title: Quality characteristics of low fat chicken nuggets: effect of salt substitute blend and pea hull flour.
abstract: Effect of salt substitution (Treat I) and added pea hull flour (PHF) at 8 (Treat-II), 10 (Treat-III) and 12 % (Treat-IV) levels on the quality of low fat chicken nuggets (Control) was investigated. Replacement of NaCl significantly affected (P < 0.05) emulsion and product pH, emulsion stability, cooking yield, ash content while PHF had additional effect on moisture and protein. Dietary fibre content in the product significantly (P < 0.05) increased at each level of PHF. The colour parameters remained similar to control due to salt replacement while added PHF decreased their values. Textural properties were lower (P < 0.05) in the treated products. Addition of PHF significantly (P < 0.05) decreased cholesterol and glycolipids contents at 8 % and 12 % levels, respectively. Sensory evaluation exhibited that 40 % NaCl can efficiently be replaced and 8 % PHF can be incorporated as a source of fibre in low fat chicken nuggets without significant effect on various attributes.
authors.affiliation: Division of Livestock Products Technology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, UP 243 122 India ; Goat Products Technology Lab, CIRG, Makhdoom, Farah, Mathura, UP 281 122 India.
authors.forename: Arun K
authors.initials: AK
authors.lastname: Verma
authors.affiliation: Division of Livestock Products Technology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, UP 243 122 India.
authors.forename: Rituparna
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Banerjee
authors.affiliation: Division of Livestock Products Technology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, UP 243 122 India.
authors.forename: Brahma Deo
authors.initials: BD
authors.lastname: Sharma
keywords: Chicken nuggets; Pea hull flour; Physicochemical properties; Texture profile analysis
references.citation: Meat Sci. 1984;11(2):109-21
references.pmid: 22054748
references.citation: Annu Rev Nutr. 1992;12:19-35
references.pmid: 1323981
references.citation: Int J Cancer. 2006 Dec 1;119(11):2657-64
references.pmid: 16991129
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2000 May 11;342(19):1392-8
references.pmid: 10805824
references.citation: Anal Biochem. 1968 Jan;22(1):74-88
references.pmid: 4295251
references.citation: Meat Sci. 1998;49S1:S1-S16
references.pmid: 22060702
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2005 May;70(1):99-105
references.pmid: 22063285
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2005 Apr;69(4):781-8
references.pmid: 22063157
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2001 Sep;59(1):5-13
references.pmid: 22062500
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2002 Aug;61(4):397-404
references.pmid: 22061068
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2001 Apr;57(4):387-93
references.pmid: 22061711
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2005 Jan;69(1):53-60
references.pmid: 22062639
references.citation: Meat Sci. 1999 Jul;52(3):247-56
references.pmid: 22062572
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2003 Oct;65(2):819-23
references.pmid: 22063444
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 1957 May;226(1):497-509
references.pmid: 13428781
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2002 Mar;60(3):227-36
references.pmid: 22063393
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2005 Aug;70(4):613-9
references.pmid: 22063887
references.citation: J Food Sci Technol. 2013 Dec;50(6):1058-68
references.pmid: 24426017
references.citation: J Food Sci Technol. 2010 Mar;47(2):224-9
references.pmid: 23572629
references.citation: Meat Sci. 2004 Jun;67(2):245-9
references.pmid: 22061320