Effects of Hot Processing, Patty Formation Before or After Freezing‐thawing and Soy Usage on Various Properties of Low‐fat Ground Beef

Abstract

ntis study was designed to evaluate the effects of combinations of boning temperature (hot = HP, cold = CP), time when patties were processed (immediately ajer grinding and before freezing = BF; afterfreezing and thawing of bulk ground beef = AF), and use of texturized soy concentrate (96 usage = 0 or 20% substitution, rehydrated either in a ratio of 2.6-1 or 1.5:l) on sensory, Instron and cooking properties of ground beef patties. With the exception of HP -0% soy patties, both sensory and instrumental measures of tenderness revealed AFpatties to be more tender than BFpatties. BFpatties received higher juiciness scores and cooking yields than AFpatties. Soy usage reduced Instron values, juiciness scores, cooking loss, patty shrinkage during cooking and beefflavor intensity scores. ntese results indicate that the use of HP beef in combination with soy should not detrimentally affect ground beef as used in the school lunch program.

Hot Processed Raw Materials and Fat Level Affect Physical and Sensory Characteristics of Ground Beef

“…Patties from CL were springier (PCO.05) and more cohesive (PcO.05) than HL patties, indicating they were less tender. Our results agreed with those of other researchers who reported decreased tenderness for beef patties produced from cold boned vs hot boned beef (Cross et al, 1979;Jacobs and Sebranek, 1980;Cross and Tennet, 1981;Berry and Leddy, 1988;Van Laack and Smulders, 1990). The differences in springiness and cohesiveness probably occurred due to their reduction in the HL patties (Tables 5, 6) and the CL patties remained almost unchanged.…”

“…Patties of HL, HF, Mix, and ChF had lower (PCO.05) cooking losses than their CL and CF counterparts. Similar results were reported by Cross et al (1979), Jacobs and Sebranek (1980), Cross and Tennet (1981), Leddy (1988), andVan Laack andSmulders (1990). They reported beef patties from hot boned carcasses had reduced cooking losses and shrank less than those prepared from beef boned at 24 h postmortem.…”

“…A significant lean type by replication interaction showed in one replication HL patties were less (PcO.05) cohesive and CL patties were finer (X0.05) textured than the other lean type/replication treatments (data not shown). Lack of improvement in tenderness contrasted with earlier results (Cross et al, 1979;Jacobs and Sebranek, 1980;Cross and Tennet, 1981;Berry and Leddy, 1988;Van Laack and Smulders, 1990) which indicated patties made from cold boned carcasses were less tender than those from hot boned carcasses. A possible reason we found no differences in tenderness may be the variation in processing temperatures between replicates.…”

“…An alternative to rendering prerigor fat (hot fat) that would add value to the raw material, would be to include it in a ground meat system. Prerigor lean raw materials have long been shown to improve tenderness, juiciness, cooking losses, and increase pH in ground beef (Cross et al, 1979;Jacobs and Sebranek, 1980;Cross and Tennet, 1981;Berry and Leddy, 1988). However, little information is available on the addition of prerigor fat or "hot fat" alone to ground beef.…”

Effects of Soy Protein and Freezing Treatments on Cooking Loss and Composition of Beef Patties

“…Seideman et al (1977) found no differences in cooking losses by broiling due to the addition of 20% rehydrated soy protein concentrate to fresh patties. In support of our results, several studies have provided evidence of reduced cooking loss as a result of soy-extension, when patties were cooked from the frozen state (Drake et al 1975;Berry et al 1985a;Berry and Leddy 1988). To summarize the results regarding cooking loss, it would appear that the ability of soy to minimize cooking losses in patties is not fully realized until the product is frozen and then perhaps, only if cooked from the frozen state.…”