taste panel evaluation and acceptance of soy-beef … papers/pert vol. 9 (2...30%, 40% dan 50% pada...

Pertanika 9(2), 225-233 (1986)

Taste Panel Evaluation and Acceptance of Soy-beef Burger

ABDUL SALAM BABJI, AMINAH ABDULLAH and FATIMAH YUSUFDepartment of Food Science and Nutrition,

Faculty of Life Sciences,Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,

Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.

Key words: Nutrition; soy protein; beef burger.

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini dilakukan untuk menentukan kesan campuran protein soya tekstur pada 0%, 20%,30%, 40% dan 50% pada burger soya daging dari aspek kualiti dan penerimaan oleh penguji rasadan pengguna. Analisis yang dijalankan pada tiap tiga minggu, termasuk nilai TBA, keupayaanmengikat air, masakan, penilaian deria dan penerimaan oleh pengguna. Penambahan protein soyatekstur dalam produk menyebabkan penurunan nilai TBA dan kehilangan masakan, tetapi mening-katkan keupayaan mengikat air. Secara amnya kualiti produk menurun semasa penyimpanan beku.Penilaian deria menunjukkan penambahan protein soya menyebabkan peningkatan bau kacang danrasa kacang. Warna produk menjadi kurang menarik dengan peningkatan protein soya tekstur, tetapitidak mempengaruhi kualiti atribut seperti rupa, tekstur, kemasinan dan kejusian. Kajian penerima-an pengguna menunjukkan produk-produk yang mengandungi 0%, 20% dan 30% protein soyatekstur dapat diterima tanpa perbezaan yang bererti.

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of the addition of textured soy protein (TSP) at0%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% levels on the quality and general acceptance of soy-beef burgers bytrained taste panels as well as the consumer. Analyses carried out at three-week intervals include TBAvalues, water holding capacity, cooking loss, sensory evaluation and consumer acceptance. Theincrease of textured soy protein levels in beef burger resulted in significant decrease in TBA values andcooking loss. The addition of textured soy protein also increased the water holding capacity of theproducts. Generally, storage time reduced the quality of these products. Sensory properties showedthat the substitution of meat with textured soy protein increased the intensity of beany flavour andtaste. The addition of textured soy protein decreased the colour acceptance but had no specific effecton the quality attributes such as appearance, texture, saltiness and juiciness of the product. Results ofthe consumer acceptance test showed that there were no significant differences in preference for the0%, 20% and 30% levels of textured soy protein in beefburger.

INTRODUCTION discovery of extrusion technology which enabledthe manufacture of textured vegetable protein

~ u . , - (TVP) or textured soy protein (TSP).I he world situation on food and nutrition v J r '

has changed so drastically in recent years thatmany countries now seek new approaches to In recent years, food technologists havesolve the problem of providing enough food for achieved a major breakthrough in the techno-growth, development and health of their popu- logy of blending soy proteins with meat andlation. A technological advancement was the other products. As such it is possible to for-

ABDUL SALAM BABJI, AMINAH ABDULLAH AND FATIMAH YUSUF

mulate a high quality protein food with anamino acid profile and utilizable protein thatcan match high protein foods like milk, eggs andmeat. While animal proteins provide the mostcomplete balance of amino acid requirementsfor growth, high cost and limited supply pre-clude their use in many parts of the world.

Soy protein products are allowed in the U.S.school lunch programme in combination withmeat, poultry, or seafood as an alternative foodto meet part of the meat/meat alternate require-ment of the meal patterns for the child nutritionprogrammes (USDA, Food and NutritionService). A fully hydrated soy protein productmay not exceed 30 parts soy protein to 70 partsof uncooked meat, poultry or seafood, in suchitems as beef patties, chicken patties, meat loaf,pizza toppings and other products (Forbes,1985).

The popularity of fast foods such ashamburgers and hotdogs in ASEAN can be seenby the many significant western fast foodfranchises in the cities. Many reasons can besighted, among them the support of ASEANyouths who patronize these places, advertise-ments and convenience. To children, it isprobably just their kind of food. However, thelocal entrepreneurs are also quick to imitate thewestern fast foods by producing local beefburgers and frankfurters, and setting up localfast food establishments. They are successful incompeting with foreign franchises because ofreformulation to suit local taste and lower retail-ing price due to non-meat fillers blended in theirproducts. However, a closer look will reveal thattheir appearance, colour, texture and ingre-dients are being seriously abused without muchconsideration being given to quality control andnutritional quality. Reasons for use of non nutri-tive fillers and less meat are obviously related toincreased profits. This has led to locally manu-factured beef burgers, chicken burgers andhotdogs having low protein and nutritionalquality, and are often poor in overall quality.

This study is aimed at illustrating thepotential usage of blended textured soy proteinwith beef at various levels to produce a soy-beef

burger formulation that is acceptable to Asiaifrom both an economic as well as a nutriticpoint of view.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Soy-beef burgers were formulated usinlocal beef (80 : 20 lean : fat) and textured scprotein with the brand name of CENTE](Chemurgy Division of Central Soya CompanyInc. USA) was obtained from Aunty May's FooConsolidated. The spices used included onionsgarlic, pepper and chilli powder. Beef flavouwas obtained from Food Ingredients SpecialitieDepartment, Nutritional Products Sdn. BhdMalaysia.

Frozen beef (stored at -20°C) was thawe(to 5°C, cut into cubes than minced through a l

mm grinder plate. Textured soy protein (TSPwas hydrated with two portions of cold watei(0°C) to one portion of TSP for a period of 3(minutes.

The five combinations of beef and TSP at 0,20, 30, 40 and 50 percent is shown in Table 1.

Processing

Spices, salt and beef flavour were added tothe beef and TSP blends and mixed for threeminutes in a bowl chopper. The formulations ofthe five products are shown in Table 2. Mixingwas continued for another five minutes to ensureeven distribution of spices, salt and beef flavourin the beef-TSP mixes. After mixing, the meatbatch was transferred to a Hollymatic Pattymaker. Burger patties each weighing 75 gramswere packed, two to a package, and stored in afreezer ( - 18°C) until ready for laboratoryanalyses.

Analyses

The following physico-chemical analyseswere carried out on the samples. ThiobarbituricAcid Test (TBA), Water Holding Capacity andCooking loss.

226 PERTANIKA VOL. 9 NO. 2, 1986

TASTE PANEL EVALUATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SOY-BEEF BURGER

The degree of 6xidation and rancidity ofthe products was measured by the Thiobarbi-turic Acid Test in mg TBA/kg of samples. Themethod used was that of Tarladgis et al. (1960).Distillates of the meat product were reacted withTBA and the colour formation measured with aSpectronic 20 (Bauch and Lomb) spectrophoto-meter at 538 nm. The malonaldehyde value inmg/1000 g sample was obtained by multiplyingabsorbance by a factor of 7.8.

The Water Holding Capacity (WHC) ofmeat products was determined using the methodof Wierbicki et al. (1962). The percentage ofWHC was calculated using the formula: —% WHC = 4 ( b - a ) - ( c - a )

( c - a )X 100

where a = weight of empty centrifuge tubeb = weight of centrifuge tube plus

precipitatec = weight of centrifuge tube plus

homogenate

Cooking loss was measured by the formula:

% cooking loss = wt. of raw burger -wt. of cooked burger X 100wt. of raw burger

Scoring and the Hedonic Scale methodswere used for the sensory evaluations of thecooked soy-beef burgers. Nine trained panelmembers evaluated the formulated productsevery three weeks for a period of nine weeks,

TABLE 1Percentage of beef and textured soy protein in the five formulations

Formulation Percent beef Percent TSP

A

B

C

D

E

100

80

70

60

50

0

20

30

40

50

TABLE 2Amounts of ingredients in soy-beef burger formulation

Ingredients (grams) BFormulation

C D

Beef

Water

TSP

Onions

Garlic

Salt

Pepper powder

Chilli powder

Beef flavour

00

20

10

18

9

6

4

1440

240

120

20

10

18

9

6

4

1260

360

180

20

10

18

9

6

4

1080

480

240

20

10

18

9

6

4

900

600

300

20

10

18

9

6

4

PERTANIKA VOL. 9 NO. 2, 1986 227


using the scoring method. Coded samples wereevaluated for intensity of flavour, appearance,colour, texture, saltiness, hotness, juiciness andoverall acceptability with 1, denoting unfavour-able and 5, favourable response. Sixty untrainedpanel members were also asked to evaluate theacceptance of the soy-beef burgers at the end ofthe nine weeks storage using the 5 point Hedonicscale method i.e. 1 for very poor and 5, veryacceptable response.

The analysis of variance was carried outusing the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) whilethe Duncan Multiple Range Test was used todetect differences between means.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thiobarbituric acid values of soy -beefburgers with 0%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%TSP measured at 0, 3, 6 and 9 weeks of frozenstorage are shownin Table 3. TBA values werefound to decrease significantly (P<.05) with anincrease in the percentage of TSP in soy-beefburgers. Similarly with an increase in storagetime even at -18°C, there is a significant in-crease in the values of TBA with all soy-beef for-mulations. The addition of TSP resulted in adecrease in the fat content of the soy-beefproduct, thus reducing oxidative rancidity,

which normally occurs more actively in lipiproducts. Results of a similar nature was reported by Younathan et al. (1980) who noted thathe TBA value was greatly reduced with a 25*?addition of TSP when compared to a 100% purbeef burger. They also observed that addition cTSP resulted in a much slower rate of oxidativrancidity reaction. The increase in TBA valuduring frozen storage is not surprising as anfood product stored for some time tends to gerancid. Studies by Keller and Kinsella (1973observed that hamburgers stored at - 18°C ha<higher TBA values. The increased surface areof minced meat during processing liberate amexpose phospholipids which are readily oxidisei(Lea, 1957 and Castell 1971). However, thistudy indicated that addition of TSP could bbeneficial from a storage point of view in thasoy-beef products, can last longer and get lesrancid as compared to a fully lean meat product

Water Holding Capacity

The ability to bind water in a soy-beeproduct is one of the important attributes of soprotein in meat product formulation. If one iable to obtain a product with good WHC, th<cooked product will retain its water and juioand yield a product that is juicy and appealing t<taste. That is why WHC was measured in thi

TABLE 3TBA values (mg melonaldehyde/1 kg) of soy-beef burger formulations measured at

three weeks interval frozen storage ( - 18°C)

Storage time(weeks)

0

3

6

9

0

0.23

0.58

0.85

1,22

Textured

20

0.22

0.45

0.79

0.95

soy protein (

30

0.18

0.39

0.67

0.93

%)

40

0.14

0.32

0.54

0.69

50

0.10

0.25

0.47

0.46

•Overall mean(effect of storage)

0.17 d

0.40 c

0.66 b

0.85 a

•Overall mean(effect of beefmixture)

0.72a 0.60b 0.54c 0.42d 0.32e

•Mean values within the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05)


TASTE PANEL EVALUATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SOY BEEF BURGER

study. Table 4 shows that effects of storage andTSP addition on the WHC property of theproducts.

Addition of TSP from 0, 20, 30 and 50%significantly (P< .05) increased the WHC of soy-beef products. Differences between 30 to 40%were not significant although there was stilloverall improvement in WHC. The storage timedid not significantly affect WHC of the soy-beefproducts. Thus here again, there is an addedadvantage of using TSP in that it blends well

with meat protein and is able to retain water inits structure. However, WHC can only bemeaningful if the cooked products can stillretain the juicy characteristic. This is shown inTable 5, where WHC of soy-beef products wasmeasured after cooking. The ability of cookedproducts to hold water is higher when comparedto raw products. However, although addition ofTSP resulted in higher WHC of soy-beef pro-ducts, these differences were not significant,when the five formulations were compared.

Mean

Storage time

(weeks)

0

3

6

9

values of water

0

28.6

21.2

23.1

21.1

TABLE 4holding capacity of raw soy-beef burger

for nine weeks at -

Textured soy protein

20

33.1

25.2

33.4

29.8

30

36.3

31.4

39.1

37.2

18°C

(ft)

40

39.7

35.5

41.9

38.0

of five formulations stored

50

42.1

42.7

46.2

38.5


36.0 a

31.2 b

36.7 a

31.2 b

•Overall mean 23.5d

(effect of soy-beef mixture)30.5c 36.0b 38.8b 42.4a

*Mean values within the same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 05)

TABLE 5

Mean values of water holding capacity of cooked soy-beef burger of fir formulations storedfor nine weeks at - 18°C

Storage time(weeks)

0

3

6

9

0

39.6

47.1

63.9

57.7

Textured

20

53.9

56.1

62.0

53.9

soy protein (

30

55.7

57.2

57.4

51.2

%)

40

54.1

56.9

59.3

47.7

50

47.4

51.5

51.5

49.6


50.1 b

53.7 b

58.8 a

52.0 b

•Overall mean 52.1a

(effect of soy-beef mixture)

56.5a 55.3a 54.5a 50.5b

•Mean values within the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<.05)



Soy proteins have been reported to increasefunctional properties such as emulsification,water holding capacity and stability of theprocessed foods. Factors such as protein solubi-lity and pH of media can influence the func-tional properties of soy protein (Crenwelge et al,1974, Hutton and Campbell, 1977). However,there are limits to which one can add TSP prac-tically. Roberts (1974) reported that althoughsoy protein can be used to replace 40 — 75% ofmeat protein, there are problems in texture andacceptance by the consumers. Thus in theUnited States, the USDA sets a maximum limitof not more than 30% soy protein (weight/weight) of the final product.

Cooking Loss

The percent cooking loss of soy-beef burgersis shown in Table 6. It was observed thatcooking loss decreased significantly (P< .05)when more TSP is blended with the beef burger.The cooking losses at 0, 20, 30, 40 and 50% TSPaddition were 30.2, 24.5, 22.9, 21.7 and 21.3%respectively. This is obviously due to the abilityof TSP to hold more water after cooking. It wasalso observed that cooking losses in fresh soy-beef burgers were less compared to those storedup to six to nine weeks. Frozen storage for a longperiod has been known to exert negative effects

on WHC and cooking loss in meat and m<products. Love (1966) and Maryman (19(reported that ice crystal formation during frozstorage resulted in salt and pH changes that leto protein denaturation and a loss of WHReports by Wolford (1974); Yoon et al (197Bowers and Engler 1975 and Smith et al (19*;also indicated soy protein ability to reducooking loss when compared to products wi100% meat ink.

Sensory Evaluation

The results of the taste panel evaluation ithe various quality attributes of soy-beef burgare summarized in Table 7 and 8. Table 7 shoed the F-values, which indicate the significaeffects of soy protein addition on factors suchflavour, colour, texture and taste.

Flavour, appearance, colour and texttatributes (Table 8). Panels were not abledifferentiate the flavour with the additionTSP at 20, 30 and 40%, although the distinctibetween 0% and 50% addition was obvioiFormulation without TSP addition was prefercompared to those with TSP. The additionspices and beef flavour may have reduced tblend and beany flavour of TSP at 20, 30 a]40%, thus making it difficult for the panels

TABLE 6Mean values of % cooking loss of soy-beef burgers of five formulation stored

for nine weeks at - 18°C

Storage time(weeks)

0

3

6

9

0

18.7

35.8

35.0

31.3

Textured

20

18.1

28.2

26.0

25.6

soy protein (

30

20.0

26.9

22.5

22.1

40

19.8

24.2

21.4

21.4

50

18.7

23.9

21.8

20.9

•Overall mean(effect of storage

19.1 c

27.8 a

25.3 b

24.3 b

•Overall mean 30.2a(effect of soy-beef mixture)

24.5b 22.9b, c 21.7c 21.3c

•Mean values within the same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 05)


s^o ^ § as § §

>

<OCO

Zo

TABLE 7F-values for taste panel evaluation on burger products containing five levels of soy protein ! stored for four different times2

Souce ofvariation

Flavour Appearance Colour Texture Taste (soy bean/meat) Taste Taste Juiciness(saltiness) (hotness)

*P<0.051 Levels ofsoy protein added at 0%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%.2Storage times at 0, 3, 6 and 9 weeks.

r

I>H5

Formulation

Storage (week)Formulationx storage

7.77*

3.50

4.09*

1.73

4.67

1.74

39.86*

5.56

6.73*

8.06*

3.13

1.67

68.44*

2.12

1.63

5.47

0.28

3.04

4.98

1.45

• 0.65

2.56

5.46

1.17 ;.

AN

D

>

s

IsI


detect significant differences. For appearance,the formulation with 50% TSP scored the lowest(2.92) compared to others. The effect of varyingsoy protein content on the appearance of soybeef burger was not significant. However, theaddition of soy protein at 30, 40 and 50% result-ed in very poor score (2.86, 2.68 and 2.21 respec-tively), for colour attribute. This is largely due tothe dilution effect of the soy protein on theoriginal colour of beef meat. No artificial colourwas added in the soy-beef formulation, thus per-mitting panels to differentiate the products. Incommercial meat processing in Malaysia, it iscommon practice to add artificial colour to thebeef burger formulation. The effect of varyingsoy protein content on the texture of soy-beefburger was not significantly different. Similarfindings on the texture attribute was reportedearlier by Drake et al. (1975):

Saltiness, hotness /spiciness and beanytaste attributes. In general, the increase in soyprotein content from 0% up to 50% did notsignificantly affect the salt level as well as thehotness/spiciness of the soy-beef burgers. How-ever, the score for hotness was higher with 40%

and 50% soy protein addition. This may beto the bland taste of soy protein, which coiquently could intensify the strong taste ofspices that were not absorbed by the soy prot<The mean values for juiciness of burger prodiare also shown in Table 8. Additional soy proishowed no significant differences on this albute. Although the physical tests carried outWHC and cooking showed a significant increin water retention, trained taste panels wereable to detect differences in juiciness amongfive formulations. The different levels ofprotein significantly influenced the beany uof the soy-beef product. An increase inpercentage of soy protein resulted in an increin the beany taste, while also decreasingmeaty taste of the product. Levels of 30%, 41and 50% soy protein received mean secapproaching the beany taste. Drake et al. (19reported similar findings in his experiments v\soy-beef products.

Consumer acceptance. The mean valuesacceptance of soy-beef burgers evaluated by sipeople are shown in Table 8. The acceptancesoy-beef burger was significantly higher wl

TABLE 8Mean values of various sensory evaluation attributes of soy-beef burgers at five levels of soy protein *1

Attributes

Flavour

Appearance

Colour

Texture

Saltiness

Hotness /Spiciness

Juiciness

Beany taste

Overall

0

3.35 a

3.11 a b

3.58 a

2.78 t ld

3.21 b

2.84 a

2.79 b

3.82 a

3.38 a

Content

20

3.00 b

3.21 a

3.22 b

3.04 a b

3.28 b (

2.69 b

2.86 b

3.53 b

3.23 a

of soy protein (<

30

3.13 a b

3.15 a b

2.86 '

2.88 bf

3.06 a b

2.75 b

3.11 a

2.94 c

3.23 a

%)

40

3.31 a b

3.21 a

2.68 c

3.21 a

3.32 a b

2.86 b

2.88 b

2.71 (

2.88 b

50

2.59 '

2.92 b

2.21 li

2.56 (i

3.36 a

3.31 a

2.88 b

1.83 d

2.75 b

*Mean values with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 05).

'Overall mean; (effect of soy protein formulation).2Mean value from 60 untrained panels, after 9 weeks storage.

232 PKRTANIKA VOL. 9 NO. 2, 1986

TASTE PANEL EVALUATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SOY BEEF BURGER

less soy protein was formulated. Product formu-lation with 0%, 20% and 30% soy protein wasacceptable but with those at 40% and 50% soyprotein, the product was unacceptable to mostconsumers. However, the consumers were notable to differentiate between the three accept-able products. The maximum acceptable level of30% addition of soy protein falls within themaximum limit of soy protein allowed by USDA(1973) on meat products.

CONCLUSION

This study on the blending of TSP into beefburgers indicates that there are many advan-tages of using soy protein in combination withmeat products. Soy protein can serve as a func-tional ingredient in increasing water holdingcapacity and decreasing cooking loss thus yield-ing a product that is more juicy. Soy protein alsoserves as a partial replacement for conventionalproteins such as beef and chicken which areexpensive.

Sensory evaluation and acceptance testcarried out from this study indicate that soyprotein can be added up to 30% of the soy-beefformulation, without adversely affecting theoverall acceptability of such products.

REFERENCES

BOWERS. J.A. and ENGLER, P.P. (1975): Freshly cook-ed and cooked frozen reheated beef and beef soypatties./ Food Set. 40: 624.

CASTEL, C.H. (1971): Metal-catalyzed lipid oxidationand changes of protein in fish./. Am. Oil Chem.Soc. 48: 645.

CENTEX, (1974): Chemurgy Division of Central SoyaCompany, Inc. USA,

CRENWELGE, D.D., DILL. C.W., TYBOR, P.T. andLANMAND, W.A. (1974): A comparison of theemulsification capacities of some protein concen-trations./ Food Set. 39: 175.

DRAKE. S.R., HINNERGARDT, L .C, KULTER. R.A. andPRELL, P.A. (1975): Beef Patties: The effect oftexture soy protein and fat levels on quality andacceptability. J. Food Sci. 40: 1065.

FORBES, A.L. (1985): Personal Communication.Office of Nutrition and Food Sciences. FDAWashington D.C. 20204.

HUTTON. C.W. and CAMPBELL, A.M. (1977): Func-tional properties of soy concentrate and soyisolate in simple systems. Protein solubility indexand water absorption./ Food Sci. 42: 454.

KELLER, J.D. and KINSELLA. J.E. (1973): Phospholipidchanges and lipid oxidation during cooking andfrozen storage of raw ground beef. / Food Set.38(7): 1200.

LEA, C.H. (1957): Deteriorative reactions involvingphospholipids and lipoproteins. / Set. FoodAgric. 8: 1.

LOVE, R.M. (1966): In Cryobiology (H.T. Meryman,ed.) Academic Press, New York, pp. 317 - 405.

MERYAM. H.T. (1966): In Cryobiology (H.T. Mery-man ed.) Academic Press, New York.

OCKERMAN, W.R. (1977): Quality control and pro-cessing of meat. Ohio State University, Ohio.

ROBERT, L.H. (1974): Utilization of high levels of soyprotein in comminuted processed meat products./ Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 51(1): 195.

SMITH, G.C. MARSHALL. CARPENTER, Z.I., BRONSON.R.E. and MEINKA. W.W. (1976): Textured soyproteins for use in blended ground beef patties./Food sci. 41: 148.

TARLADGIS, B.G., WOTTS, B.M. and YOUNATHAN,M.T. (1960): Distillation method for the quanti-tative determination of malonaldehyde in rancidfood./ Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 37: 44.

United States Department of Agriculture, Food andNutrition Service. Vegetable Protein ProductionChild Nutrition Programs. Printed by Soy ProteinCouncil. Washington D.C. 20036.

WERBICKI, E., TIEDE. M.G. and BURRELL, R.C.(1962): Water holding capacity. CentrifugalMethod Fleischwicts, 14: 948.

WILDING, M.D. (1974): Textured proteins in meatand meat products,/. Am. Oil Soc. 51(1): 128.

WOLFORD, K.M. (1974): Beef/Soy: Consumer Accep-t a n c e / Am. OilChem. Soc. 51(1): 131.

YOON.S . , PERRY, A.K. and VAN DUYNE, F.O. (1974):Textured vegetable protein palatable in meatloaves. University of Illinois Station Research16(2): 10.

YOUNATHAN. M.T., MARJAN. Z.M. and ARSHAD, F.(1980): Oxidative rancidity in stored groundturkey and beef./ Food Sci. 45(2): 274.

(Received 1 April, 1985)


taste panel evaluation and acceptance of soy-beef … papers/pert vol. 9 (2...30%, 40% dan 50% pada...

Documents