UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA TERENGGANU

PRACTICAL REPORT
STM3111
FOOD CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Proximate Analysis of Chemical Components of Chicken Ball

GROUP NO: 5 (Morning Session)

GROUP MEMBERS:

Matrix No. Name Signature

S39044 Yong Pui Yee
S38971 Maisarah binti Ali
S38978 Nabilah binti Mohamed Mukhtar
S39002 Nur Hidayanis binti Nahrowi
S40410 Norsafika binti Sulaiman
S39007 Nur Syahira Afiza binti Zakaria
S38965 Hanna Sofea binti Azmi
S39013 Nurul Afifah binti Ahmad Zhari

DATE OF PRACTICAL: From 21st February 2017 until 14th March 2017

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26th March 2017

Bachelor of Food Science (Food Technology)

School of Food Science and Technology
 Proximate Composition of Chicken Ball
Yong, P.Y., Hidayanis.N. , N.S.Sulaiman. , Nabilah.M. , Afifah.M., Hanna.S.A. ,
S.Afiza. , and Maisarah.A.

School of Food Science and Technology

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Terengganu
Terengganu, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

The experiment was conducted to investigate the contents of the major food component which
are moisture and ash, crude fat, crude protein and crude fiber in chicken ball. We also want to
investigate the methods that used to analyse each of the composition in chicken ball. In
addition, we also used different test to determine the content of each composition in chicken
ball. Moreover, the moisture content was determined by standard oven drying and infrared
drying method, total ash was determined by standard oven drying, crude fat was used LABTEC
ST310 system, for protein was used Kjeltec method whereas crude fiber was determined by
using Gerhard FiberBag system. All data were reported in wet basis. This study found that the
proximate composition of chicken ball, on average, 63.5725% moisture content, 2.0% total
ash, 13.59% crude fat, 9.9875% crude protein, 0.5492% crude fiber and 10.3008%
carbohydrate. From the result, we can conclude that chicken ball has higher fat content and
lower fiber content.

Keywords: Chicken ball, moisture content, ash, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber,
carbohydrates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Meatballs are classified as finely comminute meat products, sometimes referred to as

meat emulsions (Hsu and Sun, 2006). Meatballs are among popular meat products in Malaysia.
Commonly meatballs are consumed with noodles in the Southeast Asian Region (Huda et al.,
2009). Bennet (1947), points out that proximate analysis can be defined as the determination
of a group of closely related components together like total protein and fat. It conventionally
includes the determinations of moisture content, ash, crude protein, crude fat and crude fiber.
The quality of meatballs can be affected by various types of factors either in terms of
nutritional value or the acceptability among its consumer. Oat bran and rice bran were used as
replacement for fat in order to produce low fat emulsified meatballs (Yilmaz and Daglioglu,
2003; Huang et al., 2005). They found that lower concentration of total fat and total trans-fat
acid as compared to the control in the meatballs containing oat and rice bran. Previously, Huda
et al (2009) found that the decrease in protein content and the increase in carbohydrate content
due to the increase in starch content that act as extender as substitute for raw meat in the
manufacturing of chicken balls. In addition, starch can also increase the gel strength and freeze-
thaw stability of meatballs if appropriate starch is added in proper level (Serdaroglu et al.,
2005). According to Food Act (1983) and Food Regulations (1985), the minimum requirement
of meat content in manufacturing of any processed meat includes chicken balls, must contain
not less than 65 per cent of meat. It shall contain not less than 1.7 per cent of nitrogen in organic
combination and shall not contain more than 30 per cent of fat.
There are many varieties of meatballs can be found in the Malaysian market. The types
of meatballs can be found in Malaysia are including chicken ball, fish ball, squid ball and prawn
ball. However, the most popular and commonly consumed are chicken balls and fish balls.
Huda et al (2009) stated that, chicken is the primary source of meat and is used in most meat-
based products such as meatballs, sausages and nugget in Malaysia. Statistics have shown that
per capita consumption of chicken meat is about 50.1 kg, followed by 6.4 kg for beef
(Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2016). In previous study, the proximate analysis for
Ayamas chicken ball plain are 64.94% of moisture content, 2.53% of ash, 9.87% of fat and
10.04% of protein (Babji and Seri Chempaka, 1995).
Although chicken balls are popular food among Malaysian, but there are increasing
concerns among the consumer regarding the nutritive value of these chicken balls. These days,
consumers more prefer to have real meats than processed meats in the products. Due to the
demands of consumers, many researchers had been conducted on the nutritional and quality
aspects of chicken balls. This study was carried out to investigate the major amount of food
component which are moisture and ash content, crude fat, crude protein and crude fiber in the
chicken balls.
2.0 Literature review

2.1 Chicken balls

2.1.1 Definition and history of Chicken ball
Chicken balls are a food consisting of small, spherical or nearly spherical pieces of
chicken. They are prepared and eaten in several different cuisines. Chicken balls are a type of
modern Chinese food served in Canada, United States, and the United Kingdom as a staple of
Chinese take-out. The dish consists of small chunks of fried chicken breast meat covered in a
crispy batter coating. They are often served with curry sauce, sweet and sour sauce or plum
sauce. These are largely unheard of in China, depending on the recipe and referred name.
Another kind of chicken balls, which are similar to southern Chinese fish balls, may be found
in countries in East and Southeast Asia.
In Malaysia, chicken is the primary source of meat and is used in most meat-based
products such as meatballs, nugget and sausages. Statistics have shown that per capita
consumption of chicken meat is about 37.7 kg, followed by 5.06 kg for beef (Ministry of
Agriculture, 2005). In the past, meatballs production originated from small family-based
enterprises. However, increasing demand for meatballs products in recent year have changed
the meatballs manufacturing into large-scale production. Many factories have been developed
in Malaysia to increase output and to fulfil the increasing demand for meatballs in the country.

2.1.2 Proximate composition

The varying proximate composition of chicken balls among brands was mainly due to
the different formulations used for the production of these products. Protein content in
meatballs mainly comes from meat. Generally, the protein content present in chicken meat is
not significantly different. The amount and the type of meat used in each formulation make the
protein content in the products different. Fat present in meatballs may come from the meat
naturally or from oil/fats added into the meatballs to serve several functions. The higher range
fat content may indicate higher usage of fatty material in some brands in place of chicken meat.
Vegetables oil is often added in meatball formulation to improved mouth feel and gives
a lubrication effect in meat emulsions. The carbohydrate content in meatballs varied greatly
among the brands of chicken balls, indicating higher usage of meat substitute in some brands.
Starch is added to act as a source of carbohydrate and to thicken the texture of meatballs in the
past. Today, starch is extensively used as stabilizers, texturizers, water or fat binders and
emulsifier. Apart from these, starch can also increase gel strength and freeze-thaw stability of
meatballs if appropriate starch are added in proper level (Serdaroglu et al., 2005).

Table 1: Ingredient information on the package of commercial chicken balls.

Source: Mal J Nutr 1: 83-94, 1995

Table 2.1: Proximate composition of commercial chicken balls (%)

Source: Mal J Nutr 1: 83-94, 1995

According to table 2.1 the total moisture is in the range of 64.33 -72.81. The total
protein is between of 9.93-15.06. The fat content is 1.92-2.82, and carbohydrate content is from
8.43-20.85. Based on table, all chicken balls varied slightly in protein and ash content but
showed big differences in their fat and carbohydrate content

2.1.3 Antioxidant Properties

Meat products are susceptible to rancidity, which is fat oxidation. Some commonly used
meat processing ingredients moderately counteract oxidation, e.g. nitrite, ascorbic acid,
phosphates and also some spices. Normally the presence of some of the substances such as
nitrite, ascorbic acid/erythorbate and phosphates will provide sufficient protection in the short
term. For longer storage, the products should be vacuum-packed, not exposed to light and kept
under good refrigeration, all measures, which can help to protect against oxidation. In industrial
meat processing, additional chemicals antioxidants (such as tocopherol/chemically equivalent
to vitamin E) may be used in particular for products with high fat content.
Antioxidants are added to fresh and processed meat and meat products to prevent lipid
oxidation, retard development of off-flavours, and improve colour stability. In the food
industry, they can be divided into natural and synthetic antioxidants. However, synthetic
antioxidants have been identified as toxicological and carcinogenic agents in some studies
(Abraham and others 1986; Ahmad and others 1995; Sarafian and others 2002; Faine and others
2006). Thus, the food industry now chooses natural products over synthetic ones.
Mariutti and others (2011) studied the effect of the addition of sage and garlic on lipid
and cholesterol oxidation in chicken meat, in the presence of salt as prooxidant. These authors
found that the content of unsaturated fatty acids did not change in the presence of sage; on the
contrary, with garlic, the contents of these fatty acids were decreased after cooking and storage.

2.2 Composition of chicken burger

In North America, the sandwich usually consists of a chicken filet or patty, toppings
and bread. The chicken can be deep fried, grilled, roasted or boiled, served hot or cold, and
white or dark meat chicken can be used. Shredded chicken in one form or another, such as
chicken salad, can also be used in chicken sandwiches. Wrap versions of the sandwich can also
be made, in which the ingredients are rolled up inside a flatbread, such as a tortilla.

2.2.1 Proximate compositions

According to table 2.2, moisture content were varies from 49.43-57.89%. Fats content
were ranged from 9.08-19.47%. Food Regulation of Malaysia states that the fat content in
processed meat products should not exceed 30% (Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations, 1985).
The function of Fat is mainly influencing the sensory quality of burgers, particularly its flavour
(Suman and Sharma, 2003). Low-fat burgers usually consist of fat contents at 10% or below
(Dreeling et al., 2000; Suman and Sharma, 2003; Troy et al., 1999; Turhan et al., 2009). Some
of the brands are considered to have low fat burgers such as CCB1, CCB3.
Low fat can be achieved as more water is added in meat batter and this will increase
the moisture content (Jimnez Colmenero, 1996). Protein contents of burgers analysed in this
study were ranged from 12.71-18.77%. Food Regulation of Malaysia requires a minimum limit
of nitrogen content in organic form for processed meat products to be less than 1.7%, which is
equal to 10.625% protein content (Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations 1985). However, many
of the protein sources used in commercial burgers ingredients used presently are partially
substituted with non-meat protein source.
Carbohydrates content determined in the present study were ranged from 10.42-
21.27%. Carbohydrates in burgers are mainly from the use of starches as ingredients. Starches,
such as maize, tapioca, rice, potato, and wheat, have been used in processed meat products as
meat filler and water binder (Joly and Anderstein, 2009). Apart from that, ash content analysed
were varies from 1.92-2.56%. Ashes are sum of the total minerals presented in food such as
sodium, phosphorus and iron, which can be contributed by the meat as raw material, salt and
spices added (Fernndez-Lpez et al., 2006).

Table 2.2 the proximate composition of commercial burgers

Carbohydrate
Sample Moisture (%) Fat (%) Protein (%) Ash (%)
(%)
CCB1 54.50 +0.13 9.08 +0.21 12.71 +1.24 2.45 +0.03 21.27 1.29

CCB2 49.43 +0.28 19.47 +0.11 18.77 +0.19 1.92 +0.02 10.42 0.00

CCB3 57.89 +0.22 9.60 +0.03 17.25 +0.21 2.56 +0.03 12.71 0.42

Source: International Food Research Journal

CCB1: Chicken meat, soy protein, salt, food conditioner, flavouring, monosodium glutamate
(MSG).

CCB2: Chicken meat, soy protein, spices, salt, flavouring, food conditioner.

CCB3: Chicken meat, vegetable oil, spices, sugar, salt, starch, flour, food conditioner

2.2.2 Dietary Fiber

Dietary Fiber (DF) is defined as lignin and the polysaccharide components of plants
which are indigestible by enzymes in human gastrointestinal tract. Increased intake of DF has
been strongly recommended because of their effects in decreasing the risk of diabetes, colon
cancer, obesity and cardiovascular illnesses in human. Various works have showed the useful
influences of DF consumption against many diseases (McKee and Latner, 2000; WHO/FAO,
2003).Dietary Fiber is one of the components (amino acids, peptides and proteins, vitamins
and minerals, antioxidants, oligosaccharides, sugars/alcohols, glucosides, etc.) that have been
identified as having potentially useful functional effects for human health.
Dietary Fiber can be added into meat products, to reduce the caloric value by fat
replacement and to improve the stability and texture of meat products. Various types of dietary
fibers (wheat bran, oat bran, rye bran, rice bran, peach dietary Fiber, carrot dietary Fiber, lemon
albedo, sugar beet Fiber, brewers spent grain, etc.) have been examined with other ingredients
for the formulation of reduced-fat and Dietary Fibers rich meat products. Dietary Fiber added
into foods can stabilize high fat food and emulsions, modify textural properties, improve shelf-
life and avoid synaeresis. Meat products are certainly main source of food proteins with high
biological value in various countries. Meat is also a perfect source of some soluble vitamins
and minerals, essential fats, and all these components have specific function to our body
(Biswas et al., 2011). However, most of the meat products are lack in complex carbohydrates
like DF. Nowadays, supplementation of DF in meat products has acquiring higher prestige.
Sufficiency of the dietary Fiber supplementation in foods is rising due to the plenty of effectual
properties (Akoh, 1998; Jimnez-Colmenero, 1996).

2.3 Principle of Proximate Analysis

Proximate are used in the analysis of biological materials as a decomposition of a
human-consumable good into its major constituents. Nutritional assay must be conducted on
the product to qualify. Substance will be extracted from its complex form without destroying
or altering its chemical properties. Proximate include five constituents which are Ash,
Moisture, Proteins, Fat and Carbohydrates. There are additional ingredients that may fall under
the category of one of the five constituents. It is important to remember that proximate analysis
is not a nutrient analysis, rather it is a partitioning of both nutrients and non-nutrients into
categories based on common chemical properties. Although proximate analysis does not give
the entire nutritional assay, they are an inexpensive way to track deviations from the quality of
foods.
The analyses included in this group are applied firstly to materials to be used in
formulating a diet as a protein or energy source as a control to check that they meet the
specifications or requirements established during formulation. These analyses will show the
moisture, crude protein (total nitrogen), crude fibre, crude lipids, ash and nitrogen-free extract
content of the sample. A fuller description of these analyses can be found in Osborne and Voogt
(1978), MAFF (1982) and AOAC (1984).

2.3.1 Analysis of moisture

According to AOCS standard methods, analysis of moisture content in food is basically
based on the fact that Moisture content is one of the most commonly measured properties of
food materials. It is important to determine food quality. The texture, taste, appearance and
stability of foods depend on the amount of water they contain. It also important for food
processing operations. Knowledge of the moisture content is often necessary to predict the
behavior of foods during processing, e.g. mixing, drying, flow through a pipe or packaging.

2.3.2 Analysis of ash

According to AOCS standard methods, analysis of ash content in food is basically based
on the fact ash content is a measure of the total amount of minerals present within a food,
whereas the mineral content is a measure of the amount of specific inorganic components
present within a food, such as Ca, Na, K and Cl. Ash is the inorganic residue remaining after
the water and organic matter have been removed by heating in the presence of oxidizing agents
which gives the total amount of mineral in the food. The ash content is determined by ignition
of a known weight of the food at 550 until all carbon has been removed. The residue is the
ash and is taken to represent the inorganic constituents of the food. Firstly, dry ashing for the
majority of the samples, then wet ashing the sample if high in fat content.

2.3.3 Analysis of crude fat

Determination of Crude Fat Crude fat is the term used to refer to the crude mixture of
fat-soluble material present in a sample. Crude fat is the traditional measure of fat in food
products. The lipid materials may include triglycerides, diglycerides, monoglycerides,
phospholipids, steroids, free fatty acids, fat soluble vitamins, carotene pigments, chlorophylls,
etc. They include an acid hydrolysis method (AOAC Method 954.02), a traditional Soxhlet
extraction method with diethyl ether (AOAC Method 920.39), Soxhlet extraction with
petroleum ether (AOAC Method 945.16), a modified Soxhlet procedure for meat products by
submerging test samples in the boiling diethyl ether for reducing testing time, also known as
Randall submersion method (AOAC Method 991.36; Randall, 1974).
2.3.4 Analysis of crude protein
Crude protein is measured using Kjeldahls method. In this method the food is digested
with sulphuric acid, which converts to ammonia all nitrogen present except that in the form of
nitrate and nitrite. This ammonia is liberated by adding sodium hydroxide to the digest, distilled
off and collected in standard acid, the quantity so collected being determined by titration or by
an automated colorimetric method. Because of its cost this is the most important dietary
nutrient in a commercial operation; proper evaluation of it means that the quality of protein
intake or of the feed being provided can be controlled. Analysis is by Kjeldahl's method, which
evaluates the total nitrogen content of the sample after it has been digested in sulphuric acid.

2.3.5. Analysis of crude Fiber

Determination of Crude Fiber which is the organic residue remaining after digesting
with H2SO4 and NaOH. The compounds removed are predominantly protein, sugar, starch,
lipids and portions of both the structural carbohydrates and lignin. The difference in weight
after calcination indicates the quantity of fiber present.

3.0 MATERIAL AND METHOD

3.1 Materials
Chicken ball samples were donated by Chemical Analysis Laboratory, School of Food Science
and Technology, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia.

3.2 Proximate Analyses

All the following analyses were done in two replications. All data were reported in wet basis
in the form of mean standard deviation.

3.2.1. Determination of Moisture Content

The moisture content of chicken ball was used standard oven drying. The crucible and
the lid were dried in the oven at 100 (30 minutes). After that, it was cold in the desiccator
and the weighed was measured accurately without the lid. Then they were weighed 2.0g
accurately the sample in crucible. After weighed, they were dried the sample in oven drying at
105C. The lift was not properly closed. Then, the dried ingredients were dried for 6 hours
while the moist ingredients were dried for 24 hours until the weight constant. After drying, the
sample in the crucible was cold in the desiccator and was weighed without lid.
The percentage of moisture content was calculated as follows:
Moisture content (%) = [100 Weight of dry matter] x 100
Weight of fresh sample

The moisture content analysis was done in duplicates.

3.3.2. Determination of Total Ash

Total ash content in chicken ball
The total ash of chicken ball was used by using infrared drying method. The 5g
sample was put on infrared tray and spread it evenly. Secondly, the infrared ray equipment was
ON and the time was set until 30 minutes at temperature 110oC. The changes of water loss
every 2 minutes were recorded until the reading constant. Then, it was cooled for a while and
the procedure was repeated to get accurate reading.
Ash % = [Weight of crucible with ash (g)- weight of crucible] 100
Original weight of sample

3.3.3. Determination of Crude Fat

Crude fat was determined by using LABTEC ST310 system. First, the MAINS on the
Control Unit was pressed. The light switch should be lighted up. Second, the appropriate
temperature was set up according to the solvent used (135), to reach the level reflux solvent
which is 3-5 droplets per second. The appropriate program specified in the Control Unit was
selected to determine the time of boiling (15 min), flushing (30 min), foaming (10 min) and
pre-drying (5 min) on the Control Unit. Thirdly, the tap was opened to allow the reflux occurs
in a condenser at Unit Extraction. With the cooling process by water at about 15, the water
flow was adjusted to the rate of 2 liter per min to prevent foaming solvents from the condenser.
Next, the thimbles were prepared and matched to adapter. Then, the sample was prepared by
weighing accurately 2g into the thimbles by using filter paper. After that, the thimble was
placed on thimble stand. The thimble handler was used to enter the thimble with its supporter
into the Extraction Unit. Then, the supporter was removed from the thimble by attaching it to
the magnet in the Extraction Unit. After that, the aluminium extraction cup which has been
dried was weighed. The 70 ml petroleum ether solvent was filled into the extractor cup and the
extractor cup was put into Extraction Unit by using handle. Then, the RUN/STOP button was
pressed. The temperature in the hotplate, which was sufficient to lower the thimble for the
boiling process was indicated by the sound signal. Boiling was allowed to be proceed for 15
min as determined. Condenser valve was opened. After boiling, the position of the thimble was
switched to RINSING and was allowed to be proceed for 30 min as determined. After rinsing,
the thimbles position was switched to RECOVERY. Next, the thimble was switched to
position PRE-DRYING and was let to remove almost all the solvent from the cup extractor.
A solvent was collected back through the duct tube collector. The cup was removed from the
extractor Extraction Unit and the water taps was closed. The extractor cup containing fat was
dried to the 103oC oven for 2 hours. Lastly, the extractor cup was cooled in the desiccator and
was weighed. The thimbles were cleaned.
Percentage of crude fat (%) = (W3 W2 ) / W1 100%
W1 = weight of the sample (g)
W2 = weight of the extraction cup (g)
W3 = weight of the extraction cup + fat

3.3.4. Determination of Crude Protein

Crude protein was determined by using KJELDHAL method. The sample was weighed
accurately 1g in the 250ml digestion tube. Then, 2 tablets of Kieltec Cu 3.5 was added into the
tube. 12ml of concentrated H2SO4 was added with caution into the tube and the tube was
shaken gently to moisten the sample with acid. After that, the tube exhaust system was
connected and the aspirator is made sure to be started functioning. The rack and exhaust system
was locked to the block heater DS6 Digester which has been preheated to 420oC to begin the
process of digestion of the solution. After 5 minutes, the aspirator system was turned off until
the acid fumes can only be formed on the top exhaust system. The digestion process was
continued until the formation of the green or blue clear tube sample. Upon completion of the
digestive process, The rack was removed from tubes. The tubes was cooled vertically for 10-
20 min. 75ml of distilled water was added carefully into the tube which has cooled. This step
was followed by the refining process. The recipient solution was prepared by adding 25ml of
4% boric acid with 10 drops of bromocresol green indicator into a 250ml conical flask. The
receiver solution was subsequently placed into the distillation unit Kieltec 2100. The tube was
placed into the Distillation Unit and the safety door was closed. 50ml 40% NaOH into the tube
was flowed automatically into the tube. The process of distillation was allowed to proceed for
4 min to form a clear green colour on a strip solution. The distilled product was titrated with
0.1N HCl standard solution until clear green colour changed to blue/grey. Lastly, the volume
of titration used was recorded.
 Nitrogen content %= (T-B) N14.007100%
Weight of sample (mg)
Crude protein content %= % nitrogen F

T = volume of titrate for sample

B = volume titrate for blank
N = normality of HCL / acid
F = protein factor: 6.25 / 5.7 / 6.38 depends on type of sample

3.3.5. Determination of Crude Fibre

Crude fibre was determined by using Gerhard FiberBag system. First, they weighed the
dried empty fiberbag by using analytical balance. Then, they weighed the sample accurately
1g into the fiberbag. The fiberbag was inserted into carousal with glass spacers. Then, the
sample was boiled in 360ml of 0.13M H2SO4 for 30 min using Gerhardt Fiberbag System. It
was then rinsed for 3 times with hot distilled water to remove the acid. The sample was boiled
in 360ml of 0.13M NaOH for 30 min. then the sample was then rinsed for 3 times with hot
distilled water to remove the alkali. The fiberbag and empty crucible were dried in the oven for
4 hours at 105 and was cooled in the desiccator. The fiberbag was inserted into the pre-dried
crucible and was weighed together and the fiberbag was incinerated in the furnace for overnight
at 550. The crucible that containing ash was cooled in the desiccator and was weighed. Lastly,
the crude fiber content was calculated.
Crude fiber % = W3 (W1 C) ( W5 W4 D ) 100
W2
W1 = initial weight of capsule (g)
W2 = weight of sample (g)
W3 = weight of capsule + residue of weught (g)
W4 = weight of crucible ashing (g)
W5 = weight of total ashing (include weight of crucible ashing) ( g )
C = blank solution
D = blank capsule ashing (g)
C= W3/W1
D= W5 W4
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 RESULTS

Table 3: This table shows the proximate analysis of food components in Chicken ball.

Properties Percentage in chicken ball sample %

Moisture content 63.93 2.2769
Ash 2.0 0.0523
Crude fat 13.59 0.5233
Crude protein 9.9875 0.2109
Crude fibre 0.5492 0.0232
Carbohydrates 9.9433

4.2 DISCUSSIONS
The proximate composition of the chicken ball sample was shown at the table 3
above. The highest of chemical composition in chicken ball is moisture content while the
lowest is crude fiber. This is because chicken ball was made from meat and the water is the
highest percentage that contained in meat. However, the chicken ball contained lowest fiber
because the most components of poultry meat are fat and protein, except water. And fiber is
the most component of fruits and vegetables.
First of all, we analyzed the sample using oven-drying method such as vacuum oven
drying and infra-red moisture balance drying to determine the moisture and dry basis. In
vacuum oven drying, the percent of the wet basis of the chicken ball sample was (63.93%
2.2769) while the percent of moisture content in chicken ball sample by infrared drying was
(63.5725% 0.9935).The moisture content (63.93% and 63.5725%) was low compared to that
reported for Ayam Al chicken ball (AI cb) (71.36%) and Ayamas chicken ball vegetables (AY
cbv) (64.67%) (Babji AS and Seri Chempaka MY, 1995). However, the moisture content of
the chicken ball sample that we analysed showed a slight higher than Ayamas chicken ball
rending (AY cbr) (61.22%) (Babji AS and Seri Chempaka MY,1995).There are differences
moisture content between our samples with other brands of the chicken ball reported by (Babji
AS and Seri Chempaka MY,1995) because of addictive, binders, spices, colourants,
preservatives and ingredients involved to make this product. Other than that, different brands
produced different manufacturers also resulted different in their proximate composition.
 Besides, other samples that had the similar characteristics with our sample (chicken
ball) was commercial chicken burgers. The percentage of moisture for the sample chicken
burger (CCB1) (54.50% 0.13), chicken burger sample (CCB2) (49.43% 0.28) and chicken
burger sample (CCB3) (57.899% 0.22) reported by (Ramadhan, K., Huda, N. and Ahmad,
R., 2011) was lower than moisture content of the chicken ball samples analysed in our
laboratory. The term burgers was taken originally from the word hamburger which
presumably is a product that originated from Hamburg. Most of European countries regulated
that burgers should contain at least 80% meat and 20-30% of fat content. In other
circumstances, burgers are also recognized as patties (Al-Mrazeeq et al., 2008; Ranken, 2000).
So, we could presumably low fat burger has a high value of weight loss due to its higher
moisture content. This study indicated that Pearsons correlation value between diameter
shrinkage and weight loss is significant at the 0.01 level (R2= 0.654).
Moreover, chicken ball vegetables (2.56%) and Ayamas chicken ball rending (3.03%)
(Babji AS and Seri Chempaka MY, 1995). Ashes are sum of the total minerals presented in
food such as sodium, phosphorus and iron, that can be contributed by the meat as raw material,
salt and spices added (Fernndez-Lpez et al., 2006).So, chicken ball rendang showed highest
ash content due to the containing more sodium, phosphorus and iron (contributed by meat as
raw materials, salts, additives, more spices added) compared to the other brands of the chicken
ball products. The samples that having the similar characteristics with our sample (chicken
ball) was commercial chicken burgers. The percent of ash content for the sample chicken
burger (CCB1) (2.45% 0.03), chicken burger sample (CCB2) (1.92% 0.02) and chicken
burger sample (CCB3) (2.56% 0.03) reported by (Ramadhan K., Huda N. and Ahmad
R.,2011). However, sample chicken burger (CCB1) (2.45% 0.03) and sample chicken burger
(CCB3) (3.03%0.03) were higher than chicken ball sample (2.0 0.5233). Ashes was part of
proximate analysis for nutritional evaluation. So, sample chicken burger (CCB3) (3.03%) was
highest percent of the ash content because of the high in particular minerals whereas promoted
highest nutritional evaluation.
The analysis of proximate composition of crude fat in chicken ball sample was (13.59%
0.5233) which was higher than that of reported same samples: Ayamas A1 Chicken Ball and
Ayamas Chicken Ball Rendang with crude fat (6.84% 0.96) and (10.96% 0.37)
respectively. However, our chicken ball sample contained lower crude fat compared to that of
Ayamas Chicken Ball Vegetable which was (21.59% 5.77) (Babji, A.S. and Mohd. Yusof,
S.C., 1995). According to Huda, N., Yap, H.S., Yong, L.H. (2009), the higher crude fat might
indicated the added of fat materials or the fat that came from chicken naturally. Therefore, we
believed that the sample that we used might added some fat material such as vegetable oil or
chicken fat.
Besides, the reported similar samples that we used are different types of chicken
burgers. According to Ramadhan, K., Huda, N. and Ahmad, R. (2011), the crude fat of the
sample commercial chicken burger 2 (CCB2) was (19.47% 0.11) higher than that of our
sample. However, the samples CCB1 and CCB3 were (9.08% 0.21) and (9.60% 0.03)
respectively which were lower when compared to our sample. The reason that we chose
commercial chicken burgers as the similar samples that can be compared with our sample is
both of the products are processed chicken products and thus the ingredients used are slightly
similar. Moreover, the CCB1 and CCB3 contained lower crude fat due to the burgers were
might made from skinless chicken breast which contains 43.4 mg cholesterol per 100g lower
compared with the other parts of chicken which is 95.3mg per 100g (Ramadhan, K., Huda, N.
and Ahmad, R., 2011). Therefore, from this information, we believed that the sample that we
used might made from other parts of chicken rather than chicken breast.
Furthermore, the nitrogen content of our sample is (1.5980.0337), while the crude
protein of our sample that has been proximate analyzed was (9.9875% 0.2109) which were
slightly lower than that of reported same samples: Ayamas A1 Chicken Ball and Ayamas
Chicken Ball Vegetable with crude protein (10.74% 0.06) and (10.12% 0.02) respectively.
However, the crude protein of Ayamas Chicken Ball Rendang was (7.62% 0.51) which was
lower than that of our sample) (Babji, A.S. and Mohd. Yusof, S.C., 1995). According to Huda,
N., Yap, H.S., Yong, L.H. (2009), the differences of protein content that present in the chicken
meat among these samples were not significant. Thus, we believed that non-meat protein source
is not added purposely in making chicken ball.
According to Ramadhan, K., Huda, N. and Ahmad, R. (2011), the crude protein
of the commercial chicken burgers: CCB1, CCB2, and CCB3 were (12.71% 1.24), (18.77%
0.19), and (17.25% 0.21) respectively. Based on the data that we obtained, the crude protein
of our sample was lower than that of the reported similar samples. This is because the addition
of plant-based protein such as soy protein and hydrolysed or texturized vegetable protein into
the chicken burgers. Therefore, we believed that our sample might not added or slightly added
non-meat protein source.
We analysed the sample using Gerhardt FiberBag System to determine the crude fiber
content. In Gerhardt fiberbag, the percent of crude fiber of the chicken ball sample was
(0.5492% 0.0232). The crude fiber content was low compared to that reported for apple
pomace in mutton nuggets content of control was found significantly (p 0.05) lower in
comparison to nuggets formulated with 5%, 10% and 15% apple pomace and was found to
increase significantly (p 0.05) with the increasing levels of apple pomace (Verma et al. (2010)
). Apple pomace is considered as a rich source of nutrition and typically contains crude fibre,
1.50-2.50% (Vasilev et al., 1976). This shows the crude fiber content in the sample chicken
balls is low. This is possible because only a small amount of crude fiber content used in chicken
balls ingredient. So, we believed that our sample had added some fiber source such as carrots.
The mistakes or errors that we usually did during doing experiment. For instance, the level of
eye is incorrect while reading the meniscus in the graduated cylinder or any measuring
container can cause slightly difference of the data that we obtained. In addition, a mis-
calibrated balance will cause all the measured masses to be wrong. Although these problems
are just bring a little different among the data, we still have to avoid in order to get most
accurate and precision data. Therefore, we have to pay more attention during doing experiments
and practice more on reading the meniscus by using correct method.
Based on the data that we obtained, the crude fiber is was the lowest, this is because
crude fiber refers to the indigestible carbohydrate component that is present in plants. Crude
fiber method is one of the gravimetric method that measures the organic food residue remaining
after sequential digestion. Moreover, based on the result, the percent of carbohydrates of the
chicken ball sample was 9.9433%. The percentage of other samples of chicken balls using
different formulations was 9.43% same with percent of our sample. The carbohydrate content
in meatballs varied greatly among the brands of chicken balls, indicating higher usage of meat
substitute in some brands. Starch is added to act as a source of carbohydrate and to thicken the
texture of meatballs in the past. Today, starch is extensively used as stabilizers, texturisers,
water or fat binders and emulsifier. Apart from these, starch can also increase gel strength and
freeze-thaw stability of meatballs if appropriate starch are added in proper level (Serdaroglu et
al., 2005).
In order to get more accurate data, the other method that we could use is the nitrogen-
free extract. A.L. Moxon believed that a new method for determining fiber in feeds has been
shown to retain both the cellulose and the lignin in a single fraction. The nitrogen- free extract
resulting from this determination has been shown to be almost completely digestible. The
proposed method makes possible more determinations within a given time since it is shorter
and requires less equipment than the AOAC method for crude fiber. The values determined by
this method have more meaning with respect to nutritional value of feeds since the division
into digestion-resistant and readily-digestible fractions is more accurate and more complete
than by other simple methods
 Besides, the other method that we could use to get accurate data in determining
moisture content is microwave analyser which is the first precise and rapid technique that
allowed some segments of the food industry to make in-process adjustment of the moisture
content in food products before final packaging. A particular microwave moisture/solids
analyser (CEM Corporation, Matthews, NC), or equivalent, is specified in the AOAC
International procedures for total solids analysis of moisture analysis of meat and poultry
products (AOAC Method 985.14). Microwave drying provides a fast, accurate method to
analyze many foods for moisture content. The method is sufficiently accurate for routine assay.
There are some considerations when using a microwave analyzer for moisture determination:
(1) the sample must be of a uniform, appropriate size to provide for complete drying under the
conditions specified; (2) the sample must be centrally located and evenly distributed, so some
portions are not burned and other areas are under processed; and (3) the amount of time used
to place an appropriate sample weight between the pads must be minimized to prevent moisture
loss or gain before weight determination (Nielson, 2010).
Furthermore, the other method could use to determine ash content of the food sample
accurately by using microwave dry ashing. Advantages of this method compared with
conventional dry ashing in a muffle furnace that often takes many hours, microwave muffle
furnaces (Fig. 7-3) can ash samples in minutes, decreasing analysis time by as much as 97%.
Microwave muffle furnaces can reach temperatures of up to 1200C. These systems may be
programmed with various methods and to automatically warm up and cool down. In addition,
they are equipped with exhaust systems that circulate the air in the cavity to help decrease
ashing times. Some also have scrubber systems to neutralize any fumes. Any crucible that may
be used in a conventional muffle furnace may be used in a microwave furnace, including those
made of porcelain, platinum, quartz, and quartz fiber. Quartz fiber crucibles cool in seconds
and are not breakable. Some systems can process up to 15 (25 ml) crucibles at a time (Nielson,
2010).
Since the Food Regulation of Malaysia states that the fat content in processed meat
products should not exceed 30%, nitrogen content should be less than 1.7%, which is equal
to10.625% protein content (Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations, 1985). Therefore, I believed
that the methods of those analysis are suitable for determining the crude fat and protein of
chicken ball.
5.0 CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that the moisture content was the highest food component contains
in the chicken ball followed by the crude fat, the carbohydrates, crude protein, ash and crude
fiber. Each food components used different method and equipment to determine its contents.
Besides, the components that contained in the chicken ball can be either natured or added
purposely. For instance, fiber and carbohydrates are seldom found in meat, thus the fiber source
ingredients can be added into the chicken ball and also the most of the amount of carbohydrates
might come from the flour while processing chicken ball. Therefore, different brands of
chicken ball might have slightly different amount of chemical components.

REFERENCES

Aamina H., Shahnaz P., Sajad A.R, Rehana A , Massarat H. )2014). Effect of Incorporation
Of Apple Pomace on the Physico-Chemical, Sensory and Textural Properties Of
Mutton Nuggets. Retrieved from http://www.journalijar.com
AOAC, 2000. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
17th edition. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC
Babji,A.S. (1995). The Nutritional Value of Some Processed Meat Products In
Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.752&rep=rep1&type=p
df
Babji, A. S. and Seri Chempaka, M. Y. (1995). Nutritional value of some processed meat
products in Malaysia. Malaysia Journal of Nutrition, 1:83-94.
Bennet, H. (1947). Concise chemical and technical dictionary. The Journal of Physical
Chemistry, 51(5):1217-1218.
Biswas AK, Kumar V, Bhosle S, Sahoo J, Chatli MK, 2011: Dietary Fiber As Functional
Ingredients in Meat Products And Their Role In Human Health. Int J Livestock Prod,
2 (4), 45-54.
Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2016). Supply and Utilization Accounts Selected
Agricultural Commodities, Malaysia 2011-2015, https://www.dosm.gov.my. Date of
accessed March 16, 2017.
Fernndez-Lpez, J., Jimnez, S., Sayas-Barber, E., Sendra, E. and Prez-Alvarez, J. A.

(2006). Quality Characteristics of Ostrich (Struthio Camelus) Burgers. Meat Science

73(2): 295-303.

Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations 1985. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MDC Publishers SDN
BHD.
Hsu, S. Y. and Sun, L. Y. (2006). Effects of salt, phosphates, potassium sorbate and sodium
erythorbate on qualities of emulsified meatball. Journal of Food Engineering, 73: 246-
252.
Huda, N., Yap, H. S., Yong, L. H. (2009). Proximate composition, colour, texture profile of
Malaysian chicken balls. Pakistani Journal of Nutrition, 8(10): 1555-1558
Huang, S. C., Shiau, C. Y., Liu, T. E., and Hwang, D. F. (2005). Effects of rice bran on sensory
and physico-chemical properties of emulsified pork meatballs. Meat Science, 70:613-
619.
Joly, G. and Anderstein, B. (2009). Starches. In Ingredients in Meat Products: Properties,
Functionality and Applications, Tarte, R. ed., pp. 25-55. New York: Springer Science
Business Media, LLC.
Lyijynen, T. (1998).Towards precision food packaging by optimization-VT. Retrieved from
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/1998/T1915.pdf
McKee, L.H. & Latner, T.A. (2000). Underutilized Sources of Dietary Fiber: A review. Plants

Foods Hum Nutr, 55, 285-304.

Nielson, S.S. (2010).Handbook of Food Analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/download/44491564/Compositional_Analysis_of_foods_-_
Food_Analysis_-_S.S._Nielsen.pdf
Ramadhan K., Huda N., and Ahmad R. (2009). Physicochemical Characteristics and Sensory
Properties Of Selected Malaysian Commercial Chicken Burgers. Retrieved from
http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/9/2316.full
Serdaroglu, M., (2006). Improving Low Fat Meatballs Characteristics by Adding Whey
Powder. Meat Sci., 72: 155-163.
Serdaroglu, M., Yildiz-Turp, G. and Abrodimov, K. (2005). Quality of low meatballs
containing legume flours as extender. Meat Science, 70: 99-105.
Yilmaz, I. and Daglioglu, O. (2003). The effect of replacing fat with oat bran on fatty acid
composition and physiochemical properties of meatballs. Meat Science, 65: 819-823.
 APPENDICES

Formula for mean value:

=

= Mean value
= sum of
n= Number of value in data set

Formula for standard deviation:

[( x) + ( x) ]
=

S = Standard deviation of sample

= sum of
x1 = Value for sample A1 in data set
x2 = Value for sample A2 in data set
= Mean value in data set
n = Number of value in data set

APPENDIX A

DETERMINATION OF WET & DRY BASIS

()
(%) = 100
(2)
= 100 (%)

WEIGHT WEIGHT OF CALCULATIONS

WEIGHT OF
OF SAMPLE
SAMPLE CRUCIBLE
SAMPLE AFTER
(g) (%) (%)
(g) DRYING (g)
0.7573
= 100 = 100 37.68 %
A1 70.6856 2.0100 0.7573 2.0100
= . %
= . %

0.6917
= 100 = 100 34.46 %
A2 54.0478 2.0071 0.6917 2.0071
= . %
= . %
Mean, x: 63.93%
Standard deviation: 2.2769
= . .

INFRA-RED MOISTURE BALANCE

A1 A2
LOST OF LOST OF MEAN
MINUTES WEIGHT WEIGHT
WEIGHT WEIGHT
0.00 1.993 0.000 1.979 0.000 0.000
2.00 1.608 0.385 1.543 0.436 0.411
4.00 1.326 0.667 1.225 0.754 0.711
6.00 1.127 0.866 1.005 0.974 0.920
8.00 0.989 1.004 0.871 1.108 1.056
10.00 0.889 1.104 0.787 1.192 1.148
12.00 0.828 1.165 0.740 1.239 1.202
14.00 0.783 1.210 0.729 1.250 1.230
16.00 0.761 1.232 0.713 1.266 1.249
%M 62.870 % 64.275 %

Mean, x: 63.5725%
Standard deviation: 0.9935
% = . .

GRAPH OF MEAN LOSS OF WEIGHT (g) AGAINST

TIME (MINUTES)
1.4
1.3 1.23 1.249
1.202
1.2 1.148
1.056
1.1
MEAN LOST OF WEIGHT (g)

1 0.92
0.9
0.8 0.711
0.7
0.6
0.5 0.411
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
TIME (min)

Graph 1: This graph shows the mean loss of weight against time.
 APPENDIX B
ASH DETERMINATION

()
(%) = 100
()

WEIGHT OF
WEIGHT OF
WEIGHT OF SAMPEL
SAMPLE CRUCIBLE CALCULATIONS
SAMPLE (g) AFTER
(g)
DRYING (g)
(%)
0.1045
= 100
A1 59.2988 5.0060 0.1045 5.0060

= . %
(%)
0.1010
= 100
A2 65.8795 5.0178 0.1010 5.0178

= . %

Mean, x: 2.05%
Standard deviation: 0.0523
(%) = . .

APPENDIX C

CRUDE FAT CONTENTS

( + )
(%) = 100

WEIGHT WEIGHT OF
WEIGHT OF
OF EXTRACTOR
SAMPLE EXTRACTOR CALCULATIONS
SAMPLE CUP + FAT
CUP (g)
(g) (g)
(%)
46.8485g 46.5684g
= 100
A1 2.0052 46.5684 46.8485 2.0052

= . %
(%)
46.4980g 46.2327g
= 100
A2 2.0070 46.2327 46.4980 2.0070

= . %
 Mean, x: 13.59%
Standard deviation: 0.5523
= . .

APPENDIX D

CRUDE PROTEIN DETERMINATION KJELDAHL METHOD

( ) .
(%) = 100
()
(%) = (%)

KEYS:

T = Titration Volume of Sample (ml)

B = Titration Volume of Blank (ml)
N = Normality of HCl / acid
F = Protein factor; 6.25 / 5.7 / 6.38 (depends on type of sample)

TITRATION CALCULATION
WEIGHT
VOLUME
OF CRUDE
SAMPLE OF
SAMPLE NITROGEN CONTENT PROTEIN
SAMPLE
(g) CONTENT
(ml)
(%) (%)
(11.8 0.0) 0.1 14.007 = 1.6218 %
A1 1.0191 11.8 = 100
1.0191 1000 6.25
= 1.6218 % = 10.1366 %
(%) (%)
(11.8 0.0) 0.1 14.007 = 1.5741 %
A2 1.0500 11.8 = 100
1.0191 1000 6.25
= 1.5741 % = 9.8383 %

NITROGEN CONTENT (%) CRUDE PROTEIN CONTENT (%)

Mean, x: 1.598% Mean, x: 9.9875%
Standard deviation: 0.0337 Standard deviation: 0.2109
(%)
= . . = . .
 APPENDIX E
CRUDE FIBER CONTENTS

SAMPLE m1 m2 m3 m4 m5 m6 m7
A1 0.2602 1.0322 59.5613 59.2980
0.0024 61.8271 61.8295
A2 0.2638 1.0255 51.7896 51.5224

KEYS:

m1: Weight of empty FibreBag (g)

m2: Weight of sample (g)
m3: Weight of empty FibreBag (g) + pre-dried crucible (g)
m4: Weight of crucible (g) + ash (g)
m5: Blank value (g)
m6: Incinerating crucible for blank FibreBag (g)
m7: Incinerating crucible and ash for blank FibreBag (g)

[(3 1 ) (4 5 )]
(%) = 100
2

(%)
A1 [(59.5613 0.2602) (59.2980 0.0024)]
= 100
1.0322 g
= . %

(%)
A2 [(51.7896 0.2638) (51.5224 0.0024)]
= 100
1.0255 g
= . %

(%)
Mean, x: 0.5492%
Standard deviation: 0.0232
(%) = . .

APPENDIX F
The percentage of Carbohydrates
= 100% (Moisture content + Ash + Crude Fat + Crude Protein + Crude Fiber)
= 100% (63.93 + 2.0 + 13.59 + 9.9875 + 0.5492)%
= 100% (90.0567%)
= 9.9433%