4.6 Article

Assessment of Different Dietary Fibers (Tomato Fiber, Beet Root Fiber, and Inulin) for the Manufacture of Chopped Cooked Chicken Products

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 77, Issue 4, Pages C346-C352

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02597.x

Keywords

color; cooked products; cook loss; dietary fiber; oxidation; texture; water-holding capacity

Funding

  1. Junta de Extremadura [PDT05A055]
  2. FEDER
  3. INIA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three dietary fibers (tomato fiber [TF], beet root fiber [BRF], and inulin) at 3 levels of addition (1%, 2%, and 3%) were assessed for the manufacture of chopped, cooked chicken products and compared with a control product without fiber added. The effect of fiber incorporation on (i) batters, (ii) cooked (30 min at 70 degrees C), and (iii) cooked and stored (for 10 d at 4 degrees C) chicken products were studied. The addition of the fiber to chicken meat products reduced the pH of chicken batters in proportional to the level of fiber addition. Fiber incorporation increased water-holding capacity but only the addition of TF reduced cook losses. The color of batters and cooked products was significantly modified by the type and level of fiber added. These changes were more noticeable when TF was added. Texture parameters were affected by the incorporation of TF and BRF; they increased the hardness in proportional to the level of addition. The addition of tomato and BRF to chicken meat products reduced lipid oxidation processes. These changes were dependent on the level of fiber added. The reduction of lipid oxidation processes was more marked in TF meat products than in products with other types of fibers. In contrast, the addition level of inulin increased TBA-RS numbers in chicken meat products. Although the addition of TF increased the redness of the meat products, the use of this fiber was more suitable as it reduced the extent of lipid oxidation processes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available