PROTEIN NUTRITIONAL QUALITY OF MECHANICALLY DEBONED POULTRY MEAT AS PREDICTED BY THE C‐PER ASSAY

Abd. Salam Babji, G. W. FRONING, L. D. SATTERLEE

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Mechanically deboned poultry meat (MDPM) from raw broiler backs and necks (MDCM), cooked mechanically deboned chicken meat from fowl carcassas (CMDFM), and raw turkey frames (MDTM) were evaluated for their nutritional composition and quality. Procedures for evaluation included protein efficiency ratio (PER) using rat and computed PER (C‐PER) techniques, in vitro and in vivo digestibitlities, amino acid composition, and proximate analysis. All three types of MDPM showed PER and C‐PER values comparable to those for standard casein. MDTM had a higher C‐PER and PER which ranged from 2.59–2.75 than did MDCM and CMDFM having values which ranged from 2.34–2.94. The PER and C‐PER values given are based upon the standard protein casein having a PER and C‐PER of 2.50.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)441-443
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Food Science
Volume45
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1980
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

poultry meat
Nutritive Value
protein efficiency ratio
Poultry
Meat
nutritive value
assays
Proteins
proteins
Caseins
casein
meat protein
chicken meat
back (body region)
proximate composition
amino acid composition
neck
broiler chickens
Chickens
chickens

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Food Science

Cite this

PROTEIN NUTRITIONAL QUALITY OF MECHANICALLY DEBONED POULTRY MEAT AS PREDICTED BY THE C‐PER ASSAY. / Babji, Abd. Salam; FRONING, G. W.; SATTERLEE, L. D.

In: Journal of Food Science, Vol. 45, No. 3, 1980, p. 441-443.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{35031205b22d4ae8837221dbcf8eb78e,
title = "PROTEIN NUTRITIONAL QUALITY OF MECHANICALLY DEBONED POULTRY MEAT AS PREDICTED BY THE C‐PER ASSAY",
abstract = "Mechanically deboned poultry meat (MDPM) from raw broiler backs and necks (MDCM), cooked mechanically deboned chicken meat from fowl carcassas (CMDFM), and raw turkey frames (MDTM) were evaluated for their nutritional composition and quality. Procedures for evaluation included protein efficiency ratio (PER) using rat and computed PER (C‐PER) techniques, in vitro and in vivo digestibitlities, amino acid composition, and proximate analysis. All three types of MDPM showed PER and C‐PER values comparable to those for standard casein. MDTM had a higher C‐PER and PER which ranged from 2.59–2.75 than did MDCM and CMDFM having values which ranged from 2.34–2.94. The PER and C‐PER values given are based upon the standard protein casein having a PER and C‐PER of 2.50.",
author = "Babji, {Abd. Salam} and FRONING, {G. W.} and SATTERLEE, {L. D.}",
year = "1980",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb04070.x",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "441--443",
journal = "Journal of Food Science",
issn = "0022-1147",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - PROTEIN NUTRITIONAL QUALITY OF MECHANICALLY DEBONED POULTRY MEAT AS PREDICTED BY THE C‐PER ASSAY

AU - Babji, Abd. Salam

AU - FRONING, G. W.

AU - SATTERLEE, L. D.

PY - 1980

Y1 - 1980

N2 - Mechanically deboned poultry meat (MDPM) from raw broiler backs and necks (MDCM), cooked mechanically deboned chicken meat from fowl carcassas (CMDFM), and raw turkey frames (MDTM) were evaluated for their nutritional composition and quality. Procedures for evaluation included protein efficiency ratio (PER) using rat and computed PER (C‐PER) techniques, in vitro and in vivo digestibitlities, amino acid composition, and proximate analysis. All three types of MDPM showed PER and C‐PER values comparable to those for standard casein. MDTM had a higher C‐PER and PER which ranged from 2.59–2.75 than did MDCM and CMDFM having values which ranged from 2.34–2.94. The PER and C‐PER values given are based upon the standard protein casein having a PER and C‐PER of 2.50.

AB - Mechanically deboned poultry meat (MDPM) from raw broiler backs and necks (MDCM), cooked mechanically deboned chicken meat from fowl carcassas (CMDFM), and raw turkey frames (MDTM) were evaluated for their nutritional composition and quality. Procedures for evaluation included protein efficiency ratio (PER) using rat and computed PER (C‐PER) techniques, in vitro and in vivo digestibitlities, amino acid composition, and proximate analysis. All three types of MDPM showed PER and C‐PER values comparable to those for standard casein. MDTM had a higher C‐PER and PER which ranged from 2.59–2.75 than did MDCM and CMDFM having values which ranged from 2.34–2.94. The PER and C‐PER values given are based upon the standard protein casein having a PER and C‐PER of 2.50.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84985278830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84985278830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb04070.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb04070.x

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 441

EP - 443

JO - Journal of Food Science

JF - Journal of Food Science

SN - 0022-1147

IS - 3

ER -