of the chicken meat increased as the meat stayed longer from day seven (7) to fourteen days (14) among the dietary treatments. The result showed that the FFSSWPM inclusion in the diets of the broiler did not have any effect on the microbial load of the meat compared to the control as their values are statistically similar when treated on the same dilution factor (cfu/g).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total viable counts had similar values among the treatments. The increase in time of storage produced significant proliferations (uncountable number of organisms) in total viable count on the 14th day despite the treatment conditions. The total viable counts obtained in this study on the seventh day were higher than what was obtained by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] that is 5.25 log10 cfu g-1 from chicken breast. In comparing the test organisms it was observed that the T4 had the highest \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e counts while T5 had the highest \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e, and Fungus counts. The high presence of these harmful food poisoning bacteria (\u003cem\u003eSalmonella, E. coli\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e) in the chicken meat is not advisable to be eaten as it can bring serious problem to consumers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis high prevalence of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e in the chicken meat on the fourteenth day was attributed to poor hygiene and the technique used in opening the abdomen such as the technique of hand evisceration practiced with infrequent hand washing probably introduced this bacteria [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cb\u003eEFSA [33] and\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] reported that \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e is mostly isolated from the slaughtering environments and gastrointestinal tracts of animals especially poultry. The presence of \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas,Salmonella,E. coli\u003c/em\u003e and fungus in the chicken meat can be attributed to contaminations from the environment hence proper hygienic measures should be followed in slaughter houses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions and recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFeeding of broiler chickens with the fermented whole pod meal showed no antioxidant or antimicrobial activity in the meat. Also feeding of the broiler chicken with the fermented whole pod meal reduced the total cholesterol content of the meat by 40–65%. Therefore it can be concluded that the FFSSWPM is a valuable feed ingredient to be included at 60 and 150 g kg\u003csup\u003e− 1\u003c/sup\u003e of broiler chickens diets without any harmful effects on the meat quality attributes but lowered the total cholesterol content in the chicken meat. On the basis of the findings and conclusions it is recommended that 150 g/kg FFSSWPM diet should be used to reduce the total cholesterol content in the chicken meat. Different concentrations of the ethanolic whole pod extract should be put in the drinking water of broilers or other poultry to determine its antioxidant and antimicrobial potentials on the meat and meat product.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eFunding \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere was no funding for the study\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eEthics approval\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Ethics Committee approved the right to conduct this research and certify that the study was conducted in accordance of standard operating procedures of Research Ethics. Thus, this study was carried out in accordance with the university research ethics standards and guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"3\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eClinical trial number: \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study is not a clinical trial hence, clinical number not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"4\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"5\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eConsent to Publish declarations from co-authors:\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"6\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eAuthor contribution declaration\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author conceive the idea, developed the topic, design and developed the methodology undertook the study, collected data, analyze the data and develop the manuscript. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"7\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eCorresponding Author email address: \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\[email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"8\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003eData Availability \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003col start=\"9\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cu\u003ePlant reproducibility -\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor this study reproducibility is not applicable \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarroeta, A. C. (2006). Nutritive value of poultry meat: Relationship between vitamin E and PUFA. \u003cem\u003eWorlds Poultry Science Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 63: 277 \u0026ndash; 284.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGivens, D. I. (2009). Animal nutrition and lipids in animal products and their contribution to human intake and health. \u003cem\u003eNutrients\u003c/em\u003e,1: 71 \u0026ndash; 82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsei, S. A. (2010). The influx of imported animal products onto the Ghanaian market and the impact on animal production, processing and marketing: The case of poultry meat. \u003cem\u003eGhanaian Journal of Animal Science\u003c/em\u003e, 5 (1): 1 \u0026ndash; 9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUkoha, P. O., Egbuonu, A., Cemaluk, C. Obasi, L. N. \u0026amp; Ejikeme, P. M. (2011). Tannins and other phytochemical of the \u003cem\u003eSamanaea saman \u003c/em\u003epods and their antimicrobial activities. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e, 5(8): 237 - 244.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuke, J.A. and Wain, K.K. (1981) Medicinal Plants of the World. Computer Index with More than 85,000 Entries, 3 Vols.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA.M.S.A. (1995). Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Fresh Beef. American Meat Science Assoc., Chicago, U.S.A., pp. 240.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDirinck, P., De Winne, A., Casteels, M. \u0026amp; Frigg, M. (1996). Studies on vitamin E and meat quality. 1. Effect of feeding high vitamin E levels on time-related pork quality. \u003cem\u003eJournal Agricultural Food Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e, 44: 65 - 68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAssociation of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (1990).Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Edition Arlington, Virginia, USA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNaeem, E. N., Ahmad, T., \u0026amp; Behzahani, M. (1995). Rapid and simple method for determination of cholesterol in processed food. \u003cem\u003eJournal of AOAC International\u003c/em\u003e, 78: 1522 - 1525.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBragagnolo, N. \u0026amp; Rodriguez-Amaya, D. B. (2001).Total lipid, cholesterol, and fatty acids of farmed freshwater prawn (\u003cem\u003emacrobrachium rosenbergii\u003c/em\u003e) and wild marine shrimp (\u003cem\u003epenaeus brasiliensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003epenaeus schimitti\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003exiphopenaeus kroyeri\u003c/em\u003e). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Food Comp. Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, 14: 359 - 369.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStewart, G., Gosselin, C. \u0026amp; Pandian, S. (1992). Selected ion monitoring of tert- butyldimethylsilyl cholesterol ethers for determination of total cholesterol content in foods. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e, 44: 377 \u0026ndash; 380.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkayama, T., Imai, T. \u0026amp; Yamanous, M. (1987). Effect of ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol on storage stability of beef steaks. \u003cem\u003eMeat Science\u003c/em\u003e, 21: 267 - 273.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFletcher, D. L., (2002). Poultry meat quality. \u003cem\u003eWorld\u0026rsquo;s Poultry Science Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 58: 131 \u0026ndash; 145.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBragagnolo, N. (2009). In: Handbook of Muscle Foods Analysis. Nollet LML, Toldra F, editor. Florida: CRC Press; Cholesterol and Cholesterol Oxides in Meat and Meat Products; pp. 187 \u0026ndash; 219.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePadre, R. G., Aricetti, J. A., Moreira, F. B., Matsushita, M., de Souza, N. E., Visentainer, J. V., Do Prado, I. N.,\u0026amp; Mizubuti, I. Y. (2006). Fatty acid profile, chemical composition of longissimus muscle of bovine steers and bulls finished in pasture system. \u003cem\u003eMeat Science\u003c/em\u003e, 74: 242 \u0026ndash; 248.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar, R. P. \u0026amp; Rani, M. S. (2014). Chemical composition of chicken of various commercial brands available in market. \u003cem\u003eIOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science\u003c/em\u003e, 7(7): 22 - 26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaturasitha, S., Kayan, A. \u0026amp; Wicke, M. (2008). Carcass and meat characteristics of male chickens between Thai indigenous compared with improved layer breeds and their crossbred. \u003cem\u003eArch Tierzucht\u003c/em\u003e. 51: 283 \u0026ndash; 294.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurslow, P. P. (2005). Intramusclar connective tissue and role in meat quality. \u003cem\u003eMeat Science\u003c/em\u003e, 70: 435 - 447.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoharrery, A. (2006). Comparison of performance and digestibility characteristics of broiler fed diets containing treated hulled barley. \u003cem\u003eCzechslovakian Journal of Animal Science\u003c/em\u003e, 51(3): 122-145.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eŽledner, B., Holcman, A. \u0026amp; Rajar, A. (1995). The effect of provenance of chickens on dressing percentage and meat composition. Research Reports Biotechnical Faculty University of Ljubljana, Agricultural Issue (Zootechnica), Supplement 22, 3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e International Symposium Animal Science Days. Perspectives in the production of various kinds of meat. \u003cem\u003eBled, Slovenia\u003c/em\u003e, Pp. 233 - 239.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eN\u0026oslash;rrung, B., Andersen, J. K. \u0026amp; Buncic, S. (2009). Main Concerns of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Meat Safety of Meat and Processed Meat. F. Toldr\u0026aacute;, ed. (Springer New York), Pp. 3 - 29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKomba, E. V. G., Komba, E. V., Mkupasi, E. M., Mbyuzi, A. O., Mshamu, S., Luwumbra, D., Busagwe, Z. \u0026amp; Mzula, A. (2012). Sanitary practices and occurrence of zoonotic conditions in cattle at slaughter in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania: implications for public health. \u003cem\u003eTanzania Journal of Health Resources\u003c/em\u003e, 14 (2): 6-25\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad, M., Rajapaksha, A. U., Lim, J. E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S. S., \u0026amp; Ok, Y. S. (2014). Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: a review. \u003cem\u003eChemosphere\u003c/em\u003e, 99: 19 \u0026ndash; 33\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, M. Y., Zhou, G. H., Xu, X. L., Li, C. B. \u0026amp; Zhu, W. Y. (2006). Changes of bacterial diversity and main flora in chilled pork during storage using PCRDGGE. \u003cem\u003eFood Microbiology\u003c/em\u003e, 23 (7): 607 - 611.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdu Gyamfi, A., Torgby-Tetteh, W., \u0026amp; Appiah, V. (2012). Microbiological Quality of Chicken Sold in Accra and Determination of D10-Value of \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eFood Nutrition Science\u003c/em\u003e, 3 (5): 693 - 698.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdzitey, F. (2011). Effect of pre-slaughter animal handling on carcass and meat quality. \u003cem\u003eInternational Food Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 18: 484 - 490.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdzitey, F., Rusul, G. \u0026amp; Huda, N. (2012). Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella serovars\u003c/em\u003e in ducks, duck rearing and processing environments in Penang, Malaysia. \u003cem\u003eFood Research International\u003c/em\u003e, 45: 947 \u0026ndash; 952.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErcolini, D., Russo, F., Torrieri, E., Masi, P. \u0026amp;Villani, F. (2006). Changes in the spoilage-related microbiota of beef during refrigerated storage under different packaging conditions. \u003cem\u003eApplied Environmental Microbiology\u003c/em\u003e, 72(7): 4663 - 4671.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdams, M. R. \u0026amp;Moss, M. O. (2008). Food Microbiology.3rd edition. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, p. 463.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlvarez-Astorga et al. (2002)\u0026Aacute;lvarez\u0026ndash;Astorga M, Capita R, Alonso\u0026ndash;Calleja C, Moreno B, Garc\u0026iacute;a\u0026ndash;Fern\u0026aacute;ndez C.(2002) Microbiological quality of retail chicken by\u0026ndash;products in Spain. \u003cem\u003eMeat Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 62(1):45\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuban, S. W., Thiyageeswaran, M. \u0026amp; Sharadha, R. (2010). Isolation and identification of \u003cem\u003eSalmonella\u003c/em\u003e spp. from retail chicken meat by polymerase chain reaction. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Microbiology Research\u003c/em\u003e, 1(3): 106 \u0026ndash; 109.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuban, S. W. \u0026amp; Fairoze, N. (2011). Effect of Proceesing Conditions on Microbiological Quality of Market Poultry Meats in Bangalore, India. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Animal and Veterinary Advances\u003c/em\u003e, 10: 188 \u0026ndash; 191.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEFSA (2007). The community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and antimicrobial resistance and foodborne outbreaks in the European Union in 2006 \u003cem\u003eThe EFSA Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 130(3) 352 -378\u003cs\u003e\u003c/s\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Broiler chicken, Samanea saman, Aspergillus niger fermented","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6615496/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6615496/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe study examined the meat quality attributes of broiler chicken fed with unfermented and \u003cem\u003eAspergillus niger\u003c/em\u003e fermented \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e whole pod meal. The study was conducted with 360 broiler chickens for 5 weeks. \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e whole pod meal was fermented with a fungus \u003cem\u003eAspergillus niger\u003c/em\u003e for 10 days and included at levels of 0. 60, 90, 120 and 150g kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003ein diets to substitute soyabean meal. Five experimental diets were formulated: a control diet which had 0kg of Samanea saman meal and four other diets containing FFSSWP meal at various levels. The experiment commenced after brooding the broiler chickens for 21 days by randomly allotting 18 birds each into five treatments with four replications in a complete randomized design (CRD).The experimental diets and water were provided ad-libitum to the broiler chickens throughout the feeding trial. At 8weeks of age the birds were slaughtered and studies done with the carcass. Following meat qualities were assessed pH, cooking loss, water holding capacity, meat cholesterol, The results indicated that feeding of broiler chickens with the fermented whole pod meal showed no antioxidant or antimicrobial activity in the meat. Also feeding of the broiler chicken with the fermented whole pod meal reduced the total cholesterol content of the meat by 40\u0026ndash;65%. Therefore it can be concluded that the FFSSWPM is a valuable feed ingredient to be included at 60 and 150 g kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e of broiler chickens diets without any harmful effects on meat quality attributes but lowered the total cholesterol content in the chicken meat. Farmers should be encourage to use fungus fermented \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e and also further studies should be conduced on how to include \u003cem\u003eSamanea saman\u003c/em\u003e meal into the feed diet of broiler chicken.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"An assessment of meat quality attributes of Broiler chicken fed with Samanea saman meal","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-16 11:41:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6615496/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"92b74eb7-a825-4abe-b8ff-cf04c1f61774","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-29T09:09:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-16 11:41:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6615496","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6615496","identity":"rs-6615496","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}