Nutritive Profile of Canned Goat Meat Food with Added Carrot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments have been marked in the attached PDF for the revision of the article. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks you for your valuable comments

Please find revised versionof manuscript along with answer sheet. All corrections are in RED

add some information regarding canned technology why you used cannining, need of canning etc. - added

Canned meat is meat products that are hermetically sealed in tin or glass jars. Canned meat is exposed to high temperatures for destruction of pathogenic microflora and resistance to storage. Canned meat is characterized by high nutritional value, long storage, and easy transportation.

write about brief of slaughter methods - added

The back part of the goat carcass is cut lengthwise along the vertebrae into two loin parts (ham). Three basic techniques are used for deboning the hind leg: the pelvic bone is separated, then the tibia and femur. The flesh of the hip mass is cut into pieces for grinding on the meat grinder.

what is the temperature of blanching -  corrected

‘Sliced vegetables were sauteed at 105 °C in vegetable oil’.

percentage of meat is lower than 50 % then how you can say it is canned meat. what is the legal standard for meat products in your country to say as meat products – corrected the formulation of canned goat meat

carotene content not mentioned in table 2 – see figure 3

why you measure salt value (its value is same in each and every groups and why you put superscript on non-significant data – corrected (Deleted from the table and inserted in the text)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript studies the effect of carrot addition on the nutritional and biological value of canned goat meat. However, the article has several problems:

1. Readers cannot determine whether organoleptic evaluation data were obtained appropriately. Please describe it in more detail.

2. The data in Figure 2 and Figure 3 were not statistically evaluated. In addition, it is recommended to show in Table.

3. The component content of a mixed product can be predicted to some extent from the individual component content. Since this journal is a scientific paper, it is important to scientifically explain the chemical reactions that occur when meat and vegetables are mixed. A discussion of the results of sensory evaluation is also needed. For example, the component that contributes to improving taste and consistency should be described.

4. Instrumental analysis (texture analysis) is also necessary to objectively evaluate the differences in consistency between experimental and control samples.

5.   Changes in taste and appearance, when stored for a long period, should be verified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks you for your valuable comments

Please find revised versionof manuscript along with answer sheet. All corrections are in RED

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled by Chomanov et al. "Nutritive profile of canned goat meat food with added carrot" is not suitable for publication in present form due to serious concerns

The language of this manuscript must be improved by native speaker.

Enriched the discussed by using more literatures

The serious concerns in this study must be take into consideration

Comments:

Line 17, 291: must be: B9 (folic acid)

Line 70: must be written: Carrot (Daucus carota subsp. Sativus)

Lines 92-96: you must indicate to the samples location from the carcass (from which site the samples of meat were taken from carcase) or names of muscles that used in the study.

Line 92: what do you mean about weight of paired carcass?

Lines 94-95: you indicated " Carcasses were kept for 24 hours at 18±2°С ….." 18±2°С is too high temperature for meat storage 24 hours.

Line 101: you indicated "addition of carrots from 10 to 20% instead of goat meat (Table 1)" but it must be: from 10 to 30% instead of goat meat

Line 114: must be: 115 °С.

Lines 117-118 (table 1): addition of carrots from 10, 20 and 30% instead of goat meat which is 200 grams it must be 20, 40 and 60 grams not 10, 20 and 30 grams.

Lines 121-223: indicate to the citation (reference) for method of moisture determination

lines 124-125: determination of fat was according to which citation (references) 26 or 27?

line 126: indicate to the citation (reference) for method of ash determination

Line 132: formula must have written: CV = 4(P+C) + 9F

Lines 135-139: the title (2.6 Determination of energy characteristics) contrary to content (Determination of salt content), also the results of water-binding capacity are missing from chapter of results and discussion.

Lines 140-159: the title (2.5 Determination of salt content) contrary to content (Determination of the water-binding capacity).

Lines 160-172: indicate to the citation (reference) for method of amino acid determination

Lines 179-181: you indicated "Calcium (wavelength 422.7 nm), phosphorus (470 nm) contents were determined on an atomic emission spectrometer …" what about remained 9 minerals that you determined in your study? you must be indicate to their also.

Lines 182-214: the results of fatty acid composition are missing from chapter of results and discussion.

Line 185: reform the citation according to the style of journal

Line 189: H₂SO₄

Lines 211-212: close the bracket at the end of sentence

Lines 230, 236 (table 2), 327: you indicated that you determined physico-chemical composition of canned food, but actually there are only chemical parameters and no physical parameters were determined.

Uppercase letters which are used to indicate the significant differences of data in the tables, they are not used in a specific order depending on the gradual increase or decrease of the values.

Line 251: indicate to the citation (reference).

Mass fraction of fibre (figure 2) and content of β-carotene (figure 3): methods of determination not mentioned in chapter of material and method.

In figures 2 and 3 there are no indications (by uppercase letters) to the significant differences (P ˂ 0.05)

Line 273: according to table 3, lysine not increased significantly for T20

Lines 273-274: according to table 3, level of Leucine + izoleucine for T30 increased significantly from 1737 (control) to 1822 (T30).

Lines 283-295: methods of determination of vitamins not mentioned in chapter of material and method.

Line 302: citation is 41 or 40? because in table 5 is 40.

Lines 305-306: in table 5, citation is 40 or 41? because in text line 302 is 41.

Line 310: consumer packaging or product packaging?

Line 331: in chapter of conclusion, results with not significant differences must not be mentioned.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks you for your valuable comments

Please find revised versionof manuscript along with answer sheet. All corrections are in RED

Line 17, 291: must be: B9 (folic acid) - corrected

Line 70: must be written: Carrot (Daucus carota subsp. Sativus) - corrected

Lines 92-96: you must indicate to the samples location from the carcass (from which site the samples of meat were taken from carcase) or names of muscles that used in the study. – corrected “Cuts of meat samples were from loin side.”

Line 92: what do you mean about weight of paired carcass? ) - corrected  “weight of carcass”

Lines 94-95: you indicated " Carcasses were kept for 24 hours at 18±2°С ….." 18±2°С is too high temperature for meat storage 24 hours. – corrected (-18) °С 

Line 101: you indicated "addition of carrots from 10 to 20% instead of goat meat (Table 1)" but it must be: from 10 to 30% instead of goat meat - corrected  

Line 114: must be: 115 °С. - corrected  

Lines 117-118 (table 1): addition of carrots from 10, 20 and 30% instead of goat meat which is 200 grams it must be 20, 40 and 60 grams not 10, 20 and 30 grams. – corrected

Lines 121-223: indicate to the citation (reference) for method of moisture determination – corrected The determination of moisture was based on the method described [26]

lines 124-125: determination of fat was according to which citation (references) 26 or 27? - corrected

line 126: indicate to the citation (reference) for method of ash determination - corrected

Line 132: formula must have written: CV = 4(P+C) + 9F - corrected

Lines 135-139: the title (2.6 Determination of energy characteristics) contrary to content (Determination of salt content), also the results of water-binding capacity are missing from chapter of results and discussion. – corrected   Deleted Determination of the water-binding capacity

Lines 140-159: the title (2.5 Determination of salt content) contrary to content (Determination of the water-binding capacity). - - corrected

Lines 160-172: indicate to the citation (reference) for method of amino acid determination – corrected   [4]

Lines 179-181: you indicated "Calcium (wavelength 422.7 nm), phosphorus (470 nm) contents were determined on an atomic emission spectrometer …" what about remained 9 minerals that you determined in your study? you must be indicate to their also. – corrected

Lines 182-214: the results of fatty acid composition are missing from chapter of results and discussion. – deleted the methods of fatty acid determination

Line 185: reform the citation according to the style of journal - corrected

Line 189: H₂SO₄ - corrected

Lines 211-212: close the bracket at the end of sentence - corrected

Lines 230, 236 (table 2), 327: you indicated that you determined physico-chemical composition of canned food, but actually there are only chemical parameters and no physical parameters were determined. – corrected   Deleted the word “physico”

Uppercase letters which are used to indicate the significant differences of data in the tables, they are not used in a specific order depending on the gradual increase or decrease of the values. - corrected

Line 251: indicate to the citation (reference). - corrected

Mass fraction of fibre (figure 2) and content of β-carotene (figure 3): methods of determination not mentioned in chapter of material and method. – added methods of determination

In figures 2 and 3 there are no indications (by uppercase letters) to the significant differences (P ˂ 0.05)

corrected

Line 273: according to table 3, lysine not increased significantly for T20  - added “and lysine in T30 sample”

Lines 273-274: according to table 3, level of Leucine + izoleucine for T30 increased significantly from 1737 (control) to 1822 (T30). – added new sentence “Also, in T30 samples there was a significant increase in levels of leucine + isoleucine from 1737 (control) to 1822 (T30).”

Lines 283-295: methods of determination of vitamins not mentioned in chapter of material and method. - added

Line 302: citation is 41 or 40? because in table 5 is 40. – corrected in table should be  47

Lines 305-306: in table 5, citation is 40 or 41? because in text line 302 is 41. – corrected in table should be  47

Line 310: consumer packaging or product packaging? – corrected “product packaging”

Line 331: in chapter of conclusion, results with not significant differences must not be mentioned. - corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has tried to incorporate corrections as marked in the PDF therefor it may be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. 

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has still several problems. Since this journal is a scientific paper, it is important to scientifically explain the chemical reactions that occur when meat and vegetables are mixed. The relationship between chemical composition and sensory evaluation is not fully discussed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thank you for you valuable comments. Please find all corrections in red in attached manuscript

The color scores were higher in the experimental samples compared to the control. The highest score was in the T-30 sample with 30% carrot inclusion. This effect may be associated with the presence of orange pigment and carotinoids affecting color in carrot. Similar findings were also reported by [50] in chicken nuggets and by [51] in turkey meat sausages.

Canned samples T30 (4.6 points) and T20 (4.7 points) had a more tender and juicy consistency. In evaluating the taste of the experimental samples T30 and T20 also received the highest score (4.7 and 4.8 points respectively) and were described as typical of canned meat, without specific flavors. Organoleptic evaluation showed improved consistency in samples T-20 (4.6 points) and T-30 (4.7 points). Similar results were obtained by [51] in a study of turkey meat sausages with the inclusion of carrot paste. Improving juiciness and tenderness of the meat product by increasing the proportion of carrots due to the presence of natural polysaccharides, dietary fiber, which linked with the water-protein-fat matrix to form a more gel-like consistency [52, 53].

Any change in the chemical composition of the finished product due to the partial replacement of one ingredient of the formulation by another, consequently, can affect the sensory characteristics and consumer qualities of the product. As supposed by [54], the amount and type of amino acids in the composition of finished meat and meat products can affect its flavor characteristics and sensorimetric score. For example, alanine, glycine, proline, serine and threonine can contribute to a sweet taste; histidine, allo-isoleucine, leucine, methionine, pheninalanine, tryptophan and valine can add a bitter taste to products [55]. The maximum content of amino acids responsible for sweetish taste corresponded to the control sample and the T-20 sample. The highest content of the amino acids contributing to the bitter taste corresponded to the control sample T-30. The highest grades of taste in organoleptic evaluation were given to the samples T-10 and T-30. These findings differ from those of [56] on the reduction of taste characteristics in meat bread made of buffalo liver and vegetables with the inclusion of carrot paste and with the results of [52] in a study of beef frankfurters with carrot paste (3%,5% and 10%). This difference in results may be explained by differences in the type of finished products, the raw meat, and the formulation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Revised version of manuscript entitled by Chomanov et al. "Nutritive profile of canned goat meat food with added carrot" is improved and suitable for publication after take into consideration the following comments:

The language of manuscript must be improved by native speaker.

Enriched the discussion (in the results and discussion paragraph) by citation more literature (references)

Lines 242 and 338: delete word " Physical"

Line 301: According to table 4, citation must be 47 not 34

Check all citations and references if they are compatible with each other

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments

Please find attached manuscript wwith red corrections

Enriched the discussion (in the results and discussion paragraph) by citation more literature (references) – added citations

Lines 242 and 338: delete word " Physical"  - corrected

Line 301: According to table 4, citation must be 47 not 34 -  - corrected

Check all citations and references if they are compatible with each other

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The relationship between chemical composition and sensory evaluation has been partly discussed. I accept in present form but recommend the further research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thank you for your comments and acceptance