Nutritional and functional properties of popped little millet («Panicum sumatrense»)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food industries are focusing energies towards the development of functional foods and food ingredients. Several ancient grains are being used as a source of functional nutrients. Millets are minor cereals which have high nutritional value, are non-glutinous and are easily digestible. In spite of this, their consumption is limited. This could be attributed to their non-availability in ready-to-eat and ready-to-use foods. Processing of millets to incorporate them in ready-to-eat foods can increase their nutritional value, availability and economic value. Thermal processing can improve the bioavailability of certain vitamins and minerals and can also help in lowering the water activity thus, preventing the growth of microorganisms. Thermally processed foods also have better organoleptic properties. One interesting method of thermal processing is popping. Popping enhances the carbohydrate and protein digestibility by inactivating some of the enzymes and enzyme inhibitors. Popping also improves the color, appearance, aroma and taste of the processed food commodity. In the present study, the popping quality of little millet (Panicum sumatrense) and the effects of popping on the nutrient composition and the functional properties of the millet were studied. The popping quality of little millet was optimized with respect to the temperature of the particulate medium and the moisture content of the millet, both of which were found to determine the yield of popping. The optimized conditions for popping little millet were obtained at 16% grain moisture and particulate medium temperature of 260°C. The total protein, crude fat and total ash content of the popped millet was almost equal to that of the native millet. Popping increased the non-resistant starch content of little millet. The availability of total phenolics increased from 225 mg GAE/100g sample (db) in native millet to 661.462 mg GAE/100g sample (db) in popped millet. Popped millet flour (PMF) had a higher oil absorption capacity at room temperature as well as at 140°C and also exhibited higher swelling power and solubility. While the cold paste viscosity of the native millet flour (NMF) was 5.359 X 10^-3 Pa s, that of PMF varied from 1.5 to 7.5 Pa s. NMF had a hot paste viscosity (HPV) of 0.1908 Pa s whereas the HPV of PMF varied from 1.9 to 7.5 Pa s. From the results obtained in the present study, it was deduced that PMF would form pastes of uniform viscosity which would be more stable to heat during cooking and would have a greater shelf-life. It was also confirmed that popped millet flour had the advantage over native millet flour with improved nutrient availability and better functional properties.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".