Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 30;36(4):445–451. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.4.445

Table 2. Effect of various combinations of pork meat and pork head levels on proximate composition of frankfurters.

Treatments1) Moisture content (%) Protein content (%) Fat content (%) Ash content (%)
Control 61.37±0.14a 18.27±0.31b 16.08±0.26b 1.51±0.09
T1 61.20±0.47a 20.16±0.96a 17.86±0.95a 1.48±0.09
T2 59.96±0.73b 20.50±0.33a 17.99±1.15a 1.55±0.05
T3 59.73±0.33b 20.92±2.94a 18.43±0.95a 1.48±0.05
T4 59.05±0.74b 21.87±0.50a 18.72±0.34a 1.45±0.15

All values are mean±standard deviation of three replicates (n=9).

a,bMeans within a column with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05).

1)Control, frankfurter with 50% pork meat; T1, frankfurter with 45% pork meat + 5% pork head; T2, frankfurter with 40% pork meat + 10% pork head; T3, frankfurter with 35% pork meat + 15% pork head; T4, frankfurter with 30% pork meat + 20% pork head.