Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Food Science and Technology ·

Volume 6 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frfst.2026.1847935

Physicochemical and sensory quality of poultry slaughter byproduct-enriched sticks during ambient storage (25 ± 2 °C) under different packaging conditions

  • K. Abhinandh1
  • Pavan Kumar1*corresponding author
  • Nitin Mehta1
  • Rajesh V. Wagh1
  1. Department of Livestock Products Technology, College of Veterinary Science, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

The present study was undertaken to assess the quality of sticks incorporated with poultry slaughter byproducts under aerobic and vacuum packaging conditions at ambient temperature. Sticks, Control (C), T1 (6% chicken liver paste), T2 (4.5% chicken heart paste), and T3 (3% chicken heart paste +3% chicken liver paste) were stored at ambient temperature (25 °C ± 2 °C) for 90 days under aerobic and vacuum packaging conditions. The pH increased in all formulations during storage. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) values increased progressively and significantly (p < 0.05) at each storage interval, indicating lipid oxidation. Similarly, under both packaging conditions, free fatty acid (FFA) content and peroxide value (PV) increased significantly (p < 0.05) across all samples during storage. Sensory attributes, including appearance, flavour, tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability, declined gradually across all samples; however, the scores remained within acceptable limits at the end of the storage period. The lipid oxidation parameters were lower in vacuum-packaged products than in aerobically packaged products. The better sensory attributes were maintained in vacuum packaging conditions as compared to aerobic packaging conditions.

Keywords

Introduction

The poultry industry is a rapidly growing global food sector, driven by rising demand for animal protein, economic growth, and consumer awareness. During poultry slaughtering and processing, vast quantities of slaughterhouse byproducts (edible and inedible) are produced. The disposal of byproducts poses a major challenge for the meat processing industry, as improper handling can lead to serious environmental pollution and wastage of precious biological material. These are rich sources of protein and essential amino acids and thus have wide applications in animal feed, agricultural, and human nutrition (Verma et al., 2025). The increasing global population and the consequent pressure on natural resources have intensified the focus on sustainable economic development and efficient utilization of food resources (Kumar et al., 2023). Edible chicken byproducts constitute a substantial proportion of live bird weight and represent an underutilized yet readily available resource with significant potential for value addition (Kulkarni and Devatkal, 2015). Effective utilization of these byproducts offers meat processors opportunities to improve economic returns while reducing wastage of nutritionally rich materials, thereby contributing to sustainability in the poultry sector (Seong et al., 2015).

Among poultry slaughter byproducts, liver and heart are highly valued edible components due to their rich nutrient profile; however, their high moisture and nutrient content make them prone to rapid spoilage during slow chilling, posing challenges for their safe handling, storage, and utilization (Singh et al., 2022). Chicken heart is a rich source of high-quality protein and essential micronutrients, particularly B-complex vitamins, particularly vitamin B12, and minerals such as iron, zinc, and manganese (Henry et al., 2019). Despite these nutritional advantages, chicken hearts remain underutilized due to limited consumer acceptance, lack of awareness, and processing constraints.

Extrusion technology offers a practical and versatile approach for transforming these low-cost byproducts into value-added products with desirable functional, sensory, and nutritional properties (Kumar et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2022). Extruded snacks possess low water activity, which confers extended shelf life and allows storage at ambient temperature (Wang et al., 2022). This characteristic is particularly advantageous when incorporating edible chicken byproducts, which are highly perishable in their fresh form. Through extrusion, the proteins and nutrients in edible chicken byproducts are stabilised, while microbial growth is minimised, enabling the development of safe, nutrient-enriched and shelf-stable snack products suitable for broader distribution and consumption.

Packaging conditions have important implications for preserving food quality during storage and marketing (Brennan et al., 2021). Lipid oxidation remains the main cause of quality degradation and sensory attributes in extruded snacks, such as sticks. During storage, there has been an increase in lipid oxidation parameters, including TBARS, FFA, and PV. These have a significant effect on the flavour and organoleptic attributes of the stored products (Kumar et al., 2016). Thus, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the pH, lipid oxidation and sensory attributes of sticks incorporating chicken byproducts under aerobic and vacuum packaging conditions during ambient storage.

Materials and methods

Raw materials

The poultry slaughter byproducts, liver and heart, were harvested from edible chicken carcasses collected from the local market, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. These were transported to the laboratory under chilling conditions in an icebox, thoroughly washed with potable water, cleaned of adhering tissues, and separated into their respective components. The heart and liver tissues paste individually using a mixer grinder (Wonder Maxie Plus, Delhi) to obtain uniform particle size, then packaged in food-grade low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags. The packed samples were stored at −18 °C ± 1 °C until further use. Prior to product formulation, the frozen pasted heart and liver were thawed overnight under refrigerated conditions (4 °C ± 1 °C).

Preparation of sticks incorporated with poultry slaughter byproducts

Based on previous study, 6% chicken liver paste, 4.5% chicken heart and 6% of chicken liver and heart combinations were incorporated in the development of sticks, resulting in development of 4 treatments viz., C (control, without chicken heart and liver), T1 (6% chicken liver), T2 (4.5% chicken heart) and T3 (3% chicken heart and 3% chicken liver) as per Table 1 and Figure 1.

TABLE 1. Formulation for the preparation of sticks incorporated with poultry slaughter byproducts (liver, heart and their combinations).

Ingredients (%)ControlT1T2T3
Refined wheat flour33.0030.0030.7530.00
Rice flour33.0030.0030.7530.00
Water26.0026.0026.0026.00
Refined vegetable oil5.005.005.005.00
Spices1.501.501.501.50
Salt1.501.501.501.50
Chicken liver-6.00-3.00
Chicken heart--4.503.00

*C-stick without poultry slaughter byproducts, T1-sticks with 6% chicken liver paste, T2-sticks with 4.5% chicken liver paste, T3-sticks with 3% chicken liver paste +3% chicken heart paste.

Flowchart for the preparation of sticks incorporated with poultry slaughter byproducts.
Figure 1. Flowchart for the preparation of sticks incorporated with poultry slaughter byproducts.

Aerobic packaging was performed using 140-gauge low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags. Vacuum sealing was carried out in a Ramon vacuum packaging machine (Ramon, Model No. VP-580,19/S/CL Germany), after which the products were packed in 200-gauge high-density polyethylene (HDPE) packaging material.

The control samples consisted of sticks prepared without incorporating chicken slaughter byproducts and packaged under aerobic (Ca) and vacuum (Cv) conditions. The treatment groups comprised sticks incorporated with 6.0% chicken liver paste and packaged under aerobic (T1a) and vacuum (T1v) conditions; sticks incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste and packaged under aerobic (T2a) and vacuum (T2v) conditions and sticks incorporated with a combination of 3.0% chicken heart and 3.0% chicken liver paste and packaged under aerobic (T3a) and vacuum (T3v) conditions. All samples were stored at ambient conditions (25 °C ± 2 °C) for 90 days, with analyses performed every 15 days. The quality of the products during storage was monitored through physicochemical parameters, including pH, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), free fatty acids (FFA) content, and peroxide value (PV).

Analytical techniques

pH

The pH of the stick samples was measured by homogenizing 5 g of the sample with 50 mL of distilled water using a pestle and mortar. The resulting slurry was filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper, and the pH of the filtrate was recorded at room temperature using a calibrated digital pH meter (SAB 5000, Labindia, Mumbai). Prior to measurement, the instrument was standardized with buffer solutions of pH 4.0, 7.0 and 9.0. Each sample was analysed in five replicates, and the pH values were reported as the mean.

Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS)

Lipid oxidation in the sticks was determined by estimating thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) using the method of Witte et al. (1970) with minor modifications. Five grams of the sample were homogenized with 25 mL of pre-chilled 20% trichloroacetic acid in 2 M orthophosphoric acid, diluted with 25 mL of cold distilled water, and filtered through ashless Whatman No. 1 filter paper. An aliquot (3 mL) of the filtrate was reacted with 3 mL of 0.005 M Thiobarbituric acid and incubated in the dark at room temperature for 16 h. Absorbance was measured at 532 nm using a UV-visible spectrophotometer (Elico SL-159, Mumbai, India). TBARS values were expressed as mg malonaldehyde/kg sample using a conversion factor of 5.2.

Free fatty acids

Free fatty acid (FFA) content of the sticks was determined following the method of Koniecko (1979) with minor modifications. Five grams of the sample were homogenized with 30 mL of chloroform in the presence of anhydrous sodium sulphate and filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper. The filtrate was titrated against 0.1 N alcoholic potassium hydroxide using 0.2% phenolphthalein as an indicator until a persistent pale pink endpoint was obtained. FFA content was calculated from the volume of alkali consumed and expressed as percentage.Where:

% FFA as oleic acid = N × V × 0.282 × 100 / W

N = normality of potassium hydroxide.

V = volume (mL) of potassium hydroxide used for titration.

W = weight (g) of the sample.

Peroxide value

Peroxide value (PV), an index of primary lipid oxidation, was determined in the sticks according to the method of Koniecko (1979) with minor modifications. Five grams of the sample were homogenized with 30 mL of chloroform in the presence of anhydrous sodium sulphate and filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper. An aliquot (25 mL) of the extract was reacted with 30 mL of glacial acetic acid and 2 mL saturated potassium iodide, followed by the addition of 100 mL distilled water and 2 mL 1% starch indicator. The liberated iodine was titrated against 0.1 N sodium thiosulfate until the endpoint was reached. PV was calculated and expressed as meq of peroxide oxygen per kg of sample.Where:

PV m e q / kg sample = N × V × 100 / W

N = normality of sodium thiosulphate (0.1 N).

V = volume (mL) of sodium thiosulphate consumed during titration.

W = weight (g) of the sample.

Sensory evaluation

Sensory evaluation of the sticks was conducted by an experienced panel of seven members, comprising postgraduate students and faculty of the department. The participants gave consent to participate in the sensory evaluation of the developed sticks. The products were evaluated for appearance and colour, flavour, crispiness, texture, and overall acceptability using an eight-point descriptive scale, with scores ranging from 8 (extremely desirable) to 1 (extremely undesirable) (ISO 3972:2011, SS-EN ISO 8586:2014) (Keeton, 1983). To reduce panel bias, samples were presented on identical white melamine plates, identified by randomly assigned three-digit codes, and served in a controlled order under blind conditions. Potable water was provided between evaluations for palate cleansing to ensure independent judgment of each sample.

Statistical analysis

The experimental data were analysed using the Univariate General Linear Model (GLM) procedure in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results are expressed as mean ± standard error (SE). The effects of byproduct incorporation level, storage period (days), and their two-way interaction were evaluated separately for samples stored under aerobic and vacuum packaging conditions. Statistical significance of the main effects and interactions was determined using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) within the GLM framework. When significant differences were detected (p < 0.05), mean comparisons were performed using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) as a post hoc procedure. All statistical analyses were conducted at the significant (95% confidence level) and highly significant (99% confidence level) levels, and each treatment combination was evaluated using six observations (n = 6), obtained from duplicate analyses of samples from three independent experimental replicates.

Results and discussion

Aerobic storage

The sticks formulated in this study, comprising the control (Ca), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1a (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2a (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3a (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste) were subjected to a storage study under aerobic packaging conditions.

pH

The interaction between the aerobic storage period and the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts significantly influenced the pH of the developed sticks (Table 2). A highly significant interaction effect (p < 0.001) was observed between treatment groups and storage days, indicating that changes in pH during storage depended on the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproduct. Furthermore, within each treatment group, pH values varied significantly throughout the storage period (p < 0.001), indicating that storage duration affected product acidity. Up to the first 30 days of storage, the pH values of control sticks were significantly lower than those of treatment sticks. A comparatively lower pH in control sticks could be attributed to lower initial acidity resulting from the absence of byproduct incorporation. Storage for up to 30 days resulted in a decrease (p < 0.05) in pH in both the control and treated formulations. This slight decrease in the pH of sticks during storage could be due to the formation of acidic compounds, including free fatty acids, secondary lipid oxidation, and organic acids. After day 45, pH increased significantly across all treatments with an increase in the storage days. The gradual increase in pH during storage can be attributed proteolysis and deamination reactions, resulting in the release and accumulation of basic nitrogenous compounds, including ammonia and biogenic amines. These findings indicate that both storage duration and byproduct inclusion, as well as their combined effects, played important roles in determining the product’s pH stability under aerobic packaging conditions.

TABLE 2. pH and FFA of sticks incorporated during 90 days of storage under aerobic packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C.

TreatmentStorage days
0153045607590Interaction (group x day)
pH
Ca5.41 ± 0.01bcA5.38 ± 0.02bA5.31 ± 0.02aA5.45 ± 0.02cA5.61 ± 0.03dA5.88 ± 0.02eA5.92 ± 0.01eA<0.001
T1a5.51 ± 0.02bB5.48 ± 0.02bB5.41 ± 0.01aB5.45 ± 0.02abA5.74 ± 0.03cB5.92 ± 0.01dAB5.97 ± 0.02dB<0.001
T2a5.56 ± 0.02bB5.46 ± 0.02aB5.42 ± 0.01aB5.56 ± 0.01bB5.82 ± 0.02cC5.95 ± 0.02dB5.98 ± 0.01dB<0.001
T3a5.55 ± 0.02bB5.46 ± 0.03aB5.42 ± 0.02aB5.48 ± 0.01aA5.78 ± 0.03cBC5.95 ± 0.02dB5.98 ± 0.02dB<0.001
Interaction (day x group)<0.0010.034<0.0010.004<0.0010.0310.044​
FFA (% oleic acid)
Ca0.102 ± 0.005aA0.125 ± 0.004bA0.152 ± 0.004cA0.195 ± 0.008dA0.241 ± 0.004eA0.306 ± 0.008fA0.414 ± 0.007gA<0.001
T1a0.111 ± 0.005aAB0.137 ± 0.004bB0.162 ± 0.004cAB0.219 ± 0.003dB0.280 ± 0.004eB0.352 ± 0.004fB0.468 ± 0.004gB<0.001
T2a0.122 ± 0.004aB0.141 ± 0.004bB0.172 ± 0.003cB0.218 ± 0.003dB0.288 ± 0.003eB0.363 ± 0.008fB0.489 ± 0.004gC<0.001
T3a0.121 ± 0.003aB0.139 ± 0.004bB0.173 ± 0.004cB0.222 ± 0.003dB0.281 ± 0.003eB0.367 ± 0.004fB0.494 ± 0.006gC<0.001
Interaction (day x group)0.0080.0240.0090.003<0.001<0.001<0.001​

*Means with different superscripts in a row-small letters (a, b, c, d…) and column -capital letters (A, B, C and D) differ significantly (p < 0.05); *Control (Ca), prepared without chicken byproducts, T1a (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2a (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3a (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken liver paste and 3% chicken heart paste).

A similar increase in pH during storage was also reported by Reyes-Cano et al. (1995) in intermediate-moisture Cecina-like meat. Among the samples, the pH of the control samples was lower than that of the treated samples, mainly because the treated sticks contained chicken liver and heart paste, which had a higher pH than the replaced flours. A comparable increase in pH during storage was also reported by Malav et al. (2017) in meat papad formulated with spent hen meat powder and corn flour. Similar increases in pH during storage were also documented by Biswas et al. (2012) in chicken meat patties, balls, and nuggets incorporated with eugenol and chitosan and stored under aerobic packaging conditions.

Free fatty acid (FFA)

FFA value of the developed sticks was significantly affected by the interaction between the aerobic storage period and the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts (Table 2). A highly significant interaction effect (p < 0.001) was observed between treatment groups and storage days, indicating that changes in FFA during storage depended on the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproduct. Furthermore, within each treatment group, FFA values varied significantly as the storage period progressed (p < 0.001), indicating lipid oxidation. On 90 days of storage, the FFA value of sticks incorporated with heart paste (T2) and heart paste and liver paste incorporation (T3) were recorded significantly higher than the sticks with liver paste (T1a) and control sticks made without incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts. The gradual rise in FFA levels observed during the storage of meat-incorporated products could be attributed to lipolytic activity (Modi et al., 2007), in which endogenous and microbial lipases hydrolyse lipids into free fatty acids. This lipase-mediated breakdown of fats becomes more pronounced as storage advances, contributing to progressive lipid degradation. Similar storage-related trends were also reported by Mehmood et al. (2024) for beef- and chicken-liver-containing chicken nuggets.

Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) value

The lipid oxidative stability of the sticks was monitored over a 90-day storage period under aerobic packaging conditions using the TBARS assay (Figure 2). The aerobic storage duration and the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts had a significant effect on the TBARS value of the developed sticks, thereby indicating lipid oxidation as storage time increased. The TBARS values of all samples increased progressively with each storage interval, and values recorded at each sampling point were significantly (p < 0.05) higher than those observed at the previous interval for all samples (Ca, T1a, T2a, and T3a). On day 90 of storage, the highest TBARS value was recorded for T3a and the lowest for Ca. Among the treatments, the higher lipid oxidation was observed in the higher T2a and T3a samples as compared to T1a samples. This could be attributed to the incorporation of different byproducts, or their combinations, in these products (T2a and T3a) compared with T1a (chicken liver paste) and Ca (without chicken slaughter byproducts). Similarly, Kumar et al. (2015) reported a significant (p < 0.05) increase in TBARS values during storage of meat spread developed from spent hens, with values rising from 0.157 to 0.374 mg malondialdehyde/kg between day 0 and the 21st day. Bhat et al. (2011) reported a significant increase in TBARS values during storage of meatballs.

TBARS (mg malondialdehyde/kg) values observed during 90 days storage of sticks under aerobic packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C. *Control (Ca), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1a (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2a (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3a (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).
Figure 2. TBARS (mg malondialdehyde/kg) values observed during 90 days storage of sticks under aerobic packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C. *Control (Ca), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1a (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2a (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3a (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).

Peroxide value (PV)

Peroxide value (PV) is a well-established analytical parameter for assessing lipid oxidation in meat products, as it quantifies the concentration of lipid hydroperoxides formed during the initial stages of oxidative deterioration (Figure 3). Systematic evaluation of PV during storage allows for precise monitoring of oxidative progression and provides a reliable indication of the product’s oxidative stability and potential shelf life. Similar to other lipid oxidation parameters measured in the present study (TBARS and FFA), PV was also significantly affected by the storage days and incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts. Among treatments, storage days had a significant effect on PV, increasing PV values for all samples as storage days increased. The peroxide values of both the control and treated sticks increased significantly (p < 0.05) as storage progressed. On storage (day 60), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed between all the samples. A similar trend of increasing PV during storage was reported by Elnour et al. (2022) in beef burgers fortified with olive oil. Muthu et al. (2015), who documented an increase in peroxide values during ambient storage of aerobically packaged extended dehydrated chicken meat rings.

Peroxide value (meq/kg) observed during 90 days storage of sticks under aerobic packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C. *Control (Ca), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1a (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2a (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3a (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).
Figure 3. Peroxide value (meq/kg) observed during 90 days storage of sticks under aerobic packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C. *Control (Ca), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1a (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2a (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3a (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).

Sensory evaluation

Sensory quality is a key indicator of consumer acceptability and market potential of meat products. The sensory attributes of the sticks were systematically assessed throughout the storage period of 90 days under aerobic packaging at ambient temperature (25 °C ± 2 °C) (Table 3). Aerobic storage at ambient temperature and the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts significantly (p < 0.001) influenced the sensory attributes. The appearance scores of both the control and treated samples declined progressively with storage. By the 90th day of storage, all treatment groups had low appearance scores, but the products were sensorially acceptable. During storage days, the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts had a significant effect, except on days 75 and 90. At the start of the storage study, a significantly higher appearance score was reported for the control stick than for sticks containing chicken slaughter byproducts. A similar trend was observed by Kumar et al. (2016).

TABLE 3. Sensory evaluation of sticks stored at ambient temperature (25 °C ± 2 °C) under aerobic packaging.

TreatmentsDay
1153045607590Interactions (group x day)
Appearance
Ca7.35 ± 0.06dB7.34 ± 0.06dB7.16 ± 0.06cdC7.08 ± 0.04cB6.99 ± 0.05cB6.67 ± 0.10b6.45 ± 0.09a<0.001
T1a7.15 ± 0.04dA7.12 ± 0.03dA7.05 ± 0.04cdBC6.89 ± 0.08bcAB6.77 ± 0.10bA6.51 ± 0.07a6.35 ± 0.08a<0.001
T2a7.11 ± 0.03cA7.03 ± 0.05cA6.84 ± 0.06bA6.78 ± 0.08bA6.68 ± 0.08bB6.46 ± 0.07a6.32 ± 0.06a<0.001
T3a7.03 ± 0.03dA7.02 ± 0.05dA6.93 ± 0.06cdAB6.80 ± 0.10bcA6.64 ± 0.05bB6.43 ± 0.10a6.32 ± 0.05a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)<0.001<0.0010.0030.0480.0120.2640.502​
Flavour
Ca7.42 ± 0.07e7.40 ± 0.07de7.34 ± 0.06de7.22 ± 0.06cd7.06 ± 0.03bc6.89 ± 0.07b6.67 ± 0.05a<0.001
T1a7.36 ± 0.05e7.32 ± 0.04de7.28 ± 0.05de7.18 ± 0.04d7.03 ± 0.04c6.83 ± 0.07b6.60 ± 0.04a<0.001
T2a7.32 ± 007d7.28 ± 0.06d7.26 ± 0.05d7.20 ± 0.06cd7.05 ± 0.03c6.83 ± 0.08b6.58 ± 0.07a<0.001
T3a7.33 ± 0.06d7.30 ± 006d7.25 ± 0.08d7.16 ± 0.04cd7.04 ± 0.04c6.79 ± 0.10b6.52 ± 0.06a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)0.6700.5160.7200.8430.9200.8620.315​
Tenderness
Ca7.14 ± 0.05d7.13 ± 0.05d7.01 ± 0.05cdA6.91 ± 0.12c6.84 ± 0.05cA6.64 ± 0.05b6.29 ± 0.05a<0.001
T1a7.27 ± 0.07d7.23 ± 0.08cd7.21 ± 0.03cdB7.01 ± 0.13bcd6.95 ± 0.07bcAB6.75 ± 0.16b6.29 ± 0.06a<0.001
T2a7.32 ± 0.09d7.26 ± 0.10cd7.19 ± 0.04cdB7.09 ± 0.05cd7.02 ± 0.07cAB6.76 ± 0.15b6.32 ± 0.06a<0.001
T3a7.35 ± 0.09e7.29 ± 0.05de7.23 ± 0.03cdeB7.14 ± 0.04cd7.09 ± 0.07cB6.79 ± 0.07b6.32 ± 0.05a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)0.2490.4810.0020.3630.0870.8060.965​
Juiciness
Ca7.07 ± 0.03eA7.02 ± 0.08e6.93 ± 0.05deA6.80 ± 0.05cd6.67 ± 0.07bc6.50 ± 0.08b6.26 ± 0.08a<0.001
T1a7.13 ± 0.04dAB7.08 ± 0.04cd7.05 ± 0.07cdAB6.91 ± 0.05c6.72 ± 0.07b6.49 ± 0.08a6.36 ± 0.07a<0.001
T2a7.20 ± 0.04eB7.17 ± 0.04e7.09 ± 0.05deB6.94 ± 0.05d6.78 ± 0.07c6.60 ± 0.07b6.39 ± 0.05a<0.001
T3a7.19 ± 0.04eB7.17 ± 0.07e7.12 ± 0.04deB6.95 ± 0.07cd6.77 ± 0.07bc6.65 ± 0.08b6.45 ± 0.08a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)0.070.2470.0790.2170.6870.4100.297​
Overall acceptability
Ca7.24 ± 0.08d7.24 ± 0.04d7.12 ± 0.04cd7.08 ± 0.04cd6.98 ± 0.05c6.74 ± 0.12b6.44 ± 0.09a<0.001
T1a7.38 ± 0.05e7.31 ± 0.06e7.23 ± 0.03de7.14 ± 0.04cd7.06 ± 0.05c6.87 ± 0.08b6.53 ± 0.07a<0.001
T2a7.40 ± 0.05d7.35 ± 0.07d7.26 ± 0.05cd7.18 ± 0.02c7.11 ± 0.04c6.82 ± 0.08b6.49 ± 0.06a<0.001
T3a7.36 ± 0.05d7.31 ± 0.07cd7.24 ± 0.06cd7.16 ± 0.05cd7.12 ± 0.05c6.86 ± 0.08b6.51 ± 0.09a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)0.2350.7200.1870.2620.1830.7380.840​

*Means with different superscripts in a row-small letters (a, b, c, d…) and column -capital letters (A, B, C and D) differ significantly (p < 0.05); control (Ca), prepared without chicken byproducts, T1a (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2a (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3a (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).

Among days, the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts did not affect the flavour profile, with control and treated sticks recording comparable flavour profiles. Flavour scores exhibited a gradual decrease with the advancement of storage time. Within the group, no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed throughout the storage period. Muthulakshmi et al. (2024) reported a similar pattern, where the flavour scores of both control and skin-enriched biscuits progressively declined with extended storage. Akesowan (2016) observed a decline in flavour of chicken nuggets during storage. The reduction in flavour scores may be attributed to the progressive loss of volatile flavour compounds during aerobic storage, as exposure to oxygen can accelerate flavour degradation over time (Bhat et al., 2015).

Within groups, tenderness was not affected by storage duration except on day 30. Tenderness scores exhibited a consistent downward trend throughout the storage period, with all samples reaching their minimum values on the 90th day of storage relative to the corresponding initial scores on day 1. For juiciness, incorporating chicken slaughter byproducts into sticks did not affect storage days, except on day 1. Juiciness scores declined gradually as storage time increased. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were detected among the groups. Jamwal et al. (2015) reported a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in juiciness scores of chicken patties with increasing storage duration, a trend similar to that observed by Bhat et al. (2011) in meatballs during refrigerated storage.

Overall acceptability of sticks indicates the overall integrated quality impression of the sticks, as perceived through the combined perception of all sensory attributes. It indicated consumers’ overall likeness and preference for the product. Among the treatments, overall acceptability showed a decreasing trend as storage duration increased. However, on days 1 and 15 of aerobic storage, the appearance scores remain comparable, and similar trends were observed on days 60, 75, and 90. However, the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts did not show significant differences over the storage period. Overall acceptability scores declined gradually throughout the storage period in both the control and treated samples. Han et al. (2023) reported that the sensory scores of beef jerky declined significantly (P < 0.05) with increasing storage times.

Vacuum storage

In this study, sticks were formulated into four distinct treatments: a control (Cv) without the inclusion of poultry processing byproducts, T1v containing 6% chicken liver paste, T2v incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste, and T3v formulated with an equal combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste.

pH

The vacuum packaging condition and incorporation of byproducts significantly influenced the pH of developed sticks (Table 4). Among treatments, the pH values decreased progressively up to 30 days of storage and thereafter noted with an increasing trend. The initial decrease in the pH value upto 30 day of storage could be attributed to the initial acidification due to presence of starch in the samples. Among the treatments, a higher value were recorded in treated samples as compared to control sticks prepared without addition of chicken slaughter byproducts. Among day, treatments showed significant effect throughout the storage except on day 15. From the 45th day of storage onward, all samples showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in storage time. Among the samples stored for 90 days, the control sample recorded the lowest value and followed the trend: Cv < T1v < T3v < T2v. The gradual increase in pH during storage can be attributed to proteolysis and deamination reactions, resulting in the release and accumulation of basic nitrogenous compounds, including ammonia and biogenic amines (Reyes-Cano et al., 1995). Throughout storage, the control sample exhibited lower values than the treated samples. A similar trend was observed by Singh et al. (2011) in vacuum-packaged chicken snacks stored at room temperature, where pH increased progressively with increasing storage time. Raeisi et al. (2020) documented an initial reduction in pH during the early stages of refrigerated storage, followed by a gradual increase toward the later stages.

TABLE 4. pH and PV of sticks incorporated during 90 days of storage under vacuum packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C.

Treat mentStorage days
0153045607590Interaction (group x day)
pH
Cv5.40 ± 0.02bA5.38 ± 0.02b5.31 ± 0.02aA5.41 ± 0.02bA5.45 ± 0.02bA5.60 ± 0.02cA5.83 ± 0.02dA<0.001
T1v5.50 ± 0.02bB5.47 ± 0.02ab5.42 ± 0.02aB5.53 ± 0.02bB5.61 ± 0.02cB5.75 ± 0.02dB5.90 ± 0.02eAB<0.001
T2v5.54 ± 0.03abB5.53 ± 0.24ab5.45 ± 0.03aB5.57 ± 0.03abB5.64 ± 0.03abB5.80 ± 0.03cB5.93 ± 0.03dB0.014
T3v5.55 ± 0.03bB5.51 ± 0.02ab5.45 ± 0.06aB5.56 ± 0.02bB5.71 ± 0.03cC5.77 ± 0.02cB5.91 ± 0.02dB<0.001
Interaction (day x group)0.0030.8320.0020.001<0.001<0.0010.05​
PV (meq/kg)
Cv1.22 ± 0.08a1.31 ± 0.01a1.68 ± 0.07b2.13 ± 0.05c2.65 ± 0.06dA3.18 ± 0.08eA4.17 ± 0.07fA<0.001
T1v1.22 ± 0.10a1.46 ± 0.07b1.78 ± 0.07c2.35 ± 0.06d2.75 ± 0.04eAB4.01 ± 0.04fB4.40 ± 0.07gB<0.001
T2v1.24 ± 0.10a1.44 ± 0.11a1.75 ± 0.08b2.41 ± 0.07c2.86 ± 0.04dBC4.03 ± 0.06eB4.36 ± 0.04fB<0.001
T3v1.21 ± 0.11a1.49 ± 0.03b1.78 ± 0.05c2.53 ± 0.08d2.98 ± 0.04eC3.94 ± 0.04fB4.36 ± 0.05gB<0.001
Interaction (day x group)0.9960.4400.6730.003<0.001<0.0010.027​

*Means with different superscripts in a row-small letters (a, b, c, d…) and column -capital letters (A, B, C and D) differ significantly (p < 0.05); *Control (Cv), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1v (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2v (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3v (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).

TBARS

The TBARS assay is a standard analytical method used to assess lipid oxidation by quantifying malondialdehyde (MDA), a key secondary product of lipid peroxidation. In the present study, TBARS values of the developed sticks were monitored throughout a 90-day storage period under vacuum packaging at ambient temperature (25 °C ± 2 °C) to assess lipid oxidative stability (Figure 4). The TBARS value of the developed sticks was significantly influenced by the storage days and incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts. Among the days, TBARS values of the control and treatment sticks were comparable throughout the storage period except on 75 days onwards. Among the samples, the control samples exhibited the lowest TBARS values, and the T2v and T3v samples recorded the highest TBARS values throughout storage. A gradual and consistent increase in TBARS values was observed in all stick formulations throughout the storage period, indicating progressive lipid oxidation; however, the values remained within acceptable limits at the end of storage. Muthulakshmi et al. (2024) and Ratanatriwong et al. (2011) reported a progressive increase in TBARS values in chicken skin incorporated biscuits and chicken snacks, respectively, during storage at ambient temperature. During ambient storage of vacuum-packaged extended dehydrated chicken meat rings, Mishra et al. (2014) observed a steady rise in TBARS values.

TBARS values observed during 90 days storage of sticks under vacuum packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C. *Control (Cv), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1v (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2v (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3v (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).
Figure 4. TBARS values observed during 90 days storage of sticks under vacuum packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C. *Control (Cv), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1v (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2v (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3v (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).

FFA values

Free fatty acid (FFA) content serves as an important indicator of lipid hydrolysis in meat products, resulting from lipase and microbial enzyme activity, and influences both flavour and susceptibility to oxidative rancidity, making it a key measure of storage stability and product quality. In the present study, the FFA value of the developed sticks was significantly influenced by the vacuum storage period and incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts (Figure 5). Among the storage days, the FFA values of the developed sticks were recorded as comparable, except on day 45 of the study. A progressive increase in FFA percentage was observed across all groups throughout the storage period; however, the values remained within acceptable limits at the end of storage. Summo et al. (2006) reported that free fatty acid content increased significantly (p < 0.01) during storage of vacuum-packed ripened sausages. Sharma et al. (2017) observed a significant increase in free fatty acid content in chicken patties during frozen storage, with lower FFA accumulation under vacuum packaging than under conventional packaging.

FFA values observed during 90 days storage of sticks under vacuum packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C. *Control (Cv), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1v (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2v (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3v (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).
Figure 5. FFA values observed during 90 days storage of sticks under vacuum packaging at 25 °C ± 2 °C. *Control (Cv), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1v (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2v (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3v (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).

Peroxide value (PV)

The peroxide value of the sticks was influenced by the number of days of vacuum storage and the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts (Table 4). Among the days, the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts had a significant effect on PV from 45 days onward; before that, the PV of the sticks from all treatments and the control sticks were comparable. The results demonstrated an increase in peroxide values throughout storage in all formulations, indicating gradual lipid oxidation; however, the peroxide values remained within acceptable limits at the end of storage. The PV increased significantly (p < 0.05) with increasing storage time for the T1v stick, whereas the remaining stick samples exhibited a significant increase from 15 days onward. Among the day 0 samples, the PV control and treated sticks were comparable. Throughout storage, the control samples had lower PV values than the treated samples, and in the treated samples, T2v and T3v sticks had higher values than T1v. This could be attributed to the incorporation of chicken liver and heart paste in the treated samples. Shaviklo et al. (2015) reported a slight increase in peroxide values during the storage of extruded puffed corn shrimp snacks. Raeisi et al. (2020) reported a significant increase in peroxide values of chicken nuggets with prolonged refrigerated storage. The lipid oxidation parameters, including TBARS, peroxide value (PV), and free fatty acids (FFA), were consistently lower in vacuum-packaged samples than in their aerobic-packaged counterparts. This may be attributed to the reduced availability of oxygen in vacuum packaging, which limits oxidative reactions and consequently retards lipid oxidation during storage.

Sensory evaluation

Storage under vacuum packaging conditions and the incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts significantly influenced the sensory attributes of the developed sticks (Table 5). Among groups, the appearance score varied significantly throughout storage, except at 75 and 30 days. Throughout storage, a higher appearance score was recorded for control sticks than for treated sticks. Appearance scores for all samples decreased progressively and showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) reduction as storage time increased; however, the values remained within the acceptable range at the end of storage. Kumar et al. (2023) reported a progressive decline in colour and appearance scores of snack foods during storage. A progressive and statistically significant (p < 0.05) decline in flavour scores was observed in all samples with advancement of the storage period; however, the scores remained within the acceptable range at the end of storage. Within groups, the developed sticks had a comparable flavour score, a higher flavour score was recorded for the control stick. Chicken snacks stored under vacuum packaging exhibited a significant decline in flavour scores (P < 0.05) on day 30 compared to earlier storage periods (Singh et al., 2011). Similarly, the juiciness scores of the samples declined gradually with increasing storage time, indicating a slight loss of moisture retention; however, the scores remained within the acceptable range at the end of storage. A similar finding was reported by Raeisi et al. (2020), who observed a significant reduction (P < 0.05) in the tenderness of chicken nugget samples over the storage period.

TABLE 5. Sensory evaluation of sticks stored at ambient temperature (25 °C ± 2 °C) under vacuum packaging.

TreatmentDay
1153045607590Interactions (group x day)
Appearance
Cv7.32 ± 0.05dB7.29 ± 0.05cdB7.16 ± 0.06cdB7.08 ± 0.04bcB6.90 ± 0.08bB6.61 ± 0.10a6.54 ± 0.08aB<0.001
T1v7.08 ± 0.03eA7.06 ± 0.03eA7.01 ± 0.03deA6.87 ± 0.08dA6.64 ± 0.06cA6.42 ± 0.07b6.23 ± 0.06aA<0.001
T2v7.05 ± 0.02cA7.03 ± 0.05cA7.02 ± 0.01cA6.81 ± 0.08bA6.64 ± 0.08bA6.37 ± 0.10a6.23 ± 0.06aA<0.001
T3v7.14 ± 0.03dA7.12 ± 0.04cdA7.08 ± 0.05cdAB6.96 ± 0.06cAB6.64 ± 0.05bA6.46 ± 0.10a6.32 ± 0.05aA<0.001
Interactions (day x group)<0.0010.0010.0900.0320.0240.3000.007​
Flavour
Cv7.39 ± 0.08c7.37 ± 0.08c7.36 ± 0.05c7.26 ± 0.05c7.08 ± 0.03b6.92 ± 0.07b6.69 ± 0.05a<0.001
T1v7.36 ± 0.04e7.34 ± 0.03e7.32 ± 0.05de7.20 ± 0.04d7.06 ± 0.05c6.86 ± 0.06b6.61 ± 0.04a<0.001
T2v7.32 ± 0.07d7.30 ± 0.07d7.25 ± 0.05cd7.23 ± 0.06cd7.07 ± 0.02c6.83 ± 0.07b6.58 ± 0.07a<0.001
T3v7.32 ± 0.07d7.29 ± 0.06d7.28 ± 0.07d7.18 ± 0.04cd7.06 ± 0.04c6.82 ± 0.09b6.64 ± 0.07a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)0.8760.7590.5660.6610.9670.7420.590​
Tenderness
Cv7.18 ± 0.06f7.14 ± 0.04e7.05 ± 0.03cdA6.97 ± 0.12cd6.90 ± 0.04cA6.67 ± 0.08b6.33 ± 0.05a<0.001
T1v7.29 ± 0.06c7.27 ± 0.07c7.24 ± 0.04cB7.12 ± 0.11c7.06 ± 0.06cAB6.77 ± 0.15b6.37 ± 0.09a<0.001
T2v7.35 ± 0.09c7.31 ± 0.10c7.23 ± 0.04cB7.14 ± 0.04c7.12 ± 0.06cB6.81 ± 0.13b6.35 ± 0.09a<0.001
T3v7.39 ± 0.08e7.34 ± 0.04de7.27 ± 0.02cdeB7.19 ± 0.01cd7.14 ± 0.07cB6.84 ± 0.08b6.38 ± 0.08a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)0.2240.195<0.0010.3240.0440.7350.972​
Juiciness
Cv7.08 ± 0.03eA7.01 ± 0.08de6.94 ± 0.05cdeA6.83 ± 0.04cdA6.75 ± 0.06c6.54 ± 0.09b6.32 ± 0.10a<0.001
T1v7.18 ± 0.04cAB7.11 ± 0.04c7.09 ± 0.06cAB6.89 ± 0.06bAB6.76 ± 0.06b6.57 ± 0.08a6.41 ± 0.08a<0.001
T2v7.23 ± 0.04dB7.18 ± 0.04d7.17 ± 0.06dB6.96 ± 0.04cAB6.81 ± 0.08bc6.66 ± 0.05b6.46 ± 0.08a<0.001
T3v7.24 ± 0.05eB7.19 ± 0.07de7.19 ± 0.04deB6.99 ± 0.05cdB6.83 ± 0.07bc6.67 ± 0.08ab6.49 ± 0.11a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)0.0330.1500.010.1060.8010.5400.592​
Overall acceptability
Cv7.25 ± 0.08d7.21 ± 0.05d7.16 ± 0.05cd7.08 ± 0.05cd6.96 ± 0.07c6.73 ± 0.05b6.43 ± 0.08a<0.001
T1v7.37 ± 0.05d7.35 ± 0.05d7.25 ± 0.01cd7.15 ± 0.03c7.09 ± 0.06c6.89 ± 0.12b6.50 ± 0.07a<0.001
T2v7.39 ± 0.05d7.33 ± 0.07d7.29 ± 0.05cd7.23 ± 0.03cd7.14 ± 0.06c6.85 ± 0.08b6.51 ± 0.05a<0.001
T3v7.35 ± 0.05d7.32 ± 0.07cd7.27 ± 0.06cd7.19 ± 0.06cd7.11 ± 0.04c6.89 ± 0.08b6.51 ± 0.09a<0.001
Interactions (day x group)0.3710.4030.1860.1240.1700.6010.853​

*Means with different superscripts in a row-small letters (a, b, c, d…) and column -capital letters (A, B, C and D) differ significantly (p < 0.05); n = 6 for each treatment. Control (Cv), prepared without poultry industry byproducts, T1v (incorporated with 6% chicken liver paste), T2v (incorporated with 4.5% chicken heart paste) and T3v (incorporated with a combination of 3% chicken heart paste and 3% chicken liver paste).

Tenderness scores declined gradually with increasing storage period under vacuum conditions. The tenderness and juiciness scores were higher in treated sticks than in control sticks. Within groups, the tenderness score did not vary with storage duration except on day 30. Similarly, juiciness scores were affected by storage duration for up to 30 days of the study, after which comparable juiciness scores were recorded among samples. Laksanawati et al. (2024) observed a progressive deterioration in the texture of beef meatballs during storage.

Overall acceptability exhibited a decreasing trend with the progression of storage in all samples; however, the scores remained within acceptable limits at the end of the storage period. Within groups, the overall acceptability was recorded as comparable throughout the storage duration. Extruded snacks enriched with fish flour and shrimp head exudate exhibited a decline in overall acceptability during storage (Baskar et al., 2022). The overall acceptability of chicken meat biscuits declined progressively as the storage period increased (Kumar et al., 2016).

The panellists awarded higher scores for sensory attributes, including appearance, flavour, juiciness, tenderness, and overall acceptability, to vacuum-packaged sticks compared with their aerobically packaged counterparts. This improvement in sensory quality may be attributed to the lower extent of lipid oxidation and reduced moisture uptake in vacuum-packaged samples during storage, which helped preserve product freshness, texture, and flavour.

Conclusion

The sticks prepared by incorporating chicken slaughter byproducts (heart, liver and their combinations) showed a progressive increase in pH and lipid oxidation parameters viz. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substance, peroxide value, and free fatty acid content, with passage of storage duration up to 90 days under both aerobic and vacuum packaging conditions. The results revealed significant effects of storage period, treatment, and their interactions on the pH, lipid oxidation parameters, and sensory attributes. The increase in pH and lipid oxidation products was recorded as more pronounced in aerobically packaged samples than in vacuum-packaged samples, reflecting the greater susceptibility of products stored in the presence of oxygen to oxidative and degradative reactions. Sensory attributes were also influenced by the interactions between treatment (incorporation of chicken slaughter byproducts) and storage duration and storage conditions. Vacuum-packaged sticks maintained higher sensory scores than their aerobic-packaged counterparts, likely due to reduced oxygen availability, lower lipid oxidation, and improved preservation of product quality during storage. Thus, based on the study, it is concluded that vacuum packaging is more effective in lipid stability and organoleptic quality of poultry slaughter byproduct-incorporated extruded sticks during ambient storage.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Miguel Elias, University of Evora, Portugal

Reviewed by: Fawze Alnadari, Research and Development Center of Jiangsu Tianmeijian Nature Bioengineering Co. Ltd., China

Caterina Rufo, Universidad de la República, Uruguay

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

KA: Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft, Investigation. PK: Supervision, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Validation. NM: Formal Analysis, Writing – review and editing, Resources. RW: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

References

  1. Akesowan A. (2016). Production and storage stability of formulated chicken nuggets using konjac flour and shiitake mushrooms. J. Food Sci. Technol. 53 (10), 3661 – 3674. doi:10.1007/s13197-016-2332-7
  2. Baskar D., Dhanapal K., Madhavan N., Madhavi K., Kumar G. P., Manikandan V. (2022). Proximate composition and sensory evaluation of extruded snacks enriched with fish flour and shrimp head exudate during storage conditions. J. Food Process. Preserv. 46 (7), 589. doi:10.1111/jfpp.16589
  3. Bhat Z. F., Kumar P., Kumar S. (2011). Effect of skin, enrobing and refrigerated storage on the quality characteristics of chicken meat balls. J. Food Sci. Technol. 50 (5), 890 – 899. doi:10.1007/s13197-011-0414-0
  4. Bhat Z. F., Kumar S., Kumar P. (2015). Effect of aloe vera on the lipid stability and storage quality of chicken nuggets. Nutr. and Food Sci. 45 (1), 54 – 67. doi:10.1108/nfs-04-2014-0034
  5. Biswas A., Chatli M., Sahoo J., Singh J. (2012). Storage stability of chicken meat patties, balls and nuggets incorporated with eugenol and chitosan at refrigeration temperature (4±1°C) under aerobic packaging condition. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 47 (3), 348 – 356.
  6. Brennan L., Langley S., Verghese K., Lockrey S., Ryder M., Francis C. (2021). The role of packaging in fighting food waste: a systematised review of consumer perceptions of packaging. J. Cleaner Production 281, 125276. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125276
  7. Elnour M. A., Basheer E. O., Elhassan I. H., Ismaiel A. E., Babekir W. S. (2022). Peroxide value (PV) and fatty acids of beef burger enriched with olive oil. Int. J. Innovative Sci. Eng. and Technol. 9 (8), 122 – 132.
  8. Han G., Fan Y., Chen Q., Xia X., Liu Q., Li M. (2023). Quality and flavor changes in beef jerky caused by high hydrostatic pressure combined with moisture regulator treatments during storage. Food Sci. Animal Prod. 1 (1), 9240001. doi:10.26599/fsap.2023.9240001
  9. Henry S. G., Darwish S. M., Saleh A., Khalifa A. (2019). Carcass characteristics and nutritional composition of some edible chicken by-products. Egypt. J. Food Sci. 47 (1), 81 – 90. doi:10.21608/ejfs.2019.16364.1018
  10. Jamwal A., Kumar S., Bhat Z. F., Kumar A., Kaur S. (2015). The quality and storage stability of chicken patties prepared with different additives. Nutr. and Food Sci. 45 (5), 728 – 739. doi:10.1108/nfs-01-2015-0009
  11. Keeton J. T. (1983). Effects of fat and NaCl/phosphate levels on the chem‐ ical and sensory properties of pork patties. J. Food Sci. 48 (3), 878 – 881. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1983.tb14921
  12. Koniecko E. S. (1979). Handbook for Meat Chemists. Garden City Park, NY: Avery Publishing Group, Inc.
  13. Kulkarni V. V., Devatkal S. K. (2015). Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat and poultry processing industry: a review. J. Meat Sci. 11 (1), 1 – 10.
  14. Kumar A., Mendiratta S. K., Sen A. R., Kandeepan G., Talukder S., Sharma H. (2015). Preparation and storage stability of meat spread developed from spent hens. Veterinary World 8 (5), 651 – 655. doi:10.14202/vetworld.2015.651-655
  15. Kumar P., Chatli M. K., Mehta N., Malav O. P., Verma A. K., Kumar D. (2016). Quality attributes and storage stability of chicken meat biscuits incorporated with wheat and oat bran. J. Food Qual. 39 (6), 649 – 657. doi:10.1111/jfq.12232
  16. Kumar P., Verma A. K., Kumar D., Umaraw P., Mehta N., Malav O. P. (2019). Meat Snacks: A Novel Technological Perspective. Innovations in Traditional Foods. Sawston, Cambridge: The publisher Woodhead Publishing, 293 – 321.
  17. Kumar P., Sharma N., Ahmed M. A., Verma A. K., Umaraw P., Mehta N. (2022). Technological interventions in improving the functionality of proteins during processing of meat analogs. Front. Nutr. 9, 1044024. doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.1044024
  18. Kumar P., Abubakar A. A., Verma A. K., Umaraw P., Adewale Ahmed M., Mehta N. (2023). New insights in improving sustainability in meat production: opportunities and challenges. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 63 (33), 11830 – 11858. doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2096562
  19. Laksanawati T. A., Khirzin M., Meidayanti K., Kusherawati P. A., Kusuma H. S., Darmokoesoemo H. (2024). Prediction of shelf life and sensory qualities of beef meatball with biodegradable taro starch-duck bone gelatin packaging at different storage temperatures. Appl. Food Res. 4 (1), 100402. doi:10.1016/j.afres.2024.100402
  20. Malav O. P., Chatli M. K., Kumar P., Mehta N. (2017). Optimization and quality evaluation of spent hen meat papad incorporated with corn and black gram flour. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 52 (3), 312 – 317. doi:10.5958/0974-8180.2017.00067.8
  21. Mehmood L., Asghar S., Mujahid S. A., Rahman H. U. U., Khalid N. (2024). Formulation and quality evaluation of chicken nuggets supplemented with beef and chicken livers. Food Sci. Animal Resour. 44 (3), 620 – 634. doi:10.5851/kosfa.2024.e7
  22. Mishra B., Chauhan G., Mendiratta S. K., Rath P. K. (2014). Storage stability of vacuum packaged extended dehydrated chicken meat rings at ambient temperature. Indian J. Animal Sci. 84, 1222 – 1227. doi:10.56093/ijans.v84i11.44792
  23. Modi V. K., Sachindra N. M., Nagegowda P., Mahendrakar N. S., Rao D. N. (2007). Quality changes during the storage of dehydrated chicken kebab mix. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 42 (7), 827 – 835. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2007.01291.x
  24. Muthulakshmi M., Rajkumar R., Nalini P., Pradeep M., Priya S. D. (2024). Development and quality evaluation of protein-rich meat biscuits by utilizing industrial by-products. Int. J. Veterinary Sci. Animal Husb. 9 (6S), 225 – 231. doi:10.22271/veterinary.2024.v9.i6sd.1942
  25. Raeisi S., Ojagh S. M., Pourashouri P., Salaün F., Quek S. Y. (2020). Shelf-life and quality of chicken nuggets fortified with encapsulated fish oil and garlic essential oil during refrigerated storage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 58 (1), 121 – 128. doi:10.1007/s13197-020-04521-3
  26. Ratanatriwong P. A., Wongsa-Ngasri W., Suwansri S., Thanasukarn P. (2011). “ Optimization of drying process efficiency and shelf-life extension by active packaging in crispy minced-fish snacks,” in Paper Presented at the 12th ASEAN Food Conference, BITEC Bangna, Thailand.
  27. Reyes-Cano R., Dorantes-Alvarez L., Hernandez-Sanchez H., Gutierrez-Lopez G. F. (1995). Biochemical changes in an intermediate moisture Cecina-like meat during storage. Meat Sci. 40 (3), 387 – 395. doi:10.1016/0309-1740(94)00033-4
  28. Seong P. N., Cho S. H., Park K. M., Kang G. H., Park B. Y., Moon S. S. (2015). Characterization of chicken by-products by mean of proximate and nutritional compositions. Korean J. Food Sci. Animal Resour. 35 (2), 179 – 188. doi:10.5851/kosfa.2015.35.2.179
  29. Sharma S., Prabhakar H., Thind S., Chatli M., Kaur A. (2017). Evaluation of the effect of incorporation of functional ingredients on the shelf life of chicken patties using different packaging conditions during frozen storage. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 6 (11), 2797 – 2809. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2017.611.330
  30. Shaviklo A. R., Azaribeh M., Moradi Y., Zangeneh P. (2015). Formula optimization and storage stability of extruded puffed corn-shrimp snacks. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 63 (1), 307 – 314. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.093
  31. Singh V. P., Sanyal M. K., Dubey P. C., Mendiratta S. K. (2011). Quality assessment of vacuum packaged chicken snacks stored at room temperature. Curr. Res. Poult. Sci. 1, 66 – 76. Available online at:.
  32. Singh T. P., Malav O. P., Sethi A. P. S., Mehta N., Wagh R. V. (2022). Nutritional and physico-chemical quality evaluation of poultry and dairy industry by-products. Haryana Veterinarian 61 (1), 131 – 133.
  33. Summo C., Caponio F., Pasqualone A. (2006). Effect of vacuum-packaging storage on the quality level of ripened sausages. Meat Sci. 74 (2), 249 – 254. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.03.008
  34. Verma A. K., Umaraw P., Kumar P., Mehta N., Sharma N., Kumar D. (2025). Peptides from animal and fishery byproducts: uplifting the functionality of fifth quarter. Food Sci. and Nutr. 13 (4), e70140. doi:10.1002/fsn3.70140
  35. Wang Y., Tuccillo F., Lampi A. M., Knaapila A., Pulkkinen M., Kariluoto S. (2022). Flavour challenges in extruded plant-based meat alternatives: a review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 21 (3), 2898 – 2929. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12964
  36. Witte V. C., Krause G. F., Bailey M. E. (1970). A new extraction method for determining 2 thiobarbituric acid values of pork and beef during storage. J. Food Sci. 35 (5), 582 – 585. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1970.tb04815.x

Citation

Abhinandh, K., et al. (2026). Physicochemical and sensory quality of poultry slaughter byproduct-enriched sticks during ambient storage (25 ± 2 °C) under different packaging conditions. Frontiers in Food Science and Technology, Volume 6. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
6 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Abhinandh, Kumar, Mehta and Wagh.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Pavan Kumar

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Mini ReviewFrom solar heat to digital drying: integrating computational fluid dynamics, process optimisation, and digital twins for sustainable tuber-chip dryingChinyere Nneoma UgwuOriginal ResearchTailoring soy protein isolate–alginate double emulsion composite gel microcapsules for cheese-like texture and probiotic protection in plant-based cheese analoguesToshifumi Udo, Ethan He, Gopinath Mummaleti, Yang Jiao, Jinru Chen, Rakesh K. Singh, Fanbin KongReviewNutritional dynamics of weeds in agroecosystem and their utilization in the agro-food industry within a circular economy frameworkArshiya Dogra, Neha Sharma, Sunny Sharma