Ground Beef Patties Red 61 75 Lean

Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 2018 Feb; 38(1): i–13.

Evaluation of the Quality of Beef Patties Formulated with Stale Pumpkin Pulp and Seed

Received 2017 Oct x; Revised 2017 November 22; Accustomed 2017 November 23.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate quality attributes of beefiness patties formulated with dried pumpkin pulp and seed mixture (PM). 4 different meatball formulations were prepared where lean was replaced with PM as C (0% PM), P2 (2% PM), P3 (3% PM) and P5 (5% PM). Utilization of PM decreased moisture and increased ash content of the patties. Incorporation of 5% PM (P5) increased the pH value of both uncooked and cooked patties compared to C grouping. Increasing levels of PM increased water-belongings capacity. No significant differences were institute in cooking yield and diameter change with the add-on of PM. Incorporation of PM increased fatty and decreased wet retention of the samples. a* values were decreased with PM addition, where L* values did non differ among treatments and b* values were similar in C, P3 and P5 samples. Textural properties were generally equivalent to control samples with the incorporation of PM fifty-fifty at college concentrations. The add-on of PM did not significantly affect any of the sensory scores tested. These results indicated that utilization of PM presents the opportunity to decrease the corporeality of meat besides to improve healthier profile without causing negative changes in physical, chemic and technological quality of beef patties.

Keywords: beef patty, meat replacer, pumpkin, pumpkin pulp, pumpkin seed

Introduction

Meat has been known as a source of high biological value protein including all essential amino acids in adequate proportions, besides every bit it involves many valuable nutrients like long chain n-3 fat acids, bioactive hydrolysates, connective tissue components, nucleotides, conjugated linoleic acid and antioxidants, thus unique condition of meat in the diet is indisputable (Jiang and Xiong, 2016; Olmedilla-Alonso et al., 2013; Young et al., 2013). However, at that place is a strong evidence that loftier consumption of processed meat products is directly related to cardiovascular diseases, type-2 diabetes, obesity and some cancer types (Cashman and Hayes, 2017; de Smet and Vossen, 2016; Shan et al., 2017), moreover recently WHO International Agency for Enquiry on Cancer has classified the consumption of red meat as carcinogenic to humans (Apostolidis and McLeay, 2016). As consumers take become increasingly more health witting, foods including meat products with decreased levels of fat, salt, cholesterol too as enriched with dietary fiber has get more than and more popular (Yang et al., 2007). Enhancement of meat and meat products with vegetables, fruits and their fibers could reduce production costs and improve the technological and nutritional quality of the products.

Fruits and vegetables occupy an important part in homo nutrition as they provide essential minerals, vitamins, dietary fiber and phenolic compounds that are natural antioxidants (Grigelmo-Miguel et al., 1999). Besides, the relevance of fruits and vegetables in the processing of meat products relates to their functional properties such as h2o binding, fat emulsification, and improves cook yield, textural and sensory properties. A variety of institute sources such as guava pulverization (Verma and Sahoo, 2000), pepper puree (Yıldız-Turp et al., 2007), kimchi pulverisation (Lee et al., 2008), plum puree (Yıldız Turp and Serdaroğlu, 2010), date paste (Sánchez-Zapata et al., 2011), flaxseed and love apple paste (Melendres et al., 2014) and apricot pomace (Purma-Adıbelli and Serdaroğlu, 2017) have been used as fat replacers, binders and extenders in formulation of diverse meat products.

Pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) is a cultivar of a squash establish that is rich in carotene (β-carotene, ɑ-carotene), lutein, pectin, vitamins (A, B1, B2, and C), minerals (Fe, Ca, Na, 1000, Mg, and P), dietary fiber and other substances beneficial to wellness (Azevedo-Meleiro and Rodriguez-Amaya, 2007; de Escalada Pla et al., 2007; González et al., 2001; Jun et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Murkovic et al., 2002; Sojak and Głowacki, 2010). Pumpkin seeds are rich source of proteins (24 to 36.5%) and highly unsaturated oil (31.5 to 51%), minerals (Al-Khalifa, 1996; Asiegbu, 1987; El-Adawy and Taha, 2001; Nyam et al., 2009; Rezig et al., 2012; Yoshida et al., 2004). Although there take been a few studies regarding the incorporation of raw or dried pumpkin sourced ingredients similar pumpkin flour (Ammar et al., 2014) and pumpkin pulp (Verma et al., 2015; Zargar et al., 2014) in meat product formulations, no report has addressed the utilization of pumpkin pulp and seed mixture in beefiness products so far. The aim of our report was to investigate the furnishings of replacing lean meat with pumpkin powder mix (dried pumpkin pulp + pumpkin seed) on physical, chemical and sensory properties of beef patties.

Materials and Methods

Materials

Fresh and not-damaged whole pumpkins and pumpkin seeds were purchased from a local market in Izmir and stored at 4ºC until used. The spices and breadcrumbs used in beef patty formulations were supplied from Bağdat Spices Co. (Turkey). Post-rigor beefiness as boneless rounds (moisture 72%, fat 4.xxx%, poly peptide 20.97%, ash two.73%) and beefiness fat were supplied from a local butcher in Izmir. Muscles were trimmed of visible fat and connective tissues and stored at 4ºC with fat until used. All chemicals used in the trial were of analytical grade.

Preparation of pumpkin mix

The pumpkins were washed with tap water and peeled. The seeds were removed and the rest was sliced into 2 mm thickness. The slices were so dried at 65ºC for ii.5 h in thermostat vacuum oven (Townson & Merker Ltd., UK). The dried pumpkin slices and the purchased seeds were milled separately in kitchen-type chopper (Conti CMD-201, Italia), then mixed to obtain homogenous pumpkin blend (ratio of ane:1 pumpkin flour to seed flour). The last mixture had 42.38% total sugar, 25.92% protein, 10.18% moisture, 16.45% oil and 5.07% ash. The pH value of PM was recorded as 5.77.

Production of beef patties

Four different beefiness patties were formulated with 0% (C), 2% (P2), 3% (P3) and 5% (P5) pumpkin mix (PM), which is presented in Table 1. Lean meat and beef fatty were minced separately through a 3 mm plate grinder (Arnica, Turkey). PM and other additives (breadcrumbs, table salt, black pepper, cumin and onion powder) were added and all ingredients were mixed for 12 min until a homogeneous distribution was seen. The mixture was and then portioned with round molds (d:80 mm, h:1 cm). After shaping, the patties were cooked on an electrical grill (SBG-7110, Sinbo, Turkey) at 180°C until core temperature reached to 73°C. The samples were finally cooled and stored at four°C prior to assay.

Table 1.

Formulation of beef patties (k)

Treatments¹⁾	Lean meat	Fat	Breadcrumbs	Spice mix	Table salt	Water	Pumpkin mix	Full
C	864	180	72	54	18	12	0	i,200
P2	840	180	72	54	xviii	12	24	one,200
P3	828	180	72	54	18	12	36	1,200
P5	804	180	72	54	18	12	threescore	1,200

Methods

Proximate analysis and pH

Moisture and ash content of the patties were analyzed following AOAC (2012) procedures. Protein content was adamant using an automatic nitrogen analyzer (FP 528 LECO, USA) based on the Dumas method. Fat content was adamant according to Flynn and Bramblett (1975). All proximate assay was performed in triplicate. pH value of samples was measured iii times past using a pH-meter (WTW pH 3110 SET ii, Federal republic of germany) equipped with a penetration probe.

H2o holding capacity

The ability of the uncooked product to retain moisture was determined in triplicate according to Hughes et al. (1997) with modifications. 10 one thousand concoction was weighed (W1), placed into drinking glass jars and heated in 90°C water bath for 10 min. Afterward cooling to room temperature, the samples were wrapped in cotton cheese material and centrifuged at 1,400 rpm for xv min and weighed again (W2). Water-holding capacity (WHC) was calculated from the equation below:

$% West H C = 1 - \frac{T}{M} \times 100 = 1 - \frac{(W 1 - W 2)}{M} \times 100$

where T is water loss after heating and centrifugation and Thou indicate total moisture content of the sample.

Cooking procedure and cooking measurement

Three samples for each replication were examined for all cooking measurements. Beef patties were cooked on electrical grill for seven min of each side (until the internal temperature was reached to 73°C). Percentage cooking yield was determined by calculating weight differences for samples before and subsequently cooking (Murphy et al., 1975) and calculated according to the equation below:

$C o o k i n g Y i e l d (%) = (\frac{C o o grand east d b due east east f p a t t y w e i g h t}{U north c o o k e d b eastward e f p a t t y w e i g h t}) \times 100$

The fat retention value represents the amount of fat retained in the production after cooking. Fatty retentiveness was calculated according to Murphy et al. (1975) by using the equation as follows:

$F a t R eastward t e n t i o n (%) = (\frac{(C o o one thousand e d west e i thousand h t) \times (% F a t i n c o o k e d b due east east f p a t t y)}{(U n c o o yard due east d w due east i g h t) \times (% F a t i due north u n c o o one thousand e d b e e f p a t t y)}) \times 100$

The moisture retention value represents the corporeality of moisture retained in the cooked production per 100 m of sample and was determined according to El-Magoli et al. (1996) according to the equation below:

$M o i s t u r due east R due east t east north t i o north (%) = (\frac{% Y i e l d \times % M o i s t u r e i n b east e f p a t t y}{100})$

The change in beef patty bore (measurements were taken using calibers) was calculated equally

$R e d u c t i o n i northward b e due east f p a t t y d i a m due east t eastward r (%) = (\frac{U n c o o k due east d b e east f p a t t y d i a m e t e r - C o o m eastward d b e east f p a t t y d i a m due east t east r}{U n c o o k e d b e e f p a t t y d i a m eastward t e r})$

The alter in beef patty thickness (measurements were taken using calibers) was calculated as

$R e d u c t i o n i n b e e f p a t t y t h i c one thousand n e southward s (%) = (\frac{U n c o o g e d b e e f p a t t y t h i c k north e s s - C o o g e d b due east e f p a t t y t h i c 1000 n e s s}{U due north c o o grand eastward d b e eastward f p a t t y t h i c k n e s due south})$

Color measurement

Color parameters of lightness (CIE 50*- value), redness (CIE a*- value), and yellowness (CIE b*- value) were measured using a portable colorimeter (CR-200, Konica Minolta, Japan) with D65 illuminant setting and 10^⁰ standard observer from four different locations.

Texture profile analysis

Texture profile assay (TPA) was performed v times for each treatment using a texture analyzer (TA-XT2, Stable Micro Systems, Great britain). Samples (2.5 cm × 2 cm × ii cm) were taken and compressed to 50% of their original height with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/southward and l kg load jail cell. The parameters calculated from the force and fourth dimension curves were hardness (maximum forcefulness required for the initial pinch as Northward), springiness (distance of the sample recovers later on the first compression as mm), cohesiveness (ratio of active work done under the second compression curve to that done under the first pinch curve as dimensionless), gumminess (the strength of internal bonds making up the trunk of the sample as N) and chewiness (the required piece of work to masticate the sample as N·mm).

Sensory evaluation

Sensory evaluation was performed past an untrained panelist group of 10 members from Food Technology Section, Ege University. Samples were cooked in electrical grill (SBG-7110, Sinbo, Turkey at 180°C) for 7 min each side (until the internal temperature was reached to 73°C) and served warm to panelists with randomly coded numbers. Panel members were asked to evaluate the samples for advent, color, texture, juiciness, season and overall acceptability. Samples were evaluated by using a 9-point hedonic scale (1=dislike extremely, 2=dislike very much, three=dislike moderately, 4=dislike slightly, 5=neither similar nor dislike, 6=like slightly, seven=like moderately, viii=like very much, 9=similar extremely). Water and breadstuff were served to clean the oral cavity between the samples.

Statistical analysis

One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant differences between beef patty formulation groups using the IBM SPSS for Windows 21.0. The data was analyzed using General Linear Model (GLM) procedure, least squares differences (LSD) were utilized for comparison of mean values among formulations and Duncan's multiple range test was performed to place pregnant differences betwixt treatments, at a confidence interval of 95%.

Results and Discussion

Chemical composition and pH

Chemical limerick and pH values of uncooked and cooked beef patties are presented in Table 2. Wet, protein, fat and ash content of uncooked samples ranged between 57.78-61.13%, 17.50-18.35%, 18.24-xx.91% and 2.73-two.95%, respectively. The values for cooked samples were in the range of 55.83-59.71%, 20.xviii-21.33%, 17.35-xx.26% and two.76-2.95, respectively. Significant changes were obtained in virtually of the chemical parameters of both uncooked and cooked samples (p<0.05). Wet content was lower in raw samples containing five% PM (P5) (p<0.05), which could be due to the increase in solid material content. No pregnant differences were obtained in moisture content of other uncooked treatments. The decrease in moisture content of cooked samples were more visible, where all the samples with PM had lower moisture compared to C samples (p<0.05). P3 and P5 samples had lower wet content compared to P2 samples (p<0.05). Similar to our results, López-Vargas et al. (2014) reported that, the moisture content fell with the addition of passion fruit albedo in raw and cooked burgers. However, Zargar et al. (2014) found pregnant increases in wet percentage of chicken sausages formulated with pumpkin pulp, that could be due to higher moisture nowadays in the fresh pumpkin. Poly peptide content of all samples were similar to each other in both cooked and uncooked products. Fat content was similar in raw C, P2 and P3 samples, while P5 samples had higher fat content compared to P2 and P3 (p<0.05). The higher fat content of P5 samples could be attributed to loftier levels of oil in the pumpkin mix. It was establish that all cooked samples with added PM had higher fat content compared to C samples without PM (p<0.05). Cooked beef patties with added PM showed higher ash content compared to C samples (p<0.05), probably due to high mineral content of pumpkin mix. In contrast to our results, Ali et al. (2017) found that fish burger formulated with mashed pumpkin and mashed tater showed higher moisture and lower poly peptide, fatty and ash contents than control groups.

Table 2.

Chemical composition and pH of cooked and uncooked beef patties

Treatments¹⁾		Moisture (%)	Poly peptide (%)	Fat (%)	Ash (%)	pH
Uncooked	C	60.46^a ± 0.59	17.fifty ± 0.39	xix.thirty^ab ± 0.36	2.73^b ± 0.03	v.67^b ± 0.01
beef patties	P2	61.04^a ± ane.xv	17.61 ± 0.05	18.48^b ± 1.xx	ii.86^ab ± 0.09	5.68^b ± 0.02
	P3	61.xiii^a ± 1.77	17.89 ± 0.32	18.24^b ± 1.61	2.74^b ± 0.04	v.67^b ± 0.01
	P5	57.78^b ± 1.14	eighteen.35 ± 0.78	20.91^a ± 0.74	two.95^a ± 0.09	v.71^a ± 0.01
Cooked	C	59.71^a ± 0.42	20.18 ± 2.22	17.35^b ± ane.94	ii.76^b ± 0.04	5.89^b ± 0.01
beef patties	P2	58.69^b ± 0.37	xx.26 ± 0.44	xviii.18^a ± 0.67	2.87^a ± 0.07	5.89^b ± 0.05
	P3	56.46^c ± 0.36	20.32 ± 0.70	twenty.26^a ± 0.45	two.95^a ± 0.02	5.86^c ± 0.02
	P5	55.83^c ± one.64	21.33 ± i.51	19.92^a ± 1.71	ii.90^a ± 0.05	5.92^a ± 0.01

pH values of beef patties were between 5.67-5.71 and five.86-5.92, for uncooked and cooked samples, respectively. Incorporation of 5% PM (P5) increased the pH value of both uncooked and cooked patties compared to C group (p<0.05). P3 samples had lower (p<0.05) and P2 samples had like pH values compared to C samples in cooked treatments. Similarly, some authors reported an increase in pH values of meat burgers formulated with different fiber types (Gök et al., 2011; Sayas-Barberá et al., 2011). Contrarily, López-Vargas et al. (2014) found that passion fruit albedo addition decreased pH value compared to command samples in raw burgers which could be attributed to the acrid nature of the ingredient, while in cooked burgers the presence of fruit albedo did not modify the pH values. Therefore, the acidity and alkalinity of the raw material incorporated in the meat product formulation is crucial for ultimate pH value and thereby functional characteristics of the product.

Water holding chapters and cooking properties

WHC and cooking properties of beefiness patties formulated with different levels of PM are given in Table three. WHC of beef patties varied between 75.30-79.fourscore%, where meaning differences were found among treatments (p<0.05). Increased amounts of PM had a significant effect on WHC, where P5 samples had college WHC compared to C and P2 samples (p<0.05). The high dietary cobweb content of pumpkin could be the most likely reason to increment WHC of the samples. According to the literature findings pumpkin seed flour contains 22.40 g dietary cobweb in 100 g dry matter (Naves et al., 2010) while pumpkin flour contains 27.4% total dietary fiber (Minarovičová et al., 2017). Ammar et al. (2014) stated that i g of pumpkin flour has the ability to agree 7.01 thousand of water that information technology could be used as a thickening amanuensis in formulation of many foods. They found that WHC of meatball samples independent pumpkin flour were significantly higher than meatball samples independent date seed powder or wheat germ.

Table 3.

H2o property capacity and cooking properties of beefiness patties

Treatmentsⁱ⁾	Water holding capacity (%)	Cooking yield (%)	Change of thickness (%)	Alter of diameter (%)	Fat retentivity (%)	Wet retention (%)
C	75.30^b ± i.37	87.94 ± 2.79	59.72^a ± 8.67	12.39 ± two.41	69.53^c ± 2.xiv	54.32^a ± 1.59
P2	75.59^b ± 0.85	87.88 ± 1.42	36.15^bc ± 7.21	11.35 ± ane.33	86.74^b ± 7.47	51.57^b ± 0.73
P3	77.22^ab ± 0.99	89.90 ± 1.34	21.05^c ± 9.12	11.65 ± 2.52	99.33^a ± seven.57	50.25^b ± 1.07
P5	79.80^a ± 3.13	88.xx ± 0.42	43.xiv^ab ± 12.24	11.20 ± 1.25	84.09^b ± half dozen.93	49.24^b ± 1.23

Yield, in meat and meat products, is associated with fat and water retention (Aleson-Carbonell et al., 2005). According to Kastner and Felício (1980), grinding of meat during burger processing results in a tender product due to the breakup of the myofibrils and connective tissue, which, notwithstanding, promotes weight loss during the cooking process. Cooking yield of the samples changed between 87.88-89.xc%. No pregnant differences were institute in cooking yield and diameter alter of the treatments, this outcome showed that PM could recoup for the decrease in the meat amount in the formulation without loss of any technological quality. This finding could also present a good option for ensuring the healthy profile of the product too every bit reducing product costs. Ammar et al. (2014) reported that the highest cooking yield was noticed for meatballs formulated with pumpkin flour compared to meatballs formulated with date seed pulverisation and wheat germ, which could be due to pumpkin flour was able to hold more excess water. In contrast to these findings, a significantly decreasing trend was observed by Zargar et al. (2014) in the cooking yield of chicken sausages with increasing levels of pumpkin lurid. The differences in our results could exist associated with utilization of dried pumpkin ingredients instead of fresh ones, that resulted in good retention of fluids in the meat matrix. Mendiratta et al. (2013) observed no significant differences in cooking yields of command and vegetable (carrot, radish and capsicum) incorporated mutton nuggets. The differences in the cooking yield of the products could be related to h2o absorption degrees of the non-meat ingredient used.

The reduction in diameter is the effect of the denaturation of meat proteins with the loss of water and fat (Besbes et al., 2008; Farouk et al., 2000; López-Vargas et al., 2014). The change of thickness determined in beef patties was between 21.05-59.72%. Information technology was establish that the thickness of all of the samples were inverse after the cooking operation as expected. The change of thickness varied with different levels of added PM (p<0.05). C and P5 treatments had higher thickness modify compared to P2 and P3 samples (p<0.05). This finding could be attributed to the stabilizing properties of PM, which restricted the baloney of the patties during cooking. However, in increased concentrations PM could take a opposite impact that might increment the changes of thickness and thereby increase shrinkage and negatively affect the acceptability of the product. Therefore, the levels of PM more than five% could lead to textural cracking of the production, probably due to the increased solid material and decreased moisture content. The change of diameter in treatments was recorded betwixt xi.20-12.39%, no significant differences were obtained betwixt treatments. Therefore, information technology could exist ended that PM inclusion provided an equivalent bore reduction to command samples regardless of the level added.

Keeping fatty within the matrix of meat products during cooking and storage is necessary to ensure sensory quality and acceptability (Anderson and Berry, 2001). Fat retentiveness of beefiness patties was betwixt 69.53-99.33%. Control patties showed the lowest fatty retention among samples (p<0.05). This result indicated that incorporation of PM lead to an increment in fat retention of the samples. Maximum fat retention was establish in P3 samples (p<0.05), this showed that the average amount of PM showed the best functioning amid PM treatments in holding fat in the matrix upon cooking. Previously, pumpkin flour was reported to have 1.69 thousand oil/yard sample oil binding capacity by Ammar et al. (2014), meaning that pumpkin ingredients could fairly back up the ability to continue fatty in the structure of the product during rut treatment. Our results were in concordance with the findings of López-Vargas et al. (2014) who establish that fat retention of pork burgers formulated with passion fruit albedo was higher than in control pork burgers. Similarly, Ergezer et al. (2014) reported that the addition of breadcrumbs and spud puree with level of 10% and xx% increased the fat retention values of meatballs compared to command samples. Similar results were also obtained by Yıldız-Turp and Serdaroğlu (2010) in beefiness patties formulated with plum puree.

Moisture retention of beef patties were between 49.24-54.32%. Add-on of PM decreased wet retention of samples compared to C samples, regardless of the added corporeality (p<0.05). This finding is in contrast to WHC of the samples, where the power to hold h2o was increased in the samples formulated with v% PM, as mentioned previously. This effect is in line with total wet content of the samples, where significant loss in moisture was obtained with added PM. Therefore, the probable reason in decrement of moisture retention could be the lower moisture content of the products formulated with PM. Contrary to our findings, Selani et al. (2015) stated that beef burgers formulated with pineapple by-production showed higher moisture retention than conventional treatments, due to the belongings of the cobweb to concord water and this resulted in products with higher percentages of moisture retentiveness.

Color

The excess corporeality of non-meat ingredients added to meat production formulations could lead to undesirable changes in colour. Color parameters of beef patties are shown in Table iv. L*, a* and b* values were within the range of 39.26-xl.92, viii.52-14.14 and 9.66-12.38, respectively. No significant differences were obtained in L* values of the samples. Although some of the not-meat ingredients, especially flours could atomic number 82 a pale color in beef products, it was found that use of PM did non affect the lightness of the samples. Similarly, Selani et al. (2015) constitute no significant differences betwixt L* values of beef burgers with the addition of pineapple, passion fruit or mango byproducts. In dissimilarity, López-Vargas et al. (2014) reported that in pork burgers, 50* values increased when passion fruit albedo was added, while the outcome of cooking on the L* values showed that only the control sample was affected. They stated that the 50* beliefs of cooked burgers with fruit albedo was attributed to the white components in the raw cloth. a* values of the samples were significantly afflicted by the addition of PM (p<0.05), regardless of the added corporeality. The highest a* values were measured in C samples (p<0.05), probably due to the control samples containing only minced beef which has high amount of myoglobin, as well every bit due to the colour of PM itself. The everyman b* values were measured in P2 samples (p<0.05), whilst b* values of other treatments did not show significant differences. This result showed that utilization of 2% PM could cause a decrement in yellowness of the product, but more than this concentration b* values were similar to command samples. Selani et al. (2015) reported that in beef burgers the treatments with the college levels of pineapple by-product showed significant reduction in a* values, while the treatments with mango by-product promoted the greatest modify in b* value, compared to conventional treatments.

Table 4.

Colour parameters of beefiness patties

Treatments¹⁾	L*	a*	b*
C	xl.45 ± 0.84	xiv.14^a ± two.83	12.25^a ± 0.76
P2	39.58 ± one.87	10.57^b ± 1.22	9.66^b ± 0.75
P3	39.26 ± 0.44	ix.lxx^b ± 1.23	11.85^a ± 0.46
P5	40.92 ± 1.11	8.52^b ± 0.95	12.38^a ± 1.l

Texture profile analysis

The texture of cooked meat is generally considered to be afflicted by estrus-induced changes in connective tissue, soluble proteins and myofibrillar proteins (Zayas and Naewbanij, 1986). In comminuted meat products, textural backdrop are closely related to the functionality of muscle proteins and the presence of non-meat ingredients. The results of texture profile analysis of the patties could be seen in Table 5. Hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness of the samples were between 7.fourscore-9.97 N, 0.34-0.51 mm, 0.31-0.35, ii.67-3.49 N and 2.89-5.07 N·mm, respectively. Nigh of the samples formulated with PM showed equivalent textural parameters to command samples without PM. Hardness value of P2 samples was college than C samples (p<0.05), while the values were similar in C, P3 and P5 samples. Lower springiness values were measured in P3 and P5 compared to C (p<0.05), just the results were similar in C and P2. Cohesiveness values were in parallel with springiness, thus add-on of more than two% PM reduced the springiness and cohesiveness of beef patties (p<0.05). Chewiness values of PM treatments were similar to control, just P2 samples had college chewiness than P3 and P5 samples (p<0.05). The findings showed that generally replacement of lean with PM could recoup for the changes in textural attributes. López-Vargas et al. (2014) found that hardness and chewiness values of pork burgers formulated with albedo-cobweb powder were increased with the increasing fiber amount, while springiness and cohesiveness of the samples did not prove significant differences and gumminess was increased with just addition of 5% pulverization. The textural parameters of the products could bear witness differences according to the natural construction and the amount of the not-meat ingredient and the corporeality of replaced meat in the conception.

Tabular array five.

Texture profile analysis of beef patties

Treatments^one)	Hardness (N)	Springness (mm)	Cohesiveness	Gumminess (N)	Chewiness (N·mm)
C	seven.80^b ± 0.55	0.46^a ± 0.42	0.35^a ± 0.00	2.76^b ± 0.two	4.11^ab ± 0.45
P2	nine.97^a ± 0.44	0.51^a ± 0.xi	0.35^a ± 0.02	3.49^a ± 0.11	5.07^a ± 0.93
P3	eight.75^ab ± 0.98	0.36^b ± 0.02	0.32^b ± 0.01	2.xc^b ± 0.30	3.72^b ± 0.49
P5	viii.62^ab ± 1.57	0.34^b ± 0.01	0.31^b ± 0.01	2.67^b ± 0.47	2.89^b ± 0.56

Sensory evaluation

Incorporation of non-meat ingredients in meat production formulations could lead undesired changes in sensory characteristics in case of excessive use or intensive odor or colour of the ingredient added. Therefore, information technology is important to evaluate the sensory properties of the product and perform necessary regulations in the formulations. Sensory scores of beef patties are illustrated in Fig. ane. Appearance, color, texture, juiciness, flavor and overall acceptability scores were between seven.40-7.70; 7.sixty-7.80; vii.30-7.xc; half-dozen.70-7.60 and 7.20-7.lxxx, respectively, pregnant that panelists evaluated all the formulations in adequate ranges. Co-ordinate to the results, it was found that the add-on of PM did not significantly affect any of the sensory scores tested. Merely improver of PM at a level of two% slightly lowered the juiciness scores compared to other samples, which was not statistically meaning. The results showed that added PM could compensate for the lean replacement and maintain sensory attributes regardless of the amount used. Therefore, PM could be used fifty-fifty at maximum level without negatively affecting sensory characteristics. Similar to our results, in a report performed by Ammar et al. (2014), utilization of pumpkin flour had no considerable effect on sensory properties of meatballs. Zargar et al. (2014) reported that no pregnant consequence of pumpkin was observed on the appearance, colour and flavor scores of the craven sausages. Consequently, pumpkin ingredients could be noted every bit alternative not-meat additives in meat products without altering sensory properties, which could be due to neutral scent and non-intensive flavor of the raw material. Even so, information technology should exist noted that utilization of higher concentrations should be avoided to maintain sensory quality and consumer acceptability of the products.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is kosfa-38-1-f001.jpg

Sensory scores of beefiness patties.

Conclusion

Incorporation of non-meat ingredients in various meat products has long been an important research topic to amend product functionality, provide a healthier profile and reduce costs. Since pumpkin sourced ingredients are economical, salubrious and easily produced, utilization of them in meat product formulations could improve quality characteristics and health benefits. Our results showed that incorporation of dried pumpkin pulp and seed mixture present a good option to replace lean meat in beefiness patties, improving h2o property, maintaining cooking properties without causing any unfavorable effects in textural and sensory quality attributes. These are the commencement findings regarding the usage of PM in beef products, farther research should be performed to evaluate different quality attributes of various meat products formulated with pumpkin ingredients.

References

Aleson-Carbonell L, Fernández-López J, Pérez-Alvarez JA, Kuri V. Characteristics of beef burger as influenced past diverse types of lemon albedo. Innor Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2005;half-dozen:247–255. doi: ten.1016/j.ifset.2005.01.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ali HA, Mansour EH, E-IBedawey AEFA, Osheba AS. Evaluation of tilapia fish burgers as afflicted by dissimilar replacement levels of mashed pumpkin or mashed potato. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci. 2017 in press. [Google Scholar]
Al-Khalifa As. Physicochemical characteristics, fatty acid limerick, and lipoxygenase activity of rough pumpkin and melon seed oils. J Agric Nutrient Chem. 1996;44:964–966. doi: ten.1021/jf950519s. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ammar ASM, El-Hady ESAA, El-Razik MMA. Quality characteristics of low-fat meat balls every bit afflicted by date seed pulverization, wheat germ and pumpkin flour improver. Pak J Food Sci. 2014;24:175–185. [Google Scholar]
Anderson ET, Berry BW. Effects of inner pea cobweb on fatty memory and cooking yield in high fat footing beef. Food Res Int. 2001;34:689–694. doi: 10.1016/S0963-9969(01)00089-viii. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 19th ed. Clan of Official Belittling Chemists; Gaithersburg, Md, The states: 2012. [Google Scholar]
Apostolidis C, McLeay F. Should nosotros finish meating similar this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food Policy. 2016;65:74–89. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.eleven.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Asiegbu JE. Some biochemical evaluation of fluted pumpkin seed. J Sci Nutrient Agric. 1987;40:151–155. doi: ten.1002/jsfa.2740400207. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Azevedo-Meleiro CH, Rodriguez-Amaya DB. Qualitative and quantitative differences in carotenoid limerick among Cucurbita moschata, Cucurbita maxima, and Cucurbita pepo. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55:4027–4033. doi: x.1021/jf063413d. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Besbes Southward, Attia H, Deroanne C, Makni South, Blecker C. Fractional replacement of meat by pea cobweb and wheat fiber: effect on the chemical limerick, cooking characteristics and sensory properties of beefiness burgers. J Nutrient Qual. 2008;31:480–489. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.2008.00213.10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cashman KD, Hayes A. Scarlet meat's role in addressing 'nutrients of public health concern' Meat Sci. 2017;132:196–203. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
de Escalada Pla MF, Ponce NM, Stortz CA, Gerschenson LN, Rojas AM. Limerick and functional properties of enriched fiber products obtained from pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duchesne ex Poiret) LWT-Food Sci Technol. 2007;40:1176–1185. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2006.08.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
De Smet Southward, Vossen E. Meat: The residue betwixt nutrition and wellness. A review. Meat Sci. 2016;120:145–156. doi: x.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
El-Adawy TA, Taha KM. Characteristics and composition of different seed oils and flours. Food Chem. 2001;74:47–54. doi: ten.1016/S0308-8146(00)00337-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
El-Magoli SB, Laroia S, Hansen PTM. Flavor and texture characteristics of low fat ground beef patties formulated with whey protein concentrate. Meat Sci. 1996;42:179–193. doi: 10.1016/0309-1740(95)00032-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ergezer H, Akcan T, Serdaroğlu K. The effects of potato puree and bread crumbs on some quality characteristics of depression fat meatballs. Korean J Food Sci An. 2014;34:561–569. doi: x.5851/kosfa.2014.34.5.561. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Farouk MM, Hall WK, Swan JE. Attributes of beef sausage batters, patties and restructured roasts from two boning systems. J Musculus Foods. 2000;11:197–212. doi: x.1111/j.1745-4573.2000.tb00425.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Flynn AW, Bramblett VD. Furnishings of frozen storage cooking method and muscle quality and attributes of pork loins. J Food Sci. 1975;40:631–633. doi: ten.1111/j.1365-2621.1975.tb12544.ten. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gök Five, Akkaya L, Obuz E, Bulut S. Effect of ground poppy seed equally a fat replacer on meat burgers. Meat Sci. 2011;89:400–404. doi: x.1016/j.meatsci.2011.04.032. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
González E, Montenegro MA, Nazareno MA, López DMB. Carotenoid composition and vitamin A value of an Argentinian squash (Cucurbita moschata) Arch Latinoam Nutr. 2001;51:395–399. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Grigelmo-Miguel North, Abadias-Seros MI, Martin-Belloso O. Characterization of low-fat high-dietary fiber frankfurters. Meat Sci. 1999;52:247–256. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00173-nine. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hughes E, Cofrades Due south, Troy DJ. Effects of fatty level, oat fibre and carrageenan on frankfurters formulated with 5, 12 and 30% fat. Meat Sci. 1997;45:273–281. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00109-10. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Jiang J, Xiong YL. Natural antioxidants as food and feed additives to promote health benefits and quality of meat products: A review. Meat Sci. 2016;120:107–117. doi: x.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Jun HI, Lee CH, Vocal GS, Kim YS. Characterization of the pectic polysaccharides from pumpkin peel. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 2006;39:554–561. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2005.03.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kastner CL, Felício PD. Tratamentos que influem na maciez da carne bovina no período pós-abate. Boletim Técnico-CTC. 1980;v:31–64. [Google Scholar]
Lee MA, Han DJ, Jeong JY, Choi JH, Choi YS, Kim HY, Paik Hard disk drive, Kim CJ. Effect of kimchi powder level and drying methods on quality characteristics of breakfast sausage. Meat Sci. 2008;eighty:708–714. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.03.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lee MH, Lee SY, Lee SA, Choi YS. Physicochemical characteristics of rice flour sponge cakes containing various levels of pumpkin flour. Korean J Food & Nutr. 2010;23:162–170. [Google Scholar]
López-Vargas JH, Fernández-López J, Pérez-Álvarez JÁ, Viuda-Martos M. Quality characteristics of pork burger added with albedo-fiber powder obtained from yellow passion fruit (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) co-products. Meat Sci. 2014;97:270–276. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.02.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Melendres MV, Camou JP, Olivera NT, Almora EÁ, Mendoza DG, Reyes LA, Ríos HG. Response surface methodology for predicting quality characteristics of beef patties added with flaxseed and tomato plant paste. Meat Sci. 2014;97:54–61. doi: ten.1016/j.meatsci.2014.01.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mendiratta SK, Shinde AT, Mane BG. Effect of added vegetable (carrot, radish and capsicum) every bit functional ingredients in mutton nuggets. J Meat Sci Technol. 2013;1:71–76. [Google Scholar]
Minarovičová Fifty, Lauková Grand, Kohajdová Z, Karovičová J, Kuchtová V. Consequence of pumpkin pulverization incorporation on cooking and sensory parameters of pasta. Potr SJF Sci. 2017;11:373–379. [Google Scholar]
Murkovic K, Mülleder U, Neunteufl H. Carotenoid content in unlike varieties of pumpkins. J Nutrient Compos Anal. 2002;xv:633–638. doi: 10.1006/jfca.2002.1052. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
White potato EW, Criner PE, Grey BC. Comparison of methods for calculating retentions of nutrients in cooked foods. J Agric Nutrient Chem. 1975;23:1153–1157. doi: 10.1021/jf60202a021. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Naves LP, Corrêa Ad, Santos CD, Natividade MAE, Abreu CMP. Nutrientes e propriedades funcionais em sementes de abóbora (Cucurbita maxima) submetidas a diferentes processamentos. Ciênc Tecnol Aliment. 2010;30:185–190. doi: 10.1590/S0101-20612010000500028. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nyam KL, Tan CP, Lai OM, Long K, Human being YC. Physicochemical backdrop and bioactive compounds of selected seed oils. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 2009;42:1396–1403. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2009.03.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Olmedilla-Alonso B, Jiménez-Colmenero F, Sánchez-Muniz FJ. Development and assessment of salubrious backdrop of meat and meat products designed as functional foods. Meat Sci. 2013;95:919–930. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.03.030. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Purma-Adıbelli Ç, Serdaroğlu Grand. Quality characteristics of frankfurters formulated with apricot pomace obtained from apricot juice processing. Turkish JAF Sci Tech. 2017;5:281–288. doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v5i3.281-288.996. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Rezig 50, Chouaibi G, Msaada K, Hamdi S. Chemical composition and contour characterisation of pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) seed oil. Ind Crops Prod. 2012;37:82–87. doi: ten.1016/j.indcrop.2011.12.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sánchez-Zapata E, Fernández-López J, Peñaranda M, Fuentes-Zaragoza E, Sendra Due east, Sayas E, Pérez-Alvarez JA. Technological properties of engagement paste obtained from engagement by-products and its effect on the quality of a cooked meat product. Food Res Int. 2011;44:2401–2407. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2010.04.034. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sayas-Barberá E, Quesada J, Sánchez-Zapata Eastward, Viuda-Martos M, Fernández-López J, Pérez-Alvarez JA, Sendra E. Result of the molecular weight and concentration of chitosan in pork model burgers. Meat Sci. 2011;88:740–749. doi: x.1016/j.meatsci.2011.03.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Selani MM, Margiotta GB, Piedade SMS, Contreras-Castillo CJ, Canniatti-Brazaca SG. Physicochemical, sensory and cooking properties of low fat beef burgers with addition of fruit byproducts and canola oil. Int Proc Chem Biol Environ Eng. 2015;81:58–65. [Google Scholar]
Shan LC, De Brún A, Henchion Thousand, Li C, Murrin C, Wall PG, Monahan FJ. Consumer evaluations of processed meat products reformulated to be healthier- A conjoint assay study. Meat Sci. 2017;131:82–89. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.239. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sojak M, Głowacki Southward. Analysis of giant pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) drying kinetics in various technologies of convective drying. Int J Nutrient Eng. 2010;99:323–329. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.03.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Verma SP, Sahoo J. Improvement in the quality of ground chevon during refrigerated storage by tocopherol acetate pre-blending. Meat Sci. 2000;56:403–413. doi: ten.1016/S0309-1740(00)00072-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Verma AK, Singh VP, Pathak V. Quality characteristics and storage stability of craven meat patties incorporated with pumpkin pulp. Indian Vet J. 2015;92:37–40. [Google Scholar]
Yang HS, Choi SG, Jeon JT, Park GB, Joo ST. Textural and sensory properties of depression fat pork sausages with added hydrated oatmeal and tofu as texture-modifying agents. Meat Sci. 2007;75:283–289. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.07.013. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yıldız-Turp Yard, Serdaroğlu 1000. Effects of using plum puree on some properties of low fatty beef patties. Meat Sci. 2010;86:896–900. doi: ten.1016/j.meatsci.2010.07.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yıldız-Turp G, Serdaroğlu 1000, Ergezer H. Consequence of red pepper puree on some characteristics of turkey meatball; 2nd International Congress on Food and Nutrition; 24-26 Oct; Istanbul, Turkey. 2007. [Google Scholar]
Yoshida H, Shougaki Y, Hirakawa Y, Tomiyama Y, Mizushina Y. Lipid classes, fatty acid composition and triacylglycerol molecular species in the kernels of pumpkin (Cucurbita spp) seeds. J Sci Food Agric. 2004;84:158–163. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1623. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Young JF, Therkildsen M, Ekstrand B, Che BN, Larsen MK, Oksbjerg N, Stagsted J. Novel aspects of wellness promoting compounds in meat. Meat Sci. 2013;95:904–911. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.036. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zargar FA, Kumar Southward, Bhat ZF, Kumar P. Outcome of pumpkin on the quality characteristics and storage quality of aerobically packaged chicken sausages. Springerplus. 2014;iii:39. doi: ten.1186/2193-1801-3-39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zayas JF, Naewbanij JO. The effect of microwave heating on the textural properties of meat and collagen solubilization. J Food Process Preserv. 1986;10:203–214. doi: x.1111/j.1745-4549.1986.tb00019.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Manufactures from Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resource are provided here courtesy of The Korean Society for Nutrient Scientific discipline of Animal Resources

mosleydiddlegity.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932967/

Ground Beef Patties Red 61 75 Lean

Evaluation of the Quality of Beef Patties Formulated with Stale Pumpkin Pulp and Seed

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Materials

Preparation of pumpkin mix

Production of beef patties

Table 1.

Methods

Proximate analysis and pH

H2o holding capacity

Cooking procedure and cooking measurement

Color measurement

Texture profile analysis

Sensory evaluation

Statistical analysis

Results and Discussion

Chemical composition and pH

Table 2.

Water holding chapters and cooking properties

Table 3.

Color

Table 4.

Texture profile analysis

Tabular array five.

Sensory evaluation

Conclusion

References

0 Response to "Ground Beef Patties Red 61 75 Lean"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel