000			03185nam a2200289 a 4500
003			OSt
005			20230302163827.0
008			070810s19uu xx 00 eng d
040			_cCvSU Main Campus Library
041	0		_aeng
082	0	4	_a636.513 _bL39 1998
100	1	0	_aLavilla, Richard C. _eauthor
245	1	0	_aUtilization of native chicken meat for hamburger patty production / _cby Richard C. Lavilla.
260	0		_aIndang, Cavite, _c1998. _bCavite State University- Main Campus,
300			_a40p. _ccm. _billustrations ;
336			_2rdacontent _atext
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume
500			_aThesis (BSA--Animal Science) Cavite State University
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references.
520	3		_aLavilla, Richard, Calubayan, Cavite State University, Indang, Cavite. April 1998. "Utilization of Native Chicken Meat for Hamburger Patties Production." Dr. Pedro Q. Olabe, thesis adviser. A study on utilisation of native chicken meat for hamburger patty production was conducted at the Institute of Food Science and Technology Laboratory of the Cavite State University, Indang, Cavite. It aimed to determine the physical, chemical and sensory properties and the production cost of hamburger using native chicken meat to replace broilers in the formulation. Broiler and native chicken were used as the base ingredients. The study was composed of the following treatments, 1 with 100 percent broiler, 2 with 75 percent broiler and 25 percent native chicken meat, 3 with 50 percent broiler and native chicken meat, 4 with 25 percent broiler and 75 percent native chicken meat and 5 with 100 percent native chicken meat. The treatments are arranged in a Complete Randomised Design (CRD). Data were analysed statistically using the variation of Complete Randomised Design (CRD), Randomised Complete Block Design (RCED) and Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Results of sensory evaluation indicated significant differences (P <0.01) in terms of colour. Dressed patties from Treatment 1 were significantly (P 0.01) lighter than there in the other treatments. Samples were (13 'H).05) in terms of flavour, off flavour, tenderness, juiciness except in general acceptability. In terms of general acceptability, Treatment 1 had highest general acceptability although not better than that Treatment 2. Consumers' acceptance test using 50 male and 50 female consumers revealed that samples were equally acceptable. Physical characteristics of the five hamburger formulations showed that treatments had essentially similar (P >0.01) pH, cooking yield, water holding capacity and stability emulsion. Treatment 1 (100% broiler) had the lowest cost of production. Increasing the native chicken in the preparation correspondingly increased the production cost.
541			_cSubmitted to the University Library _d04-14-1998 _eT-1776
650		0	_aBroiler _99685
690			_91367 _aBachelor of Science in Agriculture _xAnimal Science
856			_uhttp://library.cvsu.edu.ph/cgi-bin/koha/opac-retrieve-file.pl?id=3e23352179d1c0ca990e3674066dbeff _yClick here to view the Abstract and Table of Contents
942			_2ddc _cMAN
999			_c7083 _d7083