NONMEAT INGREDIENTS FOR LOW-FAT GROUND BEEF PATTIES

NONMEAT INGREDIENTS FOR LOW-FAT GROUND BEEF PATTIES

K.B. BULLOCK', D.L. HUFFMAN3. W.R. EGBERT2, D.D. BRADFORD', W.B. MIKEL and W.R. JONES

Animal & Dairy Sciences Department Food Technology Institute

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station4 Auburn UniversiQ, AL 36849-5430

Submitted for Publication November 16, 1993 Accepted for Publication on March 15. 1994

ABSTRACT

Nine ground beef treatments were evaluated to compare chemical, physical and sensory characteristics of lowTfat ground beef patties containing various water binders. Treatments 1-5 contained a blend of iota and kappa carrageenans hav- ing various viscosity and gelling characteristics (SD389, Viscarin SD 389; ME389, Viscarin ME 389; GP379, Gelcarin GP379; ME389IGP379, 501'50 ME389 & GP379; and ME621, Gelcarin ME621), and treatments 6-9 contained other water binders (XG/LBG, xanthanI'locust bean gum; PF, pea flour; ALG, algin; and LB, Lean BindTM modij?ed food starch). Treatment I , which contained carrageenan (SD389), served as the control. Algin patties were rated lowest in flavor intens- ity. Algin and LB patties were highest in sensory tenderness and had the lowest shear force values. lhe patties manufactured from ME389/GP379 and XGILBG received higher overall acceptability scores than the control SD389 patties.

INTRODUCTION

Hydrocolloids are commonly used in the food industry to enhance sensory prop- erties, and reduce formulation costs. Some of the more widely utilized hydro- colloids are: carrageenans, algins, and starches. Water binding systems have many functions in processed foods, with the most obvious being that of retaining moisture

'Cryovac Corp., Duncan, SC 29334. ZArcher Daniels Midland Co., Decatur, IL 62526. 3Forward all communications to Dr. D.L. Huffman. 4Agricultural Experiment Station #4-933656. Journal of Muscle Foods 6 (1995) 3 7 4 6 . Al l Rights Reserved. 0 Copyright 1995 bv Food & Nutrition Press, lnc. , Trumbull, Connecticut. 31

38 BULLOCK. HUFFMAN, EGBERT. BRADFORD. MIKEL and JONES

in the final product. Water binders also serve as gelling, thickening and stabiliz- ing agents in food products. These materials play an important role in the eating quality and final sensory acceptance of foods. especially liquid or fluid food pro- ducts (Frost et al. 1984).

Previous research has indicated that gums are very effective water binders in low-fat food products. Foegeding and Ramsey (1986) evaluated the effect of seven gum treatments on the stability and textural properties of low-fat meat batters. Results indicated no difference in hedonic evaluation among control (26.9% fat) and low-fat (1 1.4-12.3% fat) frankfurters with added food gums. Huffman and Egbert (1990) reported on the development of a low-fat ground beef patty con- taining the food gum iota carrageenan that had equivalent or better sensory characteristics when compared to a 20% fat content patty. When used in low-fat ground beef formulations, iota carrageenan with water maintained juiciness and texture, improved the machinability of the final product and did not mask natural meat flavors.

There are three types of carrageenan: kappa, iota and lambda. Kappa and iota types of carrageenan form thermally reversible gels of different textures, while lambda will not gel (FMC 1991). In addition to iota, some carrageenans (i.e., kappa) and other types of gums (xanthan, locust bean) might function as excellent water binders in low-fat ground beef products. Furthermore, other water binders such as starches from potato, wheat and pea have been studied as water binders for low-fat meat products. Thus the objectives of this study were to evaluate the sensory, chemical, and physical properties of alternative water binding systems as compared to the current iota carrageenan being.used in low-fat ground beef.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study consisted of three replications of nine treatments (Table 1). Car- rageenans used in treatments 1-5 were supplied by the Marine Colloids Division of FMC Corp. (Philadelphia). Each of the five treatments received 0.5% (33.8 g) carrageenan, since this level provided optimum sensory and physical proper- ties in earlier studies (Egbert ef al. 1991). Treatment 1 (SD389) contained Viscarin SD389 (iota standardized to a consistent gel strength with salt), treatment 2 (ME389) contained Viscarin ME389 (iota standardized to a consistent gel strength with salt), treatment 3 (GP379) contained Gelcarin GP379 (iota standardized to a consistent gel strength with dextrose), treatment 4 (ME389/GP379) had a (5060) combination of 0.25% Viscarin ME389 and 0.25% Viscarin GP379, and treat- ment 5 (ME621) contained Gelcarin ME621 (iota and kappa standardized to a consistent gel strength with salt). Levels of water binder required to provide op- timum sensory and physical properties in treatments 6-9 were established in

LOW-FAT GROUND BEEF 39

preliminary studies. Treatment 6 (XG/LBG) contained 0.05 % (3.4 g) xan- than/locust bean gum combination (A5 1) obtained from Kelco Division of Merck & Co., Inc. (San Diego). Treatment 7 (PF) contained 1.0% (67.5 g) pea flour obtained from Grindstead (Industrial Airport, Kansas City). Treatment 8 (ALG) contained 0.15% (10.1 g) algin (A54) obtained from Kelco Division of Merck & Co., Inc. (San Diego). Treatment 9 (LB) contained 1 .O% (67.5 g) Lean BindTM, which is a modified food starch obtained from National Starch and Chemical Com- pany, Food Product Division (Bridgewater, N.J.). Beef (steer and heifer) trim- mings containing approximately 8 % fat from John Morrell (Montgomery, Ala.) were used as the raw material in each of the treatments. The target fat content for all batches was 8%. All batches were formulated to contain 6.75 kg beef trim- mings, 10% (675 g) water, 0.2% (13 g) HVP and 0.4% (27 g) encapsulated salt in combination with the specified amount of the nonmeat binder.

For each replication, meat raw materials were ground through a 1.27 cm plate using a Biro Automatic Food Mixer-Grinder, Model AFMG48-11, Marblehead, Ohio. The appropriate amounts of nonmeat and meat ingredients were mixed (2 min, 400 rpm) using a Hobart Mixer, Model A-200, Troy, Ohio and reground through a 0.48 cm plate. Patties (1 1 g) were formed (Hollymatic Food Portion- ing Machine, Super Model 54, Hollymatic Corp., Countryside, Ill.), interleaved with waxed patty paper (Hollymatic Corp., Countryside, Il l . ) individually frozen (- 1OC) and placed into plastic bags (Cryovac Div., W.R. Grace and Co., Simp- sonville, S.C.). After freezing and bagging, the products were placed into cor- rugated boxes and stored at -2OC until evaluated. Treatments were evaluated for: sensory properties by a trained sensory panel, textural properties using an Instron Universal Testing Machine equipped with a Kramer shear cell (Kramer shear force), cooking loss, water holding capacity and raw and cooked composi- tion (moisture, fat, and protein).

Composition and Cooking Loss Determination

Moisture, fat (petroleum ether extraction) and protein (Kjeldahl) contents of raw and cooked beef patties were determined using AOAC methods (1990). Frozen patties were griddle broiled (3 min first side, 2 min second) to a well done state (approx. 75C) on a Model TG-72 Special McDonald’s grill (Wolf Range Cor- poration, Compton, Calif.) preheated to a surface temperature of 165C. Cook- ing losses were determined by the difference in weight for 3 patlies from each treatment weighed prior to cooking and after cooking and equilibration to room temperature (approx. 20C). Cooked patties were blotted with paper towels im- mediately prior to final weighing.

40 BULLOCK. HUFFMAN. EGBERT. BRADFORD. MlKEL and JONES

TABLE 1. TYPE AND PERCENTAGE OF WATER BINDER USED IN EACH TREATMENT

TREATMENT WATER BINDER PERCENTAGE (96)

(1) SD389 Viscarin SD389&

(2) ME389 Vlscarin ME389'

(3) GP379 Gelcarin CP37gH

(4) ME389/GP379

(5) ME621 Gelcarin ME621"

50/50 ME389 & GP37gh

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

(6) XG@G Xanthan/locust bean gum (A51) 0.05

(7) PF Nutrio B-400 pea flour 1.0

(8) ALG Algin (A-54) 0.15

(9)U Lean Bindm ' 1.0 'Control b~ota carrageenan 'Standardized to a consistent gel strength uith dextrose dMelting point of approximately 54C 'Standardized to a consistent gel strength with salt 'Melting point of approximately 7 I C 8Mixture of 0.25% Viscarin ME389 & 0.25% Gelcarin GP379 "Mixture of kappa and iota carrageenans 'Modified food starch

Sensory Panel

Patties were cooked as previously described. cut into wedges and held for a maximum of 30 min (convection oven at 40C in metal pans with lids) until evaluated by a 10-member. trained (AMSA 1978) sensory panel. The following properties were evaluated on an 8-point scale: juiciness (8 = extremely juicy, I = extremely dry). tenderness (8 = extremely tender. 1 = extremely tough), off flavor (8 = no off flavor. 1 = extremely strong off flavor). connective tissue (8 = no connective tissue, 1 = abundant connective tissue). mealiness (8 = no mealiness, 1 = abundant mealiness). beef flavor intensity (8 = extremely in- tense. I = extremely bland) and overall acceptability (8 = extremely acceptable, 1 = extremely unacceptable). Panel members were screened from students, faculty and staff of the Auburn University Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences. Samples were served to panelists in individual booths under red lighting to mask visual differences between samples. Unsalted crackers. apple juice and water at room temperature were made available to panelists for cleansing the palate be- tween samples.

Kramer Shear Force

Kramer shear force measurements were taken with an Instron universal testing

LOW-FAT GROUND BEEF 41

machine, utilizing a Kramer shear force attachment (crosshead speed 50 mm/min). Eight patties from each treatment were cooked as previously described, cooled to room temperature (25C) for 1 h, cut into 6 x 6 cm individual squares and weighed prior to testing. Values are expressed as kg force/gm sample.

Water Holding Capacity

Water holding capacity was determined, in triplicate, by placing 0.3 g of sam- ple on Whatman No. 2 filter paper, overlaying the sample with acetate paper and pressing between two steel plates for 1 min at force of 35,163 kg/cm2 (Grau and Hamm 1953). The amount of free water in the sample was calculated by deter- mining the differences in the areas of the inner and outer rings and converting these values to mg of free water in a 0.3 g sample.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using analysis of variance by the general linear models procedure of SAS (1985). When F values were significant (P < 0.05), differences among means were determined using Fisher's (protected) least significant dif- ference (Steel and Torrie 1980).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Composition

Raw and cooked proximate analysis (moisture, fat and protein) are presented in Table 2. In the raw state, patties made with algin or Lean BindTM treatments contained higher (P < 0.05) moisture than patties from the remaining, which indicates that less moisture was lost from these products during the manufactur- ing process. Xanthadlocust bean gum patties had slightly higher fat content (P c 0.05) than ME621, pea flour, algin and Lean BindTM patties. Patties from carrageenan (treatments 1-5 and the pea flour treatment (treatment 7) did not differ (P > 0.05) in fat content. Patties from carrageenan treatments with the exception of ME621 had slightly higher (P < 0.05) fat contents than algin and Lean Bind TM patties. Algin patties contained slightly less (P < 0.05) fat than the other patties, except for the Lean BindTM patties. The lower fat content of algin and Lean BindTM patties can be attributed to the increased water holding capacity of the products. Protein content did not differ (P > 0.05) among treatments.

After cooking, algin and Lean BindTM patties contained the most (P < 0.05) moisture. Algin patties were lower (P < 0.05) in fat than XG/LBG, SD389,

42 BULLOCK. HUFFMAN. EGBERT. BRADFORD, MIKEL and JONES

TABLE 2. PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF RAW AND COOKED BEEF PATTIES

Raw Cooked

Treatment' Moisture Fat Protein Moisture Fat Protein

(1) SD389 7 1 . 1 8.5' 19.1' 62.4' 11.1' 25.6&

(2) ME309 71.4' 8.9' 19.2' 62.0 10.9' 26.0k

(3) GP379 71.V 8.7' 19.1' 62.8' 1 l . O b 25.1'

(4) ME389/GP379 71.6' 8.7b 19 .e 62.7 10.Od 26.1'

(5 ) ME621 72.1' 7 . P 18.9 63.1' 9 . 9 26.6'

(6) XG/LBG 71.4' 9.5' 19.Ob 62.W 12.Ib 24.9'

(7) PF 71.0' 8 . P 19.0' 63.5' 9.9" 25.6'

(8) ALG 73.5d 6.8' 18.8b 66.4' 8.4d 24.1'

(9) LB 73.1d 7 . 2 18.9 66.0' 9.r" 23.8'

SEM' 0.23 0.36 0.51 0.52 2.08 2.81

(40) (96) (no) (no) (C) (40)

' Treatments: Treatments 1-5 contained a blend of iota and kappa carrageenam having various M f y and gelling characteristics; (1) V-n sD389 (control); (2) Vicarin ME389; (3) Gelcann GP 379; (4) So/= blend of ME389 & GP379; and (5) Gelcarin ME621). Treatments 6- 9 contained other water binders; (6) ranthan/loeust bean gum; (7) pea flour, (8) algin; and (9) Lean BindTY modified food starch.

Mean values in columns with unlike supencripts M e r e d (P<0.05)

' Standard error of the menn

ME389 and GP379 products. Patties manufactured from SD389, ME389, GP379, ME389/GP379. ME621, PF, and LB did not differ (P > 0.05) in fat content after cooking. Patties manufactured with XG/LBG were higher in fat than ME389/GP379, ME621, PF, ALG and LB products. Patties manufactured with Lean BindTM and algin had lower (P < 0.05) protein than ME389lGP379, and ME621 products. No other differences (P > 0.05) were found for protein con- tent of cooked patties. The lower protein content of the Lean BindTM and algin patties is due to the greater amount of moisture retained in the cooked ground beef product.

Cooking Loss

Ground beef patties manufactured with Lean BindTM had the lowest (P < 0.05) cooking loss among low-fat ground beef treatments with the exception of patties made with GP379, PF, ALG, which did not differ (P > 0.05) from Lean BindTM patties (Table 3). Patties manufactured with XG/LBG had a greater cooking loss than patties made with GP379. ME389lGP379. PF, and ALG and Lean BindTM.

LOW-FAT GROUND BEEF 43

TABLE 3. COOKING LOSS, KRAMER SHEAR FORCE ANJJ WATER BINDING CAPACITY

OF BEEF PATTIES Treatment' cooking loss Kramer Water holding

(1) sD389 2 8 . p 4.18" 16 .5p

(2) ME389 29.4* 4.29'Ib 17.29'

(%) shear forceb capadtf

(3) GP379

(4) ME389/GP379

(5) ME621

(6) XG/LBG

(7) PF

(8) ALG

(9) LB SEA4'

26.5'lb

27.4.''

28.1*"

30.1'

25.6"

26.5"'

24.8'

0.84

3.97'b

4.65-

4.92d

4.45"

3.80'

2.74'

2.84'

0.14

13.85*

16.83*

15.59*

1 5 . 2 2

l 6 . 1 p

13.26

15.80*

1.20

' Treatments: Treatments 1-5 contained a blend of iota and kappa canageenas having various vismsity and gelling characteristirs; (1) V i n SD389 (control); (2) V i d n ME389; (3) Gelcarin GP 379; (4) 50/50 blend of m389 & GP379; and (5) Gelcarin ME621). Treatments 6- 9 contained other water binders; (6) xanthan/locust bean gum; (7) pea flour; (8) algin; and (9) Lean Bindm modi6ed food starch.

Kramer shear force unit - kg forte/g sample

Wnter holding capacity unit - mg of free water/0.3 g sample

Mean values in columns With unlike superscripts differed (P<0.05)

Standard ermr of the mean

' '

d w

'

Lower coolung loss values are an indication of the effectiveness of the nonmeat ingredients capability of binding and retaining moisture during the cooking process.

Kramer Shear Force

Instron (Kramer shear force) values presented in Table 3 indicated that patties from treatments containing food gums (carrageenan, xanthadlocust bean gum) and pea flour had higher shear force values than patties containing Lean BindTM and algin. One possible explanation for the lower shear force required to shear the treatments containing algin and Lean BindTM is the fact that the cooked moisture content of these two treatments was higher (P < 0.05) than other treatments. Lower shear force values reported for algin and Lean BindTM patties are consis- tent with higher sensory tenderness scores for patties from these two treatments.

Water Holding Capacity

Water holding capacity results are presented in Table 3. The only treatments

44 BULLOCK. HUFFMAN. EGBERT. BRADFORD. MIKEL and JONES

TABLE 4. SENSORY EVALUATION SCORES O F LOW-FAT GROUND BEEF PATTIES

Treatment' s T OF CT M FI OA

(1) SD389 5.0'' 5.3" 6.7' 6.Sd 5 . f 5.1' 4.v

(2) ME389 4 9 5.ff 6.7' 6.5d 5.3' 5.1' 4.94

(4) ME389/GP379 6.0- 5 . e 6.8' 6.7' 6.0b 5 . P 5.76

(5) ME621 6.0* 5.8" 6 . e 6.ad 6.1d 5.6d 5.4&'

(6) X G P G 5.76' 6.V' 7.01 6 . 9 6.Id 5.46. 5.74

(7) PF 5.66' 5 . e 6.7' 6.9" 5.9* 5.1' 5.3h'

(9) LB 5 . P 6.Sd 6.7" 6.7' 5.8' 5.3" 5.5k

(3) GP379 5.7" 5.4" 6.5' 6.Q 5 . P 5,5& 5.3&*'

(8) ALG 6.2d 7.0' 6 . 9 6.8' 5.5& 4.6' 4.7'

SEhP 0.36 0.25 0.24 0.15 0.04 0.17 0.27

Treatments. Treatments 1-5 contained a blend of iota and h p p a Fanageenens having various viscosity and gelling characteristics; (1) Tisearin SD389 (control); (2) V-n ME389; (3) Gelcarin GP 3 7 9 (4) 50/50 blend of ME389 & GP379; and (5 ) Gelcarin ME621). Treatments 6. 9 contained other water binders; (6) ranthan/locust bean gum; (7) pea flour; (8) algin; and (9) Lean BindN modified food srarcb.

J = juiciness, T= tenderness, OF = off-flavor, CT = connedve tissue, M = mealiness, FI= flavor intensity and OA = overall acceptability

Evaluation based on an &point scale for juiciness (8 - extremely juicy, 1 = extremely dry), tenderness (8 = extremely tender, 1 - extremely tough). off-flavor (8 = none, 1 = extremely strong). connective tissue (8 = none, 1 = abundant), mealiness (8 = none, 1 = abundant), and flavor intensity (8 - extremely intense, 1 = extremely bland), overall acceptability (8 = extremely acceptable, 1 = extremely unacceptable)

Mean values in columns with unlike superscripts differed (P<0.05)

Standard error of the mean

to differ in water holding capacity were ME389 and ALG. Patties from ME389 had lower (P < 0.05) water holding capacity than algin patties. This measure- ment is an indication of the meat products capability of binding moisture in the raw state. No other differences (P > 0.05) in water holding capacity were found.

Sensory Evaluation

Sensory evaluation scores are presented in Table 4. Patties containing ME389 carrageenan were lower (P < 0.05) in juiciness scores than patties from the ME389/GP379. ME62 1 and ALG treatments. Algin and Lean BindTM patties were the most (P < 0.05) tender. The increase in tenderness of Lean BindTM and algin patties can be attributed to the increased water holding capacity of the products during cooking. Patties from ME389 were lower (P < 0.05) in tenderness than other treatments with the exception of SD389. No differences (P > 0.05) were observed between treatments in off-flavor or connective tissue scores. Patties from

LOW-FAT GROUND BEEF 45

the ME621, XG/LBG and LB treatments were less (P < 0.05) mealy than ME389 patties. Algin patties had the lowest (P < 0.05) flavor intensity scores. Lower flavor intensity scores in the algin patties may be due to the increased moisture present in the product after cooking. Patties from ME389GP379 and XG/LBG recieved higher (P < 0.05) overall acceptability scores than the control (SD389), ME389, and algin products.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that there are several alternative water binders that could be used in the formulation of low-fat ground beef products. The treatment con- taining algin had the lowest flavor score of all treatments, which may be attributable to increased water retention in the cooked product. Patties manufactured from algin and Lean BindTM were rated highest in tenderness scores and required the lowest amount of force to shear. Patties from ME389/GP379 and XG/LBG re- ceived higher overall acceptability scores than control SD389 patties and thus should be considered as good alternatives to SD389 iota carrageenan when manufacturing low-fat ground beef patties.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded in part by grants from the National Live Stock and Meat Board, Beef Industry Council, Chicago, Ill. and the Alabama Cattleman’s Associa- tion, Montgomery, Ala.

REFERENCES

AMSA. 1978. Guidelines for Cookery and Sensory Evaluation of Meat. American Meat Science Assoc., Chicago, 11.

AOAC. 1990. GfJicial Mefhods ofAnalysis, 15th Ed., Assoc. of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D. C.

EGBERT, W.R., HUFFMAN, D.L., CHEN, C.C. and DYLEWSKI, D.P. 1991. Development of low-fat ground beef. Food Technol. 45(6), 64.66-68,-70-71, 73.

FOEGEDING, E.A. and RAMSEY, S.R. 1986. Effect of gums on low-fat meat batters. J. Food Sci. 51(1), 33, 36, 46.

FMC. 1991. Introductory bulletin A-1. FMC Corp. Marine Colloids Div., Philadelphia, Pa.

46 BULLOCK. HUFFMAN. EGBERT. BRADFORD. MIKEL and JONES

FROST. J . . HEGEDUS. E.F. and GLICKSMAN. M. 1984. Objective characterization of hydrocolloid organoleptic properties. Food Technol. 38( l ) , 118-13,7,.

GRAU. R . and HAMM. R . 1953. Eine einfache methode zur bestimmung der wasserbindung im muskel. Die Naturwissenschaften 40. 29-30.

HUFFMAN. D.L. and EGBERT. W.R. 1990. Advances in lean ground beef pro- duction. Bulletin 606. A h . Agric. Expt. Station. Auburn. Ala.

SAS. 1985. SAS User's Guidc: Sfurisrics. Statistical Analysis System Institute, Cary, N.C.

STEEL. R.G.D. and TORRIE. J.H. 1980. Principles urul Procedures of Sfuristics. 2nd Ed.. McGraw-Hill Book Co.. New York.