Page Banner

United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

Research Project: USDA NATIONAL NUTRIENT DATABANK FOR FOOD COMPOSITION

Location: Nutrient Data

Title: Nutrient Composition of Enhanced and Non-enhanced Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast Fillets Purchased from Retail

Authors
item Cael, Matt -
item Howe, Juliette -
item Patterson, Kristine
item Holden, Joanne
item Showell, Bethany
item Luna, Ana -
item Thompson, Leslie -

Submitted to: Meeting Abstract
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: March 31, 2009
Publication Date: March 21, 2009
Citation: Cael, M., Howe, J., Patterson, K.K., Holden, J.M., Showell, B.A., Luna, A., Thompson, L. 2009. Nutrient composition of enhanced and non-enhanced boneless skinless chicken breast fillets purchased from retail. 2009 Reciprocal Meat Conference, June 21-24, 2009, Rogers, Arkansas.

Technical Abstract: The objective of this study was to compare nutritional composition of raw enhanced (E) and non-enhanced (NE), boneless, skinless chicken breast fillets (pectoralis major), obtained from U.S. retail supermarkets. Fillets were either enhanced with a salt, phosphate, and water solution, or were non-enhanced. Sampling locations utilized were those previously identified and used by USDA to collect data for the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR). Enhanced or NE samples were randomly assigned to be purchased as follows: E samples were obtained from four retail supermarkets located in Michigan, North Carolina, Colorado, and Florida, and NE samples were from four retail supermarkets in New York, Michigan, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Samples were shipped frozen on dry ice to Texas Tech University (TTU). Upon receipt, samples were homogenized, stored at -80°C, and subsequently shipped on dry ice to USDA contract laboratories for analysis of lipids and vitamins. Samples retained at TTU were analyzed for moisture, protein, ash, minerals, and cholesterol. Percentage moisture, ash, protein, and fat of the raw fillets did not differ between E and NE fillets, averaging 76.36, 1.32, 20.50, and 2.66%, respectively (p > 0.05). Based on the proximate analysis, a 100-g serving of the raw fillets contained 106 kcal. Lipid profile was unaffected (P> 0.05) by enhancement, with lipids averaging 32.5% saturated, 44.5% monounsaturated, and 23.0% polyunsaturated fat; average trans fat content was 0.024 g/100 g. Cholesterol content averaged 61.5 mg/100 g. Enhancement increased (p < 0.05) P and Na contents of breast fillets 24% and 178%, respectively (mean ± SE, Na: E, 259.9 ± 16.1mg vs. NE, 209.5 ± 9.8 mg and P: E, 322.5 ± 52.0 mg vs. NE 116.1 ± 31.9 mg). Enhancement decreased K content of fillets by 24% (E, 281.5 ± 7.4 mg vs. NE, 370.3 ± 22.5 mg, p < 0.05). Calcium, Fe, Mg, Zn, Cu, Mn, and Se were unaffected (p > 0.05) by enhancement with fillets averaging 4.48, 0.36, 24.6, 0.56, 0.03, 0.028 mg/100 g, and 27.3 µg/100 g, respectively. Vitamins (thiamin, niacin, pantothenic acid, B6, B12, and retinol) were unaffected by enhancement with the exception of riboflavin which was lower in E compared to NE fillets (0.083 mg vs. 0.100 mg, respectively, p < 0.05). Phosphorus, Na, K, and riboflavin were the nutrients affected by enhancement. Consumers and health care professionals should be aware that enhancement of poultry, while desirable for maintaining tenderness and juiciness of the cooked product, has a significant impact on the P and Na content of the product and this could have an effect on dietary needs or restrictions.

Last Modified: 10/25/2014
Footer Content Back to Top of Page