Effects of the incorporation of β-glucans in chicken breast during storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
β-glucans are cereal-derived soluble fiber compounds that elicit health benefits when consumed in amounts of 0.75 g/serving. The use of β-glucans in whole muscle meat products, such as chicken breast, is unexplored and needs clarification at a discovery level. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incorporation of β-glucan in the whole muscle chicken breast and identify changes in physical, chemical, textural, microbiological, and thermal properties during 9 D of aerobic storage at refrigeration temperatures. Treatments were 1) control (no salt or β-glucan added; CON), 2) salt solution (2% NaCl and 0.2% phosphate curing solution; SALT), 3) β-glucan solution (1.5% β-glucan; βG), and 4) combination of salt and β-glucan solutions (2% NaCl, 0.2% phosphate, and 1.5% β-glucan; SALT+βG). The target injection level was 20%, however the average uptake level was 8.15%. Color, pH, shear force, and bacteria count were minimally affected by treatment during the 9 D of aerobic storage at 4°C. Cooking loss (P < 0.01) was greater in CON samples compared to all other treatments indicating the presence of salt or fiber or both improved water retention. The β-glucan concentration in uncooked chicken following injection was 0.125 g/100 g product and 0.133 g/100g product in βG and SALT+βG treatments, respectively. Following cooking, the β-glucan concentration was 0.010 g/100g product and 0.004 g/100g product in βG and SALT+βG treatments, respectively. There was no storage day effect (P = 0.42) for the β-glucan concentration in cooked product, therefore it was assumed that during cooking, β-glucan concentration in whole muscle injected products was lost. Finally, thermal behavior measured with a differential scanning calorimeter indicated that there were only minimal differences, although some significant, among treatments in this study. Overall, the application of β-glucan injection in whole chicken breast was not detrimental to product quality and actually improved water retention levels. However, new methods need to be developed for the incorporation of β-glucan in injected whole muscle meat product so that β-glucan can be retained during and after cooking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".